Oldest member of human family found

Nature ^ | 07/11/2002 | John Whitfield

[liberallarry]

You can throw out "evolution" today and science would be none the worse for it.

I can't throw out anything because I'm not a scientist...and I never forget that. I have only a rough understanding of most scientific theories and the evidence that supports them. When I pick up the leading journals and try to follow the evidence and arguments supporting or disputing competing theories I can't do it. I'm reduced to popularizations.

That being said I have no interest in attempts to present the Bible as science. Seems to me that what we're seeing now with evolution is pretty much a reply of what happened to the heliocentric theory three or four hundred years ago. Also the whole approach is wrong. Creationists are clearly motivated by a desire to prove the truth of the Bible rather than a desire to find a theory which best fits the facts.

Just my two cents as an ordinary citizen.

[liberallarry]

The Prohibition of the Heliocentric Theory (1616)

A quick reference to this dispute.

[liberallarry]

Correction: ...pretty much of a replay...

[Sara Of Earth †]

+:+:sigh:+:+
Another "missing link"?

[willyboyishere]

I was sure it was gonna be Larry King.

[Dan Day]

I wonder if this one will turn out to not actually be a human ancestor like a few of the other "big" discoveries.

You've either grossly misunderstood hominid paleontology, or you're purposely misrepresenting it.

No one has ever claimed that there will be "one" human lineage without offshoots, dead ends, and branches. Hell, even Darwin back in 1872, before *any* significant fossils to speak of were available, pointed out that the tree of life should be very "bushy", with many "dead branches" that didn't survive to present day. Here's the only figure in his On the Origin of Species book:

This represents a slice of time, with the oldest period at the bottom and new newest at the top. The branching lines in between represent life forms that branch, often die out (each "twig" that stops in the middle of the diagram represents an extinction), and a few of which survive throughout the period of the chart (by reaching the top).

Part of his discussion of this diagram uses a metaphor:

The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species. At each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as species and groups of species have tried to overmaster other species in the great battle for life.

In other words, each family of creature branches off into many variant forms (species or subspecies), yet most of them die out and only the most successful survive to a future date to begin the cycle anew.

Darwin thus predicted that there would be numerous extinct humanoids, *most* of which would not be on a direct ancestral line to modern humans. This is pretty obvious when you consider how evolution works.

So why are so many folks still unclear on this 130-year-old concept?

Many humanoid fossils will be from offshoots of the human tree which succeeded for a time, but eventually perished. We're the only branch that managed to survive to modern times (although it can be argued that the Australian aborigines are an offshoot which is still hanging on from when they split off about 600,000 years ago).

The reason that new humanoid fossils are great discoveries is that they help fill in our family tree, about which little was known a 100 years ago -- *not* that they may necessarily be our precise ancestor (instead of a great-great-great-etc.-uncle), although some will be and we'll know better which is which after we discover more samples from the tree.

[Dan Day]

+:+:sigh:+:+ Another "missing link"?

Yes, there are hundreds of missing links which have been unearthed, with more being found all the time (contrary to what the creationists would have you believe). But once they're discovered they're no longer missing.

[Dan Day]

That brow definitely looks ape-like to me. And the brain is so small.

Of *course* it does. Transitional fossils will have features that are similar to *all* their offshoots, which is one of the ways we can positively identify it as a common ancestor to several lineages.

The common ancestor between all apes and man will have some "apish" features, and some humanoid features. This one's a pretty decent candidate. You've pointed out some of the "apish" features, now here's a post I wrote on annother thread to make clear the humanoid features (and how well filled in the "from there to here" line has become):

---

Now, WHICH one was this skull related to again???

Both, just as the article says.

I can tell just by looking at the photo that the skull has striking features in common with *both* the human *and* the chimp skull. But then, that's exactly what one would *expect* to see in a "missing link".

You're obviously only looking at the *differences*. People tend to see differences more readily than they see similarities. It's like the time I was watching a film with a Chinese friend of mine (I'm American, of European ancestry). There was a scene making a point of the fact that one of the characters was half Chinese and half American. I remarked that the guy looked mostly Chinese to me. My friend replied that to her he looked mostly American.

