A re-writing of history, again

[pshun2404]

As many know, Petralona Man was originally dated to between 70,000 and 700,000 years old based on the surrounding geology. BUT...it made sense that a later human(s) could have wandered into or explored or taken up residence in a much older cave. Since then other dating methods have been applied shrinking the margin on both sides. Recent ESR dating has narrowed it further to be between 160,000 to 240,000 years old.

The problem is that even if we take the youngest possible date so far (160,000 yrs), that still means homo-sapiens were alive and well in Greece 100,000 years before the alleged out of Africa migration 60,000 years ago. There is so much mounting evidence against this incorrect yet accepted timeline (that was taught as established for decades) that I believe it is time they admit they made a mistake and then re-evaluate.

Some scientists who agree have proposed multiple migrations possibly stretching back closer to 200,000 years, but that still does not adequately explain how homo-sapien Neandertalis pre-dates the Petralona skull but at least another 100,000 years or more or the realities of Dali man in Asia (admittedly an archaic homo-sapien possibly 200,000years ago). Conclusion?

The Evolutionary Paleoanthropologist’s spin has simply been wr-wr-wrong, once again, yet taught as correct for many generations. Eventually textbooks and encyclopedias will once again have to be re-written to correct their hypothesis based interpretations and subsequent erroneous conclusions. What are your thoughts?

 

[Speedwell]

As many know, Petralona Man was originally dated to between 70,000 and 700,000 years old based on the surrounding geology. BUT...it made sense that a later human(s) could have wandered into or explored or taken up residence in a much older cave. Since then other dating methods have been applied shrinking the margin on both sides. Recent ESR dating has narrowed it further to be between 160,000 to 240,000 years old.

The problem is that even if we take the youngest possible date so far (160,000 yrs), that still means homo-sapiens were alive and well in Greece 100,000 years before the alleged out of Africa migration 60,000 years ago. There is so much mounting evidence against this incorrect yet accepted timeline (that was taught as established for decades) that I believe it is time they admit they made a mistake and then re-evaluate.

Some scientists who agree have proposed multiple migrations possibly stretching back closer to 200,000 years, but that still does not adequately explain how homo-sapien Neandertalis pre-dates the Petralona skull but at least another 100,000 years or more or the realities of Dali man in Asia (admittedly an archaic homo-sapien possibly 200,000years ago). Conclusion?

The Evolutionary Paleoanthropologist’s spin has simply been wr-wr-wrong, once again, yet taught as correct for many generations. Eventually textbooks and encyclopedias will once again have to be re-written to correct their hypothesis based interpretations and subsequent erroneous conclusions. What are your thoughts?

Sounds like science in action to me. Taught as correct? Properly taught, science always contains the provision that any theory only represents the best eplanation for the phenomenon to date, with the understanding that it is always potentially subject to revision or rejection when new data comes to light. That's understood.

 

[sfs]

The problem is that even if we take the youngest possible date so far (160,000 yrs), that still means homo-sapiens were alive and well in Greece 100,000 years before the alleged out of Africa migration 60,000 years ago.

What makes you think it's anatomically modern Homo sapiens? No one seems to consider it such.

 

[Gene2memE]

The problem lies not in the science, but in an incomplete or faulty understanding of the evidence.

The Out of Africa Theort posits multiple waves of migrations. These didn't start 60,000 years ago, but more like 200,000 to 270,000 years ago.

Pshun - you need to push back your dates for the "alledged out of Africa migration" by at least 140,000 years. Once you do, there's clearly no inconsistency between the OoA Theory as it is understood and taught and the Paltrona Man dating.

Hope this clears the confusion.

 

[juvenissun]

What makes you think it's anatomically modern Homo sapiens? No one seems to consider it such.

So, how much (%) were they modern Homo sapiens?
Can we even evaluate this question? What is the threshold percentage for any of them to be qualified as a modern Homo sapiens?

 

[pshun2404]

Sounds like science in action to me. Taught as correct? Properly taught, science always contains the provision that any theory only represents the best explanation for the phenomenon to date, with the understanding that it is always potentially subject to revision or rejection when new data comes to light. That's understood.

That is definitely what it really is. The theory is rarely factual, though based on an interpretation of facts, therefore it should never be presented as something we have established. In this area of science we really do not "know" very much, it is mostly conjecture, and consensus of people trained in the presuppositions.

 

[pshun2404]

What makes you think it's anatomically modern Homo sapiens? No one seems to consider it such.

"Anatomically Modern"? Did I not say "archaic" homo sapiens?

 

[pshun2404]

The problem lies not in the science, but in an incomplete or faulty understanding of the evidence.

The Out of Africa Theort posits multiple waves of migrations. These didn't start 60,000 years ago, but more like 200,000 to 270,000 years ago.

Pshun - you need to push back your dates for the "alledged out of Africa migration" by at least 140,000 years. Once you do, there's clearly no inconsistency between the OoA Theory as it is understood and taught and the Paltrona Man dating.

Hope this clears the confusion.

No confusion here. I always thought those who hypothesized the multiple migrations had it right. Who knows, one day we may discover it was more like a million years ago that homo-sapiens appeared.

