d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Evolution Rewritten Once Again
Prev12347Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 737
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 0.00
Dec 28 2010 07:41pm
:)
Member
Posts: 38,770
Joined: Sep 14 2005
Gold: 12,839.39
Dec 29 2010 01:31am
Quote (d2iaf @ Dec 28 2010 05:31pm)
no they mean the origin of modern man is from israel
yes they said the theory will have to be rewritten from where it says the origins and this kinds throws off the timeline of evolution of man as well
well actually theories arent a part of science since they cant be "proven beyond reasonable doubt" but they are in the thoughts of the general scientist population.


yes they said origin of modern man. you said origin of man, i took that as non-homo sapien origination. and since when are theories not part of science?
Member
Posts: 6,457
Joined: Mar 12 2007
Gold: 6,745.00
Dec 29 2010 04:12am
And your point is what exactly? Scientific theories are updated and changed often as more information becomes available.

Quote (d2iaf @ Dec 28 2010 04:31pm)
well actually theories arent a part of science since they cant be "proven beyond reasonable doubt" but they are in the thoughts of the general scientist population.


Umm... science isn't a court room.

Member
Posts: 14,099
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Gold: 83.30
Dec 29 2010 07:14am
One minor problem I have with the current conclusion is that the dating used is was only by the stratigraphy. To have a reliable dating, I'd say they would have to include more than one way. IE C-14 dating to confirm.
Also, if OP had any kind of brain, he'd have read further than just the line that insinuates humans could have originated from Israel.
Quote
Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, said the study is reputable, and the find is "important" because remains from that critical time period are scarce, but it is premature to say the remains are human.

"Based on the evidence they've cited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.

According to today's accepted scientific theories, modern humans and Neanderthals stemmed from a common ancestor who lived in Africa about 700,000 years ago. One group of descendants migrated to Europe and developed into Neanderthals, later becoming extinct. Another group stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens — modern humans.

Teeth are often unreliable indicators of origin, and analyses of skull remains would more definitively identify the species found in the Israeli cave, Mellars said.



The conclusion we can draw is that a very old tooth was found, but it is not yet sure how old it is or what's it from.
Member
Posts: 13,578
Joined: Jul 27 2010
Gold: 2,285.00
Dec 29 2010 08:48am
Quote (balrog66 @ Dec 29 2010 08:14am)
To have a reliable dating, I'd say they would have to include more than one way. IE C-14 dating to confirm.

The reason they can't use C-14 dating on fossils like that is that C-14 has a half life of ~5700 years, so after 60,000 years it's pretty much unusable (less than a tenth of a percent of the original amount of C-14 is left by that time). I don't know specifically what other methods of radiometric dating might be available, though, since that's not my field.
Member
Posts: 13,305
Joined: Sep 28 2005
Gold: 4.21
Dec 29 2010 01:33pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Dec 29 2010 02:48pm)
The reason they can't use C-14 dating on fossils like that is that C-14 has a half life of ~5700 years, so after 60,000 years it's pretty much unusable (less than a tenth of a percent of the original amount of C-14 is left by that time). I don't know specifically what other methods of radiometric dating might be available, though, since that's not my field.


pretty much this. as things get REALLY old its actually about impossible to date it at all. let alone how accurate the guess is.
Member
Posts: 737
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 0.00
Dec 29 2010 03:10pm
Quote (thenoose @ Dec 29 2010 05:12am)
And your point is what exactly? Scientific theories are updated and changed often as more information becomes available.



Umm... science isn't a court room.


science doesnt consist of theories either because any1 can make any theory :(
Member
Posts: 737
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 0.00
Dec 29 2010 03:11pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Dec 29 2010 09:48am)
The reason they can't use C-14 dating on fossils like that is that C-14 has a half life of ~5700 years, so after 60,000 years it's pretty much unusable (less than a tenth of a percent of the original amount of C-14 is left by that time). I don't know specifically what other methods of radiometric dating might be available, though, since that's not my field.


glad someone pointed that out. also i would add that c-14 is not very accurate because of the decline of the earths magnetic field strength, i heard its lowered some 30% in the last couple hundred years or somehting like that.

only thing they can do btw is look at the layer it was found in but if there was a great flood all those ages for each layer are all wrong :(

This post was edited by d2iaf on Dec 29 2010 03:14pm
Member
Posts: 3,671
Joined: Oct 20 2007
Gold: 0.00
Dec 29 2010 03:12pm
Quote (d2iaf @ Dec 29 2010 09:10pm)
science doesnt consist of theories either because any1 can make any theory :(


how many damn times is someone gonna say that ITS JUST A THEORY? A THEORY THAT THE WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY follows... yea just a theory, there a difference between a credible and one that can be backed up by evidence and one that a ding bat can makeup thats not credible and has no evidence
Member
Posts: 737
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 0.00
Dec 29 2010 03:15pm
Quote (P_Pepa @ Dec 29 2010 04:12pm)
how many damn times is someone gonna say that ITS JUST A THEORY? A THEORY THAT THE WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY follows... yea just a theory, there a difference between a credible and one that can be backed up by evidence and one that a ding bat can makeup thats not credible and has no evidence


sorry no evidence for the theory :(

and just because everyone follows it doesnt make it tru ^_^ take for example that everyone followed the theory that the earth was flat many years ago, was that true? ;)

and dont say this is science and that wasnt because that was science for them from their observation there was no way they could know it was round ;)

This post was edited by d2iaf on Dec 29 2010 03:22pm
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev12347Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll