The baroclinic transport of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) above 3000 m through Drake Passage is 107.3 +/- 10.4 Sv and has been steady between 1975 and 2000. For six hydrographic sections ( 1993 – 2000) along the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) line SR1b, the baroclinic transport relative to the deepest common level is 136.7 +/- 7.8 Sv. The ACC transport is carried in two jets, the Subantarctic Front 53 +/- 10 Sv and the Polar Front (PF) 57.5 +/- 5.7 Sv. Southward of the ACC the Southern Antarctic Circumpolar Current transports 9.3 +/- 2.4 Sv. We observe the PF at two latitudes separated by 90 km. This bimodal distribution is related to changes in the circulation and properties of Antarctic Bottom Water. Three realizations of the instantaneous velocity field were obtained with lowered ADCPs. From these observations we obtain near-bottom reference velocities for transport calculations. Net transport due to these reference velocities ranges from -28 to 43 Sv, consistent with previous estimates of variability. The transport in density layers shows systematic variations due to seasonal heating in near-surface layers. Volume transport-weighted mean temperatures vary by 0.40degrees C from spring to summer; a seasonal variation in heat flux of about 0.22 PW. Finally, we review a series of papers from the International Southern Ocean Studies Program. The average yearlong absolute transport is 134 Sv, and the standard deviation of the average is 11.2 Sv; the error of the average transport is 15 to 27 Sv. We emphasize that baroclinic variability is an important contribution to net variability in the ACC.
Last weekend marked the return of the Hangtown Music Festival to Placerville, CA, with host band Railroad Earth playing three full nights of music along a great lineup of musicians. The annual event has been a great tradition for RRE and their fans, bringing an impressive blend of talent for a crowd of eager listeners. This year’s festival was no exception, bringing Nahko & Medicine For The People, Karl Denson’s Tiny Universe (who played Prince’s Dirty Mind at the festival), The Infamous Stringdusters, Nicki Bluhm & The Gramblers an so many more.The festival also had two sets planned for bassist Chris Wood, including a Medeski Martin & Wood show and a Wood Brothers show. When Wood was hospitalized, some all-star musicians stepped up to join the fray. Medeski led a Mad Skillet jam out with Martin, with Will Bernard and Kirk Joseph. Meanwhile, a rotating lineup of guests sat in with Oliver Wood and Jano Rix of The Wood Brothers, including Joe Craven, Tim Carbone (Railroad Earth), and members of the Infamous Stringdusters.Fortunately, photographer Christopher Baldwin was on the scene to capture the festivities! Check out his work in the gallery below. Load remaining images
VESTAL (WBNG) — Binghamton University is asking its community for input on its plan for students to return to campus in the fall. After Thanksgiving Break, all classes will be held online until Dec. 7. This is also the last day of classes. If finalized, the school will suspend observance of Labor Day, Yom Kippur and Fall Break. BU says this move is to discourage students from traveling, but students who wish to observe Yom Kippur will need to be accommodated by faculty. A feedback form is located at the bottom of the page. The academic year will begin on Aug. 26 as scheduled but classes of 45 students or greater will be held online exclusively. Additionally, students will be told not to travel outside of Broome County on the weekends and not hang out in groups of more than 10. The university has drafted a plan detailing what the academic year will look like for its students, faculty and staff with an emphasis on safety. The university says final exams will be replaced with “frequent assessments” throughout the semester. For more information, go to the university’s website by clicking here.
