Skip to comments.Modern Humans Were in China Much Earlier Than Previously Thought
Posted on 09/15/2013 6:27:16 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Study suggests anatomically modern humans may have been in eastern Asia as much as 100,000 years ago...
A team of six researchers from four institutions, using high-precision mass spectrometric U-series dating techniques, were able to determine a reliable and constrained date range of between 81 and 101 ka (thousand years) for seven human fossil teeth recovered from the Huanglong Cave in the Hubei Province of central China...
Reports Guangun Shen, et al., "the existence of localized thin flowstone formations bracketing the hominin [ancient human] fossil-bearing deposits enables us to firmly constrain the human teeth into the range between 81 ka and 101 ka, probably the most narrow time span for any hominin fossil beyond 45 ka in China"...
These new findings have challenged the prevailing theory among scientists that anatomically modern humans were not present in China or east Asia until roughly around 40,000 -- 50,000 years ago. This is based on earlier findings at a number of sites across China and east Asia that point to a gap between 100 ka and 40 ka ago lacking any human fossils, more specifically between the latest archaic humans and the earliest modern humans, and genetic studies of present-day Chinese populations that have suggested a late appearance of AMH in eastern Asia...
...the researchers suggest that the entire timeline for hominin (ancient human) presence in east China should be shifted back earlier in time and should be continuous (without the gap), based on updated research. This includes the advent of H. erectus at more than 400 ka old, rather than the current 230 ka; archaic H. sapiens at more than 200 ka, instead of ca. 110 ka; and the emergence of AMH at around 100 ka or earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at popular-archaeology.com ...
As we suspected.
"Study suggests..." Love that line.
News flash: "anatomically modern humans" describes almost any upright primate. They did proliferate the planet until...ta-da, one of them said: "Pass the potatoes, fool, before you eat them all."
You say that doesn't sound like a formula for success?? Humans and hominids don't even come from the same place.
The only relationship which exists between humans and hominids is the same relationship which exists between Fords and Toyotas, i.e. similar design.
How do you know if the ancestor of modern humans had fur?
How do you know that ancestors of modern humans had an acute sense of smell? We do fine with our good eyesight and team work. So do chimps.
Where do you get the notion that it was dark all the time?
So, are you an ancient alien fan or a creationist?
Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they think of themselves as currents? So much to ponder and so little time.
“How do you know if the ancestor of modern humans had fur?”
Are you being serious with this question?
“..... this is for all them smartass folk saying we come descended from monkeys!”
from Oh Brother where art thou.
The Semi-Aquatic Human Theory explains many of these things.
Are you being serious with this question?
Yes. there are a lot of competing ideas on evolution. Physical evidence is scarce. Sorting out the different beliefs is a real challenge. Making strong assertions in evolution is reckless. The creationists and ancient alien theorists make strong assertions based on no physical evidence but rather on ancient testimony and myths.
If you think evolutionists don’t make “strong assertions”, you are lying to yourself. All you have to do is read their conjectures about mutations and speciation to see that.
They didn't. The statement I made was basically in subjunctive mood: IF there were such a thing as a human ancestor (there isn't), i.e. some hominid evolving into humans, THEN he would have to have lost his sense of smell, his night vision, and his fur.
In real life, wherever humans, apes, monkeys, or hominids appear in the universe, they appear looking as they do now or, in the case of hominids, as they did when they lived here. I provided a link for a book which explains some of this stuff...
The normal English language term for mutation is “birth defect”. Evolution is basically the birth-defect theory for explaining our biosphere.
The evolutionists are hard at work digging in remote, dirty, harsh conditions to find more evidence to refine their ideas. The creationists are hard at work in their temples preaching to the believers to pay no attention to those dangerous evolutionists. If you don't see that, then you are deluded.
Maybe if the creationists researched evidence to explain how Noah managed to build an ark big enough to house a pair of every living land animal, how did he rounded them all up, and how he fed them, it would be a start at putting some science behind creationism. One of the gaps I would like to see is how did Noah catch all the land birds which had no where to go during the deluge. That ark must have put the titanic to shame.
And guess what? For centuries science said the Ark wouldn’t even float or be stable enough to be seaworthy.
Not until a scaled-down Ark was built, and was proven to be VERY seaworthy did science abandon their conjecture.
The fact is believers in the theory of evolution believe in a religion just as people of other faiths.
Mark Twain said it best, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
What does Noah have to do with creationism...?
Mighty large pile of straw you built there
“The normal English language term for mutation is birth defect. Evolution is basically the birth-defect theory for explaining our biosphere.”
100% correct. Yet science says mutations are necessary for evolution. Lol
Mighty large pile of straw you built there
Well if God wiped out every living land animal, then we are all descendent of Noah. Yes, mighty big pile of straw.
Of course we’re all descendants of Noah and his family. Not only is it possible, it is much more likely than evolution. See below:
Science still has not even accounted for the gender problem, among other things! Lol
Couple that with:
DNA damaging mutations being necessary for evolution.
No observed in-species speciation.
The fossil record not supporting evolution.
All mammal orders showing up fully-formed and at once in the fossil record...
and you have the Religion of Evolution.
-——Well if God wiped out every living land animal, then we are all descendent of Noah-——
But that wasn’t the point you made....you are asking to prove creationism by explaining how Noah built the ark and filled it with all the land animals. ..
If if they thought of themselves as currants, were they red or black?
Thanks LRM. They’re trolls.
I read a very good argument years ago that stated that the World was peopled from the Americas, based on Leakey, can’t remember the book.
Aside from that I do not believe in the Out Of Africa Theory, Mainly from demographics.
By adding color options you have made it too confusing for me. What to do what to do?
When you remember it ping me, please.
You obviously have no idea what evolution is.
I provided a link for a book which explains some of this stuff...
. . . Contrary to the perceived wisdom of modern science, the ancients tell us Earth began life as a satellite of the planet Saturn long before the appearance of the Sun, moon and stars. This was Earths purple dawn of creation, a twilight dreamtime stretching back into an ageless past before the light of day entered the world. Here, amongst mankinds oldest memories, is a long-lost era in which our ancient ancestors battled for survival in a semi-nocturnal world devoid of any ability to mark the passage of time.
And you call evolution a fiction? Ted Holden? Really? LOL!
This might help a bit...
The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionites is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastafari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
Dumb question... When a person moves from Md. to Pa. and eventually realizes he still isn’t happy (most people wouldn’t be), where does he go from there? Zimbabwe??
Dumb questions appear to be quite appropriate for you Danny.
Ted Holden? Really? LOL!I've never heard of that guy so I googled his name and read some of his stuff -- Too Funny, lol.
The true story will be much, much more complicated than we have imagined, IMO.