Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neandethal Bones dated 2.5 mya
Riptowtan
Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 1 of 20 (456657)
02-19-2008 1:27 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-19-2008 2:26 PM Riptowtan has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2008 2:29 PM Riptowtan has not replied
 Message 8 by tesla, posted 02-19-2008 3:57 PM Riptowtan has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2008 4:01 PM Riptowtan has not replied
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2008 4:58 PM Riptowtan has not replied
 Message 19 by websnarf, posted 11-30-2009 8:53 AM Riptowtan has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 20 (456671)
02-19-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Riptowtan
02-19-2008 1:27 PM


.25 mya, sure. 2.5 mya, no way. I'll promote this anyway in case someone knows where this story might have originated from.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Riptowtan, posted 02-19-2008 1:27 PM Riptowtan has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 20 (456673)
02-19-2008 2:27 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 20 (456677)
02-19-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Riptowtan
02-19-2008 1:27 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Riptowtan, posted 02-19-2008 1:27 PM Riptowtan has not replied

  
Riptowtan
Junior Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 02-19-2008


Message 5 of 20 (456692)
02-19-2008 3:23 PM


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...

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 02-19-2008 3:34 PM Riptowtan has not replied
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2008 3:40 PM Riptowtan has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 20 (456695)
02-19-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Riptowtan
02-19-2008 3:23 PM


may be true actually
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Riptowtan, posted 02-19-2008 3:23 PM Riptowtan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2008 6:23 PM randman has not replied
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 02-19-2008 6:42 PM randman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (456697)
02-19-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Riptowtan
02-19-2008 3:23 PM


...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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Riptowtan, posted 02-19-2008 3:23 PM Riptowtan has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 8 of 20 (456701)
02-19-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Riptowtan
02-19-2008 1:27 PM


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 as to the number of species that existed in Homo 2 million years ago, and KNM ER 1470 is now assigned to the species Homo rudolfensis. The name Homo habilis is reserved primarily for the Olduvai material and several other specimens. The OH 62 partial skeleton of a female H. habilis provides another interesting twist in the debate about early members of the genus Homo.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Riptowtan, posted 02-19-2008 1:27 PM Riptowtan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 02-19-2008 5:01 PM tesla has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 20 (456702)
02-19-2008 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Riptowtan
02-19-2008 1:27 PM


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:
Neanderthals are known from Europe and western Asia from about 200,000 years to about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record and were replaced in Europe by anatomically modern forms.
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Riptowtan, posted 02-19-2008 1:27 PM Riptowtan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 02-19-2008 7:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 10 of 20 (456711)
02-19-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by tesla
02-19-2008 3:57 PM


Note that none of those examples are Neanderthals, but rather are different, earlier hominids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tesla, posted 02-19-2008 3:57 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 02-19-2008 5:34 PM Rahvin has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 11 of 20 (456717)
02-19-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rahvin
02-19-2008 5:01 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 02-19-2008 5:01 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 02-19-2008 6:09 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 20 (456721)
02-19-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by tesla
02-19-2008 5:34 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by tesla, posted 02-19-2008 5:34 PM tesla has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 20 (456724)
02-19-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
02-19-2008 3:34 PM


Re: may be true actually
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 02-19-2008 3:34 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 02-19-2008 6:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 20 (456727)
02-19-2008 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
02-19-2008 3:34 PM


Re: may be true actually
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 02-19-2008 3:34 PM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 20 (456728)
02-19-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2008 6:23 PM


Re: may be true actually
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2008 6:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024