Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#139726 02/18/05 09:00 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
W
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
In yesterday's paper there was an article about the timeline for the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens having been pushed back thousands of years. The oldest fossils now have been dated to 195,000 years ago, give or take 5,000 years according to the article. Omo I and Omo II are the fossilized fragments, primiarly partial skull fragments, and are so-named because of their area of location near the Omo River in Ethiopia in the 1967 find. New ways of dating have led to the realization that the fossils are much older than once believed. The dating of a volcanic rock layer below the location of the 1967 find is now believed to be the approximate time of the 'fossil-bearing sediment' (AP).


#139727 02/18/05 02:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Yeah, I saw that, too. Just think how much of our history we don't know about, and probably never will know about.


#139728 02/19/05 03:03 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
If you happen to be a creationist, you wouldn't think of this as your history anyway, Jackie - the implication being that there's nothing there to know.

Interesting though, isn't it?


#139729 02/19/05 03:13 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
W
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
I've been reading an article on the process of fossilization, and a point that is made repeatedly is the slim chance of things becoming fossilized. By far much more works against that process, such as detritivores, than for it. The fact that we do come across significant fossil records is a rare, wonderful gift from nature, no matter how much we might at times take those gifts for granted. Jackie's absolutely right. There is much we will never know through fossil records because so much wasn't ever fossilized. Taphonomy. It's a very interesting subject to read about.


#139730 02/19/05 03:58 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Actually, reading this thread made me remember a question that someone came up with, possibly here, quite some time ago. The question was:

"Why did so much evolution occur in East Africa? Or did it?"

Which is two questions, I know, but you can see where this was going. The assumption seems to be that since so many fossils of so many different types of hominids have been found there, that that is where the evolution must have occurred. But is that a good assumption?

The question is rhetorical, obviously, since we only have evidence of these hominids from this one area. But it makes me wonder ...


#139731 02/19/05 04:09 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
W
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
You bring up an excellent point, Cap', because there are definite conditions that favor taphonomic processes, from what I've been reading, and many of these conditions rely heavily upon geography.


#139732 02/19/05 04:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Well, how very interesting: the PM I just read ended by asking me "What would Jesus do?", and the first post I looked at today wonders if I happen to be a creationist. For the record: no, I am not. I belong to the Methodist church, yes; but not only do I not consider myself a "model Methodist", it doesn't follow that I am a wild-eyed Bible thumper, either. There is very little (in fact, I can't think of ANYthing) in the world that I embrace and accept completely, from Christianity (and esp. its more fanatical representatives) to friends to books to medical information. I figure there is at least room for doubt, or fault, in just about everyone and everything. People: even those whom I love most dearly have traits that I can't go along with. Do I accept as correct everything they do and believe without question everything they say? No. Do I love them any less because of these traits? No. It is part of who they are, and I choose to accept dealing with these in order to continue my relationship with them. Books: in fiction, it goes without saying that not all of it will be true. In non-fiction, I wonder such things as how thoroughly the author did his research, and how much his own bias might have affected what he wrote. Medical info.: ha! My mother was a nurse, and I learned as a child that doctors don't always know everything (sorry, all you MD's here). Please note that assuming that things are not necessarily the complete truth is not the same as assuming that everything is deceptive.

Which, actually, CK, sounds like your wondering about the origin of our species. I was taught that it was in the fertile crescent, too. And it seems likely--based on the information that we have. But we know that we have only a tiny portion of what the whole picture was back then; and it is usually risky to extrapolate a whole view based on small fragments.

[train of thought e] In my opening para., I started to put that I am a Methodist by profession--meaning that I profess to being a Methodist--then realized it would sound as though I were a minister or something. That made me wonder about the difference(s) between PROfess and CONfess, since pro and con are so often opposites. Maybe I should have said that I confess to being a Methodist! [/train of thought]


Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Sorry Jackie, I inadvertently left the "ed" off "happen" in my original post in this thread. I wasn't really trying to suggest that you are a creationist, merely that if you were one you wouldn't believe that these fossils had anything to do with your origins.

Perhaps I should have used the subjunctive, but I find that people see that as an affectation these days ...


Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Well, I did think you knew me better than that; all is forgiven! [hug] I was quite put off at the time by the PM I'd just read, which seemed to imply that because I go to church I therefore ought to know how Jesus would have acted, and act accordingly myself. Insulting, really.


#139735 02/20/05 10:10 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
>"What would Jesus do?"

Dunno, but there are some of his "followers" around here who would fix the fossil problem with a bigger hammer. If the eyesocket offend thee pluck it out.



TEd
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 442 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5