Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists

New York Times (AP Wire) ^ | February 16, 2005 | AP Wire

[Alter Kaker]

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.

Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago.

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.

The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I, which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones. Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a complete face.

Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.

Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing their geology and testing rock samples with more modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take 5,000 years.

Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they just represent natural variation within a single population.

To find the age of the skulls, the researchers determined that volcanic rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000 years old. They then found evidence that the fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that time.

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.

"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work "very exciting and important."

Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he considered the case for the new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that "we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he said.

G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at Binghamton University in New York, said he believes the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.

[HMFIC]

They found Dick Clark?

[Maceman]

[Alter Kaker]

Ping

[Publius6961]

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.

Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...

[ClearCase_guy]

Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they just represent natural variation within a single population.

Tricky stuff. Evolution is about new species arising from old species. But if you can't tell the difference between one species and other, or natural variation within a single population, then it's tough to know what you have.

[Red Badger]

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.

My teenage daughter specializes in dating rocks, too. All her boyfriends are dense, difficult to get to and lay around alot.........

[Messianic Jews Net]

So funny. The evolutionists dated the fossils by the rocks. They also like to date rocks by the fossils. Who wants to try to prove they didn't? Thanks.

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt for later read.

[Anna1345]

Lucy is 3.6 - 3 million years old and belongs to the Australopethicus category, not homo sapien.

[Alter Kaker]

Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?

The evidence suggests that homo sapiens arose around 200,000 years ago. Obviously the exact date isn't clear, but this is an example of evolutionary science predicting results before they're discovered.

As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...

3.2 million years, but yes, there's a huge difference between Lucy and early homo sapiens, but its not a "gap". We know about homo ergaster, homo habilis, etc. in the intervening years.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

I wondered how long it would take you.

Good one.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 230 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

[RadioAstronomer]

We know about homo ergaster, homo habilis, etc. in the intervening years.

:-)

Ardipithicus ramidus
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ramidus.htm

Australopithecus anamensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/04_A_anamensis.html

Australopithecus afarensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/03_A_afarensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/afarensis.html

Australopithecus africanus
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/121/fyde/africanus.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html
http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/africanus.html

Australopithecus aethiopicus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/aeth.html
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/Human_evolution.PDF

Australopithecus boisei
http://faculty.vassar.edu/piketay/evolution/A_boisei.html
http://www.sckans.edu/anthro/index.php?page_ID=305

Australopithecus robustus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rob.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/robustus.html
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/anthro/links/aust.html

Homo sp.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/gallery/africa.php?image=6&page=branches
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jasonww/africa/transvaal2.html

Homo rudolfensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rud.html
http://calvin.linfield.edu/~mrobert/originsfigure1a.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/rudolfensis.htm

Homo habilis
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/habilis/habilis-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

Homo ergaster
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ergaster.htm
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Ergaster_00.html

Homo erectus
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pchomoer.html

Homo heidelbergensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/heid.htm
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html

Homo neanderthalensis
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/neanderthalensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/neanderthalensis.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html

Homo sapiens
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

[DannyTN]

Except that Leakey found evidence of modern humans at a level lower than that of australopithecines.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES

Skull 1470

[Alter Kaker]

I love your first link. The writer relies on a 1974 computer study, which he say is "recent," to claim that Austrolopithecus isn't related to other primates. But I thought the whole creationist schtick was that no animals are related to one another.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GrandmaPatriot]

Exactly, it's circular reasoning in my opinion.

[95 Bravo]

I was thinking they'd found relatives of Teddy Kennedy.....

[DannyTN]

The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent. I posted that because of the information about the evidence for modern humans and Homo Erector being found below Austrolopithecus. Because that establishes that Austrolopithecus could not have been a human ancestor. Which even Leakey began to conclude.

[Junior]

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago...

A testable prediction made by the Theory of Evolution.

[Alter Kaker]

The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent.

Fine. So you're saying you have absolutely nothing in the way of a supporting argument constructed in the intervening 30 years?

[Tacis]

Well, I was disappointed. When the headline said, "Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists, I assumed that "identified" meant that a scientist had said, "Yep, that's Bobby Ray, alright!"

[Stultis]

Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...

No gap. Lucy was an Australopithcine, and a fairly early on at that. Modern humans followed (and I believe overlap) archaic sapiens, and archaic sapiens followed (and I believe overlap) Homo erectus.

[furball4paws]

Do you have a visual link of the current status of the Homo ancestry?

[Dimensio]

Oh, boy! This old creationist canard!

[DannyTN]

"Fine. So you're saying you have absolutely nothing in the way of a supporting argument constructed in the intervening 30 years?"

Here's an article from 2000 that concludes the same thing.

Lucy

[Publius Scipio]

Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?

