Recent find pushes early mans existence back 300 000 years to 430 000 years ago

[Glass]

Apparently man or some version of him has been around since 130 000 years ago. Based on cave stuff and carbon dating.

A recent find from some shells collected and shelved for 100 years shows man made carvings in shells that are dated as being between 430 000 and 540 000 years old.


A single photograph helped an Australian researcher stumble across what's thought to be the earliest known engraving by a human ancestor.
The simple zig-zag pattern, found on a fossilised shell from the Indonesian island of Java, has been dated to at least 430,000 years.

The find, reported in the journal Nature on Thursday, pre-dates by some 300,000 years other markings, made by modern humans or Neanderthals, previously thought the oldest.
https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/141204/zig_inline_1a7uvoi-1a7v00f.jpg

The age and location of the shell suggests the pattern was carved by an even earlier human ancestor known as Homo erectus.
"It rewrites human history," said Dr Stephen Munro, the Australian National University paleoanthropologist who made the find.

It suggests Homo erectus had considerable manual dexterity and possibly greater cognitive abilities, and raises the prospect that they might have been more "human" than previously thought.

"That's something people will argue about," Dr Munro said.
Yet the ancient find would have been impossible without the very modern technology of digital photography.

The shells, first discovered by celebrated Dutch scientist Eugene Dubois a century ago, have been packed away in boxes for years.
On a Dutch public holiday in May 2007, Dr Munro seized the opportunity to photograph every one. It took him all day.

When he returned to Australia and flicked through the photos, one in particular stood out. An engraving, all but invisible to the naked eye, was quite clear. "It was a eureka moment," he said.

"I could see immediately that they were man-made engravings. There was no other explanation."

Story at the West (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/technology/a/25682480/modern-photo-prompts-ancient-find/)

So what do you think aeondaze? You seem to be the scientist/anthropologist round these parts. How do you read this?

[aeondaze]

I saw this story today as well. Its intriguing.

The marks were not noticed when the artifact was first discovered, apparently they are very faint. I think it fits a lot of what we know very well.

I've been thinking a lot about cooked food lately. It seems this single breakthrough may have been the very thing that enabled our brains to develop to such a large extent at the expense of our digestive system which shrunk considerably over the last couple of million years. Cooking food served two purposes, firstly it unlocked a lot of calorific value in our diets and secondly it gave us a reason to sit around and bitch to each other (socialise) which helped form cohesive social groups.

There is more to the story at this link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141203142453.html) (if you're interested)


This research has shown that these early human-like people were very clever about how they opened these large freshwater mussels; they drilled a hole through the shell using a sharp object, possibly a shark's tooth, exactly at the point where the muscle is attached that keeps the shell closed. "The precision with which these early humans worked indicates great dexterity and detailed knowledge of mollusc anatomy," says Frank Wesselingh, a researcher and expert on fossil shells at Naturalis. The molluscs were eaten and the empty shells were used to manufacture tools, such as knives.

What we know about these early hominids is miniscule I suspect.

[Neuro]

Yes probably Homo Erectus was more advanced than previously thought, and probably in some they are still around, more or less intermixed with Cro Magnon...

[Twisted Titan]

I dont follow this stuff to tuff but isnt it well established now that Carbon dating is one of the most inaccuarte methods to date atifacts?


I think I saw a youtube a long while back where I guy took a recently formed rock and a known perhistoric one and they new rock was dated to be millions of years old when it wasnt

[chad]

i don't mean to be the crowd killer here, but there's a hole in a clam shell and some scratch marks. i can go down to my lake all day long and find clam shells with holes in them and scratch marks from racoons, etc.

[aeondaze]

I dont follow this stuff to tuff but isnt it well established now that Carbon dating is one of the most inaccuarte methods to date atifacts?

I think I saw a youtube a long while back where I guy took a recently formed rock and a known perhistoric one and they new rock was dated to be millions of years old when it wasnt

From the original paper in Nature:


We dated sediment contained in the shells with 40Ar/39Ar and luminescence dating methods, obtaining a maximum age of 0.54 ± 0.10 million years and a minimum age of 0.43 ± 0.05 million years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13962.html

There are a myriad of isotopic techniques to date things. They actually said in one article that they'd used two methods but I couldn't find what the other was.

Carbon 14 isotopic dating is a relative dating technique meaning initially we needed to know firmly the age of an object to be able to then relate it to the ratio of carbon 12/14. From there we develop a database of established (known) dates and rations.

There is said to be controversy in regards to the rate of isotopic decay of carbon 14, but this is nothing more than a beat-up IMO by individuals whose ideologies are threatened by the results. The fact is carbon 14 isotopic decay is relatively uniform and an accurate way to determine age. In fact over the years as the database has grown, dates are revised and updated to reflect improvements in accuracy and precision. As time goes on in fact, the technique has become more and more accurate.

I know you think its all a crock of shit TT, and thats fine. IMO without it we'd just be walking around navel gazing, continually bumping into things, not knowing what is up or down.

[aeondaze]

i don't mean to be the crowd killer here, but there's a hole in a clam shell and some scratch marks. i can go down to my lake all day long and find clam shells with holes in them and scratch marks from racoons, etc.

Nice. There are no racoons in Java though, but I do get your point.

These guys don't just walk around picking up anything and shouting "Behold! Here is some ancient artifact produced by human hands"

A lot of principal component analysis and dating techniques go into understanding how and when the marks were made.

[crimethink]

I dont follow this stuff to tuff but isnt it well established now that Carbon dating is one of the most inaccuarte methods to date atifacts?


I think I saw a youtube a long while back where I guy took a recently formed rock and a known perhistoric one and they new rock was dated to be millions of years old when it wasnt

"Carbon dating," far more often than not, is horseshit. It can't be tested (without a time machine). It's assumption - belief. More faith-based "science."

[crimethink]

IMO without it we'd just be walking around navel gazing, continually bumping into things, not knowing what is up or down.

Without "carbon dating," science would be based far more on observable, provable facts, and much less upon speculation founded on assumptions.

Your complete faith in "carbon dating" is laughable. You speak of it like it was "revealed truth" - that true knowledge was impossible before it, LOL.

[crimethink]

These guys don't just walk around picking up anything and shouting "Behold! Here is some ancient artifact produced by human hands"


Actually, yes, they do.

I was encouraged by many go to into a doctorate program in Anthropology. However, I had seen enough of the "science" involved in my undergraduate field. I had neither the Chutzpah nor dishonesty to pursue such an academic career.

Advancement in the field is totally dependent upon publishing. Shit has to be conjured up to give one notoriety in the field. This "discovery" is truly much ado about nothing. Munro has just made a bold, calculated career move, and the circle-jerk called "peer review" has enabled him to push forward. It will be "debated" for years to come, with Munro's name being talked about and cited in countless further articles & monographs. Nonetheless, all a sham.




A lot of principal component analysis and dating techniques go into understanding how and when the marks were made.

LOL

"Science" is a brand-name which must protect its brand. Sophistry is the key tool used to promote what masquerades as true science. The jesting phrase "Piled High, and Deep," is really no joke.

Modern "science" is also much like modern "art." If you don't see what isn't there, you are "unsophisticated" and "ignorant."

[singular_me]

because knowledge is infinite sciences will always end up shooting itself in the foot.... it is a perpetual discovery phase, certainties are short-lived

so half-bred races existed back then already... :) :) ... so much for CT and co.



Yes probably Homo Erectus was more advanced than previously thought, and probably in some they are still around, more or less intermixed with Cro Magnon...

[expat4ever]

Thetr's a growing body of evidence that suggests that they advanced themselves after eating musgrooms. The magic mushroom was very important to many cultures and still is in many places.

[aeondaze]

"Carbon dating," far more often than not, is horseshit. It can't be tested (without a time machine). It's assumption - belief. More faith-based "science."

