Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 26, 2019, 5:15 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
#1
"Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
Thought this may be interesting to you guys...DNA evidence has revealed that humans may be older than first expected...what does everyone think....

Quote:Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/fat...33011.html
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply
#2
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
No man we are only 6 to 10 thousand years old.
Reply
#3
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
Kinda puts a boot on young earth creationists asses Big Grin
Reply
#4
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
(March 8, 2013 at 6:38 am)LastPoet Wrote: Kinda puts a boot on young earth creationists asses Big Grin

YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU and your stupid facts and science!
Reply
#5
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
(March 8, 2013 at 6:34 am)A Theist Wrote: Thought this may be interesting to you guys...DNA evidence has revealed that humans may be older than first expected...what does everyone think....

Quote:Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/fat...33011.html

This doesn't really indicate that "humans" are older than expected. It pushes the age of the oldest common male ancestor back, but does not necessitate that he was Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
[Image: JUkLw58.gif]
Reply
#6
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
Unless such distinctions are totally meaningless, that is.
Reply
#7
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
(March 8, 2013 at 11:24 am)popeyespappy Wrote:
(March 8, 2013 at 6:34 am)A Theist Wrote: Thought this may be interesting to you guys...DNA evidence has revealed that humans may be older than first expected...what does everyone think....


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/fat...33011.html

This doesn't really indicate that "humans" are older than expected. It pushes the age of the oldest common male ancestor back, but does not necessitate that he was Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

The article misrepresents the implication, and in fact contradicts itself. The finding suggest not the oldest, but the most recent common male ancestor of living humans lived much earlier then thought.

The oldest common male ancestor of all humans would also be the oldest common male ancestrr between humans, chimpanzees, tyrannosaurs, trilobites, and velvet worms, and is undoubtedly some single celled organism living more than 2 billion years ago.
Reply
#8
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
I read somewhere that someone plans to clone a Neanderthal. Great idea. But then there was discussion about the ethics of how it should be kept and studied. It seems to me that you would have to do your best to give it a typical human upbringing if you wanted to know what it was capable of. A modern human child raised in a closet or by wolves would hardly be a prime specimen to study if you wanted to understand us.

I wonder what criteria was cited for claiming this 340,000 year old specimen was a direct contributor to our line? It doesn't sound to me like they are claiming this specimen was identical to modern humans - although it might be for all I know. But most early humanoids seem to be lost branches which do not necessarily feed directly to our lineage.
Reply
#9
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
(March 8, 2013 at 11:33 am)Chuck Wrote:
(March 8, 2013 at 11:24 am)popeyespappy Wrote: This doesn't really indicate that "humans" are older than expected. It pushes the age of the oldest common male ancestor back, but does not necessitate that he was Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

The article misrepresents the implication, and in fact contradicts itself. The finding suggest not the oldest, but the most recent common male ancestor lived much earlier then thought.
Sorry, my bad when I said oldest. He was the most recent common male ancestor of all known humans. The oldest would be really old. Cambrian explosion old if not before.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
[Image: JUkLw58.gif]
Reply
#10
RE: "Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old"?
(March 8, 2013 at 11:38 am)whateverist Wrote: I read somewhere that someone plans to clone a Neanderthal. Great idea. But then there was discussion about the ethics of how it should be kept and studied. It seems to me that you would have to do your best to give it a typical human upbringing if you wanted to know what it was capable of. A modern human child raised in a closet or by wolves would hardly be a prime specimen to study if you wanted to understand us.

I wonder what criteria was cited for claiming this 340,000 year old specimen was a direct contributor to our line? It doesn't sound to me like they are claiming this specimen was identical to modern humans - although it might be for all I know. But most early humanoids seem to be lost branches which do not necessarily feed directly to our lineage.
Quote:I read somewhere that someone plans to clone a Neanderthal. Great idea.
I remember watching TV where Japanese scientists were wanting to do the same thing with a Wooly Mammoth...that was last year and I haven't seen anything else about it since then....I wonder if they're actually able to do it?
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"

[Image: freddy_03.jpg]

Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fox host says he 'hasn't washed hands in 10 years' zebo-the-fat 12 312 February 20, 2019 at 12:00 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Any of you fellow old farts had an angioplasty? wyzas 1 193 November 4, 2017 at 10:06 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  99 million Year Old Bird Transition Found Amarok 14 3392 June 9, 2017 at 8:41 am
Last Post: Amarok
  OK fellow old farts, have those close to you monitor these. wyzas 9 2012 May 2, 2017 at 7:18 am
Last Post: wyzas
Big Grin An Old Science book from 1650 Fake Messiah 19 1665 June 10, 2016 at 3:52 am
Last Post: abaris
  Once Again - Science Does Stuff While Religitards Read Their Silly Old Books! Minimalist 6 851 March 8, 2016 at 3:59 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Old Age and Muscular State Arrogant Christian 25 6355 July 29, 2015 at 10:53 pm
Last Post: Arrogant Christian
  Thousand year old cure for MRSA superbug? popeyespappy 8 2527 March 31, 2015 at 4:03 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  SO THE EVIL EVOLUTIONIST SCIENTIST FIRED MARK H. ARMITAGE FOR DISPROVING OLD EARTH Duke Guilmon 13 4726 July 28, 2014 at 10:09 pm
Last Post: Duke Guilmon
  The World's Largest Virus Resurrected From 34,000-Year-Old Permafrost Ray101aan 9 2399 March 6, 2014 at 4:19 am
Last Post: Marsellus Wallace



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)