Paper on early Hs

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

New paper redated Omo & Herto skulls to more than 200ka

[Primum Sapienti]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> New paper redated Omo & Herto skulls to more than 200ka
>

Is this it?


https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-373661/v1
Age of the oldest Homo sapiens from eastern Africa
Posted 03 Apr, 2021

Abstract
Efforts to date the oldest modern human fossils in East Africa, from
Omo-Kibish
and Herto in Ethiopia, have drawn on a variety of chronometric evidence,
including
40Ar/39Ar ages of stratigraphically-associated tuffs. The
generally-accepted ages
for these fossils are ca. 196 thousand years (ka) for the Kibish Omo I and
ca. 160-155
ka for the Herto hominins. However, stratigraphic relationships and tephra
correlations that underpin these estimates have been challenged. Here, we
report
new geochemical analyses that link the Kamoya Hominin Site (KHS) Tuff, which
conclusively overlies the Kibish Formation member containing Omo I, with a
major
explosive eruption of Shala volcano in the Main Ethiopian Rift. By dating
the proximal deposits of this eruption, we obtain a new minimum age for
the Omo fossils of
212±16 ka. Contrary to previous arguments, we also show that the KHS Tuff
does not
correlate with another widespread tephra layer, the Wadaido Vitric Tuff
(WAVT), and
therefore cannot anchor a minimum age for the Herto fossils. Shifting the
age of the
oldest known Homo sapiens fossils in eastern Africa to before ~200 ka is
consistent
with several independent lines of evidence for greater antiquity to the
modern
human lineage.

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Is this it?
>
>
> https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-373661/v1

#1. Most everything that trickles out to us is bullshit. Yes, I'm saying
that inaccurate and/or fake data is the norm.

#2. The dating is uninteresting, well below the age of the Australian
LM3 line.

The exact same "Science" that says the Eurasian Chromosome-11
insert/LM3 line is far more ancient says that the oldest Homo is
much younger AND older?!?!?

#3. The location is precisely were an out-of-Africa AND an out-of-
Asia migration had to pass through. So it doesn't support one or
the other. Being younger than they present dating of LM3, the
fact that the location is consistent with an out of Asia migration
throws everything they say into doubt.

#4. It's not modern at all. Even the more "Modern" example, the
Omo-I (as opposed to Omo-II) has a a pretty distinct brow ridge.
And many cites have determined that they must be two very
separate & distinct populations -- or Omo-II is of a much greater
age -- because they are so different. Instead what it looks like is
that they are, as per usual, making a massive pile of claims based
on a sample size of one.

One.

A single specimen. Even though they have more then one specimen,
they are basing everything on one.

It's a lot of things, but it ain't science.

#5. So "Modern" humans are as old as "Homo Naledi," huh?

#6. Their model was falsified decades ago.

Look. I already mentioned the LM3 line (Chromosome-11 insert) which
is supposed to be much older than 200,000 years, but there's also the
fact that much more ARCHAIC skulls are found more than 180,000
years later than Omo-I is being dated:

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/kow-swamp

But NOT just in Australia! The oldest skull ever found in west Africa is
only about 13,000 years old, it has archaic features and they have since
starting pretending that it's also modern!

So you can see that they are really, Really, REALLY generous in how they
define "Modern." AND they have absolutely no explanation what so ever
for all these "Modern" skulls looking so NOT modern!

If it's simple variation in human genetics, an artifact of breeding (much
like how physical traits do characterize ethnicities today and even more
so in past, before modern transportation) then why did such variation
only ever BEGIN with modern humans?

Of course it didn't.

So the whole story is stupid.

It's announcing an "Oldest" which isn't the oldest "Modern" which isn't
modern at all, and this is all assuming that the dating is perfect which
nobody in their right mind believes is the case:

https://anthropology.net/2008/07/08/the-age-of-omo-i-and-omo-ii-from-the-kibish-formation-omo-valley-ethiopia/

I'll spell it out, save you the read:

They have no idea where these specimens were found. They went by
40 year video that we're not allowed to see, some photographs which
they haven't showed us and some hand drawn map -- all daring to 1967.

What I'm saying is, and what the cite acknowledges is that the dating
is problematic. Meaning, ascertaining the dating is problematic.

The dates they're throwing around aren't very interesting and the claims
based on these dates are just plain false.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 4:42:47 PM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > New paper redated Omo & Herto skulls to more than 200ka
> >
> Is this it?

Yes. I responded twice from my phone, didn't transmit I guess. It's the preprint, I thought it was the final. Tweeted by Chris Stringer yesterday.

[I Envy JTEM]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Yes. I responded twice from my phone, didn't transmit I guess.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/677696735946145792

I wonder why...

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Old phone.