Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Dan From Smithville]

I realize that Drs. Hawking and Mlodinow went by the estimates at the time.

Then what point were you trying to make by emphasizing the fact that he used the best information available to him at the time?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now that I'm reading the book, I am seeing some facts have changed and I do question what I read. I'm glad I asked since now I see it's possibly up to 300,000+ years. And yes I question how the determination is scientifically made. I question it here if any of you might know. I also understand many take the experts' view on these things.

When you say "question it" do you mean you have questions or that you challenge its validity? If the latter is the case, I see that statement about "many take experts views" as highly ironic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that I'm reading the book, I am seeing some facts have changed and I do question what I read. I'm glad I asked since now I see it's possibly up to 300,000+ years. And yes I question how the determination is scientifically made. I question it here if any of you might know. I also understand many take the experts' view on these things.

"Facts" have not changed. We have more information. The facts are still the same.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now that I'm reading the book, I am seeing some facts have changed and I do question what I read. I'm glad I asked since now I see it's possibly up to 300,000+ years. And yes I question how the determination is scientifically made. I question it here if any of you might know. I also understand many take the experts' view on these things.

Remember that science is loyal to the evidence, not the theory. When new evidence comes up, you can EXPECT scientists to adjust their theories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Facts" have not changed. We have more information. The facts are still the same.

It seems like there is an issue differentiating facts and conclusions on those facts. The two seem to be synonymized out of confusion in my opinion.

While you and I would say something like the conclusion on the age of Homo sapiens has been updated on new facts, it seems that is not how it is being understood by @YoursTrue.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then what point were you trying to make by emphasizing the fact that he used the best information available to him at the time?

If I did not ask about it I would not know scientists may have changed their viewpoint about this. But the question is not only about how old homo sapiens are as a species, but how these findings are said to be homo sapiens if you or others here know.

 

[John53]

He based it on the evidence known at the time. He accepted that evidence.

Of course he would change it if it is valid evidence. He was a rational, intelligent person and a skilled and knowledgeable scientist.

You seem to be trying to build a case that if the details about a specific species is wrong, then the theory collapses. That is not the case.

What is it that you are attempting to do here?

It's all very suspicious and disingenuous.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I did not ask about it I would not know scientists may have changed their viewpoint about this. But the question is not only about how old homo sapiens are as a species, but how these findings are said to be homo sapiens if you or others here know.

Are you asking how the 300,000 year old fossils were determined to be Homo sapiens?

It wasn't through cross breeding, I can assure you of that.

Do you understand the biological species concept where species are differentiated based on the capacity to successfully engage in gene flow? In other words, two populations are the same species if they can breed and produce a new generation equally capable of breeding among themselves.

Since that concept cannot be applied to a population represented only by fossils, another method has to be employed. In entomology, a morphological species concept is relied upon to establish the relationship. I'm not a primate taxonomist, but the concepts are the same, There exists criteria based on morphology and many, many measurements that are used to establish the classification of fossils and determine similarity. You'll have to look this up on your own if you want details. Use Google scholar. You can find a lot of papers there. Check the introductions and methods and materials sections to find out how this is determined.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's all very suspicious and disingenuous.

Now that I know he didn't go out and get a degree in physical anthropology to write his book and only accepted the conclusions of experts instead, I am dubious that science is even real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I did not ask about it I would not know scientists may have changed their viewpoint about this. But the question is not only about how old homo sapiens are as a species, but how these findings are said to be homo sapiens if you or others here know.

I'm a little confused on why you wouldn't think scientists change their conclusions based on new and significant evidence. This has been mentioned continually to you over the duration of your presence here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Remember that science is loyal to the evidence, not the theory. When new evidence comes up, you can EXPECT scientists to adjust their theories.

