/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4342811]

http://gizmodo.com/5883082/this-is-the-first-painting-humanity-ever-made

>neanderthals close to being confirmed for cave artists

Say good bye to your arguments, sapien-centric "scientists."

>pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.4342814]

I hate it when journalists say "the first" or "the largest" or whatever.
They SHOULD say "the oldest that we've found"

[Anonymous No.4342817]

>>4342814
True. My fucktard GTF kept saying humans didn't have "modern cognition" until 32,000 years ago because that's when the paintings at Lascaux were made. Even the freshmen bertstared her.

If there was any justice she'd be fired when this article came out.

[Anonymous No.4342822]

>>4342811
>That was my first impression. Someone bust out the George Tsukalos meme!
A second look made me think it could be fish, but crazy hand waving uncontrolled hair Greek guy is a much funner scenario.

[Anonymous No.4342826]

looks like shit

cave art really sucks

[Anonymous No.4342845]

Neanderthals knew about DNA

[Anonymous No.4342866]

>>4342822
>implying Greek civilization and Tsoukalos' hair aren't an argument in favour of extra-terrestrial intervensionism on their own right

[Anonymous No.4342882]

>It's a mindblowing academic discovery,
Why the fuck extending the Homo sapiens' (or the contemporary sister species) cultural development by 10,000 years is so mindblowing, especially considering that as a subspecies we existed for more than 70,000 years?

If we take in account that we had almost zero technological advance since Homo erectus, becoming full blown humans with cognitive abilities almost equal to modern man within a 20,000 years after a stagnation of almost 100,000 years would make more sense?

[Anonymous No.4342895]

>>4342882
>Homo sapiens

Try again. We're talking about Neanderthals doing ART. This is essentially heresy.

>If we take in account that we had almost zero technological advance since Homo erectus

Lol no.

[Anonymous No.4342927]

>>4342895
>Try again. We're talking about Neanderthals doing ART. This is essentially heresy.
see:>>4342882
>(or the contemporary sister species)

>If we take in account that we had almost zero technological advance since Homo erectus
There's a reason there is a well established cultural and technological division between neolithic and paleolithic and H. sapiens falls well within the paleolithic for most part of its existence.

[Anonymous No.4342929]

>>4342895
>Try again. We're talking about Neanderthals doing ART. This is essentially heresy.
see:>>4342882
>(or the contemporary sister species)

>>If we take in account that we had almost zero technological advance since Homo erectus
>lol no
There's a reason there is a well established cultural and technological division between neolithic and paleolithic and H. sapiens falls well within the paleolithic for most part of its existence.

[Anonymous No.4342944]

>>4342929
>There's a reason there is a well established cultural and technological division between neolithic and paleolithic and H. sapiens falls well within the paleolithic for most part of its existence.

True but to say there's been little tech development since erectus is ignorant at best.

[Anonymous No.4342959]

>>4342944
Yes. But it would be way easier to say that a sudden transition from hunter-gather simpleton to an artist with full cognitive skills within a few thousand years is a "mind blowing advance" than say the same thing for replacing blackened tips on wooden spears with flintstone spearheads within a span of some hundreds of thousand years, especially if you considered this second example followed the transition from one species to another with double the brain capacity.

Claiming that Homo sapiens suddenly had an enlightment 40,000 years ago and started drawing stuff for no practical reason is almost metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.4342969]

>>4342895
Neanderthals are Homo Sapiens retard

[Anonymous No.4342970]

Is there any link to a study to see how the paint was dated with carbon?

It's hard to believe cave dwellers would have the technology to make the scaffolding to decorate a stalactite on the upper side. There are much easier ways to decorate a cave than painting a stalactite. I'm not saying that it's possible it might have been faked with paint from an equally older grave, but still...

[Anonymous No.4342973]

Is there any link to a study to see how the paint was dated with carbon?

It's hard to believe cave dwellers would have the technology to make the scaffolding to decorate a stalactite on the upper side. There are much easier ways to decorate a cave than painting a stalactite. I'm not saying that it's possible it might have been faked with paint from an equally old grave, but still...

[Anonymous No.4342977]

You can not prove that homo sapiens didn't paint those.

checkmate, neanderthal cocksuckers.

[Anonymous No.4343027]

>>4342969
That's contested. There are strong arguments on seperating them on full species status instead of H. sapiens' subspecies. It also tends to be the majority view among experts at the moment.

[Anonymous No.4343039]

>>4342977
>you cant prove god DOESNT exist

[Anonymous No.4343062]

>>4342959
>Claiming that Homo sapiens suddenly had an enlightment 40,000 years ago and started drawing stuff for no practical reason is almost metaphysical.

I agree. So what was your original problem with what I said?

[Anonymous No.4343081]

>>4343027
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4343086]

>>4343081
Not him but they're pretty fucking distinct. Even if they're a sub species that's still a much larger gap than just regional variation.

[Anonymous No.4343087]

>>4343027
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homem-de-neandertal
They were able to breed with homo sapiens sapiens and the offspring is biologicaly viable, cant see it being other species, subspecies at most

[Anonymous No.4343088]

>>4343086
Still same species

[Anonymous No.4343105]

>>4343087
>using outdated concepts of biological species

[Anonymous No.4343108]

>>4343081
Try wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.4343128]

>>4343105
>outdated concepts
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4343130]

>>4343108
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homem-de-neandertal

[Anonymous No.4343133]

>>4343081
>>4343128
>[citation needed]

Babby's first troll

[Anonymous No.4343135]

>mfw ancient man had been carving strange pieces of 'art' into their tools for much longer than current archeologists suspect

[Anonymous No.4343139]

>>4343133
>scientific procedure is now trolling
Great logic here

[Anonymous No.4343145]

>>4343133
>science is now trolling

[Anonymous No.4343150]

>>4343133

[Anonymous No.4343154]

>>4343130
>Espécie: H. neanderthalensis
Also learn to english froggie,

[Anonymous No.4343165]

>>4343154
whatever dude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

[Anonymous No.4343168]

>>4343128
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species

[Anonymous No.4343179]

>>4343168
fucking the same thing I said
>A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases, this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

note this

> Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies

[Anonymous No.4343181]

>>4343150
>>4343145
>>4343139

obvious samefag is obvious

Also by the interbreeding logic every ancestor of sapiens is the same species.

[Anonymous No.4343190]

>>4343165

Do you even know how to taxonomic nomenclature?

Both articles present Neanderthals with a BInomial (Homo neanderthalensis) which STATES species' status not a trinomial that would state subspecies' status (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

Go eat so smelly cheese and severe your internet connection you stupid whiteflag.

[Anonymous No.4343193]

>>4343165

Do you even know how to taxonomic nomenclature?

Both articles present Neanderthals with a BInomial (Homo neanderthalensis) which STATES species' status not a trinomial that would state subspecies' status (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

Go eat some smelly cheese and severe your internet connection you stupid whiteflag.

[Anonymous No.4343212]

>>4343179
>While in many cases, this definition is adequate
Yes but it's actually not so many. That's why it tends to be replaced with phylogenetic and molecular definitions in modern reviews. Maybe to the ancient rennaisance bibliography of french academics it is up to date but for the developed world this is just a convenient taxonomic relic.

[Anonymous No.4343384]

>>4343212
>>4343193
Wiki said Neanderthal is also classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and current humans are classified as homo sapiens sapiens meaning they were subspecies of homo sapiens.
I think youjustwentfullretard again

[Axel the Possum No.4343405]

>>4342814

Agreed. The quality of a lot of mainstream science reporting is just terrible. It's not just that this is bad reporting but it also provides a distorted view of science. Not including methods, implications, and even small details like tentative language not being included when warranted ("may indicate", "is likely to", etc. instead of "says", "means", etc.) just gives the public this idea of scientists as pottering about and going "No, this is how it is! Wait, no, this is how it is!" without any purpose or possible gain from it.

[Anonymous No.4343406]

even elephants can paint, check it in youtube

[Anonymous No.4343929]

Looks like a strand of DNA.

[Anonymous No.4343968]

>mfw neanderthals drew DNA.