| Cavemen much smarter that we thought|
I confess i do have difficulty fitting things like this into the Biblical narrative- particularly a 6000 yr old earth narrative.
"Modern humans' ancient relatives were probably not Mensa material, but an exciting new discovery by paleoanthropologists suggests they were much more sophisticated than scientists had thought.
The new study appears in the latest edition of the Journal of Archaeological Science (PDF).
A team of researchers from Canada's University of Victoria and several American universities used modern forensic tools on ancient ones created over 250,000 years ago.
Animal residue they found on the tools may be the oldest animal protein residue ever found. It may also be some of the first direct evidence that our Stone Age ancestors were pretty wily. They could adapt to life even in a tricky environment with dangerous animals and harsh weather.
The tools were unearthed at an ancient oasis in Jordan between 2013 and 2015. Archeologists uncovered over 10,000 artifacts in what had been a kind of watering hole in the northeastern part of the country.
Twentieth-century development has lowered the water table in the marshes near Azraq, giving scientists better access to deeper sediment layers.
Researchers say the area was a kind of "paleolithic bus stop" between the African and Eurasian continents. A wide variety of animals went back and forth along the corridor for thousands of years, making it rich for exploration.
In examining thousands of flints, scrapers and ax heads, the scientists discovered that these Middle Pleistocene hominins didn't merely forage for food, they also hunted it. They butchered their meat. They protected themselves from becoming prey.
It also appears they liked variety in their diet. Residue found on these ancient tools shows the presence of duck, horse, camel, wild cow and even rhinoceros.
These hominins (PDF) lived thousands of years before the more modern Homo sapiens first evolved in Africa. Researchers say their use of tools in this fashion suggests they were much more cognitively complex than some experts have thought.
How exactly does a little bit of horse on an ancient tool tell us they were smart?
"When we think generally about the story of human evolution, we see that we eat anything and everything to help us survive," said April Nowell, lead author of the study and a professor of anthropology at the University of Victoria.
When the lab called to tell her that protein on one of the tools tested positive for horse, she was "over the moon" at the discovery.
Hunting with tools takes real planning, she said. It's not an activity done instinctively.
Dining in with dangerous animals at the next table wouldn't be a good idea. Carry-out took some doing in those days. These ancient peoples had to figure out when animals would be seasonably available. They'd have to plan their travel. They'd have to teach others how to make weapons and how to coordinate a hunt.
This animal residue is a rare clue as to what this mysterious hominin species was like. Bird bones don't often survive from this period, and no one has found hominin fossils in Jordan.
Having this protein puzzle piece, Nowell said, and "getting a window into this time period is incredible.""
| 2016/8/10 18:10||Profile|
| Re: Cavemen much smarter that we thoght|
I don't even try to fit it in, but it is true that they (people long time ago) were smart. I think many people make the mistake of thinking that we are the smartest generation of all. We made many discoveries but there is a lot of theories in my opinion that are considered facts today, but were never sufficiently proven...
I think believing in a creator inreases our chances to discover something new. I love science when it is based on observations and proofs that can be checked by anyone.
| 2016/8/10 18:32|
| Re: Cavemen much smarter that we thoght|
oh nooooooooo......brother Todd, you have opened the floodgates!!!....and the deluge is coming!!
this shall be a 100 plus post thread that brother Greg will lock, my prediction.
that said, I love the topic, wish you and others were on my sitting porch with iced lemonade, to discuss this OP, but.....God love you brother, neil, fading to black....
| 2016/8/10 18:41|
| Re: |
Ha ha Neil- I hope not. I really don't have a dog in the fight because I am ok either way. Now I do realize that people do not understand how I can be ok either way (with ancient or young earth) but that's ok too!
I also read an article recently about the arctic ice core samples that are stored in Colorado. They show striations (meaning they can tell each winter like tree rings) going back 250,000 years- but I know the YE position is that these are not reliable for counting years. It was pretty cool nonetheless- it talked about how they can pass an electrical current through the core samples and when it "pings" in a certain way they know they have found a core sample with evidence of a volcano- when they actually check the core sample sure enough- they see a layer of ash etc. Pretty cool.
| 2016/8/10 19:30||Profile|
| Re: |
We can only present our opinion facts and proofs and it is up to the other person to receive it. No hate is necessary.
