Coexistance or Competition Between Ancient Apes and Humans: The Case of Gigantopithecus blackii

Gigantopithecus (in Greek, gigantas or γίγαντας meaning "giant" and pithecus or πίθηκος meaning "ape") blackii was the largest primate to ever have had its fossil records found and stood approximately ten feet tall and weighed as much as 1,200 pounds. G blackii are believed to have had massive appetites, but were herbivores, eating mainly bamboo and lived alongside humans in southeast Asia, particularly in China, India, and Vietnam. The giant primate had roamed the Earth for almost a million years before it became extinct about 100,000 years ago during the Pleistocene epoch.

"This is a primate that co-existed with humans at a time when humans were undergoing a major evolutionary change. Guangxi province in southern China, where the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated," Jack Rink, a professor of geography and earth sciences at of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario explained.

Rink continued: "Originally the ape was thought to have been on the ancestral human line, but that has been shown to be not true... Probably the creatures lived up in the caves and up in the bamboo forests, while people were living lower in the river valleys. But it's quite likely that humans came face to face with the ape."

The only known fossils of G. blacki that have been found so far are a few teeth and mandibles found in cave sites in Southeast Asia. As the name suggests, these are appreciably larger than those of living gorillas, but the exact size and structure of the rest of the body can only be estimated in the absence of additional findings.

Because of the lack of fossil evidence, it is also unknown how G. blackii moved about. It is only assumed that the giant ape walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favor bipedal locomotion, most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but it should be noted that this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully-erect spine like modern humans, rather than roughly behind it, like the other great apes.

Suminia getmanovi: First Arboreal Vertebrates With Grasping Hands and Opposable Thumbs Lived 260 Million Years Ago

The skeleton of the tree-climbing synapsid Suminia getmanov, a 260-million-year-old animal which scientists believe was the first known tree-dweller. The tiny, agile animal predated the arrival of the dinosaurs.

The Department of Geology, Field Museum Public Relations, Chicago on July 28, 2009, released the following press release: "In the Late Paleozoic (260 million years ago), long before dinosaurs dominated the Earth, ancient precursors to mammals took to the trees to feed on leaves and live high above predators that prowled the land, Jörg Fröbisch, PhD, a Field Museum paleontologist has concluded. Elongated fingers, an opposable "thumb," and a grasping tail of Suminia getmanovi demonstrate that this small plant-eating synapsid is the earliest known tree-climbing vertebrate.

"Suminia was relatively small, about 20 inches from its nose to the tip of its tail. The tree-climbing lifestyle of this Paleozoic relative of mammals is particularly important because for the first time in vertebrate evolution it gives access to new food resources high off the ground, and also provides protection from ground-dwelling predators. The evidence for this lifestyle is based on several excellent skulls and more than a dozen exceptionally well preserved, complete skeletons from a single large block of red mudstone that was discovered in central Russia's Kirov region.

"Having so many individual specimens, some of mature individuals and some of youngsters, was helpful in providing a complete picture of the animal's skeletal anatomy, said Fröbisch. "It's relatively rare to find several animals locked on a single block," he said. "We have examples of virtually every bone in their bodies."

"Finding that vertebrates took to trees so early in Earth's evolution was unexpected. "It's a surprise, but it makes sense," Fröbisch said. "It was a new niche for vertebrates. There was food available and they avoided predators on the ground."

"The study also provides the first evidence in the fossil record of food partitioning between small climbing and large ground-dwelling plant-eaters and this happens shortly after the establishment of the modern terrestrial ecosystem with large numbers of plant-eaters supporting few top predators. Earlier terrestrial vertebrate communities did not have this modern hierarchy, but instead were composed of various-sized predators and relatively few plant-eaters, with most of the food resources being provided by insects and aquatic organisms."

Fleshed-out and skeletal restorations of Suminia. From Frobisch and Reisz (2009)

"As the first tree-climbing vertebrate, Suminia had very long fore and hind limbs, with especially long hands and feet," lead author Jorg Frobisch said. Frobisch continued: "In particular, its long fingers, or digits, contributed to these large hands and feet," ... It further had long, strongly-curved claws — terminal phalanges — that helped with clinging onto tree trunks and branches... Non-mammalian synapsids were formerly unofficially known as 'mammal-like reptiles,' but they are actually not at all reptiles, but are more closely related to mammals," Frobisch said, adding that Suminia indeed "is a distant relative of mammals."

Frobisch explained that before the first known tree-dweller emerged, "terrestrial vertebrate communities were composed of various-sized predators and relatively few plant-eaters, with most of the food resources being provided by insects and aquatic organisms."

"So this shift in what food is eaten all of a sudden increases competition for plant food resources, and shortly after this shift, you see Suminia invade this ecological space for the first time," he added.

The hand of Suminia (right) compared to terrestrial anomodonts (mostly toothless herbivores) Galechirus (middle) and Robertia (left). Note the claw-like finger bones and divergent "thumb" of Suminia. From Frobisch and Reisz (2009)

Brian Switeka science writer who focuses on paleontology, evolution, and the history of science provided the following assessment: "The hands of Suminia widely differed from those of terrestrial anomodonts and more closely resembled those of other arboreal vertebrates from various groups and time periods. It appeared that lineages that adopted an arboreal lifestyle evolved similar traits over and over again, these similarities being due to convergent evolution. Comparisons between Suminia and living arboreal vertebrates supported this hypothesis, and Frobisch and Reisz make a very well-supported case that Suminia moved through the trees by clinging and grasping.

Switeka continued: "Why the ancestors of Suminia moved into the trees, however, is another question. The Permian deposits in which Suminia was found is relatively well-sampled. During the time the little synapsid was skittering through the trees the local environment supported a large number of herbivores (about 83% of all the vertebrates present) and a much smaller number of carnivores (about 13% of all the vertebrates present). While it is true that an arboreal lifestyle may have helped keep Suminia out of the jaws of predators, the authors hypothesize that it was competition with other herbivores that might have driven some synapsids into the trees. These plants would have been a resource unexploited by other vertebrates, and this may have allowed for the evolution of Suminia from more terrestrially-adapted ancestors."

