Earliest Europeans lived more than 40,000 years ago
This baby tooth appears to have come from a human who lived more than 40,000 years ago.
November 2nd, 2011
02:20 PM ET

Earliest Europeans lived more than 40,000 years ago

Two groups of researchers have discovered evidence of humans living in Europe more than 40,000 years ago, older than any physical remains found there before.

"They’re essentially the same as us," said Thomas Higham of the University of Oxford, who studied a jawbone that had been found in 1927 near Torquay in the United Kingdom.

These humans may have had darker skin than modern Europeans, more like today's Africans, and perhaps more robust facial characteristics, but were otherwise quite physically similar, he said.

Higham and colleagues used a refined carbon dating technique called ultrafiltration to determine that the jawbone dates from between 41,500 and 44,200 years ago. Previous estimates had put it at about 35,000 years old.

Meanwhile, in southern Italy, a different team of scientists, led by Stefano Benazzi of the University of Vienna in Austria, found two molars that are about 43,000 to 45,000 years old. The teeth were found near shell beads and other ornaments.

"They have ornaments for the first time in this part of the world, like pierced shells and pierced teeth of sometimes dangerous animals like wolves and bears and lions, and a range of different tools that were made out of bone," he said. They may have also used wooden tools, but those aren't found frequently, he said.

The two discoveries together confirm humans' early dispersal into Europe from Africa, Higham said. These findings are published in the journal Nature.

"The process by which modern humans went out of Africa, how that happened, it may have been that it happened much earlier than we think," Higham said. And if they were in England by 41,500 years ago, they must have traveled fairly quickly.

Neanderthals also lived around this period, going extinct between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. The Neandertal Genome Project has found that between 1% to 4% of modern human DNA in people living outside of Africa is shared with Neanderthals, suggesting that either there was interbreeding or that this is the remnant of shared ancestry.

"There's a big debate over whether Neanderthals had similar types of behavior" to the early humans, Higham said.

Modern humans evolved maybe 150,000 years ago, perhaps even earlier, he said.

"The big question is the process by which modern humans went out of Africa, where they went and how that happened, and the date and which that happened. It may have been that it happened much, much earlier than we think," he said.

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • On Earth
soundoff (582 Responses)
  1. Arby & Chief

    troll n00bz

    November 3, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  2. Dr. Chandler

    Fact: Nobody can actually prove anything in the bible actually happened.
    Fact: Evolution is happening before our eyes
    Fact: Religion, different beliefs have caused more suffering, and death than any one country could ever fathom
    Fact: Religion is all about money, money, money, money. It's a business people!!!!
    Fact: I have a very small penis, but my balls are larger than a softball
    Fact: I was touched by a priest, and as a clothed man, or unclothed at the time that made me realize it's all BS.
    Fact: I am atheist, but do not push my beliefs on anyone although I do feel that religion is used as a poor mans psychologist because they are afraid, or confused of what is out there.
    Fact: I feel anyone who can believe in the invisible man, is on drugs... Virgin Mary my ass!
    Fact: All the power if someone wants to believe that garbage, good for them, but I still think they are naive, and easy to persuade into the impossible.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
    • Tha Chikin

      I am on drugs and I don't believe in the invisible man! The tooth fairy... definitely!! Virgin Mary... we if she got knocked up, she AIN'T no virgin!!

      Fact: I feel anyone who can believe in the invisible man, is delusional... Virgin Mary my buttocks!

      There! All fixed!!

      November 3, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
      • Dr. Chandler

        Thank you :)

        November 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • Juniys Gallio

      > Fact: Nobody can actually prove anything in the bible actually happened.

      Eh .. sort of. There are certain events in the Bible that are historically sound, and that can be verified using our modern methods. Yeah, it's the minority, but it does exist.

      > Fact: Religion is all about money, money, money, money. It's a business people!!!!

      Organized religion .... yeah, probably. Individual religion ... not so much, especially someone like me (hard agnostic/soft atheist). Besides which, there's also been more than aq little money-making on our side of the argument.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
      • Tha Chikin

        Well, SOMEBODY'S gotta take all the old people's pension!! PRAISE THE LORD!!
        **gag**

        November 3, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • ldtisdale

      fact: i respect the beliefs of others
      fact: religion/christianity was the form of government during the crusade years.
      fact: christianity was the basis of the most killings of jews during the spanish inquesition
      fact: bad people exist and use whatever means to gain access to their prey. not just the church.
      fact: king james edited what went into the bible and what was left out.
      fact: i am not clinially crazy
      opinion: the bible was collaberated from scrolls written by real people.(i believe lol) i am sure if it's researched it can be proven.

      fact: if i was a man i would have a big penis and big balls.

      opinion: jesus was not portrayed as a prt of the official religion umbrella, he was portrayed as individual freedom from politics and opression which is opposite of any religious platform.

      opinion: most churches are all about the money and business of it all and do not help people such a myself,
      disabled and unable to work spent my whole life savings waiting for ssd and became homeless all for 500/mo in ssd earning which is my own fault for not paying enough in while i was running my salon. but. i am looked at now not as a self made business woman but as a loafer and a degenerate.

      opinion: my belief is that God is the ultimate scientist. everything created to evolve as it goes on itself. lol.. i suppose i have seen personally too many things that lead me to this conclusion.

      opinion: i am amuzed :)

      November 3, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Atheiawhat?

      Atheism is a religion, you dingleberry.
      Fact, you are a goon.
      Fact, as an agnostic, even I know that there are parts of the bible, however small, that are entirely historically acurate.
      Fact, people that make broad sweeing statements about others and their beliefs are trying to sell you something. In your case, selling people on a dictionary since there are appearently a few things you need to look up before you ever speak(type) in a public forum again.
      Before you say religion is all about money again, why don't you do a little research in to what many faith based charities are doing with all that money money money. And I mean all faiths, not just Christian charities since it is obvious you grew up in a Christian home and now see it as you life's work to rebel against the opiate of the masses.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        No, atheism is not a religion. Let's play school. We'll pretend I'm the teacher and we'll pretend you can learn. "A" = without in Greek. "The-" = god, again in Greek. Therefore "atheism" = without a (belief in) god. "Religion" is defined by Merriam's as "(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, [2] : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices "
        Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
        Therefore a state of being without a belief in god (a supernatural being) can hardly be a religion.
        I hope you took notes because there will be a pop quiz tomorrow.

        November 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
      • Magog

        @CrazyOwlLady
        Buddhism is atheistic, and it's a religion.

        November 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        Magog, thanks for making me look this up. We are both right, kind of:

        http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm

        I still maintain that atheism is not a religion as most of us define that term. It is also not a belief system, since an absence of something can hardly be a "belief" in its absence, right?

        November 3, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
      • Kevin

        "Atheism is a religion, you dingleberry."

        In that case, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and bald is a haircolor.

        November 4, 2011 at 11:41 am |
      • PaddyD15

        I am Atheist, and it is not a religion. Also, the only historic accuracy of the bible is that it was verbally passed on for centuries before it was recorded; thus, if you believe the bible is accurate then I have at least 200 books God, Jesus, and Mary all wrote together I can sell to you. It is funny how all the books have the same topic: How to make people believe in a never ending, constant money making, pyramid scheme, with a factious leader that no one will ever see, and how to take it global. Any takers???

        February 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Corey

      I hear you brother. However, was the comment about your franks and beans necessary?

      November 4, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • Perry

      You said you don't push your beliefs on anyone, then why are you posting them?

      November 4, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
  3. MAAT

    They just found some art in a cave in GREECE that's 100,000 years old in the ON Earth tab selection at the top of this page. so CNN just killed all you that believe it all started 6000 ago >>>>> click it see for yourself. Canaan was born in the year 4004 B.C. . The BIBLE is a MAGAZINE pieced together to suit the enslavers in thier endevors to WRITE THEMSELVES INTO HISTORY and steal the legacy and IDENTITY of the ORIGINALS.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      George Washington was in a cult, an' the cult was in the aliens, maaaaaan.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • epicjourney

      If there is 100,000 year old art in a cave in Greece then that sorta shoots up the idea that humans entered europe only 45k years ago. Unless you think Greece is not part of europe?? Hmmm?? Science shooting iteslf in the foot again??

      November 4, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  4. Roze

    "The big question is the process by which modern humans went out of Africa, where they went and how that happened, and the date and which that happened. It may have been that it happened much, much earlier than we think," he said

    In other words, they don't know $hit and this is a guessing game. Why would they have HAD to have darker skin? Where does that even COME FROM? They try SO hard to to lump all humans together so tightly and always fail. Race exists TODAY, Whitey's existence is being threatened, period. Look it up, do your research...or continue not caring and give into the self-hatred you've been taught from birth.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • Tha Chikin

      "Whitey" really??

      If both you and I would rip our skin off we would look exaclty the same. That is why I look at everyone as the same... some people just have a better tan than I do. I wish I could tan but alas, I am melanin challenged. It doesn't make me a prejudicial jerk though. It also doesn't stop those that are from labelling me [insert whatever racist comment here]. See there isn't a prejudicial bone in my body unless you are stupid. As we all know, stupidity transcends the races. Isn't that how pretty much everyone is these days?

      November 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
      • Common Sense

        Spoeken like a true Communist that knows nothing of genetics,evolution or physical anthropology

        November 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • CrazyOwlLady

      Wow. Where to start. Maybe I shouldn't bother. Let's try some rationality. "Race" is a purely human construct, used to describe human variations. There is only one "race", and that is the human race - homo sapiens. The early humans studied in this article were the same, genetically, as you and I. "The same" does not = "identical". You, despite your ignorance and bigotry, are the same species that I am, hard as that might be to believe.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
      • Tha Chikin

        From one feathered to another... you rock!!

        November 3, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        The Owl Lady isn't crazy at all. Right on.

        November 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • Kevin

      Your post is an excellent example of why the US is mocked by civilized countries for the lack of science education our students get.

      You might want to brush up on melanin and genetics.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • Juniys Gallio

      "Whitey's existence is being threatened"

      If you represent"whitey," then perhaps we would do the species a favor by becoming extinct.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • Sci1

      Do high schools no longer teach evolution, basic biology and genetics?

      November 3, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        Yes, they do. But in yet another American attempt to Keep Up With the Wangses, we've dumbed it down considerably. If we keep letting Xtian fundies have input into public school curriculum, it'll get dumber yet. Wait for it.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
  5. Tha Chikin

    Dude... this thread is full of bible thumpers! Figured it would be but come on people... quit shoving it down our throats already! WE GET IT!!!

    I don't understand why all these bible thumpers feel compelled to make MY SOUL their business. If I wanna go to Hell, I should be allowed to and not have to be subjected to the brainwashing of what you believe. Most of us genuinely just don't care.

    That said: how about those Neanderthals?

    November 3, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • Thor

      Since we Homo sapiens have a little Neanderthal DNA, I wonder if they gave us the DNA or did we give it to them. In any case, when the transfer happened, did the Neanderthal moan out "Oh God!", ever?

      November 3, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
      • Tha Chikin

        Hmmm... ya know, I don't know about the DNA! Maybe both?

        But I read somewhere that Neanderthals weren't capable of speech like we are... so I don't think they ever said "OMG"!!

        November 3, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
      • Thor

        LOL!

        November 3, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
  6. motiv8r

    the bible is right about one thing; the human desire to be their own God. Such was the first lie ever recorded in the bible told to Eve by the serpent. "for you shall be like God, knowing good and evil' Genesis 3:5

    November 3, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Or in your case, you shall be like unto a stump, knowing nothing and nothingerer.
      Revel in your ignorance, rock of the church.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • motiv8r

        Lol. Misinformed? Possible. Ignorant? Not a chance. I'd be curious to know what you believe, or are you one of those uninformed bible bashers who really don't know what you believe ? Hold on, wait. . . wouldn't ignorant kind of describe you then?

        November 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  7. Zwei Stein

    Gotta go. The boss should be here any minute. Don't want him to know I was on here proudly displaying my ignorance when I should have been making him money. Please don't mention my name to him. Thanks – Bye!

    November 3, 2011 at 11:43 am |
  8. motiv8r

    There seems to be among us a strong desire to replace God with science, Unfortunately science can only provide explanations, not answers. Science can't explain WHY there are rules in nature such that they can be understood and used to our benefit or why human are here in the first place, or why we are conscious beings with an innate desire to know who we are and what our purpose is. If not God, then we are truly the most tragic of all creatures.

    November 3, 2011 at 11:38 am |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      WHY is there a God. I wonder if God has existential identity issues, wondering why HE has just always existed.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:54 am |
    • Thor

      The answers to past practices and rules of the physical world, and their application to current or future processes and applications are in the principles of ENGINEERING.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:56 am |
      • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

        Hey, hey. You gods can't show up to a debate about yourselves. Go back to Asgaurd and leave the debating for us mere mortals. :)

        November 3, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @motiv8r,
      "There seems to be among us a strong desire to replace God with science..."
      I don't see a desire to replace God. There is a huge desire to understand how the natural world works, which is science. If someone wants to believe that there is a God or gods, then that's up to them. However, if they want to believe that some book tells them that the natural world works in a certain way that has been disproven by science, then they are wrong. As someone once said, "everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

      "If not God, then we are truly the most tragic of all creatures."
      I disagree. If not God, then we humans are even more "miraculous" than ever, in the sense of being unique and wondrous, wouldn't you say? If God made us, then we're just really complicated toys. If not, we are products of massive processes of natural laws that have been working for billions of years and, truly amazingly, we survived.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Sci1

      motiv8r...I respectfully disagree. It is science that provides answers with replicable certainty. The rules of nature, as you say, is a broad term. If you are referring to why animals behave the way they do, or select a certain type of habitat or food, it is for survival. It really is that simple. Some species, like humans, are more advanced and although we like to think ourselves the smartest, that may not be so, for it has yet to be proven. For me, science provides the answers. To me God is part of a belief system that provides very little factual data.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
      • motiv8r

        Sci1: When I say rules of nature I'm referring to the things such as the speed of light, or the force of gravity etc..., things we sort of take for granted. Science is no good to us if such laws don't exist. Who then is this lawgiver? Who ensures that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west without fail day in and day out? One MUST ackowledge a "god"; even if the god is called evolution. So if evolution tells me that I am basically a product of random chemical reactions over a long period of time, and all of my physical and mental functions were developed over time to facilitate my survival then what stops the homeless guy outside my office from bashing my head inand taking all my money? He would after all only be trying to survive, so why would he be prosecuted for such an act? I believe there are universal ideas of good and evil within us that transcend our most basic "evolutionary" instincts. It is in that place that I find my "god". My god allows me to understand not only the physical world around me, but also the spiritual world within me.

        November 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
      • Sci1

        motiv8r: I am glad that this solution works for you. I still believe that the physical, chemical, and biological sciences explain much of what we need to know with regards of our planet. There are many physical laws that exist to explain these issues.
        As for the "lawgiver", I am an evolutionist, as it is daily proven. I do not call this a god. I don't worship or have faith. I take facts as they come and recognize that with each bit of data and proof, our understanding becomes stronger and more complete. It is not enough for me to just believe in a magical being that somehow waved a wand and earth appeared with its' life forms. Daily, we discover new species. Daily, scientists are developing new life forms.
        As for your homeless guy, first I must say that I am not a behaviorist, but most likely conditioning has created the barrier that prevents him from bashing your head (although this does happen every day). You might blame it on god, I would say quilt and fear is more likely the cause. As our ancestors learned to fear predators, so we learn to avoid bringing harm on ourselves. I am happy that you find pleasure in your god, but I do not feel the need nor do I understand the desire to of a spiritual world.

        November 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        Well said, and respectfully said also. I do understand the very human desire for spirituality, but to me it is necessarily a very private matter. Like you I am not bothered a bit by those who find peace and happiness in their chosen faith (or lack thereof).... my only problem with the religious is that so many of them concern themselves with my soul, and yours - if we have souls. It's mine to worry about, thankyouverymuch. Dear Religious People: Please stay happy with your faith and keep it out of our public schools, our politics, our labs, and our bodies. Thanks.

        November 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • Sci1

        CrazyOwlLady: Yes, I agree with your concerns.

        November 3, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
      • Amber

        Sci1 and OwlLady,

        You are some of the most rational people i've read comments from on here. good for you Sci1 for remaining very rational and simply stating your thoughts, and not POUNDING your beliefs into other people. Even when people are pounding theirs on you, you seem to remain very rational and simply state your belief and why you believe that. I applaud the both of you :) a lot of people on here make me want to pull my hair out. including some of the people who share the same views as me. I've had to refrain from commenting when it involves religion here on cnn.com because i do not remain calm and rational. i start calling the "religios freaks" freaks.. and tell them they are more closed minded then than a box. so thank you to the both of you :D

        November 4, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        Why, thank you, Amber. ( I scream too, but it's on the inside. :) )

        November 4, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Ian

      Humans are here because we evolved to fit a specific niche. We are not "special", we are just a species that got lucky and developed a big brain and useful hands. We will, ineveitably, take the path all life does: extinction.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Why do you make this distinction between explanations and answers? Trying to whittle yourself a leg to stand on?
      In many cases, science does answer why things are the way they are, and why they happen.
      In regards to why we (humans) are here (alive, in this universe, exist at all, etc.), you would be right to say it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
      The answer would be easier to find by any means if the original question were not so fuzzy and poorly defined.
      Ponder away. Tell us how that navel lint tastes.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • motiv8r

        Question: " Why does your breath stink?"
        explanation:" because of the fermentation of food particles and odor causing bacteria in your mouth'
        answer: "you ate an onion salad for lunch"

        November 3, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • H. B.

      The problem with this thing you call "God" is that if he loved humanity as the bible says he did, why didn't he make US better? Why did he make us predatory on our own kind? Why did he allow so many afflictions and catastrophes to affect good people?

      Your "God" is a sadist. In which case, I wouldn't WANT to be on his good side.

      Besides which, if I were omnipotent and all-knowing, I could have made a better world in a COMA.

      Don't rant about how God challenges us, because if he is such a know-it-all, he'd already KNOW how we'd respond to any challenge he can cook up, so why bother making the challenge at all?

      There are so many horrific things that afflict humans, that no god that loved us could possibly have allowed so many of them to exist.

      BTW, if you're one of those bornagains, you have no morals at all – other than regarding sex. Regular, generic morality deals with things like honesty, basic fair play to others, compassion, personal honor, and many others. Morality is NOT just sex. Except to the whacked-out among us; no wonder that their political personages lie so easily. Lying isn't immoral to them.

      There really ARE some people who have no need to believe in a guy in the sky, a paternal figure, a "daddy-substitute." Life is what it is, what the facts tell us it is. It doesn't need to be more than that, except to cowards. And haters.

