Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists

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

[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 ...