Earliest hominid: Not a hominid at all?

University of Michigan News Service ^ | June 19, 2006 | Laura Bailey

[Marius3188]

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The earliest known hominid fossil, which dates to about 7 million years ago, is actually some kind of ape, according to an international team of researchers led by the University of Michigan. The finding, they say, suggests scientists should rethink whether we actually descended from apes resembling chimpanzees, which are considered our closest relatives.

U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and colleagues examined images and the original paper published on the discovery of the Toumaï cranium (TM 266) or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, as well as a computer reconstruction of the skull. Two other colleagues were actually able to examine the skull, Wolpoff said, in addition to the images and the computer reconstruction.

The research team concluded that the cranium did not sit atop the spine but in front of it, indicating the creature walked on all fours like an ape. Hominids, he said, are distinguished from all other primates by walking upright. Hominids are everything on the line leading to humans after divergence with chimpanzees. Upright bipedalism is the single best way of identifying which fossils are hominids.

Researchers also examined the canine teeth and found that they were not clearly human or ape-like, but rather like most other canine fossils from the Miocene era.

"Whether or not it's a human ancestor is probably unimportant as far as the skull is concerned," Wolpoff said. "But it's very important in trying to understand where humans come from. It's the first relative we've had of the earliest hominid, or something related to it, but it's not a hominid at all."

Nor does the skull resemble a living chimpanzee—no fossil records of chimpanzees exist so it's impossible to compare to earlier descendents, Wolpff said. Genetic data puts the divergence of chimpanzees and humans at anywhere from 4 to 6 million years ago. Even though it's not a definite date, it makes it difficult to show a 7-million-year-old fossil is a hominid without overwhelming evidence, he said.

"The big message it sends us is our ancestors never looked like a chimpanzee," Wolpoff said. "This thing is clearly saying that chimpanzees are just as different from this ancestor as we are. They are just different in a different way."

Wolpoff said the skull could be a common ancestor of humans and living chimps.

"Now we have insight into what an early ape looked like, but we have no fossils of apes after it, so you can't tell clearly," he said.

Colleagues include John Hawks, Department of Anthropology of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Brigitte Senut, Department Histoire de la Terre, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paleontology; Martin Pickford, chair of Paleoanthropologie et de Prehistoire, College de France; and James Ahern, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

"Two people have seen it. We've all have seen pictures and read publications,"Wolpoff said. "It took us a long time to put this together because we wanted to make sure we were absolutely accurate."

Wolpoff expects that the paper, entitled "Ape or the Ape: Is the Toumai Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?" will be controversial. It was published Friday in a new online journal by the Paleoanthropology Society, http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/contents.htm.

"I think some people are going to like it, and some people are going to hate it, but it will stimulate more discussion, which is important," Wolpoff said.

For information on Wolpoff, visit: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/.

For more on the Department of Anthropology at U-M, visit: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/anthro/.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks annie for the ping.

Just taking a bit of risk, adding this topic to the catalog. But I won't ping it. I won't. No. Judging from the keyword vandalism, this will wind up being worse than usual.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[DennisR]

"...the creature walked on all fours like an ape."

So...maybe it was an ape???

[Revolting cat!]

"Say what?!

[editor-surveyor]

"I think that guy looks like a chimp"

Have you ever seen a profile view of Duane Gish?

[editor-surveyor]

"These researchers will be roundly criticized by the practitioners of the religion of Darwinism for daring to speak the truth."

Yep! violation of the second Dweeper commandment:
Thou shalt not bear faithful witness of any man nor alleged ancestor thereof.

[editor-surveyor]

Get some key text from the pdf, and do a google search for that text, and after the gopher finds it, it will convert it to html and you can then click on that option ;o)

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

no fossil records of chimpanzees exist so it's impossible to compare to earlier descendents, Wolpff said.

That is kinda big gap in the fossil record, with nothing for a "missing link" to link to, isn't it? [snicker]
(Yes, I read the forest excuse. Another confirmation of Genesis if true: Man was kicked out of the garden.)
Or maybe chimpanzees "evolved" from people. [snicker]
The monkey speaks his mind.

[taxesareforever]

"Whether or not it's a human ancestor is probably unimportant as far as the skull is concerned," Wolpoff said. "But it's very important in trying to understand where humans come from. It's the first relative we've had of the earliest hominid, or something related to it, but it's not a hominid at all."

What kind of doublespeak is this? At the end of this quote he says, "but it's not a hominid at all." The first sentence of the article starts out, "The earliest known hominid fossil, Sounds to me like they really don't want to discount evolution of man from apes even though everything points to no connection.

[editor-surveyor]

"The laptop's a few years old now, and I've recovered it from the brink a time or two already."

Replace the RAM modules. One of them is going out, and acrobat is a heavy user of RAM.

[RobbyS]

They assume the connection. The fossil record is so fragmentary and probably will remain so. They have no fossils of early chimps? That I didn't know. If human evolution took place, it might be in a way unimagined so far. IAC, they just don't know.

[Boiler Plate]

CarlinaGuitarman is going to sing us his favorite Kinks' tune "Im an Ape man".

I think I’m sophisticated
’cos I’m living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybody’s multiplying
Till they’re walking round like flies man
So I’m no better than the animals sitting in their cages
In the zoo man
’cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man
I think I’m so educated and I’m so civilized
’cos I’m a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I don’t feel safe in this world no more
I don’t want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man
I’m an ape man, I’m an ape ape man
I’m an ape man I’m a king kong man I’m ape ape man
I’m an ape man

[Coyoteman]

My comments were directed to the thoroughness of this paper and the scientific standing of its primary author. He has taken a fossil that was somewhat ambiguous and figured out where it more likely lies in the scheme of things. That is a valuable thing to do.

It seems rather that the researchers have overturned its usefulness as an evolutionary link. I agree it's a valuable thing to do, though I doubt many frevolutionists do.

Data are of no use if they are not accurate. A lot of the efforts of evolutionists, as witnessed by this paper, are directed toward fine-tuning the data. Over time we reach a better understanding of the past this way.

Anything that is incorrect is a problem--Piltdown fooled a few people for a while, but most folks discounted it because it did not fit with the reliable data. It was mostly ignored after the good South African finds of the 1920s.

As for "frevolutionists" being committed to this particular specimen as an evolutionary link, we are willing to take the data as they are. We don't need to fudge or distort the data; we can take it as it is.

[DannyTN]

"Researchers also examined the canine teeth and found that they were not clearly human or ape-like, but rather like most other canine fossils from the Miocene era."

Proof Man evolved from dogs

"..."

Just couldn't resist!

Evolution is nothing more than Tabloid Journalism.

I fully expect to see headlines..."Darwin married Lucy in secred wedding in Nambia - children were Erectus".

[SunkenCiv]

I think it would take a lot to get "worse than usual"!

Heh... that's for sure. At least no one has included "CallingArtBell"... or have they?

[SunkenCiv]

---

Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction by Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari hardcover

---

[ahayes]

I'm confused. Exactly why would we want to stay away from this article? Staying away from this thread I can understand when I've got nonsense like a post below showing up uninvited on my pings page. *sigh!*

[ahayes]

You guys sure take any excuse to run around screaming, "FIRE!!", don't you?