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: 1972
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 # 35.
#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.
I think that the only time I ever "won" one of these arguments was when I replied to a propostion like the one above by observing that by that token, God could have created the world yesterday, or five minutes ago for that matter, and we would never know. That kind of stopped my friend in his tracks. It really seemed to trouble him.
This little "ask the pastor anything" session was very instructive, not from the standpoint of the quality of information he disseminated, but from the fact that some people want to believe anything SO badly that they'll set aside logic, common sense, etc, in an effort to embrace their "faith." The "Dinosaurs on the Ark" discussion itself was priceless. I was nearly denounced as a heretic for asking which of the hundreds of species of hummingbirds were selected for inclusion on the ark, what'd they do with the insects, etc. I think I know why it requires a child-like faith to believe. Beyond that, one's questioning nature renders the whole religion thing moot (or it does to me).
Now chocolate cake without chocolate frosting. That's heresy.
#36. To: 2Trievers (#35)
Nice one 2Trievers, Thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#8. To: Samuel Gray (#1)
Answer: God created it already "old."
#9. To: randge (#8)
#35. To: Samuel Gray (#9)
I think I know why it requires a child-like faith to believe. Beyond that, one's questioning nature renders the whole religion thing moot (or it does to me).
Replies to Comment # 35.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.