You’ve probably heard the news about some interesting fossils found in Morocco. PhysOrg has an article about it: Moroccan fossil find rearranges Homo sapiens family tree. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
This week’s unveiling of the oldest-known Homo sapiens remains has painted an excitingly chaotic picture of what Earth was like 300,000 years ago — bustling with hominin species that included a very early version of our own, experts say. The story of human evolution, this shows, does not follow a straight line from monkey to ape-man to architect. Rather than emerging from a single “Garden of Eden” 200,000 years ago before spreading throughout Africa and the world, early modern humans were already scattered across the Mother Continent a hundred millennia earlier.
We’ve been around 100,000 years longer than we thought? Okay. Then PhysOrg says:
Africa, at the time, would have resembled “a kind of human zoo”, said Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who led the research on five human fossils from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. “We are moving further and further away from this linear vision of human evolution with a succession of species, one replacing the other,” he said. “There were probably several groups of hominins existing, overlapping in time… and having, I would say, complex relationships.”
It seems that we have some re-thinking to do. Here’s more:
Two studies published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, extended our species’ recorded existence by a third, from 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, and torpedoed the long-held theory that we emerged from an East African “cradle of humankind.”
Here’s one of those Nature articles, which you can read on-line without a subscription: Scientists discover the oldest Homo sapiens fossils at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco.
Another excerpt from PhysOrg:
For Lawrence Barham of the University of Liverpool, the dating of the Moroccan site helps us to see our species more clearly in time and in space. The previous oldest Homo sapiens remains ever found, in Ethiopia, were 195,000 years old. “An earlier date of 300,000 years is significant from the perspective of human evolution in Africa itself, where Homo sapiens may have co-existed with at least two other species — Homo heidelbergensis and Homo naledi,” Barham commented.
Here’s how the article ends:
According to the research team, the discovery means that Homo sapiens — not members of a rival or ancestor species — were the ones who left behind Middle Stone Age hand tools that have since been unearthed all over Africa. As our species was previously thought to be much younger, it was not considered plausible that they could have made these implements. For Barham, the new dates will revive a theory that Neanderthals learnt tool-making from Homo sapiens, not the other way round.
At this point you’re all wondering: What will be the creationist reaction? Hambo and the other young-earth creationists won’t like the idea of pushing our origin back another 100,000 years. They’re going to stick with divine creation 6,000 years ago, so they’ll dismiss this. But what about the Discoveroids? How will they respond?
We have the answer from Klinghoffer at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog. He just posted Another Day, Another “Rewrite” on Human Origins. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
In the mainstream science venues I don’t see any direct acknowledgment of the challenge that, given conventional assumptions about human ancestry, that means considerably less time, 100,000 years less, for unguided evolutionary processes to accomplish the transition to us.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If someone found a Sapiens fossil from 100 million years ago, that would be a problem. But Klinghoffer is serious about the “problem” of this 100,000 year revision. Not enough time for evolution. Only the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — could have created us so early. He says:
Pushing origins back in time – whether of our species, whales, or life itself – is rarely good news for evolution. The hive mind of science journalism tends not to notice such things.
Now that is lame. Then he quotes something from Discoveroid Jonathan Wells. If you don’t know who he is, see The Genius of Jonathan Wells. We’ll skip the Wells quote. Klinghoffer ends his post with this:
The more that experts on human evolution know about our origins, the less they seem to actually understand. Given evolutionary presuppositions, the direction of research and learning is not from lesser to greater clarity, but just the opposite. The result is, as Scientific American more candidly puts it, a “mess” [link omitted]. If that is the case, maybe the problem is with the presuppositions.
Presuppositions? Evolutionary presupposition? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Klinghoffer sounds like ol’ Hambo. Can anyone figure out what he’s saying?
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.