Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 8:38 PM
343 online now:
jar, Modulous (AdminModulous) (2 members, 341 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,959 Year: 27,565/21,208 Month: 1,478/1,714 Week: 321/365 Day: 48/42 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Home sapiens older than we realized
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 1 of 35 (811421)
06-07-2017 3:52 PM


From the Guardian:

Oldest Homo sapiens bones ever found shake foundations of the human story

Summary: It was believed that Homo sapiens first appeared in East Africa 200,000 years ago. Over the last few years, remains of five members of H. sapiens have been recovered from a mine in Morocco. They have now been dated to be 300,000 years old!

If these results hold up, there is going to have to be some revising about the origins of our species.


Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. Billy Bragg

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by caffeine, posted 06-07-2017 4:45 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2017 4:48 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 4:48 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2 of 35 (811422)
06-07-2017 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
06-07-2017 3:52 PM


Summary: It was believed that Homo sapiens first appeared in East Africa 200,000 years ago. Over the last few years, remains of five members of H. sapiens have been recovered from a mine in Morocco. They have now been dated to be 300,000 years old!

I have been thinking and reading a lot about this subject over the last couple of years, and my thoughts have changed quite a bit. In particular, I've come to the conclusion that our taxonomic terms confuse more than they elucidate when it comes to human evolution.

Take the above. You say that H. sapiens was believed to appear in East Africa 200,000 years ago, but is that really the case? It's worth remembering that it has at various times been common to refer to neanderthals as H. sapiens neandertalensis, and some workers still do so today. So, by this classification, there were H. sapiens in Europe more than 250,000 years ago.

But the article authors are using a more narrow sense of H. sapiens. They're equating it to 'anatomically modern humans'. But this is another problematic term. One of the most obvious features of AMHs is the prominent chin, but looking at the reconstructed skull from Jebel Irhoud in the article you link to, my amateur eye can not discern much of a skull.

So it seems what's really being announced here (assuming the reconstruction is acurate) is that there were people in Morocco 300,000 years ago who were not quite like us, but looked a bit more like us than Neanderthals. Which when you think about it is not at all surprising. It's only the arbitrary labels that make it so.

I have come to the conclusion that asking where modern humans arose is an essentially meaningless question; now we know from ancient genomes than Neanderthals and other populations in Asia contributed to the modern genome. The more appropriate question is 'how were the populations of Pleistocene humans structured, and how did that change'. This might be a question that doesn't lead to as catchy headlines, but it also makes more sense.

(Apologies for any lack of clarity in the above - bit drunk).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2017 3:52 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 4:55 PM caffeine has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 3 of 35 (811423)
06-07-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
06-07-2017 3:52 PM


Paper is available in Nature
The Guardian article mentions two papers published in Nature and links to one of them.

New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens

The paper is behind a paywall, but the link in the Guardian will get you past it.


Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. Billy Bragg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2017 3:52 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 4 of 35 (811424)
06-07-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
06-07-2017 3:52 PM


Actually that just seems to close the gap between H. sapiens and H. heidelberensis

quote:
Human Evolution


Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2017 3:52 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 5 of 35 (811425)
06-07-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by caffeine
06-07-2017 4:45 PM


Take the above. You say that H. sapiens was believed to appear in East Africa 200,000 years ago, but is that really the case? It's worth remembering that it has at various times been common to refer to neanderthals as H. sapiens neandertalensis, and some workers still do so today. So, by this classification, there were H. sapiens in Europe more than 250,000 years ago.

The oldest "anatomically modern" fossils I am aware of prior to this find is 160,000 years ago:

quote:
160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans

"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."


It's all good.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by caffeine, posted 06-07-2017 4:45 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 06-08-2017 1:17 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 35 (811426)
06-07-2017 5:59 PM


Transitional
I'm going with RAZD. The intermediate chin, slightly larger brow ridge, and intermediately sloped forehead seems to be ancestral to anatomically modern humans. Just for comparison, here is an AMH:


  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3830
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 35 (811428)
06-07-2017 7:18 PM


Thread Copied from Links and Information Forum
Thread copied here from the Home sapiens older than we realized thread in the Links and Information forum.
    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1010
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 35 (811433)
06-07-2017 9:30 PM


I shocked an Ethiopian immigrant just recently.
This was somebody that I had talked to off and on for months, but I told him that he was obviously a Semitic Ethiopian ( he never said where he was from, but Semitic Ethiopians have very distinct and unmistakable faces ) months later during a conversation. This was no big deal at all.

