Just 7000 years ago, according to Rhode (other estimates put them between 5000 and 15000 year ago, and the most recent ancestor of all Europeans (and white americans) around 1000 AD.
Which is just a measure of the mixing of genes.
Curiously none of the genetic information really says where or when these people lived, and the chronologies developed from DNA are only relative relationships. The time is estimated made based on assumed rates of evolution being relatively constant in these periods and assumed correlations with certain fossils.
We don't really know for sure whether mtDNA-eve correlates better with 195kyr old Homo sapien skull than yDNA-adam does, or how far apart in time they were.
Now if we had a 150kyr male or female fossil with soft tissue and extractable DNA we might be able to get a better estimate. My recollection from the discussion of Neanderthal DNA comparisons to sapiens DNA was that the fossil DNA records did not go back that far.
You could probably estimate a time baseline from the N/s DNA comparisons to compare to fossil records for when common ancestry was likely, but this is still an estimate pending further information.
quote:"We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, and that's where the Herto fossils fit," said paleoanthropologist Tim White, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-leader of the team that excavated and analyzed the discovery site. "Now, the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence."
Howell added that these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed.
Color for emPHAsis. Note that this is long after hominids developed means to communicate technology, an ability shared by Neanders and Sapiens.
it would appear by the archeological record that written language began 5,000 years ago. they have not to this day, unearthed anything older...so my view is that it is as old as the 5,000 odd years that they say it is.
This is just the development of an alphabet, not of communication, it is just a way to simplify written communication by reducing the number of images needed to convey a message.
Re: Communication is communicaiton, it isn't limited to morse code, _ _ _ ... ,
Hello again Peg,
i see where you are going with this...i was referring to language in terms of, the written word.
And what I showed you was a wall covered with words, words documenting the natural history of the environment around them. On the other hand you can have a wall covered with alphabet marks, but that conveys no information. Thus using alphabet does not mean conveying information.
What you are really talking about is symbolism - the ability to represent something with a symbol, and then use that symbol to discuss to object. These paintings do that.
im not sure i would equate the use of tools as something that determines modern man for the reason that we can watch animals today use things as tools. the zoo in melbourne has a particular low land gorilla that pulls sticks off bush's to hit other gorillas with and to dig holes in the ground.
Two problems with this:
(1) Apes have, and understand, language too. We can communicate with them -- see Koko for starters.
(2) I'm not talking about making tools, but about communicating the technology to make tools, so that not only the single low-land gorilla knows how to do it. That this was done by Homo habilis is shown by having several work sites at each location where tools were made.
Yes, paintings are a form of communication too, but these paintings are quite young really...if the carbon 14 dating method that they used to date them is accurate
which is debatable.
Yes the paintings, as I said, are 10,000 to 15,000 years old. This is well within the area where carbon 14 dating can provide very reliable results, particularly where the carbon is from burned organic material -- as is used in the paintings.
You will note, that as you have initiated this line of debate you have three options:
(1) participate in the thread linked above and show how unreliable carbon dating is with evidence and facts, something no other creationist has been able to do at this time.
(2) honestly admit that you know absolutely nothing about carbon dating, and you are saying this because you read some creationists sites that make this claim, and you trust them even though you know squat about the subject, and are therefore completely unable to tell when they are lying.
(3) pretend that you don't have to do either and continue to make false claims about valid science. This is the usual creationist response.