We tend to notice most what's different from ourselves, and mentally give less credit to what we're already used to seeing.

Here, try this sequence, presented in chronological order:

Newly found skull (7 million years old):

Australopithecus africanus (3.3 million years old):

Australopithecus afarensis (3 million years old):

Homo Ergaster (1.9 million years old):

Homo Erectus, (1.7 million years old):

Cro Magnon Man, (30,000 years old):

Australian Aborigne (found in 1905, age of specimen not given):

Modern Man (present day):

Note that, just as evolution predicts, it's a steady progression from first to last:

1. The brain case steadily grows and takes up more and more of the skull.

2. The eyebrow ridge shrinks and fades into the skull.

3. The slope of the face starts with a heavy slant and them becomes more vertical.

4. The jaw (when available) starts massive (especially at the hinge) and becomes more gracile. Even the two earliest specimens with no jaws obviously leave a *lot* of room open for jaw attachment.

5. The curve of the chin begins very rounded and "undercut", then gradually pulls forward until it's finally sharp and directly below the teeth.

6. The ridge of bone that connects the bottom of the eye sockets (even with the nose) to the sides of the skull (there's a name for it, I forget it right now) begins massive and protruding, with a pronounced depression above it, then gradually shrinks and fades into the skull until it has almost vanished (but is still present) in modern man.

7. The nasal cavity starts out almost round and gradually become triangular.

8. The earlier specimens have 5 molars behind the canine, the latter ones have 4 (the fifth has become an impacted wisdom tooth).

9. There's a noticeable "peak" on the top of the skulls that gradually fades into a rounded crown.

And so on.

Looking at three from the side, each shown true relative size to each other (oldest on left), we have:

I could do a similar transition from the 7 million year old skull to the chimp skull as well (except that it would take longer, there aren't as many non-hominid primate skull photos on the web, because people are more fascinated with hominids), which would show a similar progression over time, indicating that the 7 million year old skull is probably an ancestor, or near ancestor, to the chimp family as well. (Chimp DNA differs from human DNA by only 2%, we're 98% identical and are pretty close relatives, I'm sorry to have to inform you).

The 7 million year old skull has some similarities to the chimp skull (just as it has some similarities to human skulls), but there are big differences there as well, showing plainly that the 7MA skull is hardly just an ancient chimp.

Meanwhile, consider the far greater differences between the following skulls and the 7MA skull than between *either* the human or chimp skulls versus the 7MA skull:

Lowland Gorilla (note the "crest" on top of the skull, not present on the 7MA skull, and the very thick bony "ring" around the skull):

Orangutan (do I really need to point out the unique features?):

Baboon (ditto):

Howler monkey:

Mandrill baboon:

Gibbon:

The 7MA skull is clearly not just a random "ape" skull, it's obviously far closer to a humanoid skull than to the above apes.

[bzrd]

I am not a scientist either, however I consider myself a knowledgable observer in that I have debated the topic [c/e] for years. Of course, I don't delude myself with the notion that the science establishment will listen to my advice on the topic.

I used to argue in favor of a creation-oriented theoretical basis for the science of origins, until I became persuaded that creationism carries with it a prior assumption just as darwinism does. In a very real sense, they are both assumptions in search of evidence.

Though I am an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible for what it says, I don't hold to the position that science should be used to prove either the existence of GOD, or the infallibility of the Bible. If GOD is real [I speak rhetorically] then science, if allowed to proceed on its just course, will do nothing to dissuade an honest observer from coming to the knowledge of the truth of GOD.

In terms of science with respect to origins, I would describe myself as a proponent of ID, as this requires no prior assumption regarding either materialistic or theistic notions.

Brian.

[bzrd]

Are you suggesting that the australian aborigine is "less evolved" than modern man??

Brian.

[liberallarry]

This may be naive, but I never understood religious opposition to evolution.

It should have been long apparent that the Bible cannot be treated as a scientific document. It was written in historical time and shares the scientific assumptions of the time. Its historical truth is also subject to question. But its moral message and its relationship to God are a matter of faith. What man's exploration of this universe will ultimately reveal is anyone's guess.

I say this strictly as an observer. I am an irreligious person - meaning religion simply has no place in my life. It is not my intention to offend anyone who feels differently.

[bzrd]

There are good grounds to reject evolution for [Christian] religious reasons, there are also good grounds to reject evolution for scientific reasons--which is what we are discussing here.

I don't know where you get your information, but the Bible is quite accurate, in terms of historcity--and the trend is away from the notion that it is all a big fairy tale, if you get my drift.

At any rate, the issue is whether the above article has any real scientific content or is just another speculation based on the assumption that "evolution has occurred". You can line up all of the skulls that look alike that you want, but until you have a demonstratable mechanism to account for the alledged transformation--you haven't ruled-out ID or creationism. Indeed, the fact there is no mechanism is de facto evidence for the latter two entities.

Brian

[liberallarry]

There's the dispute I already cited - the heliocentric theory - which calls into question the literal interpretion of the Bible and the authority of the Church. But..

Well, I'm over my head here but I'll attempt a reply.

The ark would have had to be...truly enormous....to accomodate two of every creature we've found to date. Two tyrannosaurus rex running around loose on a ship along with two of what used to be called brontosaurus, two of every microbe and virus, including polio, smallpox, etc. Two of all these hominids and near hominids. Well, it stretches the imagination.

There's a very lively dispute about the extent, or existance, of the kingdom of David and Solomon. There are problems about the destruction of Jericho. Which Ur does the Bible mention? This from just a casual reader. There's a very wide area between "literally true" and "it's all a big fairy-tale".

until you have a demonstratable mechanism to account for the alledged transformation--you haven't ruled-out ID or creationism. Indeed, the fact there is no mechanism is de facto evidence for the latter two entities.

Here is where I draw a true blank. Natural selection is the traditional evolutionary mechanism. I don't know why it's no longer considered acceptable...or even if this last is true. The second part of your argument, the de facto part, makes me think we're back in the 18th century. If existance implies creation, and separate existance separate creation, then who created the creator? If he is posited as the exception then why posit him at all? Why not assume the implication is wrong? I like the evolutionary thesis much better. Living things have too much in common. They're all related...even if we don't understand exactly how. And there's always the unknown and un-imagined. Maybe we're all descendents of immigrants from myriad worlds...and so on.

Most important. Nothing I've stated here. Not one argument, not one fact, is original with me. So I presume you've heard it all before and someone, somewhere has come up with suitable replies. Since I'm not familiar with them I'd love to hear them...which is why I'm posting. There's virtually no chance that either of us will change his views. But we both might learn something...even if it's only a better way of presenting our positions...which is enough for me.:)

[bzrd]

Whether one comes up with a heliocentric theory from the Bible depends upon how one interpretes it--and I wont argue for a minute that biblical interpretation is tricky business, particularly with respect to Genesis. Indeed, I am not dogmatic about the Young Earth veiw for this very reason. Though, I am by no means convinced that the earth is billions of years old either.

I don't think anybody really knows how old it is.

If there is a GOD of the Bible that intervenes into space/time, then it is by no means implausible for the Ark to have contained just what the Bible says it did. Now, this is not a scientific statement nor a scientific discussion at this point, so if you are looking for someone to debate Genesis as science, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I am not a biblical historian and admit to not being well versed on the issue you sited regarding Jericho, though I do know that secular historians doubted the existence of Nineveh for centuries till it's ruins were discovered some time ago.

Natural selection acting on random mutations is the mechanism posited by Darwin and it is still posited today.

Got to go--I am at work, will try to continue after the weekend.

Brian

[bzrd]

Where was I...according to my understanding natural selection acting on random mutations still rules in the land of darwin, though it is now coupled with genetic drift, shuffling, coupling, exon transfer and perhaps a few more "hopeful adjuncts" that I failed to mention.

The point is, it is still doubtful whether this explains the existence, development and diversty of biological life that we see today. Presently, the whole theory rests on the assumption that it is true, sans any meaningful empirical evidence [a note to other readers: I don't buy the bones that look a like, pesticide or microbial resistance to anitibiotics or any other examples of micro-evolution] to support the hypothesis that the anscestors of birds were dinos, or such.

Have good week end..got to go for real this time.

Brian.

