See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Fossil Reanalysis Pushes Back Origin of Homo sapiens
Source:
sciam
URL Source: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch ... DFE-C0B7-1213-80B783414B7F0000
Published: Feb 17, 2005
Author: unlisted
Post Date: 2005-02-17 05:49:36 by 2Trievers
Keywords: Reanalysis, sapiens, Fossil
Views: 1840
Comments: 185
A new analysis of human remains first discovered in 1967 suggests that they are in fact much older than previously believed. The results, published today in the journal Nature, push back the emergence of our species by nearly 35,000 years. Ian McDougall of the Australian National University in Canberra and his colleagues worked with two well-known fossil finds known as Omo I and Omo II, which were recovered from Ethiopia's Kibish Formation by Richard Leakey. The remains include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones for Omo I. "Anthropologists said they looked very different in their evolutionary status," remarks study co-author Frank Brown of the University of Utah. "Omo I appeared to be essentially modern Homo sapiens and Omo II appeared to be more primitive." At the time, the bones were dated to 130,000 years ago, based on radioactive decay of uranium and thorium from oyster shells found nearby. This time the scientists returned to the southern Ethiopian site and identified the resting places of both individuals. They also unearthed another part of a femur bone for Omo I that fits together with the original remains. The researchers then analyzed the volcanic ash layers above and below the river sediment that contained the fossils using argon dating. They determined that the rock just below the fossils dated to 196,000 years ago. Because the layers of the Kibish Formation formed quickly during wet seasons that inundated the area with organic matter, the team posits that the bones are only slightly younger than this underlying layer. In addition, a layer of ash more than 150 feet above the burial sites dates to 104,000 years old, putting a limit on their age. Using other evidence, which drained from the Nile and the Omo rivers onto the Mediterranean seafloor, the researchers attest that the Omo fossils are most likely no younger than 190,000 years old. Previously the oldest known traces of our species were fossils from Herto, Ethiopia, that date to about 160,000 years ago. The older age of the Omo remains is concordant with dates suggested by genetic studies for the origin of our species, says study co-author John Fleagle of Stony Brook University. He adds that "as modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern' behavior."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 146.
#1. To: 2Trievers (#0)
Would love to see some of the creationist types on LP "respond" to this new information. Wait...no, I wouldn't My favorite explanation so far came at a church service I attended where you could "ask the pastor anything". Someone asked about the apparent difference between the measured age of the universe and the actual Creation timeline. Answer: God created it already "old." Politicians could learn a lot from preachers on the subject of spin. Created it old, He did. Yup.
Ok, fine. I believe in the creation viewpoint. What exactly is in this article that is supposed to "shake my world?"
Your words, not mine. I've found that worlds built on faith aren't open to much shaking, static, rather than dynamic, but if you want, we can start with the arithmetic. Creationism in general holds that God (re)created the earth and all its lifeforms in six literal 24 hour days, roughly 6,000 years ago. Data in this article says roughly 190,000 years for these human remains, minus your 6,000, gives 184,000 years we gotta explain away somehow. Was he just "beta-testing" the species til he got to Adam and Eve?
You do know that animals were created before man, right?
Homo sapiens = you, Don. Not an "animal" in testing. The 190,000 year old fossils were HUMAN remains. "Adam's" great grandfather times 1000. I'm quoting from the Creationist playbook. They generally believe 6 literal 24 hour days for God to do all this.
Generally? I am a creationist, and I have no problems with the "day" mentioned in Genesis as being much longer than 24 hours.
It'd have to be a few hundred million years long to match everything up in the timeline. You know all this.
The time element doesn't bother me one way or another. We don't know how long the "day" was. The "day" is a convenient measurement of time. The Bible states that to the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. That means to me that time is not important in divine thinking. A divine being would have no concept of time.
This is why I don't talk about these issues much. When one runs up against a wall of faith, it is virtually impenetrable. Just look at the thousand plus reply "crevo" threads at FR, and the vitriol expended on both sides. I'd rather just be civil and say "you believe, I'll disbelieve, and we'll see what washes out in the afterlife, should there be one."
Of course, you do know that the evolutionist theory is built on the same thing, right? It takes a lot of faith to believe that the origin of mankind is something that dragged himself out of the ocean to become modern-day man.
Evolution has its own sets of problems, not the least of which is the same timeline problems that creationism has. With physicists dating the age of the known universe, suddenly the evolutionists find themselves up against a huge timeline problem of their own, ie, how all these complex, interlocking systems could have evolved within the time that they now know they had to get it done. Both biologists and Christians have been known to take extraordinary leaps of faith and fancy not supported in any way by the facts on record. ;)
And, of course, that is faith enters the picture. But, I have heard the idea that it takes less faith to believe that a divine being, God, created this thing. I have to agree.