      Science could CARE LESS about you and other religions. It is YOU who have made science your enemy, not the other way around. At least you could OWN your own hatred and admit it for what it is.

      I KNOW WHY your faith is so feverish about its claim that the world is only 6000 years old. It has to take that position, so people won't wonder about the spirituality that preceded those hate-filled Hebrews who wrote the OT. They don't want it known that this other spirituality served humanity beautifully for over 15,000 years. And even today, it makes more sense than ANY religion you can name.

      They believed in the Great Earth Mother, source of all that lives, sustainer of all that lives – and that is VISIBLY true, even today. We may not regard the Earth as a divine being, but all the rest of the spirituality is as valid today as it ever was. And none of it conflicts with science, nor could it.

      Science is the study of the nature of Nature. The Earth Mother spirituality was a worship of NATURE.

      Those Hebrews had come to hating the Earth Mother, but also WOMEN. The hate of women is quite plain in the bible, especially in genesis. Eve, the "bad guy," and Adam, the "poor woman-tempted man." What ROT.

      But it was genesis which brought about the global hatred of women that exists today. All of it based on a colossal misunderstanding, too. I won't go into that here.

      In YOUR belief system, god gave the whole world to humans to do with as they pleased. They HAVE pleased an awful lot, haven't they? Extinctions, deforestations, global warming from unlimited emissions, on and on and on.

      YOUR god gave people the Earth as a direct slap on the Earth Mother, whom those Hebrews had come to hate.

      In your belief system, there's no reason why we shouldn't go right on despoiling the planet that keeps us all alive. Since your god gave it to us, you think that nothing we can do to it can possibly end up hurting us.

      Except it can. And is already doing so. So people like you just refuse to see it.

      In that most ancient spirituality, the Earth was sacred. To despoil it or squander its resources was vile. To harm the Mother's creation in any way was anti-survival. And that happens to be true. Our continuing onslaught on our planet IS anti-survival.

      It was a sad day for humanity when those ancient Hebrews decided to write their hatred, claiming it was their new god who "wrote" it all.

      Their new god, Yaweh, was a jealous, petty, judgmental, irrational, moralizing, egotistical, hate-filled, and sadistic god – a god to be FEARED.

      The Earth Mother was gentle, benign, loving, enjoyed when humans were enjoying their lives, didn't judge, didn't moralize, didn't proselytize, and simply LOVED all living things, as her children. She was a god to be LOVED.

      I'd take the latter any day.

      November 4, 2011 at 2:20 am |
      • Quantum Realities

        You are spot on.
        Now, let's get off this planet and let the lunatic fringe go extinct (or create their own Armageddon, they are suicidal, you know). After they are all dead, we can let the planet heal.
        In the meantime, we have better things to do, for the stars await.

        November 21, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
  9. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    All theological debates can eventually boiled down to 2 possibilities.

    1. In the beginning there was stuff.
    2. In the begininning there was God, and God created stuff.

    Both assume some "thing" whether God or the universe, simply existed. Christians are quick to disregaurd option 1, with no explanation of where God came from. How is it any more rational to assume God just always existed as opposed to the universe?

    November 3, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • Nick

      Educate yourself and read the "Slave species of god" (notice the small "g". Written by Michael Tillinger from South Africa. While shattering myths about evolution and God is revealed, "slaves species of god" reveals the origin of man from other planets on clay tablets found in the middle east. Find it on google. Read it and then debate it, or get even more confused if you don't. Highly qualified international speaker and archaeologist Michael Tillinger takes the reader into an eye openning journey of new dicoveries. We know nothing yet!

      November 3, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  10. Ralph

    Biologos.org

    Francis Collins is smarter than any of you trolls trying to claim you're scientific experts. Same is true for Deepak Chopra.

    November 3, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Dr.K.

      Deeprak Chopra is a total douche. Sorry.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
  11. Chris Honry

    The so-called "science" in this article is just as much fairly-tale as God-haters say the Bible is. No, wait, it's even more guess work than the guessers who say they are scientists. So you have some teeth and shells and you know their skin color and behavior? Right, just like I know what Jesus looked like. Such a joke.

    November 3, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      wow, you have no clue do you?
      For starters they mention skin colour to show how apart from that possible difference, having being out of Africa for a far shorter period, they were otherwise close to modern Europeans.
      Secondly they derived behaviour from pierced shells and teeth. Its the piercing that is the important part there. it had to be for a purpose and ornamental decoration is pretty good reasoning based on what we know about past history of cultures.
      You insult them, and their work, by reducing science that you dont agree with as 'guess work made by guessers'

      November 3, 2011 at 11:31 am |
      • Meat Puppet

        please change your net name as you are an insult to anyone living within a 100 miles of Cedar Rapids – the primitivel mental gymnastics that you use as logic are creative – for a junior high student – but still swing and a miss, strike three
        go turn on NationGeo or the History Channel and learn something

        November 3, 2011 at 11:46 am |
      • Kevin

        @ Meat Puppet – Instead of denigrating Cedar Rapids, perhaps you could supply some scientific evidence to refute him/her.

        And instead of telling folks to watch the History channel, perhaps you should start cracking open the jornal Science, or Nature, or Cell, or PNAS?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:58 am |
      • Nonimus

        What @Kevin said

        November 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      You're assuming that inferrences about skin color and behaviour were made directly from the teeth and shell fragments. The article states nothing of the sort. Inferences about skin color are made based on other types of analysis, and the article does not state sources for that. I believe that you're jumping to conclusions without understanding the substance of the article.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:32 am |
    • Dr. Chandler

      I love when I poop in a toilet and it splashes back at me, but what I like more is when I buy cheap toilet paper and my finger goes through the paper.

      With that said I think those that do not have the brain capacity to understand Science should not comment on it. I went to school for twelve years, not counting the hundreds of credits I need to keep my MD license. Nothing irks me more than someone trying to say it's not possible when it comes to Science when they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
  12. Quid Malborg in Plano TX

    Yes, some uncomplicated peoples still believe this myth. But here in the technical vastness of The Future, we can guess that surely, the past was very different. We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space.

    These insignificant lumps came together to form the first union, our sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gas bag, rotated the Earth, a cat’s eye among aggies, blinking in astonishment across the face of time.

    Well, we were covered with a molten scum of rocks, bobbing on the surface like rats. Later, when there was less heat, these giant rock groups settled down among the land masses. During this extinct time, our Earth was like a steam room, and no one, not even man, could get in. However, the oceans and the sewers were simmering with a rich protein stew, and the mountains moved in to surround and protect them. They didn’t know then that living as we know it was already taking over.

    Animals without backbones hid from each other, or fell down. Clamosaurs and oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up about 10% of all life. Hundreds of years later, in the Late Devouring Period, fish became obnoxious. Trailerbites, chiggerbites, and muskquitoes collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally, tiny, edible plants sprang up in rows, giving birth to generations of insecticides and other small, dying creatures.

    Millions of months passed, and, 28 days later, the moon appeared. This small change was reflected best, perhaps, in the sand dollar, which shrank to almost nothing at the bottom of the pool, where even dumb amphibians like catfish laid their eggs in the boiling waters, only to be gobbled up every three minutes by the giant sea orphans and jungle bunnies, which scared everybody. And so, IN FEAR AND HOT WATER, MAN IS BORN!!!

    November 3, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • B

      This is fantastic, the most creative and well written reply I've ever seen on this site!

      November 3, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • Judas Priest

      You, sir, rock like Satan.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Quantum Realities

      Aw man! You broke the president!

      November 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
  13. Zwei Stein

    I noticed that many commentators on here dispute the story about Noah and the Ark. You cite reasons such as: Need thousands of each species and the Ark wasn't big enough. Also, the Ark hasn't been found.
    Non-believers...wake up! The answers are obvious. First of all, the Ark was the size of Lake Michigan. All the trees were chopped down to build it. With all the trees gone, the weather patterns changed and the Great Flood occurred. After the waters receded, there was no wood for fires, so Noah and the gang used the Ark for firewood, until new trees could grow. Simple.

    November 3, 2011 at 11:04 am |
    • Cheech

      Uh, yeah. Pass that over here....man

      November 3, 2011 at 11:05 am |
      • Zwei Stein

        Ha ha ha ha ha...Thank You. Here...real Californian...no Mexicans sacrificed.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:13 am |
    • Duce

      Why does this sound like I wrote it sarcastically to prove that the arc wasn't real?

      November 3, 2011 at 11:11 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      quit bogarting that joint

      November 3, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • kolbe

      Alright Zwei Stein, Noah took in all the animals. Let's just accept that point. What about all the plants though? Not many of the plants we have around today would survive 40 days submerged. So either they evolved after the flood (say hi to evolution) or the bible forgets to mention a second creation (the holy book incomplete?) or it's all a big pile of nonsense.

      There's no reasoning faith, it's as blind as ignorance.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:23 am |
      • Judas Priest

        You do realize it was a joke...?

        November 3, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Dr. Chandler

      Obviously the Arc is real people. Trust me I'm a Doctor I know these things!!!

      Truly, I do not understand why people believe things that were written thousands of years ago. Nobody knows who truly wrote this stuff. It could have been some mental patient locked in a cell.

      To many possibilities surround anything written in the Bible, including this Arc.... Science contradicts almost everything in it.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:31 am |
      • Thor

        A kook in a cell... LOL....got me on that one.... you mean like a guy named Paul?

        November 3, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
      • Ebonyheights

        Thank you for making a lot of sense. Science does dispute everything in the bible, if the bible was true, why is it taking Jesus so long to come back. I believe now is the time.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
      • ZZ2011

        I bet all religious books have the same stories because of an extra-terrestrial encounter. They just were not advanced enough to make sense of their advanced technology – it was magical to them. I also bet that non-human intelligences had something to do with humans being so smart! :) I also feel better thinking we are not alone in the universe(s) and if everyone learned and understood this, we would finally find peace. This theory also ties nicely to the mystery surrounding the megalithic structures we have on our planet that we can't even replicate with our current technology. Please look up Puma Punku and see how it was possible for it to be built in that era!

        November 3, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • Ian

      No way did ancient man build a boat the size of Lake Michigan... and, all those trees vanishing would not cause floods. They would cause erosion and droughts.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • Zwei Stein

        I'm glad I came back...you must have faith!

        November 4, 2011 at 1:56 am |
  14. Sally Jennings

    HI :D

    November 3, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • Zwei Stein

      Thought you'd never get here. Hi!

      November 3, 2011 at 11:05 am |
  15. Troy

    I knew scrolling down I would find a bunch of bashing of everyone else's idealogy and beliefs, loads of sarcastic comments, and other senseless ramblings. What's wrong with some people nowadays? We want to debate each other, go out of our way to argue instead of find any sense of common ground, and are quick to feel threatened when someone doesn't share the same beliefs as you. Are you really like this in the "real world" or just on internet forums? Why do people who believe in God have to be "bible thumping Christians" or "Religious"? They are not synonomous, it's not always that black and white. Some people who believe in God do not believe in the Bible, believe it or not, or at the very least do not take it entirely literally. Why couldn't God have had something to do with the theory of evolution? It doesn't always have to be one way or the other. Science and a belief in God could correlate. The point is, NO ONE has all the answers, we cannot simplify something so inordinately complex, no matter how much human nature would like us to. The universe is infinitely expansive, and has existed with scientists best estimate of 13.75 billion years, combine those two for a moment, it's amazingly complicated. None of our "simple minded" arguments are going to even begin to scratch the surface of explaining any of this, so why don't people try to hear out other's beliefs, ideas, input, etc without insults and sarcasm? I am not a Christian, I am not an Atheist, not everyone is so easily categorized.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • Sue

      Well said, Troy.
      I've just about given up trying to find any civil comments in the "Comments" section of any online forum. Most commenters quickly "devolve" into name-calling tantrums. Freedom of speech is one thing, but using it to spread nothing but venom and ignorance is quite another.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:07 am |
    • Lumps

      Love it. Well said.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:10 am |
    • Ralph

      Well said! The reasoning is because these people really have no interest in any truth. They have their opinion and want to act like anybody who disagrees is an illiterate fool. I learned a long time ago from looking at the comments that nobody comes on here to actually learn anything. If they actually care then they research on their own.

      They're just trolls who want to act superior when in reality theyre nothing but clowns. Cheers :)

      November 3, 2011 at 11:12 am |
      • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

        "They're just trolls who want to act superior when in reality theyre nothing but clowns."

        I THINK WE'RE ALL BOZOS ON THIS BUS!

        November 3, 2011 at 11:45 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      Nice job of covering all the bases without actually contributing anything of substance. Your rant was just an attempt to be some self-appointed "voice of reason."

      So what's your position? What is your stance? I'm guessing that you're afraid to state that for fear of having to respond intelligently and having to defend your views.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:16 am |
      • Shiva

        You criticize Troy as being "some kind of self-appointed voice of reason". Yet you appoint yourself as some kind of "forum moderator" holding people to your defined parameters of discussion. My faith tells me that before I cirticize another for the speck in their eye, I should first remove the log in my own. Perhaps that would be good advice for you as well.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:30 am |
      • Ralph

        @quid – You basically just proved his point by acting like a troll. You clearly only have interest in promoting your point of view and am hoping that some1 will say something you disagree with so you can pounce on them and berate them for their intelligence. Good riddance to you sir.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:34 am |
      • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

        Rather presumtuous of you to say that. There's nothing here to moderate. You're as bad and unsubstantive as Troy. Let him fight his own battles, Kali.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:35 am |
      • Shiva

        @Quid – Doesn't seem to me that Troy was trying to pick any battle – why are you so intent on turning everything into a confrontation? You seem so angry. I truly hope one day you can replace that with something that brings you some peace.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:44 am |
      • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

        @ Shiva: "Doesn't seem to me that Troy was trying to pick any battle – why are you so intent on turning everything into a confrontation? You seem so angry. I truly hope one day you can replace that with something that brings you some peace."

        What you're doing by stating all that is what's known as "projecting." You're the one in need of peace, hence the need for believing in superstition and magical explanations for simple, physical things.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • Shiva

      Excellant points Troy. I am a Christian and I find a lot in your statement that I completely agree with and a few things that I would love to discuss with you as a fellow travelor in life – thus supporting your basic premise. Thanks for the fellowship.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Sci1

      You make a good point. I always tell my students that you learn more by listening than talking. Afterall, I already know what I think.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:23 am |
    • Aubrie

      FEAR.... Most are terrified to let go of their firmly held beliefs, which were more than likely introduced to them as children. I did years of research on my own, and was finally able to let go of those silly notions... I do beleive in God, but not anywhere near like the church or my parents taught me.... It was liberating. My life is so different now, not living in fear.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:23 am |
  16. g.r.r.

    I doubt that this would be allowed, but I suspect that DNA still resides within those bones. It would be useful to actually put that in an egg and then grow a child to see what happens. However, loads of moral issues with that one.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • Judas Priest

      On-topic responses, no matter how wacky, clearly have no place in this Jesus-vs.-Santa thread.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  17. I'm The Best!

    I never understood the evolution vs creation debate. Even if you say evolution is full of holes, its still lots of evidence for evolution and little to no evidence for creation.

    So if you have to pick a theory, the only logical decision you can make is for the one with a higher probability of being correct. And the probability that evolution is correct is much much higher than it is for creation.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:49 am |
    • Laban

      I seriously doubt there has ever been such a debate among intelligent, educated people. You are talking about a silly, popularistic debate intended for low-educated, less intelligent, ignorant, religious fools. Evolution has been accepted for many decades in the scientific community, and its fundamental processes is the basis for a ton of research and proven medical and biological processes and procedures that has greatly enhanced human living and knowledge.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:11 am |
  18. hockeyblades12

    I found this video interesting. Not trying to push anything on anyone relegious, but to me it has partially shaped my beleifs of evolution. It is a video of the worlds tallest man and the worlds smallest man.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6yUDUiTJHg&w=640&h=390]

    November 3, 2011 at 10:49 am |
  19. realist88

    I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in the Bible. Having said that, I can't understand what is so threatening about what they believe that everybody picks on and demeans their beliefs. We all have a world view. Each varies from person to person, based on what makes sense to them. Since nothing is %100 known for sure I find it bewildering that many have zero tolerance for those who believe something different from their own beliefs. What Christians believe don't threaten or affect what I believe or how I live my life in any way – nor does it YOU! So lets move on from the 2nd grade bullying and have a little tolerance, which is so highly in vogue, prized, and promoted these days!

    November 3, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • Zwei Stein

      I'm not intolerant of anyone, except for Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, The Top 1%, Eskimos...Oh wait – Scratch that last one.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:44 am |
      • Kevin

        I hate intolerant people..

        November 3, 2011 at 11:00 am |
      • Zwei Stein

        That's good Kevin...I can't stop chuckling.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:06 am |
      • Nonimus

        meh, is not tolerance just hatred of one's own righteousness?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:17 am |
    • CrazyOwlLady

      Actually, in the U.S., religious belief *does* affect us on a daily basis. See my other comments about Xtians trying to insert their belief system into the teaching of science in this country, into a woman's right to choose, into the treatment of gays, into the denial of global climate change - which affects our public policy in dealing with the effects of such change.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:59 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "What Christians believe don't threaten or affect what I believe or how I live my life in any way – nor does it YOU! "

      What rock are you living under? law makers with religion affect you every day.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:21 am |
  20. Zwei Stein

    There are "Bibleists" and there are "Christians." They all call themselves "Christians" and don't realize the difference. Personally, I don't know any "Christians," that is people who follow and practice the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. These alleged teachings in his (allegedly) own words can be found in the Beatitudes.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:35 am |
  21. sumday

    so Neanderthals lived for some 500K yrs then white people showed and in less than 10K yrs wiped them all out. Hmm sounds like the same experience every other culture who has encountered Europeans has had. We are a conquering race I guess.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • chet

      they werent white people they were africans everyone was that left africa to migrate

      November 3, 2011 at 10:47 am |
    • g.r.r.

      Hmmm. Neanderthals WERE white. Likewise, other than blacks from Africans, every race on this planet has neanderthal genes, wtih Caucasians having the highest %.
      In fact, It is highly probable that they are the original whites, and mixed with invading Africans to get caucasians, and then spread through the rest of the world and slowly diluted to get the other races (except for blacks).

      November 3, 2011 at 11:03 am |
  22. Jason

    For those having difficulty with the scientist assessment that the earliest europeans were dark skinned like today's africans, please google Washington Post article by Rick Weiss entitled "Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin".

