Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#61

Post by hoppa_liza »

galago wrote: post #55
mturmon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, turns out there is a whole wiki page devoted to that and other methodologies for archaeological surveying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_survey_(archaeolog...

Non-invasive technologies are super-cool because we may not actually want to disturb stuff until we have the technology to do it properly. Some stuff we may never want to disturb for cultural or other reasons.

Just stressing the "other reasons" part. In some countries people actually advocate for leaving stuff like this buried for fear of corrupt gov. officials handing off what they find to smugglers.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#62

Post by Clubber »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #2

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

I believe the process goes something like this:

1. We find human remains we can date back 100,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 100,000 years old.

2. We find human remains we can date back 150,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 150,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 (sort of).

3. We find human remains we can date back 200,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 200,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 & #2 (sort of).

This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably.

An interesting paragraph I read in one of these articles on this recent discovery is that fossils this old are difficult to find because it requires an dry, arid area to survive. Assuming that humanity started in Africa will probably never be disproven because we would need to find a fossil older than 300,000 years that's not in Africa. I assume we think this based on the only evidence we have: we've only found the oldest fossils in Africa.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#63

Post by camus2 »

jansho wrote: post #16
camus2 wrote: post #7

But that's what exciting about science. It doesn't claim to come with ready made answers about our surroundings, humans discover things on their own. Sometimes humans get things wrong, and there is no shame in being wrong with science, it's part of the process, unlike "other domains" where people can or will never admin they are wrong, while still using the product of science every day, in contradiction to their own…

I don't know, the inability to admit being wrong is a human trait and can apply to anyone, including scientists and believers. Why does everyone think that there's only two "origin" stories and they're both mutually exclusive? I believe in evolution, and I'm a monotheist. I don't reach this conclusion very easily. Why not evolution as God's* way of creating things. *I hesitate to use this word because of the baggage…

> the inability to admit being wrong

If facts work against your theories, as a scientist, there is nothing you can do. You can deny facts all you want it doesn't matter. At the end of the day the scientific community will put your theories in the trash.

There is nothing to prove or to disprove with religion, it's based on faith, not on facts. If you're a christian you believe Jesus actually multiplied fishes. IF you're a muslim, you believe your prophet talked to archange Gabriel. These aren't facts. The existance of "angels" is not a fact, no more than the ability for men to multiply fishes.

You can't bullshit the scientific community forever with theories that aren't backed by anything.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#64

Post by [deleted] »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #5
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #2

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

It's either set the narrative based on evidence available or go off thousands of years of fables. I'm fine with resetting the narrative as we learn vs making bad assumptions.

[deleted]

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#65

Post by Razengan »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #2

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

> and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

I will always hope that we find some clue which suggests humans came from somewhere other than Earth. That would probably be the second best thing, after proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, to spur deep-space exploration.

I'd love some good science fiction based on that idea at least. Mars seems like a plausible candidate; We ruined it/were forced to leave, fled to Earth, culled the dinosaurs, and made here home.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#66

Post by tarsinge »

Clubber wrote: post #62
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #2

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

I believe the process goes something like this: 1. We find human remains we can date back 100,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 100,000 years old. 2. We find human remains we can date back 150,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 150,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 (sort of). 3. We find human remains we can date back 200,000 years. Press release that we know humans a…

> This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably.

Naive question, how do we draw the line between new species and variance of actual homo sapiens? I can imagine some interesting "specimens" of underlying skulls in some people I've encountered that could even fall in another extinct homo species from the images I've seen (sounds funny but it's real question).

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#67

Post by puranjay »

Razengan wrote: post #65
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #2

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

> and ultimately where we came from on this earth. I will always hope that we find some clue which suggests humans came from somewhere other than Earth. That would probably be the second best thing, after proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, to spur deep-space exploration. I'd love some good science fiction based on that idea at least. Mars seems like a plausible candidate; We ruined it/were forced to leave, fled…

I know there are probably some very good evolutionary explanations for human beings, but to a complete layman like me, the difference between human and ape intelligence are way too much to attribute to an accident of natural selection.

Plus, I think an extraterrestrial source for human life just makes me think of all sorts of geeky fantasies.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#68

Post by rurban »

yongjik wrote: post #43
genieyclo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. After 57,300 years, only 1/1024 of the original carbon 14 will remain. After 300,000 years, about 1.73 * 10^-16 of the original carbon will remain, which is obviously too little.

Carbon-14 decay is only usable up to max 70.000 years. But there exist many other long-lived isotopes to measure.

The uranium-thorium method, the potassium-argon method, and the rubidium-strontium method. Samples containing radioactive beryllium could be dated as far back as 10–30 million years. A newer method of radioactive tracing involves the use of a new clock, based on the radioactive decay of 235 uranium to 231 protactinium.

We'd really like to know why the known accurate methods didn't work in this case, and why they had to fall back to indirect measurements of the flint stones.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#69

Post by qarioz »

puranjay wrote: post #67
Razengan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and ultimately where we came from on this earth. I will always hope that we find some clue which suggests humans came from somewhere other than Earth. That would probably be the second best thing, after proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, to spur deep-space exploration. I'd love some good science fiction based on that idea at least. Mars seems like a plausible candidate; We ruined it/were forced to leave, fled…

I know there are probably some very good evolutionary explanations for human beings, but to a complete layman like me, the difference between human and ape intelligence are way too much to attribute to an accident of natural selection. Plus, I think an extraterrestrial source for human life just makes me think of all sorts of geeky fantasies.

What about hybridization? There's a hypothesis that once a primate mate with a pig and the resulting hybrid become humanity ancestor. It can explain a leap in evolution and explain things like lack of hair.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#70

Post by arunix »

jansho wrote: post #38
nkrisc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not evolution as "God's" way of creating things? Well, why not anything? You can posit anything you want, can you test it? Is there evidence to support it? Why monotheist? How do you know for certain there aren't more gods? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you test it? Could you admit your belief in monotheism could possibly be mistaken? We can ask "why not anything?" all day and not get anywhere so it'…

Well, "Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse. Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation. Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any stranger than our other what ifs. We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into b…

I used to be a monotheist and found the certainty it provided quite reassuring. It took a lot of time and contemplation in order to move beyond that, but now I'm quite comfortable to live with the uncertainty resulting from a non-faith outlook.

There are even some traditions that acknowledge the uncertainty of what we know e.g. [1]

But, after all, who knows, and who can say Whence it all came, and how creation happened? the gods themselves are later than creation, so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not, he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta

Post reply on HN