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.
Here is what they say about THIER conclusion ...
Our investigation has emphasized that e ects that previously thought to be insignificant, such as rejected thermal radiation or mass expulsion, are now within (or near) one order of magnitude of possible mission requirements. This has unexpectedly emphasized the need to carefully understand all systematics to this level.
Until more is known, we must admit that the most likely cause of this e ect is an unknown systematic. (We ourselves are divided as to whether “gas leaks” or “heat” is this “most likely cause.”)
All I'm saying is that the best moral system for humans to live under is something that we should all be able to agree on by referring to objective facts of history, etc.Moral truth is discoverable just like any other truth: By observing it in action and evaluating the results. If the world is truly an objective thing, then moral systems should have objective results.Morality by consensus? I thought you wanted "objective moral truth."
This shouldn't be controversial. By the same token, if God is truly real, then every one of us should converge toward the same understanding of him the more we know about him. Right? But then doesn't that mean he's a God by Consensus? No, of course not.
Heck, consider the plain, mundane physical world. It's an objective fact, and the more one learns about it and its properties, the more you converge on the "consensus view" of what it's made of & how it works. How could we not converge on such a consensus if it were truly, objectively real?
The physical world is anything but "plain" and "mundane." Furthermore there is anything but consensus as to what it is, how it came about, and what makes it tick. Morality begins and ends with God. It is manifest, albeit in weakened form, in humankind.
God's morality: Create millions of people and then kill them all but a handful and destroy all the plants and most of the animals on earth.
I'm sure all the wild turkeys have come to a "consensus" on that point of few.
The point is that if something is by its nature impossible for us to detect, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.Again, how would you know that something is by its nature impossible to detect? It seems like 90% of the human population detects the existence of the Wholly Other. Is it that atheists can't or won't?
You're the one making the positive assertion here. It's up to you to tell me by what criteria you could say that God's existence was detected in an intersubjective way. (i.e. One that does not rely on people's testimony of their inner feelings for verification.)
To make a claim that something by its nature is impossible to detect is to acknowledge its existence. One cannot acknowledge the existence of something that is impossible to detect.
That's like saying "To claim that unicorns don't exist is to acknowledge their existence." Heavy, dude!
Look, it's impossible to detect something that doesn't exist, in exactly the same way that it's impossible to detect an all-powerful person who doesn't want to be detected and is able to suspend the laws of nature & causality to cover up his tracks. So how do you tell them apart?
You believe in the Big Bang. It was unobserved. There are no witnesses. You conclude that it happened because of what are held to be its effects.
True.
You take by faith that matter either created itself or you deify it by making it eternal.
All it takes to deify something is to think that it's eternal? Huh. I always thought a deity had to be a person of some kind. Why would I worship a rock just because I thought it always existed? What'd be the point if it's not something that can talk back to me or be held accountable for its (his) actions? When hyperbole implies an absurdity, one should examine why they felt the need for the hyperbole in the first place. :-)
I believe in the Creator. He has been observed. There are witnesses.
Many, many problems with that.
All can see the effects of the Creator by looking at the creation.
Assuming of course that the Creator exists in the first place. Begging the question is a fallacy.
I choose to believe in an eternal God rather than eternal dirt.
If wishes were nickels...
It is logical that there was a First Cause. It is illogical that there was never a cause.Therefore if the BB is considered scientific, all the more the existence of the Creator.
But why only this First Cause had the privilege to be uncaused and none of the other Causes? The only function of a First Cause is as a mental backstop to prevent the need for chasing after an infinite stretch of prior Causes. Similarly, this need to personify the First Cause comes from our instinct to anthropomorphize causes we don't understand. I don't like any of the options myself - but the Big Bang isn't really a theory about what caused this universe to appear in the first place, is it? The BB tries to answer what happened at the moment of causation, but since any information of prior causes would have to have been destroyed in the singularity, I don't see how the BB could ever answer that question.
Ah, back to the real agenda. You think that postmodernists are correct: There are no objective moral truths. But instead of living with this (false) assumption, as the postmodernists do, you want there to be a supernatural Authority Figure person who can "give us equality and inalienable rights", which can stand in for the equality & inalienable rights that you don't believe really exist.How long have you been posting here? Almost as long as I have. Do you really not know my position or are you just out of intellectual ammunition?
I can read. Yesterday I read your post 284:
It isn't consistency I observe in this relatively recent exclusion of the Creator who gives us equality and inalienable rights, it's willful, unbending, bias.
You think our rights had to be granted to us by someone. Presumably because we don't have them to begin with. But if our rights had to be granted to us by someone else, then they're alienable - contingent on the giver's decision. As an Objectivist I believe that our rights are inalienable.
If you meant something else when you said that, then please correct me.
In 136 VadeRetro linked his 2000 analysis; I had expected succinct concerns, but found 3 points which required a couple hours to discern. Finally deciding on an understanding and partial answer for them and moving to the next link by Dolphin, in a couple minutes I had a simple statement by Setterfield which fit everything neatly and accorded with these answers. The sharp discontinuity between these two experiences was unsettling.
In 389 VadeRetro linked that Dolphin article; I expected indication that Dolphin/Setterfield "papers" have VSL predicting an Adam. Instead the informal webpage was clearly not a scientific presentation of the data but a discussion of all facets including Scriptural. Though they are outgoing in their informal statements I haven't seen their failure to "be cagey" in publication.
In 394 RadioAstronomer provided links about the Pioneer data; I expected cogent description of why the Pioneer anomaly would also be observed among outer planets, but instead I just found other potential explanations, apparently. The first of them was mirror matter; the others were much more complex and without better reference I couldn't find where the Pioneer question was answered in them. Since the planetary observation explanation is not appearing, it becomes more tenable for me to suggest that the reason planets do not show anomalous acceleration is that we don't have a reference frequency to determine what the difference from modeled frequency would be; and of course, among competing explanations for Pioneer, VSL is starting to look like the simplest. Its associated changes in universal model are not deficits if they also answer other questions.
In 396 VadeRetro linked an explanation of why Magueijo's theory was ostensibly missing from his book. This pan review comes from readmag.com, which looks no better than an average blog. Nothing of substance. VadeRetro's link to Missler, which would've demonstrated why he hoped it wasn't Chuck (it was), was broken. (Chuck is not a scientist by trade, but a great analyst of Scripture and science trends; perhaps I was mistaken to include him in the science list earlier.)
Another poster in 399-401 acted as if rejection of speed of gravity concerns constituted rejection of lightspeed concerns, with other misinterpretations of my clear statements, continuing not to provide any reason why planetary observation should disprove VSL interpretation of Pioneer.
Let me applaud you all that uniformitarians' discussion of VSL is proving much more gentlemanly than their views on ID. But my expectations were faulty. I think we can see "bait and switch" may have been suspected in both directions due to our representations, but let's continue thrashing the evidence.
Looking at VadeRetro's concerns, a hypothesis came to mind which might explain the evidence, but I want to do a little experimentation with webpages as to whether it is presentable before I publish. In the meantime, once again, can anyone point me to specific places in the posted or other articles where it is shown that planetary observation contraindicates the VSL view of the Pioneer data? Thank you! Pardon my quoting Job, the Bible's chatroom log ....
The Pioneer data is still being studied, and nothing definitive has resulted. Not yet. Meanwhile, you may want to spend some time at this website, which has some rather good evidence that the speed of light hasn't changed:
The Age of the Universe and SN1987A.
I'm all for evolution if it will change my brother-in-law into a human being.
All I had to bring to the table was (a) the question raised and then settled concerning the fine structure constant - which would have meant a change in the speed of light (a variable speed of light would have enormous ramifications on the Standard Model, constants, etc.) - and (b) the application of relativity and the inflationary theory to the age of the universe.
I have no direct input concerning the VSL speculation and the Pioneer anomalies.
However, I would strongly suggest that RadioAstronomer has the most relevant expertise, knowledge and credentials and has provided the necessary links to stay on top of the subject as it unfolds.
I gave you credit for having more sense than that. Guess I was wrong.
