I'd wondered what happened to her. Guess the Vegas gig didn't pan out.
Only the insane and the ignorant are ever certain of anything.
It is tedious to keep reading quotes from these "scientists" without a life who claim "proof" of the unproveable every few months.
First of all the basic question can never and will never be proven.
Events of 1 or 2 million years ago simply have not left enough evidence evenly distributed across the world and accessible uniformly. That's just the nature of the problem.
The pathological "P.C." obsession with "proving" Africa is the origin of everything (a setup for "reparations"? LOL) is getting very tired. That horse is mush already...
If we originated from a single source or several, or from Antarctica or Cucamonga... is irrelevant.
Let's just continue to gather knowledge for academics' sake and get rid of the "proves" obsession.
This "proves" nothing. It is an interesting brick in the wall of knowledge; nothing more and nothing less.
T'AINT SCIENCE
A new study shows that schools and many education programs are failing to provide students with a basic understanding of evolution. It is famously difficult to explain evolutionary principles without resorting to anthropomorphic or figurative language: Evolution "selects" the fittest individuals; species "adapt" to change. Both of these phrases are commonplace when explaining the very complex processes involved in evolution. However, this use of language implies that there is an agency or cognition involved in evolution. This misunderstanding is being picked up on by students in the classroom and could form part of a wider desire to fit evolutionary theory into broad social narratives. Rob Moore and colleagues (University of Cape Town, South Africa), writing in the Spring issue of the Journal of Biological Education, call for more care in the use of language in science education. "Given the centrality of evolutionary theory to a clear foundation in biology, the widely documented difficulty that many students have in coming to terms with these concepts is of enduring concern. ... Establishing a clear conceptual grasp of evolutionary theory will need to include an enhanced sensitivity to language usage."
What are "fossil skull fuels" doing debating over human origins? And who's moderating?
I guess "Fossil fuels" do contribute to global warming, with all the additional hot air the numb skulls will banter around.
That's really calling anthropologists some stupid suckers. Recent DNA studies have determined that the neanderthal cannot be an ancestor of modern man because the genetic divide is simply too great and erectus is quite obviously more distant from modern man than the neanderthal was, and I mean a LOT more distant. That's like claiming that man can't be descended from apes, therefore he must be descended directly from fish.