Oldest Human Skulls Found

BBC ^ | 6-11-2003 | Jonathan Amos

[biblewonk]

The oldest human skull would be Adam's and it would be 6000 years old.

[FourtySeven]

Hmmm.......now I wonder how the creationists are going to label this skull:

1. Simply an ape that has never been discovered before or...

2. Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

Yes, we're all familiar with that now tired shell game.

"There are NO transitional fossils in the record! NEVER have been", typical Creationist says.

"Ok, what about this skull 'X'?", typical response by an Evolutionist.

"Oh CLEARLY that's just another kind of ape, or the damage is too severe to say it's NOT a simple human skull, or..."...basically ANY response to deny that the ORIGINAL question was answered, at least to any OBJECTIVE eye.

[tbpiper]

Oldest Human Skulls Found

Somewhere in the Senate would be my guess.

[728b]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw309.htm

[Physicist]

Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

The heavy brow was caused by excessive furrowing while pondering the second significant digit of pi. ;^)

[exmarine]

These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means "elder" in the local Afar language).

Hahaha. A subspecies of humans? That's a laugh considering they have no DNA and the reconstruction was likely as fraudulent as the reconconstruction of the Neanderthal skulls. A recent book written by a trained orthodontist who examined the Neanderthal skulls showed that their reconsruction was fraudulent in that the jaws did not have the proper occlusions (an ortho ought to know!) - they were altered to create an apelike appearance.

Let's see...Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Lucy, and now Homo Sapien Idaltu. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

[far sider]

This guy is supposed to convinced me I evolved from apes?

Oh yeah. I'm convinced. Sign me up!

< /sarcasm off> Actually, he looks like a guy I work with.

[VadeRetro]

Neanderthal fossils have been turning up since the early 19th century. There are many, many specimens. Who's running around altering all the occlusions of all the jaws for all those fossils for all that time? What about all the other not-quite-human features such as the rib cage and upper/lower leg length ratios? (Many complete skeletons exist.)

It's rather easy to reject evidence if you're allowed to just allege fraud and walk away.

[CobaltBlue]

updated at midnight GMT

search nature science update

advanced search

Skulls reveal dawn of mankind

Ethiopian fossils confirm our African roots.
11 June 2003

MICHAEL HOPKIN

Homo sapiens idaltu: our 160,000 year old relatives.

source: Nature

Skulls found in Ethiopia are the oldest modern human fossils yet. The 160,000-year-old bones open a valuable window on the birth of Homo sapiens.

The fossils boost the theory that our species arose in Africa, says Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, whose team made the discovery¹. Many experts have argued that Africa was the cradle of humankind, opposing the view that we arose in several regions throughout the globe.

"It's a nice example of the fossil record confirming what we have believed," says Daniel Lieberman, who studies human evolution at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Head start

White and his colleagues came across the specimens in Herto, the scorching desert of Ethiopia's Middle Awash region. The haul comprises two complete crania - one adult, one child - and large fragments of skull from another adult.

The bones "have all the features of modern humans - there's nothing lacking", says Lieberman. For example, the adult cranium has a large, globular braincase and a flat face.

The crania also show some slightly more primitive characteristics, such as widely spaced eyes. This indicates the fossils' position at the root of the H. sapiens family tree. White's team has assigned the specimens to a new subspecies, H. sapiens idaltu.

The fossils were nestling amid a profusion of hippopotamus and antelope bones and a range of blades and other tools. This suggests that our ancestors were proficient butchers².

The child's skull has a sheen which suggests it may have been handled after death.

source: Nature

The tools themselves show a mixture of fairly advanced Stone Age technology - in which sharp blades of the desired shape were struck from a prepared rock - and more primitive sharp stones. It seems that cultural innovation mirrored the development of modern humans' anatomy.

The human skulls themselves also sport blade marks - perhaps indicating that they were stripped of their flesh after death for preservation. The child's skull has a distinctive sheen, suggesting, says White, that it was repeatedly handled and could even have been used as an ornament or drinking vessel. "This could be the first glimmering of emotion surrounding death," he argues.

It's a plausible idea, agrees anthropologist Alison Brooks of George Washington University in Washington, DC. She points out that many tribal cultures in the modern world preserve the bones of the dead. But she warns that evidence of flesh removal is not necessarily evidence that bones were used in post-mortem rituals - it is often difficult to tell whether the bones were buried or kept.

Early signs

Having pinned our ancestors down in Africa, the question now is how did we evolve within that huge continent. Did modern humans, for example, start in East Africa and spread from there? Or did our various anatomical and cultural hallmarks arise in different regions?

I doubt we will find one single place where everything happened

Chris Stringer
Natural History Museum

"I doubt we will find one single place where everything happened," says Chris Stringer, who studies human origins at London's Natural History Museum. He suggests, for example, that desert conditions could have isolated early populations from one another. Such populations could have reintegrated sometime later, if the climate became more favourable, and shared the advanced traits they each had developed.