    POINT: white skin is a recent mutation that had not yet occured 40,000years ago, so the scientist is well placed in their assessment as all humans at that time would still have been dark skinned african migrants.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:21 am |
    • Yankee Doodle

      Ape to dark skin humans to white skins humans? Sounds like liberal progressivism to me! Good grief, Darwinism is like a d@mn aweful song that keeps running through your head. For goodness sake folks, here we go again after another fossilized fragment of a jaw bone or teeth is found and another ridiculous theory develops and spreads like wildfire. How many times does this have to happen and be proven bulls@@t? Do yourselves a huge favor. READ THE ACTUAL REPORTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE LEADING ANTHROPOLIGIST LIKE THE LEAKYE'S. They kept finding just what they where subjectively looking for – the "Darwin Package." Funny thing its ALWAYS a fragment of a jaw bone and teeth enamel. ALWAYS turns out to be and ape!

      November 3, 2011 at 10:43 am |
      • g.r.r.

        How true. Conservatives always were pretty backwards. Kind of like apes.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:07 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "Funny thing its ALWAYS a fragment of a jaw bone and teeth enamel. ALWAYS turns out to be and ape!"

        oh absolute and total BS.
        By the way, teeth are the far more common find as they are the toughest part and last longer.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:34 am |
      • Taylor

        It's a madhouse. A MAAADHOOOOUUUSE!!!

        November 3, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  23. Rich

    If the born agains were smart they would worry about not voting with the tea baggers who want to take what little they have left after they give 10% of their pay to a story teller.Wakw up and make your kids STAY IN SCHOOL........not so much education from your rught wing preacher who tells you how to vote...Perry is a good example of why you should stay in school...

    November 3, 2011 at 10:19 am |
    • sumday

      yes bc our public school system is so good right? morale teachers who don't molest kids, safe environment where kids don't get bullied, killed, or raped right? And at the end of the day we teach them how to take a test and judge them on that. Do you even know what is taught in school or do you just accept everything told to you? read your kids history book and then go look up the real facts about that history. Our public schools have white washed everything about our past. Preach evolution as fact and science even though it does not follow the scientific method- it can’t be tested, repeated or predicted, and does not have a mathematical equation- all things that EVERY OTHER scientific facts are required to have. Sure there are similar observations through fossils remains but that is it- not 1 single fact to suggest or explain what caused the changed as things don’t magically change unless something causes them to.
      As for your 10% fee to the story teller I don’t mind paying it as I see that 10% go to helping people less fortunate than me. You however pay more like 30% to a story tell too (it’s called the gov). They tell you all kinds of lies, promise you things you will never get and unlike my fee you never see the 30% they collect going to help anyone. Now if you want to continue to be proud of your ignorance and embrace your random accident with no design or purpose to life go ahead- just stop being jealous of us who have a propose to life and can actually think and realize that life is no random accident. I have a degree in engineering w/ minor in math so I know the complexity and statistics of life randomly happen by accident is beyond zero of a chance- but don’t let that stop you from embracing your ignorance and arrogance.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:43 am |
      • JIm Schoreder

        That 10% you give that supposedly helps the less fortunate. You forget that those million dollar buildings, and land are not are all free from property tax, which has to be made up by the other tax payers, which are probably the less fortunate also.
        None of that type of existence seems to follow the bible what-so-ever.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:53 am |
      • TSlugg

        So your saying that if you believe in evolution you have no purpose in life? and since a god cannot be proven using the scientic method that the statement that god created the earth is not a scientific statement? Interesting

        November 3, 2011 at 11:27 am |
      • Darwinsdad

        This is what we expect from an engineer. Some of the most brilliant people I know are engineers but some are the most misguided. You obviously have no understanding of biological processes since you tout the completely random changes thing. Why don't you just give all of your money to your backward preacher and church. Kenny D

        November 3, 2011 at 11:32 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "I have a degree in engineering w/ minor in math so I know the complexity and statistics of life randomly happen by accident is beyond zero of a chance"

        and yet here we are so i guess your degree is worth jack.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:39 am |
    • Yankee Doodle

      You make a great point Rich. Your science is nothing but religion and politics. Thats why it always leads to an attack on Christianity and Republicans. You can tell me who your great great great great great grandmama and grandpapa is, but you can tell me I came from an ape? You proably believe the one's who tell ou how hot the sun is too, and what on the inside of it. Your scientific religion gets you about as close to your anscestors as it gets you to the sun.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:49 am |
      • Nonimus

        No you didn't evolve from an ape... you and apes have a common ancestor, i.e. you and apes are extremely distant cousins.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:22 am |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "You can tell me who your great great great great great grandmama and grandpapa is, but you can tell me I came from an ape?"

        but they dont even deal with the same thing. One deals with family lines, the other with evolutionary process.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:45 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Funny, we've sent probes to orbit the sun. Not to mention the sun is a loose gaseous structure, making the interior pretty easy to view and measure things like, oh I dunno, temperature.

        November 3, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  24. YACUB

    Who is the original man? The original man is the Asiatic Blackman, the maker , the owner , the cream of the planet earth, father of civilization and God of the universe.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:15 am |
    • Jason

      Real sicence please. not Farad Muhammed gobble-de-gook. humans migrated from africa to asia (not asia to africa)...mapping of human genome demonstrates this persuasively, so does historical and archeological recrods. Farakhan's brain got hijacked by islam – a religion started after 600AD with birth of muhammad. you need to rely on sources other than Farakhan and islam. sorry for being harsh

      November 3, 2011 at 10:27 am |
    • Troy

      You are a moron.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:34 am |
      • Sally Jennings

        I agree

        November 3, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • Joe Shmo

      If you were right then it looks like the Asiaticblackman or whatever you said, is actually stupid because they had their rear ends kicked out of Europe by the lowly white.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:51 am |
  25. Platypus

    Science is the only way of knowing, everything else is superstition!

    November 3, 2011 at 10:13 am |
    • sumday

      If that were true science would keep changing it’s story with every discovery. Science can’t be way to know anything for if you knew something it would not change. Science convinces you know something then another discovery is made and everything you “knew” gets changed- meaning you didn’t really know it to begin with. Science at best is a means to separate fact from fiction by testing, but not all things can be tested (dark matter/energy) .

      November 3, 2011 at 10:51 am |
      • Judas Priest

        On the other hand religion "knows" many immutable, unchangeable facts which are clearly contradicted by what you can see, observe, and measure.
        But I'm sure that's just god f*ckin' with you, right?

        November 3, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
  26. Platypus

    The baaable is a farago of palpable nonsense! Cha Cha Cha!

    November 3, 2011 at 10:11 am |
  27. Rich

    Just THINK about what you would think if somebody you met on the street told you some of these biblical stories ....You would dismiss them as some kind of a nut.But when some fancy tap dancing preacher with music playing screams the "stories" not only do you believe them but you GIVE HIM $$$...........sad

    November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am |
  28. Julnor

    Assuming humans have been around for 150,000 years and a generation is about 20 years, that means you only have to go back 7500 generations to get to a non-human. Doesn't that just blow your mind? Pretty cool, huh?

    November 3, 2011 at 10:09 am |
    • Common Sense

      Homo Erectus Africanus from 150,000 yrs ago aren't human look at the skeletons!Our last African anceastor was 1,200,000 yrs ago and was archaic Homo Erectus.Modern human populations wouldn't be human without Homo Neanderthal admixture the FOXP2 launguage gene was found in Neanderthals not anciesnt africans

      November 3, 2011 at 10:12 am |
      • Judas Priest

        You're very confused. Why don't you take a tranquilizer and lie down, Dave?

        November 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • Common Sense

        And everyhting I said is true Judas need to study genetics,phyical anthropology and evolution alittle more and stop watching tv and going to public schools

        November 11, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
  29. Common Sense

    Cromagnons weren't African in origin they were Asiatic.And no they don't resemble modern humans.Indo-Europeans who migrated from the Caucus Mnts at leat 6,500yrs ago who evolved from Homo Neanderthal and displaced cromagnon resemble modern humans

    November 3, 2011 at 10:07 am |
    • Troy

      Science does not support your claim. At all.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:36 am |
      • Common Sense

        Not when the evolutionary field is dominated by Marxists...try looking at the skeletons and genetics of it sometime...BTW red hair is the oldest identifiable human trait and was found in Neandethal populations

        November 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        You are obsessed with communists/marxists. Look, there's one under your bed.

        November 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  30. KMMT

    I'm a scientist and a Catholic. #1: Genetically, there is only one race and that is "human." African, Asian, Caucasian–people created these categories based on shared geography and culture. And yes, the DNA from even one tooth can tell us a lot about its owner. #2: The Bible says God created man on the "6th day," not 6,000 years ago. I know someone did some calculations to get to that number, but it is a belief, and people are free to believe it, but it is not consistent with physical evidence. #3: Science is about evidence, discovery, asking careful questions about this very real, physical and temporary world we live in. We all use scientific evidence in our lives every single day. You can't believe that the earth is only so many years old, and them pump gasoline–made from fossil fuels–into your car.

    Belief and science are not mutually exclusive. If anything, the more I learn in the realm of science, the more humbled I am as a human being. Imagine–what might it have been like to be human in Europe 40,000 years ago? I marvel that we have persevered.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • Common Sense

      A Catholic with Communist views?

      November 3, 2011 at 10:04 am |
      • Ed

        Scientific theory is a communist plot?

        November 3, 2011 at 10:20 am |
      • Nonimus

        I'm confused. What's communist in the posting?

        November 3, 2011 at 10:38 am |
      • canuk100

        Really 'Communist views'... get real, get an education, and recognize religion is a construct of a culture of war – not Godly intervention. More human misery has been created in the name of religious belief than any other in recorded history. The author is amazed that the human race has persevered, some would say that it has in spite of itself. His view of science and religion is the only sensible way to move forward.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:45 am |
      • Andrew

        Someone with 'Common Sense' exhbiting poor judgement?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:22 am |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        Didn't you get the email? Communists aren't bad/scary any more. You're supposed to call people you don't agree with terrorists and/or Muslims.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:40 am |
    • Mike

      Well said.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:04 am |
    • Chip

      Good commentary. And despite the term "day" typically used English translations of the Bible, the Hebrew word yom has three meanings: sunrise to sunset, 24 hours, and "indefinite period." When you look at the order of events in Genesis and current theory of the formation of the universe, they line up pretty well, particularly if you accept a broader view of the term days. Pretty insightful to have been written down 3000+ years ago by people who mainly herded sheep and goats. Maybe long days keeping an eye on a herd of animals gives you time to really think about things..

      November 3, 2011 at 10:11 am |
      • The Guy

        And the ancient Hebrew word for "virgin" is also the same for "young woman". Two entirely different things.
        So it's just as likely that jesus was the son of a young woman than a "virgin" as the bible states.
        Just another case of mistranslation and misrepresentation in the fables.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:18 am |
      • Nonimus

        "...line up pretty well..."
        Only if light came before stars, birds came before land animals, flowering plants came before land animals, etc.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:43 am |
      • Kevin

        Line up pretty well???

        The earth formed before any stars? Liquid water existed on earth before the sun was made? Vegetation existed on earth without a photon source drive photosynthesis?

        To quote Barney Frank, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

        November 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
    • Sci1

      Although I do not believe in a god as you do, I do believe that we all have the right to our personal beliefs. Beliefs are personal, science is not. To me, that is the difference.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:13 am |
      • Ed

        Bingo. The vast majority of scientists around the globe, of all different religions, races, and cultures, subscribe to the theory of evolution. Science is universal.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:26 am |
      • Arj

        Ed,
        Science and technology are 2 different things. For example computer is science. Then people fight over PC or MAC. That is similar to religion.
        In the same spirituality is universal. But religion is a kind of brand name, which limits your thinking. Just like MAC users can not like something from PC, though it may be good.

        Religion is more like a brand name. It makes you close minded and there by you can not accept things from other religions.

        Science is universal because we are not close minded, we are willing to reject our own false ideas when some one gives a better argument. So people should come out of religion and enter into spirituality.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Dominic Milella

      I also marvel at the fact that we have made it this far, considering, all the war and bloodshed caused by things like religion and the belief systems that they have tried to impose. With crusades, witch burnings, the systematic destruction of knowledge by religious orders that believed things like the world was flat, the center of the universe, the old thought that being filthy brought you closer to god leading to the black death, more recently the pope telling Africans that using condoms was evil so that AIDS can spread even faster in that already ravaged country. Yeah religion that's a good thing. lol

      November 3, 2011 at 10:15 am |
      • Troy

        Imagine how many more people there would be in the world if none of those things happened! Without religion to take out the masses, you might be living in an overpopulated world struggling to find your next meal.

        On the other hand, if Science had replaced religion, who knows what kind of WMDs would have been unleashed on us all.

        Maybe we would have the same population with the same amount of war and death.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • sumday

      The bible also says a watch in the night (3hr in OT, 4hr in NT) (some translate it as a day but it actualy a watch in the night) is like a 1000yrs and a 1000yrs like a watch in the night. See the bible knew time was relative long before Einstine did. Also yes the bible said G-d created man on the 6 day and on the 7th day he rested. Then when the Isrealites PO G-d in the dessert he swore in his anger that generation would not enter into his rest, also in Hebrew it says the Sabbath is a foreshadow of things to come. Now how could G-d swear this generation would not enter into his rest (the Sabbath) if it had already happend 1 day after man was created, and how can the Sabbath be a foreshadow of things to come if it has already happened? The fact is although G-d finished creating in his 7days we humans have not made it that 7th day and are still in the 6th day being created. Otherwise you must believe that G-d created everything in 6- 24hr days rested and then took another 6000 YEARS or so to correct what only took him 1 day to create (it would be simpler to destroy all man and recreate us in 1 day than spend 6K + yrs trying to fix us).

      November 3, 2011 at 10:22 am |
      • Troy

        Wow, that's an incredibly bad misuse of the word 'fact'.

        Lovely myth though.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:43 am |
      • Arj

        sumday, God already rested. Please dont wake him up for the sake of your silly arguments...

        November 3, 2011 at 10:58 am |
    • Arj

      people wrongly believe that books came from God. So they would not dare to think outside them. Unfortunately that is not true. Where in the bible it says that it is from God? It was only said by St. Paul etc, who are all human beings with human limitations and also with sentimentalism than objective study.

      Old testament never said (as I know it) every word of it coming from God. We should see it as human recorded history which also contain the word of God. As it is human recorded history, It has all the limitations of humans.

      By marking the human word as God's word, We are actually making the God's word loose it's credibility.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • Judas Priest

      You do realize that Catholics being the whore of Babylon in fundies' eyes, all of your arguments will be rejected by them as lies of Satan?

      November 3, 2011 at 10:48 am |
  31. realist88

    I don't believe in the Bible, but I really can't understand all the animosity towards Christians. Everyone has a world view based on what makes sense to them. Many theories vary (even among evolutionists). Nobody knows for sure what is the entire truth, so I find it peculiar that so many people are threatened so much by the Bible and attack Christians. I don't care what they believe – it doesn't affect me in the slightest – or YOU either for that matter. Liberal atheists are about the most intolerant people I know despite their assurance to the contrary.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:53 am |
    • Ed

      Athiests don't come to my door to convert me.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:00 am |
      • Common Sense

        Sure they do and they're called Communists.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:09 am |
      • The Guy

        Yes cause all Atheists are communists and vice versa. I'll go out on a limb and say all Christians are bigots since a portion of the population is represented as such.... moron

        November 3, 2011 at 10:19 am |
      • NotADream

        I don't have Communists come to my door and try to recruit me, either...

        November 3, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • Zwei Stein

      It does affect you. Daily. A small example...Christmas is a holy day for some, but a holiday for all.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • Kelly

      I agree with you about the Christian bashing. There is no reason for it. I am Pagan, and I can't stand to see people, even people in the pagan community, bash Christians. There are only a handful of intolerant extremist Christians out there, with most of them being open minded, and accepting of my religious choice, even if they don't agree with it. I have no problem in the spiritual path someone follows, as long it is peaceful, and causes others no harm.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        There is no reason for bashing another's personal beliefs. And that being said, there is also no reason for those with religious beliefs to try to insert them into everyone else's lives. I.e., insisting that "intelligent design" be taught in science class; insisting that their way is the *only* way to heaven/afterlife/enlightment/whatever; insisting that a woman's right to choose is "murder" and must be abolished; insisting that being gay is sinful; etc. Please keep your personal religious beliefs to yourself and we'll do the same.... and we'll gladly share our science with you without insisting that you convert.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:39 am |
      • Nonimus

        You tell 'em, (NotSo)CrazyOwlLady!

        November 3, 2011 at 11:26 am |
    • kso

      actually, we are smart enough to know the what the truth is, and with regards to evolution, we know. there may be some patchy spots, but they're getting fewer and fewer.

      ignorance is only the absence of education.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:14 am |
    • realist88

      Let me rephrase – their beliefs have no negative affect on me. And yes, atheists are ALWAYS pushing their beliefs on other people – maybe not by going door-to-door, but through education, politics, and forums like this!

      November 3, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • NotADream

      @Realist88 – I don't have a problem with what myths people believe in their private lives, as long as it's not taught as fact in public schools and it's kept separate from our nation's politics. I

      November 3, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "And yes, atheists are ALWAYS pushing their beliefs on other people – maybe not by going door-to-door, but through education, politics, and forums like this!"

      In what way? Seriously, in what way? By telling other people that they cannot have their religious values as the only one in school or government? by suggesting the evolution be taught because it is a scientific rather than religious view? how are atheists ever forcing their views on you?

      November 3, 2011 at 11:50 am |
  32. CrazyOwlLady

    Interesting article; the comments even more so. My only remark is that the comments illustrate the story shown on NBC Nightly News last evening regarding Singapore's educational success and why the U.S. is ranked 24th in science. We don't value education, particularly science education. The ignorance shown here by some of the comments is simply appalling.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • Zwei Stein

      Amen!

      November 3, 2011 at 10:06 am |
    • Dominic Milella

      I couldn't agree more. Our educational system is poor at best and the science education is even worse. The biggest problem lies in places that want to teach things like Intelligent Design along side of Evolution claiming that both are scientific theories and the kids should be able to figure out which is right. One evolution is not a theory, it is fact. It is also a fact that all scientific facts grow over time as we learn more about them. It doesn't change the fact that evolution happens on a daily basis, aka super germs, and on a long term basis like the average height of human beings now verses a couple hundred years ago. Intelligent design doesn't belong in any class room especially a science classroom and just because you call something intelligent certainly doesn't make it so.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • NotADream

      CrazyOwlLady – while I totally agree with you comments, it can also be a statement as to the level of parental involvement a child has during the learning process. If I had issues with what my child was being taught in school, usually in the arts/social sciences, then I told them there was another way to look at it, and we researched the alternatives together. It was fun, and they learned that not every textbook/teacher has all the answers. They, unfortunately, learned to regurgitate information for the textbook created tests, but they also learned that history is written by the victor, not the vanquished! We've been fortunate that our school district is rated very highly in the state, and have, for the most part, wonderful and well rounded teachers, but kids aren't being taught to think for themselves. They are being taught to score on state and national tests. It's sad...

