|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Neandethal Bones dated 2.5 mya | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riptowtan Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
I have been told by my friend's world civics teacher, that they found 2.5 mya neandethal bones in france in 2004. I have searched for the scientist's name on google and have searched for any truth to this in multiple searches and have come up with nothing. Have any of you guys heard of this discovery? According to this teacher he gets a hold of a lot of "underground" science stories that you can't find yet online. But since the bones were found in 2004 I am a little confused why I can't find anything yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
.25 mya, sure. 2.5 mya, no way. I'll promote this anyway in case someone knows where this story might have originated from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I have searched for the scientist's name on google and have searched for any truth to this in multiple searches and have come up with nothing. I think this is a sign that there is nothing to this rumor. In fact, if this was even based partly on some misreading of the actual science, I would have expected that Answers in Genesis would have something on it. If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riptowtan Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
Yeah i think this claim is entirely false, yet his teacher mocks me for questioning him and said something like "I'm the teacher, your just a kid." Im still insisting my friend to ask him for a source but he probably just heard it from one of his "underground" sources...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It generally seems to talk a long time for facts that disagree with evo models to be acknowledged......I could cite a well-known example but don't want to get banned.
On the other hand, the 2.5 million number has been presented as the origin of the homo genus or tool-making....that number may not be in vogue now, however. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...yet his teacher mocks me for questioning him.... Heh. So much for creationists claims that they are interested in open discussion. But what can we expect from a civics teacher? No offense meant to civics teachers, but in my experience that's the class they usually give to the wrestling coach. If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Until 1964, Australopithecus remains had been found in Africa, but remains of the oldest representative of the genus Homo had been recognized only in Asia. In that year, however, Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias, and John Napier announced the new species Homo habilis, or "handy man". They had to redefine the genus to accommodate this oldest form. The type specimen was a mandible, with associated postcranial bones, and a fragmentary cranial vault; Olduvai Hominid 7 (OH 7). They based their placement of OH 7 in Homo primarily on brain expansion. Until then, an arbitrary lower limit had been set between 700cc and 800cc as the cutoff for the genus Homo. With an estimated cranial capacity of 680cc, Leakey and his colleagues chose to lower this number to 600cc. While calling attention to anatomical differences between OH 7 and Australopithecus, they chose a behavior- the ability to make stone tools-to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils. The OH 7 mandible is shown at the top right. In the 1960s, many researchers argued that Homo habilis was not a valid species, and that the fossils attributed to H. habilis were really members of other species. But with the discovery of KNM ER 1470, acceptance of Homo habilis became universal. In hindsight, this seems strange since ER 1470 is now considered to belong to a species distinct from H. habilis. There is much debate Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case. Also shown are the KNM ER 1813 skull, OH 24, and part of the fragmentary KNM ER 1805 cranium. sahelanthropus tchadensis maybe he's thinking 1964 instead of 2004? and 2 million, not 2.5 million? dunno about the france thing. ask him again for a source. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Riptowtan,
According to this teacher he gets a hold of a lot of "underground" science stories that you can't find yet online. Like the National Enquirer? (cue Men In Black theme). The oldest official record I could find of neander fossils was ~200,000 years ago.
This site keeps fairly up to date with new discoveries and most current thinking on relationships, and has hot links on each branch for further information
Neanderthals quote: Older fossils could exist, but 2.5 million years is likely either a typo or from a highly questionable source. I also note that archaeologists are likely to have "news conferences" for new finds of special significance -- see Homo floriensis for example -- especially if they don't fit the normal picture. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Note that none of those examples are Neanderthals, but rather are different, earlier hominids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1592 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
i suppose. potato potata in my opinion. just was referencing the stone tool data really. the teacher seems to be being very vague.
I'm still not real sauvy with the technical considerations of the evolution of man. to me, a man is a man whether he was early man or modern man. i know that because of the complications of discerning what in the past is a part of the "man" tree that the names for the different era's are necessary. still a lot of digging going on, I'm curios what the future holds as we discover better preserved finds in area's we did not have access to in the past. the blood in dinosaur bones thing really was pretty cool, and I'm hoping to see similar finds as our technology grows. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I'm still not real sauvy with the technical considerations of the evolution of man. to me, a man is a man whether he was early man or modern man. i know that because of the complications of discerning what in the past is a part of the "man" tree that the names for the different era's are necessary. The hominids you referenced were a lot more like apes than what we would identify as "men."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It generally seems to talk a long time for facts that disagree with evo models to be acknowledged...... How would we test this proposition? You'd have to find one first. However, it does not take long for a creationist lie to spread round the Internet. Therefore, this can't be a standard piece of creationist crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
randman writes: It generally seems to talk a long time for facts that disagree with evo models to be acknowledged......I could cite a well-known example but don't want to get banned. I can promise that if you continue taking off-topic swipes at management that you will be suspended. I can promise that if you consistently raise off-topic issues such as Piltdown that you will be suspended. I can promise that if you begin using charges of dishonesty as the foundation of your rebuttals that you will be suspended. I can promise that if you reply to this message that you will be suspended. I can promise that if you fail to follow moderator requests that you will be suspended. I can promise that you have nothing to worry about should you follow the Forum Guidelines and make sure your posts address the topic and consist only of evidence and argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dr Adequate writes: However, it does not take long for a creationist lie to spread round the Internet. Therefore, this can't be a standard piece of creationist crap. Please do not descend to Randman's level, you'll only risk the same sanctions he's already on the brink of receiving.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024