A skull has been found which is the missing link between Homo Erectus and modern man. Creationists recant. Science and Rationality triumph. Dawn of a new Age of Enlightenment.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1105AP_Ethiopia_Ancient_Skull.html

how do they know its not just another monkey.

"near-complete skull" sounds like our president.

That's why it is called Science,Micro. You take s sample, and work towards an identification based on a specific process. You don't just guess, or believe in it.

I think we should slap a cowboy hat on it and elect it president in '08.


Oh wait we just did that....

Good one KK!

Like the science that told us the world was flat or you should not remove that protective layer of filth by taking a bath. How about the science that told us the stars are actually holes in a blanket covering the earth.

Dont you think that without actually seeing a live specimen it takes a certain amount of faith to believe this thing was human and not just another monkey. Science is not written in stone. It changes with the times.

Speaking of knuckle draggers not wanting to know the truth. Your own precious democrats are the ones who stopped the study of the kenniwick man. Bush tried to reopen the case so scientist could study the remains. I guess closed mindedness goes both ways huh?

God forbid it might turn out that The so Called natives were not the first ones here. That would take the money right out of the Democrats pockets.

Science is just as political as everything else these days.

Micro, there is a difference between science and superstition. What everyone else is talking about is science

And NO, you don't need to see a living specimen to be certain. Unless you are not a trained scientist.

Micro,

Just to be clear, science is not political. Science is a systematic process to obtain reliable information about things. Some people with political interests try to subvert science to a political agenda, but science has no agenda other than obtaining reliable information.

It wasn't science that said the world was flat; it was superstitious people. Probably the same about not taking bathes and the blanket covering the earth. You will improve your credibility by not attributing things to science that were not developed scientifically. However, your credibility in circles governed by fundy or superstitious beliefs will suffer.

Some of us science types are a bit sensitive about the mischaracterization of science.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Scientists admit fallibility, while religions' word is law.

That's how you know someone's not yanking your chain. They admit to maybe being mistaken time to time.

Ok let me put it this way. Science by itself may not be political. But politics do play a role. Especially in the case of are own WDFW. Some biologist I worked with lost there jobs because of politics. Mainly because of one study which today I still cannot get my hands on. It was a study that originally proved warmwater fish in washington state were not as bad as this department has hollered for so many years. You may have heard something about it. Scott bonar basically stole it and moved to Arizona I contacted him At arizona state university and he said he would send a copy to me and he said he took it because it was unfinished which was B.S. politics due play a role in was science is let out to the public and also dictates which scientist keep there jobs. He tried to tell me that the study didnt look good for bass which after being on the study for three years I and the other bios new was total B.S . He changed it. Due to politics. The science our WDFW uses is bogus until they can prove to me they have changed.

micro,

I think your confucing "science" for "scientists". Scientists are influinced my a myriad different outside forces.....politics, religion, societal pressures....but science isn't. There's no such thing as junk science, only junk scientists.

I agree Dan,
Or scientist that want to keep there jobs.

I believe we have a right, as taxpayers and sportsmen, to expect WDFW to manage resources using up to date best practices based on up to date science. Does WDFW have a management structure which makes sure that resource management is based on the best science available?

Micro,

Of course politics plays a role, as well it should. As I stated, science is a process to acquire reliable information. Science seldom, if ever, dictates how to use that information.

Natural resource management, including fisheries, is a system of making recommendations and decisions based on biological, social, and economic factors. In most cases, it would be impossible to make a management decision based on biological factors alone. That's because it depends on what the management goals and objectives are. In this state and most others, the management objectives include satisfying citizen constituents (who elect the legislature, making the laws and regulations, creating WDFW and hiring directors and biologists, etc. so they can go fishing), which includes social factors, and the economic considerations of commericial, and increasingly, recreational fishing. The economic and social interests are your politics.

You cannot take politics out of fishery management. In order to take any management action, the manager has to have management goals. Science, through biological information, will indicate something like spawning escapement goals and habitat conservation. In order to take actions that include commercial or recreational fishing, you have to consider politics - the social and economic factors that will shape what kind of management regulations get adopted, that if well synthesized, satisfy, or try to satisfy, the various biological, social, and economic needs and interests.

In your example, warmwater fish species are neither good nor bad, scientifically speaking. They simply are just "there" now, having been introduced around 100 years ago. The management issues relate to the interactions of exotic species with native species and the management objectives of WDFW, which are intended to reflect the wishes of the state's citizens, and comply with any applicable laws.

My point was to ask you not to blame science for a decision making structure that also includes social and economic factors.

SS,

WDFW has access to and uses up to date science. However, WDFW also must comply with laws, regulations, and policies that may or may not jive with that science. It's a schitzoid world, to be sure.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

(near-complete skull" sounds like our president)

Ok salmo, I dont blame science. I blame politics, and people who call themselves scientist but really by your definition are not scientist because they cave in to politcal pressure and skew the facts which is totally unscientific.

Micro,

It looks like we've arrived. Skewing or bending the information developed by science is indeed totally unscientific. If the purpose of science is to acquire reliable information, bending that information to fit a social or economic agenda means the information is no longer reliable, and therefore not scientific.

Generally, what I see isn't scientists caving to political pressure. It's policy people who take the scientific information and then modify it (making it unreliable and unscientific) so that it will be more consistent with a particular social or economic position.

Always happy to help makes things clearer. You can thank me by taking me along on one of your king outings next August.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I heard something that made me smile the other day. A man far more educated on the subject of science vs religion than myself said, "To portray creation as the genisis of mankind in lue of what we know today is demeaning to the human intelect." I just happen to agree with him.