Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists
New York Times (AP Wire) ^ | February 16, 2005 | AP Wire

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barrysetterfield; biblehaters; carbondating; cdk; commondescent; creation; creationism; crevolist; design; dolphin; ethiopia; evolution; fossils; godsgravesglyphs; homosapiens; humanorigins; intelligentdesign; lambertdolphin; ldolphin; lightspeeddecay; oldearth; origins; paleontology; pioneer; radiometric; radiometry; remains; setterfield; sitchin; smithsonian; speedoflight; vsl; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-554 next last
To: Alter Kaker
Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago...

A testable prediction made by the Theory of Evolution.

21 posted on 02/16/2005 11:38:58 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent.

Fine. So you're saying you have absolutely nothing in the way of a supporting argument constructed in the intervening 30 years?

22 posted on 02/16/2005 11:40:39 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Well, I was disappointed. When the headline said, "Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists, I assumed that "identified" meant that a scientist had said, "Yep, that's Bobby Ray, alright!"


23 posted on 02/16/2005 11:43:21 AM PST by Tacis ("John ("What SF-180?") Kerry - Still Shilling For Those Who Wish America Ill!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...

No gap. Lucy was an Australopithcine, and a fairly early on at that. Modern humans followed (and I believe overlap) archaic sapiens, and archaic sapiens followed (and I believe overlap) Homo erectus.

24 posted on 02/16/2005 11:46:28 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Do you have a visual link of the current status of the Homo ancestry?


25 posted on 02/16/2005 11:46:31 AM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Messianic Jews Net
Oh, boy! This old creationist canard!
26 posted on 02/16/2005 11:50:07 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"Fine. So you're saying you have absolutely nothing in the way of a supporting argument constructed in the intervening 30 years?"

Here's an article from 2000 that concludes the same thing.

Lucy

27 posted on 02/16/2005 11:52:31 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?

Yes, the terms 'reasonably good argument', 'more likely than not' and 'estimate' make that clear.

28 posted on 02/16/2005 11:55:12 AM PST by Publius Scipio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Messianic Jews Net
So funny. The evolutionists dated the fossils by the rocks. They also like to date rocks by the fossils. Who wants to try to prove they didn't? Thanks.

Standard procedures of biostratigraphy are absolutely and completely independent of evolution. They would work just as well if a wizard replaced all the fossils with, say, coins bearing unique but arbitrary numeric codes for each species.

Besides, they were invented not by "the evolutionists" but by creationists. The proof? All of the major geologic systems (save only the Silurian) were in place before Darwin even started college. How could these methods be based, via circular reasoning, on evolution when they were invented by creationists and applied by creationist, all before any geologist at all was an evolutionist of any description?

29 posted on 02/16/2005 11:56:18 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Alter Kaker
"The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said."

Wow, if this is true then the site is the birth place of humanity! Discoveries don't get much more important then this. Wow again.

31 posted on 02/16/2005 12:00:47 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LightCrusader

The lie has obviously gotten to you before the truth.


32 posted on 02/16/2005 12:00:57 PM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Haven't I heard somewhere that Ethiopia was the site of the Garden of Eden? From what I've seen, it doesn't too appetizing now.


33 posted on 02/16/2005 12:03:30 PM PST by furball4paws (It's not the cough that carried him off - it's the coffin they carried him off in (O. Nash -I think))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LightCrusader

Even granting that carbon dating is invalid (which I don't), that has absolutely zero relevance to this find. This find is a 200,000 year old fossil. Carbon dating is only used to date samples that are up to 50,000 years old. Therefore, carbon dating was not used to date this fossil. Hence any "problems" with carbon dating would have no effect on this find.


34 posted on 02/16/2005 12:04:01 PM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LightCrusader
It's nice to see that some people can still use reason and logic in the face of all the nutty evolutionist proselytizing. The carbon-dating method is the epitome of junk science.

That's all very interesting, LightCrusader, but was Carbon 14 dating used in the study cited here?

35 posted on 02/16/2005 12:04:49 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LightCrusader
It's nice to see that some people can still use reason and logic in the face of all the nutty evolutionist proselytizing.

Huh? And MessianicJews.net isn't prosletyzing? His own handle is a piece of advertising!

36 posted on 02/16/2005 12:08:44 PM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

My question meant: Would you like to evidence the bald claim that biostratigraphic standards prove common descent independently, not circularly? Thanks.

Darwinism transformed "geologic systems" or zones into "geologic eras". Since you admit geologic zones are compatible with creation and design, they cannot prove evolution independently. The circularity is that common descent is assumed to prove itself, not a creationist import. Happy to explain further.


37 posted on 02/16/2005 12:09:22 PM PST by Messianic Jews Net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
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.

When you haven't a leg to stand on, state it like it's fact. Standard MO.

38 posted on 02/16/2005 12:19:52 PM PST by Havoc (Reagan was right and so was McKinley. Down with free trade. Hang the traitors high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LightCrusader

The carbon-dating method is the epitome of junk science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

AIG: The epitome of junk science. Even CSI is closer to the truth!


39 posted on 02/16/2005 12:30:50 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
When you haven't a leg to stand on, state it like it's fact. Standard MO.

You mean like the YEC's do when they say evolution is junk science because the earth is only 6000 years old ...

40 posted on 02/16/2005 12:32:40 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-554 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson