Solomani are missing Uplifted species

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Master of Research? Isn't that like a fancy term for a really good librarian? (sarcasm)

Librarians don't go into the field digging up fossils as part of their schooling. They also don't specialize in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation.

 

[CordwainerFish]

[Librarians] also don't specialize in Primate Biology

Though there are times when it would help.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Though there are times when it would help.

Those are the times you need tranquilizer darts.

In movies and TV shows why is it that most of the time when the "Expert" goes out with such a gun they only take ONE dart and no spares?

 

[actionman]

Gutsick Gibbon - this is a Youtube channel. Here is what she writes about herself "I'm Erika, a current PhD student in Biological Anthropology. I have a Masters of Research degree in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation with a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science and minors in Anthropology and in Biology."

A staunch defender of orthodoxy. Seems like kind of a hater to me.

 

[actionman]

Those are the times you need tranquilizer darts.

In movies and TV shows why is it that most of the time when the "Expert" goes out with such a gun they only take ONE dart and no spares?

Because they have never played Traveller with a vindictive ref.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

A staunch defender of orthodoxy. Seems like kind of a hater to me.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such evidence isn't presented for this species.

An AI "recreation" like this can be an issue as it is most likely trained on modern skulls and will interpret things based on that, quite possibly creating a much more modern skull image than is justified given the facts. Future finds will show one way or the other.

 

[rinku]

AI has proven useful for identifying possible patterns in data that humans have missed, but it's also quite prone to false positives. It still takes a person to review it and follow up with proper analysis.

 

[rinku]

Researchers and Librarians are two very different things.

There's also research Librarians. My wife has been one.

 

[actionman]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Such evidence isn't presented for this species.

An AI "recreation" like this can be an issue as it is most likely trained on modern skulls and will interpret things based on that, quite possibly creating a much more modern skull image than is justified given the facts. Future finds will show one way or the other.

I was speaking about my general impression of her, from the content on her channel, not about any particular claim.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Then you are misjudging her. She is not as you termed her a "hater". She works on evidence. If this skull were what you claimed it was she would be questioning it but excited. She would want more facts but would be enthusiastic for the potential to learn new things. She isn't excited while questioning because the facts are too few and too unsupported but she will be watching for more facts and corroboration of the current claims. The more that comes out the greater her interest no matter which way the facts go.

She questions it because the claims are not substantiated by enough facts and goes against the genetic information that shows the Neanderthals and Homo Longi (Denisovans) as being closer related to each other and equally far from Sapiens but their interpretation puts this species as an early ancestor of Longi and closer to the separation between Longi and Sapiens AND further from the separation of both from Neanderthals. To overthrow the genetic analysis based on such little physical evidence is an extreme claim without extreme evidence. So she is naturally doubtful. The more evidence to support the claim (especially others being able to go over the same samples with the same result) the more she is going to accept it as being at least possible. The more evidence the more excitement.

If you watch her Homo Naledi videos you will see her questioning things and being excited, especially since the Naledi while being very archaic has turned out to be more recent than anyone suspected. But since the FACTS are scarce her questioning is naturally intense.

It is how science works. Things that break the current theories and models are intensely scrutinized with doubt in proportion to the lack of evidence. But excitement also as if it is true then there is so much to learn and the chance to put your name down as one of the greats in the annals of science. They remember Einstein because his theories went beyond anything anyone else of the time thought and generation by generation the facts mounted to support it. Yet he questioned quantum physics, eventually accepting it because the facts kept building to support it.

If you look back at the cold fusion claims in the 80s you will see the same thing, a great deal of doubt but excitement too. The more research the less support as their results could not be duplicated. The excitement faded due to lack of supporting evidence and the non reproducible results.

 

[actionman]

Then you are misjudging her.

No I'm not.

She is not as you termed her a "hater".

She seems like it to me, because of the contemptuous language she uses toward others, not because of any conclusions she makes.

If this skull were what you claimed

I'm not talking about any skulls, or any particular claims, as I stated previously.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Gutsick Gibbon - this is a Youtube channel. Here is what she writes about herself "I'm Erika, a current PhD student in Biological Anthropology. I have a Masters of Research degree in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation with a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science and minors in Anthropology and in Biology."

