Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists

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

[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. ;)

[Alter Kaker]

1. FreeRepublic is a site devoted to conservative commentary and opinion. It is not a venue for prostelyzation or advertising. Your handle attempts at both.

2. The Israeli flag is no more of an attempt at religious conversion than the Norwegian flag is. It's a statement of nationality. Have I ever tried to convert you to my religion? No? Then please afford me the same courtesy and refrain from using a political forum to try to convert me to yours.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you do home delivery?

Darwin Central has a Domino's Pizza place in the lobby. If the question comes in at the right time, no problem.

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

LOL!

Pizzaaaaaaaa...

[jennyp]

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?

When you get a chance to read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective which PatrickHenry linked to in #47, please come back & tell us what you think. Seriously.

[Havoc]

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

Well, are we arguing evidence for evolution or trying to construct a defense of "everyone else does it". I don't much care what YEC's do for the moment. Their arguments stand or fall on their merits same as evolution's. If you're surrendering the point and assenting to the fact that the evidence isn't what it's claimed to be, then we're finished and it may be time to move on. But, changing the subject when the chips are down ain't workin.

[Blowtorch]

I read the whole thing. Thanks for the link-it's very interesting.

[WildTurkey]

I was being sarcastic and referring to your argument which has no legs to stand on. Just false science propaganda.

[Stultis]

Darwinism transformed "geologic systems" or zones into "geologic eras".

No it didn't. It didn't change their status one bit.

Since you admit geologic zones are compatible with creation and design,

Uh, no. As data they may be compatible or incompatible with any given theory, as the case may be. But I said nothing about that issue (yet). I was addressing myself to the manner in which geologic systems are recognized and defined, and how fossils are used generally in identifying rock units (i.e. the practice of biostratigraphy) in response to your suggestion that circular reasoning is involved.

they cannot prove evolution independently.

They can be used to test evolution (common descent in any case) precisely because the methods used to organize these data are logically independent of and not based on evolution in any way.

Biostratigraphy, as the name suggests, correlates biological remains (bio) with rock sequences (stratigraphy). This is an empirical methodology, possible because of the fact that particular fossils or fossil assemblages are unique to particular rock units or sequences of rock units. Thus fossils do not, in truth, date rocks, though rocks are sometimes used to date other rocks by means of the fossils they contain. I'll explain that statement below.

Biostratigraphy is based upon lithostratigraphy. Lithostratigraphy involves determining the relative sequence of rock units simply by physically tracing them cross country. You might observe, for instance, that unit B overlies unit A at one local, then trace out unit B to another local where it underlies unit C. Having developed a lithostratigraphy for a region, you collect fossils from the various rock units and determine which fossil types, or assemblages of fossil types, are unique to which rock units or sequences of rock units.

Indeed, the biostratigraphic zonation that you have thus worked out may be applied to clarify things in a region were the geology is less clear or more complex than the one in which you worked out your original lithostratigraphy and biozonation, or may be used by someone (as, for instance, a petroleum geologist) who wants to quickly identify a particular rock unit. But note in such cases that the rocks (in the region where you have constructed lithostratigraphies and then biozonations) are dating the rocks (in the cases were you using your biozonations), by means of the fossils, as stated above.

Let me repeat that: Fossils are NOT dating rocks. ROCKS are dating ROCKS, via empirically determined characters (fossils) they happen to share. What we think or believe about the origin of those fossils, or their phylogenetic relationships one to another, and anything of the sort, is irrelevant to the application of this method. As I said before, the fossils might be anything. They could be replaced by some inorganic substitute, like the numbered coins, and the methods would work just as well.

It should also be noted that situations where the geology is unclear are never used in the creation of biostratigraphical zonations. Only sequences of undisturbed strata are used, and the fossil sequences they contain are compared with those of other such instances to test and refine the biozonations, and to create biozones that are valid for larger and larger geographical areas.

Some creationists extend the "circular reasoning" argument by claiming that the geological column is necessarily based upon the idea of evolution, and then used in a circular manner to "prove" evolution. But as I've said the methods of biostratigraphy were used by creationist scientists prior to Darwin to identify and define the major elements of the geological column. The fact that the geological column was constructed entirely by creationists lays to rest this nonsense.

Again, biostratigraphy is independent of evolutionary theory, or of any theory about the origin of the fossilized forms. William Smith, the creationist who developed the method and used it to great benefit while building canals in England during the late 18th century, said as much. As to why the method was possible -- i.e., why fossil assemblages can be uniquely correlated with rock units in the way the method requires -- Smith said that his observations with respect to this phenomena were "unencumbered with theories, for I have none to support." (1817, _Stratigraphical System of Organized Fossils._)

Let me repeat, at the considerable risk of being tediously repetitive, that there is no circularity involved in biostratigraphy, because of the fact that biostratigraphy is _always_ based on lithostratigraphy. Rocks do date fossils, and in a straightforward and highly empirical manner: If undisturbed stratum B overlies undisturbed stratum A, then stratum B is younger, and so the fossils in B are also younger than those in A. Fossils only date rocks as a special (and highly verified) method where you are essentially using rocks to date other rocks.

[muir_redwoods]

There was nothing to prevent Australopithecines from co-existing with more advanced members of the human line. It is expected that as species proliferate they will compete and only then will predecessor species die out.

This find could date to a time early in the game.

[Stultis]

If you're surrendering the point

Uh, pardon, but what "point" would WildTurkey be "surrendering"? You oracularly asserted "when you don't have a leg to stand on..." in reference to the article. What exactly it is you think is lacking in support you did not say or even hint at.