2 million year old foot print found in egypt

2 million year old foot print found in egypt

www.reuters.com

Egyptian archaeologists have found what they said could be the oldest human footprint in history in the country's western desert, the Arab country's antiquities' chief said on Monday.

"This could go back about two million years," said Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. "It could be the most important discovery in Egypt," he told Reuters.

(visit the link for the full news article)

2 million years seriously old , yet to be carbon dated ( we know how accurate/inacurate that is) depeneding on who you listen to.


www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I dont understand why this is in BTS? this is a crazy discovery, i mean how long has scientist estimated humans have been around?!? i'm pretty sure it wasn't even close to 2 million years!

Your right, it is a pretty crazy discovery, if true. I could be wrong, but I think scientists estimate man has been around for about 250,000 years? If so, thats a huge gap there!

Ha ha this is so funny.

The Bible suggests that Adam and eve lived only a little over 4,000 years ago.

The Mitochondrial Eve theory based on DNA holds that we all had a common ancestor. The Mitochondrial_Eve is suggested to have lived anywhere between 385,000 years ago and 140,000 years ago depending whose theory you listen to.

Even worse, Mitochondrial Adam is suggested to have only turned up 60,000 years ago... Hey one up for the femminists (alternately Nature could have decided to replace women as a failed experiment ha ha)

I know that fossil remains have pushed back early humans to at least one million years ago.

The real interesting footprints come from a river somewhere in USA, where a layer was exposed revealing human footprints and dinasour footprints in the same geological stratum...

Explain that one ?

Have done a bit of reading and opinion varies widely indeed from 50,000 years to 1 million years depending on what evidence you read,

remeber lucy? she was 3 million years although i think disproven as basically just a monkey

The real interesting footprints come from a river somewhere in USA, where a layer was exposed revealing human footprints and dinasour footprints in the same geological stratum...

Time travel i bet it was doug mcclures footprints :p

hmm very intresting would love a link to that story.


[edit on 21/8/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

There's a thread in the Ancient & Lost Civilizations forum: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I think it's still way to early to say much. It doesn't even seem to be clear if the 'print' belongs to a human or a human/ape-like ancestor. Also, I didn't think they could carbon date anything that old. Could just be bad reporting or my own ignorance, but that was the first clue that something is fishy here.



If it is indeed evidence of 'modern humans' walking about two million years ago, this is HUGE. Doesn't fit in with ANY theory that I'm aware of.



But, as I said, a lot doesn't add up here. I'm doing the wait-n-see thing here.

Originally posted by sy.gunson

I know that fossil remains have pushed back early humans to at least one million years ago.

The real interesting footprints come from a river somewhere in USA, where a layer was exposed revealing human footprints and dinasour footprints in the same geological stratum...

Explain that one ?

It was bogus [ paluxy ] AFAIK the young earthers have backed away from it. It's anyone's guess whether it was a hoax or 'simple' mis-identification. Well, at least, I don't know the answer.

I am going to wait until carbon dating is done on this to pass judgement.Religions will freak out or at least deny deny deny to our face.

Originally posted by theebdk
I am going to wait until carbon dating is done on this to pass judgement.Religions will freak out or at least deny deny deny to our face.

1)You can't carbon date something that's two million years old.

2)Bishop Usher's dating of Adam and Eve/creation aside, what are you talking about ("deny, deny, deny") Young Earth Creationists wont like it, but so what, doesn't conform to the standard model (any of 'em) wrt to ape-man common ancestry, either.

This is a big deal, if true, that will have plenty of folks freaking out. No reason to project your fear of religion into every topic. Got enough of that stuff on ATS as it is, imho.

Originally posted by Rren

1)You can't carbon date something that's two million years old.

apologies Rren ..

Hmmm after reading up on carbon dating the maximun allowed regression seems to be about 60,000 years ....... i wonder why there even attempting it ...

And if this is the case is everything before this date total guess work? the news article states that previously the oldest thing was 200,000 years old .. how do they know ...

Are there any other forms of reliable dating out there?

[edit on 21/8/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

[edit on 21/8/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel

Originally posted by Rren

1)You can't carbon date something that's two million years old.

i beg to differ sir .. dosn't carbon dating require some organics to be present .. well

I realize it only works on organics, that wasn't my point.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. That can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration.

It's too old, was my point.


I see your edit and match you one: No prob... like I said it's what caught my eye. But, like I said, it may just be bad reporting. Happens all the time with science stuff.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Rren]

reply to post by Rren


i know i know lol read my amendment above just as you posted this

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel


Radio carbon dating does not go back this far. See below

A UC Irvine archaeological scientist has created a new method for determining the approximate age of many artifacts between 50,000 to 100,000 years old

According to Ericson, quartz hydration can date objects that are between 100 and 1 million years old to within 20 to 35 percent of the object's age. Quartz can be found at archaeological excavation sites worldwide from Africa's Olduvai Gorge

Radiocarbon dating is good for dating organic material up to around 50,000 years old, and potassium argon dating is good for dating mineral samples that are between 100,000 and 4.3 billion years old
www.spacedaily.com/news/human-04i.html

Radio carbon dating is well received by scientists out to about 15,000 years, then it does require skill and top of the line machinery. Which is to say, it is accurate dating the Shroud of Turin to about 1100 AD.

yup i know i caught my own mistakes just as you fellows satrted pointing it out ...

potassium argon dating is good for dating mineral samples that are between 100,000 and 4.3 billion years old

this would seem the way to go would it not?

Are they talking strictly Homo Sapiens here? Or one of our ancestor species?

reply to post by TheBandit795


As far as i can research there are no official photo's available yet although lots of fake ones around..

most articles just state it is a 'Homonid' footprint

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Are they talking strictly Homo Sapiens here? Or one of our ancestor species?

That's what I was wondering. Looking around a bit, every story seems to be a re-print of the Reuters story linked in the OP. They all say human, I would assume they'd say hominid[?] if they meant an ancestor or some-such... but that too could just be bad reporting/sensationalism.


I still say it's to early to say anything... wait until the findings are published, maybe.

Still, what are the implications if this is indeed evidence of two million year old humans?

Should be fun to see how this all plays out... the Ancient & Lost Civilizations forum should be seeing a lot of traffic. Again, if this is true.


Hmmm.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Rren]

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel


most articles just state it is a 'Homonid' footprint

Hey QS,

Got a source on that? I looked through a few and they all said human. That would make a BIG difference. Still interesting, but not so earth-shattering.

reply to post by Rren


dont know how reliable site is but ..

Article 1

actually only one i found with 'hominid'

all others seem to be a direct copy form reuters

[edit on 21/8/07 by Quantum_Squirrel]