Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In other words, dating an archaeological finding gives you a lower bound of how long there has been human activity on the site. Finding something older does not contradict previous results - and there are good reasons why older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence.


> older things are more difficult to find so absence of evidence is not (strong) evidence of absence.

I agree but I'd expect some sort of logrithm though. But perhaps not.

As per the article Australia had the extinctions which line up with an earlier time period.

And as per the article evidently it's not PC to imply humans did it. There's more than science going on here.

I just want a real independent expert to comment not someone with an agenda like PoP.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: