Skulls Found in Africa and in Europe Challenge Theories of Human Origins

NY Times ^ | August 6, 2002 | By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

[vannrox]

Yet another revision of history.

[gusopol3]

"we have long known that the Garden of Eden was in East Africa."

[Scully]

Ping!

[gcruse]

Yet another revision of history.

You expecting a final edition?
The end of history was one thing,
the end of prehistory...never.

[Sam Cree]

bump

[PatrickHenry]

Skull-o-ramma ping.

[Scully]

A few scientists sound cautionary notes. Dr. Delson questioned whether the Toumai face was complete enough to justify interpretations of more highly evolved characteristics. One critic argued that the skull belonged to a gorilla, but that is disputed by scientists who have examined it.

You won't find discussion and disagreement like this between Creationists. Now then, which of the two, Creationism or Evolution, appears to be a members-only club?

[housetops]

All scholars of human prehistory eagerly await the next finds from Dmanisi, and in Chad. Perhaps they will help untangle some of the bushy branches of the human family tree to reveal the true ancestry of Homo sapiens.

Since every new finding of the past fifty years has claimed to “challenge theories of human origin,” what, exactly, are these scholars eagerly awaiting? These skull parts have proven useless for untangling “the bushy branches of the family tree,” but they are very effective in exposing the root-rot of evolvoid story-telling.

[LiteKeeper]

Of the many dating methods currently in use, which one was used here to establish the 7 mya date? Carbon 14 is good for no more that 13-15K years. Other methods are certainly suspect. If it is the strata the bones were found in, those are usually dated by the fossils found in them; and the fossils are dated by the strata. (Check the text books). Therefore, whence the date? [Probably the usual "speculation".]

One noted paleontologist was asked how he dated a particular fossil. His response - when he flew over the area before landing, he could just tell that the area was at least 4.5 million years old. Yeah right!]

[PatrickHenry]

Now then, which of the two, Creationism or Evolution, appears to be a members-only club?

Creationism is a loose association of the dropouts of modern society, who have little in common other than zero understanding of, and hostility toward, science.

[gcruse]

 
Since every new finding of the past fifty years has claimed to “
challenge theories of human origin,” what, exactly, are these
scholars eagerly awaiting?

The more dots you get, the more likely you
are to make correct connections.

[Ahban]

You are getting an early start on the personal insults I see. Since I am creationist/a modern computer user/ who teaches science I don't fit into your worldview now do I?

[CobaltBlue]

My God created an evolving universe.

How fascinating to find more of the pieces of the puzzle.

[aruanan]

"A hominid of this age," Dr. Wood wrote in Nature, "should certainly not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age."

Not surprising if, as a prominent French researcher is correct, the skull is that of an ancient female gorilla which has a more human and less ape-like facial features. If anything, the reverberations caused by individual fossils should underscore the poverty of data in this field .

[aruanan]

Creationism is a loose association of the dropouts of modern society, who have little in common other than zero understanding of, and hostility toward, science.

Hmmmm, comparing your statement with the fact that I'm a Ph.D. biologist from one of the leading research institutions in the world, I'd have to say that while your characterization comports nicely with that of skeptic websites it is otherwise out of touch with reality.

[housetops]

The more dots you get, the more likely you are to make correct connections.

But the more dots they get, the more their picture fades. The reason every new finding “challenges theories of human origins” is because their datum is wacked.

[general_re]

Carbon 14 is good for no more that 13-15K years.

No. Simple counting of C-14 (the traditional method) is good to about 50K years ago, and by using a cyclotron and a mass spectrometer, C-14 dating can be extended to about 100,000 years ago.

As for the alleged circularity of fossil dating, I might point out that there are other external indicators used to calibrate and judge the accuracy of radioisotope dating - you really ought to investigate the techniques used before asserting such a thing.

[gcruse]

 The reason every new finding
“challenges theories of human origins” is
because their datum is wacked.

It sure beats swallowing whole the
ancient mythology of a band
of desert dwellers.
 

[Jorge]

Creationism is a loose association of the dropouts of modern society, who have little in common other than zero understanding of, and hostility toward, science.

Kind of the way this post exhibits zero understanding of, and hostility toward, creationists.