It takes no faith at all to understand that evolution is the best scientific explanation of how the Human species and the others species of the world got to be what they are today. Sure, it has some problems, but it is still the best SCIENTIFIC explanation there is. It takes a HUGE amount of faith to believe in creationism, because the scientific evidence around us, shows us that it is complete and utter nonsense. It is a great morality tale, it has a wonderful message, but it was NEVER meant to be taken literally, just as a lot of things in the bible were NEVER meant to be taken literally.
If this is the best that science can come up with, science has a lot to be deserved. Nonsense is nonsense and a theory that mankind crawled out of the ocean and evolved into mankind is nonsense.
Well, if this is your idea of evolution, no wonder you believe in creationism. Evolution is a bit more complicated then that, then again, you really don't care to learn about REAL evolution, because then it might call your faith into question, which would bring your entire world down upon your head. I feel bad for people that NEED religion in order to give their life purpose. I feel bad for people that have a need to tear down science in order to make their religion somehow stand up and be real.
Eric, for starters, how about stopping to be a condescending prick?
Sorry, I can't help it when it comes to upstart Christian Creationists that know nothing about evolution but spout about how it isn't science. Total and complete nonsense, so I speak to you as if you are a child, because you are about as ignorant as one...
What is it with you evo's? Is it possible in your mind that BOTH theories exist? That God created the heavens and the earth and somwhere along the way creatures evolved? I simply cannot understand the hatred - or what comes acrossed as hatred. As far as I am concerned, evolution may be a "science", but if it is, it was Gods will. Just as it is God's will that people have free will to believe as they choose.
Very good Capps. what is with me, is the fact that Creationists claim that their myth overrides science, when in fact it is NOT science. Creationism and evolution has absolutely NOTHING in common, one is science based, empirical evidence etc, and Creationism is faith based, and has nothing to with any type of scientific evidence. So, to somehow say that evolution is wrong because of creationism is NONSENSE. To completely disavow science, because of a religious faith is STUPID, it is emotionally based nonsense. Whenever I hear a creationist saying that evolution is wrong because of their religious beliefs, I pounce on that stupidity. It is just the way I am. Evolution is scientific, empirical, falsifiable. If you wish to ba a creationist, WONDERFUL, do, but do not tell others that science is wrong because you BELIEVE something else. I am a Deist, I believe there is a God, not the way that you believe in a God, but I believe there is some Higher being. At the same time, I do not say that evolution is wrong because of my religious beliefs. They are 2 SEPARATE things. Science is science, religion is religion, they have NOTHING in common whatsoever, and one CANNOT and WILL not disprove the other. And until fundamentalists mature enough to make that realization, I will stomp on them whenever I run across them.
I give you the Good Book. All I want is stereo FM installed in my teeth.
I'd want AM/FM installed in my teeth, and an HF transmitter too....LOL And thanks for the book, but I have like 6 different copies of it in my library, alongside a number of other religious texts. I find religion fascinating. As some have said, respect someone who is searching for the truth, doubt those that claim they have found it.
“How do you explain the fact that if men couldn’t talk and write there would be no such thing as sin and the Bible?”
#149. To: 2Trievers (#146)
Question your premise. Religion and transgression precede literacy, I'm afraid.
I like it, I like it a lot, and actually belief in an afterlife came before written language, so religion may be what started it off. Who knows, without religion, we might still be hunting and gathering in the plains of Africa....
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#13. To: Samuel Gray, 2Trievers (#1)
Would love to see some of the creationist types on LP "respond" to this new information.
#15. To: Don (#13)
What exactly is in this article that is supposed to "shake my world?"
#18. To: Samuel Gray (#15)
Was he just "beta-testing" the species til he got to Adam and Eve?
#20. To: Don (#18)
#21. To: Samuel Gray (#20)
#22. To: Don (#21)
#25. To: Samuel Gray (#22)
#28. To: Don (#25)
#30. To: Samuel Gray (#28)
When one runs up against a wall of faith, it is virtually impenetrable.
#32. To: Don (#30)
#33. To: Samuel Gray (#32)
not supported in any way by the facts on record. ;)
#40. To: Don (#33)
#49. To: Aric2000 (#40)
#64. To: Don (#49)
If this is the best that science can come up with, science has a lot to be deserved. Nonsense is nonsense and a theory that mankind crawled out of the ocean and evolved into mankind is nonsense.
#65. To: Aric2000, All (#64)
#90. To: Don (#65)
#98. To: Aric2000 (#90)
#133. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#98)
#137. To: Aric2000 (#133)
And until fundamentalists mature enough to make that realization, I will stomp on them whenever I run across them.
#140. To: 2Trievers (#137)
#146. To: Aric2000 (#140)
As some have said, respect someone who is searching for the truth, doubt those that claim they have found it.
Replies to Comment # 146.
#155. To: 2Trievers (#146)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 146.