Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I have so much respect for archeologists. Spending over a decade in one spot, literally on hands and knees, digging and meticulously sifting through anything that is found, is to me the epitome of dedication to a craft.
But another part of me thinks: there must be a better way!
I know that expeditions often hire bands of locals to help them dig and sift. But does anybody know, have there ever been any advances in this field to make the process go faster, or require less human toiling?
post-docs are humans too...
Speed Archaeology! https://youtu.be/m11VH-dUPEk ;)
I know that low cost survey Lidar will really help, and that RTK GPS is also improving things. On larger digs, documentation with drones is also likely to produce better incremental tracking of progress. But, for this to be better, improving the actual digging is still a big unsolved problem.
EDIT: the other 50% of our time was: 40% reassembling bones with superglue in an air conditioned room. (pleasant for the temperature, but maddeningly frustrating work)
10% dig notation, journaling, discussion, planning, survey, etc.
The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age: http://docdro.id/RMXnFTW
New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens: http://docdro.id/gi2Gvzo
After 300,000 years, about 1.73 * 10^-16 of the original carbon will remain, which is obviously too little.
To fill in the detail: Carbon-14 has an abundance of about 1 part in 10^12, and one gram of carbon contain about 10^23 carbon atoms, so about 10^11 C-14 atoms. Every single C-14 atom will have decayed in about 200k years.
The uranium-thorium method, the potassium-argon method, and the rubidium-strontium method. Samples containing radioactive beryllium could be dated as far back as 10–30 million years. A newer method of radioactive tracing involves the use of a new clock, based on the radioactive decay of 235 uranium to 231 protactinium.
We'd really like to know why the known accurate methods didn't work in this case, and why they had to fall back to indirect measurements of the flint stones.
"The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques."
(IANAA) The archaeological record is sketchy at best for our prehistory and huge amounts of conjecture is based on very fragmentary evidence. Entire (sub) species are known only from a single bone or a few teeth.
Anyway - cheers to Morocco - cradle of humanity, for now 8)
Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade is a great book reviewing the recent science on our species from about 100k year ago to about 10k years ago. It provides the overview and context that you dont get from a NYT article such as this.
Do we know better? Probably. Are we correct in our understanding of the natural world? Hell no.
"All models are wrong; some models are very useful", as the adage goes. Science isn't so much about being right as it is about being less wrong.
I'm fine with resetting the narrative as we learn vs making bad assumptions.
1. We find human remains we can date back 100,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 100,000 years old.
2. We find human remains we can date back 150,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 150,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 (sort of).
3. We find human remains we can date back 200,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 200,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 & #2 (sort of).
This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably.
An interesting paragraph I read in one of these articles on this recent discovery is that fossils this old are difficult to find because it requires an dry, arid area to survive. Assuming that humanity started in Africa will probably never be disproven because we would need to find a fossil older than 300,000 years that's not in Africa. I assume we think this based on the only evidence we have: we've only found the oldest fossils in Africa.
Naive question, how do we draw the line between new species and variance of actual homo sapiens? I can imagine some interesting "specimens" of underlying skulls in some people I've encountered that could even fall in another extinct homo species from the images I've seen (sounds funny but it's real question).
Saying 'modern humans' or 'homo sapiens' are X years old is a misleading statement. Evolution isn't some binary where all of a sudden you have modern humans. It's genetic change over time.
Better reporting would be to compare this find with relatively modern features in Morocco at 300,00 years ago, to Homo Naledi with archaic features in South Africa at 335,000 to 236,000 years ago. As other users put it, compare this data point to other data points.
This find implies that relatively modern humans had spread to multiple parts of Africa by 300,000 ya, while at the same time evolutionary cousins like H. naledi persisted in other parts.
"And if that is true, Dr. Gunz and his colleagues argue, then our species may have been evolving as a network of groups spread across the continent." This IMO is the best sentence summarizing the impact of this find, and makes the most sense evolutionarily. Instead of having one group evolve all modern traits, and then 70,000 years ago explode across Africa and then the globe, you have several groups with limited interbreeding evolving 'modern' traits. The interbreeding allows the traits to cross into other groups, and modern humans are the result of a particularly successful combination of traits where some traits arose in one group or location and some in others.
So sure, in evolutionary deep time (1-2 million years) East Africa remains the cradle of humanity. But this find updates the story that by 300,000 years ago, the groups that became human had left the cradle. That's a big story, and is a much better summation than the misleading "Humans are X years old, older than Y that we previously thought".
I will always hope that we find some clue which suggests humans came from somewhere other than Earth. That would probably be the second best thing, after proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, to spur deep-space exploration.
I'd love some good science fiction based on that idea at least. Mars seems like a plausible candidate; We ruined it/were forced to leave, fled to Earth, culled the dinosaurs, and made here home.
Plus, I think an extraterrestrial source for human life just makes me think of all sorts of geeky fantasies.
It really isn't; this doesn't change anything, we previously knew we were at least 200k years old, that fact is still true. We now know we're at least 300k years old, that fact will also always remain true. What's at fault is your understanding of what science is saying rather than what it's actually saying.
