"The bones tell me nothing" Topic

link

In my 2008 Britannica Yearbook, in the anthropology/archaeology article, it shows a partial mandible from northern Spain, purporting to be 1.1 to 1.2 million years old. I had to go looking for more.

Now, my BS meter is fully pegged. I don't care if they used "three different dating techniques", something is off with all of this. I don't BELIEVE in actual bones surviving this earth's biological infestations for hundreds of thousands of years. In order for there to be ANYTHING physically viable today, the bones and teeth would have to be fossilized (which I understand to be the vacating of a rock cavity where the bones/teeth used to be, and a filling in with a sedimentary material replacement "casting" over time): actual bones and teeth can't last that long. Furthermore, I don't BELIEVE in caves lasting undisturbed that long either. It's just possible that a handful of caves could remain viable over 1 million years; but what are the chances of finding the ONE out of a handful? And what are the chances that THAT cave would have hominin (always coming up with new words to replace perfectly useful old ones) remains?

In short, I don't doubt the relative consistency of the dating within itself: I just don't BELIEVE the purported time frame. My guess would be that these latest homo antecessor finds are at most a few tens of thousands of years old: and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear, later, that the dating we currently read up on has been thoroughly dismissed and replaced by dates mostly falling within our own recorded history. In other words, I could believe more readily that this cave in Northern Spain contains the remains of a barbaric and almost extinct, degenerate branch of homo-whathaveyou cannibals, forced into seclusion by the vastly more numerous modern "branch" of which we are all part: and that they either died off or were exterminated….

Homo antecessor is apparently pretty controversial among the scientific community. The most well-preserved remains found at the time were that of a 3-10 year old so most of the skeletal structure would not have been fully formed.

Homo heidelbergensis is another controversial hominid.

While "Ardi", Ardipithecus ramidus, link discovered in fossilized form, is placed at 4.4 million years, one can't completely discount the possibility of bone remnants over a million years old due to the anoxic environment found in some caves (I'm not saying that the locale in question had such an environment, I'm just saying that it is possible.)

Personally, I think there was too much speculation that went into determining what the hominid would've looked like based on a mandible.

Wyatt

What I have seen is that they date to at least 780K years.

The importance seems to lie in not that it may be a separate species, but that it is earliest dating of a hominid in Europe.

Regards, the Gorb

Furthermore, I don't BELIEVE in caves lasting undisturbed that long either. It's just possible that a handful of caves could remain viable over 1 million years

A million years is nothing…

link

Pete

What you BELIEVE doesn't matter a hill o' beans, podnuh…
Can you prove they aren't as old, or are you just whistling Dixie?

The claim of an age spectrum is made by the scientists (not the archaeologists: they send the pieces "out" for testing). I remain unconvinced that they got the dating techniques right in the first place. If their job was to satisfy my skepticism, they'd be fired.

The odd artifact MIGHT be found in a rare environment that preserved the actual bones and teeth for that long; but ALL of the artifacts showing on that Google Images search are BONES and TEETH; and it is the rare fossil that we see. Bones and teeth can't last that long, in such copious findings, and all be hundreds of thousands (over a million) years old. This is the very same pic in that Britannica article picture (it's the 2009 Yearbook, btw, not the 2008: it was the year-covered that threw me for a sec): there's no way that those teeth in that bone are over one million years old….

Why do you believe that bones and teeth cannot last for that long?

Re. this particular mandible, might the cave have been relatively dry?

Moreover, and like many caves, what if there had been a gradual accumulation of detritus over time, which protected the mandible from some environmental effects?

Hi

I am prejudiced here, i am not going to spend the time necessary to prowl through all this PARTICULAR find.

In essence, no one uses ONE dating system. One of the common features in a cave find is that it is not NOW a cave. Instead what you have is a series of layers done over the millenia, and you end up with debris in layers that coincide with other known layers that have similar tested times. and on.

As for survival, one of the oddities of the human body is that the reason teeth and jaws survive is that they really are the most robust parts of the body. If you jaw isn't built like a "truck" you might actually break your jaw just chewing! Over designed and over built with a penalty in brain case size to go with it because, it breaks, you starve.

Reconstructions: these are such old tech that, they have been used as evidence in murder cases. Part of the basic training is recognizing from fragments.

Rocky

A million years is nothing…

Man, my BS meter is really screeching today!

Obviously this "new" radioactive decay dating method is not taking into account unknown variables: the "average" decay of samples is throwing the results off by a grundle of years.

Consistency is required first with any proposed dating technique: once you've established, through exhaustive testing of samples, that you have a consistently reliable dating technique, then you have to establish a starting point from which to measure back in history. The trouble remains the unknowns: we could be thrown off in unknown ways by changes in the earth's climate, the atmosphere changes, the sun's radiation changes, the inclusion of alien particulates due to comet "wash", whathaveyou. At this point we can't establish what was there all along, what came into the picture along the way or at what point; or even WHAT. So much remains unknown, therefore the "contamination" of the dating results remains unknown: it's entirely probable that ALL dating techniques fall foul of this unknown inclusion of effects problem, and we do not possess a single accurate dating measure beyond a few thousand years back.

What I observe in my short span of half a century is the amazing rapidity at which solid rock breaks down just from freezing and heating, even within a single year. I don't know if any of you have done something like this: once I built my wife's water feature, the first thing I noticed the last two springs, is the amount of new flaking from the surface of the rocks. Then I noticed other rocks used decoratively around town: how they too are breaking down at an observable rate. I look over at the Wasatch Front mountains, made of the very same kind of rocks, and I see surface changes from when I was a kid: "landmarks" are either gone or partially obliterated by Nature. I hike the wilderness and find bones whitened and reduced to almost powder in a handful of years. Once I dug up the grave of our first dog: this was not even fifteen years later, and what I found was a few fragments of the larger bones, crumbling in my hands as I examined them.

The articles refer to these hominin bones as "fossils" (roughly categorized, of all types, as exceeding at least 10,000 years). Obviously these finds are not fossils as I have limited the definition of the word (rock "castings" filling the"mold" where the organism used to be).

Yet the environment of these caves is anything but ideal for fossilization: no rapid burial, plus the body's natural "bugs" that decay everything, with the bones of the meals tossed into a garbage heap: the ravages of the elements would begin immediately, making such a discovery later of the actual bones and teeth, at most, only thousands of years old (and that would be remarkable preservation under the circumstances), not over a million!? The protagonists of the dating techniques are being blinded by their enthusiasm and special interest (competitors, "fan base" and job security)….

Different soils have different levels of acidity…

Northern Spain's climate is probably very different from that of Utah…

Bones and teeth are different from sedimentary rock…

Caves can protect against "the ravages of the elements"…

Fossils are just the preserved remains of ancient organisms. That in your mind that means they have to be stone means nothing to the rest of the world.

The claim of an age spectrum is made by the scientists (not the archaeologists: they send the pieces "out" for testing).

So you're saying that archaeologists are not scientists?

Your example of erosion occurring in exposed (probably sedimentary, it's cheaper) rock versus bones protected in a cave sheltered from wind and water action is apples and oranges.

No. Archaeologists don't usually do the lab work on their finds, that's all.

Utah is very much like Spain (same latitude too; hell, they made Spaghetti Westerns to LOOK like Utah). And the rock I am talking about is igneous, not sedimentary: I know the difference. Regardless, bone and teeth are far from impervious to the ravages of time and the "biological infestations" of this planet. I only mentioned the rocks to point out that in a span of time not even worthy of a *blip* you can see the effects of erosion: and any rocks far outlast dead biological material.

