Oldest Human Skulls Found

BBC ^ | 6-11-2003 | Jonathan Amos

[Lurking Libertarian]

No DNA test is possible from mere bones

Another statement for the archive.

[gore3000]

DNA tests not possible from mere bones?

Nope, not from the hard part which is what we get in fossils. In addition, there are hardly any legitimate examples of DNA being extracted from anywhere in fossils over 50,000 years old.

And of course I was talking of cadavers that were just bones so the rest of your statement does not apply.

And MOST fossils are rock, NOT bones, so no, A DNA test is NOT possible

Gee, you attack me for saying we cannot get DNA from fossils and here you go and substantiate it yourself! You really are something! Of course your statement is just semantic nonsense, the fossils are not really rocks, they are bones which have been made rock-like by the absorption of minerals somewhat like the process that produces petrified wood.

[gore3000]

No DNA test is possible from mere bones-me-

Another statement for the archive.

Really? Name the examples of DNA extracted from million year old bones. Come on, you made the claim, let's see you back it up with evidence.

Oh and yes, let's see the buffoons of evolution show how paleontologists by examining bones only can show the descent of people in a cemetery. They cannot and all this nonsense is just an attempt at hiding the truth - that paleontology is not science and cannot prove descent.

[Aric2000]

DUH, hello G3K, and a cemetary is NOT going to be over 50,000 years old.

You are just SO clueless, will you go to an ACTUAL university, instead of the creationist college of antiscience please.

Man, we might all even get together and help pay for it.

Your total misunderstanding of science and contniued stupidity is an absolute wonder to behold.

Again, you are on virtual ignore, so don't bother responding to my posts, you are a holy warrior extrodinaire that deserves nothing more then pity.

Good Bye G3K!!

LOL

[Ahban]

I just wanted to throw this in the mix...

The Unreliability of Hominid Phylogenetic Analysis Challenges The Human Evolutionary Paradigm
By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.

Recent work by two researchers from University College London (UCL) and George Washington University (GW) calls into serious question the capability of paleoanthropologists to detect and establish the evolutionary relationships assumed to exist among bipedal primates, or hominids.1

Evolutionary or phylogenetic relationships for the hominids are determined by comparing anatomical features of specimens found in the fossil record with those of extant species.

For the hominids, the available fossils in most cases are partial crania, partial jaw bones, isolated teeth, and infrequently, partial upper and lower limbs.2,3 Rarely do paleoanthropologists find a complete cranium, let alone a nearly complete skeleton. And only a few of the hominid species in the fossil record are known from an abundance of specimens. Typically a hominid species is defined by just a few fossilized bone fragments.4 Many times the hominid remains have been crushed, shattered and damaged prior to fossilization or have become deformed as a result of geological processes. This only serves to compound the difficulty of paleoanthropologists’ work.

Given the nature of the hominid fossil record, it is not surprising that most evolutionary biologists recognize that the best they can hope for are crude working phylogenies.5 (A phylogeny is believed to be the evolutionary pathway for an organism or group of organisms.) This becomes apparent when one examines textbooks and treatises on human evolution. The large number of proposed phylogenies shows that paleoanthropologists are far from a consensus on the pathway to human evolution.6, 7

The situation has recently worsened for those attempting to construct hominid phylogenetic relationships. Scientists from UCL and GW indicate, based on their findings, that evolutionary phylogenies postulated for human origins are hopelessly uncertain.8 These two paleoanthropologists compared phylogenies constructed from gene and protein sequences with those constructed from cranial and dental features for two currently existing groups of primates, the hominoids (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans) and the papionins (baboons, mangabeys, and macaques).

In both cases, the molecular phylogenies differed significantly from those derived using cranial and dental characteristics. Since evolutionary biologists consider molecular phylogenies inherently more robust, the authors of the study are forced to conclude that craniodental characteristics cannot be used as reliable indicators of primate evolutionary relationships (including those of extinct hominids). As the researchers from UCL and GW put it, “Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”9

In light of these results, the assertion that human evolution is a fact becomes scientifically untenable. What seems apparent is that evolutionary biologists have chosen to interpret their data exclusively within an evolutionary paradigm. From this framework, they then declare that their data supports human evolution. To demonstrate that humans evolved by natural processes, there must be rigorous evidence of clearly established evolutionary relationships with obvious transitions in the fossil record. This study shows that such determinations may never be possible, given that cranial and dental remains are the primary fossils available to paleoanthropologists.

Equally disconcerting for the evolutionary paradigm is the lack of congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Truth demands internal consistency. The failure to establish consistency for molecular and morphological phylogenies calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm.

New discoveries in paleoanthropology increasingly undermine the plausibility of evolution as an explanation for human origins.

