35,000 year old "modern human" remains Discovered!

Yahoo News ^ | Sat Mar 6,11:27 AM ET | By ALISON MUTLER, Associated Press Writer

[vannrox]

Anthropologists Hail Romania Fossil Find
Sat Mar 6,11:27 AM ET

Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

By ALISON MUTLER, Associated Press Writer

BUCHAREST, Romania - Experts analyzing remains of a man, woman and teenage boy unearthed in Romania last year are convinced that the 35,000 year-old fossils are the most complete ever of modern humans of that era, a U.S. scientist said Saturday.

International scientists have been carrying out further analysis to get a clearer picture on the find, said anthropologist Erik Trinkaus, of Washington University in St. Louis. But it's already clear that, "this is the most complete collection of modern humans in Europe older than 28,000 years," he told The Associated Press.

"We are very excited about it," said Trinkaus on the telephone, adding that the discovery of in a cave in southwestern Romania "is already changing perceptions about modern humans."

Romanian recreational cavers unearthed the remains of three facial bones last year, and gave them to Romanian scientists.

Romanian scientists asked Trinkaus to analyze the fossils, and he traveled to the Romanian city of Cluj this week with Portuguese scientist Joao Zilhao, a fossil specialist.

Trinkaus said a jawbone belonged to a man aged about 35. He said part of a skull and remains of a face including teeth belonged to a 14- to 15-year-old male and a temporal bone to a woman of unspecified age.

"This was 25,000 years before agriculture. Certainly they were hunters," said Trinkaus. He said the bones were discovered in the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains.

Trinkaus said the humans would have had religious beliefs, used stone tools, and a well-defined social system and lived in a period in during which early modern humans overlapped with late surviving Neanderthals in Europe, Trinkaus said.

Scientists will not give the exact location for the cave, but Trinkaus said it the humans survived because the area was "ecologically variable."

"It was close to the Banat plain and close to the mountains. They didn't have to travel more than 50 kilometers (30 miles)," to hunt, he said.

A team of international scientists from the United States, Norway, Portugal and Britain will carry out more field work in the summer in the cave and surrounding area this summer, Trinkaus said.

[orionblamblam]

>Yet they are there, this only shows that it is not a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

This *IS* a self-fulfilling prophesy. The Brits controlled the region after WWI, and the ZIonists wanted a homeland... preferably Palestine, because that's where they saw their ancestral homeland as being.And the Brits gave it to them (and there's reasont o think that maybe the Christian Brits might have thought that *they* were fulfilling prophesy...). So, now, Jews from around the world go to Israel. They do this not to fulfill prophesy, but because Israel is the only Jewish nation around. Just that simple.

Nations get stomped and erased with some regularity, and often are erased to large or entire degrees, and then come back. That it happened to Israel is nothing special.


> Do vegetarians have higher levels of C (14 that is)?

Not to any degree. The carbon in critters comes from what they ate... and it all eventually goes back to plants. So... a meat-eater might be a few months further removed from the atmospheric carbon dioxide supply than an herbivore, but that's nothing.

[vessel]

> This *IS* a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What I mean is, the Jews who are fulfilling prophecy, by returnning to their homeland, have little interest in fulfilling prophecy, thus adding credulity to the fulfillment, which ironically came about as a result of attempts to exterminate the Jews as a people.

[orionblamblam]

> the Jews who are fulfilling prophecy, by returnning to their homeland, have little interest in fulfilling prophecy, thus adding credulity to the fulfillment,

Wow. That's great conspiracy theory stuff... ranks up there with "The more they deny it, the more it must be true!!!"

[vessel]

> ranks up there with "The more they deny it, the more it must be true!!!"

"Methinks thou doest protest too much."

And evolution, "science falsely so-called" doeth protest too much. If the "evidence" stands, then let the defense rest, and revisions cease.

The Bible rests.

Evolution wrests.

[orionblamblam]

> The Bible rests.

Indeed. But the fact remains, the evidence for the Creationist stuff that many seem to have gleaned from it's first book are... nonexistant.

> And evolution, "science falsely so-called"

Apparently, you are unclear on the definition of science. Evolutionary science makes testable hypothesis. And a great many of the tests have borne out true. So far, all the verifiable evidence regarding evolution has either supported it... or modified it... nothing yet refutes it.

[vessel]

> Apparently, you are unclear on the definition of science. Evolutionary science makes testable hypothesis. And a great many of the tests have borne out true. So far, all the verifiable evidence regarding evolution has either supported it... or modified it... nothing yet refutes it.

One of the limitations of science is that it cannot prove a universal negative such as "No type of evolution has ever happened anywhere." So you have not proved anything by claiming that science cannot prove evolution has not happened.

>nothing yet refutes it.

It would be better if someone could prove it possible... how about designing (I know that is cheating, but evolution would require it) a new species from the many breeds of dog.

[VadeRetro]

So you're Plaisted? That's who got the email on that date. If you are, shame on you for writing such trash! If you aren't, shame on you for impersonating someone else and artificially inflating your resume.

You got your text from here, all of it.

Apparently on the same day in Feb, 1998,, one Arthur V. Chadwick posted this:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199802/0170.html

on a forum for religious scientists. He seems not to have published his criticisms where real science will ever see them. Since this is him, here, associated with this site, he probably would have pushed this harder if he thought he had anything.

Just a veiled mumble from someone who would like to undercut Ferguson but has nothing to publish.

