Finding showing human ancestor older than previously thought offers new insights into evolution

Jun 29, 2011
Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus—a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution—new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The work was co-directed by NYU anthropologist Susan Antón. Pictured are skulls of Homo erectus uncovered in the 1930s in Indonesia. © Kenneth Garrett Photography (KennethGarrett.com)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution—new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The research, reported in the journal PLoS One, offers new insights into the nature of human evolution, suggesting a different role for Homo erectus than had been previously thought.

The work was conducted by the Solo River Terrace (SoRT) Project, an international group of scientists directed by anthropologists Etty Indriati of Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia and Susan Antón of New York University.

is widely considered a direct human ancestor—it resembles in many respects, except for its smaller brain and differently shaped skull—and was the first of our ancestors to migrate out of Africa, approximately 1.8 million years ago. Homo erectus went extinct in Africa and much of Asia by about 500,000 years ago, but appeared to have survived in Indonesia until about 35,000 to 50,000 years ago at the site of Ngandong on the Solo River. These late members of Homo erectus would have shared the environment with early members of our own species, Homo sapiens, who arrived in Indonesia by about 40,000 years ago.

The existence of the two species simultaneously has important implications for models about the origins of modern humans. One of the models, the Out of Africa or replacement model, predicts such overlap. However, another, the multiregional model, which posits that modern humans originated as a result of genetic contributions from hominin populations all around the Old World (Africa, Asia, Europe), does not. The late survival of Homo erectus in Indonesia has been used as one line of support for the Out of Africa model.

However, findings by the SoRT Project show that Homo erectus' time in the region ended before modern humans arrived there. The analyses suggest that Homo erectus was gone by at least 143,000 years ago—and likely by more than 550,000 years ago. This means the demise of Homo erectus occurred long before the arrival of Homo sapiens.

"Thus, Homo erectus probably did not share habitats with modern humans," said Indriati.

The SoRT Project's investigations occurred in Ngandong and Jigar, two sites in the "20-meter terrace" of the Solo River, Indonesia. The sediments in the terrace were formed by the flooding of the ancient river, but currently sit above the Solo River because the river has cut downward through time. The terrace has been a rich source for the discovery of Homo erectus and other animal fossils since the 1930s.

As recently as 1996, a research team dated these sites of hominin, or early human, fossils to as young as 35,000-50,000 years old. The analyses used a technique that dates teeth, and thus provided ages for several animals discovered at the sites. However, other scholars suggested the sites included a mixture of older hominins and younger animals, raising questions about the true age of the hominin remains.

The goal of the SoRT team, which included both members of the 1996 group and its critics, was to understand how the sites in the terrace formed, whether there was evidence for mixing of older and younger remains, and just how old the sites were.

Since 2004, team members have conducted analyses of animal remains, geological surveys, trenching, and archaeological excavations. The results from all of these provide no evidence for the mixing of older and younger remains. All the evidence suggests the sites represent just a short time period.

"The postmortem damage to the animal remains is consistent and suggests very little movement of the remains by water," explained Briana Pobiner, the project's archaeologist and a paleoanthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. "This means that it is unlikely that very old remains were mixed into younger ones."

In addition, clues from the sediments exposed during excavation suggest to the projects' geoarchaeologists, Rhonda Quinn, Chris Lepre, and Craig Feibel, of Seton Hall, Columbia, and Rutgers universities, that the deposits occurred over a short time period. The teeth found in different excavation layers at Jigar are also all nearly identical in age, supporting the conclusion that mixing across geological periods did not occur.

"Whatever the geological age of the sites is, the hominins, animals, and sediments at Ngandong and Jigar are all the same age," said project co-leader Susan Antón.

The team applied two different dating techniques to the sites. Like earlier work, they used the techniques—U-series and Electron Spin Resonance, or ESR—that are applied to fossilized teeth. They also used a technique called argon-argon dating that is applied to volcanic minerals in the sediments. All three methods use radioactive decay in different ways to assess age and all yielded robust and methodologically valid results, but the ages were inconsistent with one another.

The argon-argon results yielded highly precise ages of about 550,000 years old on pumices—very light, porous volcanic products found at Ngandong and Jigar.

"Pumices are hard to rework without breaking them, and these ages are quite good, so this suggests that the hominins and fauna are this old as well," said project geochronologist Carl Swisher of Rutgers University.

By contrast, the oldest of the U-series and ESR ages, which were conducted at Australian National University by Rainer Grün, are just 143,000 years.

The difference in the ages means that one of the systems is providing an age for something other than the formation of the sites and fossils in them. One possibility is that the pumices are, in fact, reworked, or mixed in, from older rocks. The other possibility is that the ESR and U-series ages are dating an event that occurred after the sites were formed, perhaps a change in the way groundwater moved through the sites.

Either way, the ages provide a maximum and a minimum for the sites – and both of these ages are older than the earliest Homo sapiens fossils in Indonesia. Thus, the authors concluded that the idea of a population of Homo erectus surviving until late in time in Indonesia and potentially interacting with Homo sapiens seems to have been disproven.

Explore further: Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

Related Stories

New ancestor? Scientists ponder DNA from Siberia

Mar 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig has sequenced ancient mitochondrial DNA from a finger bone found in southern Siberia. ...

World's oldest human remains claimed in Israel

Dec 28, 2010

Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, the leader of excavations in Israel said on Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

Dec 20, 2014

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century B.C., says Mississippi State University archaeologist ...

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

Dec 19, 2014

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

Short-necked Triassic marine reptile discovered in China

Dec 17, 2014

A new species of short-necked marine reptile from the Triassic period has been discovered in China, according to a study published December 17, 2014 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Xiao-hong Chen f ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aroc91
4.8 / 5 (21) Jun 29, 2011
inb4kevinrtrs makes some inane troll comment about the final nail being in evolution's coffin because this article doesn't list every transitional fossil ever found.
Argon
2 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2011
"Solo River Terrace (SoRT)"

Acronyms Scarcely Suffice (ASS)
FrankHerbert
3.8 / 5 (20) Jun 29, 2011
Here's that fossil record you keep asking for. I fully expect you to forget its existence upon leave this site.

@dogbert: Feel free to downvote me like you did aroc91, but if you do I expect you to post the following sentence. "I agree with Kevinrts."
Argon
Jun 29, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mattytheory
5 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2011
Yes, Argon, I am sure God is sitting in a workshop somewhere for all eternity conjuring up ways to "trick" humans. Sounds like a great way to spend eternity to me... or wait, does he have elves that help like Santa Clause does??

Also, if God did hand craft the bones that you purport to show why evolution is wrong then why did he leave so many holes? I mean, gods are supposed to be all-perfect and all-knowing beings, right? Are the holes on purpose or did he just forget? Why go through the trouble at all when not fabricating fake evidence creates a much clearer message. And anyways, why would God care in the first place, unless he is vain himself?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2011
Looks like they found some pre-flooders in the dirt!
Looks like they found people from before 6000 years ago AND they found no evidence of a Flood.

Another notch in the creationist's belt: looks like we win again.
Another lie from a Creationist is what we have in that remark. Stuff that was alive 500,000 years ago disproves Genesis. It is amazing the way YEC's claim support from stuff that CLEARLY disproves their position.

Only a filthy dreamer
I see. Reality is filthy and lies that support fantasy beliefs are wonderful. Glad to be clear on that.

could look at these bones and think they were not fashioned by the hands of God!
Only an idiot could call 500,000 year old bones of that show that humans evolved, support of a young Earth. Do you eat with those same lying fingers?>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2011
For details about human "evolution" please read Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21
For details of the errors of Genesis you could start with these 500,000 year old bones.

For the pseudoscience called "evolution" please read any book written by this world's filthy dreamers.
It IS science and 'filthy dreamers' is the sort of thing a psychotic fanatic would say. Are you planning an auto-de-fe?

I sure am glad that we have so many fossils that all confirm the scriptures;
You do? Where? So far nothing supports that claim. This article clearly shows the world has evolution and is far older than Genesis allows.

t's just too bad the filthy dreamers like so much to foam up their shame
That is really sick. It is sad that religion could so distort the mind of anyone to the degree they have to lie so much.

it's a sad thing.
Yes. That was a very sad post you made. I sorry that anyone has such a distorted mind.

