News: Remains of giant camel discovered in Syria.
Ye Old One
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis Fri Oct 6, 1:46 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061006/sc_nm/syria_camel_dc_1
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Swiss researchers have discovered the
100,000-year-old remains of a previously unknown giant camel species
in central Syria.
"This is a big discovery, a revolution in science,." Professor
Jean-Marie Le Tensorer of the University of Basel told Reuters. "It
was not known that the dromedary was present in the Middle East more
than 10,000 years ago."
"Can you imagine? The camel's shoulders stood three metres (yards)
high and it was around four metres tall, as big as a giraffe or an
elephant. Nobody knew that such a species had existed."
Tensorer, who has been excavating at the desert site in Kowm since
1999, said the first large bones were found some years ago but were
only confirmed as belonging to a camel after more bones from several
parts of the same animal were recently discovered.
"We found the first traces of a big animal in 2003, but we were not
sure it was a giant camel," he said.
A group of humans apparently killed the camel while it was drinking
from a spring, said Tensorer, adding that 100,000-year-old human
remains were discovered nearby at the once water-rich site in the
desert steppe.
The human bones were transported to Switzerland, where they underwent
anthropological analysis.
NEANDERTHAL OR HOMO SAPIENS?
"The bone is that of a homo sapiens, or modern man, but the tooth is
extremely archaic, similar to that of a Neanderthal. We don't know yet
what it is exactly. Do we have a very old homo sapiens or a
Neanderthal?" said Tensorer.
"We expect to find more bones that would help determine what kind of
man it was."
Man has been present in what is now modern Syria for 1.5 million
years. The area played a key role in the migration of the first human
beings toward Asia and Europe, he said.
Kowm, the site where the remains were discovered along with flint and
stone weapons, is a 20-km (14 mile) wide gap between two mountain
ranges that had a number of springs.
The site, which was first surveyed in the 1960s and where evidence of
a 1 million-year-old human settlement has been found, is considered a
"reference for early prehistory in the Near East," Basel University
said in a recent research paper.
It attracted migrating herds, such as antelope, and man.
Archaeological layers covering a period of several hundreds of
thousands of years were discovered, which is unusual for such an open
site, he said.
"It was a savannah more or less," Tensorer said. "The camels then ate
probably what they eat today."
--
Bob.
rmj
> from a spring, said Tensorer, adding that 100,000-year-old human
> remains were discovered nearby at the once water-rich site in the
> desert steppe.
Scientist goes to far in deducing.
Klaus
Let's see.
1. Camel is too big to transport.
2. Camel is found near spring.
3. Camel has evidence of butchering.
4. Human remains are found nearby.
So, please explain why saying
"A group of humans apparently killed the camel while it was drinking
from a spring"
is going to (sic) far.
Klaus
rupert....@gmail.com
To be fair to rmj, point 3 is not mentioned in the article.
> Klaus
CreateThis
<rupert....@gmail.com> wrote:
Why be fair to rmj? He wasn't fair to the scientists. WTF does he
know from a news article about how they deduced anything? He had made
his conclusion before he read anything.
Now, if you want to explain things for other readers, I'm all for
that. But save your consideration for somebody who deserves it. rmj
is just another dishonest antievolutionist.
CT
Dana Tweedy
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:o2cgi2pi1iptm6o0m...@4ax.com...
> Remains of giant camel discovered in Syria
How far did they have to walk to find those remains? Can you imagine the
size of the pack they had to fit in?
DJT
OvC
<CNednfsggdz2w7XY...@comcast.com> ...
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> news:o2cgi2pi1iptm6o0m...@4ax.com...
> > Remains of giant camel discovered in Syria
>
> How far did they have to walk to find those remains?
A mile, fer sure...
> Can you imagine the size of the pack they had to fit in?
No worries. It was a lite.
--
OvC
Dale
news:0mXVg.11380$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I went to Far In Deducing one time. Nice place if you like that kind of
thing.
rmj
"Klaus" <khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YZXVg.20455$Ij....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
spring by accident. Perhaps it was killed by some predator(s) and the humans
scared the predator(s) off.
And I see nothing about butchering.
michael...@worldnet.att.net
Klaus wrote:
> rmj wrote:
[snip]
> > Scientist goes to far in deducing.
> >
>
> Let's see.
> 1. Camel is too big to transport.
> 2. Camel is found near spring.
> 3. Camel has evidence of butchering.
> 4. Human remains are found nearby.
>
> So, please explain why saying
> "A group of humans apparently killed the camel while it was drinking
> from a spring"
> is going to (sic) far.
> Klaus
While certainly not an antievolutionist, I would say a bunch of human
bones found near animal bones are not proof that humans killed the
animal. I'd say that that, by itself, is evidence only that there are a
bunch of bones. I mean, did the butchering process spread E. coli, and
all the people simultaneously keel over and die?