Image:Gomez’s central defensive partner Virgil van Dijk is expected to miss the rest of the season with a knee injury A long-term absence for Gomez would be a major blow to Liverpool, who are expected to be without fellow centre-back Virgil van Dijk for the rest of the season after he suffered a severe knee injury against Everton last month.Jurgen Klopp has also been without central midfielder Fabinho, who deputised at centre-back following Van Dijk’s injury, but the Brazilian is expected to return to action after the international break. Arsenal wing-back Bukayo Saka is grateful to England captain Harry Kane for helping him settle in the national team and hopes to repay the faith shown in him by manager Gareth Southgate.Saka, who made his England senior debut against Wales last month, has been called up to Southgate’s squad for the second time ahead of matches against Republic of Ireland, Belgium and Iceland.The 19-year-old has enjoyed a meteoric rise since breaking into Arsenal’s first team in November 2018, and he revealed it was Tottenham striker and England captain Kane who helped him settle when he joined up with his international team-mates.“All the boys have been so good with me from the first minute I came in,” Saka said in his first England news conference.“Harry Kane put his arm around me, he spoke to me and asked me how I was. For him to do that, it helped me settle in much quicker and made me feel comfortable to be myself around everyone.“That helps me not just off the pitch but also on the pitch too, because I feel like I can be myself, express myself and play with the confidence that I play with back at my club.” Liverpool defender Joe Gomez has suffered a potentially serious injury during England training.The FA has yet to comment on the incident, which occurred during Wednesday morning’s session, but Gomez is understood to be receiving treatment, while the extent of the injury is being assessed. England manager Gareth Southgate is scheduled to address the media on Wednesday evening.- Advertisement – Andy Robertson believes Liverpool’s point at Manchester City on Sunday has left them well placed amid this season’s unrelenting schedule.The champions lost top spot in the Premier League over the course of the weekend but were satisfied to leave the Etihad Stadium with a 1-1 draw and Robertson feels they are doing well to be third in the circumstances.“We are always hungry for more but we have to be happy,” he told liverpoolfc.com.“I think when we started getting some injuries and lost a couple of players with Covid-19, everyone expected the wheels to fall off.“But we’ve managed to steady the ship a little bit and pick up some great results. Long may that continue and long may we keep building our confidence and building our performances.Saka: Kane helped me settle in England squad 0:20 – Advertisement – Arsenal wing-back Bukayo Saka says Tottenham striker Harry Kane has helped him settle into the England squad. – Advertisement – FREE TO WATCH: Highlights from Manchester City’s draw with Liverpool in the Premier League England are scheduled to play the Republic of Ireland in a friendly on Thursday, before taking on Belgium and Iceland in Nations League fixtures.- Advertisement – 3:00 Gomez has started all but one of Liverpool’s Premier League fixtures this season, with Klopp’s side attempting to defend their Premier League title.Despite their injury struggles, Liverpool went into the international break just a point behind leaders Leicester, who they face in their next match, on November 21.Robertson: Liverpool doing well given circumstances
UK pension buyout volumes are likely to have declined in 2016 compared with the past two years, according to data from JLT Employee Benefits.It is an indication that pension funds are delaying de-risking transactions due to “a widespread misconception” that low interest rates make buy-in or buyout deals less attractive, JLT said.Ruth Ward, senior consultant at JLT, said: “We are aware of plenty of cases where schemes have been ready to complete a buy-in or buyout but have delayed in the expectation of an improvement in pricing that has just not materialised.”The UK’s base interest rate was cut to 0.25% in August, following the country’s vote to leave the European Union, after more than seven years set at 0.5%. The yield on 10-year Gilts fell to a record low of 0.518% in August.At close of trading on Friday, 10-year Gilts were yielding 1.438%.Pension schemes need to determine the risk of delaying transactions while liabilities deteriorate, JLT argued.Despite the difficult market conditions, even pension funds of less than £1m have been able to obtain buyout quotes, Ward added.“Trustees and sponsors should insure their liabilities as soon as they can afford to do so,” she said.“There is no guarantee the position will look better in future, and, even if it does, it may prove more difficult to get a quotation and execute a transaction.”Ward recommended that pension funds consider insuring pensioner liabilities first, before moving on to other parts of their liabilities.The ICI Pension Fund, which has advocated this approach, completed five separate buy-in transactions this year as it continued its opportunistic approach to de-risking.JLT’s quarterly buyout market report predicted that total transactions in 2016 would be lower than the £12.4bn in 2015, and £13.2bn in 2014.Among 2016’s largest deals were a £1.1bn buyout of the Vickers Group Pension Scheme, backed by Legal & General, and a £1bn longevity swap involving the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme and Abbey Life.
The Trail Smoke Eaters dipped into the professional leagues to hire Cam Keith as the new coach of the BC Hockey League franchise. Tom Gawryletz, president of the Trail Smoke Eaters, made the announcement Friday. “I am deeply honored to be selected as the Head Coach for the Trail Smoke Eaters and look forward to giving back to a community that gave me so much,” the former Nelson native said on the Smokies website. Keith, who played for the Smokies during his time in the BCHL during the 1999-2000 season, played 54 games with Trail, scoring 28 goals and 30 assists for 58 points. Keith also played for Victoria Salsa from 1997-1999. Keith comes to the Silver City after spending time as an assistant coach with Cincinnati Cyclones of the East Coast Hockey League. The Cyclones are affiliated with Milwaukee Admirals of the American Hockey League, with is the minor league affiliate of the NHL’s Nashville Predators. Keith began coach after a 10-year playing career, spanning three leagues as well as overseas. In 146 games in the AHL with Hartford, St. John’s and Peoria he amassed 36 points, (14 goals, 22 assists). In 213 regular season games in the ECHL he scored 54 goals along with 98 assists for a total of 152 points. In the ECHL he played for the Pensecola Ice Pilots and the Alaska Aces winning the Kelly Cup with the Aces in 2006. The Partrick J. Kelly Cup is awarded annually to the playoff champions of the ECHL. In that playoff year he finished seventh overall on the Aces with 12 points (6 goals and 6 assists) in 17 games and was instrumental in helping his team capture the cup. In post season contests, playing for the Kelly Cup, Cam was nearly a point-per-game player stockpiling 43 points (13 goals, 30 assists) in 49 games. During his tenure in collegiate hockey, playing for University of Alaska-Fairbanks. he accrued 100 points with 41 goals and 59 assists in 144 games. He finished in the Nanooks top six in scoring during each of his four seasons. “My past experience in Trail and my roots in the Kootenays have drawn me back to Trail hockey and the BCHL,” Keith said. “My history with the Trail community gives me the confidence and pride to recruit the character players that best exemplifies Trail Smoke Eater Hockey.” Gawryletz said the Smoke Eaters are also confident that Keith will bring those same attributes to our organization. Keith, the 14th coach in Smokies history, replaces Nick Deschenes, who was relieved of his duties as GM/Head Coach of the Trail Smoke Eaters in February. The Smokies finished the 2015-16 season in sixth spot in the Interior Division of the BCHL with a 23-33-2-0 record. Trail hosts a Summer Identification Camp July 8-10 in Couer d’ Alene, Idaho.
