Oldest Human Skulls Found

BBC ^ | 6-11-2003 | Jonathan Amos

[blam]

Oldest human skulls found

By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff

Three fossilised skulls unearthed in Ethiopia are said by scientists to be among the most important discoveries ever made in the search for the origin of humans.

Herto skull: Dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years old (Image copyright: David L. Brill)

The crania of two adults and a child, all dated to be around 160,000 years old, were pulled out of sediments near a village called Herto in the Afar region in the east of the country.

They are described as the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.

What excites scientists so much is that the specimens fit neatly with the genetic studies that have suggested this time and part of Africa for the emergence of mankind.

"All the genetics have pointed to a geologically recent origin for humans in Africa - and now we have the fossils," said Professor Tim White, one of the co-leaders on the research team that found the skulls.

"These specimens are critical because they bridge the gap between the earlier more archaic forms in Africa and the fully modern humans that we see 100,000 years ago," the University of California at Berkeley, US, paleoanthropologist told BBC News Online.

Out of Africa

The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.

These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means "elder" in the local Afar language).

Herto reconstruction: What the ancient people might have looked like (Image copyright: J. Matternes)

The Herto discoveries were hailed on Wednesday by those researchers who have championed the idea that all humans living today come from a population that emerged from Africa within the last 200,000 years.

The proponents of the so-called Out of Africa hypothesis think this late migration of humans supplanted all other human-like species alive around the world at the time - such as the Neanderthals in Europe.

If modern features already existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, they argued, we could not have descended from species like Neanderthals.

"These skulls are fantastic evidence in support of the Out of Africa idea," Professor Chris Stringer, from London's Natural History Museum, told BBC News Online.

"These people were living in the right place and at the right time to be possibly the ancestors of all of us."

Sophisticated behaviour

The skulls were found in fragments, at a fossil-rich site first identified in 1997, in a dry and dusty valley.

Stone tools and the fossil skull of a butchered hippo were the first artefacts to be picked up. Buffalo fossils were later recovered indicating the ancient humans had a meat-rich diet.

The most complete of the adult skulls was seen protruding from the ancient sediment; it had been exposed by heavy rains and partially trampled by herds of cows.

SEARCH FOR HUMAN ORIGINS

The Herto skulls represent a confirmation of the genetic studies

The skull of the child - probably aged six or seven - had been shattered into more than 200 pieces and had to be painstakingly reconstructed.

All the skulls had cut marks indicating they had been de-fleshed in some kind of mortuary practice. The polishing on the skulls, however, suggests this was not simple cannibalism but more probably some kind of ritualistic behaviour.

This type of practice has been recorded in more modern societies, including some in New Guinea, in which the skulls of ancestors are preserved and worshipped.

The Herto skulls may therefore mark the earliest known example of conceptual thinking - the sophisticated behaviour that stands us apart from all other animals.

"This is very possibly the case," Professor White said.

The Ethiopian discoveries are reported in the journal Nature.

[VadeRetro]

What does the okapi and monkeys prove ?

You run around asking for a short-necked giraffe. How many people have tried to answer you?

I wasn't talking about a minkey. </Clouseau_mode>

[blam]

The Ainu, of Japan, are the hairiest humans on earth today.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Happy birthday. Where's my check?"

Thank you for the birthday wishes, but I must say, after that little piece of civility you quickly moved into the "gimme" phase.

Unfortunately, it will do you no good. I must warn you that even such flattery and your winsome good looks Mr. Metesky will not get you added to Michael Anthony's list.

Mr. Anthony is no longer in my service. He said he was bored giving all those millions to worthy people such as you, Mr. Metesky. Instead he has hooked up with that young scamp, Dick Clark, and has joined his Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol.

So though you might keep looking down you driveway for Mr. Anthony, he will no longer be coming here to Silverstone on his way to find his "next millionaire".

On many occasions I was able to summon Michael Anthony to come to my palatial estate, Silverstone, to receive his next assignment. Unfortunately, his scoundrel of a cousin, Mordred "Tex" Anthony had me mortgage Silverstone and invest in Enron. I am now trying to get handouts from all those very same millionaires that I created, but because I did it anonymously, they think I'm a con man and slam the door in my face.

Now it's "the old dog for the hard road."

[f.Christian]

What does the okapi and monkeys prove ?

[exmarine]

A skull in hand is not an inference. You have to start somewhere. Given such a skull, what is your explanation for it? And inference doesn't make things wrong. It makes sense, for instance, that the back side of the moon is a continuation of the sphere you see from earth.

Again, I am merely saying that the inferences cannot be called "facts" since there is no empirical proof for these conclusions. Neodarwinists are always speaking about the authority of empirical science, but it doesn't come into play here becuase these conclusions are not grounded in empirical science -they are grounded in philosophy. Want me to point out some examples from the article?