Your not saying anything substantive or provable here. This is just "piss and wind"


Without "carbon dating," science would be based far more on observable, provable facts, and much less upon speculation founded on assumptions.

Your complete faith in "carbon dating" is laughable. You speak of it like it was "revealed truth" - that true knowledge was impossible before it, LOL.

Same again here, unqualified objections don't make an argument


Actually, yes, they do.

I was encouraged by many go to into a doctorate program in Anthropology. However, I had seen enough of the "science" involved in my undergraduate field. I had neither the Chutzpah nor dishonesty to pursue such an academic career.

Advancement in the field is totally dependent upon publishing. Shit has to be conjured up to give one notoriety in the field. This "discovery" is truly much ado about nothing. Munro has just made a bold, calculated career move, and the circle-jerk called "peer review" has enabled him to push forward. It will be "debated" for years to come, with Munro's name being talked about and cited in countless further articles & monographs. Nonetheless, all a sham.

"Science" is a brand-name which must protect its brand. Sophistry is the key tool used to promote what masquerades as true science. The jesting phrase "Piled High, and Deep," is really no joke.

Modern "science" is also much like modern "art." If you don't see what isn't there, you are "unsophisticated" and "ignorant."

And the last one is fantastic, no really. You tell us a nice story, none of which is verifiable in any way shape or form, without any facts other than your opinion as to why this is actually horseshit.

I give you unadulterated verifiable facts about how isotopic analysis works and you spew that bunk back at me, claiming modern science is sophistry.

How utterly ironic! :D


sophistry
ˈsɒfɪstri/
noun
noun: sophistry

the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"
a fallacious argument.

[aeondaze]

Thetr's a growing body of evidence that suggests that they advanced themselves after eating musgrooms. The magic mushroom was very important to many cultures and still is in many places.

Terence Mckena has been saying that for at least 20 years. Ever read "Food of the Gods"? (I have)

Personally I don't buy it. Don't get me wrong I definitely think the use of psychoactive substances advanced our social group, but I don't think it led to a bigger brain. If that was the case then reindeer would have the biggest brains of all seeing as they regularly eat fly agaric mushrooms (Amanita muscaria).

No. It was in all likelihood cooking food that led to our enhanced brain size.

[Celtic Rogue]

A second technique other than radioactive carbon involves the use of isotopes. An isotope is an atom having the same number of protons in its nucleus as other varieties of the element but has a different number of neutrons. Radiometric dating using one of the following isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead can be used. All have a very long half-life, ranging from 700 million years to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.


Different Isotopes can be used for cross-referencing dates

When radiometric dating was first used around 1920, it showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, using the different isotope pairs and scientists have refined the earlier estimates. This is important, for the accuracy of a fossil is not dependent on one finding; other checks are possible.

Now a day's there is only a 1% chance of error occurring with the current dating technology. In fact new geologic time scales are published every few years, providing the latest dates for major time lines. One important result is that some older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but the younger dates are very stable.

A good example occurs with the work on the boundary mark known for about 50 years now as the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. This boundary marks the end of the dinosaur's period, which was 65 million years ago. Repeated retests, using more sophisticated techniques and equipment have not shifted that date. It continues to be accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise methods the error bars are often only 1% or so.

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.

[crimethink]

Your not saying anything substantive or provable here. This is just "piss and wind"


Deflection.

Prove that "carbon dating" is accurate for dates prior to recorded history. "Projections show" or "it appears C-14 levels are consistent with our current data" is not proof.




Same again here, unqualified objections don't make an argument


I just challenged you to prove your contention. I know you cannot. So you use a diversionary deflection.




And the last one is fantastic, no really. You tell us a nice story, none of which is verifiable in any way shape or form, without any facts other than your opinion as to why this is actually horseshit.


I'm not obligated to show the total absence of genuine evidence of the method you have complete faith in. Your opinion is not more meaningful or valid than mine simply because your cult claims your opinion is "science." Call me Doubting Thomas if you like, but my skepticism is completely valid whether you like it or not. Am I saying the "scientists" who insist "carbon dating" is accurate are lying? Yes, some of them are - others go along with it because my level of skepticism is career-ending, and not because skeptics are not fully-competent scientists (political-incorrectness in academia is career-ending).




I give you unadulterated verifiable facts about how isotopic analysis works and you spew that bunk back at me, claiming modern science is sophistry.


LOL - "verifiable facts." You have a time machine and "verified" that anything is, say, 40,000 or 400,000 years old?

You assume your beliefs about C-14 are correct.




How utterly ironic! :D

Laugh all you want - you are typical of the fake "science" cult - you are as much a fanatic as any other religious cultist. "Science" is revealed truth for you, and you are unable to reflect on the reality that what you think you "know" is not knowledge at all, but belief.

Yes, indeed, you are the one using sophistry. "Sophisticated arguments" about "verifiable facts" where there are none. Inferred claims that your assertions are "provable," when such is impossible with known technologies. I am most definitely not the one trying to deceive anyone. I'm merely demanding you stop purporting that claims you cannot prove are "facts." Be honest, and admit your beliefs are just that: beliefs. You believe "carbon dating" is accurate, you believe these artifacts are 300,000+ years old - not "know" it is or they are, respectively.

[crimethink]

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.

LOL - belief, not "science."

In order for one to know such things, one must have total access to every possible variable (e.g., is the absorption of C-14 and then its decay truly constant?), and then be able to actually test it by comparing a specimen of known extreme age against the C-14 results. Of course, before a few thousand years ago, the "carbon dating" cannot be established as factual. Actual knowledge of the age of ancient artifacts ends at the limit of human history (a few millennia ago), or, in some cases, with comparison to Dendrochronology (tree ring dating).

There are documented errors involving "carbon dating" which are based on stupid errors, as well. Of particular interest to me, one case involves the Shroud of Turin. This was "dated" to the Middle Ages, and based on such "science" alone, was declared a fraud. However, the "carbon dating" was performed on a medieval patch applied after a fire. Pollen embedded in the undamaged, unrepaired fiber, however, "dates" it to First Century Palestine. Documentary provenance also concurs (The Shroud is identical to the Mandylion of Edessa).

[Celtic Rogue]

LOL - belief, not "science."
LOL - Just saying it isnt so doesnt disprove anything!


In order for one to know such things, one must have total access to every possible variable

Not true... Ever heard of Algebra? Elementary algebra differs from arithmetic in the use of abstractions, such as using letters to stand for variables that are unknown.

For example, in https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/8/9/38952d8690fef1b90ebd20ea65c7eb9a.png the letter https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/d/d/9dd4e461268c8034f5c8564e155c67a6.png is unknown variable, but the law of inverses can be used to discover its value: https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/8/7/5870bb658ee9e8a6900c138365d64c80.png. This is a standard method of finding out the parts of an equation in scientific method.

So you do not have to know EVERYTHING to find out the correct answer to the problem. Nothing is absolute in science.

Sometimes close or knowing the trend is enough.

[aeondaze]

Deflection.

Prove that "carbon dating" is accurate for dates prior to recorded history. "Projections show" or "it appears C-14 levels are consistent with our current data" is not proof.

I just challenged you to prove your contention. I know you cannot. So you use a diversionary deflection.

I just gave you solid reasoning to the methods validity via the mechanism of isotopic decay, which is provable and thus far proven to be fact. If you wish to completely trivialize and deny this very real physical phenomena so be it, but it doesn't make you right. There is no need to accept your challenge, as the facts stated previously render your request moot.


I'm not obligated to show the total absence of genuine evidence of the method you have complete faith in. Your opinion is not more meaningful or valid than mine simply because your cult claims your opinion is "science." Call me Doubting Thomas if you like, but my skepticism is completely valid whether you like it or not. Am I saying the "scientists" who insist "carbon dating" is accurate are lying? Yes, some of them are - others go along with it because my level of skepticism is career-ending, and not because skeptics are not fully-competent scientists (political-incorrectness in academia is career-ending).