[SkyRat]

"Why do people debate Evolution? Nobody debates the composition of the Sun. Nobody debates gravitational pull of bodies. Evolution is such an "obvious fact" after all."

There are several threads on freerepublic about gravitional pull of bodies right now. There is a debate running about new evidence supporting Einsteins predictions of Black Holes, wich is very good.

[That Subliminal Kid]

really?!?!? Share them with me!!!

[gore3000]

Chimps, for example, have no fossil record.

Well, perhaps this is a chimp. Perhaps other finds have been chimps. There is little glory in finding a chimp. Much more glory in finding a man. The following article says that this find is a chimp:

Hmmm, About That Skull Find...
Reuters

PARIS -- A prehistoric skull touted as the oldest human remains ever found is probably not the head of the earliest member of the human family but of an ancient female gorilla, a French scientist said on Friday.

Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris said certain aspects of the skull, whose discovery in Chad was announced on Wednesday, were actually sexual characteristics of female gorillas rather than indications of a human character.

Two other French experts cast doubt on the skull as Michel Brunet, head of the archeological team that discovered it, was due to present his findings at a news conference at Poitiers in western France.

A self-confessed heretic amid the hoopla over the skull, which dates back six or seven million years, Senut said its short face and small canines merely pointed to a female and were not conclusive evidence that it was a hominid.

"I tend toward thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla," she told Reuters in an interview. "The characteristics taken to conclude that this new skull is a hominid are sexual characteristics.

"Moreover, other characteristics such as the occipital crest (the back of the neck where the neck muscles attach) ... remind me much more of the gorilla," she said, saying older gorillas also had these characteristics.

So little is known about the distant period of history represented by the skull that one scientist who has seen it told Nature magazine the discovery would have the impact of a "small nuclear bomb" among students of human evolution.

The London-based journal broke the news on Wednesday.

The skull, discovered last year by an international team of palaeoanthropologists, has been nicknamed "Toumai," the name usually given in the central African country to children who are born close to the dry season.

Ten million years ago the world was full of apes, and it was not until five million years later that the first good records of hominids -- or members of the human family, distinct from chimpanzees and other apes -- appeared.

Senut contested the theory that Toumai represented the missing link of human evolution between the two benchmarks.

The skull's braincase is ape-like, the face is short and the teeth, especially the canines, are small and more like those of a human.

But she said these were characteristics of female gorillas and cited the case of a skull that was discovered in the 1960s and accepted for 20 years as that of a hominid before everyone agreed that it was a female gorilla.

French media have reported extensively on the skull, not least because it came to light after years of digging through the sand dunes of northern Chad by Brunet, a Frenchman from the University of Poitiers.

Despite the national pride, Senut was not the only French scientist to raise questions about the hominid theory.

Yves Coppens of the College of France told the daily Le Figaro that the skull had an ambiguous shape, with the front looking pre-human and the back like that of a large monkey.

"The exact status of this new primate is not yet certain," he said. "Michel Brunet believes it is a pre-human, other respected palaeoanthropologists ... see it as one side of the big primitive monkeys. "Others suggest a shared ancestry before the divide between hominids and monkeys took hold."

His colleague at the same institution, Pascal Picq, suggested that chemical research to establish Toumai's diet or a reconstruction of the skull by computer imaging could determine whether it was man or monkey, though for him it was "pre-human."

But no one contests the significance of the discovery.

"Even if it is a big monkey, it's even more interesting," Coppens said. "Because until now, in the genealogy of monkeys, there is a big missing link stretching over millions of years."

Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.

[gore3000]

You can line up all of the skulls that look alike that you want, but until you have a demonstratable mechanism to account for the alledged transformation--you haven't ruled-out ID or creationism. Indeed, the fact there is no mechanism is de facto evidence for the latter two entities.

Indeed, the mechanisms which evolutionists tout as the source for the creation of new species are all negative: natural selection destroys species, kills individuals, mutations destroy genetic information, they do not create it. In addition, the passing on of new genetic traits has been shown to be practically impossible by Mendelian genetics, the creation of new genes has been shown to be infinitessimally unlikely by the discovery of DNA and the usage of those infinitessimally unlikely genes has been rendered practically impossible by the discovery of gene expression.