This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← A skull that rewrites the history of man

A skull that rewrites the history of man - Comments

Sheol99's Avatar Comment 1 by Sheol99

Another addition to the evolution of Man

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:39:00 UTC | #395553

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 2 by rod-the-farmer

"Fossils were put there by dog to trick us".

Sure. Funny how he never put any proto-human fossils in places like Antartica, Argentina, or Alaska. Just to use some of the "A" places, you understand. These trick fossils always seem to be placed in an area where our close relatives have lived for many eons. So it just seems to be evidence for common descent. Clever dude, that dog.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:53:00 UTC | #395555

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 3 by NewEnglandBob

I would love to read the article but http://www.independent.co.uk is not responding.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:54:00 UTC | #395556

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 4 by rod-the-farmer

Me too.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:57:00 UTC | #395557

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 5 by God fearing Atheist

3. Comment #413589 by NewEnglandBob


Ditto

Given the number of times journalists have been caught mangling the stories linked from RD.net over the last few days, perhaps a look at wiki, and reading the papers in the ref. section would be the best course for those really interested:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:59:00 UTC | #395559

Moq's Avatar Comment 6 by Moq

I can't access the article itself, but after reading the link provided by GfA I see little controversy. As far as I understand Homo Erectus was among the first to migrate from Africa almost two million years ago, and the Dmanisi find seems to confirm that timeline.

The assertion that they moved "back into Africa to complete the story of man" seems rather nonsensical. Homo Sapiens was another migration (or migrations), not Homo Erectus moving back and forth between Africa and Europe/Asia while evolving.

Perhaps there's something I've misunderstood.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:22:00 UTC | #395560

Shiva's Avatar Comment 7 by Shiva

Interesting!

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:37:00 UTC | #395561

Sigmund's Avatar Comment 8 by Sigmund

Moq said:
"The assertion that they moved "back into Africa to complete the story of man" seems rather nonsensical. Homo Sapiens was another migration (or migrations), not Homo Erectus moving back and forth between Africa and Europe/Asia while evolving.
Perhaps there's something I've misunderstood."

If we evolved from Homo erectus then how come there are Homo erectus alive today!

Well there aren't - because they moved back to Africa and evolved into humans!

OK thats a joke but I have a horrifying feeling there was something similar in the mind of the journalist who wrote this.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:39:00 UTC | #395562

Mbee's Avatar Comment 9 by Mbee

Link works for me. Perhaps their server was down.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:37:00 UTC | #395569

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 10 by Dr. Strangegod

I think you've got it right, Moq.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:19:00 UTC | #395575

hossein's Avatar Comment 11 by hossein

Wow! What does that mean? The fact that we are all from africa had many support, from genetics to anthropology. So now what?

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:24:00 UTC | #395577

Koreman's Avatar Comment 12 by Koreman

FYI, NASA just released new Hubble pictures. The HST was upgraded recently. The new images are beautiful and show more details than before.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/25/image/a/

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:31:00 UTC | #395579

Prankster's Avatar Comment 13 by Prankster

Koreman

Thank you for the link-stunning pictures

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:55:00 UTC | #395582

George Lennan's Avatar Comment 14 by George Lennan

Phew. When I read the blurb under the headline I thought they were talking about Georgia USA!! Now THAT would have been something.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:09:00 UTC | #395584

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 15 by SaintStephen

See? I been tellin' y'all fer years now dat evolewtion is crap.

Dumheads.


(EDIT: Fascinating article!)
(EDIT: Yes, Thanks Koreman. Beautiful photos.)

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:18:00 UTC | #395587

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 16 by mordacious1

I don't see much difference between this skull and the ones named Homo georgicus found in the same place between 1999 and 2001, which was supposed to be after H. ergaster and before erectus. In 2006, Rightmire, Vekua, and Lordkipanidze placed all the fossils (except one jaw) fron Dmanisi into the erectus classification. The previous fossils ranged from 610-775 cc for skull size. The layers they were found in aged roughly 1.81 mil. years. I wouldn't be suprised if this wasn't more of the same.

Another link from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:58:00 UTC | #395589

Ilovelucy's Avatar Comment 17 by Ilovelucy

No new skulls have actually been found, it's the same fossils that were actually found from 1991 onwards. This article is inspired by a recent speech from the founder doing what founders normally do: exaggerating the importance of his finds. Sloppy science journalism basically. Must have been a slow news day for the Indie.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:59:00 UTC | #395598

jeroen's Avatar Comment 18 by jeroen

... so I suppose that finally makes us all true Caucasians.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:04:00 UTC | #395600

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 19 by mordacious1

17. Comment #413631 by Ilovelucy

I was just going to post the same thing, I can't find anything about "new" fossils being found. Lordkipandidze is just pondering his earlier finds again. :)

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:09:00 UTC | #395601

Ilovelucy's Avatar Comment 20 by Ilovelucy

mordacious1

yep, I bought the paper out of sheer excitement this morning and felt a bit miffed about 5 minutes later.

Good old lousy science journalism! Just when all my friends stop asking me how I feel about the "new missing link" rubbish from a few months back, now I'm going to have to do the same with Lordkipanidze's unsubstantiated claims about Europe being the cradle of human evolution. :(

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:18:00 UTC | #395605

kev_s's Avatar Comment 21 by kev_s

This story seems to have left Giorgia more times than Homo left Africa.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:52:00 UTC | #395632

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 22 by Mr DArcy

I'm very happy to be a human mongrol. Whoever the hell my predecessors were, they did the right thing by reproducing and surviving. They were, of course, naturally selective!

