Scientists Push Back the Clock on Early Human Finds

New dating indicates... a well-known group of early Homo (early human) fossils discovered in previous investigations at Koobi Fora in the Turkana Basin of East Africa have an age range that is older than previously estimated.

Led by archaeologist Josephine C.A. Joordens of the Netherlands' Leiden University, the researchers combined magnetostratigraphy and strontium (Sr) isotope stratigraphy techniques to develop a new age constraint range for 15 selected hominin fossils found in deposits on the Karari Ridge of the Koobi Fora region in the eastern Turkana Basin (Kenya). Magnetostratigraphy measures the polarity of Earth's changing magnetic field at the time a stratum (layer) was deposited. Strontium isotope stratigraphy involves measuring the ratios of Strontium isotopes in sediments to determine relative ages between successively deposited sediments. The fossils included key specimens such as cranium KNM-ER 1470, partial face KNM-ER 62000 and mandibles KNM-ER 1482, KNM-ER 1801, and KNM-ER 1802, all well-known among scientists and scholars involved in human evolution research. The fossil KNM-ER 1470, for example, has been classified as belonging to the early human species Homo rudolfensis, discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 and considered a possible theoretical contender for being ancestral to the human line. It has been dated to about 1.9 million years BPE.

Now, however, the results of their tests and analyses show a new age-range constraint of between 1.945 ± 0.004 and 2.058 ± 0.034 Ma, making the fossil finds older than previously estimated, and providing a sharper, more specific age range for their deposit.

entropy12: "Bogus report. World was created only 4000 years ago!"

Verginius Rufus: "No, 6016 years ago."

Nifster: "not homo sapien
MAY be related to our line (that also means may not be)"

Science has dozens of different methods for dating ancient materials.
When several of them produce converging results -- as is the case here -- that is as close as science can ever get to the truth of a matter.
Judeo-Christian traditions, and most denominations today, have long recognized such scientific findings as valid.

Homo Rudolfensis, circa 2.0 million years ago:

As for who begat whom -- there are several known ancient pre-human homo species, sub-species, etc., any one of which may, or may-not, have been our direct ancestors.
No way to tell, so far.

But there are also a growing number of more recent fossils sometimes identified as sub-species of homo sapiens, including:

Neanderthals (Europe & Asia)
Denisovians (Siberia)
Florensians ("hobbits" Indonesia)
Idaltus (Etheopia)
Red Deer Cave People (China)

Among some of these there is DNA evidence of relatively recent interbreeding, if not direct ancestry.

Nifster: "and I understand Genesis to mean that mankind since Adam are God created…."

I take Genesis to record God's creations, with no specificity as to how He did it.
I also take Genesis to record the moment in history, when pre-human became fully human:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Nifster: "most of the rest of this type of reporting reminds me of the days of Nebraska man….. perhaps you are aware of that silliness?"

Similar only in the sense that this particular report records a very careful scientific re-evaluation of previous results.
So, it shows science at its best, reconsidering and slightly correcting previous conclusions.
It a small sense, it's like all those DNA analyses used years later to free men previously convicted of murder -- a literal case of: "the truth shall set you free".

As for that alleged Nebraska Man -- consider: on another current FR thread, we see yet another lame-brained "scientist", this one suggesting ancestral interbreeding between pigs and monkeys.
Point is: lots of scientists have proposed lots of wacky ideas, ideas quickly shot-down by careful examination of existing evidence, never-mind new experiments.

That's how science is supposed to work, donchknow?

Nifster: "The evolutionary sciences keep trying to find ways to explain that which does not exist in their evidence set.
That is not a scientific approach in any field."

In fact, science itself deals in two basic elements: facts and theories.
A scientific fact is simply a confirmed observation, i.e., we can confirm with careful measurements the times for the sun's rising and setting.
A scientific theory is a confirmed natural-explanation for those observed facts, i.e., the sun's risings and settings are explained by the earth's daily rotations.

So evolution theory, like every other scientific theory, tries to find the best possible natural-explanation for the facts we can observe.

Nothing more, nothing less, FRiend.

Nifster: "Unfortunately, evolution is being taught as FACT not theory."

One difference between fact and theory is that facts are observed, while theories are explanations.
So there are literal mountains of facts (i.e., fossils, geology, DNA) helping to confirm evolution theory.
These are correctly taught as facts.
Some explanations (i.e., basic evolution) are correctly taught as confirmed theories.
Other explanations (i.e., origins of life) are correctly taught as unconfirmed hypotheses.

That's just basic science, and if some science teachers blur the lines between fact, hypothesis and theory, that's too bad, but I've never seen it.

Nifster: "When science disproves a theory (which has happened to evolutionary theory , hence to ever ‘evolving’ theories that come out from time to time) it is discarded and a new hypothesis is presented for testing."

Perhaps you've forgotten basic science terminology?
First, a proposed explanation is called a "hypothesis".
In order to qualify as "hypothesis", the explanation must meet the first requirement of science: a natural explanation for natural processes, plus, it must take into account all the known facts relating to it.
As an example, if I were to propose that the Moon is made of green cheese, that would not qualify as a serious hypothesis.

The hypothesis must also be testable and falsifiable.
If an appropriate test fails to falsify, then the hypothesis is considered as "confirmed", which graduates it to the status of "theory".
And "confirmed theory" is as high as it goes in natural-science.

And basic evolution (speciation through 1-descent with modifications and 2-natural selection) is a confirmed theory, confirmed innumerable times, never seriously falsified.
Of course, there are many unconfirmed hypotheses (i.e., origin of life) related to evolution, and these do indeed change as new data & ideas are developed.

Nifster: "Evolutionary theory cannot be tested by any modern technique.
There is hence no way to ‘prove’ it.
There are plenty of examples of where it has been shown to be flat out wrong."

In fact, basic evolution theory has been tested and confirmed innumerable times, never seriously "disproved".
More than that, evolution can be observed every day, in the records of DNA mutations left in every species.
Thus it is today possible to quantify degrees of separation between similar sub-species & species, and confirm the time of their last common ancestors.

Indeed, if you've studied your own dogmas carefully, you'd note how they confess to something they call "micro-evolution", while denying something they pretend to be "macro-evolution".
In fact, the only difference between them is short-term versus long-term.
The two processes are exactly the same (descent with modifications plus natural selection) over different periods of time.

In short, once you've observed "micro-evolution", you've also observed "macro-evolution", since in reality, they are the same thing.

Of course, if you wish to provide evidences which you suppose "disproves" evolution, I'll be happy to review them with you, and show you the real truths of the matters.

Nifster: "None of that is science.
Your training in test is obviously lacking.
Observations are not sufficient for theory or testing."

For any hypothesis to qualify as a "theory", it must pass some tests capable of falsifying it.
Basic evolution theory has passed many tests, and never been seriously falsified.

So now, if you wish to get down into the many specifics, we can do that...

Nifster: "Your desire to ‘prove’ evolution and to suggest that some how non-science is really science is very disturbing."

Sorry for your disturbance, FRiend, but the truth of the matter is that evolution theory is part of "real science", and whatever you might propose is most likely not.
So, if you wish to cite some specifics, I'll be happy to review them with you.

Nifster: "Do not bother trying to reply or explain.
your best efforts have fallen short and only underscore the inability of true science to add to ‘evolutionary theory’."

Sorry, but "true science" is not what you claim.
Rather, it's what natural-scientists say, and that includes ideas incorporated in the term "evolution".

Of course you are free -- totally -- to discount and disbelieve anything real scientists report, and nobody will interfere with you, so long as you don't call your own ideas, "science".
They're not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.