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.
I summarized your claim as "creationists never address criticisms".
I maintain that is a good summary of the above quote. And the charge was baseless in that the article we were discussing not only addressed counter arguments, but called in a panel of secular scientists to see if they could explain away the excess C-14 by means of contamination. They couldn't. It was the secular scientists who said that the C-14 appeared intrinsic to the fossils themselves.
And you stand there on your high horse, knowing full well that evolutionists are every bit if not more so biased as the creationists and do not link to counter arguments of their work.
Clarification from my previous post in the interest of accuracy.........."I was singled out for harassment and threats on the basis that they think I'm a creationist," said Richard Sternberg
Mr. Sternberg only says 'they think I'm a creationist.' He doesn't state whether he is, or is not.
Love it!
Can't wait to see the scientific 'evidence' of just one complete (or even close to it) transitional man in all those millions of years of 'transition.'
Sure it does, and it also talks about the round of the earth and moon, so either your right and I'm wrong or I'm right and your wrong. Or, perhaps we're both right and something was lost in translation.
I've dealt with him before and he's okay. People like him believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible when it suits them and then turnaround and condemn creationists for being stupid and gullible for literally interpreting the Bible. Like the Bible says, all you have to do is plant a seed. So if I can be of any helpt that way with anyone ever, I'm satisfied.
What kind of evidence could prove or disprove God?
If you think that "never" is a good summary of "almost never" then words have no meaning.
And the charge was baseless in that the article we were discussing not only addressed counter arguments, but called in a panel of secular scientists to see if they could explain away the excess C-14 by means of contamination.
I can see no reference to ICR "calling in a panel of experts to see if they could explain away the excess C-14" in the article that you posted a URL to. Given your past standard of reading comprehension I speculate that this is another item that you have made up or misunderstood.
And you stand there on your high horse, knowing full well that evolutionists are every bit if not more so biased as the creationists and do not link to counter arguments of their work.
Completely false. For example many, many pages of talk.origins contain direct links to attempted creationist refutations of the arguments on talk.origins (not vague references to possible explanations). This is the standard scientific method.
What kind of evidence would prove or disprove God.
More to the point, what kind of evidence would prove or disprove your particular understanding of God?
Applying that rule uniformly and fairly would mean that you probably wouldn't be posting here. For example, you said
The folks at ICR don't have any reputation to lose.
If your statement were true, no one would listen to them. They have a rather large following so they indeed do have credibility. Therefore your statement is "manifestly false."
Fair enough, I withdraw that statement. I should have said, "The folks at ICR have very little scientific reputation to lose."
Can you not think of any idea or movement that has a large following and no credibility? I suspect you can if you try.
The real test is not whether you are right or wrong, but how you argue. If you can't accurately state your opponent's position, you aren't really in the discussion.
Doesn't matter. Do you follow the evidence?
If the evidence points to design, do you follow the evidence? Or do you assume that design must mean God and so you rule it out automatically?
If the evidence points to God, do you follow the evidence? At what point do you decide, that "evidence" can't be considered because it might lead to a religious conclusion?
You miss the point. What evidence would point AWAY from God? If there is no possible evidence that would lead away from God (or ID, evolution, or any other idea) then the evidence leading toward that idea is meaningless. Since God, assuming He exists, can make the world look however He wants it to, all evidence favors the existence of God and no possible observation would be considered evidence that He doesn't exist. Scientifically speaking, evidence in favor of something that has no possibility of finding evidence against it is useless.
WTurkey,
I think furball is on our side, man. Check the posts carefully, I think he/she is referring to being attacked by creationoids.
Of course you have to follow the evidence. We've all been holding our breath for several years for ID to present som actual evidence. False assertions that everyone can just intuitively see desing are not evidence. They are counter evidence, because every time I offer you examples of objects that might or might not be designed, you decline to take the challenge. You, yourself, by your own behavior, are among the best arguments against ID.
But you posted a response that ignored another question: What kind of evidence would disprove God as the designer? What would you accept?
I wish I could intuitively see typos.
I was rereading my previous post, and I feared that it wasn't written very clearly. What I am looking for is some statement of the form, if God exists, then we could never possibly observe X, where X is whatever physical observation you'd care to plug in. For evolution, statements of this type are possible, and hence evolution is scientific. An example of such a statement would be X = a new species of organism that uses silicon oxides as a genetic material. I would maintain that there is no possible statement of this form that you would be able to make regarding the existence of God. This is a direct consequence of the omnipotence of God. Therefore, if ID postulates that God is the designer, then it is inherently unscientific. However, even if the designer is not God, then ID is unscientific unless a specific test for design is developed or the limitations of the designers capabilities are specified. So far, nobody has done either of these. Until one or the other of these is done, there is no limitation on the possible range of observations that could potentially be made, and hence there is no scientific theory of ID.
Remove foot, see post 210
I see no significant difference between the version of the statement, and see no reason to alter my post in any way.
I hear a lot of crickets chirping when ID folks are asked to say how you could prove or disprove design. There is, in fact, no way to prove something is not designed, so it is up to ID to present an objective way to distinguish between designed and natural objects.
Proponents of design then need to be willing toput their method to the test by classifying objects for which they don't know the history.
I suggest, for a start, making a statement about the various unusual features on Mars, because they have som interesting regular features and because most of us are likely to live long enough to get more information about their detailed structure and history.
But there are lots of images on the internet that can be used as an additional test. We just need to know if you can really detect design without knowing an object's history.
And how would that disprove evolution? Why couldn't such an organism evolve?
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.