Live data from Hacker News

210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

latimes.com

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#31
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember specifics from college, but yes, I think there is uranium pretty much everywhere. Oceans, rocks, dirt, maybe not airborne, but everywhere else.

There is actually enough in the oceans that people have proposed concentrating it for commercial extraction. Probably not viable, but surprising to think about.

Same goes for all sorts of elements, like Gold.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#32

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the two skulls found practically "nose-to-nose" are 40,000 years apart in age? How do two humanoid skulls coincidentally end up right next to each other with 40,000 years gap between them?

What’s the margin of error on these dating methods? Seems like a simpler explanation is that one of the dates is wrong.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#33

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the two skulls found practically "nose-to-nose" are 40,000 years apart in age? How do two humanoid skulls coincidentally end up right next to each other with 40,000 years gap between them?

It's a good burial place and/or a good place to preserve bones.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#34
post #7

> When bone is buried in the ground, it can absorb U-238 from the environment. How? Is there traceable amount of Uranium-238 in every handful of dirt around the world?

It seems like it should be the opposite right? There is no uranium being exchanged with the environment after burial, so you can determine the age by how much has decayed.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#35

Take the dates with a grain of salt. Nobody ever got a grant or a paper published for revising towards a younger date. No discovery in that.

> Nobody ever got a grant or a paper published for revising towards a younger date.

Really? Is there a published paper with evidence supporting this claim?

Post reply on HN