Questions like this will not be answered without more fossils of a similar vintage. "African fossil finds are very scattered," White says. "But maybe this [find] will focus people's attention on this period."

References

1. White, T. D. et al. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 423, 742 - 747, (2003). |Article|
2. Clark, J. D et al. Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 423, 747 - 751, (2003). |Article|

© Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2003

•	Flat-faced Man in family feud 28 March 2003
•	Earliest human footprints found? 13 March 2003
•	Skull draws daggers 10 October 2002
•	Lost Neanderthal baby found 05 September 2002
•	Oldest member of human family found 11 July 2002
•	Toumaï, face of the deep 11 July 2002
•	Man left Africa three times 7 March 2002

•	Skulls reveal dawn of mankind 12 June 2003
•	Universe can surf the Big Rip 11 June 2003
•	Small fry follow the noise 11 June 2003
•	Inert gas goes organic 11 June 2003

[CobaltBlue]

I probably didn't do that exactly right, I am a newbie at HTML. Anyway, it's a free article. You can register to read the free articles.

[CobaltBlue]

>>A recent book written by a trained orthodontist who examined the Neanderthal skulls showed that their reconsruction was fraudulent in that the jaws did not have the proper occlusions (an ortho ought to know!)<<

Oh, c'mon, if everybody had proper occlusions orthodontists would be out of work! (My uncle is an orthodontist, my dad a dentist, and they just couldn't keep from messing with my occlusion. It's a wonder I have teeth left.)

[Nebullis]

Nice find.

How do the creationists explain these almost-in-the-image-of-God fossils? God's sense of humor or his way of lying to fool the infidels?

[exmarine]

Oh, c'mon, if everybody had proper occlusions orthodontists would be out of work! (My uncle is an orthodontist, my dad a dentist, and they just couldn't keep from messing with my occlusion. It's a wonder I have teeth left.)

Problem was that the occlusions were ALL WAY OFF. That is a problem. They also used "filler" material to fill in gaps in order to accomplish their deceit. The conclusion: Neanderthals were humans who lived to extreme ages (300-400 years), and that is why they have the dense bones and protruding brows, etc. Facial bones keep growing throughout life and the other bones become denser. It's a more believable explanation than Neanderthals weren't human. They were human. DNA difference means very little because human DNA can change and still be human. There are so many false conclusions drawn on Neanderthals, they are difficult to even count, and the point is that the conclusions are INFERENCES based upon worldview presuppositions, not confirmed scientific facts.

[exmarine]

Neanderthal fossils have been turning up since the early 19th century. There are many, many specimens. Who's running around altering all the occlusions of all the jaws for all those fossils for all that time? What about all the other not-quite-human features such as the rib cage and upper/lower leg length ratios? (Many complete skeletons exist.)

There have been so many frauds, paleos aren't even believable any longer. They approach a fossil with the presuppostion that all life evolved, therefore all fossil evidence MUST be interpreted in that light regardless of whether there is credible evidence that points in another direction.

The Neanderthals were humans. There is no evidence that says otherwise. There are interpretations that say otherwise, but one must consider the biases before believing such evidences.

[LexBaird]

I really feel let down that no one has yet posted a picture of Helen Thomas on this thread!!!!

You WANT to see a picture of Helen?

I urge you to seek help, man.

[Physicist]

If you're going to go down the road of "ALL the evidence is deliberately faked", you can rationalize anything under the sun, up to and including the innocence of O.J. Simpson.

Denial of evidence makes for a shifting sand upon which to build one's faith, however.

[CobaltBlue]

>>DNA difference means very little because human DNA can change and still be human.<<

There are two kinds of DNA, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Researchers study mitochondrial DNA, usually, not nuclear DNA, although I am not sure why. Mitochondrial DNA is passed on from your mother only, while nuclear DNA is a combination from your mother and father - they actually call it recombination, again I am not sure why "recombination" is better than "combination." Mitochondrial DNA is not recombined so remains stable over very long periods of time.

At any rate, mitochondrial DNA of both human skeletons and Neanderthal skeletons have been studied, and researchers are sure that there are no known Neanderthal female ancestors of any known human.

Maybe there are Neanderthal male ancestors, just not female.

[exmarine]

If you're going to go down the road of "ALL the evidence is deliberately faked", you can rationalize anything under the sun, up to and including the innocence of O.J. Simpson.

Puh-lease. Read the article again and tell me what "evidence" they have for their conclusions. I didn't see any - all I saw were assumptions and unscientific conclusions.

[farmfriend]

ping

[Physicist]

Read the article again and tell me what "evidence" they have for their conclusions.

Do you or do you not believe that all the skulls identified as Neanderthal have been deliberately modified?