[metesky]

Mordred "Tex" Anthony

LOL! Good humor to you, sir.

[plusone]

Good point. Science can get a lot of mileage out of such scant evidence if it serves their purpose.

[plusone]

Okay, I'll take on the debate. I'm no creo. But I find huge faults with evo'n logic. Apparently, the same evo'n that can create modern humans from more primitive ancestors in 100,000 years, can't manage to change a mosquito over 100 million years. There are fossilized (in amber) mosquitos that science claims to be that old. And they look indentical to modern day m/s. If the forces of evo'n can't alter a bug, how did it transform humans in such a comparatively short period of time?

[plusone]

Okay, I'll take on the debate. I'm no creo. But I find huge faults with evo'n logic. Apparently, the same evo'n that can create modern humans from more primitive ancestors in 100,000 years, can't manage to change a mosquito over 100 million years. There are fossilized (in amber) mosquitos that science claims to be that old. And they look indentical to modern day m/s. If the forces of evo'n can't alter a bug, how did it transform humans in such a comparatively short period of time?

[Norse]

Thanks for the information, that is interesting.

One of my evolutionist friends claims that one of the biggest proofs of evolution is that whales evolved from wolves. He claims that whales have feet, if one looks at an x-ray. Certainly, i've never heard this before, and the entire concept is laughable.

I'm certainly not one of those who thinks that all life evolved from a single celled organism..that is rediculous. But, I do believe in evolution that might change the physical characteristics of a certain species to a certain degree.

[ErnBatavia]

You worked with Orenthal??

[Ahban]

Vade,

Its been too long. Glad that the war is over and we can get back to our crevo wars! I will be able to savour them more after next Sunday- got a big job due.

I must admit, if the find holds it is a strong point for your position. My guess is that the dating method used was luminescent dating. That can only give MAXIMUM ages. I would need to see some more data on that, as I am sure you can understand.

I would also like to see the pics, I mean large enough to tell something, of the actual finds. Evidence from a partial skull shattered into 200 pieces is too susceptable to wishful reconstruction. Still, I am worried. IF this all pans out you are only missing an incontrevertable find or two from the 65-95K gap for checkmate.

[F16Fighter]

The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.

These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means "elder" in the local Afar language).

Oh?? So they've finally found the elusive 'missing link'??

Why not call it 'Homo sapiens graspingus atus strawus'?

How freaking desperate Darwinist movement is...

[F16Fighter]

"What, evolution is a 'joke' because it doesn't address a philosophical issue?"

Why don't you or anyone else explain the "evolution" of the human mind -- NOT brain but mind which operates independently of the brain. From THE very beginning.

Since thoughts, concepts and ideas like love, hate, and empathy, for example are not physical human attributes, how can material science address this "little" snafu of the "evolution" of the soul?? Is it assumed two cells are rubbed together to make an idea or concept? What of it?

The scientifically unanswerable shall REMAIN unanswerable -- UNTIL YOU ALL ATTAIN "GOD-HOOD." God luck...

[Dimensio]

Why don't you or anyone else explain the "evolution" of the human mind -- NOT brain but mind which operates independently of the brain. From THE very beginning.

Can you demonstrate that the "mind" is something that is seperate from the brain?

Since thoughts, concepts and ideas like love, hate, and empathy, for example are not physical human attributes, how can material science address this "little" snafu of the "evolution" of the soul??

Chemical reactions occuring in the brain. Do you have evidence for an alternative explanation?

[Dimensio]

If the forces of evo'n can't alter a bug, how did it transform humans in such a comparatively short period of time?

This looks like a variaton on the "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" canard.

[Aric2000]

I'll take a stab at it.

If an insect or an organism fits it's environment or more then one environment, then, natural selection has no place in separating it's stronger genetic traits from the rest. In other words, they DON'T die because of natural disasters, environmental changes etc.

They survive to old age and reproduce, and their mutations are so spread out through the gene pool, that it makes no REAL changes in the species itself. If there is no drive for natural selection, then there will be no drive for a species to change, therefore, it's genetics mutations remain spread out, and have no real effect.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong in specifics, or if they want to get more specific, but that is pretty much the basic gist of it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That's why people who subscribe to the faith-based doctrine of 'evolution' don't like to talk about the mind-body problem or the ought-is problem.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, fella. Some of us are theistic evolutionists.

[PatrickHenry]

That's good. Also, there are over 3,000 mosquito species. So evolution appears to have done its thing. I don't know what other, different-looking insects may be descended from some long-ago mosquito mutations. Just because bugs don't wear signs telling us "I'm a distant desdendant of a mosquito," isn't any reason to assume that there aren't many such. A specialist would be able to tell us. In any event, the mosquito certainly hasn't remained static, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are still examples around of the original stock. Such survival is not a contradiction of the theory. After all, we still have bacteria with us.

[Leisler]

Grady, from Sanford and Son.