The 1.85 million-year-old little finger bone that could rewrite human evolution: Giant human (homo)?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ChesterJohn
No. You did not read that in Omni magazine.
Omni got its science right. Also had bitchin art. I have a file folder full of it.

I have two big boxes in the garage.

Harte

a reply to: SeeReeS

way to make something racist that isnt meant to be

second line

I read and reread the article and no where does it say how they determined the age of the bone.

Does anyone know how they determined its age?

And please don't tell me it is because it was found in 1.8 million year old rock.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I read and reread the article and no where does it say how they determined the age of the bone.

Does anyone know how they determined its age?

And please don't tell me it is because it was found in 1.8 million year old rock.

Apparently you aren't reading the thread. Peter Vlar explained it very well on the previous page.

a reply to: Answer

No I don't read all of them at once and sometimes I skip. But I hadn't seen his posts

I read them.

presuming that 40Ar is found in a constant ratio but we have no way to know at that time (1.8 million years ago) it was so because we would have to had observe it at that time in the past in order to prove it today.

I didn't see anywhere in the article I read that was linked too where it mention argon 40 as the test they used in dating the bone.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Answer


presuming that 40Ar is found in a constant ratio but we have no way to know at that time (1.8 million years ago) it was so because we would have to had observe it at that time in the past in order to prove it today.

That's completely untrue. You didn't have to be there 1.8 MA to determine the rate of decay. The rates are constant with a known margin of error and 40 Ar/ 39 Ar is used to corroborate K/Ar dating. No singular methodology is ever used to determine the age of a site or find. If the different dating techniques didn't support each other you wouldn't be seeing this paper published in a reputable journal and the peer review would have outed faulty methodology by now.

I didn't see anywhere in the article I read that was linked too where it mention argon 40 as the test they used in dating the bone.

Then you didn't read my entire reply because I linked the actual scientific paper published detailing this find, all of the research and the dating methodology used.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Evolution a fairy tale for adults.

Nothing can be proven only guessed upon and estimate according to scholarly knowledge and yet that is still a theory.

If you don't have an understanding of the measurement of eternity your dating system will always reflect time periods that are much longer than they really are.

Well if evolution and creationism were to collide then Mammoths, humans and dinosaurs would have coexisted. Men would've hunted megalodons in their primitive canoes, pterosaurs would've picked off cro magnons and Mammoths would've been competing against Iguanadons for foliage.

You can find crustacean fossils near the summit of mountains. Why? because the earth evolves as well.

a reply to: peter vlar

From what I understand is that would be true if the atmosphere has been constantly the same.

I was on a work computer and many sites are automatically blocked so no I couldn't read your link

If the different dating techniques didn't support each other you wouldn't be seeing this paper published in a reputable journal and the peer review would have outed faulty methodology by now.

Like Climate change science was settled and turned out there data didn't agree but the peer reviews published them anyway.

I don't trust science anymore than the govts that control them.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Evolution a fairy tale for adults.

Nothing can be proven only guessed upon and estimate according to scholarly knowledge and yet that is still a theory.

If you don't have an understanding of the measurement of eternity your dating system will always reflect time periods that are much longer than they really are.

This is relevant to the thread how?

Why do you guys have to derail every single thread about a scientific discovery posted with the same old crap that you parrot around everywhere that is completely wrong.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yep, I knew it. You are hijacking the thread to promote your silly literal interpretation of the bible. Sad.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Evolution a fairy tale for adults.

Nothing can be proven only guessed upon and estimate according to scholarly knowledge and yet that is still a theory.

If you don't have an understanding of the measurement of eternity your dating system will always reflect time periods that are much longer than they really are.

Well if evolution and creationism were to collide then Mammoths, humans and dinosaurs would have coexisted. Men would've hunted megalodons in their primitive canoes, pterosaurs would've picked off cro magnons and Mammoths would've been competing against Iguanadons for foliage.

You can find crustacean fossils near the summit of mountains. Why? because the earth evolves as well.

Actually, if creationism is real, some dinossaurs would still be alive considering that some reptiles lived in the sea and many other pre-historic creatures as well.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

If the different dating techniques didn't support each other you wouldn't be seeing this paper published in a reputable journal and the peer review would have outed faulty methodology by now.

Like Climate change science was settled and turned out there data didn't agree but the peer reviews published them anyway.

I'm not sure you understand how the peer review process actually works, there are certain criteria that are reviewed prior to publication but publication itself is not peer review. The real work begins after the papers are published and others in the same or similar fields take your data and methodologies and then attempt to reproduce your results independently. These dating methods have met all standards and have in fact been independently reproduced repeatedly.

The "peer reviews didn't publish anything. Journals published work for others to peer review because it met the initial requirements for publication. How was the incorrect data found? It couldn't be from *gasp* scientists who tried to recreate the data and found flaws could it? I don't know what specific instances you are referring to without a citation so I can't comment on whatever it is you are referencing so if we could focus on the subject at hand, a subject which I have supplied a legitimate citation... What is wrong with the 40 Ar/39 Ar dating which corroborates K/Ar? What are the flaws? Where are the faults?

Can you offer up any actual evidence that shows the dating methods are flawed aside from your lack of understanding of how they work and inherent distrust of science because you don't understand how it works?

I don't trust science anymore than the govts that control them.

Which governments control science? Just a short list so that I can try to get some back pay and maybe retroactive benefits. I could really use a trip to the dentist but my current deductibles aren't that manageable in the current economy.

As I mentioned above, I find that typically, those who state a mistrust of science, as if science is an actual person and not a tool for seeking out answers, mistrust it because of their inherent ignorance and lack of understanding of the scientific disciplines in question. It's far easier to remain that way and maintain a position of distrust than it is to educate yourself.

This isn't saying there were giant humans in the distant past...it's saying that our ancestors were similarly sized and proportioned like anatomically modern humans earlier than had previously been thought.

originally posted by: TheJourney
This doesn't seem to be saying there were giant humans in the distant past...it's saying that our ancestors were similarly sized and proportioned like anatomically modern humans earlier than had previously been thought.

That's exactly what this research is saying. That at a time when the only member of the genus Homo was thought to be H. Habilis which topped out at 3 1/2 feet in height, they have possibly found someone who may have been as tall as an average human male is in the early 21st century. The only issue is that basing height on a phalange is a bit of a stretch. Had they found a femur or even a vertebrae, then there would be a much stronger case. At best, I think it's safe to say that this particular specimen had a hand that is within the same range as a modern adult male of average height. Ascertaining a definitive height based off of a phalange though is, and this is just my opinion after reading the actual paper, but a definitive height of 5' 9" is somewhat questionable.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Volcanic action took place at Mt St Helen's years back we had instant sedimentary and conglomerate rock were made in 15 minutes . When they dated the samples by radio carbon dating it measured over 1.3 million years old.

Please post a reliable source, because if this is the case they just re-invented radio carbon dating. lol

en.wikipedia.org...

the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago

a reply to: Realtruth

That has already been addressed

a reply to: Barcs

someone aksed and I replied. No hijacking on my part only replies.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ChesterJohn
No. You did not read that in Omni magazine.
Omni got its science right. Also had bitchin art. I have a file folder full of it.

I have two big boxes in the garage.

Harte

Keep them !

There are worth some Pennies!

see ebay ! they are expensive .

Im lucky to have mine the few i have that is in pristine condition ..

wanna sell them ? J.K .

well any how there is some article of fossil discoveries in Omni

to bad the Internet it scared the Omni Magazine way. true story .
2010 space Odyssey DR Floyd's Omni Mag

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ChesterJohn
No. You did not read that in Omni magazine.
Omni got its science right. Also had bitchin art. I have a file folder full of it.

I have two big boxes in the garage.

Harte

Keep them !

There are worth some Pennies!

see ebay ! they are expensive .

Im lucky to have mine the few i have that is in pristine condition ..

wanna sell them ? J.K .

well any how there is some article of fossil discoveries in Omni

to bad the Internet it scared the Omni Magazine way. true story .
2010 space Odyssey DR Floyd's Omni Mag

Omni lost itself (and me) when it turned into a UFO fringe mag.

Harte

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

someone aksed and I replied. No hijacking on my part only replies.

The post I quoted was your first post in the thread. It was not a question asked to you, it was a direct attempt to hijack the thread and turn it into another anti evolution thread based on ignorance. There are plenty of other evolution attacking threads you can post in for that. No need to turn every single evolution or science based thread into a smear campaign.