Now when was the Flood?

Ethelred
Argon
1.2 / 5 (21) Jun 30, 2011
@mattytheory

I'm not suggesting that they are a plant. I think they were either pre-flood people that died before or during the flood or post-flood people that died within a few hundred years after the flood. My main reason for holding this view is the thickness of the skulls and the size of the brain that would fit in its brain case.

"According to a 2009 paper http://www.ncbi.n...19283594 researchers have found that the average brain loses about 2 grams per year from the age of 26 to 80."

Also, the size and thickness of the skull changes with human aging:
http://www.ncbi.n...0442.pdf

The idea being that if a person were to live for hundreds of years there would be a reduction in their brain mass as well as changes in the size, thickness and shape of their skull. Which is exactly what we see in these so called "homo erectus" skulls. Obviously, they would have lost brain mass at a different rate than we do now.
Argon
1 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2011
@Ethelred

"Now when was the Flood?"

According to this essay: http://www.faithf...arth.pdf

the great flood occured in the year 2578 BC.

Also the author of the essay, which is titled: "The Exact Age of the Earth", goes through the entire calculation from the beginning and covers the entire old testament with references all the way in a step by step fashion and he maintains that he believes the calculation has an accuracy of or - 25 years. He concludes that at present the age of the earth is about 6245 years based on figures given in the King James Version of the Bible.

As for me I don't claim to know the exact year, month, or day. However, the calculations in that essay do seem Biblically sound to me. I would be willing to say that his date is probably accurate to within less than one hundred years of time.

I hoped that answered your question!

And I hope you enjoy your evening!
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2011

"Now when was the Flood?"

According to this essay: http://www.faithf...arth.pdf

the great flood occured in the year 2578 BC.

Oooh, a date! I can't wait for the demolition job. Over to you Ethel...
Rohitasch
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2011


Only a filthy dreamer could look at these bones and think they were not fashioned by the hands of God!


God has no hands. Only tentacles.
rAmen!
MarkyMark
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2011
@Ethelred

"Now when was the Flood?"

According to this essay: http://www.faithf...arth.pdf

the great flood occured in the year 2578 BC.

Also the author of the essay, which is titled: "The Exact Age of the Earth", goes through the entire calculation from the beginning and covers the entire old testament with references all the way in a step by step fashion and he maintains that he believes the calculation has an accuracy of or - 25 years. He concludes that at present the age of the earth is about 6245 years based on figures given in the King James Version of the Bible.

As for me I don't claim to know the exact year, month, or day. However, the calculations in that essay do seem Biblically sound to me. I would be willing to say that his date is probably accurate to within less than one hundred years of time.
!

And yet these fossils are older than 6245 years, so your young earth and flood belief is just pure bunk with no actuall facts
Ethelred
5 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2011
think they were either pre-flood people that died before or during the flood
They died 500,000 years ago. So that is just a tad before your Flood.

My main reason for holding this view
Is religion. There is no actual evidence for a Flood.

Also, the size and thickness of the skull changes with human aging
Yes. So do other things like cartilage. None of that makes 500,000 year old bones into something that died in the alleged Great Flood.

The idea being that if a person were to live for hundreds of years there would be a reduction in their brain mass as well
That would cover Biblical characters that were alleged to have lived for hundreds of years.

Which is exactly what we see in these so called "homo erectus" skulls.
No. We see skulls with differently shaped teeth, differently SHAPED eyebrow ridges, the foramen magnum is not in the same place as it is on modern humans.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2011
They are a different species than modern men not modern men that magically lived for hundreds of years and then died in a flood that never took place but is supposed to have occurred hundreds of thousands of years after the people actually died.

Obviously, they would have lost brain mass at a different rate than we do now.
No as there is no evidence to support that claim and most of them would likely have died at fairly early ages just as humans do when they live hard lives. And humans don't always lose brain mass. Those of us that keep learning new things DON'T lose brain mass.

the great flood occured in the year 2578 BC.
That is, give or take a century or two, what I have seen before.

http://www.cynet....line.htm

That one has it 2344BC. There has been a lot of effort to move it back in time. The one you have is the earliest I have seen that actually uses Biblically justifiable dates.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2011
Some have claimed over 3000BC but they never can justify it with the Bible. They clearly were hoping no would notice they were making it up.

