Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oldest member of human family found
Nature ^ | 07/11/2002 | John Whitfield

Posted on 07/11/2002 4:13:07 PM PDT by jennyp

After a decade of digging through the sand dunes of northern Chad, Michel Brunet found a skull 6-7 million years old. He named it Toumaï.

Toumaï is thought to be the oldest fossil from a member of the human family. It's a dispatch from the time when humans and chimpanzee were going their separate evolutionary ways. A thrilling, but confusing dispatch1,2.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Toumaï's scientific name - was probably one of many similar species living in Africa at that time. "There must have been a group of apes knocking around between 5 and 8 million years ago for which there's a very poor fossil record," says anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington DC.

Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution. "Anybody who thinks this isn't going to get more complex isn't learning from history," says Wood.

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," he says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last.

Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.

Most members of the group are less than three million years old. After Toumaï, the next-oldest hominid is the 6-million-year old Orrorin tugenensis. But Orrorin is known only from a few teeth and bone scraps, and its evolutionary allegiances are controversial.

Our knowledge of Toumaï's period is "at the 1963 stage", says Wood.

Feature story

"When I first saw the skull I thought: 'Gee, it's a chimp'," says anthropologist Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University. Toumaï's brain, for example, was roughly chimp-sized. A closer look "blew my socks off", he recalls.

Sahelanthropus has many traits that shout 'hominid'. These include smaller canines, and thicker tooth enamel than apes. And the point at the back of skull where neck muscles attach suggests that Toumaï walked upright.

Many of Toumaï's advanced features are missing from later fossils such as Australopithecus, but reappear in still later species that are classified as Homo.

Finding hominids in the Sahara was a bit of a long shot.
© M.P.F.T.

Based on this, we might have to question some species' place in the hominid club. If Australopithecus looks more ape-like than a much older fossil, how can it belong to the human family? "Anything with a more primitive face has to have its membership reviewed," says Wood.

No groups will be expelled on the evidence so far. The real lesson, says Wood, is that appearances are a bad guide to evolutionary relations. Hominid and ape species probably mixed and matched from a set of features, he says, with the same traits evolving independently on multiple lineages.

Toumaï has other features that are just strange. "It's got a massive brow ridge, the size of a large male gorilla, and yet it's just a little hominid," says Lieberman. This heavy brow leads many to believe that Toumaï was male.

Family feud

Where then does Toumaï fit on the family tree? He could belong on the chimp or hominid lines, or he could be part of a different branch of the family, more distant from both chimps and humans that either is from the other.

"I'm willing to bet some money that this is a hominid," says Lieberman.

Palaeoanthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, agrees. He thinks that Toumaï might belong to Ardipithecus, a group defined by fossils dating from about 5.5-4.5 million years ago.

But Wood takes a different view. "My guess is that it's neither a chimp nor a human ancestor - it's a creature that was living at the same time."

To solve the mystery we need more fossils from the same period. Unfortunately our relatives' habits may be against us. The forests favoured by chimps, and apparently by early hominids, are not conducive to fossil formation. Chimps, for example, have no fossil record.

On the bright side, Toumaï's discovery suggests that, even if they were rarely fossilized, ancient apes and hominids roamed right across Africa. "Finding hominids in the Sahara was a bit of a long shot," says Wood. So far, most fossil hominids have turned up in the east, with a few further south.

But desert-bound palaeontologists be warned: "There are brutal field conditions," says Lieberman.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: anthropology; archaeology; creation; crevolist; evolution; fossil; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; missinglink; multiregionalism; neandertal; origins; palaeoanthropology; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
The implication of this fossil is clear: It's time for another CR/EVO thread!
1 posted on 07/11/2002 4:13:07 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
You can see some beautiful photos of the fossil here.
2 posted on 07/11/2002 4:13:59 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

3 posted on 07/11/2002 4:14:51 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

4 posted on 07/11/2002 4:16:32 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I wonder if this one will turn out to not actually be a human ancestor like a few of the other "big" discoveries.
5 posted on 07/11/2002 4:21:49 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
Such as?
6 posted on 07/11/2002 4:23:35 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
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.
7 posted on 07/11/2002 4:23:39 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
You're kidding me right? Neandertal was found last year to have no part in human ancestry. I can't remember what became of piltdown man.
8 posted on 07/11/2002 4:24:39 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Piltdown man, for example.
9 posted on 07/11/2002 4:30:33 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
digging through the sand dunes of northern Chad,

Chad?

g

10 posted on 07/11/2002 4:33:06 PM PDT by Geezerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I believe there was a headstart on this find here, different article but same topic.
11 posted on 07/11/2002 4:35:59 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: That Subliminal Kid
Yawn. I am truly tired of this stuff. They find one skull and now everything has changed. How many times have we heard this before? I remember "Lucy". I thought that "changed" everything? Who knows. I am tired of this pseudo science. I was watching some pathetic show about Dinosaurs and it had animated creatures (Discovery Chanel I think). And they were showing how these creaturees lived! What time of day they feeded- what they ate- and who their modern ancestors were! Such crap! At one point they showed some alligator type thing which the voice over said was the earliest ancestor of the Whale! Oh Really! And they know this how. So what was right after this species? Well - they showed a large extinct whale that looked nothing like the alligator guy. Where are the numerous in between fossils? I am not a creationist but something tells me the current theory of evolution is a house of cards.
12 posted on 07/11/2002 4:38:56 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Oldest member of human family found,


13 posted on 07/11/2002 4:42:26 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I believe there was a headstart on this find here, different article but same topic.

LOL! And THAT thread had an "already posted", too!

14 posted on 07/11/2002 4:43:44 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Toumai?

They should have had a "Name That Sahelanthropus Tchadensis" contest. My choice would have been "Skully."

15 posted on 07/11/2002 4:44:29 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
So, now you've got your own board, eh? ;)
16 posted on 07/11/2002 4:48:05 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
We where both thinking of the same person until I remembered that they said the fossil was a member of the human race.
17 posted on 07/11/2002 4:52:03 PM PDT by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The implication of this fossil is clear: It's time for another CR/EVO thread!

Or another four or five. Upon review, this article does state something about which I have wondered.

Chimps, for example, have no fossil record.

18 posted on 07/11/2002 4:52:17 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Grandpa!

A very interesting find. And it's so well preserved! I'm sure the debate is going rage now in paleoanthropological circles. That brow definitely looks ape-like to me. And the brain is so small.

19 posted on 07/11/2002 4:53:16 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
OH, it's easy! See, if I have this being that looks like this, and this other being that looks like that, and they have remotely similar morphology, I can dream up a story where all these other beings I've never seen came between them, so they're related, see? I mean, don't forget- Chimp DNA is 97% the same as human.. But wait.. does that mean that 3% caused all the observed difference? So.. hmm.. maybe DNA is a much more sensitive thing that can't mutate like a wad of play dough.. hmm.. I'm confused. I need to go indoctrinate myself with more TalkOrigins. I'll be back to proselytize.
20 posted on 07/11/2002 4:54:24 PM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson