DescentBB

Seems our long cherished beliefs that man originated and migrated out of Africa may be at a crossroads:

\"Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.\"

\"Speaking at the British Science Festival in Guildford, where he gave the British Council lecture, Professor Lordkipanidze raised the prospect that Homo erectus may have evolved in Eurasia from the more primitive-looking Dmanisi population and then migrated back to Africa to eventually give rise to our own species, Homo sapiens – modern man.\"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 83861.html

Kinda shows that just when you think you know it all, something pops up to make you start thinking all over again

that is if you really trust carbon dating. Interesting find though.

I find it rather comical that absolute statements are made like that (origin of man start in Africa) when science clearly understands that most stuff rots. It's abnormal for remains to be preserved. Just because you find remains in one area that appear to to be older than another, is not evidence enough to claim \"this is where 'man\" started\".

(no aspersion on you Woody)

None taken bud. It would be more interesting if they could find well preserved fossils in increments of say 100k years instead of every million. would give us a much clearer view of how we progressed. I guess all we can do is work with what we got.

I don't think the article mentions carbon dating. It's irrelevent anyway, because (a) carbon dating is just fine as a dating technique, as long as you work within its limitations, and (b) carbon dating only goes out about 50K years or so, so it wouldn't be too helpful for objects that are 1-2 million years old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

interesting link dissent. Thanks. I plan on following the links on that page. I really need to learn more about the subject.
One of discrepancies I've heard voiced is that levels of Carbon-14 have remained consistent over the years and tests don't account for fluctuation. But like I said, I want to learn more about it; I just don't think about it often enough to search it out.

In my experience ready the literature in paleontology/paleoanthropology, isotopes of Ar and U are used most often in dating older rock formations. Some locals however are more difficult to pinpoint a date due to the incursions of igneous formations like dikes and stills of a latter/prior age.

386DX wrote:In my experience ready the literature in paleontology/paleoanthropology, isotopes of Ar and U are used most often in dating older rock formations. Some locals however are more difficult to pinpoint a date due to the incursions of igneous formations like dikes and stills of a latter/prior age.

OK? Where did this come from?

386DX how long have you been around?

joined 03'; 18 posts. @ content, I'd call it trolling.