It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Schmidt1989
originally posted by: oldworldbeliever
Don't these books get update periodically based on new information?
Of course, just like any field of science. But the author of this thread is using information that states we have an evolutionary gap. Unless that article is 100 years old, it's incorrect and irrelevant.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Schmidt1989
I completely agree with you regarding the terminology being demonstrated. In all fairness to the OP though, the thread title is based on the article from which the thread is based. With that said, it is extremely misleading by saying "Humans might be a half million years older than previously thought" when the more apropos terminology would be that a new find pushes the advent of our genus Homo back several hundred thousand years as most people are thinking of H. Sapiens or H. Sapiens Sapiens when someone says "Human" and there is nothing to indicate, as yet, that Sapiens have been around much more than 200KY or archaic Humans( Heidelbergensis/Rhodesiensis et al) have been around more than a half million +/-