Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists

New York Times (AP Wire) ^ | February 16, 2005 | AP Wire

[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.

[Havoc]

LOL. Nice argument... er, lack of one.

[Ichneumon]

IOW we're from the "wimp" line?

You had any doubt?

[DannyTN]

"Australopithecines ARE hominids. "

But they weren't considered capable of making stone structures. What's more Leakey found the remains of a Homo Habilis at a level below the Australopithecines and above the stone structure.

The ROBUST Australopithecines are not considered ancestral.

If you go to post 14 by Patrick Henry. There is "Australopithecines Robustus" right in the middle of the list.

[js1138]

placemarker

[DannyTN]

"the australopithecines in question are robust, and have never been considered ancestors of Homo" These are Australopithecus robustus, which are a LATER, and DIFFERENT species of Australopithecines than the ones on the ancestral line of humans.

I understand I read the first line above from Talk Origins wrong and didn't take "are robust" to mean Robustus.

But if you go to post 14 by Patrick Henry. There is Robustus right in the middle of the line up.

[Ichneumon]

[I was being sarcastic and referring to your argument which has no legs to stand on. Just false science propaganda.]

Well, that is your natural response given you have a belief system.

...just how dense are you? His reply which you took exception to was a DIRECT REVERSAL of your own pointless remark in post #38... He gave you a "mirror-version" of your own reply, which you then fell right into by retorting, "LOL. Nice argument... er, lack of one." Yes. Exactly. Precisely his point. Thanks for recognizing it -- at least when it's posted *to* you instead of *by* you...

If you were an objective party practicing science, I would expect you could defend the argumentation with other than broad, general statements with no foundation.

You mean like the "broad, general statements with no foundation" you made in post #38?

So far, all we have is broad general statements with the underlying "trust me" element of charlatans.

...so says the guy who himself hasn't added anything to the thread but "attitude", and whose first post on this thread responded to the results of scientific analysis of the evidence thusly:

[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.

Congratulations! You're a hypocrite!

[furball4paws]

Hmmm... Does that make Queen Elizabeth a robust Briton?"

Certainly long lived with the queen mother dying a few years back at >100 - must be driving Charles crazy.

[Messianic Jews Net]

Thank you for this excellent, scientific survey, which unfortunately doesn't answer the real question. So lithostratigraphy dates rocks in similar strata similarly, and biostratigraphy dates undisturbed rocks containing similar fossils similarly, both with exceptions but general convergence; and we can roughly order similar types of rocks into geologic systems. You never mentioned: What makes them billions of years old?

If creationists invented this science, the rock and fossil evidence did not indicate to them the billions of years. So it still doesn't.

Because Darwin required long eras, he changed the dating, and neo-Darwinism changed it much further; "systems" may be contemporaneous but "eras" may not. So since "biostratigraphy is independent of evolutionary theory" it cannot evidence the great ages needed. What does?

[furball4paws]

What did Shakespeare say about Cicero (I think)

"He hath a lean and hungry look about him" or something like that.

it's the wimpy, sly, sneaky ones that are trouble. Oh no!, that sounds like a eVOLUTIONary advantage.

[furball4paws]

OOPS. Couldn't have been Cicero, one of those other nefarious conspirators.

[VadeRetro]

Yon Cassius was the one with the lean and hungry look. Cicero was a famous orator of the day but Shakespeare left him out.

[furball4paws]

Neither one survived long after Caesar did they? Unnatural selection at work?

[Ichneumon]

[The ROBUST Australopithecines are not considered ancestral.]

If you go to post 14 by Patrick Henry. There is "Australopithecines Robustus" right in the middle of the list. [...] But if you go to post 14 by Patrick Henry. There is Robustus right in the middle of the line up.

1. Post #14 is not by Patrick Henry, it's by RadioAstronomer.

2. Yes, "Australopithecines Robustus" is in the list.

3. No, the list was never claimed (nor implied) to consist only of hominids which are actually ancestral to modern humans. It's a list of the hominids which appear in the fossil record between the times of "Lucy" and modern man.

4. No, the contents of his links don't claim that A. Robustus was a human ancestor either.

5. In fact, one explicitly states, "A. Robustus died out about 1 million years ago and is not ancestral to the Homo lines".

Any other confusions you'd like me to clear up for you? It's becoming a full-time job.

[VadeRetro]

None of the conspirators long survived their defeat by the triumvirate of Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian (later Augustus). Something bad happened to Cicero, too, but I don't recall the details of that. I guess I could Google.

[sphinx]

Probably died standing in line to vote for Kerry. Find another couple of remains and the DUers will demand reopening the count.

[VadeRetro]

Cicero was an enemy of Antony. He with much of his family was thus a victim of the triumvirate although he had not been a conspirator against Caesar and furthermore had been helpful to Octavian.

[jennyp]

[to Stultis:] You never mentioned: What makes them billions of years old?

If creationists invented this science, the rock and fossil evidence did not indicate to them the billions of years. So it still doesn't.

Because Darwin required long eras, he changed the dating, and neo-Darwinism changed it much further; "systems" may be contemporaneous but "eras" may not. So since "biostratigraphy is independent of evolutionary theory" it cannot evidence the great ages needed. What does?

What, you still haven't read the link that PatrickHenry provided for you in post 47 and which I referred you to later?

You know: Something about "radiometric something-or-other"? Um, "radiometric whatzits"? ...

[furball4paws]

If you don't open your eyes and look, it doesn't exist.

[Tribune7]

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

I'm no YECer largely because of radiometric dating but answers like that don't really help your cause.

This is from the AIG link concerning the use of isotopes other than C-14:

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Now, you appear to have some background in engineering. It should be snap for you -- in your own words -- to refute this.

Go for it.

[Messianic Jews Net]

No, I read the review in 62 instead. But starting to skim, it is hard to get past the statement on page 4: "There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years." This talk of observation over all those years smacks of hasty advertising, I really don't know what he means.

Your question as to why I haven't read a 33-page link is a little off-point. Stultis is not providing evidence for great age by evidence from physical strata or from fossils. The article above also doesn't describe in detail how it dated the fossils. If I have time maybe I'll come back with the generic problems in radiometric dating, unless someone has some specific evidence involved with dating specific fossils.