(...) Along with an almost complete rhinoceros skeleton, showing clear signs of having been butchered, the team unearthed 57 stone tools.
These stone artefacts consist of 49 sharp-edge flakes, six cores (flaked stones used as the source material for the flakes) and two possible hammer stones. Several of the rhino bones had cut marks and the left and right humerus bones showed signs of being hit with hammer stones, possibly to gain access to the marrow.
Other fossils found at the site included stegodon (a relative of the elephant), Philippine brown deer, freshwater turtle and monitor lizard remains.
The fossils and stone tools were found in a clay bed dated to between 777,000 and 631,000 years ago. This conclusion was reached by combining several dating methods (including Electron Spin Resonance, argon dating and uranium series dating), confirming that the butchering of the rhino took place around 700,000 years ago.
The find radically changes our understanding of hominin colonisation of the Philippines; the earliest evidence of hominins in the area prior to this research was a small foot bone found in nearby Callao Cave and dated to 67,000 years ago.
It also calls for a rethink of how early hominins (all human species closely related to or directly ancestral to modern humans) spread throughout the islands of South East Asia. The paper's authors argue that the find suggests the dispersal of premodern hominins through the region took place several times, and that the Philippines may have played a central role. (...)
Science denialism can seem intractable, and studies on the topic are seldom encouraging. For example, research out of Yale Law School suggests that when people form their opinions on contentious topics such as climate change or evolution, political or religious values trump knowledge of the concept.
A study published in March in BioScience begs to differ, at least when it comes to evolution. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and their colleagues measured participants' knowledge of evolutionary theory, as well as their acceptance of evolution as fact. They found a significant link between understanding the fine points of the theory and believing in it, regardless of religious or political identity.
Unlike earlier research that involved only high school or college students, the demographics of the 1,100 subjects in the new study better approximated those of the overall U.S. population. The researchers also used more nuanced language in their questions to distinguish between subjects' intellectual grasp of evolution and their personal feelings toward it. It remains unclear whether science education leads directly to increased acceptance of evolution, but the Penn study supports this possibility.
"That's a textbook dehumanization of 'them,' he said. "If you get to the point where citing 'thems' causes your followers to activate neurons in the insular cortex—the part of the brain that responds to viscerally disgusting things—you've finished most of your to-do list for your genocide."
That sort of sharply stated, science-based analysis has made Sapolsky a popular and influential writer and thinker. A MacArthur fellow, he is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, and the author of several books, including the 2017 best-seller Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.
Sapolsky has spent much of his career in Kenya, studying baboons (among other primates), and he uses that knowledge to put human behavior into a broader perspective. In a recent telephone interview, he discussed the biological basis of our current political fault lines. (...)
We do our worst when we're surrounded by a lot of people who agree with us. For example, devout religious belief is not a predictor of extremism. Devout religious observance isn't either. But devout religious observance in a group setting is. Studies show that support for terrorism in majority Muslim countries is unrelated to how often you pray, or how devout you are about food prohibitions. But it is related to how often you pray in a mosque. The same is also true of right-wing Jewish extremists in Israel. When sacred values are re-affirmed in groups—that's when things get scary. (...)
“The women I have dated over the years could have any man they want; they are the top models and the most beautiful women in the world. I have been able to date (screw) them all because I have something that many men do not have. I don't know what it is but women have always liked it. So guys, be cocky, confident, smart, and humorous and you will be able to get all the women you want. … We may live in houses in the suburbs but our minds and emotions are still only a short step out of the jungle. In primitive times, women clung to the strongest males for protection. They did not take any chances with a nobody, low-status male who did not have the means to house them, protect them, and feed them and their offspring. High-status males displayed their prowess through their kick-ass attitudes. … They did not give a crap about what other people in the tribe thought. That kind of attitude was and still is associated with the kind of men women find attractive. It may not be politically correct to say but who cares. It is common sense and it's true — and always will be.”
hey don one of these people is a multi-millionaire