[VadeRetro]

Similar (in this case, from Hovind, creationist anti-dendochronology arguments dealt with here. Yes, sometimes radiometric dating is used to link rings on different trees to the same approximate time (but NOT to determine what that time is). Yes, sometimes rings are missing, a phenomenon which would produce a "too young" date. (But even this can be corrected by using a large sampling of individual trees.)

Just fancy footwork, but not that hard to unravel. Sorry!

[orionblamblam]

> So you have not proved anything by claiming that science cannot prove evolution has not happened.

Sure. But that, as you are aware, was not the main claim in support of evolution. It is dishonest of you to suggest that it was, when the actual quote was: "So far, all the verifiable evidence regarding evolution has either supported it... or modified it... nothing yet refutes it."

Evolution is supported, not refuted. Creationism is refuted, but not supported.

>It would be better if someone could prove it possible...

It's been seen to happen, and within a span of decades. New species emerge. Game over.

[Pharmboy]

Actually, MY Grandma on my Mom's dide really WAS Roumanian...I'M GONNA SUE!!

[PatrickHenry]

It would be better if someone could prove it possible...

Been done. Discussed in few recent threads:
Changing One Gene Launches New Fly Species.
Evolution Caught In The Act.
Enzymes stitch together non-natural DNA [Getting closer to lab-made life].
Evolving Artificial DNA [Closer to making "life- in-the-lab"].

[vessel]

>It's been seen to happen, and within a span of decades. New species emerge. Game over.

By assexual or self-fertilizing reproductive methods in plants and maybe in flies. Often times, Colchicine induced mutations.

Cite one vertebrate, get a point.

Your turn.

Your failure supports creation science.

[TexasTransplant]

(That and the fact that they also voted for Gore in 2000.)

 

No, you missed the point, they only got to vote for Gore once in 2000, which is why they (their remains) were so broke up. 

[orionblamblam]

>Cite one vertebrate, get a point.
>Your failure supports creation science.

Wow. That's about the least logical line of reasoning I've seen today, and that's saying a lot... I dealt with both management AND Union.

Nobody excpet you has implied speciation of larger, slower breeding vertebrate critters within a span of decades. Your use of strawman arguements points to either a serious deficiency in your case, a lack of basic knowledge of the subject, or a lack of ethics.

And besides... lets say that evolution was suddenly proven false. How does that support creation science? perhaps it supports the theory that we are all the dream of Brahma? Perhaps it supports the notion that the universe was sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Perhaps it supports the hypothesis that we're living in The Matrix? A failure of one theory does not support a competing theory. The only thing that supports a theory is evidence. And the evidence supports evolution... but there is a complete dearth of evidence to support creation "science."

But... as for vertebrates... one that is clearly seen to have evolved: Homo Sapiens. You will note that geological strata more than a few hundred thousand years old show no modern humans. But they show species that are clearly realted. And older strata show yet different species that are clearly related to those intermediary species. And the trends in evolution are obvious. Evolution is supported, end of game, thanks for playing.

[vessel]

Changing One Gene Launches New Fly Species.

Gene replacement to cause pheremonal and other phenotypical trait diffs. Excuse me. No proof of new species just incompatiblity and phenotype variation. (A female black widow does look a lot different from a male, and can be very incompatible.)

[vessel]

>But... as for vertebrates... one that is clearly seen to have evolved: Homo Sapiens. You will note that geological strata more than a few hundred thousand years old show no modern humans.

How would you try to show that they are different species.
St.Bernard and Poodle fossils would probably be considered different species.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, back in post 146 you said: It would be better if someone could prove it possible.... I knew that evidence of that actually happening wouldn't impress you. Evidence never impresses people with your point of view. But the evidence is there. Feel free to continue ignoring it.

[drq]

[vessel]

>Well, back in post 146 you said: It would be better if someone could prove it possible.... I knew that evidence of that actually happening wouldn't impress you.

I am impressed. Just not convinced. I realize that the whole issue of defining just what a new species would be is a very elusive task in itself, and so my challenge was, in a way, unfair.

I will certainly continue to consider every human equal, and believe this to be so. Evolutionists should not, and should hope to be in a superior race, else for the survival of the fittest should remove themselves. Evolutionists should also applaud any extinction as progress.

I also understand only slightly how amazingly animals are fit to flourish and even adapt through natural selection of traits already inherent.

In support of creation... I cite hybrid vigor to show that earlier gene pools had greater variation as well as more favorable phenotypes available for adaptation than pedigreed descendants.

[PatrickHenry]

I am impressed. Just not convinced. I realize that the whole issue of defining just what a new species would be is a very elusive task in itself, and so my challenge was, in a way, unfair.

If you're impressed now, just wait another 10 or 20 years. This technology is very new.

I will certainly continue to consider every human equal, and believe this to be so. Evolutionists should not, and should hope to be in a superior race, else for the survival of the fittest should remove themselves.

What in the world are you talking about?

Evolutionists should also applaud any extinction as progress.

What in the world are you talking about?

I also understand only slightly how amazingly animals are fit to flourish and even adapt through natural selection of traits already inherent.

Yes. And also through natural selection of any valuable mutations that may come along.

In support of creation... I cite hybrid vigor to show that earlier gene pools had greater variation as well as more favorable phenotypes available for adaptation than pedigreed descendants.

I don't think this is accurate. Early gene pools had much less material than at present. Otherwise we wouldn't have the abundance of species that now populate the world. Although it's true that an isolated group can suffer from inbreeding. This is not, however, any evidence of creationism. Rather, if creationism were a fact, every species would be perfectly vigorous, having been created by an infinitely wise deity.