This new science news piece has been making the rounds:
What follows is most of the article, truncated a bit by me. The point I make here is only to highlight another example about how “conclusions” of “scientist” regarding the interpretations of ancient findings have once again been demonstrated to be false or at least highly questionable. As it should be. Science should always be an endeavor of continual learning, and therefore, as we learn more, older ideas will be overturned now and again. However, in that context, I wish to level criticism at those who constantly push contemporary scientific “belief” as “proof” against the Bible. As evidenced in this article, what scientists THINK the fossils are telling us is ALWAYS tentative, until new information becomes available to modify what we thought we knew. But when these two systems of knowledge conflict with one another, science does not checkmate the Bible. It’s just saying, “Maybe.” A person who wishes to hold on to their faith that the Bible remains true despite what appears to be evidence to the contrary is well within the bounds of reason in doing so.
“A new study of the 37,000-year old remains of the ‘Deep Skull’ – the oldest modern human discovered in island South-East Asia – has revealed this ancient person was not related to Indigenous Australians, as had been originally thought.
“The Deep Skull was also likely to have been an older woman, rather than a teenage boy.
“Our analysis overturns long-held views about the early history of this region,” says Associate Professor Curnoe, Director of the UNSW Palaeontology, Geobiology and Earth Archives Research Centre (PANGEA).“‘We’ve found that these very ancient remains most closely resemble some of the Indigenous people of Borneo today, with their delicately built features and small body size, rather than Indigenous people from Australia.’
…“In 1960, Brothwell concluded the Deep Skull belonged to an adolescent male and represented a population of early modern humans closely related, or even ancestral, to Indigenous Australians, particularly Tasmanians.“‘Brothwell’s ideas have been highly influential and stood largely untested, so we wanted to see whether they might be correct after almost six decades,’ says Curnoe.
“‘Our study challenges many of these old ideas. It shows the Deep Skull is from a middle-aged female rather than a teenage boy, and has few similarities to Indigenous Australians. Instead, it more closely resembles people today from more northerly parts of South-East Asia.'”
“The Deep Skull has also been a key fossil in the development of the so-called ‘two-layer’ hypothesis in which South-East Asia is thought to have been initially settled by people related to Indigenous Australians and New Guineans, who were then replaced by farmers from southern China a few thousand years ago.
“The new study challenges this view by showing that – in Borneo at least – the earliest people to inhabit the island were much more like Indigenous people living there today rather than Indigenous Australians, and suggests long continuity through time.
“It also suggests that at least some of the Indigenous people of Borneo were not replaced by migrating farmers, but instead adopted the new farming culture when it arrived around 3,000 years ago.
“‘Our work, coupled with recent genetic studies of people across South-East Asia, presents a serious challenge to the two-layer scenario for Borneo and islands further to the north,’ says Curnoe.
“‘We need to rethink our ideas about the region’s prehistory, which was far more complicated than we’ve appreciated until now.'”