Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: There's always something better to do.

Topic: Oldest Human Remains (Read 25364 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4000
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
To repeat, this is an issue for the dating of Omo I because the primitive Omo II is at the same depth. But not worth arguing. People here seem unable to grasp this point.
Perhaps Socrates doesn't understand that populations with different features coexisted.
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/the-oldest-homo-sapiens/
Quote
Fleagle says no scientist has been bold enough to suggest Omo II is anything other than Homo sapiens, and that "quite often at the time of major events in evolution, one finds an increase in morphological [anatomical] diversity." Now that the new study confirms Omo I and Omo II are the same age - living within a few hundred years of each other about 195,000 years ago - some anthropologist suggest "maybe it [Omo II] isn't so primitive after all," Brown says.
Socrates may be bold enough to suggest Omo II is something other than Homo sapiens, but he isn't a scientist, and doesn't understand much about evolution, and has no support for his baseless assertions, so his suggestions can safely be disregarded. Not worth arguing. Socrates seems unable to grasp this point.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4001
I do realize that there are transitionals. Neanderthals are great transitionals. Particularly since they are 99.7% identical to humans. But again not worth arguing because you folks do not work on the basis of evidence.
Says the person who has provided no evidence for his assertions to the person who has.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4002
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing. Just another silly slur from you folks.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4003
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wow.

Congratulations, BenTheBiased, you win.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4004
This is hilarious:
Quote
Now that the new study confirms Omo I and Omo II are the same age - living within a few hundred years of each other about 195,000 years ago - some anthropologist suggest "maybe it [Omo II] isn't so primitive after all," Brown says.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4005
I've gotten my fair share of hilarity from socrates, but a blatant "I'm better than you all so nyah!" takes the cake.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4006

As a sidenote:
The Omo I date calculation is more suspect due to the presence of the primitive Omo II with it. This implies that both were washed in together from different places. That is why the reference I gave earlier suggests that the Omo I and II may be from some other places. In which case we do not know their dating.
Bullshit. Already addressed multiple times:
The evidence supports the idea that the migration was from the Levant into Egypt.
::)

Wishful thinking is not evidence.
For Omo 1 to be an ancestor requires re-dating all the Nile sites and the Levant sites.
:facepalm:

Because, as we all know, all humans did was pass through the Nile region into the Levant, leaving Africa forever.

That's why the continent was unoccupied until the 18th century, when humans returned. ::)
Compare that with the idea that Omo 1 has been incorrectly dated.
I have to say, doug, you're making progress at last! No more intimation that Omo I was not AMH!
You have finally moved on to the Begrudging Acceptance Stage for that issue! Excellent!

Too bad your other "idea' is also BS, though. Once again:

The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back To 195,000 Years Ago
Quote
"It is pretty conclusive," says Brown

But hey, I'm optimistic about this. I'm sure that, eventually, in a few years or so, you'll move on to the Begrudging Acceptance Stage on that as well.

Patience, champ. You'll get there.

The published material doesn't change, no matter how loud some uneducated nobody whines on the internet.
Quote
Other date calculations such as Misliya are not like that.
And you know this HOW?

Qafzeh has "the layers dated" as well.
Quote
As a further point the Omo I fossil is not a human.
More already refuted bullshit:
Quote
A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin.
So not a homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern human).
Nice try, Liar:
Quote
Undeniably modern in its anatomy, the specimen from the Omo basin[...]
Quote
In addition to the skull, the associated postcranial bones [...] display fully modern human anatomy.
Your OWN SOURCE, doug.

Ready to cry "uncle" yet?
Quote
The obvious modern traits of the Omo I skull include[...]

  • Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 01:02:04 PM by Faid
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4007
Worth repeating:

The published material doesn't change, no matter how loud some uneducated nobody whines on the internet.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4008
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope- Again:
Quote
In addition to the skull, the associated postcranial bones [...] display fully modern human anatomy.
Your OWN SOURCE, doug.

Sucks to be you.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4009
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing.

:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4010
To repeat, this is an issue for the dating of Omo I because the primitive Omo II is at the same depth. But not worth arguing. People here seem unable to grasp this point.
Funny how you don't seem to have that problem for Skhul and Qafzeh, and in THAT case the obvious Neanderthal traits amount to direct ancestry and not "washing up". ::)

But it doesn't matter. No matter how hard you stomp your little foot, champ, the dating issue for the Omo fossils has been "quite conclusively" resolved in 2005. See above. :D
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4011
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing. Just another silly slur from you folks.
IOW, "WHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" :rofl:

Poor "socrates".
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4012

I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing.

Time to remind our Guests:

Quote from: Socrates
Three possibilities.
Primitive humans developed from gorillas or from chimpanzees or some from gorillas and some from chimpanzees.
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1881077
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4013
Can anyone explain what Faid means by "washing up"?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4014
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing. Just another silly slur from you folks.
If only there was evidence that other people than yourself believe this. Why would anyone take your word for it?

