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.
Now we'll observe how "expert" scientists stumble across themselves trying to modify their theories.
Maybe you should think about posting in “Evolution is a Lie” forum. There you’d be able to post all your articles from the evo sites. “Evo”, hmmm, really sounds like “evil”. Fancy that.
I see you didn’t list religion as one of your expert fields. That means you don’t see or know the BIG picture. But that has been recognized by many on this site as looking thru the wrong end of the telescope.
-Evo, hmmm, really sounds like evil. Fancy that.-
Now... I’ll admit, this one made me laugh out loud.
They're located right next to the "esteemed research" on Global Warming.
I'm surprised the editor didn't prefix a "Darwin proved true" to the headline. Any evidence, whether it supports, refutes, or is irrelevant to darwinism merits one. But then this isn't the NYT.
So now it's out of china. If this "out of china" movement gets hold (again) maybe we'll see some "out of africa" fossils exposed as fakes by the "out of china" crowd. And vice versa. Btw what ever happened to 300,000 year-old (ha ha) Peking Man anyway, and how does that fit into this timeline?
Various parties have tried to locate the fossils but, so far, without result. In 1972, a US financier Christopher Janus promised a $5,000 (U.S.) reward for the missing skulls; one woman contacted him, asking for $500,000 (U.S.) but she later vanished. In July 2005, the Chinese government founded a committee to find the bones to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. There are also various theories of what might have happened, including a theory that the bones had sunk with a Japanese ship Awa Maru in 1945.
“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.”
Interesting watching the two of you go back and forth.
A couple comments; many modern scientists treat their ‘science’ the same as a religion. They won’t admit it of course.
Second, do you believe that everything in the Universe can be understood by man?
When it comes to the subject of evolution of the species on Earth we can’t ignore what honest science is revealing. I’ve read dozens of technical articles myself on this subject, especially as it relates DNA studies with evolution. And as a result I’ve developed some opinions. One thing I find on DNA studies that makes them so reliable is that it’s so mathematical/objective rather than subjective like so many of the “soft” sciences are. In many ways DNA results and their implications remind me of the Theory of Addition. Don’t be hardhearted or else you’ll spend your life being blindsighted.
Hint: The Theory of Addition is that if 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 then 1+3=4. Most honest scientists who have tested this theory have come to the conclusion that it’s a solid one. That’s why we teach this Theory of Addition in the schools. So if your iman tells you that the Koran says that 1+3=5 then I think your iman is most likely mistaken.
“Thats why we teach this Theory of Addition in the schools. So if your iman tells you that the Koran says that 1+3=5 then I think your iman is most likely mistaken.”
1 - I don’t have an imam or iman.
2 - your analogy is insultingly oversimplified. DNA is extremely complex and a recent study indicated that there may be a lot more to DNA than scientists first thought. That the simple mapping was only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
IMO, its quite egotistical and shows severe lack of wisdom to think everything in the universe can be explained. Theres nothing wrong with science but its worship is misguided.
“It’s right here in front of me!”
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
Given enough time...
Roughly the same percentage of the population believe in ghosts as those who believe in evolution.
China? Isn’t that where they make fake fossils for people to examine and put on display around the world in museums and schools?
Maybe it propagates to none. Could be it dies out with the individual.
Even if it did pass on, evos are constantly telling us that starting a population with two or six individuals would not have enough genetic variety to support a healthy population so that the whole human race could not have possibly sprung from just Adam and Eve or Noah and his family.
However, when a mutation occurs in an individual in evoland, and is spread to a small population which then migrates off somewhere else to evolve further, then it IS feasible that a small population has enough variety to maintain a healthy population and produce a wide variety of genetic characteristics.
It just depends on which side of the argument you’re on. You know, heads I win, tails you lose...
My theory?The one you're advocating.
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 think every find over 6,000 years contradicts young-earth. These scientists already had the assumptions of old ages in their heads, so it's not surprising that their conclusion was congruent with their assumption, as far as dates went.
You really need to read some science.
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.Wait, so you don't want me reading scientific journals? Or do you want me reading them only with YOUR bias, not mine?
Not interested in Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. They don't post here. You do.YOU are the one that brought Answers in Genesis up, my friend. Out of the blue.
And you post anti-science nonsense, which you have admitted you get from AnswersinGenesis.Not anti-science, and who has to "admit" something when the URL is as plain as day? You keep acting as if that's something to be ashamed of. And anyway, I didn't post anything from AiG on this page, and remind me again why MY behavior is superceding the substance of this article?
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.I'm sorry; I don't let opponents determine the battlefield.
There are cave paintings in France, Italy and Africa that old.