Slashdot Mirror
Evidence Found for Earliest Modern Humans
Hugh Pickens writes "Researchers at Arizona State University report that they have pushed back the date for the earliest modern humans to 164,000 years ago, far earlier than previously documented. Paleoanthropologists now say that genetic and fossil evidence suggests that modern human species — Homo sapiens — evolved in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago and in seeking the "perfect site" to explore for remains of the earliest populations, researchers analyzed ocean currents, climate data, geological formations and other data to pin down a location. "The world was in a glacial stage 125,000 to 195,000 years ago, and much of Africa was dry to mostly desert; in many areas food would have been difficult to acquire. The paleoenvironmental data indicate there are only five or six places in all of Africa where humans could have survived these harsh conditions," said Curtis Marean, a professor in ASU's School of Human Evolution and Social Change. Photos from the cave at Pinnacle Point in South Africa show where the team found ochre, bladelets and evidence of shellfish — findings that reveal the earliest dated evidence of modern humans."
I long ago read that the Homo Sapiens arised in an extremely harsh environment that created a strong selective pressure in favor of intelligence and advanced social interactions. But the article says that the researchers focussed on the area where the less evolved pre-humans could have survived easier.
It should be pointed out that there is a difference between something that looks human, and something that acts human and is described as. The "looks human" date has been pushed out and has always been further out than the "acts human" date. The "acts human" date still remains circa 40,000 to 60,000 B.C. (at least last time I heard).
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating anything here, just asking from the point of speculation...
The old accepted model of human development is that man in his modern form, homo sapiens sapiens, appeared 30k years ago with recorded history marking the rise of civilization some 6000 years ago. The theory is that humans lived in nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes until the end of the last ice age. With the warming of the climate, agriculture became possible and with it the surplus of food that allows for civilization.
Ok, that's the accepted model. But I've always wondered about the likelihood of human civilizations from before accepted recorded history. As I understand it, the science points against it because if there were such civilizations, we should see some proof of it. But what sort of proofs would civilization leave behind and how long would they last with the passage of time? Most human populations like along coastlines and we've seen historic records of cities lost to rising waters. There are many underwater archaeological sites being explored along the English Channel. And when one considers the destructive power of a 2 mile tall wall of ice rolling over a city, what would even be left for us to see? If there were a Hyperboria, a Lemuria, a Mu, what remnants should we expect to see of them, if any?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
As I posted elsewhere under this article, this just doesn't make sense to me from a historical and technological development standpoint. Known history from the most ancient civilization dates back to only 5100 BC with Sumeria ("Epic of Gilgamesh"). Since that time, there has been incredible advances in human civilization. But this evidence is saying that for 160,000 years, there was virtually no technological development. There would also be virtually no population growth.
We cannot even fathom that 160,000 years is. Even the dark ages seem incredibly ancient in our minds, and that is only one millennium ago. I find it incomprehensible that in 160,000 years that human beings as intelligent and creative as we are today failed to have any technological innovation in all of that time. Agriculture really is not that big of a stretch intellectually. Can someone explain how this is even plausible?
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
There was a 19th century minister who thought he'd found the way to reconcile Wilberforce and Huxley.
His reasoning went like this. When Adam was created, what kept him from immediately fainting away with hunger? Obviously his bloodstream and digestive tract contained food and its metabolites - remnants of meals he never ate. A human body isn't just a machine, it's an ongoing process. The muscles and skeleton are not just the products of inheritance, but of years of growth and exercise that in Adam's case never happened.
Therefore, to create a human, God had to create a body that perfectly bore the marks of a history it did not, in fact have. What if God made the entire world that way? If natural selection is a fundamental to the operation of the world as metabolism is fundamental to the operation of the body, then certainly the world would bear the signs of evolution in the same way Adam's body bore the signs of having had breakfast that morning (note also this argues for Adam having a belly button). There would be no point in arguing over whether human precursors disproved creation, because the logic of creation requires them to be there. There would be no point in arguing over whether those precursors ever, in fact, existed, beause there would be no empirical observation or theological argument that could sway the question one way or another.
The minister was thrilled. Surely people would live and let live, go back to the things they knew best and leave others to do what they do best, unmolested. Unfortunately, this shows that while he was a clever man, he didn't understand human nature very well.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You are right, I concede. It is God on Channel 12 we turn to for the weather....God is the person we pay to help us when green mucus is clogging our lungs. The religous leaders were never also the same as the scientific leaders. It has been this way through all of history, Gods role hasn't changed.