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4015
Would you prefer "washed together"?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4016
Time to remind our guests that I have offered to post to a thread about the chimps etc if someone sets one up in the Science section. To give people some indication about what I would post I will say that I do not mean humans evolved from chimps alive today. In case that is what is bothering people. But that is all I will be saying here. Set up a thread in the Science section if you are actually interested.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4017
Time to remind "socrates" again:
Since "socrates" tends to forget from page to page:
Quote
A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin.
So not a homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern human).
Nice try, Liar:
Quote
Undeniably modern in its anatomy, the specimen from the Omo basin[...]
Quote
In addition to the skull, the associated postcranial bones [...] display fully modern human anatomy.
Your OWN SOURCE, doug.

Ready to cry "uncle" yet?
Quote
The obvious modern traits of the Omo I skull include[...]

Quote
Researchers largely agree Omo I was a modern human; it had the human hallmarks of a flat face, fully formed chin, high forehead and globular braincase.
:rofl:
Quote
The taxonomic identity of the Nubian Complex toolmakers is unknown, as no skeletal evidence has been discovered in association with any such assemblage. Although some archaic forms may have persisted in other parts of Africa at that time [79], the distribution of early [size=7anatomically modern human (AMH) [/size]remains suggest this species is the most likely candidate to have occupied northeast Africa during the Late Pleistocene. Cranial fragments of Homo sapiens found in the Omo river valley, Ethiopia (Fig. 1), represent the first appearance of AMH in East Africa ~195 ka [80].
:rofl: :rofl:
Is everyone confused like Faid? The issue is not the dating of the rock layers. The issue is that the fossils were from somewhere else so we do not know how old they are. How many times do these things have to be explained?


"Socrates" remains terminally confused.

The 2005 stratigraphic study shows JUST THAT.

Once again:
Quote
Brown says potassium-argon dating shows that a layer of ash no more than 10 feet (3 meters) below Omo I's and Omo II's burial place is 196,000 years old, give or take 2,000 years. Another layer is 104,000 years old. It is almost 160 feet (50 meters) above the layer that yielded the Omo humans. The unconformities represent periods of time when rock was eroded, so the fossils must be much older than the 104,000-year-old layer and close in age to the 196,000-year-old layer, Brown says.

The clinching evidence, he says, comes from sapropels, which are dark rock layers on the Mediterranean seafloor that were deposited when floods of fresh water poured out of the Nile River during rainy times. The Blue Nile and White Nile tributaries share a drainage divide with the Omo River. During ancient wet periods, monsoons on the Ethiopian highlands sent annual floods surging down the Nile system, causing sapropels to form on the seafloor, and sent floods down the Omo, making Lake Turkana rise and depositing Kibish Formation sediments on the river's ancient delta. (During dry periods, Lake Turkana was smaller, flood sediments were deposited farther south and rocks at Kibish were eroded.)

No other sediments on land have been found to record wet and dry periods that correlate so well with the same climate pattern in ocean sediments, Brown says. The new study found that the "members" - or groups of rock layers - of the Kibish formation were laid down at the same time as the Mediterranean sapropels. In particular, the volcanic layer right beneath Omo I and II dates to 196,000 years ago by potassium-argon dating, and it corresponds almost perfectly to a sapropel layer previously dated as 195,000 years old, Brown says.

"It is pretty conclusive," says Brown, who disputes any contention that the fossils might be closer to 104,000 years old.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4018
Our guests do not need to be reminded- They are fully aware of the actual published material at this point.

And merely enjoying the ride with the rest of us. ;)
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4019
Quote
We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.

The bolded part supports a migration from the Levant
Gee, I wonder why NE African haplotypes show up more frequently and are more similar to non-African haplotypes than W African haplotypes. I wonder if the the distance from the NE Africa, say Cairo area, to the Levant, say Jerusalem, some 160 km vs the distance from West Africa, say Monrovia, to Jerusalem, some 5300 km, has anything to do with it? And maybe it isn't just the distance, but that the Sahara desert occupies most of that distance from West Africa to Jerusalem adds to the difficulty of making that journey?
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4020
Time to remind our guests that I have offered to post to a thread about the chimps etc if someone sets one up in the Science section. To give people some indication about what I would post I will say that I do not mean humans evolved from chimps alive today. In case that is what is bothering people. But that is all I will be saying here. Set up a thread in the Science section if you are actually interested.
Anyone is free to follow the link to where you discussed this in the past:
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1881077
If you want to "clarify" your obvious ignorance or not, that's up to you.
No one is obligated to set up a soapbox for you in the actual Science forum.
You have no business being there.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4021
I've gotten my fair share of hilarity from socrates, but a blatant "I'm better than you all so nyah!" takes the cake.
I hope sucky realizes he's going to have to fight Bluffy for the Title of Greatest Scientist of All Time as well as for The BRILLIANCE CUP. I have a feeling Bluffy is in much better shape than sucky, should win hands down. All that 100% raw goat's milk.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4022
Can anyone explain what Faid means by "washing up"?
Anybody?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4023
Quote
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing.
I wonder what "Socrates" means by "scientist"?
Anybody?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #4024
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing. Just another silly slur from you folks.

Ok this has to be some kind of performance art.