humans 80,000 years older than previously thought

[surferboy]

Humans 80,000 Years Older Than Previously Thought?

it's an interesting article. i just wish they could have found the skeletal remains of these peoples

 

[D_skeaflea]

How accurate is the testing used to determine the age of the fossils, though?

 

[surferboy]

it's clearly not 100%, but it's still accurate enough for give us a good idea of which era this took place in

 

[Jovial]

How accurate is the testing used to determine the age of the fossils, though?

Did you not even read the article? They dated the volcanic ash entombing man made tools. Why are you talking about fossils?

 

[Deno]

for crying out loud I feel old enough as it is!!!!

 

[No_Strings]

Um, Earth is only 4000 years old.

 

[Deno]

Surely you jest

 

[marleyisalegend]

And we still haven't gotten it right.

 

[surferboy]

Um, Earth is only 4000 years old.

please, please tell me you're joking bruddah :frown1:

 

[JustAsking]

This is very bad science reporting.on Nat Geo's part. What was found were tools but no hominid fossils. Dating the turf around an archeological artifact using isotope dating is a well known and well understood technique. You won't get very far disputing that one.

The problem with the Nat Geo article is the headline about the date of the earliest humans being pushed back 80ka. The original article provides no real evidence of this, and anyone reading it can easily assume that pre-human hominids made the tools.

 

[Not_Punny]

Damn! No wonder we have so many wrinkles!

 

[Jovial]

The problem with the Nat Geo article is the headline about the date of the earliest humans being pushed back 80ka. The original article provides no real evidence of this, and anyone reading it can easily assume that pre-human hominids made the tools.

There was a question mark at the end of the title suggesting that it wasn't certain.

And if it wasn't pre-human hominids that made the tools then who or what could have made them?

 

[JustAsking]

There was a question mark at the end of the title suggesting that it wasn't certain.

And if it wasn't pre-human hominids that made the tools then who or what could have made them?

The official question is when does the Early Stone Age end and the Middle Stone Age begin. The MSA is the beginning of hominids who are very close to Homo Sapiens.

The article is too sensational in its suggestion that the tools may have been made by MSA hominids, which pushes the start of the MSA back 80,000 years ago.

However, there is no evidence to support the notion that they were made by anything other than ESA hominids.

My point is that the article is bad science reporting because speculation is being offered as something more than a question. We are so science illiterate in this country that we certainly don't need NatGeo contributing to junk science.

 

[kalipygian]

Did you not even read the article? They dated the volcanic ash entombing man made tools. Why are you talking about fossils?

Fossil, from L. fossilus, denotatively means something which has been dug up, not necessarily human or animal bones. It can refer to artifacts. A L. fossa is a ditch. Root L. fodere, to dig up, excavate. A E. fosse way is a road built through a swamp raised by using fill from excavating ditches. A foss is a castle moat.