Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco • Hacker News Board

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#71

Post by Clubber » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

tarsinge wrote: post #66

Clubber wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 encountere…

I would guess that's up to each researcher. When I was familiarizing myself about some of this on Wikipedia, I noticed that by the time homo erectus came around our predecessors already knew how to control fire and make clothing.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#72

Post by mercer » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

djkrudy wrote: post #33

gnaritas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently It really isn't; this doesn't change anything, we previously knew we were at least 200k years old, that fact is still true. We now know we're at least 300k years old, that fact will also always remain true. What's at fault is your understanding of what science is saying rather than what it's actually saying. > that I can help wondering why we speak so conf…

But seriously, what the heck makes more current information better? We aren't talking about significant technological advancements in the last 30 years in dating. What about releasing the click bait news story when a date is corroborated by a new piece of evidence, instead of every time some new find is dated we change the scientifically accepted just to the new number. gnaritas, its hilarious how you ask a very legi…

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#73

Post by whitingx » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

apeace wrote: post #18

> Since 2004, Dr. Hublin and his colleagues have been working through layers of rocks on a desert hillside at Jebel Irhoud. I have so much respect for archeologists. Spending over a decade in one spot, literally on hands and knees, digging and meticulously sifting through anything that is found, is to me the epitome of dedication to a craft. But another part of me thinks: there must be a better way! I know that exped…

> have there ever been any advances in this field to make the process go faster

Speed Archaeology! https://youtu.be/m11VH-dUPEk ;)

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#74

Post by nkrisc » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

jansho wrote: post #44

nkrisc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great but it doesn't prove anything. You're free to believe anything you like, or anything you intuit, but that has no bearing on whether it's true or not. So, the reason I find those two origin stories can't coexist? Simply because there is no evidence to suggest one of them is remotely true. It's nothing personal. I too believe many things, but I'm happy to admit I may very well be wrong. Call them operating…

Yes but see, the same uncertainty also goes to you. Evidence may paint a picture, but evidence is also continuously fluid so there is never a correct picture. A more accurate picture, possibly. But even so, we're not just ruled by rational thinking. Even scientists are driven by a thing called wonder and curiosity - you need those facilities together to make progress. Call intuition as one tool to take advantage of.…

Of course I can only be as certain as the evidence we have. I also know that our understanding will probably evolve and change and we learn new information.

As for chance? Well, for every Earth (only one we know of) there are (as far as we know) billions of dead planets. After billions and billions of dead planets I'm perfectly will to accept that one with life is just chance.

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#75

Post by jansho » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 8:16 AM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #74

jansho wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but see, the same uncertainty also goes to you. Evidence may paint a picture, but evidence is also continuously fluid so there is never a correct picture. A more accurate picture, possibly. But even so, we're not just ruled by rational thinking. Even scientists are driven by a thing called wonder and curiosity - you need those facilities together to make progress. Call intuition as one tool to take advantage of.…

Of course I can only be as certain as the evidence we have. I also know that our understanding will probably evolve and change and we learn new information. As for chance? Well, for every Earth (only one we know of) there are (as far as we know) billions of dead planets. After billions and billions of dead planets I'm perfectly will to accept that one with life is just chance.

That's not the only chance though. It's a chance within a chance within so many other chances over many, many years, from the moment the Big Bang happened.

For sure our knowledge will grow, but I am not so sure if this will apply to our understanding. Yet the more we know, the more we seem we don't know!

Hey thanks for letting me indulge in this thread, I was hoping to test my thoughts and learn something new (I did) :)

Re: Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco

#76

Post by dang » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 8:22 PM UTC

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…

Please let's not have generic science vs. religion threads (a.k.a. flamewars, because that's what they turn into). This comment wasn't so bad, but it predictably led to much worse because it's impossible to say new or substantive things about anything so generic.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508125 and marked it off-topic.