I more and more get into the habit of only accepting anything if I have a proof or witness. This is inluding my faith and science. For my faith it is the bible and the witness of the Holy spirit , for science it is observations and scientific proofs that are verifiable as well as common sense. I like to question everything...
| 2016/8/10 19:44|
| Re: |
I think that's a pretty good policy. Closemindedness on issues like this doesn't make a lot of sense to me
For example, in the ice core samples I mentioned below, the scientists say they have 250,000 years worth of evidence. YE'ers state their measurements are not accurate. But can they REALLY be off by 240,000 years? I just don't get that.
| 2016/8/10 21:21||Profile|
| Re: |
Did you think of examining the evidence yourself or do you believe what the scientists say? Are the young earthers not also scientists? If they are then you have this: some scientists say this, and some scientists say that. None of them have evidence. So we simply do not know.
I could try to examine the arguments and evidences of both sides and make a decision for myself what to think of the matter. If the result contadicts the bible then I must have misunderstood the bible, because the bible is truth (asit was previously proven to me). Then the next task is to see if the two things (bible and science fact) can be reconciled. In this case the witness of the HS can be used, and his help to understand the bible. There is only one truth about the matter. I believe the differences ultimately can be solved since science is also aiming for the truth. But maybe we have to think out of the box and examine different paradigms, alternative theories, etc.
| 2016/8/10 22:03|
| Re: |
Something to consider http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html
We studied this case in Bible school and compared secular scientists ( yes is does make a difference) and Christian scientists who are not desperately trying to unprove God. These planes were found in 260 feet of ice after being buried for 46 years. If you were to use that as some king of standard, just imagine what depth would be required to come with hundreds of thousands of years of age for the earth. We also did excellent comparative studies on carbon dating and the relative effect the oxygen content of the atmosphere had on the reliability of such testing. One more thing to consider. If you take the most educated European and stand him side by side with an African pygmy and then compare each of their cultures and achievments and advancements then bury them and dig them up 10,000 years from now, we could forgive our folks in the future coming up with some very wrong conclusions about the state of man. If we go back in time we can see pygmy's living in grass huts, call them cavemen call them what you like with their very primitive tools, while a continent away there were men building pyramids where some aspects of their building techniques we still have not figure out because they were so advanced...............bro Frank
| 2016/8/10 22:32|
| Re: |
I said before that science aims for the truth. The definition of science is this:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
This definition exludes deception, so science can't deceive us, but people who are used by satan can. One way of deception is to present unproven theories as facts (intentionally or unintentionally). But by examining those theories and proofs (becoming scientists ourselves) we are able through understanding and reasoning detect this deception.
For example the observation and counting of the layers on the ice sample is science. You can visit that storage place and see it for yourself as proof. But the 250 000 years is theory. Maybe they can measure today how much ice accumulates in a year, but they have no way to know that the ice was behaving the same way couple thousand years before. I don't know all the facts but the 250000 years are yet to be proven to me.
I am a human with average reasoning and I am not convinced that there is only one possible explanation of that scientific observation and that necessarily involves 250000 years.
edited for clarity.
| 2016/8/11 0:39|
| Re: |
Frank- you have mentioned that before and it is a fascinating story- I certainly agree.
Tozsu- I see where you are coming from. They get 250,000 years because the hypothesis is that each year of snowfall makes distinct layers. I think they could prove this hypothesis based on recent observation. You seem to be saying that perhaps long ago multiple layers could have been created in one year. You are right- we weren't there so we can only extrapolate.
I guess the same could be said for very old trees. We know that one ring is created per year but I guess there is no way to prove that multiple rings weren't created in a single year a thousand years ago.
We trust science for many things we do not even think about but when it comes to dating we say it is 90% wrong. That's what I have a hard time accepting especially when it comes the cosmology, etc.
| 2016/8/11 7:30||Profile|