160,000-year-old Skulls Are Oldest Modern Humans

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by hvfsl
There have been a lot of scientists that have come out with so called facts, then to only retract them after futher testing. It is just that there is a lot of misinformation in this area of science and I will believe it is true when scientists from all around the world have looked at the fossels, not just western ones.

An example of problems with fossels can be found at the UK natural history muesum where the diplodocus (a dinosaur) has had its bones moved around at least 3 times over the years as scientist find that the previous config was wrong.

Sure there have been dating issues in the past - but one thing that is a huge bit of help here is the stratigraphy - "The research team also unearthed skull pieces and teeth from seven other hominid individuals, hippopotamus bones bearing cut marks from stone tools, and more than 600 stone tools, including hand axes. All are from the same sediments and, thus, the same era. \"

We're not just talking about the scientists finding some bones in the dirt - these fossils were found in and amongst many other artifacts and animal fossils that can also be dated. That along with dating fossils and chemicals in the layers above and below where the fossils were found make the dating more valid.

I've spent some time working with geology and even spent some time in Greece doing an archeological dig in Isthmia. The dating techniques used are varied and quite accurate. With a find of this nature it would be foolish to assume they've only used one method of dating the fossils - the find is too important and controvertial.

At the very bottom of the article....

The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC Berkeley adjunct associate professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate the dated layers.

D

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Weighing in...

This thread has taken on an interesting life of its own, so I'll add my two bits:

1) GAP THEORY: There are plenty of Bible-believing fundamental Christians who do not have a problem with an ancient earth. Those in this camp see a potential "gap" between Genesisi 1:1 & 1:2, allowing for an Earth to be billions of years old.

2) MICRO vs. MACROEVOLUTION: Everyone knows that adaptations occur in nature. It is self evident that species can adapt their coloration in just a few hundred years if survival depends on it. If white butterflies get eaten in a new environment, the off-white ones have a better chance at surviving, and from their offspring, the darkest have the best odds, and so on until the most beneficial new color is found.

The problem with "big-picture" evolution is that it involves the creation of new organ systems and other such innovations that we have never been able to prove in the fossil record. Things change and move, but nothing truly "new" is presented. For evolution to create complete functioning new organ systems is impossible because while the end result is great for the final creature, all of his predecessors who were just beginning to form these new organs had no evolutionary advantage during the process--in fact, the energy to carry and maintain extra useless organ systems could only be a disadvantage for them.

3) THEISTIC EVOLUTION: This always sounds like a nice comprimise! "God created man by GUIDING his evolution." Well, when you look at that further, you find that it is completely absurd, and here's why:

Evolution is a process in which random mutations over epochs create genetic diversity, affording some creatures additional survival-enhancing benefits over the rest of their species, which they pass on to the next generation, so on and so on.

If God exists along side evolution, ALL HE CAN DO IS EXIST. Evolution is a closed system. God could have done little more than put the Earth in an orbit 93 million miles from a nice warm sun and check back on his experiment 4 billion years later.

_____

If one believes (as I do) in an active, powerful Creator who can enter the otherwise "closed" system of our universe and do whatever he wants--mitigate the laws of physics, alter matter and energy in any way he sees fit--then theistic evolution is an unnecessary compromise. If his very words can call the universe into existence, then whipping up the fauna and flora of our tiny little world would be no problem.

Oh, and the correlation between the genetic similarity between man and gorilla? To that I say, a great artist is allowed to have common element of style and technique, are they not? Rembrandt or Monet have their signature techniques for painting, yet the subjects of their paintings are quite different. The great genetic sculptor who crafted our world evidently had a style.

 

[pseudobrit]

Re: Weighing in...

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
1) GAP THEORY: There are plenty of Bible-believing fundamental Christians who do not have a problem with an ancient earth. Those in this camp see a potential "gap" between Genesisi 1:1 & 1:2, allowing for an Earth to be billions of years old.

Why can't Genesis just be a quaint little tale? It doesn't instruct on faith, it instructs on fact and history, two areas where we know for certain the Bible can be flawed.

2) MICRO vs. MACROEVOLUTION:
The problem with "big-picture" evolution is that it involves the creation of new organ systems and other such innovations that we have never been able to prove in the fossil record. Things change and move, but nothing truly "new" is presented. For evolution to create complete functioning new organ systems is impossible because while the end result is great for the final creature, all of his predecessors who were just beginning to form these new organs had no evolutionary advantage during the process--in fact, the energy to carry and maintain extra useless organ systems could only be a disadvantage for them.