Suminia getmanovi

Living Without God: European Lives and the Dissolution of Religion from Ferverent Practice to Benign Tradition

First, let me make clear; it seems like a very safe and uncontroversial statement to make when one observes that religion is a very large and powerful force in the contemporary world. The growth of Islam and its connections to militaristic terrorism are certainly a daily headline for people living all around the globe. It seems that Islam is leading a upsurge in religious belief for many inhabitants of our planet today.

But close behind by only a few steps are the advancements Christianity is making globally as it wages its own drive to recruit believers under its set of beliefs and practices. Evangelicalism is sweeping its way into the hearts and minds of millions while other Christian religions such as Pentecostalism are also rapidly expanding. There is little doubt that organized religious beliefs are bubbling throughout the world.

Of course, religion is very popular in the United States where church attendance and responses to polls that question people's religious beliefs make the world's most powerful democracy a haven for believers. Americans as a whole hold God, Jesus, and the Bible in the highest regard. In addition, television and radio stations provide their viewers and listeners with unequaled access to Christian perspectives on a daily basis. And both Democrats and Republicans try to outdo each other over their support for 'Christian values.' The presidency of George W. Bush was extremely receptive to and promoted Christian doctrine as a part of the Republican agenda.

And beyond Islam and Christianity there has also been an uptick in the popularity of other religious belief systems around the world.

The amazing point I am about to make may sound unbelievable but I assure you that it is true. Religion is not all powerful in all nations of the world. In fact there are some nations, notably in Europe where religion is not viewed with the fervor that it is across the rest of the world. Which nations in Europe am I speaking of? First let me say that all across Europe, with particular reference to Great Britain and the Netherlands there has been a trending down in religious beliefs but it is in the Scandinavian countries that has witnessed the greatest decline in the popularity of religion. And the least religious countries in the world are Denmark and Sweden.

In Denmark and Sweden which is made up of lovely small towns, clean cities, magnificent forests, isolated beachfront, vibrant democracies, among the lowest crime rates in the world, superb institutions of public education, beautiful architecture, strong economies, publicly supported art, widespread entrepreneurship, modern hospitals, fabulous beer, free health care, extraordinary filmmakers, egalitarian social policies, and little interest in religion.

The Danes and the Swedes have proven that a society can exist without God and be very civil and pleasant. So there goes the Christians argument that without God we would all be subject to chaos and the Devil would rule the Earth.

It proves that a society without God can establish and follow rational systems of ethics and morality. Also proven has been the ability of secularists to live their lives without the 'crutch' that religion provides concerning death because many have argued that religion exists as a way for humanity to cope with death. Others have convinced themselves that they follow religion and believe in God because He has a 'plan' that governs the universe and that 'plan' also provides answers that allows human beings to understand the nature of the universe.

So why are Denmark and Sweden the less religious democracies in the world and the United States ranks number one? Several possible factors contribute in part or in whole to answering this question. History has certainly played a role ; the Danes and Swedes had Christianity imposed on their nations by rulers while the United States had a number of Christian groups initially settle throughout New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Immigration has also played a role as America became the home to numerous religious groups over time while Sweden and Denmark were two of the most homogeneously peopled nations in the world. Also, a high degree of racial, ethnic, class, and cultural diversity exists in the United States while Denmark and Sweden are quite homogeneous in these areas. Denmark and Sweden have a national church, the Lutheran Church while diversity of churches is the rule in America. Another factor simply has to do with marketing; Americans market their religious beliefs very aggressively because of their great diverse numbers while the Danes and Swedes do not because they only have one church that is a monopoly and state controlled. A final factor unfortunately concerns the high levels of poor and under educated people who live in America and are highly susceptible to the promises made by religion of a better hereafter; this situation does not exist in Denmark and Sweden because the population as a whole is far better educated and per capita income levels are higher.

Biodiversity: From So Little So Many

For those of us who are fascinated with the biodiversity of life on Earth, we constantly marvel at the overwhelming diversity of life that has come from such a small portion of the Earth. Below us only some five hundred meters from the planets surface bacteria thrive. The varieties of life increase as the Earth's surface approaches. On the surface is where most of the life exists in a plethora of shapes and sizes that include microorganisms, plants, and animals. And among this great diversity of life there is a constant struggle for existence. The Earth's atmosphere acts like a partially shaded window that lets in only about a tenth of the sun's energy that strikes the Earth. Divide that by a factor of ten and that is the removed from the food web by herbivores; ten percent of that is consumed by spiders and other similar carnivores; some species of birds consume the next ten percent in the form of the spiders, etc., as the process continues until the top carnivores such as lions, tigers, sharks, eagles, etc. exist at the top of the chain only to be consumed themselves by parasites and other scavengers.

On closer observation it becomes apparent that all species are part of two hierarchies. An energy hierarchy, or pyramid consists of plants at the bottom that receive the greatest share of the sun's energy with the largest carnivores located at the very tip of the pyramid.

Biomass makes up the second hierarchy as the plants are once again located at the bottom. The next level consists of scavengers and other decomposers, including bacteria and fungi. Again, the top tip of the pyramid is populated by the largest carnivores. There is a completely different situation when the hierarchy of the oceans biomass is studied. The bottom, or largest portion of that pyramid is occupied by organisms that eat the photosynthetic life. The reason for this is that the photosynthetic organisms are not similar to the plants found on land because they are microscopic single-celled phytoplankton which despite their small size are able to fix more energy from the sun and they have a rapid life cycle. Zooplankton subsist on the phytoplankton but are unable to completely eradicate the phytoplankton. From the zooplankton, the pyramid grows smaller until the very tip is reached and is occupied by the ocean's largest carnivores.

One of the first points of interest drawn from studying the hierarchies is that the largest carnivores are completely dependent on biological diversity.

And the theoretical and experimental assumption taken away from studying diversity is that complex systems can be broken down into increasingly simpler systems. This means that the concept of understanding species and their interdependence is key to the study of biodiversity. And from this realization it can be inferred that a species is a population that consists of members that can interbreed freely under normal conditions. The caveat, under normal conditions is added to exclude consideration of hybrids created under unnatural conditions. This also means that each species is a closed gene pool and is a part of the reality that few if many hybrids occur naturally.