The video linked to is about this particular skull and its position in genus Homo.

I love that video. She does a great job of summarizing the material, the current understanding, and the proposed changes. She is very positive and upbeat about the paper & the work that was done, but quite frank about her opinions and criticisms of the conclusions being drawn -- this is precisely the way good science is done. Liked and subscribed.


I find it frankly dismaying that people do not understand. Sure, conspiracy 'I am smarter than all the sheeple' theories are comforting and conveniently incoherent -- but no matter how fun they are, they fail to be useful science. The survival of humanity depends on being able to distinguish fact from fiction, and when I see folks gleefully failing... it is disappointing.

 

[CordwainerFish]

Sure, conspiracy 'I am smarter than all the sheeple' theories are comforting and conveniently incoherent

 

[Condottiere]

In junior high, I took it rather seriously.

Now, it's just for the trolling potential.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Heinlein introduced neodogs in Starship Troopers. Those are great for improved animal stock.

S. Andrew Swann drafted a dystopian future surrounding uplifts. These are great examples for Uplifts- I have used them often.

 

[MonsterX]

She seems like it to me, because of the contemptuous language she uses toward others, not because of any conclusions she makes.

She is respectful towards those she disagrees with in the video in question. The Homo Longi study is an important paper for good reason and she recognizes that. She thinks they are *probably* wrong on part of the case they make, and gives her reasons which are good reasons: that the research in question uses morphological methods which are normally solid, but sometimes can lead you astray, and in this case it doesn't match the story the genetic data is telling. One method tells one story, and the other a different story, and she has her (plausible) way of reconciling those two stories, and feels (reasonably) that the contradiction with the genetic data means the argument the authors make is (probably) wrong. This is how scientists argue and get to the truth. I am sure others in the field will make similar arguments to Gutsick Gibbon's. The authors of the Homo Longi can and should respond with arguments that refute the refutations, if they have such arguments, or they might say, "we didn't think of that" and then change their conlcusions to incorporate the criticism. The authors may try to rescue their argument by finding more data, which might support them or refute them, and settles the argument one way or another - or it may remain a mystery for some time. Whichever way it goes, if someone figures it out, that just means we will have more details about that time in human evolution, which is the whole point of having these discussions and picking about the details of these studies in this way.

Gutsick Gibbon is extremely dismissive of creationists etc., but that's fair game - creationists dismiss her and everyone elses' actual expertise with their massive globs of stupid. They are fair game to make fun of - it is ok to not know all about evolution or whatever topic, no one knows everything, but the creationists and other pseudoscientists shoot their mouths off without knowing what they are doing, and deliberately and maliciously try to misinform people, seeking to undermine real science. With legitimate science, she engages, with pseudo science, she explains why it is harmful and wrong, which tends to involve being dismissive. That's just science education and she does a good job of it.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

If he dislikes her I can't imagine his reaction to Aron Ra .

 

[actionman]

@Sigtrygg more items from before the Ice Age:

🎓 The Intricacies of Ivory

Explore elephant, narwhal, hippo, walrus ivory's captivating history & uses in jewelry, tools, games, & trade.

www.eleanorkonik.com

 

[actionman]

If he dislikes her I can't imagine his reaction to Aron Ra .

This was my reaction: he was boring so I closed the video.

I can say mean things too, but I try to restrain myself as a form of self-improvement.

So I gave GG another chance. I watched a couple of her videos, and I came to the same conclusion. If you guys like her, that's great. I don't, and I'm uninterested in discussing my personal opinions of youtubers past this point.

 

[Endie]

@Sigtrygg more items from before the Ice Age:

View attachment 6302

🎓 The Intricacies of Ivory

Explore elephant, narwhal, hippo, walrus ivory's captivating history & uses in jewelry, tools, games, & trade.

www.eleanorkonik.com

Technically ("well aaaacksually", I realise... ) that's in the latter stages of the last ice age, which started some time between 120,000BC and 110,000BC, depending on your cut-off.