Scientists Find Oldest Known Specimens of the Human Species

At least they said known.

Another fossil of one of our linage/cousins has been found that pushes the spread of bipedal upright kinda looking like us, tool making, hunting and gathering plus cooking , back another 100,000.. This fairly modern Homo sapien creature existed 300,000 years ago.

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.

One of the comments in the article said by wearing a hat these creatures could walk down a crowded sidewalk and probably go unnoticed.. I do not doubt that for even today we have some pretty weird shapes and sizes walking around.
www.wsj.com...

S&F This is so cool!!

10 others that unless you count a few genes are now extinct. youtu.be...

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.

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.

well, it's not like new discoveries are going to push the age forwards.

And for those who consider themselves someone who likes to think about the future of mankind's development here is an interesting video based upon science and speculation of the human body. youtu.be... worth a watch for those interested.

a reply to: 727Sky

Well, well, well... It looks like I was right all along!

My ex-mother-in-law is clearly a time traveler from 100,000 years in the future.

a reply to: 727Sky

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.

But, but, the Bible says we are only six thousand years old?

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.

a reply to: randyvs

Actually Randy the Coelacanth has evolved.

Coelacanthiformes are actually an order of fish of which there are two currently surviving species.

The reason why Coelacanths are considered living fossils is because they were believed to have died out in the Cretaceous and are more closely related to lungfish and early tetrapods than they are to modern fish (we're tetrapods Randy, so we're talking about our amphibious ancestors, the transition from fish to amphibian).

As for the OP it's a contentious finding as it pushes back modern human origins at least 100,000 years. No doubt it will be treated similarly to claims of pre-clovis migrations to North and South America, with scrutiny and skepticism. If true it makes me wonder what our ancestors were doing for hundreds of thousands of years and how those forgotten ages shape our modern behaviors and proclivities. We like to think we have a good grasp on what it means to be human but really we've only been keeping records for a tiny sliver of time compared to how long our species has been around.

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?

a reply to: peter vlar

I was expecting you my old time favorite.

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 )

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Excellent retort Titen as alaways.

Devoluted plant here. My root used to hang out my ass but i fell into a black hole now its connected to by voice box.

Why won't science share me story with the world. Hairy monkey cousins are not that interesting when you grew up in the south.

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 )

Personal incredulity answers nothing.

We are only beginning to understand the complex chemistry that was the forge of our young planet. Even when we finally create life from none life, it may or may not be how it actually got started naturally, because it's nearly impossible to know the exact conditions that were present.
Saying it "seems completely impossible to me," just removes you from wanting finding out. But I suppose your alternative reality forbids it anyway.

a reply to: 727Sky
youtu.be...

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?

Good answers, but i doubt creationists have the degree of intelligence to understand, it's like arguing with an idiot, waste of times.

In a sense, evolution has not worked for them, or stopped at a very early age, almost making me believe in their creationism theory when i listen to them LOL. Ok that was mean.