One of the most important aspects in getting something underground to be preserved and become a fossil -- as opposed to decaying away -- is rapid burial. There is no evidence of cave-dwelling hominins burying their garbage! If the bones and teeth were not put well underground right away (in the right kind of ground, i.e. sediment for best results), they would never have lasted long enough to remain intact as they are. They must be relatively recent, as I said, probably only a few thousand years ago.

Why people think that bones and teeth ought to routinely last a million or more years is a function of "faith" in the dating techniques rather than what anyone should otherwise expect….

If the bones and teeth were not put well underground right away (in the right kind of ground, i.e. sediment for best results), they would never have lasted long enough to remain intact as they are.

Really? So, are you an expert on the decay of teeth and bones that are deposited in caves?

Why people think that bones and teeth ought to routinely last a million or more years is a function of "faith" in the dating techniques rather than what anyone should otherwise expect….

How is one exceptional example routine?

Also, regardless of their (im)probability, extreme events can still occur.

Obviously this "new" radioactive decay dating method is not taking into account unknown variables: the "average" decay of samples is throwing the results off by a grundle of years.

"Radioactive decay" or the radioactive half-life of a given radioisotope is not affected by temperature, physical or chemical state, or any other influence of the environment.

Therefore it is a constant. There is no "average".

Carbon-14 dating is one such method. As is Rubidium-Strontium and Potassium-Argon.

Regards, the Gorb

So what you're saying, Mister Larson, is that you don't have anything to back up your assertions, you just BELIEVE its all wrong, and all the science is mistaken, we can pitch paleontology and osteology in the bin, because you said so?

Dude. That's so sad.

By the by, my archaeology professors do their own labwork. Including the ones who study early hominids.

_I_ personally don't do my own labwork, but I'm a historical archaeologist working for a CRM company, we pay people to do it so we can do more in the field.

link This page says, "…there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past." So evidently there are causes for variation in C14 levels, both in the atmosphere and the artifacts themselves. It appears, Gorb, that you might be mistaken on that.

Arexu, I am observing the claim of "one million years" as the age of actual bones and teeth, and calling myself highly skeptical about that. If they were showing a stone "casting" of a long decayed artifact I wouldn't be questioning the dating techniques: but this business of digging out a grundle of bones and teeth and dating them to an inconceivable age for such perishable artifacts just seems impossible to my observation. That cave is hardly an ideal environment for preservation, is it?

link Here's an in depth refutation of the accuracy and consensus of dating methods. The author has a strong Creationist bias, but seems very well informed. I haven't read through much of it yet, though.

Correct me if I am mistaken: but radiometeric dating, far more versatile and accurate than C14 dating, measures only the ages of rocks, not once-living material.

What "three dating techniques" would have been employed in dating this mandible and its teeth? I assume C14, and the contextual analysis was ONE; what were the other two techniques?

Thanks….

Creation Science? Dude. That's so sad.

Show me real science, from people who don't have an agenda to prove their own particular belief system. Can you do that?

No Doug, I'm not mistaken.

There is no scientific evidence which suggests that radioactive isotopes decayed at a different rate in the past.

You might as well state that the answer to Life the Universe and Everything is 42.

Nuclear physics is nuclear physics, math is math and there are constants in the universe.

Regards, the Gorb

Doug is just angling…his opinions are somewhat "interesting" in a non scientific sense. Check some of them out here at this behemoth of a discussion:

TMP link

Pete

This page says, "…there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past." So evidently there are causes for variation in C14 levels, both in the atmosphere and the artifacts themselves. It appears, Gorb, that you might be mistaken on that.

This is what happens when you trust a BS meter but have no actual training or knowledge of the subject to keep things in perspective.

Let me get this straight, your BS meter makes you sceptical of actual scientists doing actual science, but it is apparently not working at all, when you confuse a report from a creationist panel as peer reviewed research. Maybe you can return it to the store.

As stated before, on this thread and others, your opinions and beliefs do not matter. Neither do mine. This is science, the evidence matters. Cough up or shut up.

Ralph

Show me real science, from people who don't have an agenda to prove their own particular belief system. Can you do that?

And science isn't a belief system? the protagonists don't have investment in a current consensus? Or fighting it? "Human see human do."

All I questioned was the purported age of these bones and teeth, based on a logical questioning of how common it would be to have bones and teeth last longer than rocks: in a cave no less, where for the first grundle of years the bones and teeths would be exposed to the air, more or less, i.e. not in an ideal setting for preservation.

I then asked a direct question about radiometric dating, which went under the priggish radar of everyone who has responded since I asked said-question.

I also asked if anyone knew what "three dating techniques" were applied to this mandible which arrested my attention: again, under your collective priggish radars. I get the usual slurs about being an uneducated noob. Very, VERY helpful. Thanks so much!…

One of the methods:

link

Pete

Another:

link

Pete

I also asked if anyone knew what "three dating techniques" were applied to this mandible which arrested my attention: again, under your collective priggish radars.

As far as I have been able to determine, the following dating techniques were used on Homo Antecessor:

1997: Paleomagnetic – indicated they were older than 780K years (the last time the Earth's magnetic field reversed).

1999: Electron Spin Resonance and Uranium-series – both indicated the teeth dated to between 780K to 857K years.

Regards, the Gorb

I don't BELIEVE in actual bones surviving this earth's biological infestations for hundreds of thousands of years.

Sure, it's unlikely.

OTOH, we have recovered the frozen remains of mammoths from circa 40,000 years ago, in extremely intact condition. One order of magnitude for a bone fragment seems entirely possible.
-Kle.

Thanks Pete.

"EPR also has been used by archaeologists for the dating of teeth. Radiation damage over long periods of time creates free radicals in tooth enamel, which can then be examined by EPR and, after proper calibration, dated."

"After proper calibration", implies limited/qualified application to this; that's probably the rub.

"Uranium-thorium dating has an upper age limit of somewhat over 500,000 years, …"

Ahah. So the "1.1 to 1.2 million years old" claim is by contextual analysis, (read, "expectation"): since C14 dating isn't any good any further back than c. 60K years, and bones and teeth aren't rocks, therefore are not datable with radiometeric dating.

On radiometeric dating: "It is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration." link When we are talking about the asserted age of these bone and teeth artifacts, very little can be known about actual alteration, it seems to me.

I want to make myself more clear on my interest in this subject (since my linking to a couple of "creationist" Webpages has contaminated me in the eyes of some): I don't CARE how old the earth is, or how long life has been evolving here, or how long "mankind" has been schlepping around the planet. None of this matters to me, at, all. What matters is misapplied information: if the science is barking up the wrong tree I want to know about it NOW, not wait to be told later, "Sorry, sorry, we got it wrong; actually the bones and teeth were those of some marginalized subhuman species that was going extinct c. whathaveyou."

I have already spoken to my own observation, of how quickly things decay away: making ANY claim that bones and teeth are hundreds of thousands of years old seem utterly preposterous to me….

Gorb, Wiki says this: "A paleomagnetist is a scientist who studies the ancient magnetic field by measuring the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks and sediments, acquired at the time of their formation (remnant magnetization), then using methods similar to geomagnetism to determine what configuration of the Earth's magnetic field may have resulted in the observed orientation." How can this study have anything to do with organic bones and teeth?

Electron Spin Resonance and Uranium-series: isn't this yet another "rock dating" method? How is that applicable to picking up a mandible with surviving teeth and getting a date for it? Are they dating the cave instead? That seems daft: I could drop my watch in the cave, it could be found by an overly-enthusiastic noob, and the watch would be both dated to 1 million years BC, and inform the world that watches had been part of homo antecessor's set of tools.

link But evidently something like this can be used to date teeth, or try to at any rate: Notice the difficulty described in this abstract. Sounds veeerry dicey to me too.

link "Electron Spin Resonance dating is relatively new, some still consider it an experimental dating technique and is often used in combination with another dating method."