References:
Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000): 5003-6.
Roger Lewin, Principles of Human Evolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, 1998), 117-18.
S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, "The Primate Fossil Record," The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed.S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 197-98.
Fuz Rana, “Up (and Away) from the Apes,” Connections 1, no. 4 (2000): 3-4.
Lewin, 296-307.
Lewin, 306.
Bernard Wood, “Evolution of Australopithecines” in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed. S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 240.
Collard and Wood, 5003-6.
Collard and Wood, 5003.

[Ahban]

If you CAN tell anyhting by skull fragments.....It seems the find in question looks a lot more like a neandertal skull (center) than that of a cro-magnon (early modern human) (right)

Maybe they have only establised that neandertal man had a range a few hundred miles further south than was previously thought (distance from the Levant to Herto).

[VadeRetro]

Was there some reason not to mention that Fuz Rana's article is from the FAQs for Hugh Ross's Reasons.org ("Reasons to Believe") site? The meat of it is based on one study, Collard and Wood. I didn't like the look of the only direct quote:

As the researchers from UCL and GW put it, “Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”9

which seems to imply that Collard and Wood are shaky on the whole idea of humans evolving from non-humans. It also ends in three dots, which is a bad sign in creationist quoting. What exactly are these "hypotheses [plural noted] of ancestry?"

A Yahoo on this text produced one other site, also creationist, with exactly the same words and ellipsis. Obviously not a coincidence. Somebody quoted it in just the form noted. Somebody else liked the effect and borrowed the same snippet. A new one makes it way into the creationist quote-mining pipeline. IOW, red-flag time!

Happily, I found the original Collard and Wood paper:

The upsurge in paleoanthropological field research over the past quarter century has resulted in the recognition of many new hominin species, including Australopithecus afarensis (1), Paranthropus aethiopicus (2), Ardipithecus ramidus (3, 4), Aus-tralopithecus anamensis (5), Australopithecus bahrelghazali (6), Homo antecessor (7), and Australopithecus garhi (8). This has led to commensurate interest in the generation of reliable hypoth-eses about human phylogeny (8–14). Without a reliable phylog-eny, little confidence can be placed in hypotheses of ancestry, or in scenarios linking events in human evolution with environ-mental and ecological influences. However, the phylogenetic relationships of the dozen, or so, species whose remains comprise the hominin fossil record are far from certain. Despite, in paleontological terms, a relative abundance of fossil evidence, cladistic analyses of the hominins have so far yielded conflicting and weakly supported hypotheses of relationships (9–14, 15, 16).

The above quote is not from the conclusion of the paper, but it's opening paragraph. The "hypotheses of ancestry" are precise lineages of "this fossil is the clear descendant of this one but not that one, which is a great-uncle ..."

We already knew that it is hard to tell exactly what is descended from what. Arguments of this sort fill the journals, but the people making them are not arguing whether evolution has occurred. They're arguing over who's the daddy. That's what the paragraph above is saying exactly. We already know that we don't know the exact ancestral trees.

The study itself reveals that a source of the confusion may be that some of the cladistic tools in common use are error-prone when applied to primates and makes suggestions for increasing accuracy. It does not question that modern humans have a non-modern human ancestry. The recommendations include such shocking notions as exploiting post-cranial data where available and paying attention to time/stratigraphy.

Rana's characterization is an overspun, far too selective reading. Rana lobbies to show that Collard and Wood have somehow proven that evolution didn't happen (" ... calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm). This does not follow at all and is false. The preponderance of evidence that evolution has occurred and is occurring does not depend upon the establishment of precise lineages within hominids or even primates.

As for you, you're wishing away the checkmate you saw earlier. Against yet another new, real, transitional fossil find, you made a brave show, then ran back to your favorite creo site and snatched up an FAQ crucifix to brandish at the vampires. I wasn't holding my breath on you facing it, of course.

[VadeRetro]

If you CAN tell anyhting by skull fragments.....It seems the find in question looks a lot more like a neandertal skull (center) than that of a cro-magnon (early modern human) (right)

Your evidentiary basis for saying the reconstruction is wrong is a tiny fraction of the basis of the reconstruction itself. If it's tough to tell from skull fragments after you've puzzled them back together, what can you tell from a picture 203 pixels by 52? Is there an occipital bun? Hard to tell from the front, isn't it?

[Mamzelle]

re: I dunno -- it seems like a stretch ...)))

Why not stretch if there's no way to say you nay? When scientists examine the origins of life, humanity, and the universe, they are well aware that no true accountability is possible. So, creative juices can flow with impunity.

[Ahban]

You are attempting to put words in Dr. Rana's mouth, and mine. He was not trying to claim that Collard and Wood have DISPROVEN hominid evolution from phylogeny, but rather that one cannot PROVE hominid descent from phylogeny. There is a difference.