-- Mike Palmer
Richard Forrest
Actually, this is a report in the popular media.
When the scientists publish their findings we can find out if that is
what they deduced from the evidence, or simply a possible explanation
offered informally which has been reported by the media.
RF
Nashton
Further proof that the wild guesses "scientists" make, are nothing but
that, wild guesses.
--
Nicolas
"And, heaving alljawbreakical expressions out of Sare Isaac's universal
of specious aristmystic unsaid, A is for Anna like L is for liv."
Finnegans Wake (293)
".... It means that all living things are the product of mindless
material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random
variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like
everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.
Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far
beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin
Tom McDonald
I agree.
However, the snippet noted above seems to be not a direct quotation,
but a paraphrase of the lead investigator. It could be a jazzing-up by
the journalist, or it could be a failure of the journalist (or the
editor) to include material supporting the scenario. Or the archie
might be a flake.
I think it unfortunate that the possibility that the camel was killed
by some version of Homo and the questions about which Homo might have
been found nearby, were smooshed together into one article. I think it
could leave the impression that the human bones found nearby were those
of the camel-killers.
I've had some experience with both archaeology and journalism. This is
crap journalism, although it is not impossible that it is also crap
archaeology. I think an adequate, interesting story could have been
written here, in the same number of words. It's unfortunate that one
wasn't.
Tom McDonald
Nashton wrote:
> michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Klaus wrote:
> >> rmj wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Scientist goes to far in deducing.
> >>>
> >> Let's see.
> >> 1. Camel is too big to transport.
> >> 2. Camel is found near spring.
> >> 3. Camel has evidence of butchering.
> >> 4. Human remains are found nearby.
> >>
> >> So, please explain why saying
> >> "A group of humans apparently killed the camel while it was drinking
> >> from a spring"
> >> is going to (sic) far.
> >> Klaus
> >
> > While certainly not an antievolutionist, I would say a bunch of human
> > bones found near animal bones are not proof that humans killed the
> > animal. I'd say that that, by itself, is evidence only that there are a
> > bunch of bones. I mean, did the butchering process spread E. coli, and
> > all the people simultaneously keel over and die?
> >
> > -- Mike Palmer
> >
>
> Further proof that the wild guesses "scientists" make, are nothing but
> that, wild guesses.
There is no evidence to support that. The evidence only supports poor
journalism.
If there were to have been flakitudinosity in the science, the
journalistic capacity of this writer, at this time, would not seem to
be adequate to report it.
Will in New Haven
Why the camel was near the spring is not relevant. No one suggested it
had an APPOINTMENT with the humans. One species of predators that kills
camels is the human predator. Scaring off formidable predators is
harder than killing most herbivores, although a giant camel might be
tough.
I agree that the idea that the humans killed the camel was purely
speculation. I had heard somewhere that there WAS evidence of
butchering but this article doesn't mention it, making the speculation
even more of a stretch. Given all of the evidence, I think that the
most one could say is "a nearby group of humans may have killed the
camel." Since they would have had to butcher a stolen kill, even the
evidence for butchering wouldn't have proven that they killed the
camel.
The evidence that the humans killed the camel is much greater than the
evidence for Yawa, of course, but there is no evidence for Yawa.
The evidence that the humans killed the camel is much less certain than
the evidence for natural selection.
Will in New Haven
--
"He was born with the gift of laughter and the knowledge that the
world was mad."
_Scaramouche_ by Raphael Sabatini
Tom McDonald
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> news:o2cgi2pi1iptm6o0m...@4ax.com...
> > Remains of giant camel discovered in Syria
>
>
> How far did they have to walk to find those remains?
About a mile, if they were lucky.
> Can you imagine the
> size of the pack they had to fit in?
I'd think the pack would have run off, pell mell, when the humans came
down from their vantage to become players.
Will in New Haven
Féachadóir wrote:
> Scríobh "rmj" <gle...@jps.net>:
> would also make quick work of any human beings in the area.
I don't think there is a single predator in the world that a group of
armed humans with enough determination could not drive off or kill. It
might not be worth the risk but that is a different question. A band of
hyenas or a pride of lions might well succesfully try conclusions with
ten or twelve armed men but a single predator, even a bear or a tiger,
would probably be well-advised to go away.
Will in New Haven
--
"He was born with the gift of laughter and the knowledge that the
world was mad."
_Scaramouche_ by Raphael Sabatini
>
> >And I see nothing about butchering.
>
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir
Perplexed in Peoria
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message news:1160349510.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I wouldn't want to join a band of humans armed with homemade spears
in an attack on a great white shark. Of course, I wouldn't really want
to be the shark either. War is hell.
Dana Tweedy
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160349274.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Winston? Is that you? That would be a lucky strike.
DJT
Noelie S. Alito
But it shows his American spirit!
Dale
news:K5fWg.2329$cz.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
[...]
> Further proof that the wild guesses "scientists" make, are nothing but
> that, wild guesses.
You're making a wild guess that what was reported in the article was all
that the archaeolgists knew. I'm going to make a wild guess that the
reporter didn't know enough to ask about the specifics of the
archaeologists' theories.
Dale
>
> By Khaled Yacoub Oweis Fri Oct 6, 1:46 PM ET
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061006/sc_nm/syria_camel_dc_1
>
> DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Swiss researchers have discovered the
> 100,000-year-old remains of a previously unknown giant camel species
> in central Syria.
Why does it seem there so many gigantic fossils? Is it just a matter of
selective attention? If not, what conditions lead to gigantism? Are there
species today that are giants compared to their ancestors?
rupert....@gmail.com
Nashton wrote:
> michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Klaus wrote:
> >> rmj wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Scientist goes to far in deducing.
> >>>
> >> Let's see.
> >> 1. Camel is too big to transport.
> >> 2. Camel is found near spring.
> >> 3. Camel has evidence of butchering.
> >> 4. Human remains are found nearby.
> >>
> >> So, please explain why saying
> >> "A group of humans apparently killed the camel while it was drinking
> >> from a spring"
> >> is going to (sic) far.
> >> Klaus
> >
> > While certainly not an antievolutionist, I would say a bunch of human
> > bones found near animal bones are not proof that humans killed the
> > animal. I'd say that that, by itself, is evidence only that there are a
> > bunch of bones. I mean, did the butchering process spread E. coli, and
> > all the people simultaneously keel over and die?
> >
> > -- Mike Palmer
> >
>
> Further proof that the wild guesses "scientists" make, are nothing but
> that, wild guesses.
Newspaper articles are not proof. The article doesn't say the camel was
butchered, but it also doesn't quote any scientists as saying so.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message news:ephWg.10890$e66...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
There is a point of view (somewhat controversial) which claims that
most species are bigger than their ancestors. Most mammals anyways.
But it is the big species that are the most prone to extinction.
The idea is sometimes called 'Cope's Law'. A possible explanation
would be that sexual selection usually favors the biggest individuals
in a species, even if ordinary natural selection might often be
trying to move the species in the opposite direction.
John Wilkins
Slim chance of that. Unless he's in Virginia.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Tom McDonald
Other versions of the story:
Which included this:
"The bones of a giant camel dating back 100,000 years have been
unearthed in the Syrian desert, a government newspaper reported over
the weekend."
I wonder whether the articles have suffered from being first reports
based on a government report, coupled with it being a weekend and hard
to get hold of folks.
The author of the article in the OP, a Reuters reporter named Khaled
Yacoub Oweis, did a lot of good writing about Iraq, from before the war
to at least a year or so ago. He appears to be working out of Damascus
these days, and doesn't seem to have done much science reporting. It is
possible that he was dragooned to cover the story because he was there,
and not because he had the background for it.
In any case, my initial reaction (that the article was crap) was
probably too hasty. Or at least it wasn't crap because the reporter was
crap. He seems to have gotten more of the story than his Associated
Press comrade. :-)
Matt Silberstein
<redd...@comcast.net> in
<CNednfsggdz2w7XY...@comcast.com> wrote:
I like chocolate caramel myself.
Wait? Am I in the wrong joke?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Tom McDonald
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 22:11:58 -0400, in talk.origins , "Dana Tweedy"
> <redd...@comcast.net> in
> <CNednfsggdz2w7XY...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> >news:o2cgi2pi1iptm6o0m...@4ax.com...
> >> Remains of giant camel discovered in Syria
> >
> >
> >How far did they have to walk to find those remains? Can you imagine the
> >size of the pack they had to fit in?
>
> I like chocolate caramel myself.
>
>
>
> Wait? Am I in the wrong joke?
I think you should come in again.
Euan Troup
> Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>> Remains of giant camel discovered in Syria
>> >>>
>> >>> How far did they have to walk to find those remains?
>> >> About a mile, if they were lucky.
>> >>
>> >>> Can you imagine the
>> >>> size of the pack they had to fit in?
>> >> I'd think the pack would have run off, pell mell, when the humans came
>> >> down from their vantage to become players.
>> >
>> > Winston? Is that you? That would be a lucky strike.
>>
>> But it shows his American spirit!
>
> Slim chance of that. Unless he's in Virginia.
Craven for it, eh?
--
...mostly harmless.
John Wilkins
F***in' A!
Kleuskes & Moos
rmj schreef:
The above is a _very_ liberal nterpretation of what the good professor
said.
