Quote:

 

It is the world's biggest haul of human fossils and the most important palaeontology site in Europe: a subterranean chamber at the bottom of a 50ft shaft in the deepest recesses of the Atapuerca cavern in northern Spain. Dozens of ancient skeletons have been unearthed.

La Sima de los Huesos – the Pit of Bones – has been designated a Unesco world heritage site because of its importance to understanding evolution, and millions of euros, donated by the EU, have been spent constructing a museum of human antiquity in nearby Burgos.

But Britain's leading expert on human evolution, Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, has warned in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology that the team in charge of La Sima has got the ages of its fossils wrong by 200,000 years and has incorrectly identified the species of ancient humans found there.

Far from being a 600,000-year-old lair of a species called Homo heidelbergensis, he believes the pit is filled with Neanderthal remains that are no more than 400,000 years old. The difference in interpretation has crucial implications for understanding human evolution.

"The Atapuerca finds are hugely important," said Stringer. "There is no other site like it in terms of numbers of bones and skulls of our ancient predecessors. It is the world's biggest collection of ancient human fossils and the team there has done a magnificent job in excavating the site. However, if we cannot correctly fix the age and identity of the remains then we are in trouble. Getting that wrong even affects how we construct our own evolution."

La Sima de los Huesos was discovered by potholers exploring Atapuerca's cavern system. One brought back a few fragments of human bone. Excavations led by Juan Luis Arsuaga, of Madrid university, began in 1990 and within two years had uncovered two complete human brain cases. Ribcages, leg bones and jawbones were also dug up. Arsuaga tentatively dated the finds as being 300,000 years old.

Since then, the remains of 28 bodies have been dug up, the world's greatest single haul of ancient human fossils. During this time, Arsuaga and his team pushed back the dates of their finds to 600,000 years ago and assigned them as belonging to Homo heidelbergensis.

This dating and identification has caused increasing upset among other palaeontologists. The scientists at La Sima believe H heidelbergensis is an ancestor of Neanderthals but not of Homo sapiens. However, others, including Stringer, believe it is indeed an ancestor of our species.

"The problem is that many of the skeletons unearthed at La Sima clearly have Neanderthal features," said Stringer. "In particular, their teeth and jaws are shaped very like those of Neanderthals. But all other evidence indicated Neanderthals did not appear on the scene for another 200,000 years. Dating these bones to such an early date completely distorts our picture of our evolution."

This criticism is supported by Phillip Endicott of the Musée de l'Homme, Paris. His studies of human and Neanderthal DNA have shown the latter did not appear as a separate species until 400,000 years ago. "Yet the bones in La Sima, which bear Neanderthal features, are supposed to be 600,000 years old," he said. "This cannot be true."

Another criticism is of the method used to date the Pit of Bones. A stalagmite found just above the remains has been dated as 600,000 years old, using natural uranium isotopes, and Sima scientists argue that the fossils must be older. They say the 28 bodies were thrown into the pit as an act of reverence for the dead and that the stalagmite grew over the sediment containing the bones.

However, this interpretation is controversial. No one has found any other evidence of ceremonial behaviour in humans of that antiquity. In addition, there is a deficit of small finger and toe bones. "If complete bodies were thrown in there, you would expect to see every piece of human anatomy down there," said Stringer. "But you don't. A lot of skeletal parts seem to be missing."

Yolanda Fernández-Jalvo and Peter Andrews, of, respectively, the Natural History Museums of Madrid and London, suggest the absence of small bones is best explained by assuming the bodies came from the cave system and were washed there by flood. Fingers and toes would have been lost as skeletons were swept into the pit where the stalagmite could already have formed.

However, Arsuaga has rejected this analysis. "You can call [the fossils] early Neanderthals or give them another name, it does not matter. I prefer to give a different name." But he admitted the 600,000-year age his team had put on the Sima fossils did look too early. "We are working on that," he said.

Delilah

Jun 12 2012, 09:59 PM

The theory of evolution is just that a theory. Their attempts to date the Earth are not full-proof either. What makes people think these hominds were are ancestors? Can't they just be another species of bipedal animals who went extinct?

faintsmile1992

Jun 12 2012, 10:54 PM

Delilah

Jun 12 2012, 09:59 PM

The theory of evolution is just that a theory. Their attempts to date the Earth are not full-proof either. What makes people think these hominds were are ancestors? Can't they just be another species of bipedal animals who went extinct?

Lololololol!

Delilah

Jun 12 2012, 09:59 PM

The theory of evolution is just that a theory. Their attempts to date the Earth are not full-proof either. What makes people think these hominds were are ancestors? Can't they just be another species of bipedal animals who went extinct?

Toiletman

Jun 13 2012, 01:15 AM

Delilah

Jun 12 2012, 09:59 PM

The theory of evolution is just that a theory. Their attempts to date the Earth are not full-proof either. What makes people think these hominds were are ancestors? Can't they just be another species of bipedal animals who went extinct?

Yeah, gravity is also just a theory, please jump from a cliff. One denier less.

truth must be a sarcastic god who likes to bring humans into false directions into bringing complete lines of fossils

7eleven

Jun 13 2012, 02:46 AM

Who ever actually believes humans descend from monkeys deserves to be burned alive. I will do it myself.

New Englander

Jun 13 2012, 02:52 AM

I hate it when people say "well its just a theory". They need to pay attention in science class

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

New Englander

Jun 13 2012, 02:52 AM

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

7eleven

Jun 13 2012, 02:59 AM

New Englander

Jun 13 2012, 02:52 AM

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Those "fossils between humans and apes" are most likely ape species who have no relation to humans.

Delilah

Jun 13 2012, 02:57 AM

New Englander

Jun 13 2012, 02:52 AM

I hate it when people say "well its just a theory". They need to pay attention in science class

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

You are wrong to assume we don't listen because we have a belief one way or the other. I don't find science incompatible with religion. To me evolution doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. He is the orchestrator of the process.

What I am pondering is how can one leap from finding certain species similar to modern day age animals and humans and know for certain this was an ancestor? Couldn't it have been simply another species that just went extinct?

Delilah

Jun 13 2012, 02:48 AM

7eleven

Jun 13 2012, 02:46 AM

Who ever actually believes humans descend from monkeys deserves to be burned alive. I will do it myself.

Well I'm not an expert in evolution but I know that it doesn't say this. But I get a lot of hostile reactions whenever I inquire about evolution. It's like everyone's on the defensive. One would think I'm denying the existence of a light bulb. I'm trying to grasp it but it doesn't seem to make complete sense to me.

Robert

Jun 13 2012, 03:04 AM

Delilah

Jun 13 2012, 02:48 AM

7eleven

Jun 13 2012, 02:46 AM

Who ever actually believes humans descend from monkeys deserves to be burned alive. I will do it myself.

Well I'm not an expert in evolution but I know that it doesn't say this. But I get a lot of hostile reactions whenever I inquire about evolution. It's like everyone's on the defensive. One would think I'm denying the existence of a light bulb. I'm trying to grasp it but it doesn't seem to make complete sense to me.

It should be common sense at this point. Why do you have vestigial organs? Why is your back designed for a quadrupedal animal and so poorly designed for a bipedal animal? The reason scientists know that evolution is more than just a theory and is fact, is because how poorly humans are actually designed. Evolution works through erroneous mutation and adaptation. Nothing is ever perfectly designed but comes from a series of erroneous adaptation and mutation and if a creator made people out of stones and pixie dust he did it in a very poor way. We know where the gene mutations occur, we know everything about the adaptation of every animal all the way back to when all life was branch amino chains and simple proteins. You talk and always quote the bible but have you ever actually read any Evolutionary Biology books that talk about these things in detail? Ever read "The Selfish Gene"? It explains everything in a very easy to follow way that should expand what you think you know about science and evolution and the limited scope of what you think science knows.

Read "The Selfish Gene" please.

Robert

Jun 13 2012, 03:04 AM

Delilah

Jun 13 2012, 02:48 AM

7eleven

Jun 13 2012, 02:46 AM

Who ever actually believes humans descend from monkeys deserves to be burned alive. I will do it myself.

Well I'm not an expert in evolution but I know that it doesn't say this. But I get a lot of hostile reactions whenever I inquire about evolution. It's like everyone's on the defensive. One would think I'm denying the existence of a light bulb. I'm trying to grasp it but it doesn't seem to make complete sense to me.

It should be common sense at this point. Why do you have vestigial organs? Why is your back designed for a quadrupedal animal and so poorly designed for a bipedal animal? The reason scientists know that evolution is more than just a theory and is fact, is because how poorly humans are actually designed. Evolution works through erroneous mutation and adaptation. Nothing is ever perfectly designed but comes from a series of erroneous adaptation and mutation and if a creator made people out of stones and pixie dust he did it in a very poor way. We know where the gene mutations occur, we know everything about the adaptation of every animal all the way back to when all life was branch amino chains and simple proteins. You talk and always quote the bible but have you ever actually read any Evolutionary Biology books that talk about these things in detail? Ever read "The Selfish Gene"? It explains everything in a very easy to follow way that should expand what you think you know about science and evolution and the limited scope of what you think science knows.

Read "The Selfish Gene" please.

7eleven

Jun 13 2012, 03:20 AM

Robert

Jun 13 2012, 03:04 AM

Delilah

Jun 13 2012, 02:48 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep

It should be common sense at this point. Why do you have vestigial organs? Why is your back designed for a quadrupedal animal and so poorly designed for a bipedal animal? The reason scientists know that evolution is more than just a theory and is fact, is because how poorly humans are actually designed. Evolution works through erroneous mutation and adaptation. Nothing is ever perfectly designed but comes from a series of erroneous adaptation and mutation and if a creator made people out of stones and pixie dust he did it in a very poor way. We know where the gene mutations occur, we know everything about the adaptation of every animal all the way back to when all life was branch amino chains and simple proteins. You talk and always quote the bible but have you ever actually read any Evolutionary Biology books that talk about these things in detail? Ever read "The Selfish Gene"? It explains everything in a very easy to follow way that should expand what you think you know about science and evolution and the limited scope of what you think science knows.

Read "The Selfish Gene" please.

lol I bet your just a zoophile who wants to get it on with a chimp. You are a complete disgrace to all of humanity. Why dont you just go live in a jungle?