KR...
Curator of the Headphone Lust Museum
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 9,534
- Likes
- 31
The oldest humans just got older... by 35,000 years
- Thread starter KR...
- Start date
Stephonovich
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Posts
- 3,260
- Likes
- 11
Want... Outside...
3lusiv3
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Posts
- 3,677
- Likes
- 13
I don't understand what the Outside has to do with this.
I was listening to a report about this find on the radio this morning and found it very interesting.
I was listening to a report about this find on the radio this morning and found it very interesting.
Riordan
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Posts
- 871
- Likes
- 13
KR, head-fi's official science reporter...
i wonder what creationists have to say about this... but that really would go outside, i guess. way outside
i wonder what creationists have to say about this... but that really would go outside, i guess. way outside
KR...
Curator of the Headphone Lust Museum
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 9,534
- Likes
- 31
Quote:
Same here, there is no reason why this thread should be closed, if anyone flamebaits here, they have issues they need to iron out on their own and their posts should be deleted.
This is a pure science thread and nothing more. Since I happen to be a human being, I find these types of stories fascinating.
| Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I don't understand what the Outside has to do with this. I was listening to a report about this find on the radio this morning and found it very interesting. |
Same here, there is no reason why this thread should be closed, if anyone flamebaits here, they have issues they need to iron out on their own and their posts should be deleted.
This is a pure science thread and nothing more. Since I happen to be a human being, I find these types of stories fascinating.
wallijonn
Throwin' tantra.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2002
- Posts
- 7,242
- Likes
- 15
I still say that they're 237,000 years too short. 195,000 years just seems to short a time. I would think that south east Africa would be a good place to look, along with what's under the Sands of the Arabian Desert.
StevieDvd
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,742
- Likes
- 89
A tourist in the British Museum asks a security guard, "How old is that fossil?"
He replies, "That's 65 million, 3 years and 12 days old, madam"
"Gee, how do they get the age so precise?" She responds.
"Don't know madam, I've only worked here 3 years and 12 days but it was 65 million when I started!".
Tee hee.
He replies, "That's 65 million, 3 years and 12 days old, madam"
"Gee, how do they get the age so precise?" She responds.
"Don't know madam, I've only worked here 3 years and 12 days but it was 65 million when I started!".
Tee hee.
Stephonovich
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Posts
- 3,260
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
I'm not debating that it's not interesting; but I think the relevant hot button issue here would be dating methods. I always have, and still do, have a problem with the methods used. But I digress. Don't want to crap up someone else's thread.
| Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I don't understand what the Outside has to do with this. I was listening to a report about this find on the radio this morning and found it very interesting. |
I'm not debating that it's not interesting; but I think the relevant hot button issue here would be dating methods. I always have, and still do, have a problem with the methods used. But I digress. Don't want to crap up someone else's thread.
viator122
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Posts
- 2,009
- Likes
- 12
Wallijohn, I hope you don't find this patronizing, but I don't know how much the forum knows about human evolution and those links provide what could be a misleading picture.
The human "branch" on the evolutionary tree split off about 4-5 million years ago with the australopithecus genus ("Lucy" etc) at that time or soon thereafter, these species were walking on two legs. Fast forward to the distinction of the Homo genus about 1.8 million years ago with Homo habilis who was the first to create real stone flake tools. Then come the Neanderthals (a hotly contested topic: "They are our ancestors" vs. "They are an evolutionary side-branch") about 230,000 years ago and now Homo sapiens 195,000 years ago.
This only means, however, that humans were anatomically evolved 195,000 years ago. Cultural development took much longer. Many cultural developments such as ritual burial, musical instruments, painting/sculpting, caring for the sick, etc. occurred less than 100,000 years ago and many of occurred less than 50,000 years ago.
So human evolution both physically and culturally has taken millions of years, however, the development of culture seems to have increased at a rapid pace after Homo sapiens evolved to its modern form.
The human "branch" on the evolutionary tree split off about 4-5 million years ago with the australopithecus genus ("Lucy" etc) at that time or soon thereafter, these species were walking on two legs. Fast forward to the distinction of the Homo genus about 1.8 million years ago with Homo habilis who was the first to create real stone flake tools. Then come the Neanderthals (a hotly contested topic: "They are our ancestors" vs. "They are an evolutionary side-branch") about 230,000 years ago and now Homo sapiens 195,000 years ago.
This only means, however, that humans were anatomically evolved 195,000 years ago. Cultural development took much longer. Many cultural developments such as ritual burial, musical instruments, painting/sculpting, caring for the sick, etc. occurred less than 100,000 years ago and many of occurred less than 50,000 years ago.
So human evolution both physically and culturally has taken millions of years, however, the development of culture seems to have increased at a rapid pace after Homo sapiens evolved to its modern form.
princeclassic
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Posts
- 417
- Likes
- 1
stephonovich,
what problems do you have with the dating used?
i don't see why problems with dating techniques necessitates the take it outside section. seems like a simple scientific discussion.
what problems do you have with the dating used?
i don't see why problems with dating techniques necessitates the take it outside section. seems like a simple scientific discussion.
