Culture Darwinism Human evolution science education

Human origins story rewritten again? This time by skulls “shockingly like ours”… 300 kya

Spread the love

Not in sub-Saharan Africa?

Remains from Morocco dated to 315,000 years ago push back our species’ origins by 100,000 years — and suggest we didn’t evolve only in East Africa.

“Until now, the common wisdom was that our species emerged probably rather quickly somewhere in a ‘Garden of Eden’ that was located most likely in sub-Saharan Africa,” says Jean-Jacques Hublin, an author of the study and a director at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Now, “I would say the Garden of Eden in Africa is probably Africa — and it’s a big, big garden.” Hublin was one of the leaders of the decade-long excavation at the Moroccan site, called Jebel Irhoud. Ewen Callaway, Nature More.

From Erin Brodwin at The Independent:

Precisely when and where did our species emerge? Anthropologists have struggled with that question for decades, and scattered clues had suggested the answer lay somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago.

But new evidence outlined in two papers published in the journal Nature challenges that hypothesis. Instead, the authors describe recently discovered remains that suggest the first Homo sapiens showed up more than 100,000 years earlier than we thought in a place many experts didn’t suspect. More.

A principal investigator is Jean-Jacques Hublin.

It all remains to be confirmed. But in the present sea of new findings, as one commenter put it, there is no “settled science” in our human history. Not at present. Just how that’ll affect the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby is not clear.  What to teach now cannot be easily resolved by another End of Science rent-a-riot.

See also: From The Conversation: Questioning human origins in Africa is a good thing. So what about the claims for Europe?

and

What we do and don’t know about Human evolution

23 Replies to “Human origins story rewritten again? This time by skulls “shockingly like ours”… 300 kya

  1. 1
    Pearlman says:

    aside from the large gaps that make a joke out of deep-time doctrine based narrative, RCCF framework explains why the strongest science dates theses fossils to between 4122 and 3500 years old..
    need more detail to pinpoint.

  2. 2
    J-Mac says:

    If I were the Designer of life, even the most patient one, I would eventually expose the foolishness of the so-called scientists who date this, date that, because the need time to explain evolution…without it, they can’t even explain the evolution of a long-neck-giraffe…

  3. 3
    vmahuna says:

    There remains the problem that what is now the Mediterranean Sea was, for much of this time, a lush valley with a River (the entire combined outflow of the Nile and at least half a dozen rivers from southern Europe) running down the middle of it. So there could be VERY significant fossil fields at the bottom of the Med. What if humans arose in the Mediterranean (“Middle of the Land”) Valley, and then some drifted SOUTH into Africa? Whilst a few others, intent on starting the NFL, drifted north and decided to become Neanderthals?

    I’m sure it helps to get a paper circulated, but we “civilians” don’t gain a lot from earthshaking new theories every month or so.

  4. 4
    rvb8 says:

    Of course science is ‘rewritten’, and will continue to be ‘rewritten’. That is what science does, it takes into account new evidence and sees where that evidence points.

    Unlike ID or creationism, which have their set answers, and lack curiosity, science accepts ALL new evidence and interprets it.

    As long as that evidence doesn’t gainsay laws, such as thermodynamics (where God, Jesus, and Allah do gainsay this law), science fits that new evidence within its natural framework.

    ‘New evidence’, suggests there is a 300,000 year old human skull? Fine! No problems, as long as said skull, doesn’t have clear evidence of angelic wing attachements, science is unperturbed, the ID folk however? Now that is a different story, they go bat shit crazy.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    That is what science does, it takes into account new evidence and sees where that evidence points.

    Evolutionism doesn’t have any evidence. But then again you wouldn’t understand what that means.

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    ET,

    Fossils are found in an order. They older fossils are ALWAYS found beneath the younger fossils. This has never been, never been, challenged. It is a law really, the older the fossil, the lower in the earth’s strata it will be found.

    This is ‘evidence’ ET! Evidence of progression, and evidence of evolution.

    However if you are asking for evidence of God? Then I can only offer a book. Written decades after the death of the person at its core, it is indeed entirely, ‘unevidenced’!

  7. 7
    FourFaces says:

    rvb8,

    However if you are asking for evidence of God? Then I can only offer a book. Written decades after the death of the person at its core, it is indeed entirely, ‘unevidenced’!

    Explain why the most complex species on earth are the ones with the slowest reproductive rates. It should be the other way around if Darwinism was a valid science. As some of us know too well, Darwinism is pure pseudoscientific crackpottery conjured up by angry and mediocre little minds.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    rvb8- “Evolution” isn’t about progress. And yours has to be given starting populations of prokaryotes. And even given those you don’t have a mechanism capable of producing anything more than more populations of prokaryotes. That means you don’t have a mechanism capable of explaining the existence of the organisms that left the fossils. And that means you don’t have jack.

    So please stop talking about fossils as if they somehow support evolutionism.

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    FourFaces,

    what an odd question! ‘Expain why the most compex species on earth are the ones with slowest reproductive rates’?

    Do you mean gestation times? Some species such as Kangaroos and other marupials give birth without placentas. Does that make their reproductive rates slower? More complex?

