Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #30351

Subject: "RE: the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans..." This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
Akhenaten
Member since Apr 22nd 2005
560 posts
Wed Apr-27-05 06:27 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "RE: the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans..."
In response to In response to 0


  

          


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Oldest-Humans.html?

Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: February 16, 2005


Filed at 1:00 P.M. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed
nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil
record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years
ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.

Researchers determined that the specimens are around
195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known
fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to
about 160,000 years ago.

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about
200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the
fossil record more in line with that, said John
Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an
author of the study.

The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in
southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I,
which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones.
Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a
skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a
complete face.

Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics
than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo
sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.

Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing
their geology and testing rock samples with more
modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues
report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that
both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take
5,000 years.

Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may
mean the two specimens came from different but
overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they
just represent natural variation within a single
population.

To find the age of the skulls, the researchers
determined that volcanic rock lying just below the
sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000
years old. They then found evidence that the
fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that
time.

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology
Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the
researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to
support their dating of the fossils.

"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work
"very exciting and important."

Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of
Natural History, said he considered the case for the
new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that
"we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence
says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he
said.

G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at
Binghamton University in New York, said he believes
the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more
primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the
aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was
still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.

  

Printer-friendly copy


the sumerians/the akkadians/the egyptians/the africans... [View all] , urthanheaven, Wed Apr-27-05 02:41 AM
 
Subject Author Message Date ID
depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
1
RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
4
RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
11
      RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
15
           RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 27th 2005
16
                ops, i left out your question about the fertile crescent
Apr 28th 2005
17
                RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 28th 2005
30
                     RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Apr 29th 2005
33
How do explain eskimoes in near "artic" areas then
Apr 28th 2005
19
      can you clarify what you mean?
Apr 28th 2005
21
           what I mean is the "iceman" theory is wrong
Apr 28th 2005
26
                RE: what I mean is the "iceman" theory is wrong
Apr 28th 2005
27
                     the exceptions I pointed out relate to eugenics as opposed to climate
Apr 29th 2005
34
                          do you know what eugenics is?
Apr 29th 2005
37
                               my point was, they aren't white people (chinese/asians)
Apr 29th 2005
38
                                    what about the Ainu people of northern Japan?
Apr 29th 2005
39
                                         the Ainu people are NOT WHITE PEOPLE, that's my whole point
Apr 29th 2005
41
                                         they have physical traits associated with "white people"
Apr 30th 2005
43
                                         a link about the propoganda you are promoting
Apr 29th 2005
42
^^^Someone's been reading their Diop.....
Apr 27th 2005
2
actually...
Apr 27th 2005
3
      RE: actually...
Apr 27th 2005
5
           RE: actually...
Apr 27th 2005
13
Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization
Apr 27th 2005
6
RE: Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization
Apr 27th 2005
7
RE: Well Kemet/egypt is a African civilization
Apr 27th 2005
10
      when was the shephardic dynasty?
Apr 27th 2005
12
           shephardic dynasties were 13 to 17
Apr 27th 2005
14
Post Over although I disagree with the terminology "African"
Apr 28th 2005
18
      Do you disagree with the term "Chinese" when refering to
Apr 28th 2005
20
      here's the thing though, the word Chin comes from those people
Apr 28th 2005
22
           RE: here's the thing though, the word Chin comes from those people
Apr 28th 2005
23
           but you call it "Asia"
Apr 28th 2005
24
                Wst
Apr 28th 2005
25
                     Wassat?
Apr 28th 2005
28
      Okay Alkebulan
Apr 28th 2005
32
           I want to know how Dr. Ben developed that word
Apr 29th 2005
35
                He says it is the oldest know name used for
Apr 29th 2005
40
                     what are his sources for THAT WORD?
Apr 30th 2005
44
                          i've wondered that myself
May 04th 2005
50
{quote} "I think it would be a good idea."
Apr 27th 2005
8
c'mon...everyone knows Anglo-Saxons were the first....j/k
Apr 28th 2005
29
RE: c'mon...everyone knows Anglo-Saxons were the first....j/k
Apr 28th 2005
31
      they taught you about that in school too?
Apr 29th 2005
36
You're all over the place...
May 02nd 2005
45
RE: You're all over the place...
May 03rd 2005
46
      RE: You're all over the place...
May 03rd 2005
47
           RE: You're all over the place...
May 03rd 2005
48
                Yeah I'm aware of all that...
May 03rd 2005
49
.
May 04th 2005
51

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #30351 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com