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
100
Well, close enough.
This ain't government work, you know?
Actually, I was responding to somebody that I have discussed this with before. Occasionally, somebody will make the mistake of saying "prove that the bible is wrong". It is not that difficult to do. I was trying to explain that the bible being wrong is not a faith-shattering thing for me, and I was trying to explain why I feel that way.
I understand your mistaking the intent of my post. I do not recall seeing you before, so I would not be surprised if you were not familiar with my posts. I was not trying to generate a huge number of responses. I was answering a specific question from a specific person to the best of my knowledge and beliefs. That's all.
And in that case the reverse is always a mistake.
In this instance, I think it's sort of irrelevant.
Fallacies are always relevant.
I threw it out there because I enjoyed the ridiculousness of it, my apologies if you were offended.
You said nothing offensive, nothing to be offended about. LOL
Good enough :-)
Sometimes I can't stop myself from looking into the crevo threads. I know the subject matter is fairly serious, but they strike me as somewhat ridiculous most of the time.
Not that they aren't interesting, though.
And if you want to pretend that conversing with people who enjoy wallowing in ignorance is "intelligent discourse" it doesn't say much for your intelligence. But don't flatter yourself, though, by pretending that it's intelligent. It isn't. Calling an ignorant statement "just another viewpoint" is partly a lie (by pretending it is something that it is not) and partly cowardice on your part (by not having the guts to tell someone they're wrong). If you want to be a lying coward, that is your right. I choose not to be. Also, pretending an ignorant statement is the same as a knowledgeable one also does a disservice to the speaker. If he isn't made aware of his ignorance, how can you expect the ignorant ever to learn the real facts?
"Teeth and jaw fragments can tell a knowledgeable person a lot about the owner of that tooth or jaw fragment"
As in the case of Nebraska man.
It should also be mentioned that nowhere did I take a stand your, or your opponent's, "facts", thereby rendering the "ignorance" angle from you moot. My ax to grind with you is your demeanor in this thread, or what passes for it. Not content to insult this guy, belittle him, and try and pass yourself off as something superior, you play the aggrieved party when someone calls you on it. Yeah, I'm real impressed with you.
I'll give you back your board, but not before I mention that not only are tact and diplomacy not your strong suits, but they're quite apparently not even in your lexicon.
I'll admit - this "debate", such as it is, has been a waste of time, and I'm a poorer man for having wasted my time on you.
Have a nice day tomorrow!
CA....
If that was *all* they had, you'd have a point. But since it's not, you don't.
Evolution is just conjecture on conjecture on conjecture.
Wrong again. Very, very wrong. Evolution is based on mountains of evidence, and has been validated and cross-confirmed in more ways than you can possibly imagine. So please stop lying about it. Thanks.
I don't have enough faith to believe in a 37 million year long chain of guesses.
Neither do I, that's why I follow the actual real-world evidence, and the many methods by which the theory of evolution has been cross-checked and found valid, and has passed countless numbers of potential falsification tests.
So again, you really might want to consider stop lying about the nature of evolutionary biology.
So... Where are your posts taking creationists to task for behaving like complete asses, and arrogantly insulting entire branches of science, the professionals who practice them, and the people who appreciate these fields?
Why are you ripping WildHorseCrash a new one for responding with admirable restraint to someone who posted an insulting mischaracterization of an entire well-established field? Why are you ignoring the past history of that poster, who has said even worse and refuses to revise his attitude when called on it? Why are you ignoring the wider behavior of creationists in general?
In short, why are you barging in berating one poster for a post that was hardly way out of line, without a clue about the context in which it was said?
Restraint? You've no idea what restraint is, especially "admirable restraint". Can the caustic comments, and you'll see me disappear.
The simple fact of the matter is, you guys aren't simply content to debate the issues of the day. You want to smash, embarrass, belittle and insult others in a most neurotic way. It's not a pretty sight.
It's not a case of, "you're wrong! Here's the facts!". It's more like "Some are insane, others ignorant, still more are brainwashed. (way to calm the crowd, boys!); "...regardless of how many cranks, kooks, religious hustlers, charlatans, or ignorant, stupid, brainwashed or insane people are out there push their religious dogma or cockamamie crap like creationism and ID creationism on the world." (that was certainly a diplomatic foray!); ...affecting false modesty... (ooooh, that was a rich one!); ...every lame-brained statement anyone vomits forth from his lips is a precious gem... (ahhh, speaking of precious...).
And so it goes.
Philosophically, I have very little argument you guys. It's just when stuff like this is posted, it rubs the wrong way.
The cumulative effect of all this miasma is an implied, "the only way you can avoid ignorance, and possibly stupidity, that may well be terminal in your case, is to think just like me!"
No thanks.
CA....
As in the case of Nebraska man.
Exactly!! The scientists who determined the correct classification and who were able to correct the mistaken classification of the specimen as being a primate were able to do so in part because the tooth fit nowhere, based on its morphology, within the accepted history of human and primate descent. (And is another reason why creationism is silly: If there was anything to a god poofing animals into existence, this valuable error-correcting process is lost as no such evaluation is possible.)
Thus demonstrating conclusively that finding transitionals disproves the Theory of Evolution due to a lack of transitionals. < /sarcasm >
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.