 

[pshun2404]

So, how much (%) were they modern Homo sapiens?
Can we even evaluate this question? What is the threshold percentage for any of them to be qualified as a modern Homo sapiens?

More likely these early homo-sapiens only differed a few % genetically from one another, and that in itself after many centuries of geophysical separation.

 

[Speedwell]

That is definitely what it really is. The theory is rarely factual, though based on an interpretation of facts, therefore it should never be presented as something we have established. In this area of science we really do not "know" very much, it is mostly conjecture, and consensus of people trained in the presuppositions.

It's as I said. Creationists' complaints, "Science said it was a fact but now they've changed it" don't cut any ice at all.

 

[juvenissun]

The Evolutionary Paleoanthropologist’s spin has simply been wr-wr-wrong, once again, yet taught as correct for many generations. Eventually textbooks and encyclopedias will once again have to be re-written to correct their hypothesis based interpretations and subsequent erroneous conclusions. What are your thoughts?

My long-time thought:
Homo sapiens is one of the most most recent "evolved life form" according to evolutionist. They have the most abundant fossil remains and has the best fossil preservation of all. Yet, see how much can we be certain about the evolution history of Homo sapiens? We need to use several special disciplines such as anthropology, genetics, to handle this study.

If we can not even make the evolution history of Homo sapients clear, how much confidence could we have on the evolution story of any other species?

 

[pshun2404]

It's as I said. Creationists' complaints, "Science said it was a fact but now they've changed it" don't cut any ice at all.

First off YOU believe in a Creator (does that make you a "creationist"?).

Secondly, I fully agree that objective scientists change the hypothesis as new data emerges (or else we would still be stuck with Newtonian Mechanics as an explanation for the Universe), while others re-interpret data to fit the accepted presupposition (the others are not to be faulted for that). The former moves scientific knowledge forward and the latter dwarfs progress.

So this only becomes a problem when the latter group has so emphasized the presupposition as to make it appear to be established and now rather than just honestly saying "we were incorrect" they argue to maintain the status quo. They allow the theory to dominate interpretation of data rather then allowing the data to shape the theory.

Science did not get anything wrong but some scientists did!

 

[pshun2404]

My long-time thought:
Homo sapiens is one of the most most recent "evolved life form" according to evolutionist. They have the most abundant fossil remains and has the best fossil preservation of all. Yet, see how much can we be certain about the evolution history of Homo sapiens? We need to use several special disciplines such as anthropology, genetics, to handle this study.

If we can not even make the evolution history of Homo sapients clear, how much confidence could we have on the evolution story of any other species?

Indeed! As per our most recent work with genetics all these early human beings share about 99.7% of the genome in common (around the same ratio as that shared by a person of Nordic Norwegian lineage and a person of strong Cantonese lineage today). But the hard line late homo sapien migration theorists refuse to consider this as significant (it doesn't fit the theory). In their "fit the preconceived box" approach these simply cannot be allowed to be thought of as human beings!

 

[Speedwell]

First off YOU believe in a Creator (does that make you a "creationist"?).

No. I believe in a creator but I am not a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant.

Secondly, I fully agree that objective scientists change the hypothesis as new data emerges (or else we would still be stuck with Newtonian Mechanics as an explanation for the Universe), while others re-interpret data to fit the accepted presupposition (the others are not to be faulted for that). The former moves scientific knowledge forward and the latter dwarfs progress.

So this only becomes a problem when the latter group has so emphasized the presupposition as to make it appear to be established and now rather than just honestly saying "we were incorrect" they argue to maintain the status quo. They allow the theory to dominate interpretation of data rather then allowing the data to shape the theory.

Science did not get anything wrong but some scientists did!

Who are these "they" besides figments of your imagination?

 

[pshun2404]

No. I believe in a creator but I am not a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant.

Who are these "they" besides figments of your imagination?

a) Great! Neither am I, and
b) Those who tenaciously cling to the accepted scenario of the major emergence of "modern" homo sapiens as being 60,000 years ago, and that other human indicators are actually different species not homo sapiens.

 

[sfs]

So, how much (%) were they modern Homo sapiens?

I don't know what this question means.

 

[sfs]

"Anatomically Modern"? Did I not say "archaic" homo sapiens?

Sorry, I thought you were claiming something else. I'm not sure what you are claiming, mind you. . . In any case, the skull might have been archaic Homo sapiens, or it might have been Homo erectus, or some ancestor of erectus. No real way to tell.

 

[Jimmy D]

b) Those who tenaciously cling to the accepted scenario of the major emergence of "modern" homo sapiens as being 60,000 years ago, and that other human indicators are actually different species not homo sapiens.

I don't see any evidence of hidden agendas or scenario clinging, just attempts to further our knowledge.

I've been trying to do a bit of reading in the hope of contributing to the conversation but I'm having trouble finding much about it, I did find a cool looking photo of it though....

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know what this question means.

Significant question is easy to avoid.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't see any evidence of hidden agendas or scenario clinging, just attempts to further our knowledge.

I've been trying to do a bit of reading in the hope of contributing to the conversation but I'm having trouble finding much about it, I did find a cool looking photo of it though....

That's pretty flat and sloped looking for Homosapien. Could be archaic, I guess.