16 votes

Early Humans Lived in China 1.7 Million Years Ago

An extinct species of tool-making humans apparently occupied a vast area in China as early as 1.7 million years ago, researchers say.

The human lineage evolved in Africa, with now-extinct species of humans dispersing away from their origin continent more than a million years before modern humans did. Scientists would like to learn more about when and where humans went to better understand what drove human evolution.

Researchers investigated the Nihewan Basin, which lies in a mountainous region about 90 miles (150 kilometers) west of Beijing. It holds more than 60 sites from the Stone Age, with thousands of stone tools found there since 1972 — relatively simple types, such as stone flakes altogether known as the Oldowan. Researchers suspect these artifacts belonged to Homo erectus, "thought to be ancestral to Homo sapiens," Hong Ao, a paleomagnetist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Xi'an, told LiveScience. [Photos: New Human Ancestors from Kenya]

The exact age of these sites was long uncertain. To find out, Ao and his colleagues analyzed the earth above, below and in which stone tools at the Shangshazui site in the Nihewan Basin were found. The tools in question were stone blades potentially used for cutting or scraping.

http://www.livescience.com/38917-early-humans-lived-in-china...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

lmao. scientists are some of

lmao. scientists are some of the dumbest people I know.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Argumentum ad Auctoritatem

Thus endeth the lesson in fallacious argumentation. Thanks for the examples!

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

agriculture as in farming?

You need to answer why they would need to grow crops if their vegetable and fruit were plentiful. You also need to answer why they would practice animal husbandry if it was easier for them to just follow their food supply.
The Plains tribes didn't practice farming because they followed the buffalo herd. Nomadic people have no use to grow crops since they don't live in permanent settlements.
It's like you're going after Moses for not farming during their 40 years exile in the desert. There were reasons he didn't set up camp and farm but since no one wrote down what those humanoids were doing 1.7 years ago we don't have that luxury of what you think of as a rational explanation.
I actually think your post irrational and would love to know exactly what you are trying to prove.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

GoodSamaritan's picture

And you know their food supply was plentiful

1.7 million years ago how?

It's never easier or more efficient to hunt than to raise animals or plant crops. If that were true, Oscar Mayer would be chasing their oinkers instead of farming them and Monsanto would be gathering their seeds in the forest.

History check - the Plains Indians depended on agriculture for much of their livelihood.

Moses has nothing to do with this since he was given a specific mission that didn't include time for farming.

If you think my post is irrational and have no clue what I'm trying to prove then I suggest you reread my first post several times. The OP has put forth an article with specific, ridiculous claims as if they are facts. I stopped believing in fairy tales and The Flying Probability Monster's Magic Wand a long time ago.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

OK

I have seen videos of chimpanzees using primitive tools, I'm sure tool use came before organized agriculture. Agriculture is only superior if the resources are fairly limited. With abundant resources, tools would have been used for defense, harvesting, skinning. hunting and the shaping of bone, wood and stone. All a completely logical progression for a hunting and gathering culture. Besides, how do we know when agriculture was really discovered?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Have you ever seen chimpanzees

use weapons to bring down a mammoth in a coordinated attack? Do you believe that's easier and safer than putting seeds in the ground?

Do you believe evolutionists when they tell you that humans have been around for 1,700,000 years but don't believe them when they tell you that agriculture has only been around for 10,000 years?

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Have I seen chimpanzees in a coordinated attack

on a mammoth? Sure did, it happened in the 2007 primary elections!
But seriously, you have a very valid point. The Paleo-anthropologists and the evolutionists represent their theories as facts and people are expected to simply believe their speculations, especially if the idea is presented by a PHD level academic. I would have to agree with you, agriculture must be much older than 10,000 years if people were around for 1.7 million years.

Many times they reject the evidence when it doesn't fit with their preconceived ideas or the theories of the establishment academics. Another good example is the "savanna" theory. Elaine Morgan presented a very valid alternative theory and rather than discuss the evidence, she was attacked and criticized in the science community.

Just like Ron Paul was attacked by the political establishment for proposing alternate ideas to our foreign and financial policies. Coordinated chimpanzee attacks is a good way to put it.

They are not modern humans; they are a different species.

The article states it was homo erectus. We are homo sapiens. They had much smaller brain sizes than modern humans.

Love thy enemy.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Excellent reply

+1

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Farming and Agriculture Eluded This Species...

We don't know the intelligence of this species. We don't know at what point during evolution our species neared it's current intelligence level.

It could be that 10-20k years ago there was an intelligence breakthrough in our species.

But your suspicions do not have to inform you. You can look at science and evidence critically and skeptically, and your intuitions will be moot.

Science has several ways to date specimens, and they are all backed by the same science that "suspiciously" lead to your car's combustion engine and your microprocessor in your phone and PC.

So your "suspicions" are neither here nor there.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Like I said...

I'd love to hear a rational explanation.

This isn't it --> "We don't know the intelligence of this species."

They knew how to make tools and yet supposedly required nearly 1.7 million years to discover what every 1st grader knows about seeds.

I don't have any "suspicions" about the credibility of the evolutionary assertion that it took people with enough intelligence to make tools nearly 1.7 million years to learn how to grow their own food.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Many animals use tools. No

Many animals use tools. No animals other then humans have been able to develop farming.

Also, the species that is in question here IS NOT HUMANS (aka homo sapiens). This is a predecessor to our species that called homo erectus that had averaged 30% smaller brain size compared to modern humans as evidenced from archaeological skull evidence.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

You are "suspicious"

That is exactly what you are; suspicious of this claim.

It may boggle the mind that our species went thousands of years before inventing the wheel; and every 1st grader knows how a wheel works, and you can see round objects that roll in nature.

GoodSamaritan's picture

You are exactly wrong

Suspicion implies uncertainty, but I am absolutely certain that the claim is based on bogus science resulting from unfounded assumptions.

Stating that humans existed for thousands of years before the invention of the wheel is an assertion without proof.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

And what is your certainty in

And what is your certainty in this case based on other then wild and unfounded claims?

You have provided ZERO evidence and are unable to back ANY of your claims.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

GoodSamaritan's picture

It's simple, really...

I don't believe in fairy tales.

Despite the wild and unfounded claims of evolutionists, The Flying Probability Monster didn't create life with his magic wand over billions of years. I know this because:

- life does not come from non-life
- information does not come from chaos
- species are genetically limited
- natural processes cannot produce homochirality
- all cells contain irreducibly complex machines
- self-replicating life forms require at least 1,000 genes
- mutations never produce new genetic information

And many more reasons why it is unwise to trust in people who teach a worldview that is based upon smoke, mirrors, and fraud.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Here Ya Go

I don't know if you invented The Flying Probability Monster, but this is the first place I heard it. I created a meme for it here: http://www.dailypaul.com/321369/26-of-americans-do-not-know-...

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

GoodSamaritan's picture

Yes, I invented it

to characterize the monumental absurdity of defending the general theory of evolution. I was inspired by The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The creature you drew is pretty funny but I can't make out what the imagined line of Man is walking on. Is that an arm in the lower left?

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I got it from this: Which of

I got it from this:

Which of course comes from this:

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Forbidden Archaeology

See 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Cremo and Thompson for vast amounts of archaeological evidence of human (modern) presence on Earth for many millions of years. The Laetoli footprints in Kenya are one of many dozens of fascinating examples of human presence millions of years ago. My guess is that ancient civilizations endured for many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years virtually unchanged. And ancient ruins speak of technologies lost to modern man, as well as knowledge itself.

http://www.slamonlineph.com/w

http://www.slamonlineph.com/wp-content/uploads/9cef162d_hist...

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

yeah right

Starting with just two people living 1.7 million years ago at a population increase of 2% a year means how many people alive?

Accounting for crazy die off's and pestalence say its only 1/4 % increase ... well guess what ... that a whole hell of a lot of people.

dig in the middle east and what do you find ??? Complex civilizations ... sorry but this is just bulloks.

Patriot News
http://redpillpost.com
*
Stand up For your Civil Rights
http://SueBadCops.com

Correction: The article

Correction:

The article above does not refer to humans (aka homo sapiens), the species in question is an earlier now extinct species called homo erectus. This species is recognized as an ancestor to our own, however (evolutionary speaking) much more primitive with a brain size of only 65-70% of modern humans.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

"as early"

"as early as 1.7 million years ago"

That's hilarious. The earth has only been around about 6,000 years and evolution has never happened.

Read the first few chapters of the book of Genesis - it's God's word from the very first verse and Jesus quoted it as history. I'll take His word over the foolish speculation of someone who wasn't there.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

lol.

thanks for the laugh!

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

I'm with you Mr. Spock. maybe

I'm with you Mr. Spock. maybe a little more than 6000 years but not very much. 8 to 10,000? maybe.

Wahhh hahaha!

Six thousand years?

Now that is comedy.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

How can one be so pious?

Respectfully speaking, to state your opinion is one thing, but to be so positive about something which there can be no actual proof is intellectual dishonesty. You were born into a belief system like the rest of us, that does not mean it is the one right belief system and everyone else is wrong. Will the billions of people who never had the opportunity to believe in your belief system be punished for all eternity? Sounds strangely cruel to me. I mean no disrespect at all, i just find the tone of your comment to be rather silly because I happen to know you're not joking.

Back at you

" to be so positive about something which there can be no actual proof is intellectual dishonesty"

Evolution happened long ago and far away and we will not be able to see it again because it takes a thousand years to happen.

The only "evidence" for evolution is fossils, and that is pretty weak against the Bible because all the fossils happened because of flooding, and the Bible speaks about a rather large flood in genesis.

Every dating method has holes in it a mile wide.

If evolution is true show me. I want to see something have a baby that is not like itself. I want to see a fish have a lizard, or a lizard a bird or a bird a mammal. I want to see bacteria have a virus or a virus have fungus. Show me something EVOLVING.

I respect your doubt about

I respect your doubt about anything people want you to believe. That was my whole point, I don't proclaim to know the absolute truth and I do not think there is one right way. I tend to be expressive whenever I encounter the idea that there is one right way to live because I intensely disagree.