Anything "experimental" and "relatively new" is open to misuse and false reading. I am going to have to wait, like all of you. But in the meantime, I don't buy the asserted age of these artifacts….

One order of magnitude for a bone fragment seems entirely possible.

An exceptional case, maybe (found under perfect conditions for preservation, which this cave is not): but these homo antecessor artifacts are evidently ALL bones and teeth, not just an exceptional one or two finds….

I have already spoken to my own observation, of how quickly things decay away: making ANY claim that bones and teeth are hundreds of thousands of years old seem utterly preposterous to me….

Teeth and bones do contain significant amounts of calcium which is:
1. inorganic and
2. a mineral.

Tooth enamel is the hardest part of the human body and is composed of crystalline calcium phosphate.

So 'decay' does not occur to the structure of bones and teeth, only to the organic materials contained within them.

It takes chemical reaction to break down bones and teeth into their chemical components.

I gather that since these bones and teeth were excavated from several feet below the existent floor of the cave where they were found that chemical reaction was not a factor as they were not exposed to light, wind or water.

Regards, the Gorb

@Doug

But evidently something like this can be used to date teeth, or try to at any rate: Notice the difficulty described in this abstract. Sounds veeerry dicey to me too.

The difficulty had to do with marsupial enamel and dentin uptake of Uranium skewing the data and not the technique itself.

Anything "experimental" and "relatively new" is open to misuse and false reading.

Now you are creatively reading into the source material. For instance, "….some still consider it an experimental dating technique…" now becomes, "….Anything "experimental" and "relatively new" is open to misuse…". Therefore, the ESR technique is being misused.

See what I mean.

@Gorb

Tooth enamel is the hardest part of the human body and is composed of crystalline calcium phosphate.

Sorry to be anal here, but tooth enamel is calcuim hydroxyapatite. The rest of what you say is fine.

Ralph

The difficulty had to do with marsupial enamel and dentin uptake of Uranium skewing the data and not the technique itself.

I'm not calling the science into question: as some of you have said clearly, physics and chemistry don't lie. But the scientists can be mistaken about the application of the dating technique, or miss some essential variables, or miscalculate them, etc.

So teeth only disappear when some chemical reaction takes place. Do we have ANY actual teeth from dinosaurs, or only fossil "castings" where the teeth used to be? Do we have any actual teeth that predate any homo antecessor finds, is what I am getting at….

Why don't you take this to the Blyue Fezzy as per the FAQ.

? This is a SCIENCE topic, not that other thread which has denizens of the DH "corrupting" the conversation….

Shrug.

Hi

Doug, crumbing stone doesn't actually destroy the minerals of the stone. Which is why your first idea of "decay" is wrong.

the rest is predicated in misuing the language, much like the evolution thing with the terms "hypothesis and theory".

The idea is this, it isn't that any one method is imprecise or subject to error, it is that in this case, the various dating systems all agree. In that the WAY they might be wrong it different, then, using your logic, that the three agree is the point.

and there is the matter of scale. You are offended with million year old teeth and then bring up dinosaurs and their teeth. You realize, of course, that is a minimum difference of 65million years. When you die, you start falling apart, first you fill your vault with "juices". But for a long time in your time frame, you will be DNA matchable. Thus, one can examine the presumed remains of Butch Cassidy from 100years ago and link his mtDNA to relatives in Utan for a match. In a thousand years, not so much, in a million year…nope.

The ID guys do this odd construct, besides the concept of observer bias "I know god did it as in Genesis" and cherry pick facts and decry "gaps and inconsistancy"…but have zero problem with their source work having gaps and inconsistancies. All "inconsistency" is not created equal.

With these dating systems here, the variables and problems don't rise to the level of "either 6000 years ago or a million", but rather, 1million or 1.1 million.