      November 3, 2011 at 11:17 am |
      • CrazyOwlLady

        Well done, NotADream. I too taught my five children to be critical thinkers. As a result, not a single one is religious/Xtian. None are politically conservative. None are uber patriotic; rather they tend to see themselves as citizens of the planet rather than of a particular country. All are accepting and open-minded to new ideas. Ruh roh, I think I see the problem here, do you?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:44 am |
      • Sci1

        CrazyOwlLady: Good job with the offspring! Critical, logical thinking is the first step toward independence and success, in my opinion. I truly believe that is the key to producing non-judgemental and well-rounded kids.

        November 3, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  33. Sci1

    Cool find. Now we have another piece of the puzzle.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:45 am |
  34. palintwit

    Sarah Palin believes that early man parked their dinosaurs in the Roman coliseum while they were in church.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:45 am |
  35. Rich

    Take the "Noah's ark " STORY .......a classic for sure....People that believe that voted Bush in for a second term...

    November 3, 2011 at 9:41 am |
    • steve samples

      Yea, but it's a TRUE story. The Bible even tell us the name of the mountain

      November 3, 2011 at 9:42 am |
      • Religious sects

        LOL, too bad we can't seem to find evidence of this Ark ... eventhough God has told us where it is. At least we have fossil evidence of the humans in this article.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:46 am |
      • Daniel

        The story of Noah's Ark was taken nearly word for word from the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the bible.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:48 am |
      • Thor

        Ok, so go find ONE piece of true, verifiable, scrap of physical evidence of the "Ark" on that mountain. Prove that it floated for the biblical time of the voyage, and that it carried a pair of EACH of the species of animals on the planet Earth at that time. ....come on!.... let's see it!

        November 3, 2011 at 9:48 am |
      • The Jackdaw

        In biblical times, Ararat was the name for the mountain range, not a specific mountain. Also, nobody ever points out that if the entire world were actually flooded, the Ararat range would not be the first to appear as the water levels receded. Noah should have parked on Everest. God should have liked that, as it might have brought his religion to those “savages” in the east, assuming that they weren’t all drowned. The bible is full of stupid stories. Nice parables, but irrational.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:04 am |
      • Ed

        Their was clearly a significant flood event thousands of years ago (recall Pakistan was a third under water not too long ago), but the Biblical version appears based upon earlier accounts, and as the cradle of civilization, the world was much smaller to them, so a significant flood event could have appeared to "cover the world."

        November 3, 2011 at 10:07 am |
      • The Guy

        But they did find a unicorn fossil right? Oh wait, crap...

        November 3, 2011 at 10:21 am |
      • Zwei Stein

        Absolutely. Any story that refers to a geographic name (accurately as it is today) is TRUE. Let's see...Moby Dick? Pirates of the Carribean? Great logical reasoning.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:22 am |
      • Kevin

        Sorry Steve – but there was no global flod 4000 years ago. If there had been, we wouldn't be here. You can't establish a breeding population with only one pair. In most species, you need 500 – 1000 individuals to supply enough genetic diversity for a population to survive. Of course, your god, being scientifically ignorant didn't know that.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:30 am |
      • The Guy

        snap, Kevin.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:40 am |
  36. Rich

    The Bible is nothing more than a guide book.People take it to far and don't realize it is a STORY(Myth)...It was written by people with an agenda just like the uneducated preachers hawking you for 10% of your money every week...WAKE UP and maybe take a night course...

    November 3, 2011 at 9:36 am |
    • steve samples

      What was there agenda when Jesus rose from the dead?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:44 am |
      • Thor

        The agenda was to take money from the ignorant so that they wouldn't have to WORK!

        November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am |
      • Johnny Salami

        Yeah, about Jesus rising from the dead: have you ever seen a movie or read a book where someone reanimated a corpse and things didn't turn out very bad? Watch the Walking Dead or read Pet Sematary.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:55 am |
      • PraiseTheLard

        How do you know he rose from the dead? Did he supposedly "rise" the same way as the previous "gods" Baal, Attis, Adonis, Mithra, Osiris, Ra, and a whole bunch more?

        November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am |
      • Zwei Stein

        The agenda was to establish what has today become Christianity. Oh...we also needed a reason for Easter.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:24 am |
      • NotADream

        Zwei – there already was an 'easter' except it was called Oestara. It was the pagan holiday that celebrated rebirth and occured around the Spring equinox. It was the balance of light and dark (day and night) returning to the light ( or the sun/son). The early christians were very good at invading pagan holidays and infusing them with their religious dogma...the early catholic church were trying to assimilate the pagans into christianity.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:24 am |
  37. Fred

    Why do people keep bringing up this 6,000 year old Bible figure?

    The Bible doesn't tell us how old the earth is. This 6,000 figure is man-made – a guess to their own interpretation. However, people who have no understanding of the Bible render it as fact.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • JTT

      I was wondering the same thing! I am a Christian as well as a scientist. The Bible and science compliment each other and the accuracy can be seen when comparing them. It's obvious to me that most people on here know absolutely nothing about scientific fact and have probably never studied the Bible either. Try checking your facts before posting complete ignorance please.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am |
      • Thor

        Great job in convincing us. I guess you did it! Now, just present a scientific paper for publishing that backs the origin of man from the phrase.... "...God created..." as your basis for your science. Perhaps the paper might be read by some.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:02 am |
      • Troy

        Oh, lets dig a little deeper here. What kind of scientist are you?

        November 3, 2011 at 10:47 am |
      • Judas Priest

        JTT, the bible and science don't have to contradict each other, particularly if you are not a strict literalist, but science does not reinforce or confirm much in the bible outside of some archaeological or historical items. I do hope you're not talking about the kind of pseudoscientific pap that people like Robert Faid sell. It's about as well-researched and factual as Von Daaniken's crack pipe fantasies.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • Troy

      The whole book is man-made. SURPRISE!

      November 3, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • NotADream

      Perhaps you should spread that knowledge to the evangelical christians! My entire family believes that it is 6000 yrs old and Adam and Eve were the first people on the planet! I'm an atheist...xmas is really fun at our house! :)

      November 3, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  38. steve samples

    It can't be but 6,000 years old. God didn't create man until 6,000 years ago. These scientists are stupid. What part of "in the beginning God created" do they not understand? Geeeeeesh

    November 3, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • capnmike

      There ISN'T ANY GOD. Religion is a human invention (which we would all be better off without) Grow up and learn to live with reality, not fairytales.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:37 am |
      • steve samples

        Is to !!!

        November 3, 2011 at 9:41 am |
    • Ian

      I assume then you have a Bachelor's or Ph.D in biology?

      November 3, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  39. Charlie

    I find the most disturbing part of this article is the comment section. I believe the Bible, and that it's the word of God, and I would NEVER say these horrible comments about my brothers and sisters who disagree with me. I am 23 years old, and In my short life one of the most valuable lessons I have learned is respect. I think that it's sad, that many of you have never learned this.

    You ride around on your high horse, because you think you have all the answers, and that science is infallible. Anyone who disagrees with you, you compare them to some cave man who is illiterate. You should be ashamed of yourselves for stopping to such a low level, just because you can hide behind your monitor.

    Grow up, learn some respect, and love your fellow human beings, whether they agree with you or not.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • Charlie

      *Stooping.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • dewed

      Why should anyone have respect for false and dangerous beliefs?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:42 am |
    • Thor

      I completely "respect" you to believe whatever stories that you want to believe are true. I simply need more than someone elses "word" or "belief" that the circumstances are backed with evidence, that would make the circumstances facts. To date, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the gods that any of the worlds religions are true gods. Yes, maybe space aliens have technology much beyond our comprehension and maybe they visited us at some point in time such that their powers would be considered to be derived from a "god". Beyond this, I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, a magical elf that visits us on Christmas Eve at 2359 every year, the Easter Bunny, "healings", "tounges", nor Leprechuans at the end of a rainbow. No magical beans grow here!

      November 3, 2011 at 9:44 am |
      • Judas Priest

        He's simply asking for you to stop being such an arrogant as shole. my sympathies if that's too difficult for you.
        I don't see any point in attacking someone's beliefs when they are not using them to beat someone over the head with or to present a position that is completely, ludicrously indefensible.
        Charlie is not doing this. You, however, are. You are beating your little belief drum as loudly as any fundie, and are coming off as just as much of an obnoxious prat.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:04 am |
      • HULK

        HULK IS THE STRONGEST!

        November 3, 2011 at 11:10 am |
    • CrazyOwlLady

      Charlie, the beauty of science is that it is *not* infallible. Scientists constantly question and debate each other's findings, and nothing is accepted as "fact" until it can be verified by others. This is the reason why evolution is still called a "theory". We can demonstrate evolution simply by using microorganisms and changing their environments, causing them to evolve to continue living. But we can't *make* an organism evolve; that machinery is built into its genetic code (or not, in the case of an unsuccessful organism). This is the difference between science and religion. A belief in a god cannot be challenged and proven or disproven. A scientific belief that ___ so therefore ___ can be. Make sense?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • Kevin

      Charlie, we have a hard time understanding why folks would purposefully choose to be ignorant.

      There are still some religious folks who think black folks are subhuman, based on what they think their version of your god wants them to think. There are still some religious folks who think women are the property of their fathers and husbands, based on what they think their version of your god wants them to think.

      Should we respect those opinions?

      November 3, 2011 at 10:01 am |
      • sh

        Seriously, why do you folks have to go to such great lengths to justify yourselves and worldview. Just live, and go do some productive work. Oh, I get it, you must come here to gain purpose.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:06 am |
      • Judas Priest

        I just wanted to thank you for presenting your position in a reasonable manner.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • sh

      The person talking about taking a night course, perhaps you'd like to take one from Dr. Francis Collins? Charlie, don't worry about what these folks say about their god – themselves. They have to use caustic words to justify their nothingness. You are a gentlemen. Keep it up.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:03 am |
      • Judas Priest

        This would be the Dr. Collins who rejects both ID and young-earth on scientific grounds? Good choice.
        There are hollow and caustic people on both sides of this issue. Maybe someday issues like belief and nonbelief can be discussed rationally and without such rancor on both sides... then again, maybe, monkeys will fly out of my butt.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:16 am |
    • Mike

      Thoughtful people get upset when religious zealots force the teaching of creation "science" in the classroom. It's not science- it's a belief- and has no business in schools. If religions would keep their beliefs to themselves, non-believers might get some peace.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Agreed, but not all thoughtful people are atheists. Some do indeed find evidence of the divine in the wonders and mysteries that science explores. This alone does not make them zealots, or fools, particularly when they do not reject observable fact in favor of dogma.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • Dan

      I think the problem most of us run into is that while we respect the person, that respect does not (and should not) extend to ridiculous beliefs about talking snakes and burning bushes. It's a sign of respect to disabuse our fellows of their beliefs in dangerous mythology.

      Also, I sincerely doubt you can find a single person who will claim that science is infallible. The point of science is to gather more data, turn over what we already know, and learn more. You do yourself a disservice when you speak as you do; it makes you look foolish.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  40. Maggie

    I love the bible because it is constant. It never changes. Why because it was written for human nature and human nature has not changed. The bible states that man can not even turn on gray hair back. If scientist want to prove the bible innacurate and not from God, why don't they turn hair back to their original state after they had turned gray to disprove they bible account.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • palintwit

      You are a whack job.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • Meat Puppet

      go and get a real bible and read it carefully – focusing on the OT. Assuming that you have reasonable mental faculties you should be able to see the numerous contradictions and errors – don't have to go beyond the first five books.
      As for the NT – what a masterpiece of propaganda and manipulation to satisfy the political agenda within the emerging Christian church Constantine wanted a bible that would bring consistency to the unwashed masses as he tried to save the Roman Empire – nothing more – nothing less.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • HU

      This is a hilarious post.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • Zwei Stein

      Maggie...I'm a deist. I don't know much about the bible. I do have a question perhaps you can answer. WHO first said that the bible came from or was inspired by God? Does it say this in the bible? And IF it did...why did a council of self-appointed humans decide which of the scriptures would comprise the bible?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:38 am |
    • Brian Hartman

      People have been turning gray hair other colors for hundreds of years. Dye works fairly well for that.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Thor

      Maggie, the bible is a wonderful tool to occupy one's mind. Many have indulged in it, and to read it from cover to cover is a feat of human endurance. I especially admire those who have read the original "texts"... wherever and whatever they have arisen from; and translated them into the many languages of the world. What a feat! I also am very impressed by those who can translate all of the versions of "the" bible. With that, some versions are the King James, the New American Standard, the Dewey, ..... my, my the list goes on. And with each version, there is a change. Hmm I guess the basis for why you love the bible might need to be re-evaluated. You see, by virtue of a new version, "the" bible has changed, and can therefore be definitively stated that ... oops... it is not constant!

      November 3, 2011 at 9:58 am |
    • i_know_everything

      time for your meds

      November 3, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Tonelok

      "Just for men"
      .
      Point 1 for science.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • NotADream

      You might want to read Timothy Beal's "The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book", and you'll see that the bible has indeed changed many times since the scrolls were first compiled into book form. As a marketing tool, it changes with every generation that it had to be sold to. There are many variations on the market today, and they come and go on the whim of the publisher.

      Read it, it was a really good book, and he wasn't bashing to bible at all as he's a biblical scholar with an evangelical christian background.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:38 am |
  41. Ed

    "These humans may have had darker skin than modern Europeans". Amazing. He got this from a jawbone! Doesn't matter one way or another but this is nonsense. Even science now has an agenda.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • Alinnc

      I agree. If there is any clear evidence, he should have brought it up, say some genetic/dna sequence typical of darker skin. Seems like he was just throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything stuck.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      I think those who think agendas are everywhere don’t understand science.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Demiurge

      They base that off of genetic studies for the alleles that control skin color; evidence suggests that those genes for lighter skin arose after humans got to Europe and Asia (which makes sense; changes in melanin expression are only useful after a population has been living in an area with different levels of exposure to sunlight for many generations).

      November 3, 2011 at 9:58 am |
      • mikey

        ? Why are eskimos dark skinned?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:13 am |
      • NotADream

        That's actually an adaption to their diets. See below (sorry, it's lengthy, but a good read):

        "Ultraviolet, or UV rays, from the sun are responsible for activating the melanin. As melanin levels rise and our body’s natural pigment darkens, protection against the sun’s rays increases. Too much UV exposure can deplete vitamin B folate –used by the cells to create DNA. On a smaller scale, the rays can also cause painful sunburns, with too much exposure leading to cancer.

        However, UV rays aren’t all bad for us: they naturally convert cholesterol into Vitamin D, which is crucial in protecting the body against certain cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and mental illnesses.

        As modern humans evolved, their body hair became finer and thinner, leaving their skin more exposed to the equatorial sun. To adapt, thier bodies produced more melanin to protect them from damaging UV rays. Increased melanin made their skin become darker.

        As early humans started migrating north into Europe and east into Asia, they were exposed to different amounts of sun. Those who went north found their dark skin worked against them–preventing them from absorbing enough sunlight to create vitamin D. To adapt, these humans started producing less melanin.

        But Inuits vitamin D intake wasn’t dependent upon the sun. They get all that they need from their diet, heavy on types of fatty fish that are naturally rich in vitamin D. The plentiful amounts of the vitamin kept them from developing less melanin. In fact, before milk was fortified with D, people living outside of Northern Canada and Alaska loaded their diets with fishy products, such as cod liver oil, to get their daily supplement. So despite their chilly climate and lack of sun exposure, it’s the Inuit diet that has kept them in their natural glow."

        November 3, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • darren

      In forensic criminology teeth can help determine if a skeleton comes from an african american because of genetic differences in the growth of their teeth.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:58 am |
      • Thor

        Again, please explain how they determined that the material they found was from an African and not a Mesopothamian?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:53 am |
    • Mike

      (1) Are you either an anthropologist or (2) do you have access to the array of evidence that he has to deduce that claim? Didn't think so, so unless you understand the finer aspects of his and his field's research, shut up, you closed-minded bible-thumper.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:59 am |
    • Mike

      @Alinnc: CNN is not a scientific journal. Go to those journals for your answers. I've had to read a plethora of anthropological studies for classes. CNN just reports the absolute barebones story regarding this.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:04 am |
    • Dan

      How is that an agenda? Let me guess..you're a conservative republican? You think everyone who has an opinion that is different from yours has som sort of agenda. Am I right or am I right?

      November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • Ed

      All real science is peer reviewed, so any scientist publishing made-up stuff will quickly be shot down with a dented reputation. There's not much incentive to make it up.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:41 am |
  42. palintwit

    Sarah Palin believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Sarah Palin believes that early man walked with the dinosaurs. Sarah Palin believes that early man rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday. Sarah Palin believes that "Cannonball Run" starring Burt Reynolds is a classic film.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • JB!

      All you are is a troll with an obsession with Sarah Palin. You troll around every story babbling about her and making yourself sound like a moron compared even to her. Get a life of your own or just end your life.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:47 am |
      • palintwit

        *poot*

        November 3, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Burt Reynolds

      You leave Cannonball Run alone...I should have got a Oscar for that.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • JoeG

      HEY!! Don't be picking on Cannonball Run! :) LOL

      November 3, 2011 at 9:53 am |
  43. Jason

    Thank you CNN for publishing this article. More, ongoing, intensive & daily education of the masses in this subject area needs to take place to destroy the 'racial' ignorance that plaque America and the world today. Science has long known the truth, but it has not been dispense to the ignorant masses. Every ignorant colour hater should learn that his/her ancestors were africans and that at one time these africans were the only people on the entire planet. In fact, we all are still africans, except through mutations some of us have lost our pigmentation. arabs, indians, polynesians, etc are simply MIXED BREED result of ancient interacial relationships between the original africans and the depigmented (white and mongoliod mutant strains) africans.

    MORAL of the story: we are the same people and this 'race' ignorance must end!

    November 3, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • Ed

      Gee whiz. You reckinging real smart like Jethro.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:29 am |
    • Dr.K.

      While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think it is correct to regard anyone as a "mixed breed." There are not two basic color tones, there is a wide range of variation. We are all a "mixed breed."

      November 3, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • Jason

      Dr K: Thank you for your concurrence and critique. for me the term 'mixed breed' is not an insult. i simply mean the same thing as saying hybrid. i can't concede with certainty that we are all mixed – it is conceivable there could be some early migrant group somewhere that go isolated and did not mix much eg. Andaman islands, papau new guinea, etc...but generally i would concede you are correct. Please google Washington Post article by Rick Weiss entitled "Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin". if you read this you may get more where i am coming from.

