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.
Tim White's argument for dating these fossils at 160,000 years: A) They are about what I would expect for 160,000 yrs.
B) I'm an expert. From Berkeley.
C) Trust me, I know.
No, what makes it OK is that it works. Science does progress. In fact, I don't know how science can progress, beyond the first rudiments, without having working models to refer to. You can claim all you want that evolution is bunk, but you aren't nearly in a position to say the same about chemistry and physics. Since they all use the same philosophical approach, obviously that approach is not the problem.
In my field of particle physics, for example, the working model is called the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The problem with it is that, even though it accounts for more natural phenomena--and to a greater degree of accuracy--than any other theory in science, and even though we have no generally accepted experimental results that contradict it, we already know it to be wrong. At about the 1 TeV level (or before), it mathematically has to fail. Even so, we refer all experimental results to this model, because without some conceptual framework there'd be no way to make heads or tails of the experimental data. Science is more than a mere list of facts.
As for the comparison between the working model of biology (evolution) and the working theory of chemistry (the atomic theory of matter), I can think of at least two experiments where the atomic theory of matter falls flat on its face, but none for evolution.
Giraffes routinely giving birth to marmosets. "Kilroy was here" transcribed into ancient junk DNA. God speaking on the subject, and then providing a sample, from a burning bush in downtown Manhatten, caught on news videotape. Pretty much, any newly uncovered, incontrovertable evidence that can't be explained adequately by the current story.
What evidence would make youi stop and thing, 'hey, something's not right here...'? The reason I briong this up is because of the concept of 'OOPs'. Out of place artifacts. There is a whole field of study about such things, though admitedly it is confined to the fringe. Read the excellent book, 'The Hidden History of the Human Race' by Michael Cremo. It is a real eye opener.
Yea, yea, I'm highly familiar. I try to make it a point to believe any new theory that comes along if it's bizarre enough. I'll bet I believe at least a dozen things that would make your ears wiggle. For instance, I believe in UFO's, and high civilizations that predate egypt, and can point to dozens of bizarre anomolous artifacts to support me belief.
However, I do not mistake any of this for viable meat on the scientific table. Thousandss of highly credible witnesses have reported very hard to discredit, highly detailed accounts of contact with UFO's. The Air Force's contradictory stories, taken together, point mightily to the suggestion that they believe in UFO's, and there are a couple of artifacts floating around that have been extracted from people's bodies that have been abducted that are composed of highly strange material. Yet none of this makes UFOlogy a science.
Science is a very stupid, highly regulated step-child of inductive reasoning, and it has severe limits regarding what it can usefully be applied to. It is, by nature, a systematic study of events, and if events just bloody refuse to line up with sufficient frequency and predictability to even begin to use metricized inductive techniques to make successful predictions about the next bit of evidence to come down the track--then science gives up, and goes back to doing something it can do.
By the same regard, It is, to my mind, perfectly within reason to suppose that a supernatural entity created life. It is merely not science's business until or unless science stumbles upon serious, viable evidence it's limited toolset is capable of processing.
From a companion article in Nature (which took me about 2 minues to find):
The fossils are complete enough to show a suite of modern human characters, and are well constrained by argon-isotope dating to about 160,000 years ago.
Are all your opinions as ill-informed as this one?
As a matter of formality, naturalism is, as the word was initially applied to philosophy, a reference to attempts to find all-incompassing FIRST CAUSE, which attempts initiated philosophy in the western world. Naturally, if you think you are looking for the FIRST CAUSE of everything, then you have an exclusionary philosophy. Here is a reference for your edification:
http://radicalacademy.com/adiphilnaturalism.htm
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?
Let me think. I've got it, evidence, and inductive reasoning.
Isn't the most powerful evidence for this theory the presuppositions of the theorist? Of course it is.
Trashcan the physical evidence that was just presented, and try that trick again. In this context "presuppositions" is just another word for hypothesis.
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?
The classic hypothesis->test->theory model, and Popperian falsificationist, like the majority of scientists who want to be bothered to think about it, rather than get back to the lab.
Surely, you aren't trying to claim that what passes for neodarwinian theory is not naturalistic and materialistic - because it most certainly is.
Sigh. Please look at the reference I gave you, and clean up your vocabulary. Darwinism, like any other scientific hypothesis does not claim to be an all-encompassing material explanation that excludes any other material, or otherwise, explanations. This will remain true even if you repeat it a hundred times, and hold your breath until you turn blue.
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.
Sorry, you lost me. And you'll continue to lose me everytime you rev up the engine and go down the philosophical highway at 90 miles an hour like that. Darwinism is just a scientific hypothesis--evidence that it is the devil's wedge of philosophical EVIL has not forced itself to my attention as yet.
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.
A subject for another thread, but I'll respond once: It is not based on the presumption that man is the measure of ALL things. It is based on the presumption that the long-term well-being of all men is the appropriate measure against which to judge men's universal moral philosophies critically.
Note added in proof: I can think of one for evolution.
Naturalism has inherent assumptions, e.g. all reality is of natural causes. It's a word that applies to the basis of science today, and it is applicable to all phases of scientific inquiry, not just first causes. Of course, this underlying assumption is metaphysics not science.
Let me think. I've got it, evidence, and inductive reasoning.
Before you can reason, you must have a premise - that's a simple fact of logic. Reason does not happen in a vacuum. There is evidence, but that evidence is viewed through the lens of first premise. For example, the naturalist first begins with the premise that God doesn't exist therefore all life sprang up and evolved naturally; THEN he looks at the object of evidence and forms secondary premises based on the first premise. You already admitted that there is no objectivity in science -what do you think that implies? - philosophical bias? BINGO.
Trashcan the physical evidence that was just presented, and try that trick again. In this context "presuppositions" is just another word for hypothesis.
Oh yeah, just throw the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps a better way would be for naturalists to go where the evidence leads instead of torturing the evidence to fit their a priori presuppositions...
The classic hypothesis->test->theory model, and Popperian falsificationist, like the majority of scientists who want to be bothered to think about it, rather than get back to the lab.
There's an elephant in the middle of the living room that you are ignorning, and its name is "presupposition." The problem is that most neodarwinists, like you, either ignore or deny the fact that they have philosophical a priori presuppositions. But denying it does no good - they are there.
Sigh. Please look at the reference I gave you, and clean up your vocabulary. Darwinism, like any other scientific hypothesis does not claim to be an all-encompassing material explanation that excludes any other material, or otherwise, explanations. This will remain true even if you repeat it a hundred times, and hold your breath until you turn blue.
As much as you try to compartmentalize darwinism, you can't do it because there are underlying a priori (before experience) presuppositions in it about the nature of reality that go far beyond simple mutation+natural selection. Again, there is no such thing as an objective scientist - what do you think that means? Neodarwinism is grounded in materialism and does not acknowledge that anything outside of material causes exists. Materialism is a joke in philosophical circles - it's one of the most self-refuting philosphies known to man.
Sorry, you lost me. And you'll continue to lose me everytime you rev up the engine and go down the philosophical highway at 90 miles an hour like that. Darwinism is just a scientific hypothesis--evidence that it is the devil's wedge of philosophical EVIL has not forced itself to my attention as yet.
I didn't lose you. Neodarwinists theorize that there is no non-material mind or self - we are our brains. Are you actually going to try to deny that? Do you see the metaphysics in such theories - there is no scientific basis to say that we are our brains - it's a faith statement.
What would be the point in assuming "magic happens" instead?
The scientists do not say that this skull is not fully human. It has been classified as homo sapiens, i.e., the same species as us. What is significant about the finding is (a) that it has been reliably dated at 160,000 years old, tens of thousands of years earlier than any other fully human skull, and (b) was found in Africa, supporting the theory that fully-modern humans evolved first in Africa (the oldest human skulls in Europe are Neanderthals; there have been no fully-modern human skulls foiund in Europe older than about 70,000 years, IIRC).
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?)
Science is, almost by definition, naturalistic in its assumptions, but not materialistic. Nothing in the theory of evolution denies the existence of God. Some atheists improperly use darwinism to support atheistic beliefs, but that is not a part of the true science, and is actually quite rare among the real evolutionary scientists doing the real scientific work (as distinguished from the ones who write for non-scientific audiences in the mass media). See, for example, the discussion here, or the Pope's message on evolution.
Some neodarwinists think that; but not all. Simon Conway-Morris, one of the leading neodarwinists, considers himself a born-again Protestant Christian. There is nothing inherent in the theory of common descent which requires this belief.
I saw a poll recently that had been taken of practicing biological scientists, which, if I remember correctly-- I do not have a link, so I might be wrong-- showed that about half of biologists are atheistic evolutionists, about 45% are theistic evolutionists, and less than 5% do not accept evolution. That is certainly a high percentage of atheists, but it does not support your claim that darwinism necessarily implies atheism.
Do you see the presuppositions in the above? First, that the dating method is reliable which is in doubt, second, that becuase no skull has been found older than 70,000 years (argument from silence), that means there aren't any, third, that because this skull was found in Africa, humans evolved in Africa, fourth, that one skull is an evolutionary ancestor of another skull. These are all assumptions that have not been reasonably verified.
Science is, almost by definition, naturalistic in its assumptions, but not materialistic. Nothing in the theory of evolution denies the existence of God.
Tell me how someone can be naturalistic but not materialistic? If science is confined 100% to the natural order then it is also confined to materialism since natural processes involve matter and matter only. If you try to insert anything supernatural or metaphysical, it is no longer naturalistic. Of course, there is that strange group of people known as theistic evolutionists but they are a confused lot.
Some atheists improperly use darwinism to support atheistic beliefs, but that is not a part of the true science, and is actually quite rare among the real evolutionary scientists doing the real scientific work (as distinguished from the ones who write for non-scientific audiences in the mass media). See, for example, the discussion here, or the Pope's message on evolution.
Some? They all do. An atheist must be a darwinist - that is his ONLY refuge since it is compatible with his metaphysical presupposition that God doesn't exist. Perfect example of philosophy-driven science.
The Pope? His statement should be disturbing to anyone who takes scripture seriously. The Pope's position on evolution certainly appears to contradict the Genesis account, and is incompatible with Christian doctrine. If evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are mere allegories, thus original sin is an allegory, thus there is no need for Savior, thus Jesus Christ is unnecessary and the entire Christian foundation crumbles.
See my last post on theistic evolution and the Pope's statement. Did a Christian come up with neodarwinian theory or was it a naturalistic theory adopted by certain theists who trust naturalism over scripture. Molecule-to-man evolution is not compatible with scripture. Period.
I saw a poll recently that had been taken of practicing biological scientists, which, if I remember correctly-- I do not have a link, so I might be wrong-- showed that about half of biologists are atheistic evolutionists, about 45% are theistic evolutionists, and less than 5% do not accept evolution. That is certainly a high percentage of atheists, but it does not support your claim that darwinism necessarily implies atheism.
Polls are no indicator of truth. Theistic evolution is a strange hybrid metaphysic that attempts to mix God and naturalism. God sort of set a process in motion and stepped back and let it "evolve" - a sort of darwinistic deism wherein God just winds up the clock and lets it tick on its own. I believe many of these theistic evolutionists are probably not Christians but mystical new agers or something else.
I don't see nobody else here. You must be talkin to me!
So as Stalin was anti-Darwin, and had Darwin's supporters executed, your logic would appear to show that Stalin wasn't an atheist. Of course, Stalin did attend a seminary in his formative years.
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.