Klay Thompson subscribes. You can too for just 11 cents a day for 11 months + receive a free Warriors Championship book. Sign me up!PHILADELPHIA – The Warriors have insisted on staying patient with what they do with their 15th and final roster spot.That means there is a growing chance that Damion Lee could fill that slot after spending this season on a two-way contract. That entails splitting his time both with the Warriors and their G-League team in Santa Cruz.“He would be someone given he …
An astronomer wrote about “cosmic train wrecks” in Science recently.1 Paolo Coppi (Yale) was speaking about galactic mergers, but he could have just as well been talking about current cosmological models. Things once thought to be understood are coming in for new scrutiny, now that more powerful telescopes can peer deeper into the veiled hearts of galaxies. One galaxy in particular, NGC 6240, thought to be the result of a merger, was mapped recently in unprecedented detail. In the middle of a rather straightforward article describing current thinking about what happens when galaxies collide, how stars form, and how black holes behave, he ended one paragraph with a surprise. It was kind of like the ending word “not” in the slang of young people – e.g., “Astronomers understand star formation – NOT!”Detailed observations of nearby galaxies, the only kind we could carry out until recently, identified two main modes of star formation: powerful and rapid “starbursts” caused by NGC 6240-like collisions and the much less dramatic but quasi-steady formation seen in the disk of our Galaxy. Because objects like NGC 6240 are rare today, one might speculate that most stars form “quietly” in disks. The larger, so-called elliptical galaxies, which do not contain much gas, then come from late-time mergers of smaller disk-dominated galaxies that have turned their gas into stars. Mergers play a minor role, mainly gravitationally scrambling already-made stars. While elegant, this story seems wrong.The problem is that now it appears most star formation appeared early in the history of the universe. NGC 6240, with two black holes apparently orbiting its center, and no star formation going on today, may be a “common oddball,” – something that should have been rare, but appears to be representative of the state of the early universe. Coppi called this “very surprising” and something that creates an “intriguing new problem for us” –Today’s elliptical galaxies are “red and dead” because they contain predominantly old (red) stars and are not forming new ones. Very surprisingly, some of the elliptical progenitors also appear to be “red and dead”. Unless we invoke a new mechanism that rapidly and permanently stops star formation, the most massive objects in simulations turn out to be too massive and never sufficiently red and dead.One solution is to include feedback from the accretion of a supermassive black hole in the models. There seems to be observational support for actively-accreting black holes in systems like NGC 6240, with regions of active star formation going on. “This plus the surprising discovery that every nearby elliptical galaxy contains a black hole with a mass proportional to that of the galaxy strongly hints that rapid star formation and rapid black-hole feeding and growth are both inevitable and closely connected consequences of a cosmic train wreck like NGC 6240 where gas is gravitationally squeezed into a very small volume.” But where does the language of observation get distinguished from theory in such a statement? From that point on, Coppi focused on prospects for improved observations. The Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA), expected to be operational in 2015, might be able to detect the signature of black hole mergers through gravitational waves they emit. But there is “considerable speculation,” he said, about whether black holes accrete slowly by feeding on their own stars, or form catastrophically through mergers of galaxies. He’s not even sure LISA would be able to tell. In his discussion, Coppi was assuming black holes are real. Better not tell him about other astronomers who are denying that black holes even exist. A recent article in ScienceNOW Daily News began,If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger. Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. The findings–if correct–could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades.There’s no doubt that very massive, compact objects exist in the centers of many galaxies. Asked what to do with these observations, which lead most astronomers to believe the universe is full of black holes, “‘[Lawrence] Krauss replies, ‘How do you know they’re black holes?” No one has actually seen a black hole, he says, and anything with a tremendous amount of gravity–such as the supermassive remnants of stars–could exert effects similar to those researchers have blamed on black holes.” Krauss and colleagues performed detailed calculations taking into account the relativity of time. They showed that time stops before a singularity forms, meaning “black holes can’t form at all.” If so, one consequence is that “In essence, physicists have been arguing over a trick question for 40 years.” Their claim is controversial at this time. Critics point to other observations which support the “traditional” black hole explanation. What all might agree on is that the new observations and theories show that the universe is, indeed, getting stranger.1Paolo Coppi, “Inside a Cosmic Train Wreck,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, pp. 1852-1854, DOI: 10.1126/science.1139057.The point of this entry is not to take a position on controversies about star formation, black holes or galactic mergers, but to illustrate the difference between real objects and scientific objects. A scientific object is something about which we cannot know directly through experience: