Posted on 06/11/2003 8:03:26 AM PDT by blam
Oldest human skulls found
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff
Three fossilised skulls unearthed in Ethiopia are said by scientists to be among the most important discoveries ever made in the search for the origin of humans.
Herto skull: Dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years old (Image copyright: David L. Brill)
The crania of two adults and a child, all dated to be around 160,000 years old, were pulled out of sediments near a village called Herto in the Afar region in the east of the country.
They are described as the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
What excites scientists so much is that the specimens fit neatly with the genetic studies that have suggested this time and part of Africa for the emergence of mankind.
"All the genetics have pointed to a geologically recent origin for humans in Africa - and now we have the fossils," said Professor Tim White, one of the co-leaders on the research team that found the skulls.
"These specimens are critical because they bridge the gap between the earlier more archaic forms in Africa and the fully modern humans that we see 100,000 years ago," the University of California at Berkeley, US, paleoanthropologist told BBC News Online.
Out of Africa
The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.
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).
Herto reconstruction: What the ancient people might have looked like (Image copyright: J. Matternes)
The Herto discoveries were hailed on Wednesday by those researchers who have championed the idea that all humans living today come from a population that emerged from Africa within the last 200,000 years.
The proponents of the so-called Out of Africa hypothesis think this late migration of humans supplanted all other human-like species alive around the world at the time - such as the Neanderthals in Europe.
If modern features already existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, they argued, we could not have descended from species like Neanderthals.
"These skulls are fantastic evidence in support of the Out of Africa idea," Professor Chris Stringer, from London's Natural History Museum, told BBC News Online.
"These people were living in the right place and at the right time to be possibly the ancestors of all of us."
Sophisticated behaviour
The skulls were found in fragments, at a fossil-rich site first identified in 1997, in a dry and dusty valley.
Stone tools and the fossil skull of a butchered hippo were the first artefacts to be picked up. Buffalo fossils were later recovered indicating the ancient humans had a meat-rich diet.
The most complete of the adult skulls was seen protruding from the ancient sediment; it had been exposed by heavy rains and partially trampled by herds of cows.
SEARCH FOR HUMAN ORIGINS
The Herto skulls represent a confirmation of the genetic studies
The skull of the child - probably aged six or seven - had been shattered into more than 200 pieces and had to be painstakingly reconstructed.
All the skulls had cut marks indicating they had been de-fleshed in some kind of mortuary practice. The polishing on the skulls, however, suggests this was not simple cannibalism but more probably some kind of ritualistic behaviour.
This type of practice has been recorded in more modern societies, including some in New Guinea, in which the skulls of ancestors are preserved and worshipped.
The Herto skulls may therefore mark the earliest known example of conceptual thinking - the sophisticated behaviour that stands us apart from all other animals.
"This is very possibly the case," Professor White said.
The Ethiopian discoveries are reported in the journal Nature.
Nothing definitive, that is, As I just agreed with you about. If you'd like to argue about whether neanders are human or not, I'd love to. If you wish to argue about the nature and security of induction as currently practiced in science, I'd love to.
But if you want to leap back and forth at random, I will get dizzy and fall off the marry-go-round.
Well, once again, I'm not sure which argument we are having here, but I'll assume it's the general attack against induction. So...
No, one couldn't. Let me again reiterate that you are not up to speed on this subject, and could argue more effectively if you actually knew what was going on currently.
The sad fact for creationists is that there are a large number of shared genes whose degree of sharedness matches up with the degree of relatedness as indicated by the tree established by paleontologists through morphological similarities.
Blood genes and ribosomal genes being good examples of this deep relationship between species and genes that dig way back up the tree. That means we get to cross-correlate for just about every older gene in the united gene pool of all species that is commonly shared.
Natural sciences don't operate on proof, they operate on best guesses.
I see nothing but fragments forming a partial skull and an imaginary sketch that looks human to me! Where is the evidence that says it isn't fully human other than inside the materialistic naturalist's brain? You call that science? I dunt.
I do. I just don't assign it near-certainty levels of probable reliability. The evidence that the earth circles the sun, rather than the other way around is only in my head. If I look outdoors, it's painfully obvious that the sun circles the earth, if I only restrict myself to tangible evidence.
Yes, if by that you mean naked-eye evidence. But if you use enhanced sensory equipment (a telescope) you can see evidence to the contrary.
Guess is right. It's a guess (the creature being not fully human) based upon naturalist presuppositions and nothing more.
I do. I just don't assign it near-certainty levels of probable reliability.
Then, it is an assumption based on presuppositions and not empirical data. You say the data is sufficient, but it is only sufficient if you presuppose that molecule-to-man evolution is true, and that is metaphysical.
Which, at first blush, makes me think some of the planets are traveling in hypercycloids. Furthermore, if you obstreperously continue to disagree with me, I'll put you under house arrest and put your book on the excommunicate list. Obviously, the sun still travels around the earth, even with a telescope in hand. It is not until you are willing to entertain invisible entities like Kepler's laws of motion that you can "see" the earth going around the sun, I aver.
Guess is right. It's a guess (the creature being not fully human) based upon naturalist presuppositions and nothing more.
No, it is not based on "naturalistic" presumptions. Science does not make naturalistic presumptions, as I just explained. It is, however, just a guess, as we have both now agreed.
Then, it is an assumption based on presuppositions and not empirical data.
I don't think this communicates much of anything to me. It is, indeed, a guess based on empirical data. As laid out in the article. I don't know quite what to make about your claim about "presuppositions".
If, by "presuppositions", you mean that there has to be a chain of reasoning leading from skull fragments to a presumption of lineage, once again, I have to agree.
You say the data is sufficient, but it is only sufficient if you presuppose that molecule-to-man evolution is true, and that is metaphysical.
It is not necessary to believe that life arose from scratch without help from service personnel, to argue from available evidence that humans either may, or may not have been blood relations to neanders.
And all presumptions whose inductive reach is beyond those perceptions that make me think, for example, that the sun circles the earth, have metaphysical implications.
Scientists (especially darwinists)don't make naturalistic presumptions? You don't either? Tell me, when you makes these "guesses," what mental process is it that drives a person to assume a that a skull is not fully human? Isn't the most powerful evidence for this theory the presuppositions of the theorist? Of course it is. Also, please tell me precisely what philosophy your brand of science is based on. There have to be some initial assumptions before you can even begin to make a scientific inquiry. No one looks at evidence with a blank mind as we have already established (objectivity is a myth). So, if not naturalistic, then what? Surely, you aren't trying to claim that what passes for neodarwinian theory is not naturalistic and materialistic - because it most certainly is. It's quite clear that materialistic philosophy is at the core of neodarwinian theory as is irrefutably evidenced in the myriad "scientific" articles which theorize that morals, religious feelings and other emotions are mere genetic traits (paleo-psychology, etc.), i.e. matter in motion (as if the mental atoms that produced these darwinian theories aren't); it's evident in the faith belief that life began on its own by some as yet unknown natural chemical process or by chance+time+matter. An atheistic religious zeal is evident in the hostile attitudes of the high priests and gatekeepers of darwinism toward anyone who DARES to challenge their atheistic belief system (not to mention the countless hours that darwinian zealots spend on FR defending their religion and deprecating Christianity). Their naturalism is quite evident in their ridicule of the supernatural when empirical science can say nothing authoritative about the existence of anything outside of natural processes (so why do they?) There is simply so much evidence for the philosophical (read metaphysical) assumptions of so-called "scientists" that it cannot be denied without looking ridiculous.
You have philosophical assumptions yourself that have nothing to do with science. For example, you believe morals are mere preferences - which is certainly based upon the presupposition that man is the measure of all things.
Echo.
The problem with the atomic theory of matter is that it has become entrenched as an unquestionable truth now. So all chemists take atoms as a given. They are simply now trying to piece together how whatever-evidence-they-find fits in with the theory.
(There is no branch of science for which this game cannot be played. Not one.)
This is nothing. I have a neighbor who's way more primitve-looking than this, with a 45% slope and a jaw that could snap your femur.
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.