Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 19    Average: 3.5/5]
58 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 19434
Rating: 3.5
Category: Science
Date: 12/29/10 07:00 AM

58 Responses to Possibly The Oldest Human Remains Found

  1. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7425 posts
    December 28, 2010 at 9:46 am
    Link: Possibly The Oldest Human Remains Found - This could change the way we think about human evolution, if these are the remains of Homo Sapiens.
  2. Profile photo of SlothOfDoom
    SlothOfDoom Male 30-39
    2033 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:08 am
    Wait, wouldn`t that make the tooth over forty times older than the earth itself? Surely god shall smite these heathen scientists who are both lying, and making me pissed.
  3. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:12 am
    Lmao @ the Neanderthals facebook profile style pic in the related content links
  4. Profile photo of themightybox
    themightybox Male 13-17
    76 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:15 am
    just waiting here for the religious flame war *sets up tent*
  5. Profile photo of APJ311
    APJ311 Male 13-17
    749 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:16 am
    Cool. I think that there`s a good chance we`re gonna get another evolution debate. :P
  6. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4683 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:18 am
    "LOL...man is so determined to pretend there is no God!"

    This comment got 358 upvotes.
  7. Profile photo of kribbe
    kribbe Male 18-29
    2006 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:22 am
    wouldn`t say this would change the way we think about evolution just alter the way we think about how old our origins are
  8. Profile photo of donthaveone
    donthaveone Male 30-39
    953 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:22 am
    "Wait, wouldn`t that make the tooth over forty times older than the earth itself?"

    REALLY? ... I`m pretty sure the earth is a little (lets say a few billion years) older than that.
  9. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3575 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:26 am
    @donthaveone Sarcasm. It goes right over your head.
  10. Profile photo of That_dude
    That_dude Male 18-29
    120 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:40 am
    the comments are so stupid, all the god people are running in circles, screaming at scientists to repent, and everyone else is mildly interested in the article.
  11. Profile photo of Pheeshy5
    Pheeshy5 Male 18-29
    1312 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 7:57 am
    There is no god. Go.
  12. Profile photo of hatface
    hatface Male 18-29
    605 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:09 am
    I think theres less flame wars and more comments about waiting for one to start nowadays. Now that`s progress.
  13. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4033 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:09 am
    Curse you IAB - I guess I have to actually do some work today.....
  14. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:10 am
    Pretty cool discovery, although yeah as the article said, a tooth is a bit vague. Lots of animals have very similar teeth, it might not be from a member of homo sapiens. Interesting if it does turn out to be the case though.
  15. Profile photo of collegebound
    collegebound Male 18-29
    3745 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:11 am
    looks like a regular old tooth to me :| all living things have teeth right? right?
  16. Profile photo of SlothOfDoom
    SlothOfDoom Male 30-39
    2033 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:12 am
    @ donthaveone:


  17. Profile photo of kingofqueens
    kingofqueens Male 30-39
    35 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:19 am
    I love how it says "we found these teeth". Then it goes on to say how it could change everything. Then it says "teeth aren`t really the best thing, we would rather have some skull" Dumb-ass evolutionists, trying to force things together.........Be careful looking in those Jewish caves you may find some more "God books!!!"...lol
  18. Profile photo of ForAllThSin
    ForAllThSin Male 18-29
    273 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:32 am
    the average scientist, "how are we going to spin this to make it look like we knew it all along?"

    the real scientist, "what did we not know that this discovery will help us understand?"
  19. Profile photo of scienceguy47
    scienceguy47 Male 18-29
    97 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:42 am
    ACTUALLY: (this is for everone claiming that human teeth are similar to those of other organisms) well, our teeth are very different. very different indeed.
  20. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 9:23 am
    The article itself is mildly interesting. The comments from the God-mumblers however, are an absolute riot.
  21. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5196 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 9:24 am
    7,696 Comments. Guy finds an old tooth, out come the religious psychotics in droves. How are we going to convince the Muslims to stop murdering "infidels" when we can`t even get the Christians to admit the universe might possibly be more than 6,000 years old?
  22. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 9:27 am
    (this is for everone claiming that human teeth are similar to those of other organisms) well, our teeth are very different. very different indeed.
    Not really from other hominids.
  23. Profile photo of rammo34
    rammo34 Male 18-29
    1083 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 9:28 am
    Reading the comments on that article is both depressing and hilarious. Yahoo always seems to reel in the crazies.
  24. Profile photo of DixxyRarr
    DixxyRarr Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 9:31 am
    1. It makes me want to read the Clan of the Cave Bear series again (a must read for the ladies).
    2. I find teeth extremely fascinating.
    3. It bothers me that they are implying that this changes the `origin of man`. I`m sure there are probably older fossils in other places that haven`t been found yet. Or... just because remains aren`t found doesn`t mean that men never existed there.
  25. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 9:46 am
    This is bogus!

