'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

[royalscot]

BBC News - 'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

"So this new discovery pushes the human line back by 400,000 years or so, very close to its likely (pre-human) ancestor. Its mix of primitive and advanced features makes the Ledi jaw a good transitional form between (Lucy) and later humans."



Prof Stringer added: "These new studies leave us with an even more complex picture of early humans than we thought, and they challenge us to consider the very definition of what it is to be human. Are we defined by our small teeth and jaws, our large brain, our long legs, tool-making, or some combination of these traits?"

 

[p_rehbein]

Excerpt from Article:

Scientists have unearthed the jawbone of what they claim is one of the very first humans.
The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged.
The discovery in Ethiopia suggests climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.


1) Note this: "OF WHAT THEY CLAIM.............."
2) Note this: "2.8 million year old.........." Carbon dating? No problems with that right?
3) Note this: "suggesg CLIMATE CHANGE"

Now, that last one is ROTFLOL funny................kinda takes all of the air out of man made climate change today right?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It amuses me how they find fragments of stuff, assume it is from this or that, arbitrarily assign ages that never existed to them, and then weave such elaborate mythologies around them.

Then again I suppose if they said they found some bones from a monkey that was only a few hundred to a few thousand years old it would be of no hype and they'd get little or no funding.

 

[p_rehbein]

My initial thought was: Uh, so they found the remains of Adam? Seriously?

 

[JesusLives]

My first thought was......Really? They didn't have humans in Ethiopia until now? What were they before? Aliens?......

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

My initial thought was: Uh, so they found the remains of Adam? Seriously?

Mine was similar: "What was Adam doing in Ethiopia?"

 

[Mitspa]

What a fairy tale these folks are trying their best to tell....a long long time ago.... after nothing blew up and made everything? lol How silly can folks be?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

BBC News - 'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

"So this new discovery pushes the human line back by 400,000 years or so, very close to its likely (pre-human) ancestor. Its mix of primitive and advanced features makes the Ledi jaw a good transitional form between (Lucy) and later humans."



Prof Stringer added: "These new studies leave us with an even more complex picture of early humans than we thought, and they challenge us to consider the very definition of what it is to be human. Are we defined by our small teeth and jaws, our large brain, our long legs, tool-making, or some combination of these traits?"

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Lizathrose]

Excerpt from Article:

Scientists have unearthed the jawbone of what they claim is one of the very first humans.
The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged.
The discovery in Ethiopia suggests climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.


1) Note this: "OF WHAT THEY CLAIM.............."
2) Note this: "2.8 million year old.........." Carbon dating? No problems with that right?
3) Note this: "suggesg CLIMATE CHANGE"

Now, that last one is ROTFLOL funny................kinda takes all of the air out of man made climate change today right?

Carbon dating, in reference to Carbon-14 or radiocarbon dating, isn't used on specimens older than ~50,000 years and is extremely accurate and reliable within its limits. Radiocarbon dating wasn't used on the specimen listed in the article. Because Earth's climate has a natural tendency to experience periodic, gradual changes, anthropogenic climate change that's currently occurring has nothing to do with Earth as it existed during this particular specimen's lifetime.

You're almost acting as if modern climate change is the only instance in recent history in which Earth's global climate has shifted. No climatologist would dispute that natural changes to the planet's atmosphere occur and continue to occur. Artificial climate change, however, is another matter entirely.

 

[Lizathrose]

It amuses me how they find fragments of stuff, assume it is from this or that, arbitrarily assign ages that never existed to them, and then weave such elaborate mythologies around them.

Then again I suppose if they said they found some bones from a monkey that was only a few hundred to a few thousand years old it would be of no hype and they'd get little or no funding.

"Fragments of stuff"? A human jawbone isn't something that can be arbitrarily found anywhere. Specific characteristics associated with a complete fossil sample can be, and usually are, reliably attributed to specific parts of specific organisms. An intact section of a jawbone complete with teeth in particular is certainly far more than a random "fragment of something" that could be anything. A statement like that would get you laughed out of pretty much any research department dealing in paleontology.

The conspiratorial tone in the latter part of your comment is unfortunate and decidedly misinformed. General research isn't funded and carried out by "hype" falsely created by scientists with profit and incentives in mind, and the transparency and inherent skepticism of the scientific method helps to ensure that. I'm sorry you feel the way you do with respect to paleontology and science in general.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

"Specific characteristics associated with a complete fossil sample can be, and usually are, reliably attributed to specific parts of specific organisms. An intact section of a jawbone complete with teeth in particular is certainly far more than a random "fragment of something" that could be anything.

By whom can it be "reliably attributed"? And by what criteria? How is that many times, such a find has been attributed to ancient humans and, later, a retraction was issued because the "fossil" was found to be the jawbone of a modern ape or chimpanzee? These kinds of mistakes occur far more often that legitimate finds, and don't go reported in the media, because doing so would embarrass the scholars who made the attribution in the first place.

