Humans around longer than thought

[rogue06]

Just finished reading this...

Source: Scientists Find Oldest Known Specimens of the Human Species

The bones of ancient hunters unearthed in Morocco are the oldest known specimens of the human species, potentially pushing back the clock on the origin of modern Homo sapiens, scientists announced Wednesday.

Found among stone tools and the ashes of ancient campfires, the remains date from about 300,000 years ago, a time when the Sahara was green and several early human species roamed the world, the scientists said. That makes them about 100,000 years older than any other fossils of Homo sapiens—the species to which all people today belong.

“These dates were a big wow,” said anthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Leipzig, Germany. He led an international team of scientists who reported the discovery Wednesday in Nature. “This material represents the very roots of our species—the very oldest Homo sapiens found in Africa or anywhere.”

Until now, most researchers believed that modern humankind emerged gradually from a population centered in East Africa around 200,000 years ago. Previous discoveries of early Homo sapiens fossils have been concentrated at sites in Ethiopia.

The fossil discovery at Jebel Irhoud near Marrakesh in North Africa, however, suggests that early humans had already spread across most of Africa by then.

“What’s really neat about this discovery is that you now have evidence of modern Homo sapiens across Africa, about as far from sites in East Africa as you can get,” said anthropologist Bernard Wood at George Washington University’s Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, who wasn’t involved in the find.

As early experiments in the human form, these ancestors had quite modern-looking facial features, but relatively primitive skulls, suggesting that the cognitive capacities of modern brains had yet to take shape, the scientists said.

Their faces were likely so contemporary in appearance that they might pass unnoticed on a crowded city sidewalk, although they might need to wear a hat to disguise their skull’s elongated shape, Dr. Hublin said.

Such combinations of traits, though, blur the differences that distinguish one human ancestor from another, making it hard for scholars to classify species accurately. In fact, several early human species, such as Neanderthals, were so closely related to Homo sapiens that they could all interbreed, modern genetic evidence shows.

But several independent experts said they agreed that the fossils most likely belonged to Homo sapiens.

“It has a modern face and a primitive brain case,” said John Fleagle, an expert on primate evolution at Stony Brook School of Medicine, who wasn’t part of the research group. “You would expect it to have a few primitive characteristics even if it is on the main line of our lineage. It shows what is probably an earlier stage of our species.”

The scientists found bones of three adults, a teenager and a child mixed in with sharpened flint tools and the butchered bones of gazelles and zebra, suggesting that a hunting party had camped there. Fires had scorched the tools and that proved key to determining the age of the find.

The researchers tested the tools using a technique called thermoluminescence dating, which reveals how much time has elapsed since an object has been heated. By that measure, they calculated that the tools were 315,000 years old, plus or minus 34,000 years.


They also dated tooth enamel from a fossil jaw using electron spin resonance, which can measure the residual radiation that has built up since a material formed. That yielded an age of 286,000 years, plus or minus 32,000 years, the scientists said.

“It leads us to conclude that 300,000 years old is the best age for these fossils,” said Daniel Richter at the Max Planck Institute, who conducted the dating studies.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Instead of early modern humans having spread to Morocco it might also suggest that they didn't evolve in East Africa

[tabibito]

Just finished reading this...

Source: Scientists Find Oldest Known Specimens of the Human Species

“This material represents the very roots of our species—the very oldest Homo sapiens found in Africa or anywhere.”
“It leads us to conclude that 300,000 years old is the best age for these fossils,” said Daniel Richter at the Max Planck Institute, who conducted the dating studies.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: National Geographic

The new findings, published in the February 17 (2005) issue of the journal Nature, establish Omo I and II as the oldest known fossils of modern humans. The prior record holders were fossils from Herto, Ethiopia, which dated the emergence of modern humans in Africa to about 160,000 years ago.

"The new dating confirms the place of the Omo fossils as landmark finds in unraveling our origins," said Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins Group at the Natural History Museum in London. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...50216_omo.html

© Copyright Original Source

Instead of early modern humans having spread to Morocco it might also suggest that they didn't evolve in East Africa

And there's this bit from the National Geographic report:

The 195,000-year-old date coincides with findings from genetic studies on modern human populations. Such studies can be extrapolated to determine when the earliest modern humans lived.

ermm ... no ... the genetic studies seem a tad awry.


Yup - At this rate they might even go full circle and wind up back in the Tigris/Euphrates valleys all over again, and 500 000 years in the past.

[rogue06]

And there's this bit from the National Geographic report: ermm ... no ... the genetic studies seem a tad awry.


Yup - At this rate they might even go full circle and wind up back in the Tigris/Euphrates valleys all over again, and 500 000 years in the past.

On that note: Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

Although this was likely a case of convergent evolution involving a dead end branch that went extinct.

[Starlight]

The researchers tested the tools using a technique called thermoluminescence dating, which reveals how much time has elapsed since an object has been heated. By that measure, they calculated that the tools were 315,000 years old, plus or minus 34,000 years.

They also dated tooth enamel from a fossil jaw using electron spin resonance, which can measure the residual radiation that has built up since a material formed. That yielded an age of 286,000 years, plus or minus 32,000 years, the scientists said.

“It leads us to conclude that 300,000 years old is the best age for these fossils,” said Daniel Richter at the Max Planck Institute, who conducted the dating studies.

But, but, but.... the earth is only 6000 years old! Carbon dating is phony!

...wait, they didn't use carbon dating? But teh bible!!!

Answers in Genesis has the Truth for you and explains why such old dates are phony. That science can't be trusted man.

[tabibito]

But, but, but.... the earth is only 6000 years old! Carbon dating is phony!

...wait, they didn't use carbon dating? But teh bible!!!

Answers in Genesis has the Truth for you and explains why such old dates are phony. That science can't be trusted man.

The worst that can be said about the Bible's account of origins: It's no more reliable than evolutionary theory. I'm not about to scrap all of evolutionary theory because paleontologists stuff things up from time to time.

[shunyadragon]

The worst that can be said about the Bible's account of origins: It's no more reliable than evolutionary theory. I'm not about to scrap all of evolutionary theory because paleontologists stuff things up from time to time.

That is the worst?!?!?!?!!? No more reliable than evolutionary?!?!?!?

There is a distinct problem here that the origin of humanity based on ancient mythology is no more reliable than the science of evolution based on sound predictable consistent science.

[tabibito]

That is the worst?!?!?!?!!? No more reliable than evolutionary?!?!?!?

There is a distinct problem here that the origin of humanity based on ancient mythology is no more reliable than the science of evolution based on sound predictable consistent science.

It is predictable that the latest conclusive evidence will be written off as wrong within five years, and that statement can be made on the basis of consistent results to date. Until it can be scientifically verified that spontaneous generation is possible (a possibility that biologists continue to deny), evolution (with regard to the original source of life) remains a faith. The science goes no further than showing species evolved and continue to evolve - but the source of life has not been identified. Labs can produce organic matter, but they haven't been able to make it live.

[shunyadragon]

It is predictable that the latest conclusive evidence will be written off as wrong within five years, and that statement can be made on the basis of consistent results to date. Until it can be scientifically verified that spontaneous generation is possible (a possibility that biologists continue to deny), evolution (with regard to the original source of life) remains a faith. The science goes no further than showing species evolved and continue to evolve - but the source of life has not been identified. Labs can produce organic matter, but they haven't been able to make it live.

I would most definitely like others to respond to this. Science being able to 'make' life from non-life is not really the issue here, but nonetheless it is very likely that science will achieve this goal in the next ten to twenty years. In reality is not all that difficult.

Evolution with regard to the origins of life is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. Many of the problems have been worked out in the research at present, such as the energy source for needed for the beginning and maintenance of early pre-life forms and the most primitive life forms. To plead that science has not or cannot? achieve this goal is a classic fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

It is wrong to state '. . . it is predictable that conclusive evidence will be written of in five years.' First, the nature of evidence is never inherently conclusive in and of itself, because in reality this is not how the knowledge of science progresses.

Please explain 'spontaneous generation of life,' this is an odd alternative to either the scientific view nor the Theistic view of Creation of life. From the Theist view life is Created, and does not spontaneously appear. In science, the beginnings of life (abiogenesis) and evolution is simply a product of natural prcoesses and natural law.

[tabibito]

I would most definitely like others to respond to this. Science being able to 'make' life from non-life is not really the issue here, but nonetheless it is very likely that science will achieve this goal in the next ten to twenty years. In reality is not all that difficult.

If it happens, I'll believe it. Until then, I reserve the right to skepticism.

Evolution with regard to the origins of life is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. Many of the problems have been worked out in the research at present, such as the energy source for needed for the beginning and maintenance of early pre-life forms and the most primitive life forms.

A quibble about terminology. I would not be surprised if your claims here are valid - but in the absence of hard evidence, it is still a matter of believing a guess ... there's nothing to date (that I am aware of) which allows for it to be classed as a hypothesis.

To plead that science has not or cannot? achieve this goal is a classic fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

Which part of "Until it can be scientifically verified" caused the problem here?

It is wrong to state '. . . it is predictable that conclusive evidence will be written off in five years.' First, the nature of evidence is never inherently conclusive in and of itself, because in reality this is not how the knowledge of science progresses.

A fact which is ignored by almost anyone who bases claims on current knowledge: particularly in fields like archaeology and paleontology. Everything might be written in pencil - but the fact is that claims are treated as conclusively demonstrated.

