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: 2113
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
#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'll buy that. Yeppers.
Killer abs for an old guy, but there has been some "shrinkage."
Is that because of evolution or creation???
The temperature in the Sistine Chapel was chilly that day?
"The Chapel was built between 1477 and 1481 by Pope Sixtus IV. From 1480 to 1483 the the walls were decorated with frescoes by famous artists of Renaissance, such as Botticelli, Perugino, Ghirlandaio. After twenty years, in 1508 Julius II commissioned Michelangelo to decorate the ceiling. Today, after the restoration, Michelangelo’s original colours of the “Last Judgement” sparkle gloriously."
Pope Julius: "Michelangelo, when will you be finished?" Michelangelo: "When I am done."
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).
seriously laughing...
funny post (again)
You know me, I love sacred cow burgers. Rare, with all the fixins, and an ice cold longneck. Has spring "arrove" down there yet? It was 77 degrees here Tuesday.
Ok, fine. I believe in the creation viewpoint. What exactly is in this article that is supposed to "shake my world?"
I have to leave for awhile, but I'll be back later.
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?
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.
How long is a day? I wasn't aware that our concept of time is quite that old.
You do know that animals were created before man, right?
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?"
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 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.
If I had actually heard of such a secularist saying something so stupid, I would have to agree. No one likes someone who is "in-your-face" even when it's something you might actually agree with.
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.
... that they are assholes, that is.
Then, you feel that the creation viewpoint is not that important and it can be taught as well as the evolution theory?
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."
Well, don't the evolutionists feel that mankind dragged himself out the primordial slime to the trees, i.e. the apes, and then down out of the trees to whatever the heck we are today?
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.
No one is being uncivil. We are discussing evolution vs creation.
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.
Now chocolate cake without chocolate frosting. That's heresy.
Nice one 2Trievers, Thanks.
Honest to pete ... someone sent me this wind-up yesterday ... NUN-ZILLA!! The spark of religion
Nothing upsets them more then popping that at them, they barely understand science, trying to actually get them to understand philosophy is just a little much...LOL
isin't she wearing a Burka? I say nuke her for the sake of freedom.
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.
Comments (41 - 185) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Samuel Gray (#1)
Answer: God created it already "old."
#3. To: 2Trievers (#2)
#4. To: Samuel Gray (#3)
#5. To: 2Trievers (#4)
#6. To: 2Trievers, Samuel Gray (#2)
#7. To: robin (#6)
#8. To: Samuel Gray (#1)
Answer: God created it already "old."
#9. To: randge (#8)
#10. To: Samuel Gray (#5)
#11. To: Samuel Gray (#1)
Politicians could learn a lot from preachers on the subject of spin.
#12. To: christine (#11)
#13. To: Samuel Gray, 2Trievers (#1)
Would love to see some of the creationist types on LP "respond" to this new information.
#14. To: Samuel Gray, 2Trievers (#13)
#15. To: Don (#13)
What exactly is in this article that is supposed to "shake my world?"
#16. To: 2Trievers (#0)
#17. To: Samuel Gray (#15)
#18. To: Samuel Gray (#15)
Was he just "beta-testing" the species til he got to Adam and Eve?
#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.
#20. To: Don (#18)
#21. To: Samuel Gray (#20)
#22. To: Don (#21)
#23. To: Don (#19)
#24. To: Don (#19)
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?"
#25. To: Samuel Gray (#22)
#26. To: All, Don (#24)
I would have to agree
#27. To: PnbC (#23)
Pity if you feel it's that important.
#28. To: Don (#25)
#29. To: PnbC (#24)
#30. To: Samuel Gray (#28)
When one runs up against a wall of faith, it is virtually impenetrable.
#31. To: Samuel Gray (#28)
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."
#32. To: Don (#30)
#33. To: Samuel Gray (#32)
not supported in any way by the facts on record. ;)
#34. To: Don (#13)
#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).
#36. To: 2Trievers (#35)
#37. To: tom007, Cagey (#36)
Say your prayers! No one is safe from the wrath of Nunzilla! This fire-breathing wind-up sister trudges straight out of a Catholic-school student's nightmare like a determined disciplinary force, with green eyes blazing and sparks flying from her mouth. Wearing the traditional black and white habit and carrying a Bible in one hand and a ruler in the other, this holy terror will have you owning up to transgressions from as far back as birth. 2" tall and made of hard plastic, packaged in a custom cathedral-style box.
#38. To: randge (#8)
#39. To: 2Trievers (#37)
Say your prayers! No one is safe from the wrath of Nunzilla!
#40. To: Don (#33)
.
.
.