www.sciencealert.com
That article says nothingModern Humans Thrived While Neanderthals Disappeared, But Not Due to Our Brains
Why did humans take over the world while our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, became extinct? It's possible we were just smarter, but there's surprisingly little evidence that's true.
it says the earth is a lot older than 6000 years, which was the point of the whole thread. Its right there in the headline, moron.
All the article did is to keep repeating the words may have, might have and we do not know
it gives evidence the earth isnt 6000 years old, science moron.
The article gives nothing, your opinion was determined long before you read the article. Kind of like your low IQ
sure it does. it makes statements of fact that contradict a 6000 year old earth.
Humans with no allegiance to God have devised questionable methods for dating the ages of the earliest human remains. The ages calculated by those questionable methods are not irrefutably settled scientific facts. One evidence of the unsettled nature of secularist dating methods has been revealed in the debates among researchers as to how long ago the first humans lived (the length of time in human history from the date of the first human (MtEve) and the present.
Humans with no allegiance to God have devised questionable methods for dating the ages of the earliest human remains. The ages calculated by those questionable methods are not irrefutably settled scientific facts. One evidence of the unsettled nature of secularist dating methods has been revealed in the debates among researchers as to how long ago the first humans lived (the length of time in human history from the date of the first human (MtEve) and the present.
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A statistical analysis published in 1982 was taken as evidence for recent African origin (a hypothesis which at the time was competing with Asian origin of H. sapiens). ...
After more than 40 revisions of the draft, the manuscript was submitted to Nature in late 1985 or early 1986[13] and published on 1 January 1987. The published conclusion was that all current human mtDNA originated from a single population from Africa, at the time dated to between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago. ...
Shortly after the 1987 publication, criticism of its methodology and secondary conclusions was published.[23] Both the dating of mt-Eve and the relevance of the age of the purely matrilineal descent for population replacement were subjects of controversy during the 1990s;[24][25][26][27] Alan Templeton (1997) asserted that the study did "not support the hypothesis of a recent African origin for all of humanity following a split between Africans and non-Africans 100,000 years ago" and also did "not support the hypothesis of a recent global replacement of humans coming out of Africa." ...
In 1999, Krings et al. eliminated problems in molecular clocking postulated by Nei (1992)[29] when it was found that the mtDNA sequence for the same region was substantially different from the MRCA relative to any human sequence. ...
Newsweek reported on Mitochondrial Eve based on the Cann et al. study in January 1988, under a heading of "Scientists Explore a Controversial Theory About Man's Origins". The edition sold a record number of copies. ...
Could our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) lived as recently as 5,000 years ago? Scientists are still debating that possibility.
The human MRCA. The time period that human MRCA lived is unknown. Rohde et. al put forth a "rough guess" that the MRCA could have existed 5000 years ago; however, the authors state that this estimate is "extremely tentative, and the model contains several obvious sources of error, as it was motivated more by considerations of theoretical insight and tractability than by realism."[53] Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors of all humans alive today. However, such a late date is difficult to reconcile with the geo ...
You make claims that have not been irrefutably proven. Scientific debate continues and there is not even closely the amount of settled science as some people seem to think.
nothing is ever "irrefutably proven" in science, moron.
There is no settled science that the Earth is 6000 years old and nowhere in the bible does it say this. it is just an old wives tale for people like you
lol and whats the point ?Modern Humans Thrived While Neanderthals Disappeared, But Not Due to Our Brains
Why did humans take over the world while our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, became extinct? It's possible we were just smarter, but there's surprisingly little evidence that's true.
There is no scientific proof that the earth is as old as secularists assume.
