Two million year old find!

page: 7
72
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well no doubt ardipithecus at ~ 5m years is very human-like, but even at the proconsulid level of ~ 20m years ago, they had some human-like traits.
Even 20 million years is nothing in geologic time.




posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion

Well no doubt ardipithecus at ~ 5m years is very human-


Well....as human like as a chimp....I guess



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by cruzion

Well no doubt ardipithecus at ~ 5m years is very human-


Well....as human like as a chimp....I guess


...but a chimp as they are now or as a chimp as they were 5 million years ago? As far as I know fossil Chimpanzee and Bonobo remains are few and far in between at present.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Let's try not to stray too far please.


Johannesburg...

Wonderwerk cave outside Kuruman...

They have found 30 artefacts...

Some of the most interesting items which have been found in the Wonderwerk Cave include stone tools, grass and shrubs used for bedding, animal bones and rock paintings...


etc.

TIA




[edit on Sun Dec 21 2008 by Jbird]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
What I'm trying to say is that traits in humans were existant even 20 and 30 million years ago, in our ancestors. Obviously the nearer you get in time to the present, the more they will resemble sapiens, obviously.
A chimp of 5 million years ago is a lot different to a present day chimp, or a chimp of 5 million years time.
Using tools is still a big evolutionary step.



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Let me try to correct some of the wild statements that have been made so far on this thread.
Here is what the article said about the find:

Stone tools found at the bottom level of the cave — believed to be 2 million years old — show that human ancestors were in the cave earlier than ever thought before. Geological evidence indicates that these tools were left in the cave and not washed into the site from the outside world.
....

The combination of stone tools indicating the presence of human ancestors and the dating of the level leads to the conclusion that human ancestors (hominids) were in the cave 2 million years ago. This is the earliest evidence for intentional cave occupation by human ancestors.

The article does NOT indicate finding any fossils, only tools.

Now, the information in this article does NOT push back the date to which we have found early fossils, believed to be ancestors of modern man:

www.msu.edu...


The Eastern African specimen: Homo habilis represents a pivotal phase in hominid evolution. Scientists have marked habilis as the beginning of the Homo line, where hominids are recognized as breaking off from the australopithecine classification. A large part in making the determination of where the beginning of the Homo line were to take place had much to do with the level of encephalization taking place in H. habilis, as it is with habilis that we begin to see strong movements toward a modern brain size. Homo habilis broke through into science in the early 1960's with the discovery of the OH 7 (the habilis type specimen) fossil at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania by Louis Leakey and collegues. The existence of Homo habilis is currently dated to between 1.9 and 1.6 million years.


AL 666-1 Maxilla

~Found by William Kimball at Hadar

~Dated to 2.3 million years


Again, in the article:

There were a number of species of hominids in southern Africat 2 million years ago. The most likely candidate as the manufacturer of the stone tools found at Wonderwerk is Homo habilis. The oldest known stone tools from sites in Ethiopia date to 2.4 million years. The Wonderwerk Cave discoveries are those close in age to the very earliest known stone tools and similar in date to the bottom levels at Olduvai Gorge.


Now, how did they draw the conclusion that the site was probably the dwelling of Homo habilis?
In this source:
www.ecotao.com...
we read:

The main features of the transition from Australopithecines to H. habilis are the use of tools and an enlarged braincase (700cc) (Avers, 1989) (600 to 750 cc (Gore, 1997)). H. habilis could walk upright like modern humans, but could probably also climb trees to sleep, feed or escape predators. Their hand and foot had a combination of ancient and modern features, expected from an early ancestor. By the time that H. habilis arose, the foot still fell somewhere between that of a man and gorilla in its weight-bearing capabilities! Even the anklebone suggests their walking differed from the human striding gait. The robust lower legbones, the tibia and fibula showed that the adaptation to bipedalism was even less specialised at the knee joint. This bipedal, plantigrade primate thus had a different gait to modern humans, but not necessarily less efficient, and perhaps superior (see details on the australopithecine hip [2]). An adult female fossil representative of this species stood only 90 cm high, with hands hanging over the knees as in apes! These features of H. habilis are almost identical to those of A. afarensis , showing here that the primitive apelike characteristics served well in the niche of this creature in nature for a very long time.


Thus, since current thinking is that H. habilis was the first tool maker, the conclusion of H. habilis follows.

I should point out that the debate still rages as to whether H. erectus is a direct descendant Homo Habilis, or as some now believe, that both species co-existed, and descended from a common ancestor.

What I have tried to do, is present current thought on the ancestry of man,without regard to anomalous objects found or any other alternate theories. Nowhere have there been any reputable finds of fossils that indicate man goes back 20 million years. That does not mean it is not possible, but based upon the finds to date, such statements would be wild speculation, without reputable scientific or archeological evidence.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Nowhere have there been any reputable finds of fossils that indicate man goes back 20 million years.