Yes, the terms 'reasonably good argument', 'more likely than not' and 'estimate' make that clear.

[Stultis]

So funny. The evolutionists dated the fossils by the rocks. They also like to date rocks by the fossils. Who wants to try to prove they didn't? Thanks.

Standard procedures of biostratigraphy are absolutely and completely independent of evolution. They would work just as well if a wizard replaced all the fossils with, say, coins bearing unique but arbitrary numeric codes for each species.

Besides, they were invented not by "the evolutionists" but by creationists. The proof? All of the major geologic systems (save only the Silurian) were in place before Darwin even started college. How could these methods be based, via circular reasoning, on evolution when they were invented by creationists and applied by creationist, all before any geologist at all was an evolutionist of any description?

[jpsb]

"The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said."

Wow, if this is true then the site is the birth place of humanity! Discoveries don't get much more important then this. Wow again.

[furball4paws]

The lie has obviously gotten to you before the truth.

[furball4paws]

Haven't I heard somewhere that Ethiopia was the site of the Garden of Eden? From what I've seen, it doesn't too appetizing now.

[stremba]

Even granting that carbon dating is invalid (which I don't), that has absolutely zero relevance to this find. This find is a 200,000 year old fossil. Carbon dating is only used to date samples that are up to 50,000 years old. Therefore, carbon dating was not used to date this fossil. Hence any "problems" with carbon dating would have no effect on this find.

[Alter Kaker]

It's nice to see that some people can still use reason and logic in the face of all the nutty evolutionist proselytizing. The carbon-dating method is the epitome of junk science.

That's all very interesting, LightCrusader, but was Carbon 14 dating used in the study cited here?

[Alter Kaker]

It's nice to see that some people can still use reason and logic in the face of all the nutty evolutionist proselytizing.

Huh? And MessianicJews.net isn't prosletyzing? His own handle is a piece of advertising!

[Messianic Jews Net]

My question meant: Would you like to evidence the bald claim that biostratigraphic standards prove common descent independently, not circularly? Thanks.

Darwinism transformed "geologic systems" or zones into "geologic eras". Since you admit geologic zones are compatible with creation and design, they cannot prove evolution independently. The circularity is that common descent is assumed to prove itself, not a creationist import. Happy to explain further.

[Havoc]

A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.

When you haven't a leg to stand on, state it like it's fact. Standard MO.

[WildTurkey]

The carbon-dating method is the epitome of junk science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

AIG: The epitome of junk science. Even CSI is closer to the truth!

[WildTurkey]

When you haven't a leg to stand on, state it like it's fact. Standard MO.

You mean like the YEC's do when they say evolution is junk science because the earth is only 6000 years old ...

[WildTurkey]

If you had lived a few hundred years ago, you would be arguing that the earth was the center of the solar system. You do not still cling to that old belief, do you?

[wyattearp]

Haven't I heard somewhere that Ethiopia was the site of the Garden of Eden? From what I've seen, it doesn't too appetizing now.

Things change over time. There were once Hippos in the Thames river in England. The Sahara used to be a lush savana. Weather patterns change, continents move around, seas become lakes and vice-versa, nothing is truly static.

[Dimensio]

Given that no scientist worth his degree would believe that C14 dating could even give an age of 200,000 years or thereabouts, I would think not.

Seems to be a bit of creationist distraction to me.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you have a visual link of the current status of the Homo ancestry?

These aren't up-to-the-minute, but it's what I've got:
Human Ancestors.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That's all very interesting, LightCrusader, but was Carbon 14 dating used in the study cited here?

Everybody's chuckling at you because carbon dating can only be used back to about 50,000 years.

PatrickHenry may have a link on his homepage to radiometric dating. It was a fairly simple article to follow for non-scientists. Or you can google on your own.

[Alter Kaker]

Everybody's chuckling at you because carbon dating can only be used back to about 50,000 years.

No, nobody's chuckling at me, because the question was rhetorical. It's patently obvious that radiometric dating isn't at issue here, which is why the (spurious) attack on its validity is totally irrelevent.

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry may have a link on his homepage to radiometric dating.

This may suffice for the purpose:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. A Bible-believing Christian's viewpoint

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Wow! That was quick!

Do you do home delivery? ;)

[Messianic Jews Net]

All are free to mention their links or personal details. The purpose of Free Republic is to persuade by expression of facts, logic, opinion, and belief. Those who reject persuasion in areas of religion or philosophy will be uncomfortable here. Alter Kaker has chosen to place religious symbols on his own homepage (i.e., the Israeli flag), but rejects my use of religious symbols in my identity, so may be one of the uncomfortable.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I apologize. I misread your earlier post.

That's what I get for trying to sneak in some FR time while watching the clock between meetings.

I take back all my chuckling. ;)