/u/grundyhippie:

I find this discussion to be more akin to arguing with creation science freaks than having a fun chat about the "what ifs" and the "maybe it wasn't exactly how we thought."

Really. Because it seems like most of the assumptions and ignorance (both traits of creation scientists) are coming from you, and a failure to actually read the article you posted, instead focusing on some political agenda you seem to be carrying water for.

I love scientists who push the envelope and challenge current notions. We know far less than scientist and anthropologist let on, and this is no one's fault, merely a by-product of cultures conquering other cultures.

Cute. Actually, anthropologists and scientists are pretty up front about what they know / don't know. That's why these sorts of studies are published in the first place.

If what is published seems conservative in its conclusions, it's precisely because we realize what we don't know, and are not willing-- without evidence-- to go further than the data support.

The fact that the data and conclusions don't support what you want them to support, based on political agenda or preconceived notions, isn't the fault of gaslighting scientists.

They're about to pave over a sacred site in Missouri for a Walmart or some such. Many mounds were destroyed by early US farmers. So there is a huge body of evidence and knowledge we will never be able to access.

No one is more painfully aware of that than those of us who study these things.

But to claim that one speculative theory is the only one allowed or else you're just a silly rube is stifling and arrogant to the point of actually turning people off from the sciences.

You're making very specific arguments that are neither supported (nor advanced) by the scientists involved in the study you posted about. You're making claims about patriarchy and religious persecution that have nothing to do with the article in Science.

Carry on, redditors. I thought this was an interesting study to spark some lively discussion people would just agree with me and reinforce my own preconceived notions instead of actually reading the article and pointing out that my ideas about it were flawed.

Fixed that one for you.

and it appears all I've done is make a lot of people find another reason to insult the curious. you guys have better reading comprehension than me, and when I made unsupported and unsubstantiated arguments about things I don't know anything about and you called me on it, I got butthurt and bailed.

Fixed.