Scientists Find Skull of Human Ancestor

Associated Press ^ | Sat 25 March | DAGNACHEW TEKLU

[Alter Kaker]

Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday that they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man.

The hominid cranium — found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old — "comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human," said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.

Archaeologists found the early human cranium five weeks ago at Gawis in Ethiopia's northeastern Afar region, Sileshi said.

Several stone tools and fossilized animals including two types of pigs, zebras, elephants, antelopes, cats, and rodents were also found at the site.

Sileshi, an Ethiopian paleoanthropologist based at Indiana University, said most fossil hominids are found in pieces but the near-complete skull — a rare find — provided a wealth of information.

"The Gawis cranium provides us with the opportunity to look at the face of one of our ancestors," the archaeology project said in a statement.

Homo erectus, which many believe was an ancestor of modern Homo sapiens, is thought to have died out 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

The cranium dates to a time about which little is known — the transition from African Homo erectus to modern humans. The fossil record from Africa for this period is sparse and most of the specimens poorly dated, project archaeologists said.

The face and cranium of the fossil are recognizably different from those of modern humans, but bear unmistakable anatomical evidence that it belongs to the modern human's ancestry, Sileshi said.

"A good fossil provides anatomical evidence that allows us to refine our understanding of evolution. A great fossil forces us to re-examine our views of human origins. I believe the Gawis cranium is a great fossil," said Scott Simpson, a project paleontologist from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine at Cleveland, Ohio.

Scientists conducting surveys in the Gawis River drainage basin found the skull in a small gully, the project statement said.

"This is really exciting because it joins a limited number of fossils which appear to be evolutionary between Homo erectus and our own species Homo sapiens," said Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at Lehman College of the City University of New York, who was not involved in the discovery but has followed the project.

Homo erectus left Africa about 2 million years ago and spread across Asia from Georgia in the Caucasus to China and Indonesia. It first appeared in Africa between 1 million and 2 million years ago.

Between 1 million and perhaps 200,000 years ago, one or more species existed in Africa that gave rise to the earliest members of our own species Homo sapiens — between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.

Delson said the fossil found in Ethiopia "might represent a population broadly ancestral to modern humans or it might prove to be one of several side branches which died out without living descendants."

In this photo released by the Stone Age Institute, Gona Project member Ashmed Humet, holds the newly discovered skull of a small human ancestor on Feb. 16, 2006 in Gona, Ethiopia. Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday March 25, 2006 that they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man. The hominid cranium, found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old, 'comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia. (AP Photo/Stone Age Institute, Sileshi Semaw, HO) MANDATORY CREDIT

[bonfire]

Cool! A missing link!

[Dallas59]

Maybe the snakes wiped em out...

Clicky Here For Man Bites Snake

[bonfire]

Hysterical! lol!

[Virginia-American]

It's not missing now!

[SunkenCiv]

alas...

Skull discovery could fill origins gap
Yahoo (Reuters) | Fri Mar 24, 11:02 AM ET
Posted on 03/24/2006 2:47:46 PM EST by The_Victor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1602561/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

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)

[NormsRevenge]

Homo erectus Bump

[Oztrich Boy]

If humans were our ancestors, how come there's still humans around?

[Jeff Chandler]

Homo erectus

Heh Heh. You said "Homo".

[Jeff Chandler]

Homo erectus

Heh Heh. You said "erectus".

[Alter Kaker]

If humans were our ancestors, how come there's still humans around?

My younger son always wants to know why I'm still around...

[Tim Long]

"Scientists Find Skull of Extinct Ape"

Curly: No, I'm the found Link.

Six Days Ping

[Jo Nuvark]

Skull found in two pieces.
And how many miles apart?

[Alter Kaker]

Skull found in two pieces. And how many miles apart?

It's really amazing how uniquely negative the creationist ideology is. You really have nothing to contribute to the discussion. No ideas of your own --- you attack scientists, fine, but what have you yourselves accomplished? Where exactly in Ethipia are the creationist scholars toiling? Why can't you ever come up with anything more substantive than soundbites to advance your ideology?

[Jo Nuvark]

THIS is NOT a sound bite.

Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. (snip) After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. (snip)

Roy Holt asked: "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy).

Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!).

Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?"

Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity."

(Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

[Alter Kaker]

THIS is NOT a sound bite.

Not only is it a soundbite, but it feeds right back to what I was saying: because it's a worthless, factually inaccurate soundbite that lazily and dishonestly attacks evolution without constructing any positive ideas of its own. I ask you again: where exactly in Ethiopia are the creationist scholars doing their groundbreaking work? Where are they publishing? What have they found?

Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. (snip) After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. (snip) Roy Holt asked: "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity."

Not only is this patently false, it's absurd and dishonest. If you bothered to read Johanson's book (sitting on my shelf) or any of the journal articles, you'd know that Johanson went in great detail to describe the location of Lucy as well as the location of the A. afarensis knee and of other remains. At no point did he claim that the A. afarensis knee he found came from the same individual. Where do you guys come up with this nonsense? Do you really believe it?

[Tim Long]

If I'm not mistaken, Johanson has since admitted "Lucy" was likely a male chimp. I have no problem with it being an extinct species, but if the discoverer admitted it, we should stop using it a distinct species.

[Alter Kaker]

If I'm not mistaken, Johanson has since admitted "Lucy" was likely a male chimp. I have no problem with it being an extinct species, but if the discoverer admitted it, we should stop using it a distinct species.

I'm confident you're mistaken, but I'd be curious to see a cite for that, if you have one. Lucy's textbook A. afarensis.

[Quark2005]

(Saw this on a couple of the MSM websites - looks like potentially big news - up to you if it's pingworthy)