The first one was this:
The world of human phylogeny has been hit by a bombshell. Although scholars and textbooks are presenting chimpanzees as man's closest relatives, Grehan and Schwartz have revived the case for orangutans. They consider hominoids to be comprised of two sister clades: the human-orangutan clade (dental hominoids) and the chimpanzee-gorilla clade (African apes). They claim that humans and orangutans "share a common ancestor that excludes the extant African apes". Since it is received wisdom that chimps are the nearest relative to humans because we share over 98% of their genes and since humans are referred to as the "third chimpanzee", the ramifications of the new paper are immense!''
I am not a true believer in evolution, or in the idea that man descends from primate ancestors. Lest somebody think I was brainwashed by Christianity, for the record, I used to argue with my anthropology teachers in college about evolution, and at that time I was not a Christian. Somehow it seemed as if the evidence fell short.
However this story interests me in that it might cause the believers in the 'out-of-Africa' dogma to have to scramble to defend their sacred beliefs.
It seems to be very, very important for those who believe that chimps are our nearest animal kin to believe that we all 'descended from an African Eve.' I think it would upset a lot of apple carts if that idea were discredited, but I suppose they will continue to believe what they believe on faith, regardless.
A classmate of mine in college, when I pointed out that the idea of human descent from primates was simply 'taken on faith', responded nonsensically ''I'd rather take Darwin on faith than religion.''
In any case, I 'm not looking for a debate with evolution believers, but only curious as to how the arch-liberals among them would react if their cherished 'out of Africa' belief was debunked. I would like to see the reaction. I expect it would be denial and rationalization. I suspect it would be covered up, just as anything politically incorrect on race and genetics is covered up and stifled.
Another story that is rather intriguing is this one about 'mysterious, glowing clouds' appearing over our night skies.
Actually the phenomenon being described, noctilucent clouds, have been observed at least since the 19th century but it seems they have become more noticeable lately, and at lower latitudes than in the past.
Right on cue, someone mentions global warming or man-made climate change as a 'possible' cause. Sure, why not?
The clouds might be beautiful, but they could portend global changes caused by global warming. Noctilucent clouds are a fundamentally new phenomenon in the temperate mid-latitude sky, and it’s not clear why they’ve migrated down from the poles. Or why, over the last 25 years, more of them are appearing in the polar regions, too, and shining more brightly.
“That’s a real concern and question,” said James Russell, an atmospheric scientist at Hampton University and the principal investigator of an ongoing NASA satellite mission to study the clouds. “Why are they getting more numerous? Why are they getting brighter? Why are they appearing at lower latitudes?”
Nobody knows for sure, but most of the answers seem to point to human-caused global atmospheric change.''
When in doubt, it's 'human-caused global atmospheric change.'
The pictures in the Wired article are much more spectacular than those which appear elsewhere.
Most of them are rather beautiful nonetheless.
I've been a sky-watcher since I was a child. For a time, when I was growing up, I wanted to be a meteorologist, then later, for several years I was determined to be an astronomer. But the point is, I've always been fascinated by the sky, especially the night sky, and I've seen many kinds of cloud formations. However I can't say I've seen these noctilucent clouds. Have any of you?
As to what causes them, so far it seems to be just educated guesswork, but I wondered if aerosol spraying, which many people deny exists, is a factor. And to my surprise, there is an article from a few years ago which discusses aerosol spraying as a plan that has been considered to stop 'human-caused atmospheric change'.
Interesting, in that there has been widespread denial that such a thing exists, outside of the imaginations of various tinfoil-hat wearers. But yet, the experts cited in the article mention it as a possibility.
For me, it's not at all implausible to suppose that it is actually being carried out and the visible signs of it dismissed as 'just contrails.'
Is there anybody out there so naive and trusting as to think that 'officials' would never conceal anything from us or mislead us? Seeing what is going on openly in high places these days makes me willing to believe nearly anything.
If the powers-that-be are earnest believers in this man-made global warming or ''climate change'' as they now call it, then would it be so far-fetched to think that they are carrying out some counter-measure, while denying such a plan exists?