The conspiratorial tone in the latter part of your comment is unfortunate and decidedly misinformed. General research isn't funded and carried out by "hype" falsely created by scientists with profit and incentives in mind, and the transparency and inherent skepticism of the scientific method helps to ensure that.

But they still fail, and the purpose of the "hype" is not profit or even academic incentive. It is the undying insistence that everything is an accident without a Designer, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do with respect to paleontology and science in general.

No need to feel sorry. They've brought the derision on themselves by trying to "box with God." They may not deserve the derision -- in fact, they deserve our pity -- but their arrogance precludes loving correction.

 

[PennEd]

Excerpt from Article:

Scientists have unearthed the jawbone of what they claim is one of the very first humans.
The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged.
The discovery in Ethiopia suggests climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.


1) Note this: "OF WHAT THEY CLAIM.............."
2) Note this: "2.8 million year old.........." Carbon dating? No problems with that right?
3) Note this: "suggesg CLIMATE CHANGE"

Now, that last one is ROTFLOL funny................kinda takes all of the air out of man made climate change today right?

Various "scientific" fields have literally degraded to nothing more than a joke.

 

[p_rehbein]

I know this is wrong of me to say.........but the question is begging to be asked........

"When they found him, was he really, really hungry?"


(Hey, I said it was wrong.............geeessshhhh)

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I know this is wrong of me to say.........but the question is begging to be asked........

"When they found him, was he really, really hungry?"


(Hey, I said it was wrong.............geeessshhhh)

Self-knowledge and confession are all well and good, but ...

There are nevertheless consequences for every action.

And that, boys and girls, is the closest you will ever get to my therapist mode. Unless you live the Kansas City area and unwittingly make a appointment with me..

 

[GodIsSalvation]

"Fragments of stuff"? A human jawbone isn't something that can be arbitrarily found anywhere. Specific characteristics associated with a complete fossil sample can be, and usually are, reliably attributed to specific parts of specific organisms. An intact section of a jawbone complete with teeth in particular is certainly far more than a random "fragment of something" that could be anything. A statement like that would get you laughed out of pretty much any research department dealing in paleontology.

The conspiratorial tone in the latter part of your comment is unfortunate and decidedly misinformed. General research isn't funded and carried out by "hype" falsely created by scientists with profit and incentives in mind, and the transparency and inherent skepticism of the scientific method helps to ensure that. I'm sorry you feel the way you do with respect to paleontology and science in general.

I saw the jawbone, just click the link. It's not a complete specimen, it's a rock with a few teeth. Don't see no time stamp or signature on it.

 

[PennEd]

Carbon dating, in reference to Carbon-14 or radiocarbon dating, isn't used on specimens older than ~50,000 years and is extremely accurate and reliable within its limits. Radiocarbon dating wasn't used on the specimen listed in the article. Because Earth's climate has a natural tendency to experience periodic, gradual changes, anthropogenic climate change that's currently occurring has nothing to do with Earth as it existed during this particular specimen's lifetime.

You're almost acting as if modern climate change is the only instance in recent history in which Earth's global climate has shifted. No climatologist would dispute that natural changes to the planet's atmosphere occur and continue to occur. Artificial climate change, however, is another matter entirely.

Funny that atheists stomp their feet, and attempt to belittle dissenters, with the same mantra, "the science is settled" with both the lie of evolution and the lie of man-made global warming. They desperately need to believe ANYTHING other than embracing the the Truth of a sovereign God, that they will be held accountable to. As this video so simply asks, why can't they use the scientific method and demonstrate how carbon molecules magically came together to form life, not to mention where the carbon came from in the 1st place?[video=youtube;2qZGla9QPtQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qZGla9QPtQ[/video]

 

[Lizathrose]

By whom can it be "reliably attributed"? And by what criteria? How is that many times, such a find has been attributed to ancient humans and, later, a retraction was issued because the "fossil" was found to be the jawbone of a modern ape or chimpanzee? These kinds of mistakes occur far more often that legitimate finds, and don't go reported in the media, because doing so would embarrass the scholars who made the attribution in the first place.

"By whom"? The general consensus of whatever research department in question is examining a particular specimen, and the corresponding consensus of other, relevant scientific authorities that independently agree with the original team's reports.

"By what criteria"? That's highly contingent on the specimen in question; here, various criteria, such as the relatively small molars that can be attributed to humans and distinguished from non-human hominins (as mentioned in the article, assuming you haven't yet read it) alongside the shape and structure of the teeth in general, as well as their fit on the jaw (specifically, their proximity to one another), are good indicators that what we're looking at is probably from an early human or a closely related species.

As far as premature conclusions go, the vast majority of instances that can be cited tend to entail much more incomplete samples that haven't been rigorously examined and/or independently verified by separate research teams, and generally, these "conclusions" -- which are anything but in scientific terms -- are often quickly dismantled by fellow researchers.

These premature conclusions generally don't reach media outlets because it's more prudent to wait for independent verification than to immediately announce to the world that your team has found the holy grail, not because of some silly, ridiculous conspiratorial attempt to save face. You must understand that a conclusion reached by one individual, one team, or one department over a short period of time isn't tantamount to a general consensus. Mistakes inherently correct themselves through peer review in the scientific method, and mistakes are a natural part *of* the scientific method.

their arrogance precludes loving correction.

