[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: 2852
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 # 88.

#16. To: 2Trievers (#0)

Why can't creationists simply conclude that evolution in itself is a creation of God (but not for the purpose of deceiving the curious, that's just BS)? "Intelligent Design"? Well Natural Selection is certainly sane and common-sensical when you compare it to the repeated failed attemps of government policies and Social Darwinists.

But look at it this way. If it's true that Mankind was "made in the image of God", one of the most creative impulses thruought history has been the invention of labor-saving devices. Natural Selection and Evolution are the ultimate labor-saving devices if you happen to be God. Put in a reliable power source (so no problems of "entropy" of a closed system), the Sun, and you're set to go.

Whoever in the religious communty who thought it was necessary to devote their energies to such a non-issue is nothing but an asshole. So it doesn't quite jive with scriptural dogma. BFD, get over it.

I can't hardly wait for these folks to start repudiating Copernicus.

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-17   14:49:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: PnbC (#16)

Whoever in the religious communty who thought it was necessary to devote their energies to such a non-issue is nothing but an asshole.

If this thing is such a non-issue, what are the seculists so anxious to prove their theory of "Ma,look, our cousin, the apeman, has come to dinner?" Are these people also "assholes?"

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:11:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Don (#19)

The debate has no relevance to the teachings of Christianity. Belief in Creationism doesn't make one any better or worse a person or Christian than someone who doesn't. But it can reflect badly on pulpit preachers and the Pat Robertsons, who think that so many Sunday sermons need to focus on that (real spiritual of them there).

It's a waste of your precious time on Earth to even bother with it. Pity if you feel it's that important.

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-17   16:31:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: PnbC (#23)

Pity if you feel it's that important.

Then, you feel that the creation viewpoint is not that important and it can be taught as well as the evolution theory?

Don  posted on  2005-02-17   16:38:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Don (#27)

Open up a school and teach whatever you want. However, don't be surprised if many employers decline to hire people taught at these schools. I might prefer that public schools not teach creationism, but at this point, the level of misinformation being spoon-fed to our kids in areas such as history and civics is so bad that in a few more years it won't really matter anymore one way or the other.

Yes, let them both be taught together. It won't really matter so long as one side isn't actively trying to suppress the other. Disclaimers such as "Evolution is only a theory" is fine as long as Creationism is aknowleged as ALSO being just a theory.

America is heading into the dark ages anyways. Go for the gusto.

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-18   0:48:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: PnbC (#44)

Public schools are just that. They are public. And, I imagine that a lot of the tax monies extorted from me go into those public schools. If you think that public schools should not teach creationism, that knife cuts both ways. There are always two sides to an issue.

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   9:06:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Don (#51)

I'm for the marketplace deciding (to hell with public schools). I doubt you will find too many people trusting microbiologists/virologists who don't aknowledge natural selection though. Kinda applies itself to laboratory research.

Creationism only tries to debunk scientific theory. I don't see evidence that it has predictable results in the lab or offers anything of substance, or that it can stand on its own merits without trying to debunk the other as Natural Selection can.

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-18   10:16:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: PnbC (#60)

I think that the Bible predates the scientific debunking idea, so creationism could hardly try to debunk science. It is the other way around.

As for the scientific theory thing, scientific theory about this and that is constantly debunked by other findings within the field of science. Not much of what science prescribes as fact is written on stone. New findings are constantly being made and making obsolete what was once accepted as scientific fact.

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   13:44:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Don (#69)

Most things aren't meant to be "written in stone". The constitution is one exception. As for the Bible, well, if you've followed the history of its official edits/edicts and translations then you would realize it's too late to apply the "written in stone" label to it.

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-18   13:58:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: PnbC (#70)

Yet it's treated as if it IS written in stone. That whole infallible word of God ploy that makes it ironclad and above reproach. Truth is, no one knows who's edited what in that thing, or what agenda they had doing it. They just invoke "God's Will" and say that nothing is in there that He didn't "miracle" in there. Not buying it for a second, thanks.

What about the Gnostic Gospels, the Apocrypha, etc, books that didn't make the editorial cut?

As I said yesterday, the BEST politican has got nothing on the least preacher when it comes to spin. Rumplestiltskin's task of spinning flax into gold is child's play compared to the pastors who routinely weave fables into faith using a book 90 percent of them don't have the faintest understanding of in the first place.

The people who trash science always come out with that "new advancements are changing scientific theories every day, nothing is written in stone" but they without fail turn back to the (KJV) version of the bible and say the exact opposite, that it's unchanging and flawless.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-18   14:06:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Samuel Gray (#72)

hey without fail turn back to the (KJV) version of the bible and say the exact opposite, that it's unchanging and flawless.

Setting up straw dogs is recognized in logic as a fallacy.

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   14:09:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Don (#73)

No moreso than your simplistic and self serving characterization of the theory of evolution a few posts back.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-18   14:11:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Samuel Gray (#74)

Which post?

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   14:12:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Don (#75)

#59 in your hymnals.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-18   14:16:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Samuel Gray (#76)

Are you saying that Post 59 is not a summation of the theory of evolution?

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   14:17:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Don (#77)

Are you saying that Post 59 is not a summation of the theory of evolution?

What I'd said earlier was that it was a simplistic and self serving summation.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-18   14:26:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Samuel Gray (#78)

But, it is a truthful summation, right?

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   14:29:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Don (#79)

truthful summation

I'm sure you'd consider it thus. I do not.

Then again, "let there be light" seems a bit oversimplified to me.

Did He mean let it be a particle, or a wave, or did the duality just happen that way?

For matters of faith, the *ahem* devil is in the details.

Then, I suppose you may say that about evolution too, but in that case there is a bit more bone upon which to hang flesh.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-18   14:38:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Samuel Gray (#80)

You keep getting hung up on religion here. Lets just keep religion out of the picture if it offends you.

I'm sure you'd consider it thus looks as though you are skipping around the mayberry bush. It is truthful or it is not. Which one is it? If you want a serious discussion on the matter, lets have serious answers.

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   14:57:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Don (#81)

Asked and answered. I said your summation was not truthful.

Samuel Gray  posted on  2005-02-18   15:17:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Samuel Gray (#82)

Ok, then evolutionists do not preach their brand of religion stating the things that I said. Right.

Don  posted on  2005-02-18   18:38:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 88.

        There are no replies to Comment # 88.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 88.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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