As for me I don't claim to know the exact year, month, or day. However, the calculations in that essay do seem Biblically sound to me.
They are BIBLICALLY sound. Unfortunately they are completely unfounded in real history or physical evidence.

There is this little problem of the Sumerians and the Egyptians actually having written history that goes back farther than that. The Egyptians were building pyramids then. Had been for some time and continued to do so for centuries with no stopping to be drowned and then replaced by an entirely new culture with different language. Nowhere on Earth is there any historical, archaeological or geological evidence to support the idea that the highest mountain was covered by water so a clearly incompetent god could kill all but 8 people right smack dab in the middle of the pyramid building era.>>
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2011
The only scientifically interesting topic, the meaning of these findings for the competing "Recent African Replacement" and "Multiregional" theories, is completely absent from the quarrelling parties.
Scientist_Steve
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2011
@Ethelred
I always thought the Black Sea deluge theory did a good job of explaining a possibility for the myth of the Great Flood (or atleast the basis for the story). Obviously it isn't as the bible depicts it and there is alot of geological controversy over it, but its atleast an explanation that has some evidence for how the story evolved.
wargasm
1 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2011
When the bible speaks of creation it likely means the creative process of civilizations beginnings, bringing order from chaos, giving things names, which gives one a certain power over the named thing, innovation and building stuff etc, rather than the invention of Earth in totality?
Likely as not the role of 'God' is actually an ancient account of the apparent role cosmic radiation from nearby super massive Nova explosions has in the relatively sudden arrival of new species?
Isnt it likely that 'Scientists' so obviously and fanatically pushing the Marxist dogma that we are just a version of African monkeys and deliberately ignoring much evidence that fails to conform to this theory and in so doing have broken our trust

Ethelred; "There is no actual evidence for a Flood." really? 100m sea level rises didnt actually flood any land? How so?Populated coastal areas didnt suffer? What about the English Channel? Wasnt it once inhabited land before it was flooded?
aroc91
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2011
Isnt it likely that 'Scientists' so obviously and fanatically pushing the Marxist dogma that we are just a version of African monkeys and deliberately ignoring much evidence that fails to conform to this theory and in so doing have broken our trust


Troll.
wargasm
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2011
Troll.

Is that a real technical acronym? let me guess;

Truth's really odd [for the] logically lobotomised
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2011
Truth's Really Odd [for the] Liturgically Lobotomized

I fixed that for you.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2011
for the competing "Recent African Replacement" and "Multiregional" theories, is completely absent from the quarrelling parties.
Frajo seems to be disturbed by the reality vs. religious fantasy discussion.

Too bad.

As for the replacement vs. multiregional I don't see this as having a lot of relevance. Since we have genetic evidence that Neanderthal interbred with Modern Homo Sapiens the multiregional hypothesis already has real support besides the obvious Neanderthal in Milford Wolpoff's heritage. This simply removes one possible source of Sapiens-Erectus interaction. Considering the serious genetic bottleneck in Homo Sapiens history I suspect that there was a shortage of Erectus to interbreed with whether it was genetically possible or not.

In other words I have serious disagreements with some of the thinking in the article.

And I was really annoyed when my Internet connection went down before I posted the last of my reply to the Fanatic. So here it comes.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2011
Oh and the Egyptians weren't the only literate people that failed to notice that they had been murdered and replaced by exact copies hundreds of years later.

I hoped that answered your question!
How did you not notice that the date is incompatible with reality?

And I hope you enjoy your evening!
Its morning. And I an enjoying it. It is so rare to find a YEC that is willing to answer that question. You and Yellowdart are the only ones on this site so far. The rest follow the Discovery Asylum's demand that YEC's never answer that question. Clearly they know they have a problem with the Biblical date and real history. I gather you didn't know when the Egyptians built the pyramids.

So now that you do know that the Great Flood never really happened are you going to accept reality?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2011
I always thought the Black Sea deluge theory did a good job of explaining a possibility for the myth of the Great Flood
The Black Sea flood has little to do with the details of the Biblical Flood. One is a real flood of limited scope and the other is supposed to have covered the highest mountain with the specific intent of murdering all land life that wasn't on the nonexistent Ark.

and there is alot of geological controversy over it
It happened. That is certain. Humans lived there and that too is certain. It MIGHT have inspired some of the flood stories. It isn't at all what Argon believes in or wrote about.