a black hole, a quark, the core of the earth, the interior of the sun, a universal common ancestor, a prebiotic soup, etc. Nobody denies that cars exist, and that if you drive one into a telephone pole, bad things will happen. But scientific objects can only be inferred indirectly. Scientists conceive of their objects as useful entities in equations, and elements of their models in theories. How real are they? That is an entirely different question. Here we have seen astronomers and cosmologists struggling with and arguing over some scientific objects. There is no question that they “feel” these things are real, and “believe” they are discussing objective reality, but how can they justify those beliefs? As with Darwinism, new and better observations frequently raise new puzzles and occasionally threaten to overthrow what was formerly thought to be well understood. As “elegant” as some ideas may seem, that alone does not prove they represent reality. The universe has no obligation to submit to human measures of elegance. It may have been elegant to envision galaxies aging slowly, with star formation occurring at a relaxed rate over billions of years. It may have been elegant to envision ellipticals as relics of mergers that stripped away their gas and left them as museums of already-formed stars. Now what? The new observations led Coppi to admit, “While elegant, this story seems wrong.” Now he has to tweak his scientific objects. Now he has to envision a new mechanism that “rapidly and permanently stops star formation,” or has to tweak the models to include feedback from gravitational collapse, or has to keep black holes from colliding. Then Krauss et al come along and claimed black holes are not real. At what point can they claim their scientific objects are real objects? Dr. Steven Goldman (Lehigh U) produced an interesting 12-hour series for the Teaching Company on this problem: “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.” We’ve mentioned the applicability of these lectures before to questions we often discuss here. In excruciating detail, Goldman gives example after example of controversy in all areas of science for over 2,000 years. Are scientists talking about truth and reality, or are they merely playing games, like members of a fraternity? Do the scientific objects they talk about represent reality or not? Goldman leaves the controversy open. His only suggestion, offered as a personal opinion in the last lecture, was that we don’t talk about scientific objects as realities, but as actualities – useful entities that allow scientists to make headway in their attempts to understand nature. Yet it should be clear with a little analysis that this is mere quibbling over definitions. Unless an actuality corresponds to reality, what is it? If it isn’t real, or cannot be demonstrated to be real, then what kind of work are scientists doing? That leads to other serious and troubling questions: should the public pay for it? If all they are doing is speculating about things they cannot know, then what value does it have over other kinds of inquiry, that we should grant it epistemic authority and millions of dollars in funding? Goldman illustrates the point that almost everything scientists thought they knew at the turn of the 20th century is now considered to be wrong. There is hardly any scientific object, whether the earth, the atom, the universe, mass, time, space, the mind, consciousness, or just about anything else from physics to economics, that is looked at the same way today. A logical corollary is that we have no confidence in 2007 that we understand scientific objects so well that our ideas will not be overturned a hundred years hence. These kinds of questions need to be considered every time scientists talk about the objects of their study as if they are arriving at “the truth” about the universe. Better data, better equipment, and better observations are essential. We are not the ones to judge, however, the point at which our data are so good, and our ideas so solid, that no further scrutiny is needed. The history of scientific revolutions warns us that even Newtonian physics, the epitome of rock-solid science, was vulnerable. This is not to say that we must doubt everything. Rocket scientists, after all, do get spaceships to Saturn at the right spot and the right time. Scientists must be doing something right. When observations continue to contradict theory for decades, though, and when the scientific objects involved are especially remote and far from experience, there is one law that actually gains credibility: Murphy’s.(Visited 48 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
If Neanderthals bred with modern humans, they are one and the same species. That must be the case according to the most widely-accepted definition of a species: those who can breed and produce fertile offspring. The news media are abuzz with Science magazine’s cover story this week, “The Neanderthal Genome.”1 Most anthropologists are now accepting the genetic evidence for human-Neanderthal mixing of DNA, and that there are remnants of the Neanderthal genome walking the earth in living human beings. There were some surprises in the findings. The main finding was that Europeans and Asians share about 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neanderthals, indicating that there was substantial interbreeding between the two groups in the past (note that your own genome does not have much remaining of your great-great-grandparent’s genes, so there had to be substantial interbreeding for Neandertal markers to become fixed in the human population). The gene flow appears to be one-way, however, and the researchers did not find those genetic markers among African populations – meaning that there will have to be some revision to the “Out of Africa” theory. In short, the evidence has brought humans and Neanderthals together as mere varieties of the same species, while simultaneously increasing the genetic distance between humans and the great apes. The team is confident of the interbreeding because they took great pains to eliminate contamination; they believe any contamination is below 0.7%. Only about 60% of the Neanderthal genome has been recovered so far. Here are the prime-source articles from Science:“A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome” is the primary paper by Green et al.1 Some 55 authors are listed on the paper, including Svante Paabo, who has advanced theories about Neanderthal interbreeding for years.