> that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species
Because it's a given that we're always speaking about current best available knowledge. What is proven true remains true, it's just refined over time as new truths are discovered. What we know continually grows, it's not like we're changing what we know to be something else, we're just growing what we know continually.
And I think you're confusing me with the OP, I didn't ask any question at all, nor do I think the OP's question is legitimate. The OP is assuming incorrectly that current science states definitively when homo sapiens began, but it doesn't, it merely says here's the oldest evidence we currently have so we're at least this old; science never said we're not older. As we cannot time travel, we can never definitively say when homo sapiens began, it will always be an estimate based on the oldest fossils found and as such that estimate can be changed anytime new fossils are found that pre-date the existing oldest fossil.
And don't get me started on some of the NPCs...
Sometimes humans get things wrong, and there is no shame in being wrong with science, it's part of the process, unlike "other domains" where people can or will never admin they are wrong, while still using the product of science every day, in contradiction to their own "science".
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14508125 and marked it off-topic.
Why does everyone think that there's only two "origin" stories and they're both mutually exclusive? I believe in evolution, and I'm a monotheist. I don't reach this conclusion very easily. Why not evolution as God's* way of creating things.
*I hesitate to use this word because of the baggage it carries, but somehow Designer or Creator doesn't seem sufficient here...
Why monotheist? How do you know for certain there aren't more gods? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you test it? Could you admit your belief in monotheism could possibly be mistaken?
We can ask "why not anything?" all day and not get anywhere so it's more worthwhile to focus on the things for which evidence can actually be gathered. Evolution is testable and there exists much evidence of it occurring in the past. The other origin, not so much.
"Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse. Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation. Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any stranger than our other what ifs.
We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into belief. This may be driven by evidence, or just our humanly intuition and experiences.
But this is also human: The beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is revealed - someone here said this earlier. [No final answer] but rather based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with the evidence available at that time.
It's human because it depends on our perspective; where we are in time, whether we find the truths (evidence) or not, and whether we are capable of perceiving all truths. Science is continually evolving in our minds - or more accurately, in the collective minds over time. Can the great jigsaw puzzle ever be solved? That's not the aim of science, as it is proud to point out, but it argues that whatever picture we come up with, it's justified as long as it's based on the current collection of evidence - this is a philosophy.
And I'm personally not satisfied with this, as a way of life. Why don't I deserve the truth in its entirety, in my lifetime? You would ask, why do I even question whether I deserve or not? I guess it's a human thing. But for me, as a person, I intuit closest to monotheism. Monotheism provides a framework where anything is possible, but bound by the belief in the Great Programmer who can do whatever he wants. It can work for anyone, regardless of their time and place; and for me as a person fortunate to live in an advanced age, I can accept evolution, because I think it's pretty robust and who am I to question how he creates the world. This for me is more liberating than having to accept whatever picture current evidence is showing - actually, I look forward to witness more development. It's also quite a comfortable position to be in; if science does show that we live in a simulation, that's OK, if it shows that we live in a multiverse, that's cool too.
There are even some traditions that acknowledge the uncertainty of what we know e.g. [1]
But, after all, who knows, and who can say Whence it all came, and how creation happened? the gods themselves are later than creation, so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not, he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
You're right, I "intuit" it because it's unifying and seems to cover all bases, and therefore quite a comfortable position to be in. I also "intuit" it because of the vast indescribable complexity of this world, and it's not just the equations but the thrill, humility and beauty of it all is too much that I have to accept that it doesn't just happen.
But in my earlier point, I wanted to show that a belief in a 'Great Programmer' is not incompatible with a belief in science. I am free to be interested in those two things you mentioned, but I can also attribute the wonders to a god. In a way this is like enjoying an unfinished picture/ story, but knowing how the thread begins and ends: everything comes from him, and everything returns to him. It's like sitting in the privileged seat to witness a slice of this drama. And for me, the least I can do is to acknowledge the great auteur behind it.
So, the reason I find those two origin stories can't coexist? Simply because there is no evidence to suggest one of them is remotely true. It's nothing personal. I too believe many things, but I'm happy to admit I may very well be wrong. Call them operating assumptions.
But hey I may be wrong too. There's no telling unless He says "Game's up, now who amongst you could see me." I admit that there is that fear in me, but as I explained in another child post, I just can't put down the super complexity and beauty of this world to a chance.
(If my tone seems condescending, I apologise as this is not in my intention at all.)
As for chance? Well, for every Earth (only one we know of) there are (as far as we know) billions of dead planets. After billions and billions of dead planets I'm perfectly will to accept that one with life is just chance.
For sure our knowledge will grow, but I am not so sure if this will apply to our understanding. Yet the more we know, the more we seem we don't know!
Hey thanks for letting me indulge in this thread, I was hoping to test my thoughts and learn something new (I did) :)
"Th[e] tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in [a mature] size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. …[It] took its shape as it [gradually] developed with all its parts. … One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals." (http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/st-augustine-on...)
While he didn't think that a new genus could arise in this way, he was pretty clearly on the right track, especially given the rather sketchy knowledge on the subject of biology in his day.