Fossils of possible new human species found in China

[GardenerGal]

AquaEyes,
Excellent explanation of the difference between "law" and "theory." Too many people interpret "theory" as "unproven guess." That is not science's interpretation of the meaning, for sure.

Also, I believe there is a mistaken notion tha science is some kind of religion. It's not. It is a METHOD. Science as a method, in itself, is objective and neutral. The trouble, is, we humans are fallible and are prone to twisting and manipulating research to favor what we want to find. In other words, science is not to be faulted, people are. A good scientist is one who uses scientific method without an agenda; he/she is only seeking truth. Often, in science, that involves a lot of error and filtering out what is not true, before ultimately arriving at what is true.

 

[chickened]

I have read another possible theory that the fossils found in mountainous areas have died in a natural mean as if they were underwater (don't know how they determine that) but nevertheless they conclude that they died naturally in a hospitable environment. I think it is measured in sedimentary layers or something.

If you go to the high desert and walk in the alkalai flats here in eastern oregon you can pick up hundreds of petrified salmonoid bones notably mandibles. The elevation there is 4000' plus.

I would really like to read some info about axial tilt and the effects of not having one. I know there are studies out there but most studies are public funded and that always directs money to the more popular topics.

chickened wrote: That is possible but the months of darkness with our current seasons would not allow tropical vegetation like trees. Right now the only thing living above the arctic circle is lichen tht I know of. There are theories I have heard of that claIm if the earth's axis was different that the seasons would not exist and that there would be no polar caps but a wider moderate temperature globally

That is possible but the months of darkness with our current seasons would not allow tropical vegetation like trees. Right now the only thing living above the arctic circle is lichen tht I know of. There are theories I have heard of that claIm if the earth's axis was different that the seasons would not exist and that there would be no polar caps but a wider moderate temperature globally.That is possible but the months of darkness with our current seasons would not allow tropical vegetation like trees. Right now the only thing living above the arctic circle is lichen tht I know of. There are theories I have heard of that claIm if the earth's axis was different that the seasons would not exist and that there would be no polar caps but a wider moderate temperature globally.That is possible but the months of darkness with our current seasons would not allow tropical vegetation like trees. Right now the only thing living above the arctic circle is lichen tht I know of. There are theories I have heard of that claIm if the earth's axis was different that the seasons would not exist and that there would be no polar caps but a wider moderate temperature globally.chickened,
Excellent point.

I believe that AquaEyes hit the nail on the head regarding plate tectonics, which I could kick myself for not having thought of in my rush to type out a post before heading out.

Though the Arctic area is very low on actual land mass now, and consists now of mostly ice floe (though global climates changing has caused lots of that ice to melt), the land mass that does exist in our time, likely was somewhere else millions of years ago.

When I was traveling in Nepal, I was amazed that fossil ammonites (a kind of prehistoric nautilus-like animal) and fossil coral were scooped up by the basketloads from the slopes of the Himalayas. People hiking in the high areas would find all kinds of fossils of creatures found on the sea floor. They dated back 40 million years to when the Indian subcontinental plate collided with the Eurasian continent and started pushing up the Earth's crust there, forming the Himalayas and Hindu Kush. The sea floor was pushed way up in the air, so now we find ammonites on the slopes of Everest. The plates are still colliding and the Himalayas continue to get higher.

 

[chickened]

It is when science relies on faith that it becomes a religion.
It then becomes a crap shoot.Quote:

AquaEyes,
Excellent explanation of the difference between "law" and "theory." Too many people interpret "theory" as "unproven guess." That is not science's interpretation of the meaning, for sure.

Also, I believe there is a mistaken notion tha science is some kind of religion. It's not. It is a METHOD. Science as a method, in itself, is objective and neutral. The trouble, is, we humans are fallible and are prone to twisting and manipulation research to favor what we want to find. In other words, science is not to be faulted, people are. A good scientist is one who uses scientific method without an agenda; he/she is only seeking truth. Often, in science, that involves a lot of error and filtering out what is not true, before ultimately (if we are lucky) arriving at what is true.

 

[AquaEyes]

It is when science relies on faith that it becomes a religion.
It then becomes a crap shoot.Quote:

In that case it is the scientist -- not science -- that does so. And it leaves room for another scientist to debunk the claim in publication. Anything that withstands the onslaught must have strong evidence to back it up.

 

[Moochie]

So this possibley new species in China...
Very cool!

 

[GardenerGal]

Exactly, AE. As I said, it's not science that is faulty -- science is a neutral, objective METHODOLOGY. It's PEOPLE who manipulate science, using false premises and then exploiting "scientific approach" to arrive at a false conclusion that fits their agenda and beliefs.

I originally said that "if we're lucky," then after winnowing through what is false we ultimately arrive at the truth. But I removed "lucky" from my original post because in actuality, it takes dogged persistance and time to go through all the possibilities, before finally tossing what doesn't work and arriving at the truth.