Argon went away instead of answering my questions. Maybe he really didn't know there was a problem with the date he gave.

how the story evolved.
There are other possibilities. The Tigris Euphrates valley got flooded many times and one of the those could easily be the real source of the older Gilgamesh story.

Ethelred
Sinister1811
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2011
This article is a lot better without Kevinrts's series of pointless ramblings about his invisible sky person. Speaking of Kevin... Where is he?
stanfrax
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2011
prophesiers predicted a great flood for the year 1996 - it was a date for mankind to use to prepare for the future - the great flood i believe is knowledge - would this fit into the stories of the book
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2011
Is that a real technical acronym?
No. It refers to fishing by trolling. For human fish to argue with or merely annoy. Just like calling yourself Wargasm. That name is a troll and I think know that already.

Truth's really odd [for the] logically lobotomised
Yes. That fits Argon. Now to see if it fits your post he was replying to. I have this sneaking suspicion that you are the one with the problem with logic. Yes, I wrote that before reading the post in question. Wargasm is such a Trollish name, in both senses of the word.

When the bible speaks of creation it likely means the creative process of civilizations beginnings,
Sure isn't written that way to anyone else but you. I think the creativity is entirely your own. In other words your rewriting the Bible in an attempt to troll.

bringing order from chaos,
Now that could be in the Bible but is the action of Jehovah not civilization. You don't get cities till later in the Bible.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2011
giving things names,
Names weren't actually given. So no I don't see it that way. A list of names would support that thinking. There isn't one.

which gives one a certain power over the named thing,
That is shamanism. Confusing the map with the territory.

rather than the invention of Earth in totality?
No. The Bible is pretty clear the Earth was created in Genesis one. Could be created from matter that was already there as the 'without form' remark in inherently vague. The Sun and Moon's creation is much more clear despite there being light before the creation of the Sun.

Likely as not the role of 'God' is actually an ancient account of the apparent role cosmic radiation from nearby super massive Nova explosions
No. Got any evidence for one? Novas and Super Novas leave debris and the Bible really isn't even 6000 years old. Not even 4000.

has in the relatively sudden arrival of new species?
There are no sudden arrivals of new species.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2011
They all take time to evolve. On the order of thousands of years not tens of years.

Isnt it likely that 'Scientists' so obviously and fanatically pushing the Marxist dogma
Idiot. Real scientists not 'scientists'. Neither Darwin nor Wallace were Marxists. Darwin was filthy rich and his wife more so.

that we are just a version of African monkeys
Idiot again. We are not monkeys. We are APES. Marxism has nothing to do with that. It is mere reality. Monkeys have tails. Not having a tail but all the other primate characteristics makes it clear that we are of the Primate Clad known as Apes. Only people that can't handle the truth want to pretend that we aren't apes. Yes that includes those Anthropologists that don't have the guts to admit we are less hairy apes. Not hairless. Just look at Robin Williams. Or Milford Wolpoff.

and deliberately ignoring much evidence
Would you, unlike Argon, care to post even a smidgen of evidence to support that?>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2011
that fails to conform to this theory and in so doing have broken our trust
I am sorry that you find reality something to be evaded instead of accepted. We are what we are whether you trust the abundant evidence or not.

Ethelred; "There is no actual evidence for a Flood." really?
Yes. Really.

100m sea level rises didnt actually flood any land?
Where I did I make that claim? I said there was no GREAT FLOOD as described in the Bible. I am fully aware that the sea levels have gone up over thousands of years since the last Ice Age.

How so?Populated coastal areas didnt suffer?
Not very many of those 10,000 years ago. Agriculture was just getting started permanent settlements were rare so moving uphill wasn't a struggle. There is one known town that is under water from prior to, oh say, Jericho but it was pretty small and off the Indian coast not the Mediterranean.

What about the English Channel?
How is that relevant to the Great Flood of the Bible?>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2011
Wasnt it once inhabited land before it was flooded?
Certainly parts of it must have been. It is more than 100 meters deep.