He also never claimed to use the quote to show that Collard and Wood were not "believers" in evolution, only that they doubt that this particular line of evidence can establish an evolutionary pathway. Slander does not become you, especially when the article is posted and Freepers can read his words for themselves and see how unfairly you mischaracterize him.

Again, he was not trying to claim that Collard and Wood have DISPROVEN hominid evolution from phylogeny, but rather that one cannot PROVE hominid evolution from phylogeny. In other words, conclusion-jumpers like yourself should not use each new box of fractured skull parts to do precisely what you are doing- declare that the evolution of man is a many-times proven fact and anyone who says otherwise is in denial.

As far as not being able to make final judgement of the evidence from my small picture, I quite agree- nor can one make it from the small pictures shown in the article. We need more data. It is possible that this is the ancestor of modern humans, it is also possible that it is the southernmost Neandertal find, and there are other possiblilties as well.

[VadeRetro]

Slander does not become you, especially when the article is posted and Freepers can read his words for themselves and see how unfairly you mischaracterize him.

Rana's article makes a mountain of the molehill of the Collard and Woods study. Rana's artful quote,

Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”

will be interpreted by the rabidly anti-E readers of Reasons.org as evidence that evolutionists themselves do not believe in common descent. I do not slander in noting what is there to be seen.

Rana's own words are indefensible. Saying that the study " ... calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm," means that it raises questions of whether evolution has happened at all.

That's just silly. The study is far too limited in scope for anyone to make such a broad-brush claim. The study restricts itself to questions of the reliability of cranial and dental morphology as cladistic tools in primate studies. That won't bring home the anti-E bacon.

• Failure to establish clear lines of descent is almost a given in paleontology. Science can postulate a likely-looking line of descent and is always doing so. However, more data coming along (say, the discovery of a contemporary of one fossil species in a series, where the new species obviously fits the overall trend better) will have science revising the tree to the cackles of the yahoos for whom any "change of story" is proof that gran'pappy weren't no goddam monkey.
• There are other inputs to the question of descent. For instance, while we can't be sure that the line of human descent goes through Australopithecus afarensis, it's virtually a cinch that it does go through Homo erectus. (Do you know why, without my having to shoot it into your brain? There are non-morphological data to be considered, and obvious points of logic.)

Your own brandishing of Rana as a "Get-out-of-checkmate free" card--OK, something of the sort was inevitable--and your screaming words "DISPROVEN" and "PROOF" shows that your bar remains infinitely high for drawing inferences any real scientist will make in a heartbeat. (Else he wouldn't be a scientist. A real scientist is inquisitive.)

[balrog666]

Mountains-out-of-molehills placemarker.

[VadeRetro]

Since I did that Yahoo! search three nights ago, the number of hits on Rana's quote has grown by one. The addition isn't just another citation, but a compilation that shows creationist quote-science in action.

Selected Articles and Citations (PDF file):

The vast majority have been written by evolutionists. They are reproduced here to show that even when we accept the evolutionary dates and relationships evolution does not occur and the Biblical record is a better explanation of our origins.

Q: Do the "evolutionists" know that their writings mean this?

A: No. They only mean the above when the creationists are done editing.

[VadeRetro]

... three nights ago ...

Two nights ago, posted yesterday morning because FR went down before I was ready.

[Ahban]

Rana's artful quote, Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”
will be interpreted by the rabidly anti-E readers of Reasons.org as evidence that evolutionists themselves do not believe in common descent.

Your are just plain wrong about that. I am a reader of reasons.org, and I understood Rana's meaning. The researchers still accept evolution, but drawing conclusions about evolution based on this line of evidence lacks veracity. Just who is "rabid", the calm, reasoned readers of reasons.org, or yourself? Who is hurling the most accusations, the most insults, the most invective, the most mockery? Are any of those things the basis for a rational argument? Take a good hard look, at yourself for once rather than the things you presume about the mental state of others whom you have never met.

Rana's own words are indefensible. Saying that the study " ... calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm," means that it raises questions of whether evolution has happened at all.

Yes it does, for him. He is not claiming that that is the position of the cited researchers. It is not the whole of the argument against evolution, but it does constitute a part of it.

your bar remains infinitely high for drawing inferences any real scientist will make in a heartbeat. (Else he wouldn't be a scientist. A real scientist is inquisitive.)

YOU are not inqusitive when it comes to the naturalist paradigm. You act the part of the high priest of naturalism, snarling insults and abuse at any who would question your dogma. In this one, I am Galileo, questioning the paradigm, you are the church of a faith that needs no god.

As for your other post, where you find the same quote was used out of context in another website, how dare you try to pin that on me. That was not the person or organization I was quoting. I will be responsible for the stuff I post, I need not defend the works of every person that claims to be a creationist. Are you to be held responsible for the quotes of every evolutionist, even the ones you don't quote? Have a care, some of the worst mass-murderers in human history were committed Darwinists.

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·