Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 06-11-2003, 10:48 AM

By "modern humans" they mean Homo sapiens:

160,000-Year-Old Skulls Found in Ethiopia

Scientists Find Oldest Fossils of Modern Humans

From the Washington Post article:

Quote:

Scientists working in northeast Ethiopia have unearthed the 160,000-year-old remains of two adults and a child, providing the oldest fossil evidence ever found of how modern humans evolved and a new indication that they arose from a common African ancestor.

The remains -- fragments of three skulls found near the site of an ancient freshwater lake -- are 60,000 years older than the oldest previously known specimen of Homo sapiens, and serve as an anatomical bridge between Africa's earlier human ancestors and the fully modern humans who began appearing throughout the world about 100,000 years ago.

Edited to add a link to the New Scientist news article (shamelessly stolen from Patrick's posting):

Dawn of human race uncovered

ps418 · 06-11-2003, 10:51 AM

You beat me to it!

Patrick

MrDarwin · 06-11-2003, 10:56 AM

By two whole minutes--eat my dust!

Alan G · 06-11-2003, 11:40 AM

This was just on Channel 4 news in the UK

"blah blah oldest human fossel found, 1X0,000 years old, could this be the closest we have to Adam?"

:banghead:

Channel 4 is normally so good for news too.

Dr.GH · 06-11-2003, 12:02 PM

I look forward to the creationist ritual "tapdance of denial." Has this been posted at any of their waterholes?

Baloo · 06-11-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan G
This was just on Channel 4 news in the UK

"blah blah oldest human fossel found, 1X0,000 years old, could this be the closest we have to Adam?"

:banghead:

Channel 4 is normally so good for news too.

<Awaits Fox "News" version...>

"blah blah oldest human fossil found, could this mean Atlantis was real?"

Baloo · 06-11-2003, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.GH
I look forward to the creationist ritual "tapdance of denial." Has this been posted at any of their waterholes?

Quote:

From the article
In contrast, the newly revealed skulls have precise dates thanks to the fragments of volcanic rocks found with the fossils. When rocks cool, they begin to accumulate argon gas from the decay of a potassium isotope. Analysing the gas gives the rock's age, in this case 154,000 to 160,000 years old.

Predicted creationist responses:
1) Scientists probably just threw out all of the results that disagreed with this age.
2) Assumes constant rate of potassium decay.
3) Scientists fake findings all the time. See "Pildown Man".
4) Scientists failed to account for impact of Flood on analysis.
5) The vulcanic fragments were taken from a site 4 miles away, 300 meters deeper. I read it somewhere.

Magus55 · 06-11-2003, 02:57 PM

Interesting, i especially like these quotes:

"They're not quite completely modern, but they're well on their way. They're close enough to call Homo sapiens," said Tim White, a University of California at Berkeley paleontologist who was co-leader of the international team that excavated and analyzed the skulls.

Previously, the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens found in Africa had been dated to about 130,000 to 100,000 years, although they were less complete and sometimes poorly dated, White said.

So i'm supposed to trust my entire world view to people who say, they are not completely modern, but close enough, and dating was less then complete and poorly dated? Talk about ambiguity. Next they'll be saying, oh we saw this posssible reptile fossil with a large tail, so its close enough to a dinosaur to call it one.

No wonder God said human wisdom was foolish - He was dead on.

mecca777 · 06-11-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
So i'm supposed to trust my entire world view to people who say, they are not completely modern, but close enough, and dating was less then complete and poorly dated? Talk about ambiguity. Next they'll be saying, oh we saw this posssible reptile fossil with a large tail, so its close enough to a dinosaur to call it one.

You could do worse. You forgot to contextualise your quotes by including this:

Quote:

White and his colleagues assigned the new creatures to a subspecies of Homo sapiens they named Homo sapiens idaltu � idaltu meaning "elder" in the Afar language.
emphasis mine

And of course, the second paragraph you quote is fairly clear in meaning - the part about "less complete and poorly dated" doesn't refer to the new fossil finds at all, but to the previous fossils believed to be of lesser age. The implication being that the new fossils are more complete and more accurately dated.

MortalWombat · 06-11-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
So i'm supposed to trust my entire world view to people who say, they are not completely modern, but close enough, and dating was less then complete and poorly dated? Talk about ambiguity. Next they'll be saying, oh we saw this posssible reptile fossil with a large tail, so its close enough to a dinosaur to call it one.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you being willfully obtuse? They did not say the "dating was less than complete," they said that fossils found earlier were less complete. And these new ones are more complete than the earlier ones.

And it was the fossils that were found earlier that were sometimes poorly dated, but these new ones are more precisely dated:

Quote:

In contrast, the newly revealed skulls have precise dates thanks to the fragments of volcanic rocks found with the fossils. When rocks cool, they begin to accumulate argon gas from the decay of a potassium isotope. Analysing the gas gives the rock's age, in this case 154,000 to 160,000 years old.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2003, 10:51 AM	#2
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	You beat me to it! Patrick

06-11-2003, 10:56 AM	#3
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	By two whole minutes--eat my dust!

06-11-2003, 11:40 AM	#4
Alan G Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Scotland Posts: 155	This was just on Channel 4 news in the UK "blah blah oldest human fossel found, 1X0,000 years old, could this be the closest we have to Adam?" :banghead: Channel 4 is normally so good for news too.

06-11-2003, 12:02 PM	#5
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	I look forward to the creationist ritual "tapdance of denial." Has this been posted at any of their waterholes?

06-11-2003, 02:57 PM	#8
Magus55 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 7,204	Interesting, i especially like these quotes: "They're not quite completely modern, but they're well on their way. They're close enough to call Homo sapiens," said Tim White, a University of California at Berkeley paleontologist who was co-leader of the international team that excavated and analyzed the skulls. Previously, the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens found in Africa had been dated to about 130,000 to 100,000 years, although they were less complete and sometimes poorly dated, White said. So i'm supposed to trust my entire world view to people who say, they are not completely modern, but close enough, and dating was less then complete and poorly dated? Talk about ambiguity. Next they'll be saying, oh we saw this posssible reptile fossil with a large tail, so its close enough to a dinosaur to call it one. No wonder God said human wisdom was foolish - He was dead on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.