Age of ancient humans reassessed ...

[tooblue]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269299.stm

Gotta love the fluidity of truth.

[tooblue]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/16/news/human.php

[woot]

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.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by woot

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.

So glad you made the switch to CougarGuard, Woot.

I also appreciate your contributions, tooblue. I still think you're dead wrong on science issues.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So glad you made the switch to CougarGuard, Woot.

I also appreciate your contributions, tooblue. I still think you're dead wrong on science issues.

Just for the hell of it, I'd like to see woot and Sooner start lecturing TooBlue on artistic technique.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Just for the hell of it, I'd like to see woot and Sooner start lecturing TooBlue on artistic technique.

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:

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.

In fact, Tooblue's point is that "scientists" who claimed they "know" the age of fossils have in fact really engaged in a form of belief, relying on the accuracy of the methods available to them which can change and then the state of their "knowledge" changes. So for your average schmuck like me, it is just a belief. I think this position is well-supported by his posted links and by the reality of a pursuit for knowledge, even one rigorously based on the scientific method.

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

So for your average schmuck like me, it is just a belief.

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

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.

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?

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

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?

Most of my comments were directed at him, not you. Also, I would prefer that you not use the phrase "shout him down," as it implies I'm trying to censor him or something. I obviously enjoy debating. I don't think I was beating any drum. I was using evolution as an example of something that we absolutely know, and the topic of the article as a piece of trivia that doesn't affect much.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

Most of my comments were directed at him, not you. Also, I would prefer that you not use the phrase "shout him down," as it implies I'm trying to censor him or something. I obviously enjoy debating. I don't think I was beating any drum. I was using evolution as an example of something that we absolutely know, and the topic of the article as a piece of trivia that doesn't affect much.

Quite honestly, as I thought I made pretty clear in the first post, it looked to me like you were indeed trying to shout him down. If you weren't, then I am glad to hear it. However, just as I will take you at your word as to what you meant, as opposed to rely on what it seemed to me like you meant, I am sure you will do the same for Tooblue or others.

Most of us like a good debate here, so you will fit in fine, I am sure.