Equally, I'm not obligated to show the total absence of genuine evidence of your complete faith in a god. My reality is verifiable by facts, yours is merely an item of faith with no supporting evidence.


You assume your beliefs about C-14 are correct. Laugh all you want - you are typical of the fake "science" cult - you are as much a fanatic as any other religious cultist. "Science" is revealed truth for you, and you are unable to reflect on the reality that what you think you "know" is not knowledge at all, but belief.

As I said you can argue against the reality of isotopic decay all you want, you can cry foul and proclaim it faith based, but that doesn't make it so.



Yes, indeed, you are the one using sophistry. "Sophisticated arguments" about "verifiable facts" where there are none. Inferred claims that your assertions are "provable," when such is impossible with known technologies. I am most definitely not the one trying to deceive anyone. I'm merely demanding you stop purporting that claims you cannot prove are "facts." Be honest, and admit your beliefs are just that: beliefs. You believe "carbon dating" is accurate, you believe these artifacts are 300,000+ years old - not "know" it is or they are, respectively.

Demand all you want, it won't make me change my stance, lol. ISOTOPIC DECAY IS A FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL REALITY AND A USEFUL TOOL WITH WHICH TO DATE OBJECTS. - Fact, not opinion!


Of particular interest to me, one case involves the Shroud of Turin. This was "dated" to the Middle Ages, and based on such "science" alone, was declared a fraud. However, the "carbon dating" was performed on a medieval patch applied after a fire. Pollen embedded in the undamaged, unrepaired fiber, however, "dates" it to First Century Palestine. Documentary provenance also concurs (The Shroud is identical to the Mandylion of Edessa).

And how was this "pollen" dated again...C14 isotopic decay!

You just proved my point. You are happy to accept the findings of C14 dating if they agree with your preconceived view of the world. Besides, the failure to accurately date the shroud as you claim, was not due to a short fall in C14 dating but sampling, two completely different things!

This argument has become circular. I accept that the things which I take as fact you vehemently deny.

You can keep re-posting the same rhetoric but I assure you, you'll not change the outcome.

:rolleyes:

[crimethink]

LOL - Just saying it isnt so doesnt disprove anything!


Just saying it's "science" doesn't prove anything.



Nothing is absolute in science.

Sometimes close or knowing the trend is enough.

Yes, we know:

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/chernobyl_25th_anniversary/bp2.jpg

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/fp-communication-fukushima_280474.jpg


"Safe and effective":

http://i3.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article237060.ece/alternates/s615/Louise_Medus_288322829.jpg

[crimethink]

I just gave you solid reasoning to the methods validity via the mechanism of isotopic decay, which is provable and thus far proven to be fact.


In a laboratory, right now, in front of us. But do our current findings apply in the real world, across all epochs, under every scenario? One must believe, or not.





And how was this "pollen" dated again...C14 isotopic decay!


Nope.




You just proved my point. You are happy to accept the findings of C14 dating if they agree with your preconceived view of the world.


Nope. I put "dates" in quotes for a reason. You assumed something I did not believe.




This argument has become circular.


"Science is fact because facts are science." :rolleyes:




You can keep re-posting the same rhetoric but I assure you, you'll not change the outcome.


No, I don't imagine I will. You have replaced faith in God with faith in man. Your religion is "science," which is faith-based as readily as any extremist religion. But the hubris of so-called "scientists" will never allow them to admit their position is, indeed, faith-based.

[ShortJohnSilver]

So under what circumstances, does a writing system come into play?

We know the ancient Sumerians developed a writing system, and the main reason it is known today is their choice of clay tablets.

It is entirely reasonable to believe that any kingdom/nation over 1 million people in size, would have developed a writing system if they had say 200 years of relative peace. Therefore, assuming this is correct, there must have been many , many civilizations pre-Sumerian.

[Publico]

I have the PHD in ancient writing systems. I can state without hesitation that the markings on the clam shell translate to:

"For a good time call, 867-5309. Ask for Jenny."