But he then started talking about alot of issues ( and they were nothing I really brought up ,they seemed to be taking my language questions in quite a far off direction into human history ) and one comment he made was something like, "supposedly the ancestor of man was discovered in the town I was born in " , and he was really talking about a large ton of historical issues ( I noticed he was wrapping history into a Christian outline though he covered a ton of stuff ) .

When I got to talk, I mentioned that he was probably from Afar.

He was about as shocked as a genuinely shocked person could be. He was wondering how I knew because he considered Afar a small town that he never mentions to people. He earlier said that he was from a much larger city that he lived in when in Ethiopia.

I told him that he gave it away with a small line he threw in earlier and then explained that this discovery is a very important piece of evolutionary history - very much well known. The Latin name was well known ( southern ape of Afar or AustraloPithecus Afarensis ) .

He didn't seem to know just how much it is seen as not just another find and not just another so so theory.


    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 9 of 35 (811434)
06-07-2017 10:00 PM


I really like that mix of ancient and more modern features.

The chin is not as prominent as in a lot of modern Homo sapiens but it is more pronounced than the folks that came before.

I'd like to see additional dating, but otherwise this looks pretty good. A lot better than that recent claim out of England.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 10 of 35 (811473)
06-08-2017 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
06-07-2017 4:55 PM


The oldest "anatomically modern" fossils I am aware of prior to this find is 160,000 years ago:

Omo I is generally considered anatomically modern, and that is now dated to ~195,000 years ago.

But my point was that 'anatomically modern' is an arbitrary term, so searching for the oldest example is a bit quixotic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2017 4:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 1:44 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 11 of 35 (811474)
06-08-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by caffeine
06-08-2017 1:17 PM


caffeine writes:

But my point was that 'anatomically modern' is an arbitrary term, so searching for the oldest example is a bit quixotic.

Indeed. Finding the oldest AMH is like trying to find the youngest adult.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 06-08-2017 1:17 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 12 of 35 (811478)
06-08-2017 5:12 PM


New York Times article
The New York Times has an article on this:

Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco, Altering History of Species

Added by edit: I just noticed that the NYT article has a link to the second paper that was published in Nature, and that link also avoids the paywall.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. Billy Bragg

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 13 of 35 (818326)
08-27-2017 7:12 AM


Humanity... Not so intelligent perhaps
So modern man is 200,000 years old.
And modern man started becoming civilised (written language, cultivation, etc) about 6,000 years ago.
So it took mankind 194,000 years to actually start showing signs of intelligence. Once they did a rapid acceleration of technology, wisdom and understanding propelled us to this point.
So for 194,000 years man was dumb and still living out of caves. Man never created written language, they never built any structures or created any machines or tools, nor did they produce any art.
Think about that for a while people. Use logic and common sense

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2017 8:07 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 08-27-2017 10:53 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 14 of 35 (818329)
08-27-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Porkncheese
08-27-2017 7:12 AM


Re: Humanity... Not so intelligent perhaps
Welcome to the fray porkandcheese,

So modern man is 200,000 years old.
And modern man started becoming civilised (written language, cultivation, etc) about 6,000 years ago.
So it took mankind 194,000 years to actually start showing signs of intelligence. Once they did a rapid acceleration of technology, wisdom and understanding propelled us to this point.
So for 194,000 years man was dumb and still living out of caves. Man never created written language, they never built any structures or created any machines or tools, nor did they produce any art.
Think about that for a while people. Use logic and common sense

Man started showing signs of intelligence when making and using tools. Do you know when that happened?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Porkncheese, posted 08-27-2017 7:12 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Porkncheese, posted 08-27-2017 9:19 AM RAZD has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 15 of 35 (818335)
08-27-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
08-27-2017 8:07 AM


Re: Humanity... Not so intelligent perhaps
Man was probably using tools from the start.
But man was fairly dumb for a very long time
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2017 8:07 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 08-27-2017 9:45 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 08-27-2017 10:42 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2017 11:38 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2017 12:46 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 08-27-2017 2:26 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017