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: 2260
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
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: Flintlock (#39)
LOL, or at least get out a sledgehammer.....
There'll be no rapture for you!
I have a rapture experience whenever I look at my kids, that's all I need.... This stuff about flying up to heaven gives me the willies, I'm afraid of heights, so leave me out of it....LOL
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.
Lately, I've been thinking the same thing; somebody should start a thread on the topic.
Nope, not on my watch.... First off ANY scientific theory is "only" a theory, second of all, Creationism is NOT a theory, it is religion, a religious myth at that. There is NOTHING at all scientific about creationism, therefore, it cannot be considered a "theory". Yes, the schools are shot to hell, that is why I don't send my kids to them... This country is also shot to hell, another reason why I don't send my kids to public schools.
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
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.
Translation: Get rid of the smart people and indoctrinate the kids.
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.
I say nuke her for the sake of freedom. Wait! Hold fire! Isn't that Hillary in her thong? We couldn't do that!!
My favorite quote of all time, no wonder I couldn't find it, I thought it was Louis de Broglie... He was dead-on with it.
The smart people were the ones that "got" with the program when the theory was still new, and everyone was laughing at them.
I guess it all depends upon your definition of smart.
Still here trying to figure out the evolution of Sunday Man ... and NFL Man ... Remote Man ................
That definition would start by looking at established facts and drawing reasoned conclusions, rather than from a 2,000 year old book of stories whose very "genesis" (what was included, what was omitted), draws the whole issue of its veracity into question. Just because a story has been believed for 1900+ years doesn't make it true, just popular.
That pic is a pretty good beginning for NFL man. Man, that stuff is so boring.
Reasoned conclusion? Ok, a reasoned conclusion is that modern man began as slime in the ocean and over many millions of years became what he is today. Talk about a self-made man. The whole trick is to somehow convince people that slime became an ape and ape became man. The thing is only some guy's theory that many other people want to follow. The thing may be entertaining but so are many other science fiction shows.
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.
ROFL!!
In using the term "theory" I'm being charitable, not necessarily accurate. I mean if Hicksville, MO public schools want to slap disclaimers on their biology textbooks then they should slap a similar disclaimer on their creationism textbooks (not that I've heard of any). In fact, all public schools should have a disclaimer slapped on their walls stating that attendance is mandatory under law, and does not necessarily the usefulness of the content of the material taught herein. In fact, if you don't earn enough money to send your kids to private school, then you shouldn't have kids of your own, period. The message of public schools is: "Have all the kids you want. We (The State) will see to their education." Something for everyone to ponder.
In fact, if you don't earn enough money to send your kids to private school, then you shouldn't have kids of your own, period. The message of public schools is: "Have all the kids you want. We (The State) will see to their education." Something for everyone to ponder. Now, that's something I can agree with. Why people focus so hard on each other's differences, I have no idea...there's so much that so many agree on, but ignore because of a few differences.
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?
Where did you find that? That was a magnet at the Whole Foods Grocery. I told Zipporah about it several weeks ago, but could only describe it. I love it.
That's the funniest thing I've seen in about 18 months.
you know what the really sad part of what is happening w/ the so-called Christian community and being in bed politically with the RNC? It's that what the are doing and what they say absolutely is a contradicition of what scripture says.. and nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus nor His teachings. As Jesus said in Matthew: 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' 23 Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!' 24 "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain fell, the rivers rose, and the winds blew and pounded that house. Yet it didn't collapse, because its foundation was on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of Mine and doesn't act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, the rivers rose, the winds blew and pounded that house, and it collapsed. And its collapse was great!"
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.
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.
If you are talking about the Catholic supplements to the bible, I agree with you. But, the bible was written in the language of its day, and there are accurate enough translations available.
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.
Setting up straw dogs is recognized in logic as a fallacy.
No moreso than your simplistic and self serving characterization of the theory of evolution a few posts back.
Which post?
#59 in your hymnals.
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.
But, it is a truthful summation, right?
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.
Comments (81 - 185) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#42. To: Aric2000 (#41)
at least get out a sledgehammer.....
#43. To: Flintlock (#42)
#44. To: Don (#27)
#45. To: PnbC (#44)
America is heading into the dark ages anyways.
#46. To: PnbC (#44)
Disclaimers such as "Evolution is only a theory" is fine as long as Creationism is aknowleged as ALSO being just a theory.
#47. To: Aric2000 (#46)
~~ Max Planck
#48. To: Flintlock (#39)
#49. To: Aric2000 (#40)
#50. To: 2Trievers (#47)
but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
#51. To: PnbC (#44)
#52. To: Flintlock (#39)
isin't she wearing a Burka?
#53. To: 2Trievers (#47)
#54. To: Don (#50)
#55. To: Samuel Gray (#54)
#56. To: Don (#50)
#57. To: Don (#55)
definition of smart.
#58. To: 2Trievers (#56)
#59. To: Samuel Gray (#57)
#60. To: Don (#51)
#61. To: PnbC (#23)
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.
#62. To: Aric2000 (#46)
#63. To: PnbC (#62)
In fact, all public schools should have a disclaimer slapped on their walls stating that attendance is mandatory under law, and does not necessarily the usefulness of the content of the material taught herein.
#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)
#66. To: 2Trievers, Zipporah (#48)
#67. To: 2Trievers (#56)
#68. To: crack monkey (#66)
#69. To: PnbC (#60)
#70. To: Don (#69)
#71. To: PnbC (#70)
#72. To: PnbC (#70)
#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.
#74. To: Don (#73)
#75. To: Samuel Gray (#74)
#76. To: Don (#75)
#77. To: Samuel Gray (#76)
#78. To: Don (#77)
Are you saying that Post 59 is not a summation of the theory of evolution?
#79. To: Samuel Gray (#78)
#80. To: Don (#79)
truthful summation
.
.
.