Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researcher: Evidence for early man in Asia half a million years earlier than thought

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The hypothesis is based on a 2013 find in Jordan:

Scardia and his colleagues, having analyzed these artifacts, argue that they are rudimentary tools used by early humans, crafted and discarded around 2.5 million years ago. If they are right, we may need to rethink which hominin species made the first forays out of the African cradle—and when.

The general consensus for decades has been that Homo erectus—an upright, long-legged species—was among the first hominins (or species closely related to modern humans) to leave Africa. Scientists presume members of this species traveled through the natural corridor of the Levant, a region along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, around 2 million years ago.

Scardia’s study, published in the September issue of Quaternary Science Reviews, suggests a far earlier exit. It proposes that hominins capable of tool creation may have been on the doorstep of Asia some 500,000 years earlier. That claim helps explain the puzzling evolution of a hominin species found in Indonesia, as well as a contentious group of skulls found in Georgia.


Richard Kemeny, “Should the Story of Homo’s Dispersal Out of Africa Be Rewritten?” at Sapiens

One question mark is whether the stones are really tools. It’s hard to tell, especially because there are so few. A classic design inference problem.

Paper. (paywall)

See also: Ancient human group as a cold case nearly half a million years ago

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Hazel, cf 67 ff. Particularly note Orgel's 1973 remarks on quantifying information implicit in structures. One key point, in the midst of a reasoned case: "Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure." Complexity is then associated with long chain length. This boils down to strings of Y/N Q's in a hypothetical optimally efficient description language, thence islands of function isolated deeply in large config spaces. As can be seen starting with isolation in AA sequence space of protein superfamilies. All of this would not be controversial in the least if it were not coming up against ideological citadels in our culture. In that context, so long as designers are possible, evident design patterns such as have been identified by modern flint knapping, are credible ways to identify designs without explicit quantification. For the cell, the presence of algorithmic, digital code strings, thus purpose and language is decisive. The OP case is somewhat controversial only because the dating scheme does not fit the current conventional wisdom. KFkairosfocus
September 27, 2019
September
09
Sep
27
27
2019
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Any response to 65, JAD?hazel
September 26, 2019
September
09
Sep
26
26
2019
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
F/N: Daily mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091066/Modern-flint-expert-reverse-engineers-Neanderthal-stone-axes--says-ancestors-clever-elegant-engineers.html >>Researchers have thought that our ancestors might have intentionally sought out the flakes for their size and shape. But it was regarded as controversial, and recently researchers questioned whether Levallois tool production involved conscious, structured planning. Now, the experimental study – in which a modern-day flintknapper replicated hundreds of Levallois artifacts – supports the notion that Levallois flakes were indeed engineered. By combining experimental archaeology with morphometrics (the study of form) and statistical analysis, the Kent researchers have proved for the first time that flakes removed from 'prepared' cores were more standard than ones created by accident. Importantly, they also identified the specific properties of Levallois flakes that would have made them preferable to past mobile hunter-gathering peoples. Dr Lycett also explained that ‘amongst a variety of choices these tools are ‘superflakes’. They are not so thin that they are ineffective but they are not so thick that they could not be re-sharpened effectively or be unduly heavy to carry, which would have been important to hominins such as the Neanderthals’.>>kairosfocus
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
BO'H: simply watching flint knapping will show that it is a significantly skilled and hazardous process. I shudder when I see use of heavy stones to strike others in order to trigger crack-propagation, without protective eyewear. As in, flying razor-sharp, jagged-edge shards connected to almost explosive stress relief on crack propagation. Serious care and attention were obviously required. KFkairosfocus
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Hazel, the existence and even quantifiability in principle of functionally specific complex information [comparable to AUTOCAD's reduction to coded description languages], or even the fact that such may enfold at least some cases of irreducible complexity does not mean that that is the most effective way to identify or recognise a case of design. In archaeology, pattern recognition by an expert familiar with a phenomenon has long been routinely used (without explicit quantification) to identify artifacts and their particular styles. There is a longstanding known pattern with pottery, handwriting in manuscripts is often dated based on styles, weapons and tools, housing, cities, roads, graves and many other similar cases are well known and should be familiar to any reader of the literature or watcher of something like the long running UK series, Time Team. Indeed, routinely, archaeologists contrast "archaeology" [= artifacts] vs "natural." Enough of this has been pointed out above that your circling back to the just above is clearly unwarranted. In the case of stone tools, flint knapping is a partly recovered art and it is understood how tools are made. One of the exceptions that comes to mind, IIRC, is that apparently Neanderthals had a different level of bodily strength and certain pressure techniques they used, we cannot do. KF PS: Let me note for record, Orgel, 1973, in perhaps the earliest discussion of functionally oriented complex specific information:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
kairosfocus
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
hazel:
JAD, I am participating in this thread about detecting design in everyday events such as the possibly stone tools mentioned in the OP, and specifically whether mathematics can be used to quantify various factors into bits of some type of specialized information. The consensus in this thread seems to be that can’t be done.
And yet I told you how to do it.
This appears to confirm that it is not true that anyone in the discussion thinks that CSI is necessary for detecting design.