Rocky

Do we have ANY actual teeth from dinosaurs, or only fossil "castings" where the teeth used to be? Do we have any actual teeth that predate any homo antecessor finds, is what I am getting at….

No to the actual dinosaur tooth question, but then the difference between 780K years and 65M years is much greater than today vs 780K years.

In 2005 it was thought that some actual T-Rex soft tissue was found inside a fossilized bone but subsequent study showed it to be remnants of a bacterial biofilm.

I am not able to answer your question about the oldest hominid tooth.

Sorry to be anal here, but tooth enamel is calcuim hydroxyapatite.

/pedantic_mode_on
Agreed, as hydroxyapatite IS a crystalline compound of calcium phosphate.
/pendantic_mode_off

Regards, the Gorb

I just don't BELIEVE…

Well, I don't think anything we say or type will change that, not while you have a set of ideas that you take to be true.

3.7 Million US citizens believe they have been abducted by aliens (4 a day for 100 years, yet never near any thing that could verify this)

Millions of people believe that diluting something 1000^30 times can cure them of illness.

Believe what you like. Belief does not make fact.

Have those creation scientists had their findings independently peer reviewed? Have they published their methedology? Have those reviewing failed to find any fault in the system?

Again please take Religion to the Blyue Fezzy. As per the FAQ.

So teeth only disappear when some chemical reaction takes place. Do we have ANY actual teeth from dinosaurs, or only fossil "castings" where the teeth used to be? Do we have any actual teeth that predate any homo antecessor finds, is what I am getting at…

Yes we do. Lots of it. With fossil vertebrates, we find a lot of bone that has not been altered much if at all.

This is an important answer: because if the fossil "layers" that predate homo antecessor, incontrovertibly, have examples of actual bone and teeth (not just fossilized "casts" of stone), then my questioning of the existence of homo antecessor bones and teeth becomes moot.

I can still have doubts about the over-all assertions of the age of extinct species: but probably I will remain skeptical more out of ignorance, or a lack of trust that science is taking all of the factors affecting the dating techniques into consideration….

Why don't you take this to the Blyue Fezzy as per the FAQ.

As long as the discussion remains on the stated topic, it is OK for TMP.

An exceptional case, maybe (found under perfect conditions for preservation, which this cave is not): but these homo antecessor artifacts are evidently ALL bones and teeth, not just an exceptional one or two finds….

I'm not speaking to the validity of these particular remains; for all I know this is another Piltdown Man.

I'm just pointing out that there's every reason to believe that one of your initial assertions is incorrect.
-Kle.

I guess I need to reread the FAQ again.

My initial assertion that bones and teeth don't last hundreds of thousands of years, and my skepticism in the application of dating techniques, are being "eroded" (hehe).

When in doubt, ASK many; and in the mouths of many witnesses (and their sources) one's ignorance shall be turned to knowledge….

Homo sapiens is older than Sol based on the original genetic drift model. Those guys revised their model of course. It was just unfortunate that it fit every other organism they tried it on . . .

Some more.

Blackie, would you care to elaborate on that? I don't understand what an "original genetic drift model" has to do with the sun!…

/pedantic_mode_on
Agreed, as hydroxyapatite IS a crystalline compound of calcium phosphate.
/pendantic_mode_off

Regards, the Gorb

Hi Gorb,

Allow me to be a bit pedantic too. Calcium phosphate is Ca3(Po4)2. Calcium Hydroxyapatite is a somewhat more complex hydroxylated crystal. The form found in tooth enamel and dentin is Ca5(Po4)3OH.

This is important since it explains why your dentist gives you fluoride. The fluoride ion replaces the hydroxide ion to form Calcium fluorapatite, Ca5(Po4)3F. This crystal is much more impervious to the lower pH environment created by Streptococcus Mutans. In other words, it prevents cavities!

Sorry for the detour.

Ralph

As this is not a level playing field, I yield.

As this is not a level playing field, I yield.

?