“Targeted Investigation of the Neandertal Genome by Array-Based Sequence Capture” by Burbano et al compared human and Neanderthal genes with the chimpanzee genome.2 They “identified 88 amino acid substitutions that have become fixed in humans since our divergence from the Neandertals.”Ann Gibbons summarized the papers in a news article in the same issue entitled, “Paleogenetics: Close Encounters of the Prehistoric Kind.”3 Elisabeth Pennisi investigated the question of whether it might become possible to clone a Neanderthal, in “Paleogenetics: Cloned Neandertals Still in the Realm of Sci-Fi.”4 She called it a pipe dream due to technical and ethical reasons.Pennisi added a cameo article about Richard “Ed” Green, the postdoctoral fellow in charge of the Neanderthal sequencing project at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.” He developed barcoding methods for streamlining the effort of wading through the DNA evidence.The announcement in Science set off a plethora of headlines in the news:New Scientist said “Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans.”Science Daily announced, “Neandertals ‘Hardly Differed at All’ from Modern Humans.” Another Science Daily entry featuring Ed Green said, “Neanderthal Genome Yields Insights Into Human Evolution and Evidence of Interbreeding With Modern Humans.”National Geographic wrote, “Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence; Most of us have some Neanderthal genes, study finds.”Clara Moskowitz got clever with her headline for Live Science, saying, “Humans and Neanderthals Mated, Making You Part Caveman.”The BBC News wrote, “Neanderthal genes ‘survive in us’.” The article is accompanied by a timeline (not to scale), a video clip, and a picture of Svante Paabo.Time Magazine’s coverage emphasized the opinions of Svante Paabo and Erik Trinkaus. Webb Miller thought this is was a “way cool paper” representing “great science” because “Some [scientists] will love it, and some of them will hate it.”The New York Times highlighted a large picture of the Croatian cave where Neanderthal bones with DNA were found. Their coverage entertained some competing views, saying, “the new analysis, which is based solely on genetics and statistical calculations, is more difficult to match with the archaeological record.” The Times quoted Ian Tattersall [America Museum of Natural History] calling it a “fabulous achievement” but “probably not the authors’ last word, and they are obviously groping to explain what they have found.” “Probing Question: What can we learn from Neanderthal DNA?” asked PhysOrg on April 22, before the paper was published, adding, “Contrary to their image as knuckle-dragging brutes, the Neanderthals on television play tennis and attend cocktail parties – and sell auto insurance.” Maybe some Brutus-types you know come to mind.John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist and blogger, welcomed the news. “Neandertals Live!” he announced on John Hawks Weblog, where a philosophical-looking Neanderthal graces his banner. His entry summed up what this means for paleoanthropology from an evolutionary perspective.In his blog, John Hawks asked and answered his own question if it means Neanderthals belong in our species, Homo sapiens. He gave himself an unequivocal, “Yes.” The New York Times article, however, tried to keep them distinct. It said Neanderthals were “not fully modern” and did not expand from Africa, because they supposedly split off from the line that led to modern humans 600,000 years ago. If so, that raises a question of how they could interbreed with modern humans after the passage of such immense periods of time before the two groups met around 100,000 years ago according to the evolutionary timeline. “So far, the team has identified only about 100 genes – surprisingly few – that have contributed to the evolution of modern humans since the split.” Update 05/15/2010: An editorial in New Scientist said, “Welcome to the family, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.” The article underscored the commonalities the Neanderthals have with the rest of us; “it is hard to see why Neanderthals should be considered as anything other than Homo sapiens.” Their range of genetic variation fits within that of living humans, the editors said. “Moreover, Neanderthals share with us a version of a gene linked to the evolution of speech, and recent archaeological evidence suggests that their minds were capable of the symbolic representations that underlie language and art. If that’s not human, then what is?” Ewen Callaway in another article in New Scientist went so far as to predict that Neanderthals were not the only archaic humans our ancestors mated with. We may find that Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis are part of the family, too.1. Green, Paabo et al, “A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome,” Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 710-722, DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021.2. Burbano et al, “Targeted Investigation of the Neandertal Genome by Array-Based Sequence Capture,” Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 723 – 725, DOI: 10.1126/science.1188046.3. Ann Gibbons, “Paleogenetics: Close Encounters of the Prehistoric