Please explain 'spontaneous generation of life,' this is an odd alternative to either the scientific view nor the Theistic view of Creation of life. From the Theist view life is Created, and does not spontaneously appear. In science, the beginnings of life (abiogenesis) and evolution is simply a product of natural prcoesses and natural law.

"Spontaneous generation" is an old term, synonymous with "abiogenesis." If it did happen, why doesn't it happen? Has anyone witnessed an occurrence of abiogenesis? What observed evidence supports a hypothesis that it is possible?

[shunyadragon]

If it happens, I'll believe it. Until then, I reserve the right to skepticism.

A quibble about terminology. I would not be surprised if your claims here are valid - but in the absence of hard evidence, it is still a matter of believing a guess ... there's nothing to date (that I am aware of) which allows for it to be classed as a hypothesis. Which part of "Until it can be scientifically verified" caused the problem here?

"Until it can be scientifically verified" is an old meaningless (YEC/OEC) canard trying to kick the can down the road. Joel is a specialist in trying to do this. The science of evolution and the contemporary abiogenesis is based on 'hard consistent evidence' and predictability in the real world. Of course, all the questions are not answered, but 'canards like this are classic fallacies of 'arguing from ignorance,' such as the myth of the half life of missing links.

A fact which is ignored by almost anyone who bases claims on current knowledge: particularly in fields like archaeology and paleontology. Everything might be written in pencil - but the fact is that claims are treated as conclusively demonstrated.

Absolutely false, nothing in science is ever 'conclusively demonstrated.' All knowledge of science is conditional on future discoveries and facts.

"Spontaneous generation" is an old term, synonymous with "abiogenesis."

Old terms are almost as bad as basing the origins of anything on old mythology.

If it did happen, why doesn't it happen? Has anyone witnessed an occurrence of abiogenesis?

(1) The environment that existed at the time life originated does not exist today.
(2) Any pre-life organic materials are quickly consumed by the massive microbial population in regions where abiogenesis likely took place, like sea ocean vents.
(3) Arguing from ignorance is the worst possible fallacious argument available.

What observed evidence supports a hypothesis that it is possible?

You need to do your own homework on the last fifty concerning the last fify years of research on abiogenesis, instead of the blue smoke and mirrors of the fallacious 'arguing from ignorance.'

[tabibito]

but 'canards like this are classic fallacies of 'arguing from ignorance,' such as the myth of the half life of missing links.

Canard? Where is the evidence that it even can happen? So far what has been presented is no more than supposition.

(3) Arguing from ignorance is the worst possible fallacious argument available.

Really? Who'd have thought? Evidence has not been produced - so skepticism is "arguing from ignorance." How quaint.
Ad hominems aside, you haven't said anything that supports the proposition.

[rogue06]

It is predictable that the latest conclusive evidence will be written off as wrong within five years, and that statement can be made on the basis of consistent results to date. Until it can be scientifically verified that spontaneous generation is possible (a possibility that biologists continue to deny), evolution (with regard to the original source of life) remains a faith. The science goes no further than showing species evolved and continue to evolve - but the source of life has not been identified. Labs can produce organic matter, but they haven't been able to make it live.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life but rather what happens to life after it arose no matter how it arose.

[tabibito]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life but rather what happens to life after it arose no matter how it arose.

That was in part the point that I was trying to make.

People imposing unverified suppositions on science essentially make a religion out of science - which is what happens when they go beyond what is written (even in pencil).

[shunyadragon]

Canard? Where is the evidence that it even can happen? So far what has been presented is no more than supposition.
Really? Who'd have thought? Evidence has not been produced - so skepticism is "arguing from ignorance." How quaint.
Ad hominems aside, you haven't said anything that supports the proposition.

No, skepticism is not "arguing from ignorance," and skepticism is indeed integral to all scientific methods. Unfortunately your argument is not simply skepticism. It is dominated by a misuse of bad non-scientific terminology such (conclusive?and spontaneous generation, unverified suppositions), and because of what science has not been able to do, what has not been identified are clear examples of phantom fallacies 'arguing from ignorance.'

It is predictable that the latest conclusive evidence will be written off as wrong within five years, and that statement can be made on the basis of consistent results to date. Until it can be scientifically verified that spontaneous generation is possible (a possibility that biologists continue to deny), evolution (with regard to the original source of life) remains a faith. The science goes no further than showing species evolved and continue to evolve - but the source of life has not been identified. Labs can produce organic matter, but they haven't been able to make it live.

[tabibito]

by a misuse of bad non-scientific terminology such (conclusive?and spontaneous generation, unverified suppositions)

I speak English, not jargon. That is a problem for only a limited few. Spontaneous generation is an old word synonymous with abiogenesis (which you will note, is not acknowledged by spell check here, though it is by Microsoft Word) and "spontaneous generation" is still used in Biology - which, last I heard, is a science.
According to biologists "Spontaneous generation is the incorrect hypothesis that nonliving things are capable of producing life."