How does a fossil containing finger bones suggest a certain behavior or lifestyle? Researchers from universities of Southampton and Calgary, think they can determine it. Science Daily foolishly did a report on this absurd study…
Using “finger ratios from fossilised skeletal remains of early apes and extinct hominins, as indicators of the levels of exposure species had to prenatal androgens — a group of hormones that is important in the development of masculine characteristics such as aggression and promiscuity. It is thought that androgens, such as testosterone, affect finger length during development in the womb.”
What? A thick finger indicates larger amounts of male hormone during development, which in turn suggests that the men were more masculine, therefore aggressive, therefore promiscuous? This is one of the most ridiculous conclusions I have ever seen! Have the researchers been watching too much of “Bones” a Hollywood dramatization while coming up with these strange conclusions?
And this is not all, in physorg there is a caption which says, “Evidence of an intense warming period in the Universe’s early history, described as a form of “cosmic climate change.” Are they going to blame man-made pollution for this? Not quite but there is a quandary facing cosmologists for detecting anomalous heat in distant galaxies. So blacks holes which haven’t been observed are invoked to account for it.
In this story, there is a claim that a missing link had been found, most of us would think of a missing link as an intermediate life form but in this story the missing link is, Phosphorus! Yes, phosphorus, without any observational data to suggest such a thing, all you do is add that element and presto you have animals.
“The key ingredient to the eventual oxidation of the oceans was found in the rubble of rock left behind when the glaciers receded,” said Lalonde. “We believe the glacial debris that washed into the oceans contained high concentrations of phosphorus.”
Some pretty cool stone tools was discovered in a cave from South Africa which shows that the ancient inhabitants were pretty good at craftsmanship. What was the conclusion from New Scientist as a result of this discovery? There headlines tells it all, “Our ancestors had to grow bigger brains to make axes”.
“Previous brain scans have shown an overlap in the areas responsible for toolmaking and language processing. The overlap is greater when people are making complex tools. Parts of the right-hand side of the brain, such as a section of Broca’s area, which is involved in processing language, become more active in this situation.”
Catherine de Lange fails to explain why someone needs a bigger brain to make an axe. She explains what the brain has to do in order to accomplish it, but why the bigger size? Perhaps it was a decision by the cave council. Reporters like the ones in Science Daily, Catherine in New Scientist and others worship evolution, never seem to question some of these bizarre stories that come out of these studies.