      I disagree there was mutiple skin tones in antiquity – the evidence suggest the range was very dark (like today's southern sudanese) to dark brown (like today's South African San tribe). ...the shades lighter than that i believe were the results of interbreeding/mixing between the original africans and the mutant africans now called europeans, chinese, japanese, etc).

      Thanks for your comments

      November 3, 2011 at 10:00 am |
  44. Charlotte

    Why does it always have to become a debate if God did it or not....why can't God have had a hand in all changes man has experienced? For those without the snap to understand what I just said...God caused evolution...doesn't discount what science has proven nor does it dispute God's hand in the world as we know it.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:22 am |
    • Jennie

      Thank you for this response. I have been saying this for years and neither my athiest nor my fundamentalist Christian family members will listen:)

      November 3, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • Zwei Stein

      Your approach to this is sensible. Too bad most religious folks can't comprehend this.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • Thor

      More "snap" than you might imagine. Your "gods" will be your undoing. Which one of the many Christian or Judeo, or Islamic, or other "gods" do you worship? How do you pick them, or, did a little book and a few preachers "prove" to you that theirs was "the one and only"?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:37 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Dick. A better position would be to point out that there is no evidence that any god had a hand in evolution, and/or challenge her to produce any.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Religious sects

      I agree & have also said this for years. Although I'm atheist I can't understand why the religious among us wouldn't embrace this concept, it would make their position less prone to attack.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • JTT

      Finally there's some common sense on here!

      November 3, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • Kevin

      The theory of evolution works quite nicely without the need or assistance of any deities. Adding a god to the mix just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:09 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Could you point this out to Thor, god of dickishness?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:25 am |
    • Solitaire

      I've said variations of your comment before...and I've learned one VERY important lesson: You can believe whatever you want so long as you understand a religion MUST always be kept seperate from every other aspect of life. A religion–any religion–never gets along with the other kids in the sandbox no matter if those other kids are science, politics, another religion or even just a minute variation on the same religion.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  45. JTT

    LOL! Now the Earth is only 40,000 years old! Where do you come up with this nonsense?

    November 3, 2011 at 9:21 am |
  46. Zwei Stein

    If I found myself in Africa...you'd be amazed how quickly I could leave.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • Cruz

      my dear friend, africa wouldn't want you their.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:23 am |
      • Zwei Stein

        And you they would?

        November 3, 2011 at 9:41 am |
      • Cruise

        *there* not their. You sure you should be posting on an educated topic?

        November 3, 2011 at 9:56 am |
  47. frank

    earliest remains were found in Spain! lets keep the record straight

    November 3, 2011 at 9:14 am |
    • Meat Puppet

      oldest – recently found in northern Israel I believe some teeth found at a dig that have ties to Europe and Africa

      November 3, 2011 at 9:28 am |
  48. David

    While I love reading all the bizzaro commentary, the only small problem I have is that there were Neandertals living in ALL of Europe from at least 100,000 BCE. So, the article should have been titled differently.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:10 am |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      While Neanderthals may have been living there, they are not classified as homo sapiens, but as a different genus. DNA coding for them is closer than our DNA differences with Chimps and Bonobos, and interbreeding between Neanderthal and Modern Humans may have been possible, but no evidence of such exists – with the possible exceptions we find on the Offensive Line of a Big 10 Football team.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:30 am |
      • Lynn

        Technically speaking, Neandertals are classified variably in different species, not genus, and sometimes placed as a sub-species within our own species: Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:59 am |
      • Demiurge

        Neanderthals are generally regarded as either a different species (but same genus) as modern Homo sapiens, or a different subspecies (H. sapiens neanderthalus versus H. sapiens sapiens). Recent genomic evidence suggests that everyone who is not purely African in descent has somewhere around 4% of their genome that is Neanderthal in origin.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:00 am |
  49. stiggy

    nice how the GOP's "best" are totally crazy.....bachman is NUTS! the rest are $ grubbing fools....

    November 3, 2011 at 9:06 am |
  50. victimizer

    So where do Vikings fit in, Anyone?

    November 3, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • David

      Well, since Vikings are mentioned in the bible, they don't actually exist...

      November 3, 2011 at 9:11 am |
      • victimizer

        LOL, that is a point! (no pun intended)

        November 3, 2011 at 9:26 am |
    • Havildar

      Out of Africa. For those who are illiterate on the Bible no where in the Bible does it give the time when this world was formed. It was a person who decided on the time by counting the "beget's". Also the Bible is not a historical timeline. It is man made with an effort to fit the Bible stories into the History of Asia/North Africa nothing to do with Europe until after the time of Jesus Christ and the banishment of the Jews from Palestine by the Romans.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:40 am |
      • At least open the book

        4004 B.C. – Page one, in between the 2 columns of verse.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Go Pack

      Right now they're at the bottom of the NFC North, 2 games behind the Bears.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:41 am |
      • dewed

        You win at "Comments!"

        November 3, 2011 at 9:48 am |
      • magnus

        Ahhrrrggg! I wish i thought of that. Well-played.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am |
      • victimizer

        Oh yeah, Minnesota. How stupid of me..

        November 3, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • magnus

      Vikings are scandanavian europeans who are also decedents of Africans.

      November 3, 2011 at 10:04 am |
      • victimizer

        Hmm, what happened to their afros?

        November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Vikings fit in Minnesota.

      November 3, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  51. Rich

    only 6,000 years old ????yea right.Sounds like a born again story from an uneducated preacher...lets get real and not cut anymore education in Texas and a few other states and maybe go to SCHOOL on Sunday?

    November 3, 2011 at 9:03 am |
    • steve samples

      I do go to school on Sunday. It is called 'Sunday School" just in case you never heard of it. By the way that is where I learned that God created the first man Adam 6,000 years ago. You are welcome to attend sometime so you can learn to. They have'em on about every corner and you don't need a grant to get educated.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:37 am |
      • Zwei Stein

        Does the bible state that Adam was the first man?

        November 3, 2011 at 9:44 am |
      • Judas Priest

        So is it also your position that god put all this fossil, geological, and archaeological evidence here just to f*ck with us?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:29 am |
  52. Ron

    Modern humans are soft and can’t fathom the human capacity to travel. One of the first White men to cross the Appalachian mountains in the Early 1700s was a trapper who trapped all winter, near Wheeling WV, took a raft to New Orleans in late spring and walked home during the summer to prepare for the next fall trapping season. He did this for many years. A man could easily walk from England to South Africa in less than 12 months.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:00 am |
    • Meat Puppet

      what an imagination !!! don't stop whatever it is you are doing – you should start writing for SNL or The Onion.
      you are either brilliant – or someone who was dropped at birth – repeatedly

      November 3, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • steve samples

      can you prove that in a lab?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:39 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Do you also doubt that Lewis and Clark went all the way across America in canoes and on foot? Do you disagree that armies marched hundreds and even thousands of miles? Do you beg to differ that Inuits walk the breadth of Alaska and much of Canada seasonally to follow game? Do you dispute that even women and children walked (as well as rode) the Appalachian trail, the Silk Road, the Trail of Tears? Are you just that amazingly stupid?

        November 3, 2011 at 11:34 am |
  53. T.J. WIlliams

    There are NO human remains on the face of the earth that are more tha 6000 years old. If you doubt this, just read the book of Genisis in the Bible. Enough said.

    November 3, 2011 at 8:50 am |
    • lauradet

      Poor you, you still believe the bible thingy.

      November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am |
      • JJ

        @Lauradet: I too didn't want to believe in the Bible. But if you can show me a series of 66 books, written by more than 40 different authors, from 3 different Continents (Africa, Europe, Asia), in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) during a period of 1500 years with no contradictions such as in the Bible, maybe I will see why you don't believe in the it.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:40 am |
      • Demiurge

        Contradiction: Yeshua's birth occurred during Herod's reign (Herod died 4BCE) and during a Roman census of the region (6CE). So, either he was born twice or there is at least one glaring contradiction in there.

        To say nothing of Yeshua's putative last words, what the real 10 commandments are, or Yeshua's actual ancestry is, among a great deal of other things ("Thou shalt not kill" versus "smash the heads of innocent Babylonian children on rocks").

        November 3, 2011 at 10:04 am |
    • Gene

      Bahahahahahahaha!

      November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am |
    • Darwin

      I don't believe you cause I saw a movie titled "10.000 B.C."!
      Are you tellin' me they lied!?!

      November 3, 2011 at 8:58 am |
    • hippypoet

      thats a joke right? please don't tell me your that dumb!

      November 3, 2011 at 8:59 am |
    • George

      You're joking, right? If not, then seek help fast.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:02 am |
    • The Guy

      It has to be a joke. No one with such little intelligence could start up a computer and log onto the internet to post that.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:03 am |
      • TheCorrectAnser

        Yer an idiot...read the Bible.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:09 am |
      • Wobbles

        To: TheCorrectAnser,

        Please join T.J in his museum visit.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:16 am |
      • The Guy

        It's a pretty compelling story until you realize all of the new testament fairy tales are ripped off of myth and lore from thousands of years before the "coming of jesus". Not one original story. For example, the god "Attis" – born from a virgin mother, carried sermon of the Greek gods throughout the land, had 12 disciples, and was sacrificed for the sins of other by being nailed to a tree. Sounds pretty close, huh?

        It also lost some zip when Darwin, Einstein, Hawking proved Genesis was a bunch of ludicrous crap.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:18 am |
    • November

      Me things T.J. Williams is a troll

      November 3, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Wobbles

      I feel very sorry for you–to base one's belief on a collection of mythical tales handed down for two millennia, tales that are at best allegorical and at worst baseless fabrications, demonstrates a lack of knowledge and denial of reality that is truly astounding.

      Go spend a day in any major museum of natural history and contemplate the discoveries made by men and women that give lie to your incredibly ignorant statement. You will profit thereby.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:12 am |
    • JTT

      Very ignorant! You have obviously never read the bible. No where does it say humans have only existed for 6,000 years.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:15 am |
      • The Guy

        Every biblical scholar since it became common word has referenced universal history as being only 6000 years old. It's also directly referenced in Septuagint and other ancient biblical texts. One of the many things that haven't made it into modern translations.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:21 am |
      • Andrew

        Biblical "scholars" have created a timeline using the ages of adam through JC to come up with the planet's age. Take that, add 2011 years to get to today, and add 6 days for the big G man to make the world, and you have the age of the planet.

        Pure and irrefutable science :)

        November 3, 2011 at 9:27 am |
      • Judas Priest

        JTT, my rabbi says otherwise.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:36 am |
    • Sean

      Obvious troll is obvious..

      November 3, 2011 at 9:16 am |
    • Conan the Librarian

      geez..........a bit early for a troll to hit the net. But nonetheless everyone needs to believe in something.
      Even if it is t he best work of science fiction and fantasy ever written – actually about 98% plagiarized from earlier works
      but why confuse your limited thinking with the facts – surprised that your home has electricity to run your computer
      stay inside today as your aluminum hat might blow off and then what would you do?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:22 am |
    • Fred Flintstone

      What about me? Yabba dabba do!

      November 3, 2011 at 9:25 am |
      • victimizer

        Oh Fred, your such a Neanderthal, HMHMHHHMMHMMM!

        November 3, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • Duane

      TJ, stop being so literal. If you read the bible and think the Earth was really create in 6 days then you do not understand the teachings properly. A day in the bible translates to a million years as God's time is not the same as man's. So therefore your 6,000 year philosophy needs to be looked at in a different context.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:30 am |
      • The Guy

        So when god said a day, he didn't actually mean a day. Right, now I get it. So did he create dinosaurs half way through day 5 or....?

        November 3, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • MAAT

      T.J. >>> WAKE UP ! Hieroglyphics is older than 6 thousand years ! you are confused ! CAUCASIANS are 6000 years old ! that's why there having a hard time trying to prove that they are not >>> this story just said those bone were of darker skin ! The first Caucasian was CANAAN cursed seed of HAM who was moved to the CAUCUS MOUNTAINS to avoid to hot climate because of leposy > WHITE SKIN > that burned in the hot sun ! and had 11 sons who became THE CAUCAsian RACE ! The MOORS and MOORISH history predates 6000 years ! Mayan hieroglphs talk of the rise and fall of Atlantis in DETAIL ! you can see for yourself, Atlantis existed 150,000 years ago. GENESIS in the bible was NOT the beginning EVEN THE JEWS KNOW THAT ! In HEBREW that BOOK is called BARASHITH which means the Reconstruction not the Beginning ! In GENESIS the earth was wiithout form and dark that was an asteroid hitting the earth causing darkess around the planet and when the dust cleared, Man replenished the earth as he was told to do in Genesis. READ Zachariah Sitchin"s Genesis Revisited > ONE MORE THING ! Learn what is being said in The Ancient Tablets written in Hieroglyph and Cunieform THE FIRST LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT KNOWN TO MAN ! and Overstand this this is not the NEW YORK POST or TIMES or CNN or today's Media who we all know is SHADY ! These Ancient peoples has no reason to LIE and didn"t just make shit up ! GODSPEED !

      November 3, 2011 at 9:44 am |
      • LadyIradel

        MAAT,
        Your post, so far, has been the most worthy of reply. I am a fan of ancient mythos, and your name stuck out to me, so I took a moment to really read what you had to say. Now, I want to know more about this causcasian thing and how it originated.

        I think too many people rely on supposition, theory, and feelings. We must keep in mind only the actual evidence. The bible can be used as a part of this evidence, but there are many, many more ancient writings that must also be taken into account. I don't see how any educated person can be truly "stuck" with one religion. They all carry weight and all tell a story. There is no right and wrong, only what is. The same goes for scientific discoveries. As new discoveries are made, we must all adapt and take into account what facts have been presented.

        And lastly, I would like to add that most of the comments in this post have been put here soley for the purpose of being mean or stupid. To these people I must ask, why would you want everyone to view you in such a way? Karma will find you.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:37 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Your facts are so nonexistent I don't even know where to begin. The only thing you get right is that humanity is older than 6000 years.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • URA Fool

      ?? Ignorance is no excuse for stupidity

      November 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  54. hippypoet

    yeah, but we're only 6000 years old right? HA, gotta love straight forward fact to back up evolution...aint it grand!

    November 3, 2011 at 8:48 am |
  55. A

    This science bashing disgusts me. This is why we prefer to hide in our offices and not share our research with the general public. Most people don't just fail to understand, they fail to TRY to understand.

    November 3, 2011 at 8:47 am |
    • Dr.K.

      I hear ya, sister (or brother).

      November 3, 2011 at 9:20 am |
    • Jason

      i hear you, but science has a duty to help advance the species. leaving these kooks in their ignorance will mean by shear numbers their ignorance will continue to dictate the path of humanity. bite the bullet, suck in your frustration and strategize on how to enlighten the numbskulls – you frustrate too easily

      November 3, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • victimizer

      I am not much of a scientist but I completely sympathize with you. Without science, we would all still be chucking spears and running after our dinner LOL! There are a few on here bashing science like it is the cause of all evil. They are the same morons that believe guns kill.. Science is GREAT until it gets into the wrong hands!

      November 3, 2011 at 9:35 am |
  56. Darwin

    Does that tooth belong to one of the earliest Europeans?

    Nope! It's just Chuck Testa's!

    November 3, 2011 at 8:47 am |
    • victimizer

      It belongs to a Saber-toothed Tiger that ground it down on too many bones..

      November 3, 2011 at 10:13 am |
  57. astenb

    To people harping on skin color. There are certain Genetic Variants and markers that code for skin color in Humans.
    The is an ANCESTRAL type that is BROWN – Like Africans and then their are several DERIVED types.

    Modern research has given geneticists the ability to actually DATE when some of these markers came into existence. 40 Thousand years ago the genetic variants that code for Europeans to have "white skin" simply DID NOT EXIST. "Proto-Europeans"........your ANCESTORS had not adapted to that climate yet. There were still as dark as Africans or as light as the Darkest Asian. All around the world you can still find individuals that are not African but still carry the derived trait for skin color and are brown skinned. The research is sound.

    November 3, 2011 at 8:37 am |
    • stiggy

      well said except there is no conclusive evidence that climate accounts for the change in skin color (is there?).

      November 3, 2011 at 8:50 am |
      • Dr.K.

        Not necessarily climate, but geography. Lighter skins appears to have developed at higher latitudes to enable people to absorb more vitamin D from weaker sunlight. Darker skin is more common nearer to the equator because getting enough D is not a problem, but too much UV is. Presumably our shared ancestors would have been relatively dark skinned, as they were adapted to the middle latitudes of Africa.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:25 am |
      • CommonSense

        Evidence??? The human race is all the evidence you need! What color does your skin turn when you're out in the sun's rays for an extended period of time??? Why the increase in skin cancer amongst caucasians? They simply adapted to the "European" climate and were no longer equipped to handle conditions outside of that without their bodies "adapting" to its new environment! #CommonSense!

        November 3, 2011 at 10:35 am |
  58. JoeProfet

    "These humans may have had darker skin than modern Europeans, more like today's Africans, and perhaps more robust facial characteristics, but were otherwise quite physically similar, he said." Wow, that was totally pulled out of the scientists' gluteus maximus! Obviously this bloke or shela is from outerspace and green is the skin color, and she's probably more like 51,223.00007 years old... give or take 25,000 years! I may be off on my math a little bit, but this is what i want to believe so I'll post it in a scientific journal and then it will be so. Until another scientist comes in and reveals it is the jawbone of a donkey that dies 200 years ago...and then I'll post that in a scientific journal and it will be so!

    November 3, 2011 at 7:27 am |
    • FifthApe

      Joe, you sound like a scientific illiterate that has never opened 1 book.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:34 am |
      • JoeProfet

        You are assuming, and when you assume you make a monkey out of you!

        November 3, 2011 at 7:44 am |
    • FifthApe

      Wrong. You provided ample evidence of your scientific incompetence. No assumptions were necessary.

      And Yes, I'll have fries with that order. Thanks.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:54 am |
      • JoeProfet

        FifthApe, you are right and I confess that I am scientifically illiterate. Now that I've confessed that and proved you right, can you please do something about advancing the human race with science because we are in dire need of your help! I'm not sure what you are waiting for. Do all Christians need to confess that we are scientifically illiterate before you'll do something good with the scientific data you drum up? Knowing that this fossil is 40K years old plus or minus what will you do with this information and how will you use it to advance the human race, please educate me?

