Species: Homo Erectus
Barnifrankia:
Posted on 04/17/2010 6:46:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
New age estimates for Homo erectus fossils on the Indonesian island of Java have physical anthropologists scratching their crania.
After convincing most of their colleagues that H. erectus may have persisted on the Indonesian island of Java as recently as 30,000 years ago -- late enough to have coexisted in Asia with modern humans for more than 100,000 years -- anthropologists presented new analyses April 14 suggesting the fossils in question may actually predate Homo sapiens by hundreds of thousands of years.
It all depends which radiometric method you use to assess the fossils' age, New York University anthropologist Susan Antón reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
Antón and an Indonesian colleague lead a team that first announced in 1996 that sediment at two H. erectus sites on Java dates to between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago. Those "remarkably young" dates, based on analyses of radioactive elements in fossil-bearing sediment, suggest that H. erectus survived well into the era dominated by modern humans, Antón said. Many researchers now accept those dates.
But a new analysis, based on measurements of radioactive argon's decay in volcanic rock above and below the fossils, puts H. erectus' age on Java at roughly 550,000 years. It's not clear why these estimates differ so dramatically and which one is more accurate, Antón said.
"It's confusing right now, but I suspect that Homo erectus' age on Java is still relatively young," said Christopher Stringer of London's Natural History Museum. A new analysis of sediment on Java suggests that animal fossils on the island date to between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago, providing a possible framework for when H. erectus lived there, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
I am fascinated by the new discoveries and enjoy that it’s a new piece to our anthropological history.
However when I read pieces like this I tend to think, “Now up until five minutes before this confusing evidence was discovered, you would have been mocked endlessly to be the least bit skeptical of scientific theory put forth.”
I read somewhere that science is the new religion and I really think it’s true. It’s wonderful to solve scientific mysteries. However when you except scientific theory in a blind faith way, you are no better than the ones you mock for believing in God.
"If your erection lasts longer than 550,000 years, please consult a doctor immediately."
:O)
It’s all George Bu....................... Aw, you know what I’m going to say.
How many thousands of years? And he still has erectus. I should be so lucky at 68.
So, when have I done that?
:’)
It's the coffee, I'm tellin' ya.
What you never heard of fossilized wood?
So you guess, make assumptions about background radiation radioactive decay in the past based on the present.
This article uses a lot of words to tell us very little. It doesn’t say exactly what types of tests were preformed, where the sediments came from (volcanic rock can strip away the surface and deposit itself next to much older rock), or even cites the original information.
So its basically usless to form an opinion on.
Java “man”??? a piece of a skull, a leg bone and a tooth, not necessarily from the same individual. But wonder of wonders!! Skin color, length of hair and even the shape of face were determined.
Java something but not much man there.
Lol. You'll get yours yet.
No, not you Sunken Civ! Just an observation I’ve made from my Skeptic Society functions and such. I was simply musing and pondering.
Any idea we accept "in a blind faith way" might be considered a "new religion."
But a true scientist is not supposed to accept anything "in a blind faith way."
Do they?
Certainly not that any of them would admit, at least in their own areas of research.
But how many of us fit the definition of "a true scientist"?
Probably zero.
We are merely the curious and somewhat informed public. We don't know which scientists are honest and which frauds.
Indeed, the scientists involved could well be 100% honest, but being written up by a totally corrupt "journalist" only interested in advancing his/her own agenda -- whatever that might be.
Point is, whatever we may or may not accept "in a blind faith way," may not be the scientific work itself, but rather a journalist's propaganda.
Or maybe the journalist is trying to do the scientist a favor by hyping the results to get more research funding.... and so on.
In due time, perhaps years later, other scientists will study, attempt to repeat the results and decide for themselves what is valid and important.
These second and third looks may just stir up more controversy.
Or they could help reach a new understanding.
As the interested public, we should take note, but also take it all with a grain of salt.
It's just the way real science works.
As a practicing physicist, I can tell you that this is complete and utter HS. You can challenge accepted theories with impunity provided you can provide evidence that they don't add up. To do so, however, requires new and convincing data, and not just the same tired old shibboleths always raised by the so-called anti-Darwinists, whose view of science is that it is just one big conspiracy theorist.
Some things will be harder than others. If you want to suggest that Newton's laws of motions for ordinary matter at ordinary velocities are wrong, or that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated for large systems in quasi-equilibrium, then you have a very high hurdle to leap over.
If you want to suggest that the fossil record is incomplete, everyone would accept that. If you have your own additional fossils to add, located, moved, preserved and evaluated in accordance with accepted standards of professional practice, they will be admitted easily enough. Indeed, if you have new diagnostic techniques for learning something from your own fossils or someone else's that will be accepted too, though it will be incumbent upon to you show that the new technique is reliable and provides value.
Thanks autumnraine.
:’) The only “faith” I’ve ridiculed here (besides Islam, which isn’t a religion, it’s medieval fascism, and the Koran a medieval ‘Mein Kampf’) is that one with burning crosses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.