See the first comment in this threadET
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Can you explain that comment, JAD? The OP was about determining if some stones might be designed tools? I asked some questions, and it appears everyone agreed, including me, that mathematical methods involving some type of information, such as CSI, couldn't be applied to this situation. This appears to confirm that it is not true that anyone in the discussion thinks that CSI is necessary for detecting design. Can you describe where you think the goalposts were, and where you think I moved them?hazel
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
So you didn’t move the goal posts Hazel?john_a_designer
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
JAD, I am participating in this thread about detecting design in everyday events such as the possibly stone tools mentioned in the OP, and specifically whether mathematics can be used to quantify various factors into bits of some type of specialized information. The consensus in this thread seems to be that can't be done. I don't have the background, and for that and other reasons the interest, to discuss the DNA issues. Also, JAD, do you any response to 57 above, where I pointed out that it is not true, I don't think, that "our regular interlocutors " believe you can't detect design without using CSI.hazel
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
In the past, I have already made an explicit challenge (to those at TSZ, I believe) to offer any sequence so that I could infer, or not infer, design for it, without any false positive. Friends here at UD were ready to offer many examples of functional sequences for which I readily and correctly inferred design. Interlocutors from the other field tried all sorts of tricks, more or less on the line of T, trying to show, I don’t know for what reason, that I could not detect design in all possible cases, or that there were many strings for which I could simply not infer design, without knowing if they were true negatives or false negatives. Which are of course very trivial truths, that I could have agreed upon in advence. Design inference is about inferring with extremely high certainty that some specific object is designed. It is not about recognizing all designed objects. It is not about recognizing all non designed objects. It is a procedure with virtually no false positive (if the threshold of FI is chosen appropriately), and with many, many false negatives. Again, these are really the basics of ID theory.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/controlling-the-waves-of-dynamic-far-from-equilibrium-states-the-nf-kb-system-of-transcription-regulation/#comment-684355 Why aren’t Hazel, Ed, Seversky and Bob participating in that discussion? While it gets somewhat technical Gpuccio is more than willing to answer our interlocutor’s questions and explain what he is doing. That involves applying CSI to some real world examples. PS: DNA, RNA and protein are linear coded (specified) sequences. CSI most definitely applies to those kind of sequences.john_a_designer
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
I'm not sure "knapping without due care and attention" has ever been considered a serious enough crime.Bob O'H
September 25, 2019
September
09
Sep
25
25
2019
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Hazel
I am agreeing with you that in fact CSI is not applicable to the stone tool situation, or in fact many (most? all?) everyday situations in which the effort to detect design is made, such as archeology, crime, etc.
You mean that Gil Grissom has been lying to me all these years? :)Ed George
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
My point, ET, was that JAD was wrong when he said "our regular interlocuters" have said that you can't make a design inference without CSI. I am agreeing with you that in fact CSI is not applicable to the stone tool situation, or in fact many (most? all?) everyday situations in which the effort to detect design is made, such as archeology, crime, etc.hazel
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
hazel- please buy a vowel. The use of CSI to detect design is very limited as to which scenarios it applies to. And applying it to stone tools demonstrates an ignorance of the concept.ET
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
JAD writes, "So how could Behe make any kind design inference without CSI? According to our regular interlocutors he couldn’t." I don't think anyone here has said that one can't detect design without CSI. I believe more the opposite is true: that some of us suggest that in fact CSI isn't really a viable method that anyone uses in the everyday detection of design. We ask for examples of it being used in things like stone tools to see if anyone can in fact offer any mathematical analysis in using CSI. As I noted in 26, no one here could offer such an analysis.hazel
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr. Behe in DBB CSI is about proving design. And even then it only applied to specific scenarios.ET
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
So how could Behe make any kind design inference without CSI? According to our regular interlocutors he couldn't.john_a_designer
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
John A Designer- CSI as a concept didn't come out until Dembski's "No Free Lunch" which was years after Behe's DBB.ET
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
hnorman42:
It does not require positive evidence to recognize the possibility of a designing intelligence — only to confirm it.
If there isn't any positive evidence then what, exactly, are you basing the possibility of a designing intelligence on? If you are recognizing the possibility then there has to be something that you are recognizing, ie the positive part.ET
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Up @ #43 I wrote:
The earliest reference I can find of an ID’ist using Mt Rushmore as an example of inferring design is Michael Behe in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, pp 198, 227. (BTW he doesn’t cite Dembski or use CSI as part of his argument.)
Last night I leafed through DBB and scanned the index another time to see if I could find any reference at all to CSI in the entire book… I couldn’t find one. It appears to me that Behe didn’t need to employ CSI to make a design inference. He argued that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation cannot explain the irreducible complexity we find in certain features of the living cell. If that’s not an example of “a classic design inference” what is? But maybe I missed something. Did Behe really make his argument without employing CSI? Seversky, Hazel and Bob need to check out their own personal copies of DBB if they want to prove that CSI is the only method of making a design inference. If they are too lazy to do that maybe it’s time to drop the know-it-all pretense and stop wasting everyone’s time.john_a_designer
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
ET - It does not require positive evidence to recognize the possibility of a designing intelligence -- only to confirm it. Thanks for the reference to Newton's rules. They're giving me quite a bit of food for thought.hnorman42
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
What other factors, hnorman42? Science does not run on ignorance. Detection of undesign? We do that every day. As I said not all deaths are considered to be murders, and for good reason. Not all rocks are considered to be artifacts and also for good reasons. And not all fires are considered to be arsons. Not all stands of trees are orchards. The list is very, very long. What Newton was saying is there has to be some reason- POSITIVE evidence- to insert a designing intelligence.ET
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
ET @ 48 In Rule 1, Newton counsels that we should admit causes that are true as well as sufficient. It's just as bad to claim knowledge that there are no other factors involved as that there are. Other factors should be considered undetermined -- not wrong. Your example in the last two paragraphs of your comment is still about the detection of design, not undesign.hnorman42
September 24, 2019
September
09
Sep
24
24
2019
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
hnorman42- Sir Isaac Newton provided us with the rules we need to follow:
Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
That said, if the stones fit into one's hand- had a gripping/ non-cutting side- at the very least that should be impetus enough to look for more signs in the area and territory. Break out the LIDAR and see if that reveals something hidden to us. The point is with ambiguous finds supporting evidence is always helpful and sometimes necessary.ET
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
ET at 46 The fire pit might help with inference to design but the lack thereof would not make design wrong -- just undetermined. Sort of like proving a negative. I'll write a little more after work.hnorman42
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
hnorman42:
If nature is capable of producing something, that only qualifies it as a possibility that it did so.
True
In the case of the tools mentioned in the OP, we can never know that an intelligent agent did not act on them, regardless of how adequate nature may be as an explanation.
There has to be evidence that an intelligent agency did act on them. There needs to be something else- a context may help. Even a fire pit would help. Otherwise all rocks become artifacts, all fires are arsons and all deaths become murders.ET
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Bob O'H- Information, yes. Of course Mt. Rushmore required information in order to become what it is today. And as I have said for years- the only way to tease that out is to figure out how to duplicate it.ET
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
ET @ 39 - I wouldn't describe nirwad, Winston Ewert, and Barry Arrington as "anti-ID". But all 3 are advocating approaches based on information. They may not mention bits, but I would hope any regular reader of UD would know that information is measured in bits. nirwad -
These three reasons together reinforce each other and give the alien the certainty that the top of Mt. Rushmore is an artifact. In a sense we could say that the tetrad of human faces, showing complexity and specifications, contain Complex Specified Information, of analogic/topological type.
Ewert (from the paper) -
Yet, there does appear to be something quite different about Mount Rushmore. There is a special something about carved faces that separates it from the rock it is carved in. This "special something" is information.
Barry Arrington -
DNA is an information code of staggering complexity and elegance. We know that complex specific information of this sort is not normally generated though unguided mindless natural processes. When we see complex information in other contexts (think of Mount Rushmore), we are compelled to assume that the cause of the information was intelligent agency.
Yes, it is interesting that none of them attempt to make a calculation of CSI or FCSI/O or ASC. To be fair, it would be a difficult problem, but surely one that should be addressed at some point if (as these writers all suggest) design can be detected using information theory.Bob O'H
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
The earliest reference I can find of an ID’ist using Mt Rushmore as an example of inferring design is Michael Behe in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, pp 198, 227. (BTW he doesn’t cite Dembski or use CSI as part of his argument.) However, there is a better example, the so called Yonaguni monument which was discovered by divers off Japan’s westernmost island in the mid 1980’s. It a so-called monument because there is an honest difference of scholarly opinion whether it’s manmade or natural. While at first there is a very compelling intuition after you first see it that it must be artificial (in my case on video) after closer examination you begin to doubt that-- at least I do. Indeed, as an ID’ist I think that it is “probably” natural but that’s just my opinion. Take a look at the following article and video and see what you think. https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2017/10/yonaguni-monumental-ruins-natural-geology/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UbSQOIpkzIjohn_a_designer
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Here is an interesting contrast in design decisions. An archaeologist comes across a ring of ten round stones more or less the same size, containing remnants of charcoal and dirt having a high ash content. He concludes, without doing any calculation, that this is a designed artifact of some human culture. He does not consider, for example, that it might be a random assembly of stones around a tree that was then struck by lightning. No one reading his report or subsequent paper in a science journal questions his assumption of design. Next, biologists find vast amounts of complex and meaningful information, coded into every cell of every living species on Earth. Said biologists cannot uncover any natural mechanism for adding more than a couple of bits of information, and indeed find multiple mechanisms for removing quantities of the same from cells over multiple generations. Yet these biologists mostly insist that the information arose, not by design, but somehow by unspecified natural mechanisms (note to Darwinists, natural selection does not add information). There is clearly something amiss in this contrast.Fasteddious
September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply