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

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 20, 2019

Human evolution}

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

ET at 37 If nature is capable of producing something, that only qualifies it as a possibility that it did so. 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.hnorman42_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

The question raised here about detecting whether or not a particular artifact was designed seems fairly straightforward to me: 1. assess the nature, quantity and context of the artifact(s): - is there only one or many? Detailed description of them. Where found and with what nearby? 2. identify possible, credible mechanisms to account for said artifact: - e.g. random stones banging together (natural) vs. purposeful construction by an intelligent agent (design) 3. for each option, generate a credible sequence of events to account for what is observed: - e.g. how many strikes, and of what nature are required to produce the worked stones 4. then estimate the likelihood of each step in the sequence from natural causes - also collect any contextual info that may support one or other cause; e.g. each contextual clue may support one over the other option) (e.g. human design is unlikely if the artifact is 50 million years old) 5. based on all the above, make a judgement of the best explanation available to account for the artifact, based on the total evidence at hand (this is the abductive method used in several sciences - argument to the most likely explanation) 6. finally, judge how certain the judgement is, based on the evidence for/against each option: - it may be that the judgement is only tentative or impossible to make, lacking further evidence (as noted in the article). This procedure would allow the judge to rule Mt Rushmore definitely designed to a high probability, vs. the artifacts in question to be likely designed, but only with a low probability. It would be impossible to apply any precise number to these probabilities. However, some of the above steps might be partially numerical.Fasteddious_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
For those of you arguing ID methods like FCSI/O can’t detect design because the stones can’t be readily made into bits, can you explain the difference between these stones and Mt. Rushmore: luminaries such as nirwad, Winston Ewert, and Barry Arrington have all argued on the basis of the opposite premise.
And yet not one of those links has Mt. Rushmore's FCSO/I or CSI. No bits are mentioned in reference to Mt. Rushmore. Tools. FCSO/I is NOT the right tool for the job when assessing stones. So it figures that the anti-ID ilk would want to make us use it in that scenario. Losers...ET_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 35, Exhibit B indeed. Notice the “strategy” on the part of our regular interlocutors: present a stupid and inane argument… when challenged (or an explanation is provided) ignore it and double down on the very same inane and stupid arguments. However, that strategy does work. It is very disruptive. Once again people on the ID side need to wise up. Trolls are a waste of time.john_a_designer_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

hnorman42:
The question of design will always be yes or inconclusive.
The question of design will always be yes or no need to infer a designer did it because nature is capable of producing it.
There is no signature of undesign.
Only that nature is capable of producing it. Take pulsars as an example. They have the signature of undesign as the signal bleeds over many channels. It doesn't have any signs of being an artifact.ET_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Are all anti-IDists this ignorant and desperate? Do they really think that there is only ONE method to detect the existence of intelligent design and that method is via FSCO/I or CSI?ET_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

. What would be the point of an explanation Bob? If someone pointed out the difference between an analog representation and a digital string, it would mean nothing to you. If someone explained the distinction between being the interpretant and observing the interpretant, it would not alter your position in any way whatsoever. You are Exhibit B, Bob, and unable to change.Upright BiPed_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

For those of you arguing ID methods like FCSI/O can't detect design because the stones can't be readily made into bits, can you explain the difference between these stones and Mt. Rushmore: luminaries such as nirwad, Winston Ewert, and Barry Arrington have all argued on the basis of the opposite premise. FWIW, I think hnorman42 has the best explanation, although this is the sort of problem where I think it can still be worth going through the exercise, to see how far you can get (you could try a sequence from these stones up to Mount Rushmore and see at what point design detection methods correctly identify design: this would give you an indication of the sensitivity of the method).Bob O'H_{September 23, 2019
September
09
Sep
23
23
2019
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Folks, we are missing a key factor, the pattern-recognising power of the experienced, trained human mind. We know processes by which stone tools are and likely were produced, and there are knowledgeable people who know the characteristic signs of that process. For instance, hammer-stones and soft hammers are used to trigger flaking and conchoidal fracture patterns. It is in that context that certain stones were RECOGNISED as reflecting typical stone tools of a certain level or stage of technology; in short, from the stones in the ground, these stood out as matching a recognised archetype, as opposed to more "natural" stones. That is often more than enough to identify that the items so spotted are artifacts, but in this case they don't fit expected timeline patterns and there are no convenient hominid fossils. That will put them in the fringe category of anomalies or puzzles until/unless the underlying paradigm shifts. And, historically, such shifts come by way of revolutions. KF PS: Note, in a clip from the article:
Robin Dennell, a Paleolithic archaeologist from Sheffield University, says the dating looks sound, though he isn’t convinced that the stones are tools. “The last place that I would want to search for early stone artifacts would be a high-energy … fluvial deposit,” he explains. The stones, he notes, may have simply chipped as they were thrown around in the water over time. To rule out this possibility, Scardia and his colleagues discounted any tools they thought may have chipped naturally, only selecting those that showed repetitive, unidirectional marks that would suggest deliberate hominin shaping. Dennell suggests a way to strengthen the case for the Zarqa pieces would have been to “record every single stone in the excavations where artifacts were claimed and record the size, weight, flake scars, etc., in the same way.” He says, “Overall, I am not convinced.”
BTW, one place arrowhead hunters look at is places in streams where rocks are likely to deposit themselves. That tends to undermine a suggestion that it is dubious to look in that sort of context.kairosfocus_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Hnorman42, Thanks, that was a valuable comment.rhampton7_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

It is important to remember that specified complexity is not about distinguishing design from non-design. It's about ascertaining the detectability of design. The question of design will always be yes or inconclusive. It is only the question of detectability that will be yes or no. There is no signature of undesign. My guess is that the stones don't have enough specification for the function for us to make a design inference. This doesn't mean there's no design there -- only that we can't tell whether there is. Not being an information scientist, I can't tell you whether that means there's no information there, or that there is but it's just highly unspecified.hnorman42_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

More refined https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8T_BPl6g-Q but look at some of the big flakeskairosfocus_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvPOkMs4U4kairosfocus_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Hazel, let's pick up a little context:
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.
In short, News is looking at the issue as to criteria for design detection. Which are in fact varied. In this case, my eyeball mark 1 sees some apparently flaked facets, credibly making them candidates to be deliberately formed. Apparently, there is a want of hominid fossils of the "right" "species" to make this a more comfortably plausible conclusion on their timeline. A very simple comparison is modern knapping of similar objects and comparison with stones of like material believed not worked by intelligent hands. See https://www.thoughtco.com/stone-tools-then-and-now-1441226 and more here https://www.thoughtco.com/the-evolution-of-stone-tools-171699 KFkairosfocus_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Exhibit AUpright BiPed_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

It seems that the consensus here is that this "classic design inference problem" (News's words) is not one that is amenable to being analyzed mathematically so as to be reduced to some number of bits of information that would distinguish design from non-design. I will consider that a definitive answer.hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

. If a rock contained a linear sequence of symbol tokens -- like a gene. or the text on this page -- Hazel would not be here trying to get a design proponent to explain just exactly how to test the "bits of information" supposedly associated with it. UD has had people like Hazel asking this class of question -- trying to get design proponents to calculate the bits of information in some object that clearly contains no bits of information -- for as long as I have been coming to this site. They repeatedly (and often inadvertently) highlight the clear distinction between the genuine semantic information (such as that encoded in the gene or in language text) and the so-called physical or structural "information" supposedly contained in some odd object. Yet, after demonstrating by their questions that they actually get the distinction, they never turn around to acknowledge "the gene is a sequence of symbols" and are then willing to follow that undeniable fact to its logical and empirical end. Hazel has neither the curiosity nor the integrity to do so - she only wants to tease out any potential contradictions among design proponents. Of course, differences between design proponents are prized observations among ID critics. They are regularly used to sell the patently false conclusion that design in undetectable in biology, and by extension, there is no need to acknowledge the well-documented facts about the symbol system in DNA.Upright BiPed_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Archaeologists look for signs of work. Forensic scientists look for signs of intentional agency activity. Neither use FSCO/I or CSI. FCSO/I and CSI pertain to that which is readily available in bits. They are tools and are only applicable in specific scenarios. And they work very well in those scenarios.ET_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

What is this tried and true method, ET? My understanding, based on many threads at this site, is that design detection involves a numerical value, variously named. Can you outline the tried and true method that doesn't necessitate any numerical calculations, bits, and cut-off values between designed and not designed? {end Charlie Brown}hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Earth to hazel- What is wrong with all of the tried-n-true design detection techniques currently used on objects?
is there a mathematical way of determining the functional information in a stone that might be a primitive tool, and reducing some quantity to bits of information that would determine design?
Why would anyone even want to do that? We already have a methodology to tell if an object is designed or not.ET_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

JAD, can you answer the question: is there a mathematical way of determining the functional information in a stone that might be a primitive tool, and reducing some quantity to bits of information that would determine design? If so, can you outline how that could be done?hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Once again we have an example of our regular interlocutors doing what they do best: obfuscating and obstructing, and once again people on the ID side foolishly pander to it and enable it. How long Hazel been on this site? She still doesn’t understand the basics of ID? (It’s obvious that she doesn’t.) Why would someone waste months of her life asking inane and stupid questions or making inane and stupid arguments? (Seversky who has been at least 7 or 8 years… Well, that’s another case of totally off-the-rails irrationality.) To enter into an honest debate one must be able to ask honest questions or present honest arguments. An honest argument begins with premises which are, in some sense, either self-evidently true (as in mathematics,) probably true or at the very least plausibly true. In other words, your argument is a waste of everyone’s time unless there really is something or some things which are really true. That begins with the idea of truth itself. UD should be, first and foremost, for people are genuinely interested in ID. OR, for critics who have honest questions or who can make logically valid arguments. There there should be no place for stupid gotcha questions here. That’s not only annoying it’s a waste of everyone’s time.john_a_designer_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

KF, News said this was a classic design inference problem. It is about a stone tool, not all that other stuff. Can you address this specific question of how you could reduce the question of design in this case to one that could be mathematically represented in bits of information?hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Hazel, As has been repeatedly noted AutoCAD routinely shows how a 3-d entity can be reduced to bits, using a description language; it also yields a readily ascertained file size. Doubtless compressible but that is in this case immaterial. Tie that to issues on how random changes would alter function.Here, I note that Orgel wrote on this 40+ years ago, c 1973 IIRC. I doubt that one would use this on a crude flint-knapped tool, but we already have established recognition of design in any case. Why do you keep ducking the obvious case, the coded algorithms of D/RNA, which show LANGUAGE and algorithms that indisputably create functional, precisely organised entities, proteins, with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery? [I find the contrast to the millions spent on SETI highly revealing.] KFkairosfocus_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

You could figure out how the artifact was made and put it in a procedure. The minimal instructions it takes to make it. Then do the math using that procedure. That said FSCO/I is NOT the only methodology to detect design. You show me someone using FCSO/I to determine if an object was intelligently designed and I will show you someone who doesn't understand the process of design detection.ET_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Ooops.hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

hazel:
Your idea of “instructions on how to proceed” is a laugh,...
To you, an ignorant pedant, sure. However given Shannon, my way is the ONLY way to proceed if trying to determine the FSCO/I of an object. So it is very telling that you would laugh at it. There exists tried and true design detection techniques that can be and are used on objects. Why aren't those OK?ET_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Your idea of "instructions on how to proceed" is a laugh, so I'll retire from discussing this with ET. Maybe someone other than ET will have something to say.hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Totally unbelievable. I gave hazel instructions on how to proceed with just an object and apparently that was too much for her. hazel:
the phrase “readily assembled into bits” is poorly phrased,...
That is your opinion. But it just exposes your ignorance on such matters
But you are also saying that the math often cited about such things doesn’t apply to something like stone tools – true?
Which "such things" are you talking about?
Do others agree with ET that the mathematical analysis that involves bits of information, whatever they are called, wouldn’t or couldn’t be applied to this problem of stone tools?
There are other design detection techniques that can be used on objects, hazel. Perhaps you should get out and conduct an investigation for once in your life.ET_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

I see now what you were meaning, ET: the phrase "readily assembled into bits" is poorly phrased, so I wan't sure what you meant. But you are also saying that the math often cited about such things doesn't apply to something like stone tools - true? Do others agree with ET that the mathematical analysis that involves bits of information, whatever they are called, wouldn't or couldn't be applied to this problem of stone tools?hazel_{September 22, 2019
September
09
Sep
22
22
2019
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply