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.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I have seen skulls of Australopithecus afarensis, and they're are barely half the size of modern day man or the neandertals. furthermore, the cranial cavity size is somewhere in the 400-600 cm^3 range, hardly in the "bell curve range" of anyone able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
And the Neandertal skulls, while being the approximate same size as ours (indeed, the cranial capacity of H. neanderthalensis is statistically larger than today's people), are completely different, with the occipital bun, the brow ridge, a hypertrophied maxilla, etc.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"and the Homo Sapiens as we know them today. Are you attempting to refute this?"
I think I just did.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But there's not an intrinsic flaw in cargon-14 dating, although there are those that want there to be errors. In case you don't know how C14 dating works, a good although a bit simplistic, place to find out is here.
Olsson (1974), and Gupta and Polach (1985:129-134) have considered the nature of this relationship between sample, contaminant and magnitude of error. They suggested that by "guesstimating" the age difference between the 'true' sample age and that of the contaminant, and calculating the relative size of the contaminant in the sample, it was possible to determine the extent of the error caused by the contaminant and apply a correction.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Dang. This means tht not only am I an "interloper" in the New World (in the eyes of the "Native American" fans), but even in my homeland, I'm an interloper and destroyer of the Native Peoples of Europe.
I am so politically incorrect, I can barely stand it.
God, the guilt!!
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I wasn't aware that those same H. sapiens remains were 200k years old, what I'd read (ant this was several years ago) was that they were about 90 k years old.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And you call cut-and-paste from Jean Auels's novels "science", then?
For further insights into what science is and isn't, I suggest you check out teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu... .
Science is a way of looking at things that implies coming up with the best possible way to explain the universe, with the understanding that next week or next year or next century, someone will come up with a better way to measure it, which will probably refine our existing measurements.
But meanwhile, we go with the very best data we have, and for short-term measurements of organic material, C-14 is the way to do it.
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
volksgeist says:
Remember that the best definition of "species" is a group where all of the members can interbreed with other members. If we change to the point where we can no longer interbreed and produce fertile, viable, offspring, then we are different species.
Originally posted by MrOtis
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I have seen skulls of Australopithecus afarensis, and they're are barely half the size of modern day man or the neandertals. furthermore, the cranial cavity size is somewhere in the 400-600 cm^3 range, hardly in the "bell curve range" of anyone able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
And the Neandertal skulls, while being the approximate same size as ours (indeed, the cranial capacity of H. neanderthalensis is statistically larger than today's people), are completely different, with the occipital bun, the brow ridge, a hypertrophied maxilla, etc.
And I have seen the Apple PowerBook commercial featuring Mini-Me and Yao Ming. Difference in size is not necessarily a basis on which to determine species.
There are also fewer than 30 examples of Neanderthals on which to base any conclusions, hardly a representative sample.
The link to the article in the Telegraph detailing Prof. Henneberg's findings: "Believe it or not, they're all the same species"