Skip to comments.Find raises doubts on key theory of human evolution
Posted on 04/02/2007 7:10:57 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
A 40,000-YEAR-OLD skeleton found in China has raised questions about the "out of Africa" hypothesis on how early modern humans populated the planet.
The fossil bones are the oldest from an adult "modern" human to be found in eastern Asia.
They contain features that call into question the widely held view that our direct ancestors completed their evolution in Africa before spreading out into Europe and the Far East.
The "out of Africa" hypothesis proposes that all humans alive today are descended from a small group of sub- Saharan Africans who made their way out of the continent about 60,000 years ago.
A rival theory suggests that modern humans evolved into their current form in a number of different locations around the world, not just Africa.
Some experts think people today are the result of interbreeding between the later emigrating humans and the older inhabitants they encountered.
The new discovery came after workers stumbled across the bones in Tianyuan Cave, in Zhoukoudian, near Beijing.
Experts writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences dated the skeleton to between 38,500 and 42,000 years ago.
As well as having "modern" human traits, the skeleton also had physical characteristics normally seen in Neanderthals and other more ancient humans such as Homo erectus.
Evolution from ape like creature to man never happened.
Either of these possibilities shows that the "young earth" and "creation some 6000 years ago" ideas are wrong.They contradict your own theory, that's about it. It does not disprove or prove young-earth either way.
And even if both of these possibilities were subsequently shown to be wrong, that doesn't make your particular religious belief true.By itself, this point does not further creationism a whole lot. It's just another two-pence tossed into the vault of evidence turned sour for evolutionists.
Why don't you try to visit your college library, and really look at a few dozen or a few hundred of the technical journals dealing with evolution.Some time I should share with you some of the recent materials I have been perusing from scientific journals the past few months while the crevo wars here have been quiet.
You are not getting a straight story from AnswersinGenesis.Did I detect a subtle twitch when you said that? Coyote, listen to me. This has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham didn't call me up and ask me to post this story, I didn't get any marching orders from Kent Hovind. (Well, he did ask me to help him break out of jail, but that's another story.) AiG may not even be aware of this story yet.
Let me guess. There are no horse thieves in your ancestry either, right?
not from the tail, correct.
What's that again about a small group of individuals couldn't possibly contain enough genetic variety to result in a healthy population? Something about all the people in the world couldn't have come from Noah and his sons? I guess that's only a problem if you believe in creation. If you believe in evolution, it's perfectly reasonable. Yeah, right....
They contradict your own theory, that's about it. It does not disprove or prove young-earth either way.
My theory? Debating the out-of-Africa theory (160,000 years ago) vs. the more recent China data (multiregional, probably both 160,000 and 40,000 years ago) does not contradict a 6000 years ago earth? You really need to read some science. Two different theories of out-of-Africa migration, both of which deal with hundreds of thousands of years of time don't contraindicate a 6000 year old earth?
And even if both of these possibilities were subsequently shown to be wrong, that doesn't make your particular religious belief true.
By itself, this point does not further creationism a whole lot. It's just another two-pence tossed into the vault of evidence turned sour for evolutionists.
It doesn't further YEC creationism at all. It contradicts it.
Why don't you try to visit your college library, and really look at a few dozen or a few hundred of the technical journals dealing with evolution.
Some time I should share with you some of the recent materials I have been perusing from scientific journals the past few months while the crevo wars here have been quiet.
You are cruising the internet looking for articles which, in your limited understanding, may serve to cast some doubt--any doubt--on evolution. That does not amount to an understanding of science.
You are not getting a straight story from AnswersinGenesis.
Did I detect a subtle twitch when you said that? Coyote, listen to me. This has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham didn't call me up and ask me to post this story, I didn't get any marching orders from Kent Hovind. (Well, he did ask me to help him break out of jail, but that's another story.) AiG may not even be aware of this story yet. Bringing them into this as a personal attack against me hints at a psychological obsession.
Not interested in Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. They don't post here. You do. And you post anti-science nonsense, which you have admitted you get from AnswersinGenesis. And you have admitted you are doing apologetics (defense of religion), not science.
Post in the Religion Forum and you won't get any challenges from me as long as what you are posting is religious belief and does not pretend to be science. That's where you and I tangle. (Note tagline.)
I'd respond to that, if I had any idea what you were talking about.
I'm confident that my own family had its share of thieves, but mostly chicken thieves. I can't quite boast that we had ever graduated to horses.
And I'm equally sure we performed our share of monkeyshines.
Why does a skeleton from 40,000 years ago, 20,000 years after our ancestors supposedly left Africa negate that hypothesis, which does not claim that they were the only “humans” around? The fact that some of those people mated with other slightly less-advanced people they encountered is hardly surprising.
Hi, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question: in what direction will a pencil go if you let go of it tomorrow? I know it sounds like a stupid question, but there’s a reason I’m asking. thanks.
You know best.
Seriously, I know little of the science behind the theory of gravitation.
I do have training in fossil man, human races, osteology, radiocarbon dating, and several related fields. I prefer to limit my comments to those fields in which I have some personal knowledge.
I don’t understand the significance. 20,000 years is plenty of time for humans to migrate from Africa to China.
It doesn’t even have any bearing on the evolution/creation question, as long as you’re not sticking to a 4004 BC creation belief. And then you can just doubt the accuracy of the time measurement.
Ah, yes. The Big Ping Theory.
Let’s give it a try. It’s all “science,” right? If I remember from school, “the past is the key to the future.” Forgive me for putting words into your mouth, but I suspect your own position would be that a pencil, if dropped tomorrow, would “fall down.” I suspect that your answer would be the same if it happened next week. In fact, your answer probably would be the same regardless of the time it happened (assuming, of course, we’re on earth and not in space).
Have I got it right? Or, have I messed up? Is it possible that you think a pencil could fall UP rather than down? Thanks for humoring me.
Whatever answer I make you will come back with a response which will require that I know details of physics which I simply don't know.
And I am not willing to fake (or google) knowledge that I do not have.
Bait some of the few scientists remaining here who are familiar with that branch of physics.
You have questions on bones or radiocarbon dating, let me know.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
And that is, no matter how times it is turned over with more elegant ideas, evidence discarded, re-dated, time spans altered, origins changed or added, etc etc, a few things will remain the same with it.
And that will be evo talking MAN is from ape, he is ape! that only gets more certain with every turn of the spade!
But seriously, it looks like we may be in fact headed toward a culture/govt that looks toward that way.
Thanks for the ping!
The same conditions exist today in Africa for the 'apes to man hypothesis'