cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2007, 12:14 AM   #1
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Age of ancient humans reassessed ...

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

Gotta love the fluidity of truth.
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 12:21 AM   #2
tooblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
tooblue is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Another article from one of my favorite newspapers ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/16/news/human.php
tooblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 12:51 AM   #3
woot
Senior Member
 
woot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
woot is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
woot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 01:15 AM   #4
SoonerCoug
Formerly known as MudPhudCoug
 
SoonerCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land of desolation
Posts: 2,548
SoonerCoug is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woot View Post
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.
SoonerCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 01:52 AM   #5
SoCalCoug
Senior Member
 
SoCalCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
SoCalCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue View Post
That whole "scientific method" crap just doesn't work for you, does it?
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt!

"Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper

"If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug
SoCalCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 02:21 AM   #6
non sequitur
Senior Member
 
non sequitur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
non sequitur is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerCoug View Post
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.
__________________
...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
non sequitur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 02:45 AM   #7
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 02:59 AM   #8
woot
Senior Member
 
woot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
woot is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
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.
woot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 03:08 AM   #9
SeattleUte
 
SeattleUte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
SeattleUte has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalCoug View Post
That whole "scientific method" crap just doesn't work for you, does it?
The problem with the scientific method is it can't just decide on what's true and stop looking. It drives you nuts the way it comes up with new and different truths all the time, and it just snow balls.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be.

—Paul Auster
SeattleUte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 03:13 AM   #10
il Padrino Ute
Board Pinhead
 
il Padrino Ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
il Padrino Ute is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
The problem with the scientific method is it can't just decide on what's true and stop looking. It drives you nuts the way it comes up with new and different truths all the time, and it just snow balls.
That sounds like a reason to embrace religion. It finds it's version of the truth and stops looking.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver

"This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.
il Padrino Ute is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.