--Boot Hill
I disagree, I regard the attempt to eliminate the decay rate argument by postulating that decay may have occurred faster by exactly the same proportion as light has got slower (#121 and #393, I think) deeply unconvincing. Decay rate is not an isolated phenomenon, it is dependent on other universal constants and their application to physical laws. When we look into the distant past we don't see a universe that apparently has different physical laws to our own so why make up this complex stuff in order to fit bronze-age creation myths? Others have posted numerous physical difficulties with the variable constants ideas proposed.
When someone has come up with a coherent cosmology that shows how all the constants have varied over time, and performed some experiments that would falsify that hypothetical cosmology, and they've shown how it explains current observations better than the simple current paradigm of "constant constants" then VSL might have something to say. Until then VSL is just tinfoil-hat-crankery. Further, the decay-rate argument is not the only one against VSL provided in that SN1987A link. If you want to discredit that link you need to dispose of its other arguments too.
In this paper's model, lightspeed c (usually) decreases as some function of time, its frequency f decreases with c, other particle velocities v decrease with c, Planck's "constant" h increases inverse to c, the zero-point energy density U increases inverse to c, atomic rest mass m increases inverse to c^2, gravitational "constant" G decreases with c^2, permittivity epsilon and permeability mu increase inverse to c, and finally alpha particle escape frequency lambda-star decreases with c. I think that's everybody. These are continuous functions, but also lead to quantum changes in atomic structure. Certainly that's a lot to digest at once (and give them credit: even more so to discover all at once), but these are all fair effects of c variability. Setterfield reports that Mermin and Singh deduced relativity via Lorentz transformation completely independent of variability in c, so Einstein remains intact. Now, heeding VadeRetro's call to please use extreme caution:
1) Sunlight: First VR correctly observes that over time, the energy of a photon is conserved: The per-photon energy changes are a wash. Then VR correctly observes that in the past, the energy of a photon should have been much lower: The energy of each photon has to go a lot lower or Adam is in trouble. These two statements are not contradictory: an old photon would have much less energy, but be emitted much more often, than a new photon, but in both cases the energy is conserved. That means the photons observed now from the remote edge of the universe have much less energy than the photons from our sun now.
VR's solution is: To lower the energy of a photon, you have to lower its frequency. The inverse way of looking at that is to say you have to increase its wavelength. This seems mistaken, because frequency is in s^-1 and wavelength is in m, so they are not inverse with c variable. Frequency varies with c and lowers the energy appropriately, but wavelength is not changed; that is, light moving slower with the same wavelength will have fewer pulses per second. Thus photon energy is appropriately lower in the past, inverse to c rising.
Wavelength, however, varies for another reason: c rising causes quantum shifts in atomic orbital states which output longer waves. Observers had interpreted these as Hubble redshifts. VR is quite correct that: We appear to need a factor of something like 11 million; we have a factor of two. Setterfield's explanation of this runs through the paper. In summary, if we take the observed redshift z=~1.5, multiply by the quantum delta-c of 63.74 c-now (equation 119), and multiply by the Rydberg quantum number 1152pi^4 (equation 86), you get the range of 11 million c-now.
At this point, I can freely admit these explanations are new to me and healthy doubt is still in play. Anyone can play math and write 100 equations until they get the right set of numbers, and I empathize with those who accuse Setterfield of such. But this is not like someone who sees 19 everywhere. Absent better explanation, I see no reason to doubt that he invokes these multipliers in good faith. The Rydberg number he derives from considerations of zero-point energy crossing at the quantum jumps; and the delta-c, of which c is an integral multiple at quantum jumps, is calculated from observation.of where the redshifts are quantized.
Alternate explanations are welcome, but the benefit of doubt would accord Setterfield the victory of retaining both an equal amount of light energy with 10^7 times the protons, and a redshift in wavelength of only the observed values of 0-14. The sun's output is quite sufficient to retain plenty of visible light, redshifted, even if today's visible light all became infrared. The energy loss and output gain cancel, and Setterfield's "proportionately more photons" harmonizes with Fryman's "amount of light is not increased".
2) Observed time: Here VR briefly seems to raise more of a personal than a scientific concern: Yet here's Adam living and aging like a live-fast-die-young bacterium. I don't follow the speculative chain. We agree that nucleons and electrons are sped up by factor of 10^7, but I can't make it follow that Everything electrical or chemical is speeded up with c or that aging will "fly". I don't know whether weaker chemical bonds are a valid answer, they may be a mistake of Fryman; but it seems like VR should expand on why these effects are so certain. Electrons are "flying" at incredible speed around nuclei now without doing any damage.