The biological species method of classification is not unambiguous and problem free. The inclusion of the concept of evolution creates exceptions and ambiguities that enter into the biological species method of classification. It is evolution that makes the same reproductively isolated species different from another group of the same species in another location (biogeography-the study of the distribution of biodiversity over space and time)

thus making geography a factor. Another difficulty arises when semispecies are considered because they include aspects of partial interbreeding that create hybrids under natural conditions and is a problem seen mostly among plants. A third difficulty for the biological species method of classification involves hermaphrodites where the idea of a closed gene pool holds no meaning. Continuing with the closed gene pool idea is the existence of chronospecies which simply relates to the different stages of evolution of the same species over the passage of time.

The great range of biological diversity found throughout the globe is a product of the divergence of species that express actualization of the biological species concept.

The Independent Variables of Reductionism and the Writing of History

In the simplest of terms; reductionism is a path to knowledge that relies on reducing the observable particular into the smallest units possible and then analyzing the various parts to determine a solution to the question at hand. You arrive at a solution by viewing the units as part of a causal chain and the researcher removes various units until the outcome of the particular changes and the structure of the unit chain is set up in a hierarchical form. The implication of reductionism is that independent variables exist and they can be identified through experimentation. Reductionism is only one means of conducting scientific research.

Another similar approach involves an ecological method whereby values are placed on simplified units and it delves into how the units interact when they are viewed from a perspective that considers how systems are formed. The ecological method is inclusive while the reductionism results in an exclusive perspective. Social science values a reductionist outlook because unlike the ecological approach, reductionism allows for the generalization of the past that sets up a method to forecast the future.

Reductionism allows for the creation of supposed rules and laws that contain a certain amount of certainty; enough to make predictions that seem to bear substantive results when dealing with human affairs. The problem of course, is that all of these rules and laws have very little substance backing them up, but in the case of social science this reality results in the inclusion of an equation added to counter the uncertainty.

A set of explanations have been set up by social scientists to claim static and universal applicability or collectivity to prop up reductionism. The reason for social scientists adherence to these seemingly incongruous propositions is that they avoid the problem of multiple causes, the passage of time, cultural and individual diversity, the proliferation of explanations, and finally, the real difficulty that would result from forecasting.

For historians, explanation is the primary focus that they concentrate on and consequently all generalizations are subordinated to explanation. For historians; the general is the unique. Historians generalize for specific reasons by practicing particular generalization. On the other hand, social scientists will embed narratives within generalizations. They take these actions because they are concerned with confirming or refuting hypothesis. Meanwhile, historians work with limited , rather than universal generalizations. Historians uncover and discuss tendencies, and or patterns but not laws as the social scientists do. Historians are trained to believe in contingent, not categorical causation. Historians will reject the idea that it is possible to identify independent variables. Causes always have antecedents. Another point to consider is that historians do not rely on modeling and instead concentrate on simulations; that is because simulations do not result in forecasts while models are purposely constructed to provide models. It is also a well established practice among historians to trace processes from a knowledge of outcomes through their use of narratives. Process tracing by social scientists converts historical narratives into analytical causal explanations, thus establishing a clear distinction with the approach of history.

We have established that historians generalize from their knowledge of particular outcomes; or as they are also commonly referred to as particular generalization. Historians understand processes from particular generalizations. Thus, for historians, generalization does not mean nor does it result in forecasting. The situation is quite different for social scientists. The important point that must be emphasized is that while there is a gulf that exists between history and social science; they are both scientific. Both seek to establish a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible area and connecting consensus to the real world.

An Exercise in the Historiographical Approach to Understanding the Writing of History

For those who are engaged in the writing of history a preliminary consideration makes it important to approach the task with an eye cast on the topic to be chosen and an awareness of how and where the soon published work will 'fit' within the body of published works. The second, historiographic issue bears with it a question of responsibility that some historians often overlook or pay only cursory attention to. Still others, accept a sense of historiographic 'placement' yet do so with an ancillary question of responsibility; how important is their responsibility and to what degree should the historiographic obligation be? Is it a trivial duty superseded by the topic and argumentation of the writer because it is for all intents a matter of the historian's interests. And if this course should be chosen and the historian becomes more of a writer in that s/he produces a work that fits squarely within the confines of accepted knowledge instead of representing a fresh or innovative text that extends the established doctrine into an area that few if any readers and practitioners of history have little or any understanding of? Is it just in the end a matter of meeting publication requirements for someones CV?

In other words, are the topical interests of the historian sacrosanct when viewed against the backdrop of history as a professional body that operates within a defined set of historiographical principles. The question of a community of historians having the authority to oversee topical distinctions thus taking those criteria away from individual historians working an assumption of what is simply interesting. A group think approach would point directly at an assumption of responsibility that could go so far as to point out an obligation raised by historiography that would make it incumbent upon authors to provide historiographic justification for their work.

It could also be argued, apart from the 'dictatorial powers' gained by historians as a community over an individual historian, that such a proposition would introduce a new and valuable sense of vigorous critiques and force new standards of fairness of the critical exchanges to be established which would reign in uncontrollable unprofessionalism and introduce a new civility in historiographical debates based on a welcomed critical sensibility.

The most obvious problems with such a 'standardized' approach would be to take history writing from the masses and further embed it within a specialized and separate body of individuals who would be answerable to no one but themselves that would create an elitist approach to the dissemination of history. What would become of public histories based on the interviews obtained from common individuals relating their own experiences as demonstrated by the fairly recent growth of oral histories and their attendant broadening of the scope of collected history from a bottom up perspective? Gone would be any possibility for history to be gained from a non-elitist perspective from the unprofessionally sanctioned and lowest members of society.

The professional historian, with considerations of historiography dominating his approach to history is professionally bound to consider establishing the ideal of establishing and maintaining historiographical balance, which takes into consideration the task of historiography viewed through the contributions of individual historical works to communicate important issues or questions. These issues or questions have endless potential. Such an extensive set of issues and questions necessitates a vigorous and ongoing historiographical interplay of possibilities to segment the issues and questions that historiography is intended to address by determining the proportion of what issues and questions would merit future attention. So in the end, it is criticism that determines which approaches to research and writing that address the needs of historiography.

7/25/09 President Barack Obama Weekly Radio Address

Weekly Address: Health Insurance Reform, Small Business and Your Questions
Posted by Jesse Lee

The President discusses a key factor that has been considered in the development of the health insurance reform proposals that are being considered: the impact of reform on small business.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a major report on the subject in conjunction with this address -- read the report as a web page, in pdf form, or through Slideshare.

read the transcript

During the address, the President asks that small business owners and employees give us their comments and questions on the report. What are your experiences with health care as somebody involved in small business, and what are your thoughts and questions on the new CEA report in light of those experiences?

Give us your response here through WhiteHouse.gov, or if you are a member of the social network LinkedIn, go take part in the discussion CEA Chair Christina Romer initiated there. Romer will be answering some of most penetrating responses in a live video discussion on Wednesday at 3:00 PM EDT.

Obama hawks health care overhaul, citing study

By Tom Raum
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama, citing a new White House study suggesting that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies, said Saturday the disparity is "unsustainable - it's unacceptable."

"And it's going to change when I sign health insurance reform into law," the president said in his weekly Internet and radio address.

A new study by the White House Council of Economic Advisers said small businesses pay up to 18 percent more to provide health insurance for their employees. As a result, fewer of them do so and the number has been shrinking further in these hard economic times.

It was released Saturday as part of the administration's aggressive campaign to build public and congressional support for Obama's health care efforts

Obama had called for Congress to vote on health legislation by the August recess, but when it became clear this week lawmakers would miss that deadline, he said he expects a bill by year-end.

Separately, congressional budget scorekeepers say one highly touted idea for saving money from Medicare to finance a health overhaul would only yield modest savings. In a setback for Obama, the Congressional Budget Office says that creating a powerful commission to recommend Medicare cuts would produce only about $2 billion in savings over 10 years. Cuts the commission agreed on would go into effect unless Congress overrides them.

On the issue regarding small businesses, the White House study said only 49 percent of businesses with three to nine workers and 78 percent of companies with 10 to 24 workers offered any type of health insurance to their employees in 2008. In contrast, 99 percent of companies with more than 200 workers offered health insurance.

Small companies pay proportionately more than big ones because they lack bargaining power and face higher administrative costs, the study found. It said that effectively levied a "heavy tax" on small businesses and their employees.

"Right now, they are getting crushed by skyrocketing health care costs," Obama said, citing the report.

Republicans dismissed the new report as more political propaganda by the administration as it struggles to win approval of its centerpiece domestic priority.

"There's a reason why almost every employer and small business group is opposed to the Democrats' government takeover of health care, and that's because it would impose new job-killing taxes during a recession," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "No report can change that."

And in the weekly GOP address, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, vice chair of the House Republican Conference, said, "America's small businesses will pay a high price." Citing a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, she said Democratic-written proposals would destroy a million more jobs than the economy has already lost.

She called the Democratic efforts "a prescription for disaster - one that will put Washington bureaucrats in charge of your family's personal medical decision."

A proposal in the House calls for employers with a total payroll above $250,000 to offer health insurance to their workers or face a surtax of as much as 8 percent. A Senate committee version would require all businesses, except those with fewer than 25 employees, to provide health coverage or pay a $750 fine per year for each worker.

Congress is weighing plans to bring small businesses into the program that would exempt them from such stiff penalties.

Among the provisions in draft legislation viewed favorably by the administration are: an "insurance exchange" allowing small businesses that meet certain criteria to be able to purchase health insurance from a multitude of plans; and tax credits to help small businesses pay for the coverage.

Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said such provisions would enable small businesses to be "more able to compete with the big boys" in selling their goods and services and "able to compete fairly on a level playing field with big businesses to attract the best workers,"

"The vast majority of small businesses, they'll see their burdens absolutely lessened by the expansion of coverage," Romer said in a conference call with reporters. "So they are absolutely going to be more competitive."

Obama decried what he said were tactics by opponents to block health care overhaul "as a way to inflict political damage on my administration. I'll leave it to them to explain that to the American people."

"Today, after a lot of hard work in Congress, we are closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will reduce costs, expand coverage and provide more choices for our families and businesses," Obama said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, invited small business owners from across the country to a round-table discussion with senior GOP officials on Tuesday to discuss the struggles facing small business. Among those invited, said Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring, are those with businesses in the congressional district of conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, who have raised questions about the cost of the health care efforts.

Upright Standing Hominids With Ape-Like Brains During the Miocene

Now that we have established that the hominids of some 7 million years ago living during the Miocene period (the entire Miocene era spanned 24 to 5 million years before the present, or mybp) had similar behavioral patterns found in contemporary chimpanzees, we can delve further into the great apes and hominids of that time in the past.

Anoiapithecus brevirostris, whose remains of a jaw and of a great ape's face are shown at the top of this post is a recently discovered collection of bones found from the Abocador de Can Mata site in Spain. A paper recently published in the journal PNAS under the title, “A unique Middle Miocene European hominoid and the origins of the great ape and human clade.” Points out that "this hominoid, aptly named Lluc or enlightenment in Latin, is that it has a very modern face… In other words it's got a reduced facial prognathism (having a protrusion of the jaws, bulging of the jaws). The specimen includes a fragmented cranium that with most of the face preserved and the associated mandible. While the muzzle of Lluc is so reduced that only find comparable values within the genus Homo, Lluc's got an array of primitive features, such as super thick dental enamel and teeth with bulbar cusps. The mandible is also very robust. All of which are characteristics of afropithecids — primitive hominoids from the African Middle Miocene.

The authors explain: "But other more derived features, like the forward positioning of the zygomatic bone and a bold mandibular torus along with a a reduction in the maxillary sinus, are shared only with the kenyapithecines. Kenyapithecines are a group of apes that ever dispersed outside the African continent and colonized the Mediterranean region, by about 15 million years ago, and are collectively grouped in the genera Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus.

They continue: "Ultimately, you can see how this specimen (IPS43000), Anoiapithecus brevirostris, has a combined a set of features that until now had never been found from the fossil record. The array of features allows us enables to identify two possibilities to be the ancestral form to our family (Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus). The authors take a leap of faith here arguing that when one takes into account that these two genera cannot be considered members of the family Hominidae yet, because they lack its basic diagnostic features, they find it obvious that the origin of our family is a phenomenon that took place on the Mediterranean region during the time span comprised between their arrival from Africa by about 15 Ma, and about 13 Ma, when we began to find in els Hostalets the first members of our family.

The authors say: "But other more derived features, like the forward positioning of the zygomatic bone and a bold mandibular torus along with a a reduction in the maxillary sinus, are shared only with the kenyapithecines. Kenyapithecines are a group of apes that ever dispersed outside the African continent and colonized the Mediterranean region, by about 15 million years ago, and are collectively grouped in the genera Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus.

Summing up their findings, the authors conclude: "Ultimately, you can see how this specimen (IPS43000), Anoiapithecus brevirostris, has a combined a set of features that until now had never been found from the fossil record. The array of features allows us enables to identify two possibilities to be the ancestral form to our family (Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus). The authors take a leap of faith here arguing that when one takes into account that these two genera cannot be considered members of the family Hominidae yet, because they lack its basic diagnostic features, they find it obvious that the origin of our family is a phenomenon that took place on the Mediterranean region during the time span comprised between their arrival from Africa by about 15 Ma, and about 13 Ma, when we began to find in els Hostalets the first members of our family."

It is classified as a great ape with many afropithecid and several kenyapithecine features that the European Guide To Science Journalism Training explains: "The morphological studies carried out on the fossil remains prove the presence of physical features which are typical of modern hominids (such as the nasal opening is very wide behind, a high position of the root of the zygomatic arch and a very deep palate). These are associated with primordial and derived features (such as a thick dental enamel, a morphology of globular dental cusps and a strong jaw) especially of those great apes from Middle Miocene of Africa named "Afropitecidi". An artist's reconstructive drawing of Anoiapithecus brevirostris is shown below.

The European Guide To Science Journalism Training continues: "Apart from these distinctive elements, there are other characteristics that have never reached the countries of the Mediterranean Europe. They are: the fore position of the zygomatic arch (formed by the (a bone extending forward from the side of the skull, over the opening of the ear) and the temporal process of the zygomatic (the side of the cheekbone), the two being united by an oblique suture; the tendon of the Temporalis passes medial to the arch to gain insertion into the coronoid process of the mandible), a very protruding mandible and a very reduced jawbone breast which are specific of the African Kenyapithecines (Kenyapitecus and Griphopithecus).

The European Guide To Science Journalism Training concludes: "It is possible to assume that our origins must be likely searched in the Mediterranean area and not in the African area as it has always been thought of. In truth, the researchers, responsible for the discovery, admit that hominids can be diversified in Eurasia, starting from the Kenyapithecines ancestors - of African origins - evolving later into Pongidae (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) and Homininae (Homo genre and African great apes)."

Above are the skeletal remains of "Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a Miocene hominoid from Spain ... What's special about it is that it appears to be the closest thing to a last common ancestor of all of the great apes. In an article Moyà-Solà S, Köhler M, Alba DM, Casanovas-Vilar I, Galindo J (2004) Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a New Middle Miocene Great Ape from Spain. Science 306(5700):1339-1344., the following abstract is provided:

"We describe a partial skeleton with facial cranium of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus gen. et sp. nov., a new Middle Miocene (12.5 to 13 million years ago) ape from Barranc de Can Vila 1 (Barcelona, Spain). It is the first known individual of this age that combines well-preserved cranial, dental, and postcranial material. The thorax, lumbar region, and wrist provide evidence of modern ape–like orthograde body design, and the facial morphology includes the basic derived great ape features. The new skeleton reveals that early great apes retained primitive monkeylike characters associated with a derived body structure that permits upright postures of the trunk. Pierolapithecus, hence, does not fit the theoretical model that predicts that all characters shared by extant great apes were present in their last common ancestor, but instead points to a large amount of homoplasy in ape evolution. The overall pattern suggests that Pierolapithecus is probably close to the last common ancestor of great apes and humans."

The distinguishing characteristic between the early hominids and the great apes was focused on two things: the reduction of canine teeth and the ability of upright posture while walking. And it seems that woodland habitats were closely associated with the hominid transition to upright locomotion. Being upright allowed the hominids to see above the tall grasses of the grasslands that surrounded the trees and the upright positioning of the hominid became most pronounced with the arrival of Homo erectus. A second thought behind the changeover to upright posture is that it exposed the hominid to less heat from the sun. In addition, a loss of body hair was taking place at the time of erectus because less hair allowed for the transference of sweat that was no longer trapped by excess body hair and thus allowed for more efficient cooling of erectus. So the habitat which allowed for the evolutionary transition of hominid was the area between the grasslands and forests and certainly brought about a change in diet since there were more carcasses of animals strewn about the grasslands because that was the killing territory of the big cats. Additionally, the shrinking of the hominid canines was important because the apes kept theirs for fighting amongst themselves while the hominids, who often subsisted on vegetative materials such as tbers and bulbs had a greater need for more compact canine teeth. But remained pretty much constant throughout the period was the maintenance of brain sie as brains in hominids did not increase in size for several million years.

In many ways the Homo lineage was a spin-off of the lineages of the great bipedal woodland apes who evolved into larger sized creatures who were vegetarians and eventually died out after about of a million years as they reached an evolutionary deadend. Meanwhile the omni-vore characteristics of Homo allowed for continued growth. And that is where the next installment will pick up.

Is History Dependent on Scientific Methodology Or Are Sciences Historically Directed?

When we last discussed the historian's craft to borrow the title phrase made famous by Marc Bloch we delved into the relationship between time and space and we drew the comparison they have to the landscapes produced by cartographers. But unlike the cartographer, the historian does not gaze upon a vista of terrain that he can put down onto paper. The historian, instead, must deal most often with the residues left from the past. These residues of the past give a structure that exists through time and give the historian the ability to draw inferences from what has survived to the present.

The most obvious distinction between history and science comes with the very practice of science: The workings of the scientific method are such as to achieve consensus by many scientists testing the resultant facts brought by scientific inquiry over time. Science gains its particular distinction from other modes of human inquiry because science is structured in such a way that it must assemble reproducible results. When the matter of human activities over time are studied; science and its methodology prove less capable of providing consensual knowledge; instead, science can only serve as a model for historians in search of a method that would bring continuity to their practice because the sciences, in particular the sciences were becoming more methodologically historical.

With the discovery of 'deep time' in geology and evolution of organisms in biology from the late 18th century to the mid 19th century, the immutably static and timeless nature of science suddenly took on a significance that could actually be measured by aspects of change and development. By the time quantum mechanics were being discussed in the early 20th century, the importance of relativity of measurement had been added to the way in which science viewed the universe. The importance of these changes to the way science developed as a means of inquiry meant that scientists had constituted science as a means of deriving structures from processes: The end result of these developments was to make science a form of historical inquiry.

Much like scientists, historians engage in thought experiments and it is what makes the past inseparable from the present inhabited by the historian. And the historian must employ a delicately constructed yet powerful imagination to make the narrative about the past sufficiently prescient to the reader. History can only be truly constructed from sources that firmly place it within the milieu of the period being studied; it is certainly not an artistic representation because of this dependence on source materials. So when we question whether history is a science we must include in our inquiry what separates 'actual replicability' of precise means and methodologies from 'virtual replicability' associated with thought experiments.

Metaphorically, the cartographic association to the elements of time and space analyzed by history is important to reintroduce here. Maps are dependent on the degree of believability that they can bring to their human observers and that is achieved through a process the begins with the mapmakers assimilation of a real landscape or territory through a process of representation that results in the actual persuadability of the map.

The correlation to historical methodology takes a similar path in that the historian will begin the recounting of the past by using archival sources that are interpreted through the historian's particular perspective is employed and readies the history to be presented for the judgement of a human audience which will employ a collective as well as individualized view of the historian's completed work.

Missing from the work of historians distinctive from that of social scientists is the absence of 'scientifically-based' equations, graphs, matrices, and the other social science-based modes of proving their inquiries. The distinction between the way history is done and social science is done brings to the forefront of our discussion the question of whether there is such a thing as an independent variable. Historians do not do history with their attention focused on independent and dependent variables. Historians deal with the interdependency of variables by searching for and connecting them through their passage through time and thus there is no need to create this bifurcation of interdependency into independent and dependent variables. The thought that all variables are dependent on all other variables becomes key in understanding the specific difference between how history and the social sciences operate and is akin to the difference between how a reductionist and ecological view of reality differ and will be the focus of a future discussion.

The British Conservative Legacy and the Current American Con Job

The Cons of the present day offer a far different version of conservatism than the English progenitor of conservatism, Edmund Burke. Conservatism today is all about ideology; in fact observers of the American political scene often hear arguments among conservatives about which one or ones are the most ideologically "pure." Burke based his belief in the superiority of conservatism on his conviction that it rejected ideology, thus making Burke the originator of the first modern "conservative" argument which appeared during his tenure in British politics from the 1760s to the 1790s. Burke's topic of focus was the French Revolution which spawned the first political movements of the left; liberalism, socialism, and communism. Burke's response to the political developments on the left was to propose conservatism as a counterweight to theories that he and his fellow countrymen saw as dangerous developments in the course of political thought and practice. In his book Reflections on the Revolution in France Burke based conservatism on tradition and actual experience which he proposed provided the only legitimate means to produce practical political systems of governance. Since the French proposed to base their politics on abstract ideas such as liberty, equality, fraternity the result for the French could only lead to chaos and disaster. Burke's theory demonstrated a long period of historical development that gave rise to institutions that bore centuries worth of experience. For Burke, this orderly process gave the British people a constitutional system ruled by an elected Parliament and divinely established monarchy that harmoniously ruled together. Burke, distrusted the the French Revolution's chaotic "innovation" of governance and his jeremiad was to convince his fellow countrymen and French sympathizers that they could not trust such an unnatural system of government as proposed by the French.

It was Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France who said: "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." The duty of the politician was to ensure equilibrium between "[t]he two principles of conservation and correction." It was the duty of government, in Burke's view, to oversee a continual process of compromise; "sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil."

Our current discussion of conservatism in America begins at the conclusion of the Second World War. It was during that period that a significant bifurcation occurred in American conservative thought. There were those American conservatives who adhered to Burke's ideal ( for identification purposes this group will be referred to as the Burkeans) that civil society must be replenished by its reactions to changing conditions in society. The opposite view held (by a group that shall be herein referred to as the traditionalists) that America's only hope for survival was in its ability to eradicate all vestiges of the welfare state from the operations of American government. It is obvious that it has been the cons who have pledged to turn back the hands of time to return to an idyllic paradise where state welfare did not exist. They wanted to overturn New Deal and reinstate the laissez-faire Republicanism of the 1920s. And the means that the traditionalists chose to undertake their cleansing of welfare from the practices of American government was through the use of the politicization of civil warfare.

The traditionalists were populated by a large group of former Marxists who bypassed the Marxist dialectic and replaced it with the idea that politics consisted of no more than an absolutist struggle between good and evil. The traditionalists represented all that was good while evil was represented by social programs; socialized medicine; big labor; activist Supreme Court justices, the media elite; tenured college and university radicals; experts in and out of government who held contrarian views to traditionalist dogma.

