A skull that rewrites the history of man

[Dementia_Madness]

Once again what we thought we knew is wrong...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.


The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia – before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.

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.

Granted in a few months or years these theories could also be proven wrong... Just another example of how when we say we "know" something the only thing we know is that the more we learn the more we learn we need to learn more.

[roustabout]

this would be a huge blow to current evolution models. Those models don't work unless humans come on the scene much, much later.

Lucy is what, 3.2 million. If man has been on the earth that long, then this throws a monkey wrench (ha!) in the whole mess.

This also creates a huge problem for population models. If mankind has been around then the earth should have far more people on it than it does now.

[plumbervol]

You really think this throws a monkey wrench into everything? I don't see that. People learn and as they learn they advance. Everybody talks about aliens building pyramids. If you have ever had kids when they reach the age of 2-3 they start stacking blocks in a large base bottom smale base as it goes up.

As for population for one thing early man was the hunted and food, for another very short life spans with lots of disease......

[Dementia_Madness]

Wow, PV you figured that all out. Thanks man.

Look it's not about throwing monkey anythings in anythings. It's simply a FACT that what we call FACTS today, and for the history of science, is constantly being rewritten, and re-understood. So many people read a science book, and think wow that all makes sense that has to be right...or even man I do not understand that one bit, it must be right. In the end What we KNOW is that we need to KNOW more before.

We have blind faith that evolution explains it all, when in fact it doesn't, Darwin has been proven wrong in nearly EVERYTHING he claimed, yet still today much of it is taught as fact.

People can take it for granted that what they think they know is fact, or they can question and seek for more answers, that is what the heart of science is really about, taking our assumptions at face value, and understanding that underneath there might just be more to the story than what we say we know.

Just a note: It is the scientists themselves who say this "rewrites" the history of man.

[roustabout]

As for population for one thing early man was the hunted and food, for another very short life spans with lots of disease

Really? Well most scientists agreed that man has been on the scene for about 100k. some say as long as 250k, some as short as 40k. But nothing close to these ages. This creates a huge problem for the evolutionary model. Why? Well, science supposedly has this thing figured out. They have dated finds, which they consider links. If man is this old, then the dates don't line up, and the theoretical link falls completely apart. mind you there are no intermediate fossils to confirm these links in the first place. Yet, this is being taught as fact in text books to our children.

Please PV. Provide the single best proof you know of for darwiniam human evolution.

Pretty amazing that since we just found these million year old bones that you have already discovered how long they lived.

[plumbervol]

To find human bones before man started burial rites of the dead is dependent on luck, tarpits, bogs, caves etc. They now say Neanderthals in some instances buried their dead instead of leaving them for food as they moved on. Apparently they also placed their dead in trees. That led to animals scattering the bones. We do know some of the earliest MAN hunted in groups and killed large animals and followed herds. We also know that tigers followed man as we made kills and fought for early mans kill  and also preyed on early mans weakest members be it kids or the sick...

[roustabout]

How many dead Neanderthals have been found in trees?

[Dementia_Madness]

It's also a good thing all those dinosaurs buried their dead too, or we would not have the wonderful museum pieces we have today as well...

[roustabout]

Mondo,

PV's comments are a telling example of how the world has a hypercritical eye regarding the claims of the bible, yet drinks in text book material without even a hint of suspicsion.

The lab coat has become the priestly robe of the 21st century. "Thall shall not question Darwin," the command.

People dig up a 3 foot tall dead ape. An artist (An artist mind you) manufactures some human like feet, hands, etc. They stick in a museum and say, "see evolution is true!" PV just swallows it whole.

Has PV ever seen a Neanderthal in a tree, or been at a site where they made these alleged finds? No, he accepts it on FAITH.  And what the hey do tigers have to do with anything? Or, hunting? men go out in groups today, and hunt. So, what?

[Flummoxed Lummox]

We all know that the earth is less than 10,000 years old ... and the dinosaurs roamed around with humans. Just ask Ken Ham. 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Dementia_Madness]

Number of times science has been proven wrong....too many to number.

Number of times the Bible has been proven wrong.... ZERO.

I think the odds so far are against you my friend.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Number of times science has been proven wrong....too many to number.

Number of times the Bible has been proven wrong.... ZERO.

I think the odds so far are against you my friend.

You're delusional. The Bible has a plethora of contradictions. Just look at the creation myth in Genesis. There are two separate accounts with contradictory details. There are dozens and dozens of examples where the Bible says one thing and contradicts itself elsewhere.

It's sad that in the 21st century people look to religious myths dating back 2000-3000 years old in an age where people thought mental illness was demon possession and that lightning was God's anger as a "source" of science.

Science has done so little to improve human life. I mean what's the point of lifesaving drugs? Doctors who can treat and cure cancer and other diseases? Advancements in technology that improve the quality of life? Compare that to Bible and all the wars; institutional slavery; exploitation of women; persecution of Jews and homosexuals; etc; etc. that have resulted from "Christians" acting on their interpretation of the Bible.

I'll take science over superstition anyday.