Kind,” Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 680-684, DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5979.680.4. Elizabeth Pennisi, “Paleogenetics: Cloned Neandertals Still in the Realm of Sci-Fi,” Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 682-683, DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5979.682.5. Elizabeth Pennisi, “Paleogenetics: Computer Kid Makes Good,” Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5979, p. 683, DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5979.683.Now that we know they are us, and we are them, and that so-called Neanderthals are walking among us playing tennis and selling us insurance, it’s time to assess the damage the Neanderthal myth has done to humanity. This was never about a pure, unbiased search for the truth of human history. It was all about looking for props to support a story – a story of Europeans emerging from lower animals over millions of years in a way that guaranteed they would be on top. It’s a kind of historical racism, only the victims have been unable to sue in court because they were assumed extinct. Well, maybe 1-4% of the 6 billion people can find a lawyer now. Got big brows? Are you big-boned? Maybe you stand to make a lot of money. The first Neanderthal bones were found a few years before Darwin published his Origin. The Neander valley in Germany, by the way, was named after Joachim Neander, author of “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation.” Although the skeletons looked a little strange, it would take a few years for evolutionary demagogues to find a way to use them as props for the story. Evolution was already on the rise in Victorian Britain. Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus, and Lamarck, and Robert Chambers had written scandalous but delicious tales of humankind arising from the lower animals. The geologists had already ditched Mosaic chronology for Hutton’s deep time by the 1830s, with Lyell as their champion, so the timescale was set. The British Empire with its Victorian theme of progress was already displaying European “superiority” over the other races of mankind, and racism was hot. So when Darwin made his strategic coup by publishing an apparently plausible mechanism for evolutionary common ancestry, evolutionism exploded on the scene. Acceptance of the controversial theory was tentative at first (many leading scientists were outraged), but within ten years Darwin, his Four Musketeers (Lyell, Gray, Huxley, Hooker) and the X-club bad boys had stolen the high ground. By the time Darwin wrote The Descent of Man in 1871, hardly anyone had the energy to protest – not even the clergy. This was not a matter of science; it was a sociological phenomenon of late 19th century Victorian racist culture. Now all that was necessary to keep the momentum going was to fill in the blanks of the Darwin Saga with the appearance of scientific progress. Bones that looked any way different were hot items. They were immediately placed into the march of progress from monkey to man. Look at the first artist reconstruction of Neanderthal Man (Wikimedia) made in 1888 when the Darwin hysteria was in full swing. Clearly the artist was attempting to make it look as brutish, ape-like, and “other” as possible. That’s the key: these ancient bones had to be other than people. The Darwinists manipulated the perception of human history by giving them other-sounding names: Neanderthal Man, Java Man, Heidelberg Man, Peking Man, Rhodesia Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man. They manipulated taxonomy to support their Darwinian, deep-time story: Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis. The storytelling continued into the 20th century, with more artist reconstructions, an elaborate tale of when and where different groups emerged on the scene, and where they migrated. Fictional stories were concocted about how different species of human ancestors might have met one another and fought to the death. Other fictional stories were made up out of whole cloth about the invention of language, culture, and religion. The Neanderthals, we were told, separated from a common ancestor of modern humans 650,000 years ago. They were portrayed as brutish, stooped-over, heavy-browed, muscular mammoth-hunting cavemen who knew little more than how to build fire, have sex and eat meat. But when the intelligent, slender Cro-Magnon arrived (you know, the Europeans), these brutes were no match, and over years were beaten back to extinction. Does any of this have any connection to true history? Of course not. Yes, there are bones, and flutes, and burial sites, and caves, but the “scenario” is a big, bad myth. It is 150 years overdue to put this one out of our misery. Consider how absurd it is. Evolutionists are asking us to think that Neanderthals went on their own evolutionary journey 650,000 years ago, only to encounter “modern” humans 100,000 to 80,000 years ago, and find they could have fertile offspring! If Darwin’s theory means anything at all, in that long a time the Neanderthals and other human species should have drifted so far apart that interbreeding would have become impossible.. That’s what most evolutionists believed until very recently. The evidence for interbreeding in the Neanderthal genome is not just an adjustment to the Darwinian paleoanthropology scenario; it undermines it. Even more nonsensical is the idea that modern humans, virtually identical in every way to us, walked through Europe for over 100,000 years without ever inventing a wheel, building a city, riding a horse, or planting a farm. That’s 10 to 12 times the length of all recorded human history. Anyone who does not see the patent absurdity of the evolutionary claim needs a serious deprogramming session. Not only that, evolutionists are telling us that human ancestors were capable of fire and cooking and hunting and upright walking, and maybe verbal and symbolic communication, for half a million to a million years. As Duane Gish rightly asked in 1993, “what in the world were our advanced hominid ancestors doing for almost a million years? Why was evolution, both physical and cultural, so quiescent for such a vast stretch of time? If Homo sapiens had evolved perhaps as much as 150,000 years ago or even longer, why was it that he invented agriculture and domestication so recently and so abruptly?” (Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 354). Creationists – you know, those know-nothings who are the brunt of the Darwin Empire’s most vicious ridicule and disgust – have been saying for a long time that the average brain capacity of “Neanderthal Man” exceeded our own. They are not the only ones who have said that if you gave a Neanderthal a shave and a haircut, dressed him in a business suit, and marched him down Wall Street, nobody would pay any attention. Now we know they are among us playing tennis and selling insurance. On top of that, the history of evolutionary hoaxes with early-man fossils (Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man) and the ongoing wars between today’s ape-man hunters vying for the stage with the hottest missing link is a history of shameful intrigue, extrapolation of evidence, mythmaking and reversals. They cannot understand how civilization emerged from nothing. They cannot understand why the first cave paintings were already the best. And they present themselves as making progress toward “understanding our origins”. Readers, people, please: does it begin to dawn on you that we have been snookered by the Darwin Party con men? Why do we listen to these so-called experts? Why do we think their story is getting better with time? Is this new paper a sign of progress? No; it spotlights a 150-year detour away from the truth. They have vaunted their ignorance, yet vented their arrogance by expecting us to believe that the other parts of their myth are still intact. I’m sure you will be thrilled to find out in another few decades that everything they are telling you in 2010 was wrong, too. Chances are good that will happen, because not much remains of what they were telling us a few decades ago, and decades before that, ad nauseum. If your driver chose the wrong road, don’t be surprised when things don’t look right after hours of driving, even when your confident-sounding cabbie has a good story and keeps telling you he’s getting closer to the destination. When is it going to dawn on you that that’s his angle – keeping a good story going, not looking for the destination? The Darwinists stay in power by perpetuating an illusion of legitimacy, as if they are getting warmer. Each new bone, each new genome, is “shedding light” on our evolution. Stop believing the lies. The props have nothing to do with it; the story is the centerpiece, and that is not up for debate. The Biblical timeline, by contrast, fits known human history well. One must understand that dating of artifacts beyond 10,000 years ago is infected with the deep-time mythology, producing a circular system of reinforcement. Evolutionists need that deep time. To make it look legitimate, they fill it in with stages in their fictional play, and then they date those stages with infected dating methods to give them an air of scientific objectivity. Don’t follow the script. Look at the hard evidence itself. The best evidence is inscriptions – clay tablets, writing, cities, architecture, pottery. The birth of civilization in the Fertile Crescent fits what the Bible says about the spread of humanity after the Flood and Babel. Verifiable records show all artifacts were made by intelligent, skilled, sentient Homo sapiens – every one of them. And just as people today are quick to migrate to every corner of the globe, migration by true humans was very rapid after the Flood. Columbus did not discover a New World; people were already there, having migrated from Asia over land bridges centuries before – maybe millennia before. People were in the South Pacific, on Easter Island, in South America, all over the place when the latecomer Europeans showed up. Who is really superior, the latecomers? Jon Saboe’s novel The Days of Peleg (Resource of the Week for 11/07/2009) provides a plausible account of how all this could have happened in a short time. Another important point is that human population statistics match the Biblical timeframe like a comfortable shoe. But if upright, intelligent humans inhabited this planet for nearly a million years, we should be climbing over their bones, not finding them here and there in isolated caves. So who were the Neanderthals? For one thing, it’s time to ditch that name with its evolutionary baggage. They were Homo sapiens with some accentuated features. No, they didn’t live 650,000 years ago; they lived a few thousand years ago. They migrated after the Flood, like everyone else. After Babel, close-knit family groups went their separate ways. Inbreeding of tribes led to accentuated features. Some traits could have been aggravated by diet, harsh environment, age, or disease. But for all we can tell, they were strong, astute, fit, creative, intelligent, capable people. Today’s pot-bellied scientists with high cholesterol who couldn’t find a steak in a meat market or carve a turkey should aspire to their stature. Maybe they were the frontiersmen of their day, living out in the harsh extremes of the world, like the Inuit and certain tribal peoples who know a lot more about living off the land than many scientists ever will. Maybe they preferred the simple life of the hunter-gatherer, as do some people groups in 2010. Maybe they were the environmentalists; who knows? They weren’t around for 650,000 years; just a few thousand, like all the other people we KNOW about, where know is the operative word. A creationist taxonomical