Comments on: Human Skull Begins to Fill in 20,000-Year Gap in Fossil Record

By: Kono

Kono — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:44:33 +0000

The only reason Azhure and Doubting Thomas posted is to generate clicks on their names. Trolling is profit for some.

By: RJ

RJ — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:08:08 +0000

Since DT has been thoroughly flogged (although in his defense, I suspect his motivations are nothing more than the typical Internet skeptic who MUST vocally debunk everything he reads ), I would like to question Azhure’s response as well.

I’m no expert in fossil records or dating techniques but I would point out that the article mentions they used more than one technique to base their findings on. That’s enough for me to file this as interesting and very likely trustworthy. If you are an expert in these techniques please enlighten us, or better yet, peer review the published findings.

By: jojfc

jojfc — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:20:57 +0000

Really, who still believes humans are only walking around for 6000 years?

Obviously there have been civilizations before the Egyptians etc etc. However instead of going deeper and deeper into genetics and evolution i would rather see some of the money pour into excavations.

By: megan130

megan130 — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:09:10 +0000

DoubtingThoms is the going idiocy that calls itself clever and questioning to justify hewing to old unscientific concepts or just no science but BELIEF. They consider THAT EQUAL to scholarly curiosity and investigation/questioning. Notice how he SLIPPED IN ‘FLOOD’ ie biblical/Mesopotamian lore, which may or may not have environmental historical proof but isn’t during this skull’s era. The Demise of the USA, when better science papers come out of India and China due to poorly US funded or peer allowed shit science here, for ‘fairness to all views’ bs.

By: KateClancy

KateClancy — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:30:13 +0000

As someone very familiar with the scholars on this project and the field site, I can say there was no leaping to any conclusions (well, except what you’re doing, Doubting Thomas). Their methods are pretty non-controversial, their results exciting. Perhaps you could contact the corresponding author of the paper and request a copy so you can have a read. I think you’ll find this research pretty darn awesome.

By: nivram

nivram — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:00:09 +0000

@ Doubting Thomas – With the few facts you actually have about the state of the body you conclude YOUR story is more likely than the guys who sat in the mud and did the actual work day in and day out for months. Using the same scientific criteria you just applied, I conclude your wife is cheating on you because you are too stupid to keep a woman.

I love how idiots with no formal training decide what is and what is not “junk science.” You define junk science as – Crap you don’t want to believe. Do you question the science behind your cell phone or television? Atoms don’t actually exist because I have never seen one. Face it, your not qualified to call anything as complicated as a 3rd grade science fair junk science.

By: Doubting Thomas

Doubting Thomas — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:34:17 +0000

I hate to be a party pooper, but I’ve been seeing a lot of junk science on websites lately, like the one about the new family of spiders that are probably poisonous. Well, duh! All spiders are poisonous, Einstein. Show me one that isn’t, that would be news.
In this article, the scientists state the skeleton washed into the cave with some dirt about 12000-17000 years after he had died. Doubt it. Not the best explanation. I suppose the scientists leaped to that conclusion because the dirt underneath and above the skeleton both dated to a later date than the skeleton. So what? The skeleton could have been in the cave for a long period of time and then the deluge from a flood or other occurance suspended the skeleton as the dirt deposited. Makes better sense. People loved caves. Living in caves was the going thing. That’s why the famouos cave bear went extinct, in my opinion. We moved in on his turf. Just, sayin’, I believe this guy was in the cave, not somewhere laying on the ground to wash into the cave after 15000 years. Wolves and the like would have gotten the bone and had a field day first. But, hey, believe what you will. I wasn’t there to check your reasoning.

By: azhure

azhure — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:15:10 +0000

im actually starting to doubt if dating techinqiues now a days is really close to a number to what to be expected. there can be a factor a material become old even if its not