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
It's not possible to make a convertable out of a hard top, withour removing its head.
But you have to clean up the mess afterwards.
That is because "aliveness" is a continuum and not a binary state if evaluated in a strict and rigorous fashion, though we tend to treat "alive" as a binary condition in common usage.
There is almost an unbroken chain of self-replicating molecular entities in nature starting with simple molecules all the way up to big critters like humans. Viruses occupy one part of that chain of molecular complexity right around the gray area where we stop treating them as complex molecules and start treating them as macro-systems as a matter of functional complexity. "Aliveness" is a continuum and putting the breaking point at any one point in the chain of complexity is arbitrary, as the entities on either side of any breaking point will be nearly identical in nature.
For the record, I'm not a creationist. I don't believe the Earth was made in 6 (of our) days. I do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. I'm an adherent to the "scientific method".
The problem with you guys is you're so f-ing full of yourselves. There is nothing wrong with saying, "This is what I think happened, and here's the reasons (facts, experinece, or whatever) for believing this."
When you engage in name-calling, and heavy-handed attempts to belittle those who don't share your view, you weaken your own position in the scheme of these debates.
What you doubtless view as put-down humor and witty repartee is viewed by those of us passing through as shrillness at it's basest. You're not winning adherents to your cause - you're turning people off.
If you think that's the Dale Carnigie way to win friends and influence people, then that's your business. You go right ahead and do it that way. You may be impressing yourself and others in your choir, but trust me - that's pretty much where it ends.
Too bad. The subject matter itself is fascinating. When you stand up and pound your chest like a gorilla and yell at the top of your lungs, " HEY! I'm right, and the rest of you dumb f*cks are wrong, and that's that!!!", whatever you brought to the table has a way of disappearing.
Kind of like whatever passed for reasonableness with you....
CA....
OK, that makes sense. I thought I remembered it like that but it's been a number of years.
So this is along the lines of the concern about nanotechnology and grey goo only living cells are not required for replication of the nanorobots? Nanorobots would not technically be alive but could be self-replicating. So, they would be a kind of environmental virus?
Actually, proper nanorobots would technically be alive in the same sense that bacteria are, but they would likely be constructed from a different molecular framework than biology and so would be quite foreign compared to what we are familiar with. Viruses are usually not considered alive because they have no metabolism and cannot replicate themselves in isolation -- they have to hijack the more sophisticated machinery of complete cells to do all that stuff. A proper nanorobot should be able to express something analogous to all the things that make a bacterium "alive".
You say, There is nothing wrong with saying, "This is what I think happened, and here's the reasons (facts, experinece, or whatever) for believing this." Fine. This is exactly what I did in post 9. I laid out why it was ignorant of science to think that it is a "leap of faith" to believe that anything useful can be gleaned from the study of teeth and jaw fragments.
For my trouble, I get accused of trying to make him look stupid. I did exactly what you claim I should have -- told him why he's wrong and why -- and simply by doing so, he accuses me of trying to make him look stupid. (Well, at least he didn't accuse me of being a sex fiend, a communist, a liberal, a DUer, an atheist, or any number of other choice tags that the ignoratti on these boards favor.)Now, not only did I have explain to this ignorant fool the difference between ignorance and stupidity, but I have to now deal with the likes of you. You think I'm f-ing full of myself?? Well, take your opinion, worthless as it is, and stick it.
And lastly, I'm not trying to influence people or impress them. I don't want converts, this isn't a church or a cult. I'm simply stating the facts as I see them. If someone doesn't like those facts, their dislike won't change the facts one bit. Again, if someone volunteers to be stupid, by clinging to subjective ignorance over objective reality, that's their business. But I am not going to pretend that their willing ignorance is something other than what it is. And you're a damned fool if you think I'm going to give a rat's ass that some other damned fool doesn't like it.
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
No, you went well beyond that. You're not critiquing - you're slinging mud. Every other descriptive word is a derogatory reference to someone who has a different viewpoint than you. (There are different viewpoints out there, you know.)
There's a difference between intelligent discourse and a shouting match, but apparently you haven't been schooled on those finer points. I'm not saying your initial points or facts were wrong, but labeling someone else's attempt to express himself as vomit is a bit beyond the pale for me. That says nothing (except about you), and it accomplishes nothing.
And no, you don't have to "put up with the likes of" me in this discussion. I'm not really much interested in seeing, hearing, or bothering with your "rat's ass", as you so eloquently put it.
Whatever fine points you and your ilk may have made here today, you lost them with your approach.
Good thing for you you're not looking to win arguments here.
CA....
I knew there was something I liked about it.
Right. Feeling takes precedence over thought.
Exactly. Many words and phrases had totally different meanings back when the Bible was written than they do today. That's why there are many scholars trying to study the Bible.
For another example, "The meek shall inherit the earth." Meek meant something totally different back then.
Genesis might be evidence of the Big Bang Theory. How do we know? But that said, evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest is so clear. How can anyone deny it? We are evolving out our appendix and little toe because we don't need it anymore. Neither is necessary for our survival.
But it might not be inconsistent with the Bible either. Who knows? The Bible cannot be taken literally because of historical interpretation.
Also agree. Well said. There are also many colleges that study theology and the Bible. Jesuits included.
http://www.seattleu.edu/theomin/
Usually thought takes precedence over feelings, yes, though there are times when the reverse is true. In this instance, I think it's sort of irrelevant. Or irreverant.
OK, send me a link to a piece of evidence in favor of simultaneous creation.
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.