I understand the premise. But how is the evidence determined to be categorized? I am still wondering about the definition of species, but in this case how were the objects analyzed. I doubt anyone here can give a definitive answer but that's ok because few here are scholars in that area

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I understand the premise. But how is the evidence determined to be categorized? I am still wondering about the definition of species, but in this case how were the objects analyzed. I doubt anyone here can give a definitive answer but that's ok because few here are scholars in that area

I'm quite comfortable leaving this to the experts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now that I know he didn't go out and get a degree in physical anthropology to write his book and only accepted the conclusions of experts instead, I am dubious that science is even real.

Ah you made me lol there...very good! But of course you make a good point about the reality of science. I do take vaccines, I do use computers, and the like, all of which science has enabled I suppose. Again, gorillas have not done so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I did not ask about it I would not know scientists may have changed their viewpoint about this. But the question is not only about how old homo sapiens are as a species, but how these findings are said to be homo sapiens if you or others here know.

I have to correct myself. I was mistaken. The fossil was found in 2005 and was determined to be at least 195,000 years old. It was the oldest fossil found at that time. But there were questions about the date. There was a layer of volcanic ash just above it, marking an event that occurred after it died. But that ash was so fine that it could not be dated at that time. As you know technology improves over time. Now that layer can be dated and it is more than 195,000 years old, once again that was a minimum age at that time. It turns out that the previous oldest Homo sapiens fossil was 233,000 years old, not 195,000. So that jump is one of 70,000 years, not 100,000 years.:

One of the oldest human fossils just got older: study

One of the oldest known Homo sapiens fossils may be more than 35,000 years older than previously thought, according to a study on Wednesday that used volcanic ash to date the find.

phys.org

The Homo sapiens that has an age of 300,000 year does not look quite the same as modern humans:

"The residents of the Moroccan site weren’t quite the Homo sapiens of today; their skulls were less rounded and more elongated than ours, perhaps signaling differences between our brains and theirs. However, their teeth closely resemble those in the mouths of modern humans—and their faces looked just like ours."

These Early Humans Lived 300,000 Years Ago—But Had Modern Faces

Some modern human traits evolved earlier, and across wider swaths of Africa, than once thought.

www.nationalgeographic.com

You can see that it has noticeable brow ridges, the brain is bit stretched out, but it is close enough to modern humans to be called "Homo sapiens".

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm quite comfortable leaving this to the experts.

That's fine. I am asking questions if any of you know answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm a little confused on why you wouldn't think scientists change their conclusions based on new and significant evidence. This has been mentioned continually to you over the duration of your presence here.

I did not say and I certainly don't think I intimated that scientists would not or should not change their ideas based on new and significant evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand the premise. But how is the evidence determined to be categorized? I am still wondering about the definition of species, but in this case how were the objects analyzed. I doubt anyone here can give a definitive answer but that's ok because few here are scholars in that area

Have you heard of craniometrics or other methods of determining age, ancestry and sex of skeletal remains? According to my sister (one of her degrees is in Anthropology), based on measurements taken of her own head and face, there is strong indication of some Asian ancestry in our lineage.

Do you think that perhaps, people studying ancient skeletons might know about these techniques and apply them to the fossils they are studying?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did not say and I certainly don't think I intimated that scientists would not or should not change their ideas based on new and significant evidence.

It seemed like you did, but perhaps you meant only in the particular instance of what you have claimed about Hawking's book.

 

[YoursTrue]

It seemed like you did, but perhaps you meant only in the particular instance of what you have claimed about Hawking's book.

It's probably best not to read too much into things. But thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you heard of craniometrics or other methods of determining age, ancestry and sex of skeletal remains? According to my sister (one of her degrees is in Anthropology), based on measurements taken of her own head and face, there is strong indication of some Asian ancestry in our lineage.

Do you think that perhaps, people studying ancient skeletons might know about these techniques and apply them to the fossils they are studying?

I hope so but I do not know what methods they used and it would be helpful (for me, maybe not for you) to know the methodology used and understand it. Despite my interest, I'm not going to go for university education about this now, just asking questions here can be helpful.