What about humans with mutations -- 6 fingers and the like -- or frogs with several legs? Mutation does exist; mutation is the first step in the evolution of new species. Over centuries, a single recessive or dominant mutation can prove advantageous in the progeny of the mutant.

Or are you going to dispute the science of genetics too??? Simply because it contradicts millenia old Jewish storytelling?

3) THEISTIC EVOLUTION: This always sounds like a nice comprimise! "God created man by GUIDING his evolution." Well, when you look at that further, you find that it is completely absurd, and here's why:

...If God exists along side evolution, ALL HE CAN DO IS EXIST. Evolution is a closed system. God could have done little more than put the Earth in an orbit 93 million miles from a nice warm sun and check back on his experiment 4 billion years later.

Why not? Why could He not have started it all and just let it play out hands-off 99.99999% of the time?

Oh, and the correlation between the genetic similarity between man and gorilla? To that I say, a great artist is allowed to have common element of style and technique, are they not? Rembrandt or Monet have their signature techniques for painting, yet the subjects of their paintings are quite different. The great genetic sculptor who crafted our world evidently had a style.

You're in such denial... if one's faith cannot stand the grave threat from science telling them all the stories in their Holy Book may not be 100% true then I have to wonder about the strength of that faith.

 

[mactastic]

So... no discussion from anyone who actually knows anything about anthropology? That sucks, I was hoping at least someone here was in that field and could put some focus on this discussion the way it was intended. Unfortunately it seems to have become a science versus religion pissing contest. Science and religion are hereby given a restraining order and ordered to remain 500 yeards apart at all times. Go start a creationist / scientific thread if you want.

My knowledge of physical anthropology is almost 10 years old now however, and this is a field that changes quite often. I am amazed how much the human timeline has changed since I took these classes. The fact that these specimens fill in the area beyond 100,000 years ago is amazing. There was virtually nothing known about this time period when I was in this class. In addition to being purely a physical anthropologist's wet dream, the evidence of scratch marks deliberatly made on the skulls (did very many of you actually read the article, or just jump into the debate?) has incredible value to a cultural anthropologist as evidence of ritual mortuary practices, and other evidence that points toward cannibalism. Fascinating stuff, but so far not one post talking about it...

 

[pseudobrit]

It's hard to argue about planetary science if some people deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

[mactastic]

No it's not, you get a couple people with a decent knowledge of plane_ary science, and ignore the people who are off-topic. If they get too annoying, invite them to start a the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun vs. no-it-doesn't discussion of their own.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by mactastic
My knowledge of physical anthropology is almost 10 years old now however, and this is a field that changes quite often. I am amazed how much the human timeline has changed since I took these classes. The fact that these specimens fill in the area beyond 100,000 years ago is amazing. There was virtually nothing known about this time period when I was in this class.

My knowledge of the subject goes back about 12 years and even then the big talk was still about Lucy the australopithecine - there was nothing going back more than 50k for modern humans, most of the finds before that were Neanderthals. That's were the whole Neanderthal debate comes from.

I personally think the Neanderthals were a side branch, dead end, that evolved during the times of the heavy ice ages.

D

 

[mactastic]

I think the general consensus is that Neanderthals were a side branch that died out, or were possibily wiped out by another branch (possibly our own). I have heard some suggestion that one of the ways homo sapiens became dominant despite a larger cranial capacity in Neanderthals was the seeminly insignificant ability to make complex sounds. The theory goes that we were able to express strategic tactics because we were able to develop many sounds and therefore more concepts could be tied to them. So while the Neanderthals communication was limited to something like "CHARGE", homo sapiens were able to express things like "You charge with most of our warriors up the middle, while I take these guys and sneak up behind their leader." Sure would be wierd if the determining factor in race survival turned out to be a small bone in the throat.

 

[pseudobrit]

I think too that I remember reading that Homo sapiens could breed with Neandertals and the Neandertal women would have children but they'd be sterile. Perhaps it was only a theory. The idea was that the Neandertals were sexed to death by the Homo sapiens. I'm thinking of the article in National Geographic a year or so ago.