Knm er 1470 dating sites

KNM-ER | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

knm er 1470 dating sites

KNM-ER Image of KNM-ER , skull, 3/4 view. KNM-ER Exhibit Item. Nickname: Site: Koobi Fora, Kenya. Year of Discovery: Discovered by . Proconsul africanus KNM-ER KNM-ER OH 5 SK 48 A lively debate over the dating of ensued (Lewin, ; Johanson and Edey, ;. Site (Name) absolute dating (radioisotope dating). Specimen Data ( Morphology). KNM-ER has a cranial capacity of about cc which is another habilis it was clear that by comparisont KNM-ER was not.

And much of it stems from a controversial discovery that the Leakeys made 40 years ago.

KNM-ER 1813

In their new findings, the Leakey team says that none of their newest fossil discoveries match erectus, so they had to be from another flat-faced relatively large species with big teeth. The new specimens have "a really distinct profile" and thus they are "something very different," said Meave Leakey, describing the study published online Wednesday in Nature.

What these new bones did match was an old fossil that Meave and her husband Richard helped find in that was baffling.

knm er 1470 dating sites

That skull, calledjust did not fit with Homo erectus, the Leakeys contended. They said it was too flat-faced with a non-jutting jaw. They initially said it was well more than 2. It turned out to be 2 million years old. Meave Leakey left with Cyprian Nyete right and other members of the field crew reconstructing pieces of specimen KNM-ER at the field camp in Now that we have figured out that there is a new member of the genus Homo, the fact that creationists keep using this 40 year old argument, goes back to the fact that they don't listen As the archeology info site states emphasis mine: The specimen was originally thought to be around 2.

This inaccuracy was caused by contamination of older material, and the tuff is now know to be much younger. The specimen is now thought to date to approximately 1.

Though this date is now generally accepted for the specimen, the geologists who orignally dated the KBS tuff continue to argue for a later date for the specimen. While they admit the dating of the volcanic tuff was inaccurate, This page doesn't quote anything afterand the paper with Leakey et al does figure out the problem with the Tuff.

One other problem that many people ignorant of human evolution fail to understand is that it's not a linear path. As a previous link mentions, several hominid species co-existed.

Some became extinct, and some didn't.

knm er 1470 dating sites

This is where Leakey actually made a great new discovery. Again, it's all part of the self correcting mechanism of science. Something was off, and at first they didn't know. Further investigation and scientific methodologies actually gave them clues, and then they had to revise what they thought they knew. This is the accepted scientific method, not blindly accepting the first thought that may come to one's mind.

A paper that details a better understanding of the family tree was published by Bernard Wood one of the men that help assemble the skull with Leakey: Discussing the radiometric dating as it was understood in the s compared to the s and beyond, Dr Groves of Tufts university relays some information on KNM-ER that may be relevant: White et al wrote of Aramis: The date was also, at one point, queried by Kappelman and FleagleNature, They then go on to explain in some detail why Kappelman et al.

The paper was illustrated by slides of the site and some of the fossil material.

Homo rudolfensis - Wikipedia

Lubenow and Dr. This work is a creationist assessment of many human and primate fossils. And while I agree with Dr.

knm er 1470 dating sites

In "Bones of Contention" Dr. And if skull KNM-ER belonged to a human child then we would expect it to have a smaller brain capacity. However based on dentition, and other features we know that the skull is not that of an infant child.

knm er 1470 dating sites

In fact this individual was almost fully-grown. Lubenow says this in his book: Lubenow says that Skull is actually a human skull that has been horribly reconstructed in such a way it looks like an ape-man. I agree that the reconstruction is horrendous and incorrect. But the skull is not human. This is a period in the "Evolutionists time frame" before dinosaurs were around. So according to Lubenow, not only is this skull fully human, coming before all the alleged evolutionary ancestors to man, but by the Evolutionists own time scale this human skull was deposited before the dinosaurs were around.

Knowing this goes against everything evolutionists believe, they scrambled and changed the date of the skull to fit in-between apes and man. This is not how science is supposed to work.