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:26:00 UTC | #395640

Goldy's Avatar Comment 23 by Goldy

I read this thinking it was something new...but it's the same old stuff that I read in the Nat Geo about a year ago...and that edition wasn't the most current either!

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:03:00 UTC | #395643

squinky's Avatar Comment 24 by squinky

I will be interesting to see if they can pull some DNA fragments from these remains and compare sequences to the hominid family tree. That will settle some more debate about relatedness and how "primitive" (might we daresay 'well-adapted') these cousins actually are.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:12:00 UTC | #395644

shaunfletcher's Avatar Comment 25 by shaunfletcher

There seems to be a hint of both nationalist pride and personal aggrandisement about this one? Or am I being unfair?

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:13:00 UTC | #395647

Goldy's Avatar Comment 26 by Goldy

Loved this from the comments section

Evolution is the theory that an organism "evolves" to become some other highly formed organism. However, if that is true, why do we have a variety of 'different" organisms alive today, if survival of the fittest were accurate, then there should only be one dominant species on earth today. A flu virus doesn't "evolve' to become a turtle, it becomes a variant of the flu virus, a virus still. Humans come in many sizes and shapes, but are all still human; if you try to argue the contrary, that environment determines what species survive, then explain the non-existance of the "link" between humans and apes; surely the link would have to be superior to the previous state of evolution, which would be the apes. All of this said, the universe itself continues to show intelligent design., it functions with a precision that is marvelled at.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:06:00 UTC | #395650

Goldy's Avatar Comment 27 by Goldy

And more! These are better than the article itself!

Earth was created on September 13, 4007 B.C.
davidparsons wrote:

Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
The Dynasty of Jesus

1. The traditional field of dating is the systematic account of past events, peoples, places, and things methodically recorded, usually in chronological order, on physical instrumentation. Unlike the pretentious dates imposed by scientists, the utilization of written documentation makes it possible to ascertain precise dates simply by opening an encyclopedia or a history book, and, in particular, the Bible.

2. The Quest for Right traces the dynasty of Jesus back through the pages of the Bible to the first man Adam. The exhaustive effort proves that the earth was created on September 13, 4007 B.C. The study details the genealogy of Jesus with such profound logic and historical detail that every mouth will be stopped.

3. The genealogy of Jesus is made possible by incorporating two previously unknown bellwethers situated in the Bible; the bellwethers led the investigation across two bridges in time which would have otherwise been unbridgeable.

4. The dynasty of Jesus transports the reader (1) from the accretion of the earth from a watery nebula to the creation of the new heavens and earth; (2) from the creation of the dinosaurs to the breakup of one central land mass into the continents as we know them today; (3) from the time of NoahÂ\'s flood to the future destruction of the earth by fire; and (4) from the dedication of the earthly house of the Lord to the dedication of the true temple, Jesus. -- all recorded in the Bible. The project is so authoritative that all previous works on the subject will necessarily have to be revised.


Re: Evolution
ardvat wrote:

Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 07:06 pm (UTC)
Great evidence of micro evolution...within a species. It does nothing to tell me how we arrived here from apes. Darwin used this same approach to come up with this theory, and unfortunately, he didn't have any of the information that we do today that would have discredited it. This being the complexity of seemingly simple organisms and cells, including the wonder of DNA. Darwin's theory is not a workable theory, and is only propped up by social agendas and fear. Check out http://www.evolution-facts.org/ to expand your mind


A skull that rewrites the history of man
jblayne wrote:

Wednesday, 9 September 2009 at 02:02 pm (UTC)
Charles Darwin, who pronounced that humans originated in Africa, did so on the basis of no evidence. It should be considered that he had no knowledge of genetics, plate tectonics (Africa was an island continent at the time of the earliest primate fossils, in North America, and remained so until recently), DNA or any other modern science. He would have been taught that fire was the burning of phlogiston, the Earth was thousands of years old (the science of the time said one hundred thousand), and that disease was caused by "miasma".

Incidentally, the theory of evolution was discovered by Anaximander some 2700 years ago. Darwin only created one model seeking to explain it. Disproving Darwin does not disprove evolution, which is a demonstrable fact, and was so before Darwin. Darwin can be disproved by Darwin himself-Darwin's writing on the finches of Galapagos shows the rapidity of evolution in times of environmental stress.

We need to break away from the cult of Darwin, and the mental gymnastics and scientific balderdash used to justify the cult, and get on with real science

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:11:00 UTC | #395653

NakedCelt's Avatar Comment 28 by NakedCelt

Yeah, what exactly does this change? It's been a long time since anyone claimed that non-African Homo erectus was an ancestor of Homo sapiens. Interesting, if true, that the Georgia specimens are more different from ourselves than we thought. But "rewrites the history of man"? -- blame the subeditor who thought up that title.

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:47:00 UTC | #395685

Goldy's Avatar Comment 29 by Goldy

In a related vein, an old article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3715132.stm

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:43:00 UTC | #395707

catbasket's Avatar Comment 30 by catbasket

With apologies to The Sex Pistols ...

Science Reporting in The UK -


Right now

I am a hard hitter
I am a bullshitter
I know what I want and
I know how to get it
I wanna publish utter shite

Coz I wanna prove
I'm full of shite

In the Indy (the only way to be)



(I'll get my coat)

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:45:00 UTC | #395775