 

[GardenerGal]

chickened,
The Oregon alkalai flats you mentioned are the deposits that remained after the evaporation of a vast, shallow inland sea that covered a large area of what is now the continental U.S. Fish fossils remain. I think you're talking about the Great Basin, which is the remains of what is called an "endoheiric" sea or lake, meaning that it was like a giant basin that melt waters and other sources of water flowed into, then remained and had no outlet (no rivers to carry the water out). As climate changed, the source of water disappeared and the basin of collected water gradually evaporated. Once the water had evaporated to a point where mineral salts were too dense, most animal and plant life died off (except for perhaps some microorganisms that could live in salt for a while).

The Dead Sea in Israel and Jordan is an example of an endoheiric lake that is still evaporating and has gotten to the stage where fish can't live there any longer, hence "Dead" Sea. It happens to be at the lowest land-surface point on Earth, while your stretch of the Great Basin is at a much higher altitude at the 4,000' you cite. Seas and lakes can form at high altitudes if there is a topological "rim" to hold the water in, such as mountain ranges or even a dip in the terrain so that there is a shallow "bowl" even at high altitude, to hold contain water. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is one of those bowls that holds remnants of the waters of the Great Basin.

Fascinating stuff. I wish I spent more time thinking about these things than the mundane daily concerns that take up most of my energy.

 

[Matthew3590]

The main reason fish can't live in the dead sea (or so I was told) is because of the high salt content of the water.

 

[GardenerGal]

Yup. Even saltwater fish have a limit to their ability to filter out harmful mineral salts. However, there are some species of bacteria that can survive in very salty water and at temperatures too high for other forms of life to exist in. Also, there are some species of crustacean that can survive in water that is saltier than our major oceans. Still, there is a point beyond which life can't be sustained.

Lakes always have mineral salts in them -- the result of leaching of minerals from the earth and carried in the feeder streams that empty into the lakes. Lakes that continue to receive enough new fresh water, continue to keep those salts dilute.

But for the Dead Sea, and the Great Salt Lake, because they aren't receiving much fresh water from outside sources, and are also slowly evaporating, the mineral salts that naturally exist in the earth and water become more concentrated as the water evaporates away. When I was teaching science to kids, at a local museum, we used to do a little experiment where the kids put a shallow dish of saltwater on the windowsill and observed it as the sunshine evaporated the water. When there was only a little water left, they could see how "soupy" and cloudy the remaing water looked, because of the concentration of salt that was left. Then when the water was completely gone, they could scrape off a "crust" of salt crystals that had been left behind.

The main reason fish can't live in the dead sea (or so I was told) is because of the high salt content of the water.

 

[galanie]

No, science holds all interpretations to be tentative should new contradictory evidence be forthcoming. What happens is that in popular media and pre-college education, the language is simplified for the audience from saying "thus far, the evidence indicates that ____ is the process by which ___ happened" and instead saying "this happened this way." A fact is a piece of evidence -- something that was found, something that occurred, etc. -- and a theory is a tested explanation that ties together many facts to describe the "how" and "why" of the facts -- how was that something made, why does that occur, etc.

One example would be gravity -- that something "falls down" is a piece of evidence, a "fact of gravity." The "theory of gravity" seeks to explain why that something falls down -- attraction of a smaller body to a larger body which corresponds to the mass of the larger body -- but that theory can't be proven, only inferred through evidence supporting it. Another example, related to this thread, is evolution. At its most basic definition -- a change in the gene frequencies and inherited traits within a population over time -- that evolution happens is a fact (it has been documented, measured, etc.). When evolution is used to explain a connection between point A (a fossil) and point B (a living form), that becomes part of the theory of evolution.

An explanation that is called a theory in science has stood up to considerable testing and evidence, but is still open to evidence that might contradict it. When something is simply given as one possible explanation among many and has not withstood such "weeding out" it is called a hypothesis.

You are correct in that popular media does take those shortcuts, which for the uneducated masses becomes irrefutable fact. There are many things full of holes that are taught as complete fact. Having just finished an "environmental sciences" class, I nearly drove my professor nuts pointing out the holes in the textbook itself in the "Carbon emissions are causing Global Warming" theory. Nonetheless, Evolution still hasn't been proven.

Agreed that the DNA evidence is very persuasive, as are the surprisingly tiny number of fossils of a "human type creature." You'd think that as many years as that must have taken, we'd find more of them. But the few that are found, are persuasive.

Also the age of the fossils is in question. They simply go by the strata in many cases. Who is to say how thick the soil really and truly got in any given number of years? I don't buy it.

I'm not saying that all of this is WRONG. I do believe that Evolution is how things happened, and I do think the old stuff is incredibly old. I just don't think any of it has been proven beyond doubt enough to present it as fact rather than a theory or hypothesis. i.e. "This fossil humanoid is 20 million years old" If it's indeed that old, and mankind has been around that long, what on earth have they been doing for hundreds of thousands of years not to have left any more than a few bones? Or primitive paintings?