Image: http://blogs.rtve.es Funny see how some juggle paleoanthropologists to human remains found in reservoirs, fit their ideas about the origin of man.
I'll write some posts telling cases quite significant, so that they can understand without going as gall Java Man or Peking Man, things are interpreted and modified to its release, the "scientifically correct" on origin of man seem supported by the findings.
But first make a brief outline to remember what they want to believe, I'll be very brief jump many nuances, in general it is:
1 - There have been several species of men (this is Adolf Hitler was like.)
2 - Their skeletons have gone from being strong and stocky to be tall and graceful.
3 - Their skulls have gone from being "primitive", ie small, large and protruding bulls supraorbital (brow bone), with receding forehead and no chin. A "modern", with larger skulls, more vertical front, bulls supraorbital softer and outgoing chin (chin).
4 - The technique mainly understood as how to carve stone tools has been improving from one species to another.
5 - Aside from some intermediate species, could be summed Case three most important species from earliest to latest: Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis (that's us).
6 - Do not agree on whether a descendant of the other, or if erectus and Neanderthals are failed attempts.
That said, let's see some trivia:
I'll write some posts telling cases quite significant, so that they can understand without going as gall Java Man or Peking Man, things are interpreted and modified to its release, the "scientifically correct" on origin of man seem supported by the findings.
But first make a brief outline to remember what they want to believe, I'll be very brief jump many nuances, in general it is:
1 - There have been several species of men (this is Adolf Hitler was like.)
2 - Their skeletons have gone from being strong and stocky to be tall and graceful.
3 - Their skulls have gone from being "primitive", ie small, large and protruding bulls supraorbital (brow bone), with receding forehead and no chin. A "modern", with larger skulls, more vertical front, bulls supraorbital softer and outgoing chin (chin).
4 - The technique mainly understood as how to carve stone tools has been improving from one species to another.
5 - Aside from some intermediate species, could be summed Case three most important species from earliest to latest: Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis (that's us).
6 - Do not agree on whether a descendant of the other, or if erectus and Neanderthals are failed attempts.
That said, let's see some trivia:
Lithic industry of the Border Cave.
CASE - 1 - In South Africa, Border Cave, found human remains quite "modern" with plenty of Mousterian lithic type (they call it MSA Middle Stone Age). [1] This is a problem modern humans had a more refined technique for carving flint and quartzite. Solution found to this problem, since very simple: now argue that someone dug in the Mousterian sediments with axes and modern a body buried there. Case solved.
not know if anyone has thought a bit, because if today in the era of communications and globalization, buried a goatherd of Kurdistan with the tools you use daily, and on the other hand buried an elite soldier of a modern army, with all its equipment, and in 1,000 years, a paleoanthropologist at the digs to both, and interprets their findings with the method of comparing utensils, can in some cases to know that both died the same day?, or perhaps say, "the soldier is a much more modern species to which belonged the goatherd?.
Florisbad Skull. Image: www.msu.edu . CASE - 2 - also in South Africa, was discovered long ago (1932) in Florisbad features a skull with enough "primitive." [2] When it was, was dated with carbon-14 method, and turned out to be 40,000 years. Another problem, how will this man have lived such a "primitive" only 40,000 years ago?, if Africa were already more than set the date for that sapiens colonized the world. How have they solved?, Since very simple, trying to have dated the skull again conveniently, using a tooth and a method called ESR (electron spin resonance) based on microwave radiation, now say the skull is 260,000 years, and already at that time if it fits a man "primitive."
do not know if anyone has been thinking that if the new date is worth, which is made with carbon-14 was wrong in no less than 220,000 years, 550% of the estimated age, can call these methods: absolute dating methods?.
In any case if the carbon-14 method fails at these levels, and in this case they despise, why give credit when it comes to dating carbon-14 fits with your plans?, Or is a genuine method, reliable and scientific, in which case the workaround of the new ESR dating is out of place, or if the method does not work, then be discarded in all cases. How significant this is!.
continue if I can.
[1] Stringer, C. and Andrews, P. - "Human Evolution." Edit Akal 2005 - pg. 160.
Lieberman D., McBratney, BM - "The Evolution and Development of cranial form in Homo sapiens", PNAS 99-2002 - pg. 1.134 and 1,139.
[2] Stringer, C. and Andrews, P. - "Human Evolution." Edit Akal 2005 - pg. 158.Gor. "Tracking the first of Our Kind", NG 192-1997 - pg. 92-99.
Semogil April 20, 2010.
0 comments:
Post a Comment