        November 3, 2011 at 8:10 am |
      • FifthApe

        Joe, look around you. Everything you see and touch today is a result of science. Would you rather live 200 yrs ago? As a lay person all you need to do is spend 5 minutes a day on a place like sciencedaily.com to see the breath taking pace research takes these days. Its become exponential due to the internet. We live at a time when we know more about our place in the universe than ever before. If you choose to you can know more than Einstein did by standing on the shoulders of others.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:17 am |
      • JoeProfet

        FifthApe, I'll do that. I know a bit about what science has done for us though. Not ALL science, just some. I've worked around it in my career. I worked on nuclear submarines that were not possible but through science. I understand and comprehend very well radiation because I had to wear dosimetry meters while working on the multiple independent reentry vehicles. Which by the way I was awed at the scientific advances that allowed us not only to set these things in space, but to very accurately deploy them over numerous major cities now. I witnessed first hand the amazing science that conjured up the ways to pack 24 of these scientific gems into one nuclear submarine. I witnessed first hand the testing of these vehicles and was in awe at how accurate they are and their effective kill range. I was totally amazed at how science was able to figure all of this out. Without those advances we would not have been able to silence the Japanese empire by destroying two of their main cities. Without those advances in science we would not be sitting here in total comfort knowing there are some 20 plus nuclear submarines each carrying 24 fleet ballistic missiles with their own capacity of nuclear warheads. Freekin awesome! Anyway, I'll spend 5 minutes a day on sciencedaily.com for some edification, thanks!

        November 3, 2011 at 8:34 am |
      • FifthApe

        You were indeed on the cutting edge. I've designed lots of stuff in my time but nothing would cut it in that environment. Sorry for the tone I took, but I'm a science geek, and yes, we need lots of answers from science going forward especially in the energy areas. So I come off harsh – fast some times. Too fast on the draw, and the internet makes it too easy. :-)

        November 3, 2011 at 9:06 am |
    • Jason

      Your right Joe, a magic man from the sky made us out of clay. Humans then rode dinosaurs around the earth until we killed them all. Magic man then reproduced himself as a human that died then came back to life (zombie God)...all within the last 6,000 years. "and then I'll post that in a RELIGIOUS journal and it will be so"

      November 3, 2011 at 8:04 am |
      • JoeProfet

        Jason, I believe in you!

        November 3, 2011 at 8:14 am |
      • Quincey9

        Aw, nuts. I wanted a dinosaur to ride.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • Agnar

      Religion was just an ancient form of government some smart person invented. It was a way to control people and collect money from groups. They would then use fear to keep people in check. If you are a non believer you will go to hell. Be careful what you say he is listening. The bible was just a symbol they used to show proof that what they were saying was true people today want proof in writing other they are less likely to believe it. It is just a story a person or group of people wrote which gave them more credibility.

      November 3, 2011 at 8:32 am |
      • JoeProfet

        Agnar, you got it all right. I believe in you instead. Thank you for the enlightenment. Please help us.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:36 am |
      • Tam

        You're igorance of the Bible is showing. Read it – I dare you.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:52 am |
      • Fred

        It's funny when people talk about the Bible as being a mere tool of control.

        The Bible is a collective of the most rebellius stories to have ever been written. It doesn't tell us to work for that white picket fence house, a reliable car, a retirement savings, and a college fund for our kids.

        Try honestly reading it. Start with the New Testament.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:17 am |
    • Darwin

      I completely agree!
      In fact, the Bible doesn't make assumptions and is 100% accurate and complete on describing reality.
      Since Australia is not mentioned in the Bible, it doesn't exist. And anyone claiming to be Australian is a lying fag, and any fag claimin to be Austalian is a lying Mexican!

      November 3, 2011 at 8:33 am |
      • Wolfram

        Coming to think of it, the Americas do not exist likewise.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • A

      To respond to your complaint that science hasn't advanced the human race or in any other way benefited you, where do you think the knowledge to build the computer you're using to spout your science hatred came from?

      November 3, 2011 at 8:49 am |
    • lauradet

      Was it the "darker skin" like Africans comment that got you all hot and bothered?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:00 am |
    • hippypoet

      you are a sad creature joe. so much anger and so little knowledge.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:01 am |
  59. Richie

    Hahaha, man... I have been following scientific finds for a few weeks, and most have had some indirect link to the reality that the world is over 10,000 years old. And every time I look at the comments, there's some person trying to explain why evolution is wrong when they are Obviously ignorant of the weight of evidence scientists possess today. They still think that something like "ape-men" or "transitional fossils" are the only thing scientists have as evidence for evolution. But don't you realize we have sequenced the entire genome of thousands of people? and fricken TRACED their genetic path out of AFRICA and we can actually demonstrate the paths they took as they split and populated the world. Btw, creation can't happen. Thanks to geology, we know the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and asteroid impacts 300 km in diameter didn't just pop up one day, they had to be made... when we weren't here... cuz if we had been, we wouldn't be now.

    November 3, 2011 at 7:26 am |
  60. George

    So says you and the 8% of the Republican Base who refuse to take your meds.

    November 3, 2011 at 7:08 am |
  61. Alfred Brock

    "These humans may have had darker skin than modern Europeans, more like today's Africans..." – BAD SCIENCE

    November 3, 2011 at 7:03 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      -and the significance of your quip is...?

      November 3, 2011 at 7:17 am |
    • Ritch

      God didn't create white people, The Idea of race it self isn't even 1200 yrs old. It coincides with Capitalism and slavery and the justification of using others to get ahead. The truth eventually comes out.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:27 am |
      • jim

        Um, actually it's been 6000 years... Egyptians considered Nubians to be inferior because they were darker...

        November 3, 2011 at 7:43 am |
    • JLS639

      Why do you say this is bad science? The higher skin melanin content of early Europeans has been known for some time. If they were light skinned, which is what I think you are saying, then they would have had to have been light skinned 40,000 years ago, dark skinned 20,000-30,000 years ago and light skinned 6,000 years ago. That does not make sense.

      November 3, 2011 at 8:20 am |
    • A

      No, not bad science. The evidence just wasn't explained in this article, as is on par for the site. The fact that early modern humans had darker skin than today's Europeans has already been well established by previous research, so it's easy to speculate that even older modern humans would also have darker skin.

      November 3, 2011 at 8:51 am |
  62. TG

    It is just amazing that researchers place color or physical features to their archaeological "finds" by saying "may have" or "perhaps" and then assign this to being a reality, and not a far-fetched assumption. It is no different than finding a rusty nut from a car and saying ' we can describe the car and its color, even what the interior looked like'.

    Evolutionists have always been grasping at straws, for the amount of fossil evidence for their evolutionary theory could fit into a coffin.(Science Digest of May 1982, volume 90 page 44, Dr. Lyall Watson)

    In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, as for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged.

    Bible chronology places the first man Adam as being formed by Jehovah God in 4026 B.C.E.(Gen 2:7) Thus, man has been on the earth for only about 6000 years. The catastrophic Noachian Flood (2370-69 B.C.E.) could easily have altered the carbon 14 dating, considerably upsetting the rate of radioactive decay.

    November 3, 2011 at 6:57 am |
    • nb56

      The bible is a fairy tale.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:10 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      Flaw with your conjecture: no evidence whatsoever for a global "Noachian Flood" c. 2370-69 B.C.E. as you put forth. Old Kingdom Egyptian civilization (one among others) was in full swing during that time period. If the world got flooded out nobody bothered telling the Egyptians. Back to the drawing board with you.

      Unless your entire post wast just a dumb joke.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:11 am |
      • Judas Priest

        They built the pyramids to try and stay dry.
        ...
        Yes, I'm joking.

        November 3, 2011 at 11:56 am |
    • Marney

      Remember these Scientist and researchers are much, much smarter than you and your local preacher!

      November 3, 2011 at 7:13 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      @ nb56: No, "The Bible" is NOT a fairy tale. No fairies anywhere in it. Plenty of angels and demons though, and old Yehudis drinking their Hevrew vino, tolchoking each other, whilst getting it on with their handmaidens' wives.

      Never much cared for the later part, which was all preachy talky like.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:15 am |
      • Alex

        No time for the old in-and-out, love. Just come to read the meter.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:30 am |
    • Canuck1979

      You are nuts. Is science always right? Nope. That's the beauty of science. But we base assumptions on the evidence presented until further evidence can prove our theory. Your reference to the bible stating adam and eve were put on earth in 4,000 BCE is completely ridiculous when we know for a FACT humans have been around much longer than that. We are not monkeys, humans and apes have a common ancestor going back about 20 million years. We took different evolutionary paths. It's people like you that will prevent so many people from letting go of primitive fairy tales and mythology and advancing the human race. If you want me to present the laundry list of factual errors religion and the bible have, I'll be glad to present it to you.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:17 am |
      • hills

        Your FACT is just another one of your scientific assumptions. You're as sold on the religion of evolution as Christians are on their religion.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:26 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      @ Canuck1979: trying to argue with Creationist trolls is like trying to teach pigs to sing, right? Wastes our time and annoys the pigs.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:19 am |
      • JoeProfet

        Ok Quid, advance the human race with whatever you discover in science, what the hell are you waitng for? How are Christians holding you up? Advance us already God dammit! Stop wasting time antagonizing Christians because you don't understand or comprehend our belief, just freekin do your thing. Or, is your thing just that, bashing Christians and using us for your excuse for not being able to advance the human race...WTF are you waiting for??

        November 3, 2011 at 7:54 am |
      • Marney

        Yeah like JoeProfet said "Stop antagonizing Christians" because Christians never antagonize anyone for other beliefs.... Wait a minute!!!

        November 3, 2011 at 8:16 am |
      • greg

        But Joe, we do understand what you call belief. Superstitions and religions were a response to early humans fear of the unknown. But as we advance we no longer have any need for these superstitions and that is why more and more people are born without the need for superstition. Say what you like, but you can't fight evolution.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:19 am |
      • JoeProfet

        Marney, I'm not antagonizing you. Do I represent all Christians? I'm not fighting evolution, just not sure where we are going with it...

        November 3, 2011 at 8:48 am |
    • faberm

      TJ: Go learn Hebrew (G'd's language), then come back and tell us what you read in Genesis. You're reading a text that Englishmen tried to interpret. Go to the source. I don't believe in Evolution as pronounced by these "scientists", but you don't need to think that man has been here only 6000 years to have a faith in the G'd who is.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:26 am |
    • FifthApe

      The bible is nothing but bronze aged myths. Its one of the most evil books in all fiction. Just read it to find out.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:56 am |
      • JoeProfet

        God bless you, FifthApe! I pray for nothing but the best for you in all of your remaining days! Peace!

        November 3, 2011 at 8:18 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Recently beaten out by "Going Rogue".

        November 3, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • A

      You know, citing the amount of evidence for evolution by quoting a journal article from 1982 is pretty ignorant. Do you really think not much has been collected in the last 29 years?

      Also, citing Bible chronology is even less evidence. A book takes up much less volume than that pile of fossils in a coffin.

      Religion isn't the HOW, it's the WHY.

      November 3, 2011 at 8:46 am |
      • stiggy

        religion – answers for the fearful and weak....fairy tales for little boys and girls who are afraid of the dark....enjoy!

        November 3, 2011 at 9:04 am |
    • Dan

      TG, I find it amazing that you would rather ignore evidence that you can see and verify in order to blindly buy in to a book that was written by people who weren't there when the world was created and made it all up.
      Very sad. I can't believe so many people are so completely gullible and lacking in any semblance of rationality. By the way, did you know that the "bible" as you know it is a collection of stories selectively gathered together originally by the Catholic church and that they deliberately excluded hundreds of texts that did not fit with their ideology?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:39 am |
    • Andrew

      Please explain your amazing science. The great flood changed the carbon dating? Since when does a bunch of water accelerate the decay of carbon?

      November 3, 2011 at 9:40 am |
  63. dudley0418

    I love the fact that every couple of weeks we hear that some scientist is astonished to find that what they previously theorized was completely wrong.

    November 3, 2011 at 6:48 am |
    • Canuck1979

      and that's the beauty of science. At least we don't base our thoughts on a book written by uneducated primitive humans 2000 years ago. Science will win, cause science is based on reason and known evidence. But good luck with that.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:19 am |
      • hmanhunt

        We are just now discovering stuff that people knew 4000 years ago, dont be so quick to call them primative...

        November 3, 2011 at 7:29 am |
      • Meaning what?

        hmanhunt: What are we just learning that people who lived 4000 years ago knew? Can you give us some examples? I hope you don't watch these stupid historical speculation shows on the History channel! You know, the ones that wonder whether ancient inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent had nuclear weapons 12,000 years ago.

        November 3, 2011 at 8:10 am |
      • Andrew

        meaning what-
        He may be misunderstanding those shows on TLC and history channel. They often talk about how advance society was in Persia et al oh so long ago, and that it was ahead of many places on earth now. That does not mean it is farther ahead of everywhere, just mainly where humans are still tribal.

        Or he means that show where they had ray guns 9 million years ago. Or was that a cartoon...

        November 3, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • Matt

      We make discoveries and for theories. As new information becomes available, we are obligated to scrutinize the older theories. Nobody is more critical of scientist than other scientists. It's a continuously evolving field that's simply searching for the truth based on the best evidence we can find.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:25 am |
    • Benzin

      That's how science is supposed to work. We observe and experiment and make a theory about why it is they way it is. We do more tests and confirm the theory. Later, we get better technology and can make more and better measurements. We make more measurements and realize we were off a bit. The theory is modified if it can be or thrown out if it can't be and a new theory is formed. Science just gets rid of the stuff that doesn't make sense anymore instead of staying static and inflexible.

      November 3, 2011 at 8:21 am |
    • JLS639

      Actually, some researchers felt anatomically modern humans have been in Europe for 40,000 years or even longer. Also, the inherent problems of dating a specimen in this age range is quite well known. The range of 20,000 years to 60,000 years or so is inherently difficult to accurately date. This age range you have to rely on carbon dating, and this is the range when it is least accurate. I suspect 40,000 years was well within the 95% confidence interval of the old date. 40,000 years is probably a maximum likelihood estimation, not a definitive dating (definitive dating requires multiple different lines of evidence).

      November 3, 2011 at 8:28 am |
  64. reuben

    And who was that institution that preaches the age of this planet was 6000 years ?

    November 3, 2011 at 6:45 am |
    • George

      Oral Roberts University, a.k.a. Robert's Steakhouse and BBQ Restaurant

      November 3, 2011 at 7:05 am |
      • Mike

        Don't you mean Anal Roberts?

        November 3, 2011 at 7:52 am |
  65. peick

    Regarding "The big question is the process by which modern humans went out of Africa, where they went and how that happened, and the date and which that happened."

    When you keep finding conflicting information that makes the picture of human origins murkier and murkier, why does no one ever question whether the overall theory guiding the research is true at all? It's always, "We'll find the answer. We know we're right, even though the facts disprove our view for the moment." Maybe it's just plain false and we need to find another theory.

    November 3, 2011 at 6:35 am |
    • DrJStrangepork

      Seriously? The explanation changes as new information presents itself (discovery). What you can't do is get one explanation and then never challenge that again. That is not our nature.

      November 3, 2011 at 6:47 am |
    • nb56

      get logical!

      November 3, 2011 at 7:11 am |
    • Darwin

      Aliens?

      November 3, 2011 at 7:19 am |
  66. Shaxxmann

    God Exists!!! Be very carefull with what you asy about him...

    November 3, 2011 at 6:30 am |
    • Marney

      How do you know he exists and where's you evidence? Please show me some evidence!

      November 3, 2011 at 6:46 am |
      • GEZUS

        Harold Camping said so!!!!

        November 3, 2011 at 7:06 am |
      • eloc35

        Look around you. Explain how things are made from nothing (A Bang?)? The Bible never says the Earth is only 6000 years old. It says the Earth was here before the Father actually put today's humans on the earth. Genisis 1:2 "2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep......" Meaning it was already here.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:32 am |
      • Marney

        @eloc35 – CERN have recently proven this fact. Matter can be created from nothing.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Agnar

      He is trying to use fear to make you a believer just like the US government

      November 3, 2011 at 8:19 am |
    • Tom

      What you say about HER!

      November 3, 2011 at 8:33 am |
  67. Big Boy

    Great article! I believe in good solid science like this, not fairy tales like the Bible. I would rather live my life not knowing rather than spend it believing in something that I know is wrong. Until something is proven "true" via sound data/testing/analysis etc., I give it no thought.

    November 3, 2011 at 6:08 am |
    • alan

      I believe in Human evolution, but in this article, the scientists are basing all of their assumtions from a jaw bone. Personally, I don't know how they can tell the color of the skin and say they were basically looked just like us based on a jaw bone. I hate when scientists make assumptions with so little evidence.

      November 3, 2011 at 6:29 am |
      • yusakhar

        The surmise about color comes from the assumption that these people are fairly recent arrivals from Africa, and would not have had time to lose the darker pigmentation that life in Africa would have made necessary in their earlier environment. The jaw bone is enough to establish them as humans; as the article implies, they therefore looked reasonably human, which is all that the article says. The repeated statement about "they may have" is simply a label that the assumptions are our best guess until we find additional information. Your crowing about spurious claims of certainty are misplaced. Even a Luddite like yourself should have been able to figure these things out for himself.

        November 3, 2011 at 7:29 am |
      • Ian

        One jaw bone can tell alot – testing it with everything we have at our disposle reveals alot.

        November 3, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • faberm

      It takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe entire details like these based on a jawbone.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:29 am |
      • It_flyer

        It doesn't take a lot of faith believing in the rediculas story of Adam and Eve frolicking in the garden of eden?

        November 3, 2011 at 8:13 am |
      • Agnar

        The story does sound good mmmmmm

        November 3, 2011 at 8:20 am |
      • Kartoshka

        It takes a lot more faith to believe the story of creation from the Bible. A big man in the sky reached down and created all the living things and land masses exactly as they are around 6 000 years ago. He made a man out of some clay he found, then he reached inside the guy, ripped out a rib bone and mashed it into a woman. That makes a lot more sense than the theory of evolution....

        November 3, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Be careful. If you discount everything that has not yet been proven, you can also close your mind to the investigation of possibilities. Many scientific discoveries are made when people stop sticking to the known and proven and start looking into the unknown and unproven.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
  68. Marney

    Of course the God Squad believe this is a lie and that Humans and T Rex live together 7000 years ago!

    November 3, 2011 at 5:43 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      "Humans & T. Rex shalt not lie together for the one shalt surely eat the other."

      R.I.P. Marc Bolan (30 Sept. 1947 – 16 Sept. 1977)

      November 3, 2011 at 6:13 am |
  69. james

    Some Neanderthals still llive in Lybia today.

    November 3, 2011 at 5:29 am |
    • Irsyad

      What?