Who said man goes back 20 million years?
I know I didn't.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by twodee
 


Great stuff!!! Too bad they don't show any images of the 30 artifacts they say they found ....

Peace!



[edit on 12/22/2008 by Melyanna Tengwesta]



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The problem I have with this find is the age and the depth....

your telling me in 2 million years stuff only sinks down 6 meters?

2 million years goes into 1 billion 500 times

so thats 500 times 6 meters which is 3000 meters every billion years.

so 3000 meters is roughly 9000 feet. almost 2 miles deep every 1 billion years.

now this all sounds fine and dandy until i look at how far the continents themselves moved over the past 6 billion years and its thousands of miles... new mountains have formed.... new lakes....

the north and south poles have changed location many times (or so ive read)

volcanoes have exploded and changed the face of the planet over the billions of years and meteor impacts.

and your telling me over 2 MILLION years this stuff only sank 18 feet into the earth?

I can go into my backyard and dig 2 feet down and find stuff thats only a couple years old.

i know the continents move side to side which is different from up and down. but it still doesnt seem to add up correctly.

then again.... I dont know much about this kind of thing so if anyone cares to enlighten me please do.

and how deep do the generally find dinasaur bones? because those are what? 100 million years old? yet they r finding these things not that deep?

100 million years.... the time it takes for a new mountain range to form miles out of the earth....

yet dinasaur bones are like what? sometimes a few feet deep?

I doubt the stuff we find is as old as we think it is. I highly doubt any dinasaur bones are 250 million+ years old and we can find them so conveniently. Tons of them.



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Let's not forget this is AFRICA we're talking about! If Britain never colonized the damn place chances are high it would still look the way it did 2mil years ago. I find it easy to believe AFRICANS could have lived there for a million + years without showing much improvement. I'm seriously not trying to be mean it's just how it is.



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by twodee
 



Wow - 2 million year old artefacts...

I have heard we found a leather pouch that contained arrowheads "Cherokee" - that was found in a 300K year old Coal seam in West Va. I didnt know the cherokee made it that far north... I'm from the 3 corners area... Tenn. Ga. N.Carolina... area. and well that sort of blows the doors off the theory that we came from Asia 10K years ago ...

you know, the bible uses the term "Re-Plentish" so, maybe life is as old as earth. lord knows what we will find... a few years ago we found an ancient computer "Greek" I think... but this is just a Zodiak calculator that only tracked 5 planets... > 5 Planets.... and we have the Myans who just vanished.... several civilizations that just seem to disappear ... throughout history... I wonder if we are being harvested ... ?



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BornPatriot
 


I can assure you that the Maya still exist, all thirty plus dialect groups. I use to work with them.



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Wow - 2 million year old artefacts...

I have heard we found a leather pouch that contained arrowheads "Cherokee" - that was found in a 300K year old Coal seam in West Va. I didnt know the cherokee made it that far north... I'm from the 3 corners area... Tenn. Ga. N.Carolina... area. and well that sort of blows the doors off the theory that we came from Asia 10K years ago ...



Arrowheads found 300k ago would be a greater find than a M16 found in King Tuts tomb.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by xbranscombex
2,000,000 years?

So I guess the Bible is wrong then?


I've read the bible cover to cover and it doesn't mention anywhere the actual age of the Earth or mankind. The bible is a religious history book and an outline of how one should live their daily life. It is not a scientific textbook. But thanks for the being the token anti-religious idiot in the thread!



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by evo190

it's just how it is.


No, that's not 'how it is.' Perhaps use your brain next time before posting something so outwardly racist/ignorant.

Merry Christmas.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Monger]



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quaght

Originally posted by xbranscombex
2,000,000 years?

So I guess the Bible is wrong then?


I've read the bible cover to cover and it doesn't mention anywhere the actual age of the Earth or mankind. The bible is a religious history book and an outline of how one should live their daily life. It is not a scientific textbook. But thanks for the being the token anti-religious idiot in the thread!


according to the bible modern "civilized upright thinking man" is 6000 years old....the earth millions of years old. things were here looong before "civilized man" was put here. so no the bible doesnt say the "earth" is 6000 years old....but that "civilized man" is 6000 years old.



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Funkydung
 


So, the Sumer civilization does not count then? Or for that matter the settlements at Jericho or Catalhoyuk?



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by evo190
Let's not forget this is AFRICA we're talking about! If Britain never colonized the damn place chances are high it would still look the way it did 2mil years ago. I find it easy to believe AFRICANS could have lived there for a million + years without showing much improvement. I'm seriously not trying to be mean it's just how it is.


maybe a billion



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
2 000 000 year old find? I dunno... And these hominids are supposed to have had fire and tools? The time line would make it an australopith. Basically a more hominid chimpanzee. But those didn't use tools and fire.
The 400 000 year old bushmen artefacts are another more realistic matter.



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
72
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join