As a nation, America has just emerged from a period of political history that lasted for more than a quarter of a century that began with the Reagan presidency continued with the Republican Revolution that was lead by Newt Gingrich and secured the House for a Republican majority. It was the heyday of the cons attempts to kill the New Deal and replace it with free market capitalism. Their attempts for the most part ended in miserable failures but they were able to inflict considerable damage on the structure and legal foundations of the American system of government. A monumental task stands before us as Obama and the Democrats attempt to undo the rot that the Republicans have allowed to enter into America. It's a task that will take a considerable amount of effort and time to rectify.

All the Cons Soldiers Couldn't Save the Republican Revolution From Itself

Look at the pretty red map GOPers; because you will never see a red map like this again!

And in all likelihood America has witnessed the end of self-righteous and full of piety leaders of the Conservative movement such as Newt Gingrich holding positions of power and leadership in the United States government.

And the days when creatures who used the basest approaches to securing and maintaining power through secrecy and subterfuge which took the nation to the brink of forever losing it's constitutional underpinnings to the forces of authoritarianism have been denied their ends.

And the non-elected leaders of the all dominant conservative movement's propaganda wings have had the high decibel levels of their voices diminished by their inability to exhibit any sense whatsoever of public decency and decorum in their public rantings.

But we must be forever vigilant because the Republicans have been thought to have been finished as a party before and they have returned to power much faster than expected.

So Democrats and Independents out there beware of the power that lurks in the shadows; always prepared to assume the reigns of power and push our nation back into the clutches of rampant and uncontrolled money changers and their allegiance to authoritarian beliefs; its return could be closer than one thinks!

A Video Tribute to the Accomplishment of Apollo 11 Landing Two Men on the Moon and Television News Journalist Walter Cronkite's Commentary

/

7/18/09 President Barack Obama Weekly Radio Address

Weekly Address: Health Care Reform Cannot Wait
Posted by Jesse Lee
The White House released the following statement: "The President calls on Congress to seize this opportunity – one that may not come again for decades – and finally pass health care reform: "It's about every family unable to keep up with soaring out of pocket costs and premiums rising three times faster than wages. Every worker afraid of losing health insurance if they lose their job, or change jobs. Everyone who's worried that they may not be able to get insurance or change insurance if someone in their family has a pre-existing condition..."

read the transcript

The Associated Press reports: "President Barack Obama told the nation Saturday that his health care overhaul is financially sound and Congress should not squander the chance to make meaningful change. Republicans didn't relent in their criticism of his plan as a costly burden unwisely on a fast track.

"For a sixth straight day, Obama sought to keep the focus on his chief domestic priority in the face of mounting resistance on Capitol Hill, including conservative Democrats. White House officials are worried they face a tougher road to passage than anticipated.

''This is what the debate in Congress is all about: whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under and more Americans lose their coverage,'' Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. ''Or whether we'll seize this opportunity -- one we might not have again for generations -- and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009.''

Through the week, Obama tried to project confidence about his approach to cover millions of uninsured people. During a private meeting with Jewish leaders on Monday, he joked that the only thing more difficult than passing health care legislation might be negotiating Mideast peace.

"At a late scheduled White House appearance Friday, he appealed to lawmakers not to ''lose heart'' and asked for deeper cost cuts to calm concern over the huge expense.

"Republicans were not swayed.

''The president and some Democrats insist we must rush this plan through,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. ''Why? Because the more Americans know about it, the more they oppose it. Something this important needs to be done right, rather than done quickly.''

"Two House committees on Friday approved their parts of the bill over Republican objections. That left one more to act. But Democrats facing tough re-election bids or representing conservative districts demanded additional measures to hold down costs.

"Given the complexities, as well as fresh calls for delay in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., opened the door to pushing off a vote beyond the early August timeline that she and Obama laid out weeks ago. Pelosi long has said the House would vote before lawmakers leave on vacation at the end of July. Now she hedged for the first time.

''We have to see what the Senate will do,'' she said, before suggesting that changing the bill to produce more savings might require additional time.

"It will take a lot to convince Republicans, nearly united in opposing the Democrats' plan.

''It would empower Washington -- not doctors and patients -- to make health care decisions and would impose a new tax on working families during a recession,'' Kyl said in the GOP's weekly address. ''They propose to pay for this new Washington-run health care system by dramatically raising taxes on small business owners.''

"Kyl, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, said his party's proposed alternatives should be considered.

''These changes do not require government takeover of the health care system, or massive new spending, job-killing taxes or rationing of care,'' he said, seeking to string together the biggest fears of Obama's plan to challenge the popular president.

"Obama rejected the criticism out of hand.

''Now, we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what,'' Obama said. ''We know the same special interests and their agents in Congress will make the same old arguments and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs.''

"Obama also repeated his pledge that his plan would not add to the federal deficit or deny patients' choices.

''Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story,'' he said.

"That's a pledge, however, beyond Obama's control. His plan leaves companies free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like or to drop insurance altogether."

The Right's Denial of Scientific Evidence Concerning Global Climate Change Is Profoundly Mistaken

The latest carper on the right to go nuclear over well established scientific data that points out the interrelationship between advancing global climate change and human activities is an individual who calls himself in the most dubious of terms "a scientist by trade" and a very obscure one at that named James Lewis. As a professional bomb thrower for the right wing, Lewis has his uninformed rants published in one of the most un-respected internet sites out there that goes by the name: Pajamas Media.

It has come to Lewis' attention that the New York Times is a leftist publication that has had to bow to common sense and include more right wing thought within it's pages. Lewis cites the recent addition of John Tierney, a well known libertarian. Besides attending Yale as an undergraduate, Tierney's claim to fame as a writer on scientific topics was established by his "collaboration with novelist Christopher Buckley, Tierney co-wrote the comic novel, God Is My Broker, in parody of financial and spiritual self-help books. He also wrote The Best-Case Scenario Handbook, a parody of the popular Worst-Case Scenario Handbook series." Quite an accomplishment indeed.

But lets get back to Lewis and his monumental recent crackpot discovery that serpentines its convoluted path through every right wing bogey man: "Most scientists are liberals, and like so many on the Left they think that a little lying to the public can't be all bad. They are utterly wrong. When science becomes an official lie it starts to decay; you don't know whom to believe any more. And if you can't believe published data, real science becomes impossible. I date the decay of public science to the AIDS fiasco twenty years ago, when the public health establishment failed to warn gay men that yes, AIDS is a gay disease and is communicated most often by anal intercourse.

