Funny how things can change significantly in science when a new study comes out. How cool is that?
The only thing that changes quickly is the public perception of what's going on in science. A study is released that claims to have a big new finding, and scientifically-minded publications jump all over it. And then the general public thinks that everything has changed.
There's nothing wrong with that. It makes for an entertaining read, and I myself enjoy these kinds of science-for-the-masses articles. But one study doesn't mean jack squat.
Scientific concensus, at least on subject matters like this, works much more slowly. There's a really big difference between the articles that are read by the masses, and those that are read by professional scientists, in scientific journals.
For starters, they're worded and constructed very differently. You have to take advanced English classes to learn how to properly word things in a scientific journal. There is also a pre-established format for exactly what type of content should be included, and in what order it is to be presented. Basically, they're designed to show, in extreme detail, how the study followed the scientific method, exactly what they did, and exactly what the results were, without any human bias (or so we wish). Also, unless you're deeply entrenched in the particular issue being studied, scientific journals are INCREDIBLY boring to read.
Anyway, the reason it's done like this is because it gives other scientists the opportunity to attempt to replicate the results. Other studies are done, by many different scientists, in many different locations. They might follow similar methods, or they might try something completely different, but they're all looking for the answer to roughly the same question. If an overwhelming majority of these studies point in the same direction, then FINALLY, a theory can be accepted.
I'm ten years removed from my undergrad studies, so things could've changed since then, but to the best of my knowledge (and I follow it at least a little bit), the controversy is still just as contentious as ever. The fact that you found two different studies, with completely different indications, is just evidence of the fact that the debate rages on!
"Quest for Fire"? Ooh, I've never heard of that movie. I think I shall watch it (thanks for mentioning it)! Upfront, though, it's not looking so great for scientific accuracy. In the synopsis of the story, it explains that a group of Cro Magnons lose their flame, that they keep burning eternally. And thus, they go seek out a new flame.
You have no idea how difficult it is for me to not laugh, while writing that plot-synopsis. I'm not laughing at you, cuz this isn't common everyday knowledge, but I would hope a movie would do just a touch of research.
Cro Magnons were 100% anatomically-modern
Homo sapien sapiens, i.e. -- us. The stone tools they created were incredibly intricate, and they expanded out of Africa, peopling the entire world in a ridiculously short amount of time. You can rest assured that they had full command over fire, and would not have to seek it out. They knew how to start it, with almost no effort. Could be a fun movie, nonetheless.
(EDIT: Wait, I just discovered that this is actually a comedy. So, that can of course be forgiven. Now I'm totally watching it.)
(EDIT2: No, no, found more info that says it is not a comedy, just that it has some comedy in it. That makes it unforgiven. I'm so looking forward to watching this movie.)
Dready, I never heard about that specific argument, but I'm sure it's got some merit. It's just that there are so many conflicting arguments that this debate seems impossible to end (for now). Personally, I fall on the side that says we replaced them, but it is archaeological evidence that sways me the most.
Dang, it's so rare that I get to talk about this kind of stuff. I enjoyed that. Thanks for humoring me, or taking whatever interest. Cheers!
) Fascinating stuff!