Stephonovich
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Posts
- 3,260
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Mainly that they keep changing methods, and each one produces different results - often times grossly so. I just think it wouldn't kill them to admit "we don't know", or at least "to the best of our knowledge...", rather than the line they're continually pitching.
I'm bored, so I'll make a quick analogy. Let's say I find an old wreck of a car, all rusted up, with not much body. From what is left of it, I deduce that it's a Mustang. I can also further say that it's a 60s-70s model, judging by what's left of the overall shape. Then I decide to crack open the hood. I find a 390ci V8, which would mean it's a '67 - '69. Already, however, I'd made several assumptions; namely, that whoever owned the car kept it stock. After all, they could have easily taken a later model and put the 390 in there. If I wanted some more proof, I could start measuring the car, which could at least differentiate the '69 from the '67/'68. But wait, the body's mostly rusted out. There goes that. Could measure the chassis, of course, and get the specs from somewhere. What you eventually end up with is a best guess, unless you can talk to the owner. But the problem arises with dating skulls and bone fragments is that the owner, as it were, is no longer around to talk to. So you're taking measurements, doing the best you can, but in the end, it's an educated guess.
| Originally Posted by princeclassic stephonovich, what problems do you have with the dating used? i don't see why problems with dating techniques necessitates the take it outside section. seems like a simple scientific discussion. |
Mainly that they keep changing methods, and each one produces different results - often times grossly so. I just think it wouldn't kill them to admit "we don't know", or at least "to the best of our knowledge...", rather than the line they're continually pitching.
I'm bored, so I'll make a quick analogy. Let's say I find an old wreck of a car, all rusted up, with not much body. From what is left of it, I deduce that it's a Mustang. I can also further say that it's a 60s-70s model, judging by what's left of the overall shape. Then I decide to crack open the hood. I find a 390ci V8, which would mean it's a '67 - '69. Already, however, I'd made several assumptions; namely, that whoever owned the car kept it stock. After all, they could have easily taken a later model and put the 390 in there. If I wanted some more proof, I could start measuring the car, which could at least differentiate the '69 from the '67/'68. But wait, the body's mostly rusted out. There goes that. Could measure the chassis, of course, and get the specs from somewhere. What you eventually end up with is a best guess, unless you can talk to the owner. But the problem arises with dating skulls and bone fragments is that the owner, as it were, is no longer around to talk to. So you're taking measurements, doing the best you can, but in the end, it's an educated guess.
MusicJunkie
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2002
- Posts
- 460
- Likes
- 10
I agree with you Stephonovich that's its just an educated guess and I understand how it is frustrating that they don't admit to that. I still don't see why that warrants being Outside though.
Does anyone know when is outside coming back?
MJ
Does anyone know when is outside coming back?
MJ
princeclassic
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Posts
- 417
- Likes
- 1
well what was the method of dating used on the skull? was it tested thoroughly in the past?
new testing techniques and better calibration of existing testing is constantly ocurring. but, i do see what you're saying.
new testing techniques and better calibration of existing testing is constantly ocurring. but, i do see what you're saying.
Stephonovich
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Posts
- 3,260
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
After some seemingly innocuous topics I've posted in being closed, I'm taking a rather conservative line towards things.
And no, no one knows except Jude. I doubt even he knows. When it happens, it happens, I suppose.
Quote:
Articles didn't say, at least not that I saw. C14 dating is pretty much phased out by now, isn't it? EDIT: /me realizes the samples in question are too old for that anyway.
| Originally Posted by MusicJunkie I still don't see why that warrants being Outside though. Does anyone know when is outside coming back? |
After some seemingly innocuous topics I've posted in being closed, I'm taking a rather conservative line towards things.
And no, no one knows except Jude. I doubt even he knows. When it happens, it happens, I suppose.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by princeclassic well what was the method of dating used on the skull? |
Articles didn't say, at least not that I saw. C14 dating is pretty much phased out by now, isn't it? EDIT: /me realizes the samples in question are too old for that anyway.
viator122
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Posts
- 2,009
- Likes
- 12
First off, organic matter less than 50,000 years old can be dated pretty accurately by carbon-14 dating.
Second, the articles say that the age of the fossils have been reinterpreted through "argon/argon radiometric dating" on the volcanic ash layers found with the fossils and geologic interpretation of the sedimentary layers. The point is that the fossils were discovered in 1967, almost 40 years ago. Methods have impoved and that's not a reason to doubt archaeology/anthropology.
Also, these people are not pointing to 195,000 years ago as the bible truth, they plainly state:
Quote:
These things will never be completely exact, but science continually makes progress. Methods improve and so does our knowledge, which is a good thing.
Second, the articles say that the age of the fossils have been reinterpreted through "argon/argon radiometric dating" on the volcanic ash layers found with the fossils and geologic interpretation of the sedimentary layers. The point is that the fossils were discovered in 1967, almost 40 years ago. Methods have impoved and that's not a reason to doubt archaeology/anthropology.
Also, these people are not pointing to 195,000 years ago as the bible truth, they plainly state:
Quote:
| The researchers acknowledge this themselves, admitting that they cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the skulls are as young as 104,000 years old. |
These things will never be completely exact, but science continually makes progress. Methods improve and so does our knowledge, which is a good thing.
Users who are viewing this thread
