tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post8893599660906973975..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Ten scratches on two bone fragments distinguish vegetarians from carnivoresAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-26638967690066531392010-08-19T16:41:57.398-04:002010-08-19T16:41:57.398-04:00@occamseraser...*like*@occamseraser...*like*Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-65846110908461781782010-08-19T15:59:23.183-04:002010-08-19T15:59:23.183-04:00We try very hard to make MT to be thoughtful and h...We try very hard to make MT to be thoughtful and hopefully informative, if we have anything to say that others may not, given their particular circumstances and so on.<br /><br />And, naturally, the very seriously substantial nature of the comments we get is extremely rewarding to us, and of course we gain selfishly by learning a lot from them.<br /><br />The blogosphere can often just be a rant-o-sphere, which we try to avoid.<br /><br />So thanks for your many contributions!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-59964625224717482792010-08-19T15:39:34.090-04:002010-08-19T15:39:34.090-04:00Have I mentioned how much I value the content of &...Have I mentioned how much I value the content of "the mermaid's tale"? I learn something every new post, even those I quibble with, and I apologize if I sometimes insert myself into the middle of what were intended as mostly personal exchanges. <br /><br />I'm usually happy to see bioanthro and evobio of almost any variety featured in the commercial science news (and I love the immediate gratification of blogs), but I am also well aware of the nearly universal hyperbole and almost inevitable errors that go with popularizing and (over)simplifying a scientific finding. The one part of the scibiz that bothers me the most is the apparent need to amplify and sometimes even manufacture controversy (in the name of "balanced reporting", of course). I know for a fact that some science writers troll professional waters for negative commentary to spice up their "reports". Debate is almost always healthy, but the temptation (and opportunity) to say something provocative is sometimes just too great to resist. <br /><br />To answer Holly's earlier question, I think the extra attention paleoanthro (whether fossils or genes) receives is mostly a good thing. Facts will be checked. Interpretations will be challenged and modified. Mistakes will be discovered and corrected. New methods will be developed or adapted. And new fossils/sequences will be found that start the cycle all over again.occamserasernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-38338934166473026662010-08-19T14:34:33.677-04:002010-08-19T14:34:33.677-04:00Perhaps part of the confusion is that Ken and I ar...Perhaps part of the confusion is that Ken and I are having a playful conversation/debate publicly and we should be having it privately.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-12038517989259020672010-08-19T14:33:18.132-04:002010-08-19T14:33:18.132-04:00My tongue in cheekness and playfulness doesn't...My tongue in cheekness and playfulness doesn't come across as well as I'd like here (re: my ashamed comments above).Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-23578068807237474182010-08-19T14:33:02.310-04:002010-08-19T14:33:02.310-04:00Had Nature chosen the cover as they did, but the h...Had Nature chosen the cover as they did, but the headline was <br /><br />'Early evidence suggesting human tool use?'<br /><br />I would have no reason to complain. I know from direct and nearly-direct experience the degree to which these journals (and I include Science) go for, or are almost restricting themselves to, things they can exaggerate.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-68139625640656143872010-08-19T14:31:24.053-04:002010-08-19T14:31:24.053-04:00@Ken. Ideally the evidence speaks for itself and n...@Ken. Ideally the evidence speaks for itself and no one has to judge anything ;).Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-13919663929019101142010-08-19T14:29:50.483-04:002010-08-19T14:29:50.483-04:00For the record, I am not upset about the cover of ...For the record, I am not upset about the cover of Nature. <br /><br />And as I mentioned above, yes they do cite the croc paper. That's not the only strange criticism out there either. Asking people to "see for themselves" photographic sims or diffs between McPherron's pics and Njau and Blumenschine is Mickey Mouse. No taphonomist would look at only photos and make conclusions. <br /><br />And, yes, the SOM is a great read full of evaluation of criteria of alternative explanations. I do wish it was laid out more straightforwardly. Checking things off as you go, but then again, that's from a nonexpert who needs handholding through cutmark stuff. <br /><br />In addition, I think that those parts, the testing of hypotheses, should be included in the full article (since they contain the actual scientific labor)!! To me, that's the meat and to Nature it's Supplemental.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-25632477905615053532010-08-19T14:26:49.645-04:002010-08-19T14:26:49.645-04:00Well, Occam, your experience is reassuring. I rea...Well, Occam, your experience is reassuring. I read and subscribe, and have had a couple of things in there. But I won't back off complaining about the popularization of the leading journals, the temptation of authors to minimize caveats (they could, for example, have said <br />"listen, this is interesting but could be controversial. It's early evidence for a kind of tool use by hominins, but it's not the first use and could be interpreted in other ways. So don't play it up in the media."<br /><br />Or, a responsible journal would not feel they have to sensationalize every finding. To me, and I realize this is just my view, we're in a crying-wolf era. Eventually science journals will return to a more sober, even boring, style that lets readers judge things without having to filter through hyperbole, whether by authors or the media.<br /><br />Again, I certainly won't quibble with your experience or judgment!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-28843718923663723622010-08-19T14:12:15.568-04:002010-08-19T14:12:15.568-04:00Ken --
Read the SOM. They were plenty circumspect ...Ken --<br />Read the SOM. They were plenty circumspect wrt alternative explanations. <br /><br />my bad -- erratum:<br />Marean's remarks were from NPR, not Nature:<br />"Curtis Marean (Marean) wrote:<br />DeGusta misrepresents the content of the paper when he states above that “And regardless, Dr. Alemseged and his colleague, they don't actually discuss the possibility of crocodile damage at all in their text. So to me that's a major oversight." On page 850 first paragraph in the main text of the published paper in Nature the authors state: “Finally, we used well known and described morphological criteria9,18,19,22–27 to distinguish between cut marks, percussion marks and tooth marks." Reference 22 is the Njau and Blumenschine paper in Journal of Human Evolution that describes crocodile tooth marks. Unfortunately errors such as this arise when scientists rush to the media to debunk claims by colleagues – perhaps that is what DeGusta may call “a major oversight".<br /><br />The ASU press release does get a little breathless at points:<br />http://asunews.asu.edu/20100811_bones<br /><br />WRT Nature, I've had mostly good experiences there, as an author and as a frequent reviewer. I usually get past the covers ;)occamserasernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-1511027768686179452010-08-19T13:48:52.291-04:002010-08-19T13:48:52.291-04:00We certainly differ about Nature. I don't thi...We certainly differ about Nature. I don't think anything I've said criticizes the authors. Nor, I think, did Holly do that. We did not raise the kinds (and level) of criticism that has been raised.<br /><br />As with other Nature covers we've criticized, it is the editors not the authors who are responsible, but they do set the nature and tone of the papers they publish.<br /><br />Also, I think a few comments about this on our blog have asked why the paper wasn't more circumspect about findings and other possible interpretations. I can't judge that myself, obviously, but it has become a problem.<br /><br />Perhaps, however, we simply differ on how things should be done to advance data, express opinions responsibly, discussion alternatives or do further testing, and, yes, shake the tree when it needs to be shaken (but not before that).Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-20450931608642025982010-08-19T13:35:24.088-04:002010-08-19T13:35:24.088-04:00If you carefully read the detailed supplementary o...If you carefully read the detailed supplementary online info, I'm not sure what the beef is here. The scoring methods (with multiple independent "scorers") are clearly explained, other taphonomic agents are considered but rejected (Olduvai crocs included). Marean has a useful comment on the Nature blog in this regard. The Nature cover quip re: "first cuts" presumably wasn't made by the authors, and how anyone could misconstrue that phrase as remotely "creationist" is beyond me. What part of the paper itself -- not comments in the media or words on the cover -- is sensationalist? I don't think you're being fair to the authors. And Nature should be "ashamed" if future research overturns the conclusions? Huh? I thought that was the way science was supposed to work -- new data, different (sometimes improved) inferences. <br /><br />Are the authors to be condemned for working in an area of science that folks, professional and nonpros alike, find interesting and exciting? Their paper was published merely to promote the authors' fame? They're somehow "selling" their science just because it makes a splash? Wow. And I though I was cynical.occamserasernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-6115307627085863522010-08-19T12:54:07.258-04:002010-08-19T12:54:07.258-04:00So here's a question: Is paleoanthropology a b...So here's a question: Is paleoanthropology a better science because there are so many involved and because of all the scrutiny? Is it better off as a result of all that? Or... is paleoanthropology a worse science because of the claims people are allowed to make in the name of fame and selling things?Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-13739979370698831882010-08-19T12:50:28.442-04:002010-08-19T12:50:28.442-04:00I deleted the comment just above yours, before you...I deleted the comment just above yours, before you put yours. Sorry if that adds a bit of confusion. :)Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-50499002984225163232010-08-19T12:47:34.129-04:002010-08-19T12:47:34.129-04:00To many ifs and doubts. Not a good story. Won...To many ifs and doubts. Not a good story. Won't stir up 'controversy'. Badly chosen reviewers. Editors are not scientists and don't care, if it gets attention?<br /><br />Bottom line: as long as things like Nature are magazines rather than journals, they know what is their bottom line.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-42381738266691185472010-08-19T12:40:01.874-04:002010-08-19T12:40:01.874-04:00I'd love to read an outside expert's strai...I'd love to read an outside expert's straightforward evaluation of every possible hypothesis to explain these marks. Hopefully someone will do this soon.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-19630952093603946442010-08-19T12:32:57.225-04:002010-08-19T12:32:57.225-04:00That, to me, isn't mean. Instead, it is exact...That, to me, isn't mean. Instead, it is exactly the problem with hyperclaims and hyperjournalism. We need to lower the claims temperature, calm down, and be a lot more humble about what we claim we know.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-39256425273662147072010-08-19T12:30:48.027-04:002010-08-19T12:30:48.027-04:00That's just mean. To say what I said up there....That's just mean. To say what I said up there. Just mean!Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-30498816817292669432010-08-19T12:30:23.323-04:002010-08-19T12:30:23.323-04:00So it could have been extinct chimp relatives who ...So it could have been extinct chimp relatives who made the Dikika artifacts ;).Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-45393841134929335882010-08-19T12:26:02.057-04:002010-08-19T12:26:02.057-04:00If chimps hunt and even do it with tools, as I und...If chimps hunt and even do it with tools, as I understand the evidence, then it could have even a much deeper history, not specific to hominins. But the point that even if the current interp. is correct, it is not the 'first' cut.<br /><br />We made the too-hasty, too-much comment about Nature's cover in a brief post subsequent to this one.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-71756637909516002392010-08-19T12:21:02.594-04:002010-08-19T12:21:02.594-04:00Thanks Jen. Great comment.
Here's what I'...Thanks Jen. Great comment. <br /><br />Here's what I've been thinking about since posting this...<br /><br />The claims aren't that extraordinary from everyone's perspective. For people who aren't surprised that some early homs could grab a rock and use it on a carcass before they started doing it systematically, these aren't extraordinary claims. <br /><br />Finding evidence of rare behavior sure is extraordinary, but then again finding any paleo evidence is extraordinary. <br /><br />So, if it's shocking to someone that Lucy did this, then it could be argued that the evidence isn't good enough to support such an extraordinary claim. <br /><br />But, for people who aren't shocked, then ten scratches on two bone fragments is enough to say, okay they did it at least once and that's expected.<br /><br />Shoulder shrug.<br /><br />Wait for more study of the material from outsiders and wait for more discovery.<br /><br />If it turns out, based on additional analyses, that the evidence offered by McPherron et al. doesn't support their claim (or at least that it fails to falsify other possible explanations) then Nature should be really ashamed of themselves. <br /><br />Really ashamed!Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-76411828972835101532010-08-18T16:18:22.134-04:002010-08-18T16:18:22.134-04:00Thanks for the great post Holly!
This find is so ...Thanks for the great post Holly! <br />This find is so exciting, but when I think about it, not all that surprising. Meat eating had to start sometime before we find the big concentrations of cutmarked bones made by early Homo, and considering chimpanzees use tools for very basic things like cracking nuts (and not so basic things like stabbing bushbabies), its not hard for me to imagine an australopithecine coming upon a carcass and using a sharp stone to slice off some meat. It probably happened sporadically long before hominins really got the hang of butchering carcasses. <br /><br />I’m not so sure this will require the behavioral criteria for the genus Homo to be redefined, since the earliest evidence for *systematic* butchery can still be attributed only to this genus. We do not have any flaked stone tools associated with australopithecines, and that there are only two cutmarked bones out of probably thousands from the same time period seems to indicate meat eating was probably not a major pastime for our ancestors yet.<br /><br />The pics of the cutmarks themselves look pretty convincing to me (and not BTW like croc tooth marks), but I will be more convinced of their broader implications if we find a few more.Jen Hodgsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-67766082470189309562010-08-17T12:23:50.628-04:002010-08-17T12:23:50.628-04:00check out the interesting comments here:
http://w...check out the interesting comments here: <br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7308/abs/nature09248.html#supplementary-informationHolly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-62952200813906673692010-08-17T10:29:03.391-04:002010-08-17T10:29:03.391-04:00"Also, we now have at least TWO vocal and pro..."Also, we now have at least TWO vocal and prominent skeptics from Institutes located in their apartments."<br /><br />OUCH --LOL!<br /><br />DeGusta is true to form. Self-awareness isn't his strength. He's playing Tim White by proxy on this one...occamserasernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-30386848454386490722010-08-17T09:44:20.153-04:002010-08-17T09:44:20.153-04:00Ken wants me to say that the Science Friday thing ...Ken wants me to say that the Science Friday thing is an audio file, not something you read.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.com