Researchers: Neanderthals were not inferior to modern humans

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: peter vlar
Comparing an article to peer reviewed data seems like a prettttyyyy big stretch to me but to each their own.

Peer reviewed sources do not have a single OUNCE of credibility.

The peer review process is nothing more than a tool used to promote rampant fraud.

CircleOfDust
Here's some good info on your Religion of today called Science. From Michael Chrichton's book Next.

If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn‘t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, This paper was peer-reviewed,‘ or ;This paper was not peer-reviewed,‘ as if that meant something. It doesn‘t.

A quote from a fictional character in a fictional novel.

That's an extremely lazy way to make your argument.

I'm impressed, being quite lazy myself.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Regarding peer-reviews, more often than not, they’re a racket to keep new ideas out of circulation. No one has a bigger stake in the existing knowledge than tenured professors, and when new evidence comes forward that discredits the old opinions, the establishment fights hard against it. kenpruitt666.wordpress.com...

A quote from an article entitled "RationalWiki is a Front for Socialist Indoctrination" at a blog.

Now that's a "reliable source." Obviously, a butt-hurt rant on a blog MUST be far more reliable that any peer-review publication!

originally posted by: Murgatroid

"...peer review is nothing more than a political arrangement for research workers, like a guild or union. It's goal is to keep control over their field, suppress the competition, and assure continued cash flow. It has nothing to do with science, the systematic search for truth, which must not be tainted by financial motives or tempted by personal gain." Exposing the Peer Review Process

This article is about profit-based research paid for by drug companies.

Any statistics concerning how much money is to be made by falsifying information concerning the various ancient and extinct species of humans?

Your argument boils down to "I hate peer review!" Most sources that hold this opinion are essays or blogs written by people who have either had their idiotic ideas demolished through rational thinking or (in extremely rare cases) people whose work has been shown to be baseless through the peer review process.

Your dislike of the peer review process is inconsequential. You rant against it with no alternative in mind. In this way, you are similar to the AGW fanatics, ranting about how something MUST be done immediately, without even pausing to think of what that "something" should be, or whether any solution even exists.

If your perspwective were to be taken seriously, without peer review people would still be undergoing "orgone energy" treatments and using bloodletting to "cure" almost every ill.

In the meantime, we would all take for granted that Nibiru was on its way.

Harte

Just to add a thought to the fire. About sixties year ago, a skull was found in Greece. The Greek government is apparently attempting to prevent further study of the cave, it was found in. The skull has "disappeared." Now, the fuel. The skull appears to have a combination of Neanderthal and Modern human features, but no African features; i.e. it may be evidence that European humans evolved in Europe, not from the mixing Neanderthal and "out of Africa" waves of humans. See the following, a human skull about 7 to 8 hundred thousand (700,000 to 800,000) years old in Europe.

www.ancient-origins.net...

originally posted by: Brandyjack
The skull appears to have a combination of Neanderthal and Modern human features, but no African features; i.e. it may be evidence that European humans evolved in Europe, not from the mixing Neanderthal and "out of Africa" waves of humans.

Nice propaganda. Fossils or it didn't happen!

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Brandyjack
The skull appears to have a combination of Neanderthal and Modern human features, but no African features; i.e. it may be evidence that European humans evolved in Europe, not from the mixing Neanderthal and "out of Africa" waves of humans.

Nice propaganda. Fossils or it didn't happen!

He's paraphrasing an old article about a few real Greek fossils in which the author, through either ignorance or subterfuge, is hung up on calling members of the Genus Homo "humans."

The article is mixed up, since the skull has never been classified as Sapiens and it is Homo Sapiens that is being hypothesized about in the "Out of Africa" hypothesis.

Likely to be sheer claptrap due to ignorance, in other words.

Possibly some sort of propaganda (at worst) as you say.

Harte