Yeah that was a troll you posted not a reasoned response since you deliberately brought up stuff that you know full well has nothing to do with the Noah's Ark story. Too bad for you I pretend that trolls should be treated as if they could actually engage in reasoned discourse. It makes them look silly. Kind of like carefully cleaning someone off instead of laughing when they fall on a banana peel.

Now if you really want to have a discussion you should try to stick to topic instead of irrelevancies like rising seas that took place 4000 years before YEC's think the Earth even existed and 6000 years before the Flood was supposed to have occurred. You could post evidence that supports you instead of crap that has nothing to do with the actual discussion.

Ethelred
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2011
Map of the Flat Earth as described in the King James Bible. "If it says so, it must be da truth."TM Pat. Pending.

http://www.thehis...-map.jpg

Scripture, from the King James, that condemns the round Earth.

Ex 17:12
Joshua 10:12-13
Chron. 16:30
Ps. 136:6-7
Isaiah 12:10
Isaiah 11:12
Isaiah 14:7
Rev. 7:12

The Earth is flat! We are Deceived! The Bible says so.

Hrumpth, cough.
rwinners
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2011
How does one prove a negative? All these studies show is that what has been found has been dated at specific ages by different processes.
In no case does this evidence prove that there was no existing homo erectus existing 50K years ago. There is no evidence either way.
nickelsworth
not rated yet Jul 05, 2011
Has anyone ever heard of the 'Heuristic Lodge'? It's only requirement for membership is to possess human DNA... and the Membership is free! Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the Lodge Prayer; "I have DNA, but it can change if it has to.. I quess." Peace and Love to All.
MarkyMark
not rated yet Jul 05, 2011
Map of the Flat Earth as described in the King James Bible. "If it says so, it must be da truth."TM Pat. Pending.

http://www.thehis...-map.jpg

Scripture, from the King James, that condemns the round Earth.

Ex 17:12
Joshua 10:12-13
Chron. 16:30
Ps. 136:6-7
Isaiah 12:10
Isaiah 11:12
Isaiah 14:7
Rev. 7:12

The Earth is flat! We are Deceived! The Bible says so.

Hrumpth, cough.

Heh that map certainly made me laugh inside, especially loved how the heavenly bodies are suspended!
Johannes414
1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
Insightful article. And again more of the flimsy evidence for evolution evaporates into zilch. Timelines dont match, bones dont match, sequence dont match. When will they understand that humans never evolved, but were made from the beginning. Most likely too late. How sad.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2011
And again more of the flimsy evidence for evolution evaporates into zilch.
Once again Johannes tells obvious lies.

Timelines dont match,
Changed. Due to improved testing. They are now more accurate. And still quite unlike what is in the Bible. Indeed the bones are now known to be older yet.

bones dont match,
Lie. They are still the same bones. Just now known to be older.

sequence dont match.
Would you care to show just where that is? Matches quite well. Its WAY outside of what Genesis allows.

When will they understand that humans never evolved,
When they lose their minds and stop going evidence.

but were made from the beginning.
Those bones show that claim is false. So do the bones of Archaic Modern humans, Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. They show evolution and they show that the world is not even close to 6000 years old. Or whatever lie you are actually telling yourself about the age of the Earth.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2011
Most likely too late. How sad.
Most likely never. And that is what should be in science. You should always go on the evidence and never on the word of one religious fanatic that can't even give a reason why we should believe the Bible is correct and the entire world, indeed the entire Universe, is wrong.

So again I will ask you. Why should we think the Bible is the word of Jehovah when it does not match the world we live in? And where is that evidence you claimed exists for the Flood? And why didn't the Egyptians notice being drowned?

Ethelred
Birger
5 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2011
Ignore the Godbots. They will never bother with the realities of evolution, just as Rethuglicans will never learn the realities of climate change.
About Homo Erectus: We know that the Neanderthals shared Eurasia with the related Denisovan humans (known from the DNA of a single finger bone). These two (and possibly more) relatively advanced archaic human species would have out-evolved and out-competed relic populations of H. Erectus long ago (leaving only a small island population of "hobbits" on Flores).

