humans 80,000 years older than previously thought

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by surferboy, Dec 6, 2008.

  1. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
  2. D_skeaflea

    D_skeaflea New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    How accurate is the testing used to determine the age of the fossils, though?
     
  3. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
    it's clearly not 100%, but it's still accurate enough for give us a good idea of which era this took place in
     
  4. Jovial

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,404
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    Did you not even read the article? They dated the volcanic ash entombing man made tools. Why are you talking about fossils?
     
  5. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    for crying out loud I feel old enough as it is!!!!
     
  6. No_Strings

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    4,100
    Likes Received:
    6
    Um, Earth is only 4000 years old.
     
  7. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    Surely you jest
     
  8. marleyisalegend

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,587
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    charlotte
    And we still haven't gotten it right. :(
     
  9. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
    please, please tell me you're joking bruddah :frown1:
     
  10. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  11. Not_Punny

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,542
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    California
    Damn! No wonder we have so many wrinkles! :eek:
     
  12. Jovial

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,404
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    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?
     
  13. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  14. kalipygian

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,982
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    alaska
    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.
     
    #14 kalipygian, Dec 12, 2008
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2008
Draft saved Draft deleted