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: 2106
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 (1-54) not displayed.
.
.
.
#55. To: Samuel Gray (#54)
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.
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.
Asked and answered. I said your summation was not truthful.
You have a 4mail ...
To a growing number of Americans, Christianity is like strong disinfectant on a wound...it's burns a lot.
I can't find the link right now ... maybe "Cheesy Jesus"? If I run across it again, I'll let you know.
Well, there are many "Christians" who support Bush. The thing is these supporters have little to do with Christianity as it was taught by its namesake.
I don't see mail.
Ok, then evolutionists do not preach their brand of religion stating the things that I said. Right.
I'll try again ........
Sorry, I can't help it when it comes to upstart Christian Creationists that know nothing about evolution but spout about how it isn't science. Total and complete nonsense, so I speak to you as if you are a child, because you are about as ignorant as one...
Very good statement, but what does that mean to you Don? DOes that mean that science means nothing because it can be changed? Sorry, WRONG answer...... You myths are in a written book, and match up with THOUSANDS of other myths of thousands of other religions. Creation myths are a dime a dozen, just because your bible states one, does not make it the harbinger of the total true one. Just as the flood myth has stories that come very close to it as well. I can tell you exactly where you creation myth came from, what region of the world, and what religion it came from, I can also tell you where your flood myth came from, what region, when, and from what religion it came from. THe old testament myths are a conglomeration of so many religions that it is insane, none of it's myths are original in any way shape or form. Study the HISTORY of the bible, it is fascinating reading, then again, it just might crush your faith to such a point your life won't be worth living, so never mind. And Yes, I am a total prick when it comes to self rightseous christians who claim to have the one and only truth, because it is so far from the ACTUAL historical truth, that it isn't even worth discussing. Respect those that search for the truth, doubt those that claim they have found it.
At least you know what you are. Take a hike.
At least you know what you are. Take a hike. Ahh, poor baby, the truth hurts doesn't it? WAAAAHHHHH.... ROFLMAO!! Poor wittle Cweationist, did I hut yo wittle feewings?.....
Oh yeah, the board can really tell you've done well in your rejection of the Bible...flawless character you have, lots of empathy and self-control. *sarcasm* About as impressive as a baby crapping his diapers.
Comments (95 - 185) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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
#81. To: Samuel Gray (#80)
#82. To: Don (#81)
#83. To: Don (#58)
#84. To: Don (#81)
Lets just keep religion out of the picture if it offends you.
#85. To: crack monkey (#66)
#86. To: TomBishop (#84)
#87. To: 2Trievers (#83)
#88. To: Samuel Gray (#82)
#89. To: Don (#87)
#90. To: Don (#65)
#91. To: Don (#69)
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.
#92. To: Aric2000 (#90)
Total and complete nonsense, so I speak to you as if you are a child, because you are about as ignorant as one...
#93. To: Don (#92)
Total and complete nonsense, so I speak to you as if you are a child, because you are about as ignorant as one...
#94. To: Aric2000 (#93)
.
.
.