The subtle topography of tiny teeth and jawbones enabled identification of two new anthropoid ancestors that lived 37 million years ago.
Posted on 10/14/2005 3:27:55 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
New species firmly establish African roots for anthropoid line.
The fossil teeth and jawbones of two new species of tiny monkey-like creatures that lived 37 million years ago have been sifted from ancient sediments in the Egyptian desert, researchers have reported. Related
They said their findings firmly establish that the common ancestor of living anthropoids -- including monkeys, apes and humans -- arose in Africa and that the group had already begun branching into many species by that time. Also, they said, one of the creatures appears to have been nocturnal, the first example of a nocturnal early anthropoid.
The researchers published their discovery of the two new species -- named Biretia fayumensis and Biretia megalopsis -- in an article in the October 14, 2005, issue of the journal Science. First author on the paper was Erik Seiffert of the University of Oxford and Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Other co-authors were [lotta names here, see original article].
The researchers discovered the fossils over the course of the last few years at a site called Birket Qarun Locality 2 (BQ-2) about 60 miles southwest of Cairo in the Fayum desert. BQ-2 has only been systematically excavated for about four years, said Seiffert, in contrast to a much younger Fayum site, called L-41, which has been explored for the last 22 years by Simons and his colleagues.
“BQ-2 and surrounding localities have tremendous potential, which is exciting because they are so much older than other Fayum sites,” said Seiffert. “There will certainly be much more information about early anthropoid evolution coming out of BQ-2 over the next few years.” The sediments at BQ-2 lie nearly 750 feet below those of L-41 and were dated at around 37 million years old by measuring telltale variations in magnetic fields in the sediments due to ancient fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic fields. According to Simons, other anthropoids exist at BQ-2 and will soon be described, [that's how the paragraph ends, folks!]
The latest fossils of the new species consist of tiny teeth and jaws, whose shapes yield critical clues about the species whose mouths they once occupied. For example, a tooth root from the species Biretia megalopsis is truncated, indicating that it had to make room for the larger eyesocket of a nocturnal animal.
“These finds seem to indicate that Biretia megalopsis must have had very large eyes, and so was likely nocturnal,” said Seiffert. “This has never been documented in an early anthropoid. The simplest explanation is that Biretia's nocturnality represents an evolutionary reversal from a diurnal ancestor, but that conclusion is based solely on the probable pattern of relationships. If down the road we find out that our phylogeny was wrong, Biretia could end up being very significant for our understanding of the origin of anthropoid activity patterns.”
According to Simons, analyses of the teeth of the two species clearly place them as members of a group called parapithecoids, known as “stem” anthropoids because they constitute the species of early creatures from which the subsequent "crown" anthropoid line arose.
“The finding of these parapithecoids from such an ancient time confirms that crown anthropoids -- a group including all modern anthropoids -- have their earliest known beginnings in Africa,” said Simons. “They show that findings by other researchers of isolated examples of possible higher primate fossils in Asia do not constitute evidence of an ancestral crown anthropoid lineage there.”
According to Seiffert, the latest findings help fill in the gap between later anthropoids and the oldest undisputed anthropoid, called Algeripithecus, found in Algeria, which lived around 45 million years ago. That species had been characterized by only a few teeth, which precluded significant insight into the species, said Seiffert.
Seiffert also noted that previously, the only evidence for anthropoids at 37 million years ago in Africa was a single tooth, attributed to a species called Biretia piveteaui. What’s more, the latest discoveries of the two species suggest that a 57-million-year-old African primate called Altiatlasius from Morocco might even be the earliest anthropoid ancestor.
For more information, contact: Dennis Meredith, Office of News & Communications | (919) 681-8054 | dennis.meredith@duke.edu
I know I'm right.
"Also, they said, one of the creatures appears to have been nocturnal'
Vampire early monkey ping.
Observation: I can't see a thing.
Conclusion: Dinosaurs!
It was a great example of scientists reading too much into the "evidence."
For the record, Carl Sagan believed in evolution and God.
"You certainly don't have to believe the Bible, but trying to make those who do look like backwater yokels doesn't help make your case. I'm convinced evolutionists are generally just mean-spirited people."
True for many. But there many, many hateful and dishonest Creationists, as well.
The level of discourse is sadly very low on both sides.
Without meaning to offend, if such a simple thing as a mathematical ratio can be wrong in the Bible, it certainly leaves open the door to doubt the absolute veracity in all details of events that were written down only many years, if not centuries, after they happened.
This is where faith comes in. A person *chooses* to believe with little or no verifiable evidence. That choice may be based on significant personal events that cannot be easily transmitted to another person. I am not saying that choice is wrong, only that belief in the Bible as literal and absolute truth can easily be shown to be incorrect.
In the case of the circumference of a circle, the question becomes: What are you going to believe? The Bible, or your lying eyes?
Most believers in an absolutely literal Bible will weasel out of this by figuring some way to interpret the passage given as not saying what it says.
It certainly points out how fallible memory can be, however. ;-)
With that "just-so" statement borne of ignorance, you have publically embarrassed yourself and landed on the list of those who deserve Calculated contempt
Well, my, my, my, don't we have a rather high opinion of ourself today?
CA....
Move along. Nothing of interest here.
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?
"..it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science.."
OTOH, a cubit isn't a real accurate unit of measure. It's the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger; generally held to be about 18 inches. The supposed inaccuracy can be accounted for by simple rounding, which is used in our lives daily. If someone really wants to look for reasons to reject the Bible as being unreliable because of "inaccuracies" I suppose that one can find anything. We still say the sun rises and sets. We know it doesn't but everyone says it and no one is accused of lying. But it's generally just excuses to reject religion.
I knew you wouldn't have the sense to be embarrassed because your "just-so" statement about a subject you are in no way qualified to credibly comment on, revealed you to be totally clueless as to your difficulty, to wit:
Awaiting a new discovery in China of a feather covered anthropoid 38 million years old. Hair is just modified feathers.
The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science text. Some of the stories in it are parables, some aren't. (Don't stories about the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" kind of scream out PARABLE!! to you?)
In any case, the Bible cannot be a 100% totally true description of physical events, because it is not even 100% totally internally consistent - there are factual contradictions within. Also, I'm sure there are passages in the Bible that you already don't take literally - do you really think you should hate your immediate family as Jesus commanded in Luke 14:26?
The Bible is infinitely valuable as a spiritual guide, I believe, but as a concrete record of natural history? Hardly the Book's intention.
Yes, and I've heard that the ancient Hebrews were really counting months instead of years when they passed on the ages of the patriarchs as well.
It just reinforces that the Bible cannot be counted on to answer questions of specific fact, especially in such things as the age of the earth.
I don't expect to convince devoted fundamentalists that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. I am trying to show that the Bible is not literal fact. Unfortunately, people who have invested their lives in this belief system will almost always find a way to rationalize any discrepancies. It is far easier to do this than to change the basis of their belief structure.
This unwillingness to change in the face of evidence is a fundamental part of human nature that has been demonstrated over and over throughout history.
Only severe, life changing crises have been shown to be capable of initiating a serious change in belief structures. Those that can be persuaded by evidence are a small minority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.