You've demonstrated a lack of any expertise in the field of paleontology. You're in no position to offer such a statement with respect to the article.

 

[Lizathrose]

Funny that atheists stomp their feet, and attempt to belittle dissenters, with the same mantra, "the science is settled" with both the lie of evolution and the lie of man-made global warming. They desperately need to believe ANYTHING other than embracing the the Truth of a sovereign God, that they will be held accountable to. As this video so simply asks, why can't they use the scientific method and demonstrate how carbon molecules magically came together to form life, not to mention where the carbon came from in the 1st place?

...? Nothing in this post appears to pertain to the article, or to my own original post.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

"By whom"? The general consensus of whatever research department in question is examining a particular specimen, and the corresponding consensus of other, relevant scientific authorities that independently agree with the original team's reports.

Right. It all comes down to opinion. There isn't any solid science to it, because any two paleontogists can look at a fossil and come up with two entirely different analyses of what it represents. In short, it's educated guesswork, not solid science, not even good science. They can't even explain how fossils that are absolutely, positively, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt known to be X years old can show up in a rock formation they absolutely, positively, beyond-a-shadow- of-a-doubt know is ten times or thirty times older than that. It's impossible, yet there it is. And they stutter, stammer, mumble, talk obscurely about "earthquakes" or "unstable strata" that are totally meaningless relative to the issue, and then walk away, hoping we forget they were clueless.

"By what criteria"? That's highly contingent on the specimen in question; here, various criteria, such as the relatively small molars that can be attributed to humans and distinguished from non-human hominins ...

I can take you to a dentist's office and show you a variance in the size of known human molars, pictured in his x-rays, that such "criteria" would lead a paleontologist to conclude the teeth came from "hominids" millions of years apart on the evolutionary scale, instead of the three inches apart on Google maps that the actual people who own the molars live today.

... (as mentioned in the article, assuming you haven't yet read it) ...

A condescending attitude gets you no more points than the arrogance of these guys calling this a "hominid" gets them, Liza. I'd suggest you attempt to remember who we are in Christ during these discussions, capice?

...alongside the shape and structure of the teeth in general, as well as their fit on the jaw (specifically, their proximity to one another), are good indicators that what we're looking at is probably from an early human or a closely related species.

So the suggestion is that primitive humans, among other things, had teeth that were in proximity to one another as opposed to "hominids" or pure apes, is that right? OK, Liza, then take a look at these:

That's the hominid jawbone from Ethiopia.

That's a comparison of a modern chimp, "Lucy" and a modern human. Tell me, Liza, which teeth are in "greater proximity"? Let me know when you reach a scientifically based conclusion, 'k?

As far as premature conclusions go, the vast majority of instances that can be cited tend to entail much more incomplete samples that haven't been rigorously examined and/or independently verified by separate research teams, and generally, these "conclusions" -- which are anything but in scientific terms -- are often quickly dismantled by fellow researchers.

These premature conclusions generally don't reach media outlets because it's more prudent to wait for independent verification than to immediately announce to the world that your team has found the holy grail, not because of some silly, ridiculous conspiratorial attempt to save face. You must understand that a conclusion reached by one individual, one team, or one department over a short period of time isn't tantamount to a general consensus. Mistakes inherently correct themselves through peer review in the scientific method, and mistakes are a natural part *of* the scientific method.

This is the typical song-and-dance excuse given at the time these "mistakes" show up in the public eye. This one is no more effective in dispelling the widely held view that paleontology is largely conjecture, mythology, and pseudoscience, a view that is far more common that I'm sure makes most in the field comfortable.

You've demonstrated a lack of any expertise in the field of paleontology. You're in no position to offer such a statement with respect to the article.

Why, thank you for that in-depth analysis of my expertise and where it lacks substance. I'll be sure to go back to school and correct that overlooked aspect of my education as soon as I can manage the time and effort.

And you're 20, is that right?

 

[PennEd]

...? Nothing in this post appears to pertain to the article, or to my own original post.

Liza, Your'e here on a fairly regular basis, you spend time, perhaps a lot, playing an online game that has a New Eden as it's setting. Maybe you aren't as self assured as you like to portray. Maybe your'e looking for TRUTH.

My Christian Brothers and Sisters, myself, and most importantly God love you. I'm sorry that I haven't showed that to you. It is our deepest desire that you would accept the perfect sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. If you were the ONLY person in the world that He needed to die for, He would have. We don't merely believe in Jesus and His death and resurrection, we KNOW it. There were things that I did on a regular basis that I knew were wrong and bad for me and there was NOTHING I could do to stop. Only accepting Jesus and receiving His Holy Spirit enabled me to stop. The world, and perhaps you, say "show me and I'll believe", Jesus says "believe and I'll show you" (paraphrase)

I pray in Jesus name that YOU will believe and accept.