|
10-14-2007, 12:14 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Age of ancient humans reassessed ...
|
10-14-2007, 12:21 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Another article from one of my favorite newspapers ...
|
10-14-2007, 12:51 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
This really isn't a big deal. Early hominins date back at least 4 million years, so whether the first members of what we decide to call Homo sapiens lived 180,000 years ago or 195,000 doesn't matter one bit.
Also, the article, as they all do, mischaracterizes things completely. "Scientists" didn't "believe" that the first homo sapiens lived any amount of time ago, or if they did it was a private feeling. All "scientists" know is the age of the fossils that we have actually found. The techniques used to accurately date fossils are constantly improving, and yet the age of the earth and the age of most fossils hasn't changed much. These particular specimens are interesting for that reason, but as far as actual knowledge we gain from them, the articles are typically sensationalist. It should also be noted that one scientific paper doesn't dictate science. One paper, plus a bunch of responses and further studies constitutes science. I haven't looked at the fossils myself, and can't say whether this date will hold up at all. |
10-14-2007, 01:15 AM | #4 | |
Formerly known as MudPhudCoug
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land of desolation
Posts: 2,548
|
Quote:
I also appreciate your contributions, tooblue. I still think you're dead wrong on science issues. |
|
10-14-2007, 02:21 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
|
Just for the hell of it, I'd like to see woot and Sooner start lecturing TooBlue on artistic technique.
__________________
...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan |
10-14-2007, 02:45 AM | #6 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Tooblue isn't lecturing anyone. His POV is well known and he is posting links that he thinks are interesting. This sort of reaction is tantamount to protesters shouting down your favorite politician at a public speech. His point here seems to be that what is known changes. That is true. The conclusions we each may draw from this evidence, however, will likely be different, but so what? Woot, while your assessment of the articles is accurate from your point of view, it is a bit picky to make a criticism such as this: Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
||
10-14-2007, 02:59 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
That's why I'm trying to educate schmucks like you.
But seriously, we do actually "know" a lot. We know that the earth is really, really old, and that life is the result of the natural selection of beneficial mutations in individual organisms. We know that the earth is an oblate spheroid (as opposed to flat or any other shape), and that continents move very slowly through the mechanisms described by plate tectonics. And on and on. What we don't know is the exact time when humans split from chimps on the evolutionary tree (or more accurately, the evolutionary bush). We have various methods that all independently put it somewhere around 5-7 million years ago, but we don't know. Even if we did find an actual fossil from the first individual of the clade leading to Homo sapiens, there wouldn't be a good way to actually know that we did. We have specimens from that time period, so for all we know we found it already. Here's the bottom line: When the anti-science crowd emphasizes such obviously trivial facts and uses them to try to discredit all of science, it's dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, and annoying. Yes, there are scientists that are a little bit too willing to draw strong conclusions. They are in the minority, and do not discredit the mechanisms of science. A proper understanding of what the scientific method is, even in a vacuum, should be enough to conclude that if done right, science is the only way to truly learn anything. |
10-14-2007, 03:13 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Relax, friend. Check my posts, you will see that no one, not even your buddy Soonercoug, has pitched more on behalf of science and evolution than me. Even so, Tooblue's point in THIS thread is not invalid and it is simply not dishonest nor is it intellectually bankrupt. You may find it annoying (although I find it hard to believe you have been here long enough to for this to be true of Tooblue or me), but to try to shout him down because of what you think he means as opposed to what he says is, I am sure you would agree, not a healthy approach to learning or to dialog. Besides, in your response you answered several arguments, but none of them had been made by me. For example, you will look in vain to find anywhere, and I mean anywhere in any thread, where I have suggested that evolution is not supported by ample evidence. Moreover, despite what Tooblue may or may not believe, in this thread he doens't say anything about evolution, per se, so why are you so eager to beat this drum? If you want to have a good discussion, it is always useful to actually talk about the same thing, eh?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-14-2007, 03:16 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
Quote:
|
|
10-14-2007, 03:21 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Most of us like a good debate here, so you will fit in fine, I am sure.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|