initiative called baraminology accepts the Genesis record that God made things to reproduce after their “kinds” (baramin). The created kinds were most likely groups larger than a species (although a baramin may represent a species in some cases, such as with Homo sapiens; for introduction see ChristianAnswers.net and CreationWiki). Baraminology entails significant amounts of genetic variability inherent in the genomes of the original kinds. The picture of a gradually progressing tree of life Darwin used to propagate his anti-Genesis mythology of human history is rejected in favor of the original Genesis picture: a world of distinct reproductive groups varying within their kinds. Each baramin is related by common descent, so there is room for some of the same comparative genomics studies within kinds as Darwinists try to make across kinds, but baraminologists deny that all organisms are related by common descent. They say, instead, that similarities are marks of the single Creator of all things (see Walter ReMine’s thesis in The Biotic Message, Resource of the Week for 10/10/2009). The built-in variability in each genome would lead to branching of similar species within kinds up to the genus and family level, and perhaps beyond (after all, taxons are man-made groupings), as the original kinds invaded new ecological niches on a dynamic planet. These branchings would not incorporate new genetic information, but rather express built-in capabilities in new ways and combinations, in some cases with extreme accentuation of existing genetic tools. In this view, all the human racial groups stem from the original human pair and retain their full humanness. The slight differences in skin color and other traits are explained as environmentally-enhanced variations or genetic bottlenecks occurring since the migrations after Babel. Dr. Robert Carter has an interesting DVD on the genetic evidence for human migration in and out of Africa that arguably does a better job of explaining the evidence from a Biblical creationist standpoint than the evolutionist “out of Africa” story; see CMI for video teaser and info on how to order; see also his article on CMI about “Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics.” You can reject this view if you want to. It’s a free country. You can let the cultural knee-jerk reflex take over: laugh, mock, scorn, ridicule, and write scathing attacks on your blog about how stupid the know-nothing flat-earth Neanderthal-faced less-evolved creationists are. Go right ahead; Darwin’s bulldogs have been doing that since the X-Club, and creationists are pretty used to it. (Duane Gish has been vindicated, you realize.) Such tactics only show one’s lack of ability to discuss evidence rationally with civility. Among the worst of the mockers are some theistic evolutionists and some progressive creationists who choose to be so entranced by the siren song of the deceivers, they have been willing to twist Biblical history to ridiculous extremes – so far as to make Neanderthals and the other Darwinist early-man cartoon characters out to be unsouled, upright-walking animals, equivalent to us in almost every respect, except lacking the image of God. We hope this revelation is a lesson to them. The next time the Darwinists have to backtrack and admit in print that you’ve been snookered, and everything they taught you for 150 years was wrong about Neanderthal Man, or Darwin’s finches, or the human genome, or fill-in-the-blank, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Don’t say St. Peter didn’t warn you, either (read II Peter 3). From now on, the only Neanderthal Man you should pay attention to is the original one, Joachim Neander. He wrote:Praise to the Lord, who over all things so wondrously reigneth,Shelters thee under His wings, yea, so gently sustaineth!Hast thou not seen how thy desires ever have beenGranted in what He ordaineth?Praise to the Lord, who doth prosper thy work and defend thee;Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee.Ponder anew what the Almighty can do,If with His love He befriend thee.(See Romans 5 and Hebrews 2 for more on that. Express your humanness as it was intended to be. Get back into a relationship with your Maker.)(Visited 79 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
29 January 2009Hansgrohe, a leading international producer of kitchen and bathroom fixtures and showers, has announced its entry into the South African market through the acquisition of privately held local firm Personalised Bathrooms.Personalised Bathrooms was previously an independent market partner to Hansgrohe, and will now be managed as an independent distribution company trading as Hansgrohe South Africa, with its headquarters in Johannesburg.“In taking this step, we’re going to boost our market presence substantially in South Africa,” Hansgrohe CEO Siegfried Ganßlen said in a statement this week.Innovation and design leadersHansgrohe has selected Anthony Mederer, a former director at Personalised Bathrooms and son of company founder Heinz Mederer, to take over as the general manager of what will become Hansgrohe’s 29th subsidiary.“Hansgrohe is known throughout the industry across the globe as one of the innovation and design leaders, and is perceived in South Africa as the premium brand for top-quality fixtures and showers,” Ganßlen said.“We will invest in the South African market with the clear objective of recording disproportionately strong growth, to develop the number one import brand and to become the market leader.”Continuing partnershipHe said the long-term basis for this objective was to continue the partnership with the experienced Personalised Bathrooms team, with which the company’s market share in the country had grown considerably over the last 14 years.SAinfo reporter Would you like to use this article in your publicationor on your website?See: Using SAinfo material