Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Sci-News: Early Humans were Present in Southeast Britain 620,000 Years Ago


The archaeological site of Fordwich in northeast Kent, England, reveals the presence of Acheulean hominins — possibly Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis — in what is now southeast Britain between 620,000 and 560,000 years ago.

Northern Europe experienced cycles of hominin habitation and absence during the Middle Pleistocene.

Several gravel terrace sites in the east of Britain and north of France provide a majority of the data contributing to this understanding, mostly through the presence or absence of stone-tool artifacts.

To date, however, relatively few sites have been radiometrically dated, and many have not been excavated in modern times, leading to an over-reliance on selectively sampled and poorly dated assemblages of stone tools.

This includes the site of Fordwich where over 330 handaxes were discovered through industrial quarrying in the 1920s.

“The diversity of tools is fantastic. In the 1920s, the site produced some of earliest handaxes ever discovered in Britain,” said Dr. Alastair Key, director of the excavations and an archaeologist in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge.

The researchers have dated these stone tool artifacts using infrared-radiofluorescence (IR-RF) dating, a technique which determines the point at which feldspar sand-grains were last exposed to sunlight, and thereby establishing when they were buried.

“The range of stone tools, not only from the original finds, but also from our new smaller excavations suggest that hominins living in what was to become Britain, were thriving and not just surviving.”

It is thought that European populations of Homo heidelbergensis evolved into Neanderthals while a separate population of Homo heidelbergensis in Africa evolved into Homo sapiens.

A collection of footprints at Happisburgh in Norfolk dated to 840,000 or 950,000 years ago, currently represent the oldest evidence of hominins occupying Britain.

At the time, Britain was not an island but instead represented the north-western peninsular of the European continent.


Note that hominins have not been genetically traced as descendants of modern humans (Homo sapiens).

Of note: "researchers debated whether (heidelbergensis) really was a major player—or "no more than a paleoanthropologists’ construct". "
Good-bye Heidelberg Man: You Never Existed - July 11, 2014 Excerpt: “If someone kills one person they go to jail,” anthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco noted last month at a meeting here in France’s deep south. “But what happens if you kill off a whole species?” The answer soon became apparent: anguished debate. In the balance was Homo heidelbergensis, a big-brained human ancestor generally seen as a pivotal figure, (common ancestor of modern humans and our extinct closest cousins, the Neandertals), during a murky period of evolution. At the invitation-only meeting, researchers debated whether this species really was a major player—or "no more than a paleoanthropologists’ construct". http://crev.info/2014/07/heidelberg-man-never-existed/ Fossils Destroy Human Evolution Story Again - February 16, 2017 Excerpt: 2. Chris Stringer of London’s Natural History Museum used to believe that Homo heidelbergensis was intermediate between Neanderthals and modern humans. He and other evolutionists have changed their mind. 3. Evolutionary paleoanthropologists, faced with contradictory evidence from fossils in Spain they dubbed Homo antecessor, ignored it. “At first, this apparent contradiction was hand-waved away.” This ‘species’ was dated far too early — up to 1.2 million Darwin Years ago. Scientists aren’t supposed to ignore evidence with hand-waving. 4.Some of the discoverers of H. antecessor have “since become more cautious about their identity.” That’s because “It is still difficult to make direct comparisons between hominin skulls. For one thing, many are incomplete.” This allows fossils to be used as props for storytelling. http://crev.info/2017/02/fossils-destroy-human-evolution-story-again/
Also of note: "If you bumped into a Homo erectus in the street you might not recognise them as being very different from you. You'd see a certain "human-ness" in the stance, and his or her size and shape might be similar to yours."
Homo erectus: The Ape Man That Wasn't - Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - Sep 30, 2019 The archaic human species Homo erectus has been portrayed as an important ape-to-man transitional link. However, these fossils don’t provide any real evidence of evolution. Many paleontologists and a majority of creationists think their unusual features are nothing more than variants of human traits and not transitional at all…. Not only is the H. erectus fossil record fragmentary and incomplete, but the bulk of the data indicates this category is simply a variant of the human kind. As mentioned above, so-called archaic H. erectus traits can still be found in humans today. Even many evolutionists recognize this. A recent article stated, “If you bumped into a Homo erectus in the street you might not recognise them as being very different from you.”11 https://www.icr.org/article/homo-erectus-the-ape-man-that-wasnt A snapshot of our mysterious ancestor Homo erectus - JANUARY 21, 2019 Excerpt: If you bumped into a Homo erectus in the street you might not recognise them as being very different from you. You'd see a certain "human-ness" in the stance, and his or her size and shape might be similar to yours. https://phys.org/news/2019-01-snapshot-mysterious-ancestor-homo-erectus.html
"Homo erectus" is far more problematic for Darwinists than many people realize.
Review of John Sanford's book "Contested Bones" (Part 4 - Chapter 4 "Homo erectus") 2-17-2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rtK0ScrQn4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&index=4
In short, the fossil record itself refutes the narrative of human evolution that is put forth by Darwinists:
Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution: Hype or Good Science? (Casey Luskin Interview) - Oct. 2021 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuU_UELy4hQ Jan. 2022 – Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141
Of supplemental note: ""The evidence for cognitive inferiority (in Neanderthals) is simply not there,"
What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution? - Denyse O'Leary - August 4, 2014 Excerpt: "In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will," noted Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at Loyola University in Chicago in 2003. But "The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there," says Paolo Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History in 2014. "What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true.",,, A 2012 article in Scientific American acknowledged,,, "The origin of our genus, Homo, is one of the biggest mysteries facing scholars of human evolution." Intriguing finds lead to a barrage of conflicting narratives, partial and uncertain, much like ancient mythologies.,,, Basic outlines of our origins are admitted to be uncertain and conflicting: In PNAS, paleobiologist Bernard Wood puts it like this: "The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear. Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the "what" with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the "how" and "when" questions.",,, Science writer Henry Gee explains in Nature, "We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/what_can_we_res088531.html
Hominins? I do hope that rational people point out that so-called "modern" humans have Neanderthal and Denosovian DNA. It is not scientific to create precursors to humans out of whole cloth. But the theory of evolution - though unguided - requires this sort of thinking, as unscientific as it is. relatd

Leave a Reply