Slashdot Mirror
Oldest Modern Humans Found
DrLudicrous writes "Anthropologists have reconstructed and dated three skulls from Ethiopia that they believe to be the oldest anatomically modern human skulls in existance. They date to 160,000 years ago, in agreement with genetic studies that pin the arrival of modern humans to at least 150,000 years ago. The skulls also demonstrate evidence of ritual burial." UC Berkeley has the original release as well.
The Herto skulls were not found with other bones from the rest of the bodies, which is unusual, White said, leading the researchers to infer that the people "were moving the heads around on the landscape. They probably cut the muscles and broke the skull bases of some skulls to extract the brain, but why, whether as part of a cannibalistic ritual, we have no way of knowing."
I was rather surprised by the possibility of ritualistic brain-eating amongst the earliest ancestors of our species. Maybe they were extracting the brains not for appetizers, but for the same reasons Egyptians removed the brains prior to mummification: so that dead would not be encumbered by the useless grey gunk inside their head on the journey to the afterlife.
Why does this just not quite add up to me.
How many times in your life have you changed the world? The concept to stop chasing wildlife, and to settle down and grow crops is revolutionary, and would be a scary step (since you're betting on crops coming in right until you can build up enough storage) even for those who have plenty of knowledge in the subject. The combination of knowledge, wisdom and courage to take that step is not commonly found, and even when the step was take, the society might easily disappear if there were a short drought. I have a harder time imagining why someone would do this, then why they wouldn't.
Or is this more of the overly simplistic logic that starts by assuming the Bible is false and then proceeds to construct some alternative scenario?
How do we know anything is true, we must and do on a daily basis make assumptions about the world around us from what we observe. I see a table, i walk up to it, touch it, i know it's a table. We use simple logic to assume things are right or wrong, true or false. If i am told something is true i do not believe it unless i can verify it for myself.
As such, i believe there is a book called the bible with many secular variations. Having read some of it, I know it contains some fascinating insights into human nature and accounts of historic events. But my wider knowledge allows me to put it in picture with the history of the roman occupation of the area, simultaneous Chinese philosophy, Mayan empires, etc. And my knowledge of human nature, culture, behaviour; to come to the simple logical conclusion that it is most likely that Jesus existed and was immensely insightful into human nature and further evolved a system of living by which humanity and all it's individuals could prosper. However i see no good evidence for divine intervention.
What your parents tell you to believe in ... isn't always right
My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
> Don't you mean revise science, the Bible hasnt changed in thousands of years (note the dead sea scrolls which are the same as the current versions of the Bible). It is science that changes its mind everytime something new is discovered, cant they stick with one story.
And there's the difference between science in religion. Religion wants to preserve a tradition, so its adherents stick to their story regardless of what the evidence says. Science wants to understand the universe, so it goes whereever the evidence demands.
Of course... it only takes a casual familiarity with history to see that religion slowly changes its views over the generations as well, however much the practitioners want to pretend otherwise.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Sixth, the idea that the rulers wanted to "keep the people dumb" is just propaganda.
When you have a bit of idle time, visit the talk.origins newsgroup and ask about the role of religion in the Neocon "wedge document". As one guy puts it in his
IIRC their philosophy goes at least back to Plato, who (IIRC) suggested a model state where the "guardians" knew religion was a hoax, but espoused it anyway in order to control the masses.
Notice in passing how convenient it is for a government to send soldiers to their deaths and then assure the public that they have a secure spot in Heaven (as if the politicians would know!), or to shrug off "collateral damage" when everyone 'knows' that God won't let the innocent suffer in the afterlife.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> > And there's the difference between science in religion. Religion wants to preserve a tradition, so its adherents stick to their story regardless of what the evidence says. Science wants to understand the universe, so it goes whereever the evidence demands.
> While it's true that religions tend to stick to their stories regardless of the evidence, the same tendency has been observed among scientists as well. If you had asked Einstein about non-local effects in quantum physics, I imagine you'd have gotten the same kind of response you'd get by asking Jerry Falwell about evolution.
Yes, science is practiced by humans and therefore all the usual human follies can be observed among scientists.
However, scientists are well aware of that fact, so science as a "field" or "institution" is based on the notion of sanity checks and second opinions. The bad stuff like Piltdown Man and Cold Nuclear Fusion eventually get weeded out, because although they appeal strongly to individual's follies they can't stand up to the checks.
I.e., ultimately Einstein's personal opinion doesn't matter.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade