Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,016
Likes
147,624
Points
115
The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two million years ago in central Asia has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution.
Anthropologists unearthed the skull at a site in Dmanisi, a small town in southern Georgia, where other remains of human ancestors, simple stone tools and long-extinct animals have been dated to 1.8m years old.

Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.

The latest fossil is the only intact skull ever found of a human ancestor that lived in the early Pleistocene, when our predecessors first walked out of Africa. The skull adds to a haul of bones recovered from Dmanisi that belong to five individuals, most likely an elderly male, two other adult males, a young female and a juvenile of unknown sex.

The site was a busy watering hole that human ancestors shared with giant extinct cheetahs, sabre-toothed cats and other beasts. The remains of the individuals were found in collapsed dens where carnivores had apparently dragged the carcasses to eat. They are thought to have died within a few hundred years of one another.

"Nobody has ever seen such a well-preserved skull from this period," said Christoph Zollikofer, a professor at Zurich University's Anthropological Institute, who worked on the remains. "This is the first complete skull of an adult early Homo. They simply did not exist before," he said. Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans.

Other researchers said the fossil was an extraordinary discovery. "The significance is difficult to overstate. It is stunning in its completeness. This is going to be one of the real classics in paleoanthropology," said Tim White, an expert on human evolution at the University of California, Berkeley.

But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.

The remains at Dmanisi are thought to be early forms of Homo erectus, the first of our relatives to have body proportions like a modern human. The species arose in Africa around 1.8m years ago and may have been the first to harness fire and cook food. The Dmanisi fossils show that H erectus migrated as far as Asia soon after arising in Africa.

The latest skull discovered in Dmanisi belonged to an adult male and was the largest of the haul. It had a long face and big, chunky teeth. But at just under 550 cubic centimetres, it also had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the site. The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground.
The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.

The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.

"Everything that lived at the time of the Dmanisi was probably just Homo erectus," said Prof Zollikofer. "We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."


read more here - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution


and here - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...write-history-of-human-evolution-8887039.html
 
Holy crap, was Mags right!?
 
So does this mean dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time? :wink:
 
Odd that Denny wouldn't respond to this. He was 100% sure that man was only 200k old.
 
It means that ancestors to modern homosapiens lived 2 million years ago, a scant 64 million years after the dino.
 
They found the remains in Georgia!? OMG! Maybe the Mormons were right and jesus was in the US! /s
 
The effect is the change to the idea of related species having perhaps been improperly classified as distinct, not in the timeline of human evolution or the process thereof. 1.8-million years ago is where we would expect to find early h. erectus.
 
It means that ancestors to modern homosapiens lived 2 million years ago, a scant 64 million years after the dino.

And? The comment was the actual age the species existed. Did I post about Dinos?
 
They found the remains in Georgia!? OMG! Maybe the Mormons were right and jesus was in the US! /s

Funny how you all piled up in defense. I was just posting about Denny and his matter of fact aging of the species.
 
Funny how you all piled up in defense. I was just posting about Denny and his matter of fact aging of the species.

Me? I was just making a joke about Georgia, US and Georgia. And a crack at Mormons. You are seeing shadows Mags. A change in the scientific background like this doesn't bother me.
 
You walk around on both legs, homo erectus!


Did l say ''homo''? l didn't mean that!
 
I don't think this shakes up the timeline at all, but if it did, I'd be cool with that. Give me the facts, whatever they are, and I'll have a better understanding. but making fantastic claims of belief without any underpinnings of fact, that's where you lose me.
 
I don't think this shakes up the timeline at all, but if it did, I'd be cool with that. Give me the facts, whatever they are, and I'll have a better understanding. but making fantastic claims of belief without any underpinnings of fact, that's where you lose me.

The Blazers are going to win the Championship.
 
What I gleaned from this article is that it put into doubt the sequence of homo evolution, where previously thought as different species, now are maybe just thought as variations of the same species...score one for the anti-evolution crowd?
 
What I gleaned from this article is that it put into doubt the sequence of homo evolution, where previously thought as different species, now are maybe just thought as variations of the same species...score one for the anti-evolution crowd?

Sure. If mental gymnastics are your thing.
 
It means that ancestors to modern homosapiens lived 2 million years ago, a scant 64 million years after the dino.

This is not man as in homosapien, it homo erectus.

This is not man as in homosapien. The article called this species a "great ape."

060508_human_evolution_02.jpg


Man would be Homo sapien, the ~200K year long line at the bottom. Homo erectus on this chart looks like about 1.8M years ago to 200K years ago, roughly. The disarray would be that Homo erectus appeared a few 10s of thousand years earlier than expected?
 
What I gleaned from this article is that it put into doubt the sequence of homo evolution, where previously thought as different species, now are maybe just thought as variations of the same species...score one for the anti-evolution crowd?

I gathered that as well. I don't see why the crowd assumes this really doesn't change anything substantial. It's actually quite substantial.
 
I gathered that as well. I don't see why the crowd assumes this really doesn't change anything substantial. It's actually quite substantial.

Huh? All it means is that maybe there wasn't as much speciesation (sic?) going on as some anthropologists may have thought. It does nothing to alter the timeline of modern humans.
 
What I find interesting is how preserved this skull is. And the chart Denny posted. Crazy how these species; including sapiens could have all lived at at the same time period
 
Huh? All it means is that maybe there wasn't as much speciesation (sic?) going on as some anthropologists may have thought. It does nothing to alter the timeline of modern humans.

I wasn't talking about modern humans. Many are just assuming that I keep applying it.

I believe in evolution if you haven't been paying attention.
 
I wasn't talking about modern humans. Many are just assuming that I keep applying it.

I believe in evolution if you haven't been paying attention.

Mags, were you talking about modern humans? Do you believe in evolution? :MARIS61:
 
Baboons and Chimps and Humans exist today. What's hard to get about various species of apes co-existing in the past?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top