It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
By Robert Lee Hotz
June 7, 2017 1:00 p.m. ET
164 COMMENTS
The bones of ancient hunters unearthed in Morocco are the oldest known specimens of the human species, potentially pushing back the clock on the origin of modern Homo sapiens, scientists announced Wednesday.
Found among stone tools and the ashes of ancient campfires, the remains date from about 300,000 years ago, a time when the Sahara was green and several early human species roamed the world, the scientists said. That makes them about 100,000 years older than any other fossils of Homo sapiens—the species to which all people today belong.
“These dates were a big wow,” said anthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Leipzig, Germany. He led an international team of scientists who reported the discovery Wednesday in Nature. “This material represents the very roots of our species—the very oldest Homo sapiens found in Africa or anywhere.”
Until now, most researchers believed that modern humankind emerged gradually from a population centered in East Africa around 200,000 years ago. Previous discoveries of early Homo sapiens fossils have been concentrated at sites in Ethiopia.
originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: 727Sky
It seems that every time we discovered new human fossils, we keep pushing the date of how old homo sapiens is.
Found among stone tools and the ashes of ancient campfires, the remains date from about 300,000 years ago, a time when the Sahara was green and several early human species roamed the world, the scientists said. That makes them about 100,000 years older than any other fossils of Homo sapiens—the species to which all people today belong.
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: 727Sky
If evolution is true why hasn't ceolacanth evolved at all?
Stupid idea that only testifies to what the Bible says further.
Man chose to do life without God.
Evolution is in impossible in a hostile environment.
What does this even mean? It's either just a random nonsequitor or you're parroting someone else's words. Either way, it's for no basis in truth. Could you support this notion with a citation or at least explain what you mean and why evolution is impossible in a hostile environment and what actually constitutes a hostile environment?
What I meant was I don't believe abiogenesis ( that which must occur first)
is hardly imaginable outside a controled environment. The hostility that is
described to be present on the earth at the same time all this miraculous
abiogenesis was taking place? It just seems completely impossible to me
outside the petri dish. And I'm not even convinced of the petri dish.
Surely this is a soild argument. No? ( with every respect )
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: 727Sky
If evolution is true why hasn't ceolacanth evolved at all?
Except that it has. Though I don't expect people who purposely limit their intake of knowledge to know that. See, "Coelocanth" isn't a type of fish, it's not a species, it's not even a Genus, Coelocanth is an entire order. There are 2 surviving Genus of Coelocanth that are extant (living today) called Latimeria. the West Indian Ocean coelacanth primarily found near the Comoro Islands off the east coast of Africa (Latimeria chalumnae) and the Indonesian coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis).And neither of these are the same as the Coelocanth that are known from the fossil record 60+ million years ago.
Stupid idea that only testifies to what the Bible says further.
Man chose to do life without God.
Except that one has nothing to do with the other. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of your personal faith. Insisting that they are tied together or that one can not be true without the other is a limitation put in place by you alone. The refusal to acknowledge over a century and a half of data lies only with you and one specific interpretation of a group of books compiled by Roman aristocrats approximately 1630 years ago. And even then, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis still has nothing to do with that lovely compendium.
Evolution is in impossible in a hostile environment.
What does this even mean? It's either just a random nonsequitor or you're parroting someone else's words. Either way, it's for no basis in truth. Could you support this notion with a citation or at least explain what you mean and why evolution is impossible in a hostile environment and what actually constitutes a hostile environment?