PS The Flood myth was borrowed into the Old Testament from Mesopotamia during the Babylonian captivity. Analysis of the Hebrew shows this part is younger than other parts of the Old testament. But no fundamentalist will ever bother to check these facts.
The Coast along the Canadian west coast shows a nice, clear story of post-glacial rebound, with the land rising from the sea since the end of the ice age. This sequence alone is more than twice as old as the Fundie "young Earth".
Argon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2011
@Birger

I think where we differ, at least in matters of determining the age of a structure or artifact, is in that you seem to think that rates are a constant and therefore time is the variable (uniformitarianism) whereas I think that time is constant and rate is the variable (catastrophism). Now it is obvious to me that if you could prove that rates of change have remained constant than the sound conclusion would be reached that vast expanses of time have conditioned the world and the objects we find buried therein (uniformitarianism). However, if you consider that rates of change have varied over time (which has been observed, examples being: floods, droughts, fires, earthquakes, diseases, and human activities) then the sound conclusion is that the rates of change determine the amount of time needed for a change to occur. Without knowing the actual rates of change over time or without assuming a contant rate of change over time it is not possible to even make a calculation of age
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2011
Of course it is possible to determine age of many things. C14 dating, Potassium-Argon, Uranium all these are quite reliable and cover time from the beginning the Earth.

As for catastrophophism vs uniformity they are not exclusive. Catastrophes that significantly change the rate of, erosion for instance, are rare. Now if you are talking about 100 or 1,000 year floods those are measurable over time and the 1000 year part is pretty well nailed down and the 1000 year bit is pretty clear as well.

Of course there is no evidence of a world wide flood covering the highest mountain so that particular catastrophe is pure fantasy.

Ethelred
Argon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2011
@Ethelred

"Of course it is possible to determine age of many things. C14 dating, Potassium-Argon, Uranium all these are quite reliable and cover time from the beginning the Earth."

My point exactly! The dating methods you mention all assume a constant rate over time. However, there is one more thing we must consider in our calculations besides rate and time and that is: quantity; if we don't know how much material we began with then how do we know how much is missing? It's the burning lamp problem: you walk into a room in which you find a burning lamp: how long has the lamp been burning?
In order to have your answer you MUST know: how much oil was in the lamp when it was lit (quantity), the rate of oil consumption at all times during its burning (rate) and that it has not been snuffed out and relit (time, which must be our constant for the answer to be valid)!

By assumming that the lamp was full and the rate of burning has been constant you can only calculate a MAXIMUM age!
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2011
There are even more assumptions in the burning lamp problem than I mentioned, such as that the lamp has not been refueled at any time during its buring. Furthermore, it is obvious that the maximum age depends on the assumption that the rate has been constant and that the quantity of oil has not been added to. So let us assume then that the rate of buring was constant, and that no oil has been added were actually true and then assume that the lamp was full when it was lit. OK, now we still can't answer the original question of how long has the lamp been burning: we can say "the lamp hasn't been burning longer than this", but as there is even one assumption in our calculation it is impossible to determine how long the lamp has actually been burning.

The problem with assumptions is that they can be true or false and every calculation of age is only as true as their assumptions.

So, if you are going to allow your soul to hinge on an assumption: it better damn well be correct!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
My point exactly! The dating methods you mention all assume a constant rate over time.
Which is completely supported by testing.

quantity; if we don't know how much material we began with then how do we know how much is missing?
I see, you want to got the Jehovah is a liar route. That is what you do when you claim Jehovah created the world to look exactly unlike what it says in the Bible. Which makes Jehovah unreliable and thus the question is why you think the world is the lie instead of the Bible? Me I go on reality. Men wrote the Bible and they got a lot wrong.

t's the burning lamp problem: you walk into a room in which you find a burning lamp: how long has the lamp been burning?
It isn't a lamp. Its radioactive atoms and we know how they formed. In most cases they are a comparison of one kind of atom vs its decay products. We don't care how much potassium was there to begin with.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
We know how much is there now and how much argon is there and the argon HAD to have come from the potassium. Try learning how radio dating is done from people that understand how it works instead of from people that told you a pack of lies.

http://en.wikiped...c_dating

how much oil was in the lamp when it was lit (quantity
It isn't a lamp. I only need to know the decay rate and the RATIO of the decay atoms vs the remaining source atoms. The analogy is completely bogus and only people ignorant of how radiometric dating is actually done can be gulled that nonsense. Go get an education from COMPETENT people and not members of Liars For JesusTM such as Ken Hamm.

By assumming that the lamp was full and the rate of burning has been constant you can only calculate a MAXIMUM age!
You can't even manage to get that right. You calculate the MINIMUM age even with that bullshit you were conned into believing. Why did claim a maximum when it is clearly a minimum?>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
and that it has not been snuffed out and relit
SEE you showed right there a MINIMUM not maximum thus you are clearly incapable of using logic even when you used a bad set of assumptions in the first place. You not only need to learn about the actual methods but you need to learn how to do math problems.

There are even more assumptions in the burning lamp problem than I mentioned
And all of them are irrelevant to radiometric dating where it is RATIOS that are measured and where we actually do know the rates of decay.

such as that the lamp has not been refueled at any time during its buring.
They are ROCKS not lamps. They can't be refueled without there being evidence of the finagling. They CAN loose the decay products since those are often gasses and thus the the actual age would be OLDER if the decay were lost.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
The problem with assumptions is that they can be true or false and every calculation of age is only as true as their assumptions.
And you used a LOT of bad assumptions incompetent logic and math and the analogy was based on ignorance. You really need to learn from people that are competent instead from people that lied to you. And I bet the grotesquely logic was not actually yours either. You just didn't want to think about how bad it was.

So, if you are going to allow your soul
I doubt that there are souls. The source of the claims for their existence is same as that crap you just posted. There is NO evidence that souls actually exist.

it better damn well be correct!
If you are going to waste hours each weak you really should think about how the might be better spent. Perhaps you should start with that Wiki I linked to and then you REALLY need a logic class.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
Now how about you actually answer a few questions.

Why should anyone believe an ancient book written by men was actually the work of an all knowing god when it can't even go two chapters without contradicting itself? Why do YOU think it is the word of Jehovah since the Bible doesn't make the claim. Even if it did why should we believe it? It fails so many tests. For instance:

When was the Great Flood? I ask that because some Creationists believe the Earth is old unlike you, but they still actually believe in a Flood that clearly never happened. If you simply run the numbers the Bible has in it you can calculate how long ago the Flood is supposed to have occurred. So when do you think that was? And how do you reconcile that Biblical date with the physical AND historical evidence that shows the date is quite impossible. That isn't even counting all the evidence that MUST be around today if it had actually happened. Evidence that doesn't exist.

Ethelred
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
Now how about you actually answer a few questions.

Why should anyone believe an ancient book written by men was actually the work of an all knowing god when it can't even go two chapters without contradicting itself? Why do YOU think it is the word of Jehovah since the Bible doesn't make the claim. Even if it did why should we believe it? It fails so many tests. For instance:

When was the Great Flood? I ask that because some Creationists believe the Earth is old unlike you, but they still actually believe in a Flood that clearly never happened. If you simply run the numbers the Bible has in it you can calculate how long ago the Flood is supposed to have occurred. So when do you think that was? And how do you reconcile that Biblical date with the physical AND historical evidence that shows the date is quite impossible. That isn't even counting all the evidence that MUST be around today if it had actually happened. Evidence that doesn't exist.

Ethelred


Look 40 posts up
aroc91
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
I'm not going to admit I'm wrong about radiometric dating


Fixed that for you.
J-n
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
Odd thing to me is that there are so many areas where Science must be wrong in order for YEC to be right.

Radiometric Dating
Speed of light
Red Shift
Radioactive Decay
Dendrochronology
Geology
Archeology
Plate tectonics
Evolution
Biology

This is just a short list. I would imagine there have been Thousands(many many thousands) of individuals involved in these sciences for a LONG time who have (if YEC is right) been hoodwinked by incorrect facts.

My major problem is that all these different disciplines and all the people involved in them Missed out on proving their co-workers wrong (the 2nd most important thing you can do in science, second to proving something right).

Occam's Razor comes into play here as well. With YEC's saying that ALL these areas of science got it wrong, i can't help but think that maybe it's the YEC's who are not right here.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.