
Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco - yonderboy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html
======
apeace
> Since 2004, Dr. Hublin and his colleagues have been working through layers
> of rocks on a desert hillside at Jebel Irhoud.

I have so much respect for archeologists. Spending over a decade in one spot,
literally on hands and knees, digging and meticulously sifting through
anything that is found, is to me the epitome of dedication to a craft.

But another part of me thinks: there must be a better way!

I know that expeditions often hire bands of locals to help them dig and sift.
But does anybody know, have there ever been any advances in this field to make
the process go faster, or require less human toiling?

~~~
gvd
It's called post docs

~~~
ohazi
> or require less human toiling?

post-docs are humans too...

~~~
eric_the_read
_technically_ , yes...

~~~
perseusprime11
Well... It depends...

------
casefields
Links to full papers:

The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of
the Middle Stone Age: [http://docdro.id/RMXnFTW](http://docdro.id/RMXnFTW)

New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo
sapiens: [http://docdro.id/gi2Gvzo](http://docdro.id/gi2Gvzo)

------
hasbroslasher
Methodology question: why is there no mention of radiocarbon dating? It's one
of our most reliable methods, it works on bones, and it doesn't have the same
feel as "they used this other random technique and magically got 300,000 years
old so lets go with that".

~~~
tqkxzugoaupvwqr
As far as I know, the radiocarbon method is only reliable up to 50,000 years
ago. Past that you need other dating methods.

~~~
genieyclo
Why?

~~~
yongjik
Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. After 57,300 years, only 1/1024 of
the original carbon 14 will remain.

After 300,000 years, about 1.73 * 10^-16 of the original carbon will remain,
which is obviously too little.

~~~
jessriedel
> which is obviously too little

To fill in the detail: Carbon-14 has an abundance of about 1 part in 10^12,
and one gram of carbon contain about 10^23 carbon atoms, so about 10^11 C-14
atoms. Every single C-14 atom will have decayed in about 200k years.

------
freecodyx
i am just happy to see my country Morocco in hacker news. it means also that
we are the origin of humanity haha

~~~
gerdesj
Only for this week! Last week's New Scientist contained an article that had
hom. sap. being of eastern european origin rather than african. There was
quite a lot of controversy and conjecture though.

(IANAA) The archaeological record is sketchy at best for our prehistory and
huge amounts of conjecture is based on very fragmentary evidence. Entire (sub)
species are known only from a single bone or a few teeth.

Anyway - cheers to Morocco - cradle of humanity, for now 8)

~~~
flukus
It wasn't a homo sapien in Europe, it was a much earlier hominid, ~8 million
years earlier.

------
matt_wulfeck
The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help
wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and
how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

~~~
nether
We live in a computer simulation.

~~~
jansho
No we got spaceship-wrecked.

~~~
reitanqild
Any remains found?

~~~
jansho
Shrugs, it was biodegradable.

------
camus2
But that's what exciting about science. It doesn't claim to come with ready
made answers about our surroundings, humans discover things on their own.

Sometimes humans get things wrong, and there is no shame in being wrong with
science, it's part of the process, unlike "other domains" where people can or
will never admin they are wrong, while still using the product of science
every day, in contradiction to their own "science".

~~~
jansho
I don't know, the inability to admit being wrong is a human trait and can
apply to anyone, including scientists and believers.

Why does everyone think that there's only two "origin" stories and they're
both mutually exclusive? I believe in evolution, and I'm a monotheist. I don't
reach this conclusion very easily. Why not evolution as God's* way of creating
things.

*I hesitate to use this word because of the baggage it carries, but somehow Designer or Creator doesn't seem sufficient here...

~~~
nkrisc
Why not evolution as "God's" way of creating things? Well, why not anything?
You can posit anything you want, can you test it? Is there evidence to support
it?

Why monotheist? How do you know for certain there aren't more gods? How did
you arrive at that conclusion? Can you test it? Could you admit your belief in
monotheism could possibly be mistaken?

We can ask "why not anything?" all day and not get anywhere so it's more
worthwhile to focus on the things for which evidence can actually be gathered.
Evolution is testable and there exists much evidence of it occurring in the
past. The other origin, not so much.

~~~
jansho
Well,

"Why not" is one way to keep an open mind. Why not this world in a multiverse.
Why not this world in a simulation. Why not a simulation within a simulation.
Why not a programmer who wrote the code for this world - and how is this any
stranger than our other what ifs.

We're human, we don't just operate on facts - we rely on educated assumptions
that we make, some of which may be strong enough to translate into belief.
This may be driven by evidence, or just our humanly intuition and experiences.

But this is also human: The beauty of science is that _it adapts as new
evidence is revealed_ \- someone here said this earlier. _[No final answer]
but rather based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is
consistent with the evidence available at that time._

It's human because it depends on _our_ perspective; where we are in time,
whether we find the truths (evidence) or not, and whether we are capable of
perceiving all truths. Science is continually evolving in _our minds_ \- or
more accurately, in the collective minds over time. Can the great jigsaw
puzzle ever be solved? That's not the aim of science, as it is proud to point
out, but it argues that whatever picture we come up with, it's justified as
long as it's based on the current collection of evidence - _this is a
philosophy._

And I'm personally not satisfied with this, as a way of life. Why don't I
deserve the truth in its entirety, in my lifetime? You would ask, why do I
even question whether I deserve or not? I guess it's a human thing. But for
me, as a person, I intuit closest to monotheism. Monotheism provides a
framework where anything is possible, but bound by the belief in the Great
Programmer who can do whatever he wants. It can work for anyone, regardless of
their time and place; and for me as a person fortunate to live in an advanced
age, I can accept evolution, because I think it's pretty robust and who am I
to question how he creates the world. This for me is more liberating than
having to accept whatever picture current evidence is showing - actually, I
look forward to witness more development. It's also quite a comfortable
position to be in; if science does show that we live in a simulation, that's
OK, if it shows that we live in a multiverse, that's cool too.

~~~
Myrmornis
The thing is it's just not very interesting what you "intuit". You're free to
do it, but it's of no consequence. Some things that are interesting are (1)
observations of reality that allow us to choose among competing hypotheses for
how reality works and what has happened in reality, and (2) such testable
hypotheses.

~~~
jansho
If there is a god, of course there are consequences. (This opens up another
mess of a rabbit hole so I'll stop here!)

You're right, I "intuit" it because it's unifying and seems to cover all
bases, and therefore quite a comfortable position to be in. I also "intuit" it
because of the vast indescribable complexity of this world, and it's not just
the equations but the thrill, humility and beauty of it all is too much that I
_have_ to accept that it doesn't just happen.

But in my earlier point, I wanted to show that a belief in a 'Great
Programmer' is not incompatible with a belief in science. I am free to be
interested in those two things you mentioned, but I can also attribute the
wonders to a god. In a way this is like enjoying an unfinished picture/ story,
but knowing how the thread begins and ends: everything comes from him, and
everything returns to him. It's like sitting in the privileged seat to witness
a slice of this drama. And for me, the least I can do is to acknowledge the
great auteur behind it.

------
atroll
Morocco is a great country with great resources, too bad its king takes most
of them and sells them for his own benefit.

~~~
freecodyx
why the down votes ? i can confirm he is right

~~~
prawn
Because it's not relevant to the story or discussion?

