Posted on 02/16/2005 11:01:16 AM PST by Alter Kaker
NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago.
Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.
The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I, which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones. Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a complete face.
Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.
Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing their geology and testing rock samples with more modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take 5,000 years.
Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they just represent natural variation within a single population.
To find the age of the skulls, the researchers determined that volcanic rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000 years old. They then found evidence that the fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that time.
Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.
"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work "very exciting and important."
Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he considered the case for the new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that "we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he said.
G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at Binghamton University in New York, said he believes the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.
Notice that the ICR article did in fact address contamination. You said Creationists never address criticisms.
Nevertheless. Bacteria in coal wouldn't account for C14 in non-coal sources. Cosmic radiation isn't enough to accont for the level's found. And if groundwater contaminates coal and other fossils to the extent claimed, then many of the radiometric techniques are subject to scrutiny for contamination. Which is something that Creationists have claimed all along.
Actually it means that they are presuming their conclusion, and are declaring their willingness in advance to jump their interpretation through any number of hoops to get to that conclusion. Occam's Razor not required on journey.
The only conclusion that they have assumed is that scripture is true.
Most secular scientists start with the assumption that evolution is true.
Evolution scientists is every bit if not more biased that Creation scientists. Both sides have proponents that are slow to acknowledge criticisms. Both sides have used arguments that have long been discredited. Both sides have jumped to wrong conclusions at times.
I think evolution has by far the most "intentional" frauds. But that's not to say that there might not be some on the Creationists side.
Evolutionists are often motivated by money as are some Creationists. Only Evolutionists are usually after our tax dollars through research grants while Creationists rely on direct support from their constituency.
The actual decay curve of carbon 14 has been calibrated against tree rings, ice cores, known historical artifacts, etc. There are some known adjustments you have to make for changing levels of carbon in the atmosphere over the time intervals for which we use it, but we've been doing that routinely for decades now. We get the expected signal right down to the noise floor. All ICR can think to do is pound the table over the background hiss.
Who is to say what conclusions are "wrong". Science goes with the simplest natural conclusion that fits the data. To put it another way, if you decide the answer before you look at the evidence, as ICR requires you to do then you are not conducting science.
Many science organizations won't tell you, that you can't be a christian to work there.
What a hilarious claim. What science organisations won't employ christians? Please name "many".
But you say anything supporting Intelligent Design and you are quickly shown the door.
Citation of someone who has just "said something supporting ID" and has been shown the door, please.
ID is not yet science, lacking as it does falsifiability, so you might find it difficult to persuade your institution to fund you to work on it.
Name some!
That "error" would make the fossils appear younger. Correcting out this "error" would make them even OLDER!
When did I say this? cite or withdraw please.
As he said "many" I think he should name many.
We already knew that judgments about who is primitive and who is not are highly subjective (see 01/01/2005 entry). The labeling game amounts to a kind of paleoanthropological racism. Primitive is in the eye of the beholder. Since Mr. Omo II can’t show off his intellect, the Darwin Party racists are free to categorize him as “less highly evolved,” like the early Darwinians used to classify non-Englishmen. Even with the new dates that make him a contemporary of Mr. Modern Omo I, Fleagle says, in effect, “well, what do you know; primitives and moderns lived at the same time.”
The other inference about the culture gap is so incredible, so absurd, it calls into question the intelligence, if not the sanity, of anyone who would accept it. They are claiming that human beings, virtually indistinguishable from us, went for up to 150,000 years without learning how to make a tool, catch a fish, harpoon a mammoth, ride a horse, plant a farm or drill holes in a reed to make even a simple flute. What did these brethren do for amusement? Look how much humans have accomplished in the 6,000 years of recorded history, from cuneiform to Saturn spaceships. To think that fully-endowed humans could not think of even the simplest cultural advances for 25 times that length of time is patently ridiculous. Even crows and chimps show more capability than these humans who are supposed to have walked the earth for eons without leaving a trace. Pile this absurdity on top of that: “Brown says the fossil record of humans is poor from 100,000 to 500,000 years ago....” Let’s build conclusions on evidence, not the other way around, OK?
If it were not for the Darwin Party’s total commitment to millions of years of evolution, and their totalitarian control over the media, this claim would be laughed off the stage as the funniest thing since the Dean scream. This is another one of the aspects of evolutionary theory that will some day make history students wag their heads in disbelief that so many educated people could be duped for so long by the teachings of a primitive-looking guru named Charlie.
"The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."
Post 133 is where you made that claim. You made it about ICR & AIG. Then you made it about Creationist sources in general.
Older yes, but not anywhere near the evolutionist timeframes of millions of years. To be sure, still older than the Creationist timeframe. To get back to the Creationist timeframe you have to move away from the assumption that the atmospheric level of Carbon Dioxide and C14 was the same then as now. ICR has models that estimate what those levels might have been that can put the dating ranges within a Creationist framework.
Wrong, I made no such claim in post #133 (Hint: read carefully). Try again or withdraw.
As C14 dating is only useful to tens of thousands of years it is not relevant to the mainstream belief that the earth is billions of years old. Mainstream science does not assume that past atmospheric carbon levels are constant when doing carbon dating. In fact they are known to have varied, and the extent of the variation is known. Past levels are calibrated using other observations such as tree-rings.
Again, we DON'T use C-14 dating for going back millions of years ...
For all practical purposes that was the claim you made. Not in those exact words, but that was the essence. I'm not going to give your claim more airtime than it deserves by reposting it.
And I will not withdraw.
Keep me on your ping list. I like your posts.
Thanks! Will-do.
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.