      November 3, 2011 at 6:36 am |
  70. Quid Malborg in Plano TX

    "Earliest Europeans?" Depends what one means by the term "Europe." Geographically, Europe has continually shifted its borders as sea levels have risen and fallen. Europe as we now know it did not exist until roughly 7,500 BCE when the Aegean connected with the Black Sea basin via the Bosporus. Human remains of Homo Heidelbergensis go back to over 600,000 yrs ago. So claiming to have found the" earliest Europeans" is bogus.

    What they mean to say is that someone found remains of the earliest modern humans, Homo Sapiens sapiens, in Europe. H.S. sapiens first appeared c. 160,000 yrs ago in Africa, then migrated outwards.

    Thank you,

    ~Abe Sapiens

    November 3, 2011 at 4:32 am |
    • william welch

      Interesting, enlightening and just slightly over my head-

      November 3, 2011 at 4:42 am |
    • Quid Malborg in Plano TX

      @ william welch: But as you stand (or sit if you prefer) enlightened, have a beer or a glass of wine in honor of that thought. If hungry, have an olive. Here have one. I'm off to get a beer and look at the stars from my front porch.

      It's a dark clear night here on the east coast of North America in NC. Orion is a beautiful constellation...

      November 3, 2011 at 4:53 am |
  71. william welch

    You are encouraged to read the Bible; in particular, Chapter 6 as it briefly examines that part of the 2nd Dispensation (conscience or moral responsibility) during which a certain, "unconventional" person-hood deriving of God's Creation is revealed (re the Antediluvian Civilization) whose untoward, wrath-of-God-producing behavior as a Civilization was apparently sufficiently consistent with that attending other, more conventional realms of the human sphere to usher in the destruction of all via the Great Flood, save for Noah and his family and certain birds, beasts and prey.

    Resist chasing rabbits thereby trailing off into some non-existent embrace of a nonsensical scene finding mankind springing up and out of some slimy green pit of boiling mud onto a conveniently-located lily pad!

    There's a plausible explanation consistent with Divine Creation. The fact it is not generally known or understood does not refute its existence.

    November 3, 2011 at 4:22 am |
    • Bill

      I believe I shall trust logic, scientific study and evidence over the ancient superstitions of primitive savages. The bible has no use beyond toilet paper.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:47 am |
      • william welch

        Consciously gathering up faith the size of a mustard seed (that's not very much), seek to be given the prevenient grace of God (His anticipation of your need of His favor and providing it without being asked) to believe you can EXPERIENCE the Person of God in your life as described in Mark 1:8;Act 1:5;John 3:5, etc) by way of entreating Him to thus share His Essence (Holy Spirit) with a member of fallen mankind following the ROADMAP provided in the Luke 11:5-12 SIMILITUDE yielding up Luke 11:13 then let us discuss the existence of God!

        But f-i-r-s-t, John 3:16 THEN Luke 11:13 !

        November 3, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • Andrew

      ... Thank god I don't believe whatever that b-stardization of evolution is. Why is it that the people who speak out about the principles of biological evolution seldom show any knowledge of the subject?

      'I never took a medical class in my life, but I can tell a neurosurgeon how to do their job'. Seems to be the same thing with biology.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:49 am |
    • Outof Greenslime

      What an amazing delusional derelict it takes to attempt to attach any semblance of credibility to the handed down verbal stories of desert wanderers with simple untested one-line pronouncements that flies counter to every advancement we have made in the last 400 years. For the sake of society and our posterity, please seek professional help to break the bonds of psychotic delusion that has gripped world view to the point of being just plain sad.

      November 3, 2011 at 5:52 am |
  72. Bill

    The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

    /article

    AMIDOINITRITE???!

    November 3, 2011 at 3:35 am |
  73. AC

    Evolution happened, deal with it. What's the point of spouting off a whole load of crap about god on this article. Leave comments for people interested in this discovery and go have your childish arguments somewhere else.

    November 3, 2011 at 3:29 am |
    • Greg

      Thanks AC for saying it. I'm so tired of having to listen to individuals with little to no education when it comes to science. I think comparative religion and science should be an "absolute" requirement for all Americans.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:37 am |
    • william welch

      Suggestion? Go visit the surgery department at Mayo Clinic and enquire if ANY of their astute surgeons hands-down believes in the theory of evolution at the expense of creation.

      You're in for a big surprise.

      November 3, 2011 at 9:24 am |
  74. Jordan

    I have no idea what your troll ass iz talkin about. I'm obsessed with the idea of UFO's and aliens having to do with our origins somehow... neandertals, humans, monkeys, missing link. evolution does take place, but this one is far too far fetched to be a sudden mutation setting everything straight from an intelligent monkey, all of a sudden to a modern human who established itself as the dominant species of this planet within a relatively short period of time...

    November 3, 2011 at 3:14 am |
    • Andrew

      Sudden mutation? Methinks you've got a very poor understanding of human evolution. We filled an evolutionary niche, but it wasn't overnight, and other apes are pretty damn intelligent still.

      Our manual dexterity though is a significant advantage.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:22 am |
      • magnus

        "Methinks". Come on man, no one writes methinks. Now how am I supposed to take whatever you wrote seriously?

        November 3, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • Andrew

      Also, our rather advanced voice box has been invaluable for the success of our species. We are masters of highly efficient communication.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:23 am |
    • Judas Priest

      The only involvement aliens and UFOs had was to point and laugh from on high, knowing that 1.2 million years of human evolution would produce stupid comments like you find on CNN.com.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
  75. Luri

    I will warn you now that this will be a tl;dr post for most, but it needs to be said. Let me begin by saying that I am a Christian, and I believe in all those silly science things like evolution and an old earth. Know who backs me up? Saint Augustine.

    St. Augustine of Hippo, from his work 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis', written in about 415 CE. That's right, 415 CE.

    "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]."

    tl;dr version: Don't try to defend your poorly-educated opinions on science you don't understand with scripture, because you wind up making us all look like idiots.

    November 3, 2011 at 2:53 am |
    • Bill

      Biblical literalism requires a good dose of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:49 am |
      • Luri

        I agree completely.

        November 3, 2011 at 5:15 am |
      • william welch

        Respectfully disagree. It takes faith. Indeed, that which removes Divine handcuffs-

        November 3, 2011 at 9:21 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Luri, I salute you.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
  76. That Naughty Choir Boy

    Hear me, Father, for I have sinned.. My eye has strayed and caught that of Josh's.. I have feelings, Father... Sinful, lustfilled feelings.. And I acted upon them.. On the pew, my hands unclean with thy seed of the sinful..

    November 3, 2011 at 2:29 am |
  77. That Naughty Choir Boy

    Jimmy, would you come to confessional if I led you like a spring lamb in heat? My shawl lifted the right angle, the lit of my voice enchanting? Would your heavenly words come and heal me of sin, as I beg for mercy in the hand of my Father?

    November 3, 2011 at 2:20 am |
  78. Langkard

    Maybe CNN can find someone else to compose the titles for these articles? Landau does not have a stellar record when it comes to story titles. With this article and the other recent one on the so-called "Saber-toothed squirrel" the author has reached new lows in cheesy, misleading titles which are then directly contradicted by the story.

    "Earliest Europeans" is entirely misleading. Perhaps Landau just doesn't know that the article deals with the earliest fossil evidence for Homo Sapiens in Europe. She even mentions Neanderthals but doesn't seem to know that the Neanderthals were in Europe long before Homo Sapiens.

    In the "squirrel" story we're told only a few sentences into the article that the creature discussed is neither saber-toothed nor a squirrel. So why the insipid title? It is cheesy and poor journalism. This kind of thing might work ina supermarket tabloid, but in a purported news article, written for a major news outlet? Unacceptable. Did Ms Landau learn her craft at the National Enquirer perhaps?

    This is just one more in a continuing series of crappy, poorly written and badly titled articles written by Ms. Landau. I'm beginning to think that she never took a journalism class.

    Either read the actual articles in Nature before writing about them or find someone to read your own articles and write more sensible titles.

    November 3, 2011 at 2:18 am |
    • Andrew

      I think you're being a little bit harsh, but that said, I wish she'd learn to actually link the actual article rather than just linking to the Nature homepage. If she's talking about the results of a single paper, it's only reasonable to link to the actual study. People are more likely to click the link to the actual study than click a link to the homepage of the journal.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:58 am |
  79. Josh

    Note that while the article is deceptive, it is saying that the first Europeans were BLACK, not white. If you people only knew the REAL history of Europe, you would be shocked! If you knew the real origins of whites you would be shocked and saddened. Whites started coming into Europe about 4,000 years ago. Whites are from Asia, hence CaucASIAN.

    November 3, 2011 at 2:11 am |
    • Langkard

      No. Unbelievably wrong. Wherever you are getting your misinformation, you should seek out a more reputable source.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:20 am |
      • Josh

        Prove me wrong, don't just write it. Did you know that the Lord of the Rings is built upon the TRUE history of Europe? There were little black dwarves all over Europe as the white were approaching. This is why you always hear about dwarves in European stories.

        You also have to know or remind yourself that the UK is occupied by foreign invaders (Anglo-Saxon) from Germanic tribes and these are the people who rule. This is why they are preoccupied with blond hair and blues eyes so much.

        November 3, 2011 at 2:25 am |
      • Langkard

        You can't be reasoned with if you believe what you just wrote. It simply isn't possible to overcome such ridiculous tripe with truth. I could explain to you all that is wrong with your silliness, but what is the point? Someone so far gone down the path of unreasoning belief in the patently absurd isn't capable of returning to reality.

        November 3, 2011 at 2:40 am |
      • Josh

        Given the fact that you do not know me and you did not even attempt to refute these truths shows that you do not know the truth. You probably do not even know the lies.

        November 3, 2011 at 2:51 am |
      • Andrew

        Josh, there is an argument for 'the first Europeans were black', but certainly not one for 'European whites were asian'. There was a paper 'European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests' published in Science in 2007 by Ann Gibbons, which would mean prior to that light pigmentation hadn't happened until after Europe had been inhabited. But genetically, the two groups were quite distinct. 'Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians' by Norton et al. published in 2006 is a much stronger reason to say 'no, the first European whites could NOT have been Asian', as convergent evolution is a lot easier to document than trying to tie down exactly when a genetic phenotype was expressed.

        You are wrong. Your hypothesis is absurd, and for the five minutes it took me to find the relevant articles and abstracts, I have a hard time figuring out how exactly you came to form it. Had you bothered to look into the question at all?

        November 3, 2011 at 3:09 am |
      • Dubhly

        while it is true that england has been invaded many times, at no point is there any mention of small black people. Tolkien did draw upon europeon mythology, for instance elves ( germanic), dwarves ( germanic, and the related to elves). However, it is also we researched that he drew upon christianity ( which does present itself, although not strongly). I wouild suggest however, if you are anymore then a troll ( heheh also from germanic myth and used in LOTR) that you actually look at what you are saying before your fingers engage the keys.
        There were other inhabitants of Europe before the dominant culture that exist now took over. They though are now mixed it with the current inhabitants, and cultures. I think it would be interesting to see if any dna could be gleaned from the evidence that might show more of a basis for stating that it is indicative of modern populations. IE...is it actually related to any current population base in europe.

        November 3, 2011 at 5:09 am |
      • Irsyad

        You're basing your argument from a fantasy book? Read about the Lord of the Rings and you'll see it was based on pre-christian European religions with aspects of catholicism (Obviously because the guy was catholic.)

        November 3, 2011 at 6:38 am |
    • Lowpro

      no crap Sherlock, why are you proselytizing?

      November 3, 2011 at 2:23 am |
      • Josh

        Shoosh.

        November 3, 2011 at 2:27 am |
    • Noah

      Actually, we're called 'Caucasian' not because we're 'Asian', but because the earliest known ancestor for white skinned Europeans were found in the Caucus Mountain range between the Black and Caspian Seas.

      You don't know your facts and the very fact that you were mistaken on the etymology of the word 'Caucasian' proves this. Troll harder next time.

      November 3, 2011 at 4:58 am |
  80. Corrupted by Father McLaughtney

    Ah, how my heart flutters for the ignoramus jackass that created the hoopblah over Jeebuz and G0d. They are such trolls, lolol, persecution, crusifixtion.

    November 3, 2011 at 2:07 am |
  81. Corrupted by Father McLaughtney

    Took me seven days to pass out my kidney stones. No one writes books about me. Just saying.

    November 3, 2011 at 2:00 am |
  82. John

    Times relative. It may very well have taken 7 days. Just sayin

    November 3, 2011 at 1:59 am |
  83. Corrupted by Father McLaughtney

    If God was a woman, the universe would be her kitchen. The planets, her dishwashin' gloves, and Hell, the oven. Now, one Christmas, (she is a lonely old coot,) and decided to make gingerbread people. One was "adam', and the other, "eve." (She created her own little friends.)

    November 3, 2011 at 1:56 am |
  84. pat

    Look at India..oldest civilization in the world. Proof is in the monuments, culture and art and extensive sanskrit script. CNN and researchers needs to spend more time in covering stories in India.

    November 3, 2011 at 1:51 am |
    • Noah

      I'm an archaeology student at the University of Chicago, and my focus is on the Indus Valley Civilization with secondary focus on the other early civilizations in the Indian Subcontinent, the Himalayas and China. I say this so when I say my next thing you'll know I'm not hating on the majesty of ancient India.

      The article isn't about the earliest civilization, it's about the earliest European ancestors.

      November 3, 2011 at 5:01 am |
      • Dubhly

        actually its not about the earliest european ancestors, its about the earliest homo sapien europeans. big differance, nothing says any of the people this evidence is from populated europe into the present. Actually highly unlikely considering the wash of people that have gone through europe over the centuries. Although I would like to see if there is anyway to even read any genetic material to see if there is a relation.

        November 3, 2011 at 5:16 am |
    • Blion

      India is not the oldest civilization in the world. All of Africa is. without Africa there is no India, Asia, No Greece or Rome, No America. Research the Dogon tribes, Timbuktu, The Ashanti, THe Zulu, The Twa. Africa is the Grandmother of the Planet!

      November 3, 2011 at 6:41 am |
      • Judas Priest

        And Sumer is the cradle of civilization, being the oldest recorded society (as opposed to settlement or nomadic tribe).

        November 3, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
  85. Corrupted by Father McLaughtney

    Ah, so now we're talkin'. Some smarty-pants commentors! Deary me, I done shat myself at the woman God.

    November 3, 2011 at 1:49 am |
  86. Tex123

    These articles never defend their conclusion that what they have found is actually human. How do they know and why don't they explain that? I grew up believing in evolution because that is what I was taught, but when I tried to understand the evidence to support evolution, I realized that there is none. We are just supposed to believe it without having it proven to us.

    November 3, 2011 at 1:43 am |
    • John

      There is no evidence for evolution. We would have been better equipped to have been taught ufos seeded the earth. At least theres some evidence of that.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:57 am |
    • Jim Bob

      Don't be such a dope. The article says that the scientists examined ancient HUMAN teeth. The article explains that the scientists know what they are because they are identical to modern HUMAN teeth.

      The article was very clear Your lack of understanding reflects poorly on your reading comprehension skills.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:05 am |
    • jimmy the freak

      You know, I really don't understand protons, neutrons, and electrons. I can't see the damned things, so how do we know? But, when I see a nuclear explosion, suddenly the words of scientists have credibility.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:16 am |
    • Langkard

      No evidence to support evolution? Really? Another misguided religious zealot attempting to mislead people. You want proof of evolution? OK. Try to follow along. Explain all of the following without using any deus ex machina Creationist crap:

      The coccyx.
      The vermiform appendix.
      Hooves on manatees which are born, live and die entirely in the water.

      Goose bumps. OK, just to be nice, I'll explain this one to you. Humans get goose bumps when threatened or when cold. Why? Do you know what goose bumps are? They are the mechanism by which hairy primates fluff out their fur. It is a reflex action in furred primates when it's cold, to increase the insulating area of the fur. It is also a reflex action when threatened to puff out the furr making the animal appear larger to the threat. Now, why would decidedly non-furry humans have a natural relfex of the skin which has a use only when accompanied by fur? Oh, wait! Maybe it's a vestigial function leftover from when humans were furry? Do ya think? Same goes for the other things above, except for the hooves on a manatee, which is not a human vestigial example but is an example of another species' vestigial roots back to when it walked on land with it's closest relatives – the elephant and the tiny little Hyrax.

      Whenever a Christian spouts the nonsense that there is no evidence of evolution, just make them explain that list.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:30 am |
      • Dude

        Jesus did it to fool us.

        Once your wizard of choice has unlimited power to alter the universe, then all logic is lost.

        November 3, 2011 at 2:50 am |
      • logic

        my wizard of choice can make the miracle of cheetos that don't turn your fingers orange

        November 3, 2011 at 3:59 am |
    • Kartoshka

      If you think that there is no evidence for evolution, you obviously aren't looking very hard for it.

      Dog breeds are a perfect example of evolutionary principles. Humans selected for certain characteristics in dogs, so over time the genetic make up of the animals changed. That's how we got a pug from a wolf, and that is evolution.

      Did God make poodles and house cats? No. Maybe it isn't a good idea to take a storybook so literally..

      November 3, 2011 at 10:31 am |
  87. Ashleigh Kirk

    This s a really big find. The Lascoux caves are 15000 years ago and the Solutreans 25000 to 15000 years ago, so this takes it back another 15000 years. Great work, can't wait to hear more of your discoveries, like how similar was their culture/technology to the Solutreans?

    November 3, 2011 at 1:38 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Holy crap, an on-topic post!

      November 3, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  88. Africa!

    cradle of civilization!

    November 3, 2011 at 1:20 am |
    • Dubhly

      uh...no...sorry, mankind probably, but not civilization.

      November 3, 2011 at 5:19 am |
      • Blion

        and CIvilization. Without Timbuktu, Greece and Rome would have never rose. There were great Cilvilizations all through out the Motherland, but were destroyed by hate, greed, and fear.

        November 3, 2011 at 6:45 am |
      • Common Sense

        ppl like u make me laugh beccause you are like a child denying his father....luke am ur father.... :) one day ur kids will wake up to the reality that u have avoided all ur life lol
        go and read up about the great civilizations in empires of africa...dont forget to put civilization in context with the times...wake up and get a clue

        November 3, 2011 at 7:02 am |
      • Sioux Falls

        @Blion and Common Sense; Timbuktu didn't really rise as a "civilization" until around 1100AD, about 700 years after the fall of Rome. Mesopotamia, which is located in modern Iran and Iraq is considered the "Cradle of Civilization," having set up a structured government and empire. While I will not dispute humans can trace their origins to the African continent, the origins of civilization are traced to the fertile land between the Tigris and Euphrates River System.

