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.
Or this:
What I am looking for is some statement of the form:
"If ID is the explanation for life, then we could never possibly observe X, where X is whatever physical observation you'd care to plug in."
They are dismissed not because of fear that they are right, but because of the false propaganda they sell as science.
Yes. Evolutionists are biased toward truth; YEC'ers are biased toward fable.
Because evolution proceeds by changes in alleles, not by starting over with a whole different biochemistry.
The theory of evolution states that all organisms are derived from a common ancestor. That is, all modern organisms are genetically related. It's not possible that an organism that uses DNA could be genetically related to one that uses silicon oxides. Be careful not to fall into the false dichotomy fallacy, however. Such an observation would disprove the theory of evolution, but it would NOT necessarily be evidence for ID or creationism (apart from the fact that all observations are consistent with these ideas.)
But couldn't a mutation incorporate another chemical into DNA? I still don't see how that would disprove it.
If such an organism was found, evolutionists would immediately be trying to understand how it could have evolved. Did it evolve independantly. Or did it evolve from existing life?
No.
Of course science would try to understand it. But it would overthrough evolution, particularly if it was a large, multicelled organism lving among us.
Finding a simple, alternate form of biochemistry half a mile down in the earth would merely be interesting.
Too Late. Scripture already said you believe in fables and thereby forget the flood, and it said that 2000 years ago.
I also gave that example as just that, an example. There are many other statements that you could use for X when talking about evolution. I also mean the specific theory of evolution that is the current scientific paradigm. I am not saying that a falsification of that theory would lead to another theory that's more to the liking of creationists/ID'ers. A falsification of the current theory of evolution might lead to a new theory that's similar in many ways to the old one. For example, the current theory states that birds and mammals evolved independently from ancestors that were reptiles. Therefore, a statement of the form previously given with X = an organism with both mammal-like and bird-like features would constitute a falsification of the current theory of evolution. If such a falsification were actually found it would lead to a new theory, but it would be a new theory that kept the basics of the current theory with a modified evolutionary tree. This still constitutes a falsification of evolution. If ID'ers were to specify limitations on the capabilities of the designer, such falsifications would be possible for ID as well. That is, if you specified that a designer would not design an eye with a blind spot, that statement would be scientific. It would also be false, since human eyes have a blind spot. It could reasonably be replaced by another ID theory that specifies some other observations that would be impossible.
Give me an example of something that truly disproves evolution. This doesn't.
see post 231.
I have seen an analogy for the falsification of an idea which I like very much. It is comparable to cutting down a tree. If you cut the trunk of the tree, the tree dies. Similarly if you falsify a basic idea of a theory, the theory is shot. An example of such would be finding a completely different biochemistry existing among the species currently known. If you cut a few smaller branches of the tree, the tree survives. However, if you cut enough of the branches of a tree, the tree will die. Similarly if you falsify a few details of the theory, the theory will still survive. That would be the case, for example, if the idea that birds and mammals both evolved from reptiles were to be falsified. In and of itself, that wouldn't falsify evolution. However, if we found that a large majority of the evolutionary relationships that are theorized by evolution were false, it might start to cast doubt on the whole idea of evolution.
Study some biology. Mutation = change in a DNA strand causing a different order of base pairs. A change in the order of the DNA base pairs changes the order of the amino acids in the polypeptide whose synthesis is controlled by the gene in which the mutation occurred. Even if this mutation formed a protein that allowed the organism to incorporate silicon into its biochemistry, the genetic material is still DNA, not silicon oxides. Since mutations don't change the chemical makeup of the genetic material, there's no mutation that could possibly convert DNA into silicon oxides.
It's reall scary to think that you might, at some, level, have some influence over a child's science education. What you are suggesting simply cannot happen. Period. Find me an example and I will start tithing at your church.
First case is utterly impossible. Biochemistry cannot accomodate such a scenerio.
Second case is true as long as the newly discovered organism is located in some isolated environment, such as thousands of feet underground, and has no connection whatsoever to other life forms. A silicon bunny would disprove evolution.
Third case is just silly. We might soon have designed organisms that follow different kinds of biochemistry. But look at the definition of life proposed for such frankencritters: they will not be considered living unless they reproduce and evolve. Note that evolution is an attribute of everything that is living or semi-living (such as viruses).
Good point. I suspect there are living things that incorporate silicon into their bodies at some point. but not in their DNA, which is what Danny started out discussing. Someone smarter than me will have to address to possibility of having silicon participate in biochemistry. I seem to recall there is an artificial blood that used silicon instead of iron. Not sure if it ever got tried on humans.
Show me the proof that only a few dozen have been found. That said, they found a lot more than one skull and a few bones, in fact, complete skeletons were found. IN addition, the dinosaur bones are so species specific that it is obvious evidence. You give me a complete skeleton of transitional man, I'll put the egg on my own face.Kind of hard when you get to define what 'transitional' is and you move the goalposts every time we find fossils that show a form of life that is similar to a previous form and similar to a current form, but different from both. Also something of an arrogant approach by you to the field of science. Who are you to set the numerical standard bars for what you'll say is truth? Who the hell made you king of science or the earth?
Show me the proof that only a few dozen have been found. That said, they found a lot more than one skull and a few bones, in fact, complete skeletons were found. IN addition, the dinosaur bones are so species specific that it is obvious evidence. You give me a complete skeleton of transitional man, I'll put the egg on my own face.Kind of hard when you get to define what 'transitional' is and you move the goalposts every time we find fossils that show a form of life that is similar to a previous form and similar to a current form, but different from both. Also something of an arrogant approach by you to the field of science. Who are you to set the numerical standard bars for what you'll say is truth? Who the hell made you king of science or the earth?
I have to be honest, I'm not even sure I've seen such examples of idiocy from leftists that I've debated(key being that I have personally debated.)
I want to punch MYSELF in the face after reading some of these posts.
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.