<quote
http://www.mediadesk.unizh.ch/mitteilung.php?text_id=53&grp=archiv
emphasis=mine>
Für den Urgeschichtler Jean-Marie Le Tensorer ist dieser Fund von
besonders grosser Bedeutung, weil die Knochen in *unmittelbarem
Zusammenhang* mit Werkzeugen von Steinzeitmenschen gefunden wurden. Das
Riesenkamel wurde also *möglicherweise* von den damaligen Jägern
gejagt und auch erbeutet.
</quote>
<xlat emphasis=mine>
For the prehistorian Jean-Marie Le Tensorer this find is of
extraordinary significance, because it's found in *direct relation* to
stone-age tools. The giant camel, therefore was *possibly* hunted and
killed by the hunters of that age
</xlat>
So the professor and the website of the university are a lot more
cautious than the Reuters-newsfeed (which is copied almost verbatim by
a large collection of media outlets) which in turn is a lot more
cautious than the list above is.
The professor, i think, merely sketched a possible scenario, which the
Reuters journalist then took for granted thinking "it's got a ring to
it". It was then blown further out of proportion in this newsgroup.
Kleuskes & Moos
Kleuskes & Moos schreef:
<quote http://www.unipublic.unizh.ch/magazin/umwelt/2005/1975.html>
«Es ist so gut wie sicher, dass wir noch auf Skelette von Menschen
stossen werden», ist Schmid überzeugt; er ist auf Hominiden
spezialisiert und wurde bereits vor zehn Jahren beigezogen, als die
Archäologen in Nadaouiyeh Schädelfragmente eines Homo erectus fanden.
Auch neben den Riesenkamelknochen fand man Werkzeuge von
Steinzeitmenschen, was den Schluss nahe legt, dass das Riesenkamel
möglicherweise von damaligen Jägern gejagt und auch erbeutet worden
ist.
</quote>
"It's as good as certain well will find skeletons of humans", Schmid is
convinced; he's specialized in hominids and was brought in ten years
ago, when archeologists found skullfragments of Homo Erectus in
Nadaouiyeh. Next to bones of the Giant Camel, stone age tools were
found, which brings the conclusion that it was possibly hunted and
killed by the hunters of that time."
Dogma Discharge
> Further proof that the wild guesses "scientists" make, are nothing but
> that, wild guesses.
We used to have Wild guesses on the farm, they were pretty scary at times,
very territorial.
Whenever I rode my old Goldwing down the driveway they would chase me
bigtime.
Richard Forrest
Surely the Gold wing *is* as sort of wild guess pretending to be a
motorbike?
Perhaps they were just trying to mate?
RF
John Wilkins
No, they were trying to figure out why a car would only have two wheels.
That was why they were wild guesses (as there is no sensible answer).
Dogma Discharge
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1160399148.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard, I fear you may be right, that's why I had to continually make sure
they were always separated as hybrids were likely to occur. Can you imagine?
Dogma Discharge
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dIWdnY3-hpVsCbTY...@comcast.com...
>
> Winston? Is that you? That would be a lucky strike.
>
Well spank my ass and call me Peter Stuyvesant, I don't care how John Player
Special you think you are. Hey, that's Life!
Matt Silberstein
<kil...@gmail.com> in
<1160366925....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Sorry.
Baravelli: [through speakeasy's door] Who are you?
Professor Wagstaff: I'm fine, thanks, who are you?
Baravelli: I'm fine too, but you can't come in unless you give the
password.
Professor Wagstaff: Well, what is the password?
Baravelli: Aw, no. You gotta tell me. Hey, I tell what I do. I give
you three guesses. It's the name of a fish.
Professor Wagstaff: Is it Mary?
Baravelli: Ha-ha. That's-a no fish.
Professor Wagstaff: She isn't? Well, she drinks like one. Let me see:
Is it sturgeon?
Baravelli: Hey, you crazy. Sturgeon, he's a doctor cuts you open
when-a you sick. Now I give you one more chance.
Professor Wagstaff: I got it. Haddock.
Baravelli: That's-a funny. I gotta haddock, too.
Professor Wagstaff: What do you take for a haddock?
Baravelli: Well-a, sometimes I take-a aspirin, sometimes I take-a
Calamel.
Professor Wagstaff: Say, I'd walk a mile for a Calamel.
Baravelli: You mean chocolate calamel. I like that too, but you no
guess it. Hey, what's-a matter, you no understand English? You can't
come in here unless you say, "Swordfish." Now I'll give you one more
guess.
Professor Wagstaff: ...swordfish, swordfish... I think I got it. Is it
"swordfish"?
Baravelli: Hah. That's-a it. You guess it.
Professor Wagstaff: Pretty good, eh?
Memorable Quotes from Horse Feathers (1932)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023027/quotes