Posted on 08/24/2023 11:38:57 PM PDT by zeestephen
Prof. Begun said: "Our findings further suggest that hominines [bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas] not only evolved in western and central Europe - but spent over five million years evolving there and spreading to the eastern Mediterranean before eventually dispersing into Africa."....This migration, he added, was "probably a consequence of changing environments and diminishing forests."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Whoops!
Human Origin ping
In these times they are bound to call their find “homo” something-or-other.
Anyway, I’m not really qualified to offer an opinion on the age of the find since I’ve never dated a fossil (though some might disagree).
Diminishing forests, eh? They must’ve migrated because of all the fossil fuel burning in Europe at the time. Those damn stone age SUVs.
Finally humans who mastered fire, home building, and could plan for winter could manage to stay in colder areas.
These theories like climate change, OOA, and others pick up inertia because they fit into a bigger paradigm.
Likewise entire empirical measures that can be repeated such as IQ or HIV infection rates based on sexual behaviors are discarded because they go against the paradigm.
So called “science” is a cheap whore. It tends to validate whatever folks want to believe, that which somehow supports the prevailing socially accepted goal or ethical standard.
Science is based on hypothesis, until it is observed, and until it’s proofed.
The problem of accepting various hypotheses, is the human nature to hang on to the work done and defend it until it is pryed from cold dead hands. People put a lot of work in those hypothesis, sometimes whole lifetimes and it’s an embarrassment to have your noteworthy hypothesis diminished in any way.
Unless it’s proven, absolutely confirmed. Which probably happens at a very low percentage rate.
There are a large amount sciectific ruminations of that aren’t in actuality “facts” at all.
A lot of hypotheses makes sense. Might even be true. But there’s no way of really knowing.
“I’ve never dated a fossil (though some might disagree).”
That’s very funny, and clever.
The reasoning might go like this. How do you know it’s an 8.7 million year old fossil? Well it was in an 8.7 million year old rock. But how do you know it was an 8.7 million year old rock? Because there was an 8.7 million year old fossil in it. That’s like asking why is my friend not alive? Because he is dead.
Isn’t radiocarbon-14 dating a fairly reliable technique to give the approximate age of organic material?
I heard there are different opinions on that.
Great quote.
Carbon-14 dating is reliable only to its “half-life”. If it is 5,740 years old or younger it seems to be reliable. If it is older than that each time they do the tests it seems to come up with a different age.
John MacArthur on the biblical 6 days of creation -
https://youtu.be/GakkTk88KK8?si=HpAyIeNCA0OVPMbE
So… not out of Africa?
The current Ice Age began about 2.58 million years ago. At 8 million years ago, Europe was much warmer and wetter than at present.
For objects of this age potassium-argon or uranium-lead dating is more commonly used than carbon-14 dating.
Can we surmise that climate change is an on-going occurance... never static?
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.