3) Alpha particles: In relation to reactions, after repeating a reference to the wavelength issue addressed above, VR admits, a bit impressed: Because of the speeds involved, however--and the careful design of this theory--the reactions happen faster so the energy flux is the same. (Ta-dah!) If the only objection is the neatness, we can probably pass that item. Atomic rest mass being tremendously less does not affect most reactions, including weight, because the all masses retain the same relative values. Atoms with mass reduced (with c^2) are propelled more often (with c) and at greater speed (with c), resulting in identical energy flux: good math does have a way of looking carefully designed.
After weighing factors, VR agrees the decay products should also fly faster when the nucleus breaks down, which is to say that particle velocity v varies with c. This appears a concern because although particles are sped up, planets are not. As to where to draw the line, this is the presently unanswered physics question of reconciling gravity and nuclear force. It appears the line is legitimate, because planets still accelerate according to Gm, regarded as a true constant, even if their particles are internally moving much faster than now.
Since v increases with c, VR sees loads of more particles multiplied by loads of more velocity: radiation energy increasing with c^2. He then cancels the lost mass of the particles against the lost mass of the permeated medium and retains energy increase with c^2. However, I believe the correct additional cancellation factors are the decreased energy of each particle (previously discounted by VR), and the increased velocity of the permeated materials (which produces the same decay result independent of c); that is, energy flux remains constant as it does with sunlight.
4) Zero-point energy: ZPE effects, which I can freely admit not really understanding, are questioned in an aside. VR seems concerned that the "missing mass" violates conservation, but this is easily accounted by VR's own analysis and quote that more energy is being fed into the universe from the vacuum. Movement of energy from the vacuum to increased mass conserves it. After debunking ZPE junk science, VR concludes with the comparison that VSL also requires belief in "crazy hoops", "ugly and overly complex". Well, maybe.
For me, substantial changes, as Roemer's finite lightspeed or Einstein's relative time required physicists to make over decades, are certainly justified by vastly improved predictive models. For me, a chain of assumptions, when consistent with each other, are worth pursuing if the resultant is ultimately simpler. VSL stated simply is letting all time-related constants vary proportionally. When considered, it answers many nagging physics questions: first, the statistically significant variation in observed measurements of these constants; then, resolution between old clocks (particularly radiometric dating) and young clocks; resolution between historical perception of youth and modern skepticism; quantized redshifts; the rapid homogenization during the forming of CMB; speed of gravity questions; conflict between Tolman surface brightness and Zwicky surface brightness (Setterfield seems to like that one); and resolution of the hypothetical "dark matter" or "dark energy" necessary to maintain gravitation in the uniformitarian model. To perform one more cancellation, the simplicity benefits outweigh the complex difficulties.
Thanks for your patience, this was written for me as much as for anyone. VadeRetro, I have high hopes, please let me know what you think. The real question for each of us is: what evidence would and would not change our cherished beliefs? I have a single absolute commitment to God as he reveals himself and to no one else. I seek to subject any belief whatsoever to God's final judgment rather than retain it as immutable in itself. No theory is ultimate except the axioms. This is the scientific method, and God is the best Axiom.
How accurate is carbon-dating? Can you duplicate the results based on accepted biological experiments or tests?
If carbon dating is accurate how come the first experiment on how old is this earth is different from the second and on the thirds or so on?
Or could this be as phony as the evolution theory THAT IS CONFUSING THE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL?
I want to know.
See my comment in #417.
I'm unlikely to spend more time on SN1987A unless you wish to summarize the arguments you think telling.
We already have the coherent cosmology, falsifiable experiments, and predictive power. Please back up your dismissive comments with specific arguments. Otherwise you will be perceived as serving the silicon-age creation myth of the god whose physical laws are exactly the ones we understand. The laws have never changed with any scientific growth, only our improved explanation of them.
Please, let's avoid being the scoffers prophesied by Peter who say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." Every line lambastes the uniformitarian assumption and its results (2 Pet. 3:3-10).
Placemarker
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.