    Here is a photo of the worlds OLDEST human remains


  26. Profile photo of tridirk
    tridirk Male 50-59
    313 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 10:09 am
    lol... very witty Gerry
  27. Profile photo of puppies04
    puppies04 Male 18-29
    686 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 10:43 am
    This could change the way we think about human evolution...... unless we are religious in which case we will keep walking round talking about a big sky man who made man from clay and a woman from his rib
  28. Profile photo of shaboinkin
    shaboinkin Male 18-29
    456 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 11:09 am
    "Reading the comments on that article is both depressing and hilarious. Yahoo always seems to reel in the crazies."

    I don`t know....AOL has some pretty crazy people also
  29. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5196 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 11:33 am
    Good one, Gerry!
  30. Profile photo of MauserTM
    MauserTM Male 18-29
    1222 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 11:59 am
    So we have now what? 17 links? thats gotta be enough for the chur.. oh hell we need 17 more!
  31. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Are Yahoo.com articles a beacon for the Godtards from every corner of the internets?
  32. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    @pooptart19

    The article comes from the Associated Press Wire which news outlets use to add stories to it`s paper. The article is legit.

    Here is a link to ABC news, but I guess you`ll come up with a troll excuse for that being dismissed as well.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=12485351
  33. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    It has nothing to do in dismissing the `Evolution` theory. It just puts the `Humans out of Africa` theory in question on it`s time line. That is why it`s called a theory and not law.
  34. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    Probably just people with a time machine messing around!
  35. Profile photo of Intaresting
    Intaresting Male 18-29
    812 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    Probably just jewish propaganda.
  36. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7425 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    dixxyrarr, it doesnt really change the origin itself, just what we know about it and can conclude with the knowledge we can gain from this.
  37. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7425 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    shaboinkin, of course they are crazy, they are still using dial-up.
  38. Profile photo of ElMustache
    ElMustache Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    Reminds me of BSG. So say we all!
  39. Profile photo of ParasyT
    ParasyT Male 13-17
    533 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    "looks like a regular old tooth to me :| all living things have teeth right? right?"

    Of course all living things have teeth. Just last week i saw my tree in the back yard sprout another molar.
  40. Profile photo of petshadow
    petshadow Male 40-49
    38 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    LOL @ archaeologist named "Gopher" digging in the ground.
  41. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    Adams tooth
  42. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 5:19 pm
    ACTUALLY: (this is for everone claiming that human teeth are similar to those of other organisms) well, our teeth are very different. very different indeed.

    That depends on which organism you`re talking about. Very different to, say, a cat, sure. But not very different to very closely related species in the homo genus.

    That`s the key point here - if these remains are specifically homo sapiens and they are 400,000 years old, it changes what was thought to be the timeline of humanity and is some degree of challenge against the currently most likely theory about the origins of humanity. If they`re a different homo species, for example homo neanderthalensis, it just means that some of them they went further east than was originally thought. Homo neanderthalensis is a very close relative to homo sapiens and you can`t be sure from teeth alone. If you saw one walking done the street, they wouldn`t look outrageously strange.
  43. Profile photo of I-IS-BORED
    I-IS-BORED Male 18-29
    2419 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    @handys003
    Pooptart was clearly talking about the people leaving comments on the article, not the article itself.

    Also, your understanding of the differences between something being a theory and something being a law is rather lacking.
  44. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 10:03 pm
    @I-IS-BORED

    Pooptart19 can speak for himself. That`s not how it appeared to myself.

    Second- Please do tell me how this vet of 22 years on my lack of understanding such.
  45. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    December 29, 2010 at 10:52 pm
    I wasn`t going to say anything about your fundamental misunderstanding of scientific terms, but since I`ve had a nap and a cup of tea and you`ve been snarky about being so wrong, I will.

    A theory is a broad-ranging explanation of how a thing (or a collection of related things) works. It`s developed from a hypothesis or from a number of hypotheses.

    A law is a very narrow, very specific description of what will happen in certain circumstances. It has a very narrow range and it explains nothing at all. It is simply a statement of "If this happens, that will happen" and can often be expressed as an equation.

    It is impossible for a theory to become a law (or vice versa). They are completely different things and not simply a matter of a timeline being different.
  46. Profile photo of magoo22
    magoo22 Male 30-39
    660 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 12:10 am
    I`d say at this point the Israeli researchers would still be hypothesising about the age of the teeth and likely antiquity of the owners. I think it would take more discoveries and more research to prove that H. Sapiens originated somewhere outside Africa. So no new theory just yet I think.
    BTW: Is the head guy`s name really Gopher?. How appropriate!
  47. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 12:15 am
    @Angilion replied:
    "A law is a very narrow, very specific description of what will happen in certain circumstances".

    Hmmm....Specific description huh? A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it`s an accepted hypothesis.

    One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain `why`






  48. Profile photo of magoo22
    magoo22 Male 30-39
    660 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 12:20 am
    BTW: Angillion. Scientists and non-scientists alike often say "theory" when they mean "hypothesis"...just to mix it up a little I guess ;)
  49. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

    Scientific laws do not explain. They describe.

    For example, one of the most famous laws is F=ma. Which explains nothing. It describes the relationship between force, mass and acceleration. It offers no explanation of the relationship, just a description of it.

    Although strictly speaking it should no longer be considered a law because it has been proven to be not entirely accurate.
  50. Profile photo of SmilinSam
    SmilinSam Female 18-29
    3599 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 4:54 pm
    For some reason i expected CrakrJak to be on here sayin how this proves evolution has been wrong all along or something equally as rediculous.
  51. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    @Angilion

    Since I can`t copy text from my library. I will link you toward several sites. That back my assertion. You can argue and tell those with doctorates are wrong as well.

    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

    http://chemistry.about.com/bio/Anne-Marie-Helmenstine-Ph-D-7815.htm[/url

    http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

    http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/index.html <
  52. Profile photo of phoneybone
    phoneybone Male 18-29
    1744 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    why whenever they find old/ancient (possibly) human remains it`s always: "changes the idea of human evolution!" ? Uh, no it won`t, at least not in any major way.
    We came from monkeys, yesterday it was 200,000 yrs ago, now it`s 400,000 yrs ago; woooo big change there
  53. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    December 30, 2010 at 6:28 pm
    @phoneybones

    There is a difference between monkeys and apes.
  54. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    December 31, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    Since I can`t copy text from my library. I will link you toward several sites. That back my assertion. You can argue and tell those with doctorates are wrong as well.

    How about I just quote from the first set of definitions that you think supports your assertions?

    Example: Consider Newton`s Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn`t explain why it happened.

    You`re wrong. Even the definitions you link to show that you`re wrong.

    Scientific laws don`t explain how things happen or why things happen or anything else. That`s what theories do. Laws just state what happens under specific circumstances.

    It`s not hard to tell - just look at any scientific law and ask yourself what it explains. The answer will be "nothing".

    One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain `why` [/quot
  55. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    December 31, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain `why`

    That`s a good summary.

    You quoted it. So why aren`t you doing it?

    Here`s a law:

    F=ma.

    Now tell me how that gives you a means to explain *why*.

    Or any other scientific law you care to choose.

    None of them will explain "why" or "how" or anything else, because laws don`t. Laws tell you what is, not why it is so.
  56. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    January 4, 2011 at 3:35 am
    @Angilion

    Brah your bouncing all over. I gave you quotes that came from cited resources of Ph. D`s and you still disagreed with them. Get a grip. Typical arrogant European who still thinks Americans with Ph.D`s are dumb. What a troll.
  57. Profile photo of Same4Walls
    Same4Walls Female 18-29
    351 posts
    January 4, 2011 at 8:36 pm
    I`m an anthropologist and this is so exciting for me! Oh, and we didn`t evolve from monkeys. We are of a separate, but close, line to them. Ugh, forget it. I`m just not gonna get into this. lol
  58. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    January 6, 2011 at 9:07 am
    P-U

Leave a Reply