Possibly The Oldest Human Remains Found

Submitted by: cobrakiller 6 years ago in Science
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_teeth

This could change the way we think about human evolution, if these are the remains of Homo Sapiens.
There are 58 comments:
Male 6,694
P-U
0
Reply
Female 351
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
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain `why`[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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

[quote]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. [/quote]

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".

[quote]One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain `why` [/quot
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@phoneybones

There is a difference between monkeys and apes.
0
Reply
Male 1,744
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
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@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 <
0
Reply
Female 3,598
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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 660
BTW: Angillion. Scientists and non-scientists alike often say "theory" when they mean "hypothesis"...just to mix it up a little I guess ;)
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@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`






0
Reply
Male 660
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!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@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.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Adams tooth
0
Reply
Male 38
LOL @ archaeologist named "Gopher" digging in the ground.
0
Reply
Male 533
"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.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
Reminds me of BSG. So say we all!
0
Reply
Male 7,812
shaboinkin, of course they are crazy, they are still using dial-up.
0
Reply
Male 7,812
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.
0
Reply
Male 812
Probably just jewish propaganda.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Probably just people with a time machine messing around!
0
Reply
Male 2,402
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@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
0
Reply
Male 2,440
Are Yahoo.com articles a beacon for the Godtards from every corner of the internets?
0
Reply
Male 1,222
So we have now what? 17 links? thats gotta be enough for the chur.. oh hell we need 17 more!
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Good one, Gerry!
0
Reply
Male 456
"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
0
Reply
Male 686
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
0
Reply
Male 313
lol... very witty Gerry
0
Reply
Male 39,538
This is bogus!

Here is a photo of the worlds OLDEST human remains


0
Reply
Female 2,674
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,116
Reading the comments on that article is both depressing and hilarious. Yahoo always seems to reel in the crazies.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote](this is for everone claiming that human teeth are similar to those of other organisms) well, our teeth are very different. very different indeed.[/quote]
Not really from other hominids.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
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?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
The article itself is mildly interesting. The comments from the God-mumblers however, are an absolute riot.
0
Reply
Male 97
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.
0
Reply
Male 273
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?"
0
Reply
Male 35
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
0
Reply
Male 2,033
@ donthaveone:


0
Reply
Male 3,745
looks like a regular old tooth to me :| all living things have teeth right? right?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
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.
0
Reply
Female 4,039
Curse you IAB - I guess I have to actually do some work today.....
0
Reply
Male 605
I think theres less flame wars and more comments about waiting for one to start nowadays. Now that`s progress.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
There is no god. Go.
0
Reply
Male 120
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.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
@donthaveone Sarcasm. It goes right over your head.
0
Reply
Male 2,004
wouldn`t say this would change the way we think about evolution just alter the way we think about how old our origins are
0
Reply
Male 953
"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.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
"LOL...man is so determined to pretend there is no God!"

This comment got 358 upvotes.
0
Reply
Male 749
Cool. I think that there`s a good chance we`re gonna get another evolution debate. :P
0
Reply
Male 76
just waiting here for the religious flame war *sets up tent*
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Lmao @ the Neanderthals facebook profile style pic in the related content links
0
Reply
Male 2,033
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,812
Link: Possibly The Oldest Human Remains Found [Rate Link] - This could change the way we think about human evolution, if these are the remains of Homo Sapiens.
0
Reply