Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.

Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago.

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.

The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I, which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones. Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a complete face.

Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.

Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing their geology and testing rock samples with more modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take 5,000 years.

Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they just represent natural variation within a single population.

To find the age of the skulls, the researchers determined that volcanic rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000 years old. They then found evidence that the fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that time.

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.

"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work "very exciting and important."

Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he considered the case for the new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that "we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he said.

G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at Binghamton University in New York, said he believes the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.

Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?
As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...

Tricky stuff. Evolution is about new species arising from old species. But if you can't tell the difference between one species and other, or natural variation within a single population, then it's tough to know what you have.

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.

My teenage daughter specializes in dating rocks, too. All her boyfriends are dense, difficult to get to and lay around alot.........

Isn't it safe to say that 200,000 is still an educated guess?

The evidence suggests that homo sapiens arose around 200,000 years ago. Obviously the exact date isn't clear, but this is an example of evolutionary science predicting results before they're discovered.

As I recall, "Lucy" is about 6 million years. That leaves quite a gap and quite a story about the possible timing and development of the transition(s)...

3.2 million years, but yes, there's a huge difference between Lucy and early homo sapiens, but its not a "gap". We know about homo ergaster, homo habilis, etc. in the intervening years.

We know about homo ergaster, homo habilis, etc. in the intervening years.

:-)

Ardipithicus ramidus
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ramidus.htm

Australopithecus anamensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/04_A_anamensis.html

Australopithecus afarensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/03_A_afarensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/afarensis.html

Australopithecus africanus
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/121/fyde/africanus.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html
http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/africanus.html

Australopithecus aethiopicus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/aeth.html
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/Human_evolution.PDF

Australopithecus boisei
http://faculty.vassar.edu/piketay/evolution/A_boisei.html
http://www.sckans.edu/anthro/index.php?page_ID=305

Australopithecus robustus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rob.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/robustus.html
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/anthro/links/aust.html

Homo sp.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/gallery/africa.php?image=6&page=branches
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jasonww/africa/transvaal2.html

Homo rudolfensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rud.html
http://calvin.linfield.edu/~mrobert/originsfigure1a.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/rudolfensis.htm

Homo habilis
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/habilis/habilis-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

Homo ergaster
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ergaster.htm
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Ergaster_00.html

Homo erectus
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pchomoer.html

Homo heidelbergensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/heid.htm
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html

Homo neanderthalensis
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/neanderthalensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/neanderthalensis.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html

Homo sapiens
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

Except that Leakey found evidence of modern humans at a level lower than that of australopithecines.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES

Skull 1470

I love your first link. The writer relies on a 1974 computer study, which he say is "recent," to claim that Austrolopithecus isn't related to other primates. But I thought the whole creationist schtick was that no animals are related to one another.

The article in the first link was written in 1975. So a 1974 study would have been recent. I posted that because of the information about the evidence for modern humans and Homo Erector being found below Austrolopithecus. Because that establishes that Austrolopithecus could not have been a human ancestor. Which even Leakey began to conclude.

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.