Posted on 09/15/2013 6:27:16 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Study suggests anatomically modern humans may have been in eastern Asia as much as 100,000 years ago...
A team of six researchers from four institutions, using high-precision mass spectrometric U-series dating techniques, were able to determine a reliable and constrained date range of between 81 and 101 ka (thousand years) for seven human fossil teeth recovered from the Huanglong Cave in the Hubei Province of central China...
Reports Guangun Shen, et al., "the existence of localized thin flowstone formations bracketing the hominin [ancient human] fossil-bearing deposits enables us to firmly constrain the human teeth into the range between 81 ka and 101 ka, probably the most narrow time span for any hominin fossil beyond 45 ka in China"...
These new findings have challenged the prevailing theory among scientists that anatomically modern humans were not present in China or east Asia until roughly around 40,000 -- 50,000 years ago. This is based on earlier findings at a number of sites across China and east Asia that point to a ‘gap’ between 100 ka and 40 ka ago lacking any human fossils, more specifically between the latest archaic humans and the earliest modern humans, and genetic studies of present-day Chinese populations that have suggested a late appearance of AMH in eastern Asia...
...the researchers suggest that the entire timeline for hominin (ancient human) presence in east China should be shifted back earlier in time and should be continuous (without the gap), based on updated research. This includes the advent of H. erectus at more than 400 ka old, rather than the current 230 ka; archaic H. sapiens at more than 200 ka, instead of ca. 110 ka; and the emergence of AMH at around 100 ka or earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at popular-archaeology.com ...
As we suspected.
"Study suggests..." Love that line.
News flash: "anatomically modern humans" describes almost any upright primate. They did proliferate the planet until...ta-da, one of them said: "Pass the potatoes, fool, before you eat them all."
You say that doesn't sound like a formula for success?? Humans and hominids don't even come from the same place.
The only relationship which exists between humans and hominids is the same relationship which exists between Fords and Toyotas, i.e. similar design.
How do you know if the ancestor of modern humans had fur?
How do you know that ancestors of modern humans had an acute sense of smell? We do fine with our good eyesight and team work. So do chimps.
Where do you get the notion that it was dark all the time?
So, are you an ancient alien fan or a creationist?
Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they think of themselves as currents? So much to ponder and so little time.
“How do you know if the ancestor of modern humans had fur?”
Are you being serious with this question?
“..... this is for all them smartass folk saying we come descended from monkeys!”
from Oh Brother where art thou.
The Semi-Aquatic Human Theory explains many of these things.
Are you being serious with this question?
Yes. there are a lot of competing ideas on evolution. Physical evidence is scarce. Sorting out the different beliefs is a real challenge. Making strong assertions in evolution is reckless. The creationists and ancient alien theorists make strong assertions based on no physical evidence but rather on ancient testimony and myths.
If you think evolutionists don’t make “strong assertions”, you are lying to yourself. All you have to do is read their conjectures about mutations and speciation to see that.
They didn't. The statement I made was basically in subjunctive mood: IF there were such a thing as a human ancestor (there isn't), i.e. some hominid evolving into humans, THEN he would have to have lost his sense of smell, his night vision, and his fur.
In real life, wherever humans, apes, monkeys, or hominids appear in the universe, they appear looking as they do now or, in the case of hominids, as they did when they lived here. I provided a link for a book which explains some of this stuff...
The normal English language term for mutation is “birth defect”. Evolution is basically the birth-defect theory for explaining our biosphere.
The evolutionists are hard at work digging in remote, dirty, harsh conditions to find more evidence to refine their ideas. The creationists are hard at work in their temples preaching to the believers to pay no attention to those dangerous evolutionists. If you don't see that, then you are deluded.
Maybe if the creationists researched evidence to explain how Noah managed to build an ark big enough to house a pair of every living land animal, how did he rounded them all up, and how he fed them, it would be a start at putting some science behind creationism. One of the gaps I would like to see is how did Noah catch all the land birds which had no where to go during the deluge. That ark must have put the titanic to shame.
And guess what? For centuries science said the Ark wouldn’t even float or be stable enough to be seaworthy.
Not until a scaled-down Ark was built, and was proven to be VERY seaworthy did science abandon their conjecture.
The fact is believers in the theory of evolution believe in a religion just as people of other faiths.
Mark Twain said it best, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
What does Noah have to do with creationism...?
Mighty large pile of straw you built there
“The normal English language term for mutation is “birth defect”. Evolution is basically the birth-defect theory for explaining our biosphere.”
100% correct. Yet science says mutations are necessary for evolution. Lol
Mighty large pile of straw you built there
Well if God wiped out every living land animal, then we are all descendent of Noah. Yes, mighty big pile of straw.
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.
