Posted on 06/11/2003 8:03:26 AM PDT by 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.
Well, there could have been different branches of human DNA, could there not? Yes, there could. Just becuase DNA's do not complete match does not necessarily mean that they are different species, especially since there is still a great deal about DNA and its informational content that they do not yet know.
After seeing the photos in the book, I believe that MANY of them were altered for sure. I do not know if all of them have.
Now, please show me the evidence used to reach the conclusions in this article.
Your allegation is ridiculous and indefensible, but somehow mainstream science isn't believable any longer?
The Neanderthals were humans. There is no evidence that says otherwise.
From A Rebuilt Neanderthal:
The Neanderthal's shoulders are wider than a human's. The pelvis is also wider, even in males. Some scientists once suspected that the wide pelvis enabled Neanderthals to carry a child longer than nine months, giving birth to larger, more developed infants. But that view is now doubted.There are instances of fossils with intermediate features, but they are the exception. One such case:The Neanderthal has shorter forearms and shins, a broader trunk and virtually no waist. The rib cage is a pronounced difference; instead of tapering off, as in humans, it is large and more bell-shaped. And there is the heavy brow ridge, sloping forehead and forward-projecting face. Attached at the skeleton's neck is a small hyoid bone, which would have anchored the muscles of the tongue and other parts of a voice box apparatus.
The Hybrid Child from Portugal.
Another is the Skuhl V specimen from Israel.
Neanderthal specimens are found all over Europe and much of Asia.
Again, who is running around faking all that stuff? Fix your ignorance, then get back to me.
mtDNA preserves better, as there are more mitochondria per cell than nuclei. You have far more chances. No nuclear DNA studies have been done between Neanderthals and humans so far and it's a pity.
True enough. But those haven't been found yet have they?
They are described as the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
I know it was a sarcastic remark, but if someone believes that man has evolved from apes then they don't have a proper grasp of the evolution theory.
Your DNA is a combination of pairs of genes, where one side will be dominent and one side recessive (say a gene for blonde hair, and one for dark hair). In the creation of eggs and sperm, each only gets one side. When sperm and egg combine, the two halves come together in a new combination, hence re-combination.
This is how two parents with dark hair (but with a blonde recessive gene) can have a kid with blonde hair.
I think that the oldest known fossils might be the ones that I alluded to and the oldest found fossils might be the ones that you alluded to.
The materialist naturalist neodarwinian mindset is prone to fraud (and history is replete with them). Let us remember, there are no moral absolutes in naturalism, so it's not wrong to commit fraud if it pragmatically leads one to his intended objective.
Your posting on Neanderthals are all metpahysical inferences, not established scientific facts. There is no scientific certainty for these conclusions. For example, the protruding brows and thick bones are also explained by extreme longevity (e.g. 200-300 years) since facial bones continue to grow throughout life and other bones become denser and denser over time. The other physical differences do not exclude the possibility that they are human. This is consistent with biblical pre-flood accounts of long-lived humans. It's all in the presuppositions.
Yes, and no. There was a time when there was nothing more evolved in a hominid direction than apes. For that matter, there was a time when there was nothing more evolved in a hominid direction than monkeys. For that matter, there was a time when primitive insectivore mammals were as humanlike is you could find. For that matter, there was a time when amphibians were tops.
What is true is that humans did not evolve directly from any of the extant species of apes. We're pretty close cousins to the chimps, though.
Your list of alledged frauds includes exactly one real fraud (Piltdown Man, found in 1912). It has one misinterpretation (Nebraska Man, 1922 or thereabouts). Peking Man and Java Man are now considered regional variants of Homo erectus. There is no fraud. You also put Neanderthal man in the fraud list, another scoop.
You basically have an alternate universe here.
As opposed to any of those wet and dusty valleys in the region, I'm assuming.
I know it was a sarcastic remark, but if someone believes that man has evolved from apes then they don't have a proper grasp of the evolution theory.
I have a very proper grasp of the theory of evolution, I just don't believe it. I suppose I should have said "...evolved from an ape-like ancestor...", but that's just nit-picking.
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.