"The establishment lied and lied and lied," Lewis claims, and more and more young men died, and the disease spread and spread. Now it's in Africa, where anal intercourse is commonly used by female prostitutes as cheap birth control. That is why African AIDS has a somewhat different epidemiology. But it all goes back to a regime of lies by scientists and public health doctors. The lesson is: when science lies, people die.

"British medical science lost credibility after the mad-cow scare," explains Lewis, "another blown-up fraud, like global warming, based on math models that never made any empirical sense. I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming. They are still trying to push it half-heartedly, but they really know the jig is up.

"That's why I believe the New York Times felt compelled to hire John Tierney," claims Lewis. Tierney is giving them cover by writing about global warming as an hypothesis, not a Marx-given truth. If the global warming fraud is finally breaking down, the Times wants to say it knew it all along. If, by some miracle, the politicians manage to keep squeezing more billions of dollars out "to stop the rise of the oceans," as Obama yelled out in his victory speech, the Times will take credit for saving the planet. They want to have it both ways.

According to Lewis: "The sciences are now like Russia after Glastnost: Everybody can see a massive disaster ahead, but nobody wants to say it out loud. We are in that moment of shocked silence just before the bare-naked emperor becomes a target of universal laughter and ridicule. Well, this emperor is buck naked, just like the fairy tale.

"As" Lewis has "talked with scientific colleagues in private, they are quietly nodding, yes, yes, of course it's all BS. Pure model-driven fantasy. Really lousy, deceptive, and fraudulent selection of the data. A gigantic slap in the face for NASA. A thousand greedy grant swingers all over the world. The media chasing scare stories, and fake "scientists" chasing the media. They fed each other lie after lie after lie. It was a very profitable partnership."

According to Lewis: "What's so mind-boggling is that we live in a period of extraordinary real science. We are in the midst of a biotech revolution, a materials science revolution, a genetics revolution, a brain science revolution, a near-miraculous nano-level physics revolution – just astonishing stuff." Lewis urges the public to "be celebrating good science.

Lewis then proceeds to go after the right's most hated punching bags: "Instead, the media are full of phony superstitions and the worst kind of pseudo-science. If this is the best of times, it is also the worst of times — with a fetid plague of fraud whipped up by the likes of Al Gore, who helped to put fanatics like James Hansen into power. Hansen is not a scientist. He is a zealot who uses math models to push his personal crusade.

Now Lewis dazzles his readership with his ponderous scientific knowledge which he is only too happy to fill column space with: "Any half-decent scientist can whip up a computer model to predict anything you want. Disasters are easy to build into a model, because all you need is a positive feedback loop. CO2 is supposed to reflect heat back to earth, which is supposed to increase other greenhouse gases, and if you fiddle long enough, yes, you can predict the world is coming to an end. The same kind of model will predict that your body will explode in a big puff of steam tomorrow. Or that your brain will go into a epileptic fit. Models that run out of control are a lot easier to conjure up than models that predict stability in a hypercomplex, nonlinear climate system. What's really hard to explain about the climate is those long, long periods of stability.

"As Professor Fred Singer and others have shown," says Lewis, "none of the climate models can "retrodict" the solid data of the past. How could any decent scientist therefore claim to predict global temps in the distant future? Global warming was always a flaming fraud, and at some level a lot of scientists knew it. They just kept their heads down — to their everlasting shame.

"Everybody outside the climate game just assumed the frauds must be telling the truth," claims Lewis. All that modeling seemed to be somebody's specialty, and you don't arrogantly invade somebody's specialty, do you? So the mounting fraud went unpunished for years and years, while politicians like Al Gore made sure the money went to feed the fraud," enough already with the character assassination of Al Gore!

Finally Lewis gets to the truth of the matter in his version of muckraking journalism: "Here's a bit of truth. Scientists love money. It's only corporate money that smells bad to them. Government money smells like fresh-mown grass, green and lush. Even if they knew the whole game was a set-up, professors and college presidents went right along with it. Do you have any idea how much pressure college faculty are under to bring in grant money? The big universities get a big chunk of their budgets from "overhead expenses" — payoffs from Washington. Even undergraduate teaching is subsidized by science grants. So are grad students and faculty. In the end, professors don't get tenure without bringing in a steady supply of money, and after tenure, the pressure only gets worse.

"My question is," Lewis asks, "what shall we do with the science frauds once everybody gets it? The rules are very clear. Science organizations and universities have strict regulations against fraud. Proven liars are fired, and if they have stolen money by deception, they should be held legally responsible to pay it back or go to jail.

"Bernie Madoff, Lewis crows, "is a small operator compared to James Hansen. Madoff just got 150 years. Hansen is still ranting against the plain evidence.

"There are honest mistakes in science." Lewis must believe that those are the only kind the right should be held accountable for, as he continues, "On the frontiers of science everything looks vague and debatable for a while. But you don't drop your standards so low that any con artist can get away with fraud. That's what's happened in climate modeling. It is therefore crucial to re-establish the credibility of science. That means firing the guilty, and if necessary, prosecuting them.

"We'll know that the sciences are on the road to health again when the biggest crooks are exposed and fired," Lewis chortles. Don't expect it soon. But honest scientists should speak out, as many of them are beginning to do. Climate modeling has become a rubble-strewn disaster area, and historically, tainted fields are simply choked off and allowed to lie fallow for a generation or so before the first green shoots can grow again. Choke off the money, and the climate game will wither. All that accumulated expertise can be put to do something useful — like predicting the stock market or trying to beat the house in Vegas.

"Good science is always humbling," Lewis postulates. "If you don't start out humble, the data will make sure you end up that way. It's only when you drift into self-serving fraud that the data always support your fixed and preconceived beliefs. Albert Einstein was humbled by quantum mechanics. Well, NASA has been humbled by its wild and irresponsible venture into divine prophecy.

In the end, Lewis believes: "It is high time for honest scientists to speak out."