    Monotrenmes are mammals that lay eggs, the echidna, and platypus etc. Does this make their reproductive process slower, more complex, more, ‘designed’?

    Your question, like most creationist questions is ‘designed’ for greatest opacity!

    Please be more clear in the future, about what the hell is in your brain; besides your consciousness.:)

    You say, ‘pseudoscientific crackpottery’? Heh:) Good one!
    You do realise you’re at an ID site?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    FourFaces:

    Explain why the most complex species on earth are the ones with the slowest reproductive rates.

    Resources. The food chain. Each complex species requires more of the less complex species. If experiments that exposed Spiegelman’s Monster are any indication, the nature of the beast says the less complex the faster the replication. It takes less time because it has less to do.

    That is what we would expect if nature did it- oceans of rapidly replicating short sequences. Or once their resources ran out such that no further replication could take place, we would see some denaturing. And then maybe it would start anew. But that would be about it.

  11. 11
    FourFaces says:

    rvb8,

    It’s a simple question expressing a simple fact. I’m not surprised you’re stumped and you’re trying hard to BS your way around it. Darwinists are not known for their bravery or their honesty.

  12. 12
    FourFaces says:

    ET,

    You are absolutely correct. My point is that this simple fact refutes Darwinism. Complexity should be proportional to reproductive rates if Darwinism was a correct theory. It isn’t. It’s a pile of buffalo dung pretending to be science.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    FourFaces:

    Complexity should be proportional to reproductive rates if Darwinism was a correct theory.

    I don’t follow what you are saying. Why should complexity mean a higher reproductive rate if Darwin was right? What am I missing?

  14. 14
    kurx78 says:

    More reproduction => More variation => More complexity (eventually)

  15. 15
    rvb8 says:

    ET @13,

    don’t worry. FourFaces is making it up as he goes along.

    Nobody can, ‘follow’ what he is suggesting.

    FourFaces,

    some plants have seeds which can lay dormant for decades. This would make their, Heh:) ‘reproductive rates’, infinately longer than more, Heh:) ‘complex’ organisms.

    Does this mean they evolved after mammals? Heh:)

  16. 16
    FourFaces says:

    kurx78 @14,

    Thank you. Simple things are baffling to Darwinists.

  17. 17
    rvb8 says:

    FourFaces,

    arctic sharks, and deep sea charks are believed to be some of thelongest lived organisms on the planet. It is speculated some of these cold waterspecies can live up to and beyond 200years.

    Their, ‘reproductive rates’, are rightly expected to in volve decades before they become 50-60 year old mating jouveniles. Does this mean they are more, ‘complex’ heh:), than we?

  18. 18
    FourFaces says:

    rvb8,

    All Darwinists are dumb. You are not smart enough to outsmart me, buddy. In general, organisms with high reproductive rates (insects, plants and microbes, for example) are not nearly as complex as organisms with low reproductive rates such as apes and other mammals. This is a fact which squarely contradicts Darwinism. You know why? Because Darwinism was created and is maintained by cretins. See you around.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    kurx78:

    More reproduction => More variation => More complexity (eventually)

    That doesn’t follow. With Spiegelman’s Monster more reproduction and more variation led to less complexity. That happened with Joyce and Lincoln too

  20. 20
    Axel says:

    @ your #6, rvb8

    What are you gibbering about, below?

    ‘Fossils are found in an order. They older fossils are ALWAYS found beneath the younger fossils. This has never been, never been, challenged. It is a law really, the older the fossil, the lower in the earth’s strata it will be found.

    This is ‘evidence’ ET! Evidence of progression, and evidence of evolution.’

    ————–

    That is absolute nonsense, rvb8. Far from being evidence of evolution, it is evidence of nothing more than the passage of time!

  21. 21
    FourFaces says:

    ET @19,

    That doesn’t follow. With Spiegelman’s Monster more reproduction and more variation led to less complexity. That happened with Joyce and Lincoln too

    Yes. That is precisely the point. It contradicts what one would expect if Darwinism was correct. kurx78 @14 succinctly gave us the Darwinist expectation which is not observed.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    FourFaces, that is the cartoon version of what Darwinists expected. Or it is the right version of the cartoon Darwinists expectations.

    But it doesn’t follow that more reproduction that leads to complexity also leads to higher reproductive rates.

    Given- More reproduction => More variation => More complexity (eventually)– there is no reason to expect higher reproductive rates once that complexity is reached

  23. 23
    FourFaces says:

    ET,

    But it doesn’t follow that more reproduction that leads to complexity also leads to higher reproductive rates.

    I think you may have it backward. High reproductive rates do not lead to high reproductive rates. They lead to high complexity according to Darwinism. Mammals reproduce very slowly but have developed the highest genetic complexity among the species. This is illogical.

    Consider that multi-million year-old insect fossils are routinely found to be almost identical to existing species, thus the expression “living fossil”. These living fossils invariably have very high reproductive rates. And yet, they change very little and remain simple compared to mammals that reproduce very slowly.

    Darwinism is not just a farce. It is criminal because it is false propaganda.

Leave a Reply