Ask Your Question today
Now that scientists have figured out that Neanderthals (also known as Troglodytes) weren't wiped out completely but survive in the Caucasoid and Asiatic subgroups of the Human Species, how do you feel about that?
Well, although the findings are interesting, science is a pathway rather than a point in time. What seems true today may not be true tomorrow.
Taking your question at face value, though, I'm quite pleased at this research. It's long been thought that the Neanderthaler were victims of genocide by, well... us. That there was some interbreeding paints us in a slightly better light.
To continue with the pathway versus a point in time theme, though, it's a little tricky to say that you or I have Neanderthal DNA. What is truer is to say that our ancestors had it and, like with everyone, it has continued evolving to the present point.
Only some science is like a pathway. For example archeology where you have to make assumptions based on limited evidence because not much has survived. However in physics for example an up quark will always have a charge of +2/3 and a down quark will always have a charge of -1/3.
I've just spent five minutes pondering whether you are being sarcastic or not. You could argue that in science (Physics, in particular) some things are immutable. Newtonian mechanics, and the triple point of water, for instance. They're simple, neatly defined things. Except Newtonian mechanics is an approximation. As you start approaching fractions of the speed of light, it becomes a pretty poor approximation. The triple point of water has a precise definition. Exact, almost. So why has the value of it changed from 0°C to 0.01°C? How can this be? Because science IS a path.
Picking subatomic particles as an example of something immutable is very risky. Of the Standard Model particles, the Higgs Boson hasn't even been verified yet. It's technically theoretical. And what about the exotic hadrons? Glueballs for instance. I understand they're hard to find and I understand why, but science treats them like Schrodinger's Cat. They may be there, they may not, but they "exist" in some form of half-state until the box is opened proving or disproving them. Even when they're proven, proof is no guarantee in science. That's why I said it's a pathway. I won't even start on quasi-particles or the wave-particle duality fudge.
Yeah, that's definitely the common ground. I see science very much like meteorology. It gets better all the time. More accurate and more capable of predicting over longer timespans (because science is all about predicting what will happen if A and B meet condition C). But it's not perfect and never will be. I used to think it was. The day I realised that wasn't strictly true, I felt like I'd lost my faith a little.
I recovered that faith by realising that science is the best we've got, and it only ever gets more accurate. It's like the speed of light or absolute zero. It's asymptotic. You can get very close, but it'll always sky off away to infinity and bits will always be unknown.