A skull that rewrites the history of man

[olddragon]

A skull that rewrites the history of man (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html)


It has long been agreed that Africa was the sole cradle of human evolution. Then these bones were found in Georgia...



The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.

The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia – before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.

Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.

But what has really excited the researchers is the discovery that these early humans (or "hominins") are far more primitive-looking than the Homo erectus humans that were, until now, believed to be the first people to migrate out of Africa about 1 million years ago.

The Dmanisi people had brains that were about 40 per cent smaller than those of Homo erectus and they were much shorter in stature than classical H. erectus skeletons, according to Professor David Lordkipanidze, general director of the Georgia National Museum. "Before our findings, the prevailing view was that humans came out of Africa almost 1 million years ago, that they already had sophisticated stone tools, and that their body anatomy was quite advanced in terms of brain capacity and limb proportions. But what we are finding is quite different," Professor Lordkipanidze said.

"The Dmanisi hominins are the earliest representatives of our own genus – Homo – outside Africa, and they represent the most primitive population of the species Homo erectus to date. They might be ancestral to all later Homo erectus populations, which would suggest a Eurasian origin of Homo erectus."

It would make sense to me, that life sprang up where ever it could,
not simply in one lone location.

There were probably many migrations from one area to another.
Man was no different than other animals, looking for new feeding grounds, and traveling vast distance.

Survival is a powerful instinct.

[lazserus]

People reading this need to be careful not to interpret these hominid skulls as "human." Frequently species such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and even Homo neandertalensis are called "early humans." This tends to confuse people, many times the confusion not even being noticed. It would be best these species referred to as "ancestral humans," because they are in fact not human but ancestral relatives. Anatomically speaking, our closest cousins the Neandertal were significantly different. They were shorter, had wider frames and had denser bones. Moreover, their larynx resided higher in their throat, restricting their ability to speak using complex verbal language. It's certainly possible, even probable, that Neandertals had a primitive system of language. But it would have been limited to hard consonant sounds and very short vowels. Homo sapien sapiens (modern humans) have a larynx positioned much lower, which allows us to formulate longer vowel sounds in speech, moreover allowing us to have established a palette of complex languages.

I've done some minor migration studies of ancestral human populations and I knew Georgia was a significant point of radiation. However, my studies were always related to later species such as Homo erectus, nothing that goes back over a million years. I'm not satisfied with the conclusion made in this article stating these early hominids returned to Africa to radiate again. The first question that leaps to mind is, do we have enough skull fragments to determine the species of hominid found at this new site? Is it Homo habilis? Is it a newly discovered species of hominid? And why would hominids vanish by way of returning to Africa before radiating out again as Homo erectus?

I would be more inclined to believe that radiation and diffusion occurred independently in Eurasia after a primordial migration out of Africa than I would those hominids returning to Africa then migrating out again. I mean, look at Homo neandertalensis. Neandertals evolved and radiated independently, primarily sticking to continental Europe, and continuing to flourish there as early Homo sapiens were making their way into Eurasia and Asia.

[olddragon]

I'm not satisfied with the conclusion made in this article stating these early hominids returned to Africa to radiate again.

I agree somewhat.
Just being a layperson,
I would think, that as they traveled, they would continue to evolve.


I would be more inclined to believe that radiation and diffusion occurred independently in Eurasia after a primordial migration out of Africa than I would those hominids returning to Africa then migrating out again. I mean, look at Homo neandertalensis. Neandertals evolved and radiated independently, primarily sticking to continental Europe, and continuing to flourish there as early Homo sapiens were making their way into Eurasia and Asia.

This brings about a couple of questions?
Did Neanderthals die out, or were they absorbed into Homo Sapiens?
Did they breed?

[James Random]

I'm not satisfied with the conclusion made in this article stating these early hominids returned to Africa to radiate again. The first question that leaps to mind is, do we have enough skull fragments to determine the species of hominid found at this new site? Is it Homo habilis? Is it a newly discovered species of hominid? And why would hominids vanish by way of returning to Africa before radiating out again as Homo erectus?

I would be more inclined to believe that radiation and diffusion occurred independently in Eurasia after a primordial migration out of Africa than I would those hominids returning to Africa then migrating out again. I mean, look at Homo neandertalensis. Neandertals evolved and radiated independently, primarily sticking to continental Europe, and continuing to flourish there as early Homo sapiens were making their way into Eurasia and Asia.

From what I saw, Laz, they had an entire skull in their possession. Enough to remains make a few wax reconstructions.

As for why they suddenly emigrated back to Africa after leaving for Eurasia, well, this will be one of life's little mysteries for a while. Perhaps it was due to weather conditions (that area does get rather cold and treacherous)? Despite what experts would have you believe with flowery talk, we don't know an awful lot about Russia and surrounding lands during these primordial times. They might very well have arrived there to find the place inhabitable and returned after only a short time. There was no clear evidence (from what I have seen so far) that indicates the period of time they remained in Eurasia for.

[AnneOminous]

Dead men tell no tales... Of course, skulls neither write or rewrite history...

People do.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pZSz0o4afLg/SK7V4-qgXOI/AAAAAAAAAQA/eGH2iPbBz-Q/s400/The+skull+of+Pinocchio.jpg

[Goldmoon]

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evXAdsj95Ro

[flounatic]

Hm, that's an interesting found.

The theory that our ancestors came from Africa...kind of always intrigued me.

Certain environments are more suitable for fossilization while other environments will yield no fossil remains through time.
I mean, even hard parts, as bones, teeth, calcified shells, are normally prone to destruction.

Maybe Africa was more suitable? I really am not persuaded about the theory that it all started in Africa.

[lazserus]

I agree somewhat.
This brings about a couple of questions?
Did Neanderthals die out, or were they absorbed into Homo Sapiens?
Did they breed?
Neandertals did become extinct. There are a handful of scientists that believe that mating between Neandertals and humans occurred, but it's very likely no offspring were produced. Because it would have been an interspecies exchange, not viable offspring could be produced. Just as you or I could not reproduce with a chimp even though they are our closest living cousin genetically speaking. Enough of Neandertal remains have been recovered to map their genome, and a number of tests have been run to see if there are any modern Neandertal genes within modern humans with negative results. Although I believe sex possibly occurred between the two species, I stand behind the theory (which has been tested) that no viable offspring were produced.


From what I saw, Laz, they had an entire skull in their possession. Enough to remains make a few wax reconstructions.
Yet no report of the species of hominid? That information alone could tell us a lot.

Perhaps it was due to weather conditions (that area does get rather cold and treacherous)? Despite what experts would have you believe with flowery talk, we don't know an awful lot about Russia and surrounding lands during these primordial times.Keep in mind Georgia isn't part of Russia. It was once part of the Soviet Union but never Russia itself. Plus. Georgia is significantly further south. Moreover, climate conditions a million years ago were warmer than they are even today.


Certain environments are more suitable for fossilization while other environments will yield no fossil remains through time. I mean, even hard parts, as bones, teeth, calcified shells, are normally prone to destruction.
Fossilization is a rare event. In order for it to occur the conditions have to be just right, and the remains have to be buried almost immediately after death by the right combination of sediment. If life never existed limestone wouldn't form, which is why we tend to find the most fossil remains in limestone deposits. Limestone is a combination of sediment and calcium from organic material.


Maybe Africa was more suitable? I really am not persuaded about the theory that it all started in Africa.
Africa provided an ideal geography and climate for early hominids to evolve. There really is little doubt that human evolution began in Africa. What this find could tell us is whether or not evolution and migration came solely out of Africa.

[flounatic]

Fossilization is a rare event. In order for it to occur the conditions have to be just right, and the remains have to be buried almost immediately after death by the right combination of sediment. If life never existed limestone wouldn't form, which is why we tend to find the most fossil remains in limestone deposits. Limestone is a combination of sediment and calcium from organic material.


Africa provided an ideal geography and climate for early hominids to evolve. There really is little doubt that human evolution began in Africa. What this find could tell us is whether or not evolution and migration came solely out of Africa.
I referred to the possibility that Africa may have provided a better climate for fossilisation, and just generally may have heightened the chances for archaic remains to stay intact for a longer period of time while other places may not have had this positive attributes.

I said:"I really am not persuaded about the theory that it all started in Africa."

Basically, I meant to imply this particular bit you said:" What this find could tell us is whether or not evolution and migration came solely out of Africa."

And why would there be little doubt that evolution started in Africa? Just because there have been made founds of hominid remains dating further back than anywhere else? Well, like I said, some places will throughout time yield no remains at all because the climate and environment aren't fit for it, while maybe in Africa they were.
I honestly can't imagine that Africa was the only start point of our ancestors.

[lazserus]

I referred to the possibility that Africa may have provided a better climate for fossilisation, and just generally may have heightened the chances for archaic remains to stay intact for a longer period of time while other places may not have had this positive attributes.

I said:"I really am not persuaded about the theory that it all started in Africa."

Basically, I meant to imply this particular bit you said:" What this find could tell us is whether or not evolution and migration came solely out of Africa."

And why would there be little doubt that evolution started in Africa? Just because there have been made founds of hominid remains dating further back than anywhere else? Well, like I said, some places will throughout time yield no remains at all because the climate and environment aren't fit for it, while maybe in Africa they were.
I honestly can't imagine that Africa was the only start point of our ancestors.
I certainly appreciate your line of thinking, and especially the fact you're thinking in such depth. But I don't think you quite understand a few things which are crucial, particularly the nature of fossilization. Even someone with a strong head on their shoulders that has no understanding of the core sciences behind their beliefs can not only create an invalid picture of the past, they can perpetuate that invalid image and radiate the ignorance.

First and foremost, geologically speaking, Africa in antiquity is far from an ideal place for fossilization to occur. Fossilization really has little to do with climate. It has to do with terrestrial circumstances and events, and it's an extremely rare event. At the very best fossils give us an idea of what less than 1/4 of life was like in any given epoch. Fossils certainly help, but they are far from the big picture. Fossils give is a partial part of the puzzle of pre-human history. You, flounatic, really should read the definition of fossil and fossilization. It's an extremely rare event that requires nearly instant submersion and the emission of water. Fossil records can be relied on, but never for absolute answers. This gives Christian fundamentalists fuel for refuting evolution. Not necessarily a viable fuel, but fuel nonetheless.

There is a whole lot more that goes into evolutionary studies other than mere fossil records. Biological evolution has been proved over and over again in theory through experiment and within observing the wild. Anyone that refutes the concept of evolution (genetic change within species over time) might as well turn off their lights. At this point it's like refuting the Copernican model of the solar system, or saying lodestones can cure headaches.

The point I'm getting at is we cannot rely solely on fossil records to complete a detailed model of hominid evolution eventually leading to us. Though fossil records can provide a more unique and substantial foundation to support theory, fossils are extremely rare. The world of science is built on a foundation of indirect evidence and intelligent deduction.

[flounatic]

I certainly appreciate your line of thinking, and especially the fact you're thinking in such depth. But I don't think you quite understand a few things which are crucial, particularly the nature of fossilization. Even someone with a strong head on their shoulders that has no understanding of the core sciences behind their beliefs can not only create an invalid picture of the past, they can perpetuate that invalid image and radiate the ignorance.

First and foremost, geologically speaking, Africa in antiquity is far from an ideal place for fossilization to occur. Fossilization really has little to do with climate. It has to do with terrestrial circumstances and events, and it's an extremely rare event. At the very best fossils give us an idea of what less than 1/4 of life was like in any given epoch. Fossils certainly help, but they are far from the big picture. Fossils give is a partial part of the puzzle of pre-human history. You, flounatic, really should read the definition of fossil and fossilization. It's an extremely rare event that requires nearly instant submersion and the emission of water. Fossil records can be relied on, but never for absolute answers. This gives Christian fundamentalists fuel for refuting evolution. Not necessarily a viable fuel, but fuel nonetheless.

There is a whole lot more that goes into evolutionary studies other than mere fossil records. Biological evolution has been proved over and over again in theory through experiment and within observing the wild. Anyone that refutes the concept of evolution (genetic change within species over time) might as well turn off their lights. At this point it's like refuting the Copernican model of the solar system, or saying lodestones can cure headaches.

The point I'm getting at is we cannot rely solely on fossil records to complete a detailed model of hominid evolution eventually leading to us. Though fossil records can provide a more unique and substantial foundation to support theory, fossils are extremely rare. The world of science is built on a foundation of indirect evidence and intelligent deduction.
What's with this pontificating manner of yours? Don't get me wrong, but if you're going to respond in such a condescending manner, I will do likewise.

...reading comprehension? The climate of a certain environment, and the environmental activies certainly DO influence for how long a fossil is going to stay preserved, or whether it's going to occur at all. Honestly. You're insulting my knowledge about fossilisation, yet you yourself are showing how you're ignorant about this subject by your flat out wrong statements. I'm sure that some mammoths, oetzi the iceman, mummies, etc. will gladly explain to you how little climate had influence in their preservation. =] Anyone who claims that the climate of an environment has little to no influence on the preservation and fossilisation of remains should take your advice, in this case you, and go read up on how fossilisation occurs, what kind of fossilisations exist and what influences it, etc. Then you can come back and patronise us about your collected knowledge of fossilisation and fossils.


It has to do with terrestrial circumstances and events...Of course, the climate is part of that.


First and foremost, geologically speaking, Africa in antiquity is far from an ideal place for fossilization to occur.Well, too bad. Obviously it was, geologically speaking, rather decent. The fossils will testify for that. Maybe the term desiccation will ring a bell. Perhaps. Eventually. Hopefully.
East of Africa...err...well maybe the biochronology of planet Earth will help you.


At the very best fossils give us an idea of what less than 1/4 of life was like in any given epoch. Fossils certainly help, but they are far from the big picture. Fossils give is a partial part of the puzzle of pre-human history. You, flounatic, really should read the definition of fossil and fossilization. It's an extremely rare event that requires nearly instant submersion and the emission of water. Fossil records can be relied on, but never for absolute answers. This gives Christian fundamentalists fuel for refuting evolution. Not necessarily a viable fuel, but fuel nonetheless.Of course.
On what again is the theory of "it all started in Africa" mainly based on? Oh right, ...fossil records.
I never said otherwise. I was actually pointing out that I find it absurd that the Africa theory is mainly based on fossil records to prove its case, and therefore a doubtful theory.
I don't see the point in involving Christians. I'd like to leave out religious subjects on this matter.
Strawman.



There is a whole lot more that goes into evolutionary studies other than mere fossil records. Biological evolution has been proved over and over again in theory through experiment and within observing the wild. Anyone that refutes the concept of evolution (genetic change within species over time) might as well turn off their lights. At this point it's like refuting the Copernican model of the solar system, or saying lodestones can cure headaches.When exactly did I deny evolution, or when the Hell did I mention such a possibility at all? An other strawman of yours.


The point I'm getting at is we cannot rely solely on fossil records to complete a detailed model of hominid evolution eventually leading to us. Though fossil records can provide a more unique and substantial foundation to support theory, fossils are extremely rare.Sure.


The world of science is built on a foundation of indirect evidence and intelligent deduction.Hmmm...I'm sure that Lucy will agree with you on that.

[TC]

Personally I think Man's place of origin was Asia.( I know Laz will argue that one ..LOL ) Or at least the possibility of both, ( Africa and Asia) as there seems to be as many specimen finds eastward as there is within the African continent. And with any fossil dating ( as Laz mentioned) its spooky at best.

[lazserus]

What's with this pontificating manner of yours? Don't get me wrong, but if you're going to respond in such a condescending manner, I will do likewise.
I can't even tell you why I responded how I did other than I got bored, intoxicated, and felt like venting. You're absolutely right, I basically just flailed about and attempted to sound like I knew what I was talking about. The thing is, I do know what I'm talking about, but my response certainly doesn't do me any justice.

Let me start by apologizing for my last post and admitting it to be a complete piece of garbage. If you hadn't responded I would deleted it, but now if I delete my garbage it looks as if I'm running away. Retraction in idiocy is about timing.

I appreciate the effort, flounatic, you put in to make me look like a complete ass. Though I think I sufficiently did enough of that for myself, it's good to see someone on this site thinking and ready to unleash. I deserved worse than what you gave me.

But, from this point on, I'm going to have to argue with some of your responses rightly.


Well, too bad. Obviously it was, geologically speaking, rather decent. The fossils will testify for that.
I suggest you don't get too attached to the fact we've found a few rare hominid fossils in East Africa. A problem with fossil hunting is correlating discoveries with realistic abundance of discovered species. Pre-human hominid fossils are amongst the most rare, and we're certainly lucky to have found what we have thus far. Hell, look at how Lucy was found!


On what again is the theory of "it all started in Africa" mainly based on? Oh right, ...fossil records.
Well, until now, with these new finds. But it also depends on what you mean by "started." I'm a firm supporter of the hominid chain breaking out of Africa, but this new find in Georgia can significantly alter our definition of "starting." A post I made before my sauced and idiotic one mentioned my concern over the species of the skulls found. That same post also mentioned a logical migration pattern as opposed to an erratic one. Of course, logic doesn't prove a whole lot without evidence. And evidence can contradict logic.


I was actually pointing out that I find it absurd that the Africa theory is mainly based on fossil records to prove its case, and therefore a doubtful theory.
Aright, I'm confused. Out of Africa or not? What's your position? Fossil records can tell us a great deal if we have enough. A jaw and series of teeth from a Mosasaur, in my opinion, sure as shit isn't enough to reconstruct a prehistoric animal and/or its behavior. Because I'm not entirely sure your position on this matter, I'll refrain from babbling what I know. Saves us both time, mate.


I don't see the point in involving Christians. I'd like to leave out religious subjects on this matter.
Aye, that was my sort of dribbling over the keyboard. That has no standing here.


When exactly did I deny evolution, or when the Hell did I mention such a possibility at all?
I was ranting and what I said wasn't directed at you.

You've got moxy, my friend. I appreciate you tearing apart me and my last post. Most people would attempt to retaliate in order to defend their ego. Not me. I recognize when I'm an idiot, and when I don't, I appreciate others letting me know. :Bow:


Personally I think Man's place of origin was Asia.( I know Laz will argue that one ..LOL ) Or at least the possibility of both, ( Africa and Asia) as there seems to be as many specimen finds eastward as there is within the African continent. And with any fossil dating ( as Laz mentioned) its spooky at best.
Well, this is why I'm curious to know more about this new skull. You and I both know, shortround, that the world doesn't function in simplistic terms. Events aren't black and white, they don't happen in perfect chronology. Look at the K-T Boundary. Volcanics, impact, disease, quakes, etc., and people think the extinction was strictly due to a single impact. The universe is not simple. We attempt to simplify it in order to grasp it.

It's quite possible, even probable, that Homo sapien sapiens didn't come from a singular location but two or more. Central Asia as a radiation point makes a lot of sense when you look at the development of spoken and written language, the domestication of certain animals, etc.

[Phrozt]

damn... im glad we dont still look like that.... i wonder what we'll look like in another 1.8 million years... if we make it that long (doubtfull)