[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them

Ghost Dancers and Democracy: Tucker Carlson

Amalek (Enemies of Israel) 100,000 Views on Bitchute

ICE agents pull screaming illegal immigrant influencer from car after resisting arrest

Aaron Lewis on Being Blacklisted & Why Record Labels Promote Terrible Music

Connecticut Democratic Party Holds Presser To Cry About Libs of TikTok

Trump wants concealed carry in DC.

Chinese 108m Steel Bridge Collapses in 3s, 16 Workers Fall 130m into Yellow River

COVID-19 mRNA-Induced TURBO CANCERS.

Think Tank Urges Dems To Drop These 45 Terms That Turn Off Normies


Science/Tech
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: 2670
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 64.

#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.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-17   6:22:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Samuel Gray, 2Trievers (#1)

Would love to see some of the creationist types on LP "respond" to this new information.

Ok, fine. I believe in the creation viewpoint.

What exactly is in this article that is supposed to "shake my world?"

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   13:20:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Don (#13)

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?

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-17   14:13:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Samuel Gray (#15)

Was he just "beta-testing" the species til he got to Adam and Eve?

You do know that animals were created before man, right?

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:07:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Don (#18)

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.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-17   16:26:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Samuel Gray (#20)

Generally? I am a creationist, and I have no problems with the "day" mentioned in Genesis as being much longer than 24 hours.

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:29:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Don (#21)

It'd have to be a few hundred million years long to match everything up in the timeline.

You know all this.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-17   16:29:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Samuel Gray (#22)

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.

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:36:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Don (#25)

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."

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-17   16:39:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Samuel Gray (#28)

When one runs up against a wall of faith, it is virtually impenetrable.

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.

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:41:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Don (#30)

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. ;)

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-17   16:46:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Samuel Gray (#32)

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.

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:49:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Don (#33)

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.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-02-17   23:50:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Aric2000 (#40)

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.

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   9:03:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-02-18   10:59:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 64.

#65. To: Aric2000, All (#64)

Eric, for starters, how about stopping to be a condescending prick?

Don  posted on  2005-02-18 13:11:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 64.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]