I'd recommend you read 'An Introduction To "look around"' (Reality, Now). I would also recommend anything in the area of 'History' (The past, whenever). It may help you get a better grip on how the role of religion on this planet has shaped our scientific world....and yet now the scientific world is shaping the religous one. Study the times when religion overpowered science, and look at the conditions of the planets and how it impacted the religous beliefs and convictions of the people at the time. A big picture is your friend.
Quite plausible. Australian and Tasmanian aborigines, and other cultures in the area, have survived for thousands of years (on the order of 40,000+) without getting past stone-age hunter-gatherer culture. Technological innovation is not inevitable--conditions must be right for it. If people are stuck in a certain area, don't get exposed to new environments, etc, they might not progress very much.
You look at, say, modern wheat and thing, "sure, any idiot can see how useful it is". But it only became that after a long period of development from wild stock. Try to live off the wild stuff and you'll either switch to hunter-gatherer or starve.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Are you implying that the scientific method is just a thinly-veiled form of faith? As experiments are repeated and results are confirmed over time, the probability of a result that hasn't "happened so far" approaches zero. Is it mere faith that the Sun will rise again tomorrow? That just because that that's what has happened "so far", it's still possible that when I wake up tomorrow the Sun will be replaced by a giant penguin? If that's not what you're implying, then you need to reword your argument. If it is what you're implying, then you need to de-ass your head.
If people want to believe in God, fine. It would be fine if their belief didn't affect non-believers, but it does. Extensively. It directly influences their attitudes toward science, education, and law.
Its not "fine" to me that belief in god is a criteria for who can become President (and presumably other political offices).
I'd rather not have my members of congress legislating with the guidance of some moral compass pulled out of their favorite fairy tale. So no, it's not fucking "fine".
"Paleoanthropologists now say that genetic and fossil evidence suggests that modern human species -- Homo sapiens -- evolved in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago...The world was in a glacial stage 125,000 to 195,000 years ago..."
This proves conclusively that modern humans are responsible for global warming. As soon as we developed, the Earth started warming up. We did not even need SUVs to cause global climate change.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Always is an awfully long freakin time and that's bullshit anyways. The idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is relatively recent one and developed from polytheistic religions comprised of decidedly non-omni beings. These developed from animistic beliefs that the world was actually a turtle swimming in the sea. No doubt this was just a cro-mag bedtime story originally, but their sapiens neighbors weren't smart enough to figure that out.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Bird got to fly.
Man got to sit and wonder. Why? Why? Why?
Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land.
Man got to tell himself - He understand.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I know of no single book that would give a good overall picture. A good place to start is to do some reading online about how some credit Christianity with causing the Dark Ages (or contributing).
Recently, some religious folks have tried to prove the opposite, and that religion is still spurring scientific progress. Some are also now claiming proof that Christianity is what helped us out of the dark ages. Do some reading...I think you will find it entertaining.
Also, I find it interesting to tie in reading about the decision making process, how the brain works, and how our decisions are not as logical as we believe. The religious convictions seem to be something we have evolved into....especially when even the most die-hard anti-religious person is often seen praying when their fight-or-flight kicks in.
"they feel if the Creation story is an allegory, what else is an allegory?"
Interesting argument, but a logical fallacy.
On this basis we should reject the "Good Samaritan" as a parable (i.e. a fictitious story): "If the 'Good Samaritan' is a parable, what else is a parable?"
The obvious reply is: "Whatever else has the characteristics of a parable."
The very early stories in the Bible have a few features in common with figurative stories - e.g. the story of the Garden of Eden has a talking snake (and explains how he begins to crawl); an idyllic garden; an infinite and invisible God who goes for walks in the garden and acts as though he cannot see Adam hiding behind a bush; one or two "magic" fruit trees that give you either all knowledge, or immortal life; a man called "Man" (="Adam" in Hebrew) and a woman called "Life" (="Eve" in Hebrew) - i.e. in the literary context, these characters are very plausible representatives of the whole human race, rather than actual historical people; etc. If you insist that the story "must" be historically accurate narrative, then you will dismiss all these literary characteristics. But if you start from the position of "I don't know beforehand what kind of genre ytis passage is", then the signs are all there.
In other words, the Bible is certainly a mixture of literary genres, and you have to work out what kind of genre any passage is by considering its literary qualities. Fundamentalists try to dictate what the genre is. They build a castle of faith based on their *fallible* claims about what a passage "must" means, and then call it *infallible* because "they are just believing what the Bible says". No they are not. They are believing a very fallible human interpretation of the Bible, and then calling *their interpretation* "the Word of God". This is self-delusion.
I am anarch of all I survey.