|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Home sapiens older than we realized | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Actually that just seems to close the gap between H. sapiens and H. heidelberensis
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: It's all good. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10304 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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 Administrator Posts: 3983 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Home sapiens older than we realized thread in the Links and Information forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
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 (Idle past 2366 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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 (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10304 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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 (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
Man was probably using tools from the start.
But man was fairly dumb for a very long time
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024