        November 3, 2011 at 9:59 am |
  89. Les

    What great news. Given the lower numbers of humans 43,000 yrs. ago, it came to mind that those of us who are alive today owe these early ancestors a thank-you. And then cuss them out for inventing the wheel.

    We have grown in number from about 2000 living in Africa to today's 7,000,000,000 in a blink of an eye. The scariest part is that we have not yet evolved beyond our original inborn savagery and destructive nature. Combine that with global warning and climate change we are right at the center of a crossroad which has, historically left the vestiges of humans teetering close to extinction.

    Sometimes science is a good thing. At other times not so good.

    November 3, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • Science just is...

      Science is neither good nor bad. Science is knowledge, which is good except if you believe that "ignorance is bliss."

      November 3, 2011 at 1:29 am |
  90. So much sci-corruption

    Are these the same learned people who said global warming was real?

    November 3, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • Science just is...

      Hush. Hush. Go back to sleep. It'll be okay. Don't let those mean, old, awful scientists mess with your widdle, widdle head by presenting facts. Here's your pacifier. There you go. All better, now? Just wish them all away....wish them away....away...away..... Here comes the sandman.....there you go. Zzzzzzz.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:43 am |
    • Tess

      Err... scientists specialize in very particular subfields, so... no. You might want to figure out how the scientific community works.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:46 am |
    • Andrew

      No, those people were climatologists. It's a very different field, requiring a different set of scientific knowledge. Incidentally, those scientists who said the earth is warming weren't lying, and even the Koch brother funded report confirms what climatologists have been saying since the 1970s (regardless of what National Geographic wanted to promote).

      November 3, 2011 at 3:19 am |
  91. thes33k3r

    Science

    November 3, 2011 at 12:43 am |
  92. Peter Q Wolfe

    Ohk, the statement of opinion or belief is inductive and invalid in the eyes of philosophyl. Face it that religions are all based off of philosophy of observation not sound experimentation or testing thoroughly cause no sound scientific suffisticated methods were formed at that period of time. Religion or spirituality is very perseptional rather than sensational like science happens to be whether you like it or not tht science has killed God (Neitch). Maybe use your religious material for something to wipe your butt with for somethign useful.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:36 am |
  93. Mickey1313

    40k years ago? Is not the Lascoux cave in france dated to be like 75k years old?

    November 3, 2011 at 12:36 am |
    • Nah

      I *think* the Lascaux caves were from about 15,000 B.C.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:44 am |
  94. MeLissa

    Its just great to see people around the world are stupid! Didn't they use carbon dating or some other 'scientific' method on the shroud of turin? So, its ok to rely on science if it helps holy mother church but not if it disproves same religous beliefs? Hmm... Considering the fact that christian holidays occur on or near most 'pagan' holidays... Mary had a 10 month pregnancy... And the easter egg and palm fronds and christmas trees and trick or treating are all based in pagan beliefs. Do your research! it will hopefully open your eyes! I was raised catholic, but I have always been wiccan. 'god' gave us brains to make choices with... Dont make stupid ones. People like you are the ones who are gonna be pissed when you get to the next world and realize your 'god' is really a woman. And if u look closely at ur bible, in the beginning of genisis, it states 'let US create him in OUR image' indicating there was more tha one hand in ur creation story. My husband works in a library, he thinks the bible should be shelved where it belongs, next to all the other mythology books. The capricornian era has ended... So stop being such an idiot. Man and woman have been around for thousandsof years and miracles were happening long b4 christianity became an actual religion.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • zombie kid

      I like turtles.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:28 am |
    • Nah

      Um..okay?

      Was this relevant to anything in the article, or can you not help going on meaningless, anti-religious tirades?

      November 3, 2011 at 12:46 am |
    • Pauline

      I fail to see how your comment has anything to do with this story. Everything now stands on the shoulders of yesteryears. That truth does not negate (or prove) the existence of diddly squat. One reason I became a Catholic was b/c out of all the Christian religions, I felt that they acknowledged the female side of God...as in the Church prayer that begins: "God, Our Mother, Our Father.... It doesn't really matter, in the end what doctrine proves correct or who is right because what is "always right" is loving one another in spite of differences and focusing on what we all have in common rather than pointing out differences and points of contention.

      November 3, 2011 at 1:44 am |
    • Langkard

      It's turtles all the way down, sonny!

      November 3, 2011 at 2:34 am |
  95. Wo0F

    Come now, we all know that fossils were put on this earth by god for the sole purpose of confusing Sarah Palin.

    November 2, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
    • Blk

      Ayup

      And its worked hasnt it???

      The Bachmanns Have Eyes~~~~

      November 3, 2011 at 12:50 am |
    • Dude

      Fossils are not needed. Water confuses Sarah Palin.

      "So, what have you seen?" was a gotcha question.

      November 3, 2011 at 2:55 am |
  96. Goddog

    people forget how great science is, because it wants to learn the truth about things unknown, rather than having a belief and then skewing the findings to fit their model. When science is wrong about something, you know what it does?... It says "we were wrong". Thanks to science we aren't all dying at age 28 from an impacted tooth or appendicitis, etc... I was on the Saber Tooth Squirrel discussion board and it reminded me of one thing; Religion makes me sad. I'm not talking about spirituality, but organized, brainwashing religion. Please, let the rest of us find the truth, you already have yours. It was given to you 2000 years ago by people who thought the earth was 4000 years old, flat and the center of the universe... yea, have fun with that.

    November 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
    • Goddog

      And a question to the anti-science people; How can you take your pills, work your tech jobs, play with all your devices and enjoy all of the wonderful things that you have provided to you by science and then mock the very institute that gave them to you? Do you need to attack everything else in order to validate your own unfounded beliefs? I will pray for you all.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
      • Don

        AMEN!!

        November 2, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
      • Nah

        goddog: "And a question to the anti-science people; How can you take your pills, work your tech jobs, play with all your devices and enjoy all of the wonderful things that you have provided to you by science and then mock the very institute that gave them to you?"

        First, you're making a fallacious overgeneralization about religious people and their beliefs in science.

        Second, you make another fallacy by pretending that the validity of one part of science (e.g., medicine) validates another, separate part of science.

        It's like arguing that gravity is true, therefore Newtonian physics is true. Or that geometry is true, therefore Aristotelian physics is true.

        Do you see how your argument has failed?

        November 3, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • JackoB

      Let's not go painting all religions with a Fundamentalist brush, now...

      November 3, 2011 at 12:00 am |
      • Mickey1313

        But THEY ARE ALL FUNDALMENTALISTS

        November 3, 2011 at 12:39 am |
  97. Paganguy

    There are a bunch of Neanderthals on Wall Street.

    November 2, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • Todd in DC

      Don't worry. I'm sure they will evolve any day now.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
      • Science just is...

        Yeah, Todd in D.C., but only by their "Intelligent" design.

        November 3, 2011 at 1:52 am |
  98. Carrie

    This finding only points out the obvious. We know that man migrated out of Africa. What I would like to know is when and how this migration occurred? We will probably never know, but I am hoping that in the future there will be some scientific discovery that will help us solve this mystery.

    November 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • will

      Well, when our time to face God happens, and when He wants to answer all things, it won't be a scientific discovery, but a majestic discovery.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
      • Neeve

        Revelation...you mean a majestic revelation. That's what God gives.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:08 am |
      • Hooligan

        Ahhh yes... when proof is shown it is always justified as one of "satans tricks"

        you know... for such an all knowing and infallible being one would think god would have put a stop to all this BEFORE making satan.... or just not making satan at all.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • Richard

      There is evidence to suggest that Africa was not the sole origin of humanoid species. Asia is very likely a second area and it is possible African migration never made it past the southern parts of Europe.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:09 am |
      • Mickey1313

        that would emply that humanity evolved twice, it is more likely that africans moved to asia, then a few thousand years after moved on from there.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:42 am |
      • Bob

        Cyborgs and Vulcans are "homonoids". The genus Homo originated in Africa some 2+ million years ago and diverged from there. Yes, ergaster probably gave rise to Asian forms of erectus but the African ergaster developed into heidelbergensis which then split into European/West Asian forms, ie Neanderthals, and the African heidelbergensis that gave rise eventually to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, ie us. The genetics clearly show an African origin for H. sapiens with a smidge of genetic contribution of Eurasian Neanderthals in some European and Asian populations due to early, small-scale interbreeding of early H. sapiens migrants out of Africa with indigenous groups that they encountered.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:51 am |
      • Tex123

        if evolution is random how did it happen in two separate places at the same time? Because some scientist said so? Where's the proof?

        November 3, 2011 at 1:46 am |
      • Todd Bradley

        Richard, could you point me toward some of this evidence? This is the first I've heard of a parallel evolution theory (outside of science fiction).

        November 3, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • Mickey1313

      to will, if you think god is real, you are on the wrong discussion bord, this is for scientific discourse, not magic.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:41 am |
  99. Engineer2

    I noticed that even though the original article was posted at 2:20PM, it took almost 8 hours for a single pro-creationist comment to show up. However, the 'Saber toothed squirrel' article is a veritable hotbed of evolution vs creation.

    Of course, that article had a picture on the CNN homepage. Coincidence?

    November 2, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • Nah

      engineeer: "However, the 'Saber toothed squirrel' article is a veritable hotbed of evolution vs creation."

      That's because dogmatic atheists and dogmatic fundamentalists are both morons.

      It's pitiful that they don't realize - or willfully choose to ignore - the simple fact that evolution and the existence of a god are not mutually exclusive.

      Hence, they both retreat to extreme positions of stupidity.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:51 am |
  100. smeal

    Do they know for certain the age of findings? Or are they going off of carbon dating which is proven to be wrong. I am going with the latter. No one was there at the time so they are assuming as usual, thats science for us. Scientists will never know the age of findings unless they are documented, so they should not fill our young with false so-called facts. Am i not right?

    November 2, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
    • Akira

      You're joking, right?

      November 2, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
    • Brandon

      No, you're not right. You're trying to form the argument against history, and specifially...scientifically testable history, in terms of 'you weren't there, so you can't really know'. That's the most intellectually lazy, and ideologically-driven approach you could have used. By that logic, nothing ever happened in the past, or at the very least, we have no reason to believe in any past event...because 'you weren't there'. The dating methods are confirmed by a variety of scientific disciplines, each independent of one another. Don't try passing off cynicism and ideology as honorable skepticism, thank you.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
      • Nah

        brandon: "That's the most intellectually lazy, and ideologically-driven approach you could have used. By that logic, nothing ever happened in the past, or at the very least, we have no reason to believe in any past event...because 'you weren't there'."

        Not to burst your bubble, but his position is the intellectually pure one. In fact, it seems to follow from both Cartesian epistemology and Berkely's idealism.

        We can't know that anything is real - past, present or future - except the existence of ourselves.

        "The dating methods are confirmed by a variety of scientific disciplines, each independent of one another. Don't try passing off cynicism and ideology as honorable skepticism, thank you."

        This just tries to sidestep the problem by defining it differently. Saying the methods are "confirmed" merely says all his skeptical positions are wrong, without proving they're wrong.

        But because his skeptical position is based on a strict epistemological approach, you're going to fail every time.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:54 am |
      • Ness1

        Nah- then by your logic, god isn't real,correct?

        November 3, 2011 at 2:30 am |
      • Andrew

        ... What are the odds this person is actually a pyrrhonian skeptic? Sure, they might say 'any and all knowledge is not possible', but that certainly wasn't the implication.

        This is why I hate philosophy. See Richard Feynman's "hungry philosopher" on youtube.

        November 3, 2011 at 3:13 am |
      • Nonimus

        @Nah,
        Epistemologically, we also don't know the present, documented or not, we can't know anything for certain, except, of course, 'I think'.

        November 3, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
    • Barada

      What a ignoraminass.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Notatall87

      Cannot tell if troll or just dumb -_-

      November 2, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • Dude

      They should only date objects based on the bible, which has been proven right. Is that what you are saying?

      When carbon dating can be measured against other dating methods, it has been shown to be very accurate. Including tree ring dating and others. But, if the facts don't fit your opinion, just claim the facts are wrong.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • sybaris

      Hey Smeal, stay out of the Creation Museum, it's junk science and makes you say stupid things

      November 2, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
    • Fiery Buddha

      No, you are not right. At all.

      November 2, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
    • logic

      carbon dating is not used to date fossils....

      yes carbon dating is inaccurate for old samples which is why it is not used

      radiometric isotope dating using metals from rock samples encasing the fossil are what is used.

      Seriously you silly creationists need to educate yourselves before you go and make yourself look even more foolish

      November 2, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
      • Todd in DC

        I actually thought it was carbon dating, which notes the radioactive breakdown of Carbon-14. What does your (well not literally) method measure?

        November 2, 2011 at 11:37 pm |
      • Fnordz

        Todd in DC: Carbon dating is one method used, but there are several others which corroborate the results of Carbon dating. They all rely on radiometric dating principles, which measure the decay of certain isotopes. If we know the rate of decay of a certain isotope, and we find a sample of it, we can see the state of it and determine how long it's been decaying. That's the general idea anyhow.

        November 3, 2011 at 7:06 am |
    • beelzebubba

      Proven wrong how... by your pastors dogmatic beliefs? Don't be so naive. Only a few hundred years ago... not very long ago, our religious leaders had us burning 'witches'. Their dogma 'proved' witched were real. Some of them also said, 150 years ago, that negroes were meant to be slaves... and their dogma 'proved' that. Doesn't seem like the right side to be trusting. Science is based on provable facts. Religion is based on claims that nobody can disprove... so how do you know they're not lying?

      November 2, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
      • Miss DePoint

        Faith? Pretend they're not lying and, like a little kid with your fingers in your ears ignoring older, wiser people who try to correct your childish beliefs, avoid thinking about the obvious shortcomings of believing in invisible friends. Why do newborns get killed in earthquakes and plane crashes...

        November 2, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
      • Todd in DC

        Miss DePoint: Well duh, because they are the worlds worst pilots, but the worlds best floatation devices, and make great door props in an emergency.

        Love your drag name.

        November 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
    • TJH

      So, following your logic, it would be safe to say that because "no one was there at the time" there is no one alive today who witnessed the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to heaven of Jesus therfore it did not happen. In this case, I totally agree with your logic.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        Doh!

        November 3, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
    • Pepinium

      Carbon dating has been benchmarked ad nauseum and proven to be extremely reliable. If you are a creationist and choose to put some words written in a book over the overwhelming evidence for evolution and antrhopological history provided by science, then I pity you because you have already been left behind in the evolutionary process. You are scared to face your own ignorance and the world as it is, and choose to keep your mind compatible and equivalent to those of people who lived in the Dark Ages. One day soon, real humans will move on to the stars and will gladly leave the likes of you behind.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
      • magnus

        nah, they will still go space traveling because God game Humans the ability to space travel.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • rufustfirefly

      I bet that if someone put a flashlight in one ear the light would come out the other side. You should go see a psychiatrist and get some medication before you hurt yourself.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • Some guy

      I like how people say "like a little kid with your fingers in your ears ignoring older, wiser people who try to correct your childish beliefs" and expect it to stick... by that logic, all older people are wiser than all younger people, the younger people having the childish beliefs and the older people scolding them... ever heard of the saying "being put in your place?"

      In reference to Smeal, you are stupid. Think about it carefully. What is the bible? It's a book. About who? Some other guy. Doing what? Some stuff and things that people at the time thought was awesome. So what did they do? They wrote this book. Sure, there are lots of arguments that point towards religion and it being the reason we're here but, look at the arguments in favour of Evolution and The Big Bang, slamming that scale-plate to the tabletop. As for the carbon-dating, it is the most accurate way to date materials, some of which are all the way back to the dinosaurs. It might miss the mark by a shade or two but, did books and accurate record-taking exist 45,000+ years ago. Owned.

      November 2, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
      • magnus

        "Think about it carefully. What is the bible? It's a book. About who? Some other guy. Doing what? Some stuff and things that people at the time thought was awesome. So what did they do? They wrote this book."

        Greatest comment ever.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • Really?

      So because you weren't there when the the Universe was "created", you aren't allowed to say that's what happened.

      If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it...does it still make a sound? Based on your logic: because no one was around when the tree fell, the tree must not have fallen. Just because you or someone else didn't witness an event, doesn't mean it didn't happen. So just because someone wasn't there to "document" the migration of humans out of Africa, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:09 am |
      • Hooligan

        The thing that really gets me laughing is that the bible was written by god THROUGH men... yet no one ever stopped to question if these men were just flat out lying.

        November 3, 2011 at 12:51 am |
      • magnus

        Your riddle is easy to solve. "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound?" The answer is yes, it makes sound in the form of sound waves. sound waves are a fundamental principal in physics and it is generated regardless if you were there or not. Noise, on the other hand, is our interpretation of sound waves. Thus, the riddle is solve: If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, then 1) it does make sound because sound waves a physical principal that occurrs without us having to be there; 2) if does NOT make noise because there was no one there to intrepret the sound waves coming from the impact of the falling tree with the ground.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:13 am |
    • Mickey1313

      take a science class, if the find is not under water, c-14 dateing is 100% correct 100% of the time. never been found wrong yet.

      November 3, 2011 at 12:44 am |
      • JoeProfet

        "It's never been wrong", just has a huge gaping variable in years...give or take 25,000 years. How exact and precise does science need to be, right? So long as we can assign a number to it, it must be right and that's what we want to believe so it is so!

        November 3, 2011 at 7:37 am |
      • magnus

        everything has variability. one can only state a value with a %-certainty. For example, one can say that you are 95% confident that the carbon dating revealed a value of 50,000 years old. In biology, 95% confidence in the data set is considered "significant" and is used to drive biomedical research.

        November 3, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Tex123

      I agree. It can't be proven wrong so it must be right?

      November 3, 2011 at 1:48 am |
    • Jordan

      take your youth out of public education, sit your ass down and home school them, and quit bitching and let the rest of us do what we please with our youth and beliefs. I am a Christian, however, I aint no bible thumping fanatic, I do not take things literally and I have been reapping the benefits eversince I got to know Christ's teachings and applied them into my day to day life... I find extremist, fanatical, and literal religious trolling and loudness are not a part of his teachings. God bless you and the rest of ya!

      November 3, 2011 at 3:19 am |
    • George

      Grow a brain – let me know when you have one so I can document it.

      November 3, 2011 at 7:02 am |
    • Ian

      No, you are dead wrong. Being 15, I can say for certain that dogmatic people pressing their beliefs abd criticizing science is one of the most annoying things on Earth. Accept it. Who are wo gonna listen to: a prophet one thousand years dead, or proven, relieable science? Religion has done nothing but hijack morality. Faith is good, religion is not.

      November 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer