Archaeologists in Algeria have discovered stone tools and cut animal bones that may be up to 2.4 million years old, bringing into question East Africa’s title as the cradle of humanity, according to research published Thursday in the journal Science…
(h/t David)
“that may be up to 2.4 million years old,”
Was this dating peer reviewed?
It always makes my laugh when the dating game on very old things is based on the consensus of a group of people who are paid thru university grants and funding to try and be the cutting edge of making a new discovery of ancient buried things.
The “science” is based on on the guess-work of a date based on the guess-work of some other scientists who picked a number out of thin air and called it fact.
Darwin’s legacy. My discovery is older than your discovery…maybe…I think.
Scientody at its finest!
Can you imagine if the earth was that old how much would be discovered? We’d be falling over artifacts every day.
My goodness!
That’s a picture of a tool?
Har…
bloody right its a tool. made to smash windows. I got a few suggestions . . . .
looks like its been field tested already.
It’s all made up.
By professional liars paid handsomely to deny that the God of Israel made the heavens and the earth.
How much are you paid to keep posting about the myth of the “The LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel”?
A 2.4 million year old tool was found in North Africa, which is approximately 200,000 years younger than similar tools found in East Africa. This means it would have taken these people up to 200,000 years to migrate from East Africa to North Africa. Holy crap, where is the text book patrol? We need to rewrite human history.
“We need to rewrite human history.”
Yes, we do. Because since Louis Leaky it’s been assumed that tool-using hominids were not found ouside the East African rift valley. But now somebody found them far away.
Its a good point that 200,000 years is a long time for a migration. But it is a very short time in population genetics. It means that the rift-valley hominids were more widely spread and a lot more capable than previously thought.
If they were in North Africa 2.4 million years ago, and not just in the rift valley, there’s no reason they couldn’t have been all over Europe and Asia as well. We just didn’t find them yet.
That is what archaeologists call a Big Fricking Deal.
It is interesting that chimpanzees can be found from Guinea (west Africa) all the way east to Tanzania yet we are to believe hominids never migrated out of the Rift Valley. They have been found in East Asia (2.1 million years old) as well. These stories always start with “could rewrite human history” and then the stories disappear.
Belief, speculation, assumption, these are all very easy. Proof, that’s hard.
What we’re talking about, if it survives all challenges, is -proof- that early hominids were not restricted to East Africa.
hahahahahaha… knew the tumpers would be trippin over themselves on this one.
Jockwell Seadoo Day knows the Barney rode his dinasour onto the ark about 3500 years ago!!!!
Okay, NME, then tell me where all the artifacts are? Signs of civilization? Don’t just deride those of us who don’t agree with this ridiculous dating, you explain it because I’m interested in your reasoning on it.
If people were here that many millions of years ago, they never left anything of consequence until about 10,000 (give or take a thousand years or two) ago.
As I say, your thoughts.
I meant to say BC.
How does a band of prehistoric hominids constitute a “Civilisation”?
What “Artefacts” would you expect small groups foraging for food 24/7.
Homo Sapiens, we are told, has been around for 300 thousand years, evolving and interbreeding with other Homo species over that period. What pressure was there for them to evolve beyond foraging migratory groups?
Why agriculture, why cities? Seek and Ye shall find – far too many hypotheses.
The Chinese were making tools way back then?
“The Chinese were making tools way back then?”
Yeah for quality appearance that tool ain’t no Snap-on or a Craftsman.
Do you suppose the fossils of our ancestors are only found in Africa because it’s the only place on earth where the conditions are dry enough to keep ‘them bones’ from turning to soil?
“… the only place on earth where the conditions are dry enough to keep ‘them bones’ from turning to soil?”
To make fossils, skeletons must be covered quickly, otherwise they are likely to be damaged or become weathered .
So, rather than dry conditions, lakes, rivers, flood plains, where creatures tend to gather and where sediments are quickly deposited, are the best for creating fossils. And thus preserve more information for analysis.
if a civilized society lived millions of years ago all traces of it would be long gone, that’s my theory and I’m sticking with it.
“that’s my theory and I’m sticking with it”
When the researchers are able to imagine and model a whole creature after finding 1 tooth you begin to wonder if this line of work has more conjecture than climate science.
Who has “modelled a whole creature after finding 1 tooth”?
An example, please?
However, hypotheses are speculation. All scientific research begins with speculation.
If there is sufficient evidence to support an hypothesis, it becomes less speculative.
When sufficiently supported, it becomes a theory.
Theories are modified, seldom overthrown, by further discoveries.
Newton’s theories are now a subset of those of modern Physics.
I remember that one.
my skepticism got a huge boost that day.
yep. one. measly. tooth.
it was a long time ago, might have been an interview involving ROM personnel.
How does a band of prehistoric hominids constitute a “Civilised Society”?
They are precursors of civilised humans, and their fossils do exist, especially where the remains were soon (relatively) covered and preserved from erosion.
The Bible makes more sense every day.
“Settled Science”?
Paleoanthropology is the least “settled” Science that there is.
Where has any Paleoanthropologist made a claim that the evolution of hominids is “Settled”?
“An example, please?”
Of course a single tooth is an exaggeration but the actual bones they have for each branch of our human ancestors is incredibly small. There are some fairly large extrapolations and it is one reason the Piltdown hoax wasn’t caught immediately.
“the actual bones they have for each branch of our human ancestors is incredibly small”
Granted, but Paleoanthropology has to do its best to bring order to an otherwise chaotic jumble of fossils.
So, dating, location, structure, etc. give some order, and new finds are compared with what has gone before.
It is always going to be “speculative”, until we can travel back 2 – 3 million years to confirm the findings.
Until then, Paleoanthropology is not truly a Science, it merely uses other sciences to attempt to reduce the degree of speculation.
I would argue that it differs from Climate Science “speculation”, which appears to ignore the findings of other sciences whenever these contradict their speculations.