Amazing hominids by paleoartist Elisabeth Daynès

a reply to: flyingfish

Your right in generall but TV producer or scriptwriter doesnt rule out science. The work of a producer or director is to find knowledgeable people to do the science for the product/show. And what he presents is like he stated a reconstruction based on a Neanderthal scull with the direction of putting "ape" flesh, muscles, skin, ratios... on it instead of the normally used metrics of homo sapiens sapiens.
His wider ideas of Neandertal hunting humans and so on sound far fetched indeed. But still the anatomical part shows well how far off our recreations MIGHT be. Just remember that Dinosaurs today are colorful and federed instead of elefant like just a decade ago.

Its more about the threads topic than his ideas in this case.

originally posted by: Geomand
a reply to: flyingfish

Your right in generall but TV producer or scriptwriter doesnt rule out science. The work of a producer or director is to find knowledgeable people to do the science for the product/show.

Then the "knowledgeable people" he used are using decades old research or not quite as expert as they make themselves out to be. There were several gross errors I caught watching the video. He claims that we were separated from them by 500,000 years which is untrue its about half that time, 250-300KYA, he tried to make his case for using different metrics in his reconstruction because Neanderthal were primates so we need to use ape metrics in the reconstruction! Unfortunately we too are primates so that doesn't hold a lot of water IMO, he claims that their diet was 99% meat which is also untrue and we know this from the same evidence he uses against them eating vegetation, from their teeth. We have found teeth with bits of vegetable matter still in them as well as fossilized coprolites containing vegetation.

And what he presents is like he stated a reconstruction based on a Neanderthal scull with the direction of putting "ape" flesh, muscles, skin, ratios... on it instead of the normally used metrics of homo sapiens sapiens.

But the rations aren't actually different, the difference is in muscle size and morphology. We know how large Neanderthals muscles were, where they were etc... We know this by measuring attachment point scars on the bones. The actual skin depth is no different for other primates than it is for us.

His wider ideas of Neandertal hunting humans and so on sound far fetched indeed. But still the anatomical part shows well how far off our recreations MIGHT be. Just remember that Dinosaurs today are colorful and federed instead of elefant like just a decade ago.

Its more about the threads topic than his ideas in this case.

Its certainly a novel Interpretation of a reconstruction but its based on nonexistent data. From the skeletons we know how strong they were and how large the muscles were. From mapping their entire genome we know things like skin color, hair color and how much hair covered their bodies. His analogy using George Clooney was rather exaggerated in a effort to drive home his argument but it wasnt accurate or scientific. There was one part where he held up an HSN skull next to an HS skull demonstrating how much smaller the HS skull was but it appeared to me he was holding up a juvenile HS skull next to an adult HSN, again showmanship to make his case appear more realistic.

As for them hunting HS, I find it very unlikely with the exception of isolated cases. There are sites in the Levant that were occupied simultaneously by both species indicating friendliness and cooperation as well as similar morphology. I seriously doubt that based on recorded behavior the past few thousand years that humans have changed a whole lot in regards to their, for lack of a better phrase, racist tendencies. Would you live in the same village/site with someone who looked like a large hairy bipedal gorrilla? also, the Neanderthal tools were actually better than those brought into the Levant from Africa by HS until they learned Mousterian techniques from HNS so there was definitely friendships, relationships and learning from one another.

In my opinion, based on over two decades of researchi g Meanderthal extensively, I fully be,rice in the accuracy of current reconstructed models and find that the reconstruction in the video is nothing more than theatrics and carnival showmanship for the purpose of selli g a book. Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: peter vlar

Good reply. Lots of info. The genetic proof of neanderthals being "hearless" is new to me. I read the article about their red hair "gene"/marker though.

a reply to: Geomand

Body hair was about the same as what we currently see today as far back as H. Ergaster and likely even earlier than that based on pubic lice genetics which would indicate loss of body hair approximately 3 MYA. So no hominids have had extensive body hair for over a million years pretty much ruling out the vast majority of the recomstruction in the video you linked.

he may have been close with the eyes though.Neanderthal had much better vision than we do and the part of their brains associated with sight were considerably larger than ours were/are though it should be noted that the very large eyes were not a uniform feature and varied geographically though in all known examples they were still largr than ours. It just varied by how much so.

One detrimental affect of this was the area responsible for being social was diminished to increase the visual cortex and allow them to be able to see in Europes dim light. They were more of a visual creature whereas we were more social creatures. This probably worked in the sense that they didnt do a lot of interacting outside of their familial social groups in regards to trading or cooperating with other Neanderthal groups.

Clearly they had well established bonds within their own close knit groups as evidenced by remains found where the individual was in such poor healTh that he or she would have required continuous assistance and support. one example is an elderly male who was extremely arthritic and had lost all of his teeth necessitating someone to process all of his food for him. Another is a skeleton found in Iraqi Kurdistan with its arm amputated. This individual very definitely survived as evidenced by the scarring and healing on the humorus bone.

Going back to the issue of body hair disappearing from hominids over 1 MYA, i find it interestingly that clothing wasnt used until about 170,000 yrs ago right around the time AMH arrived on the scene.

Here is a link that discusses the relationship between hominids and lice and the timelines involved-
forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Geomand



Thanks for clarifying that peter.

Check out this video on the current science. Neanderthals likely did have ceremony and ritual, the hallmarks of religion, this involved complex thought and reasoning. Shells and bones, drilled to be worn as ornaments have been discovered, along with pigments used as body paints. All this with parts of our genome Neanderthal, you come to realized that they were part of us.

originally posted by: gort51
Yes they do brilliant work in reconstructing these creatures.

But again, in my usual questioning style.....why is it, that it seems EVERY ancient skull found in Africa, automatically HAS to be a pre or early Homo, as in Man's direct descendant.

Well, the simple answer to that question is not all Ape like skulls found in Africa or around the world are considered direct descendants to us.

The shape of the skull shows the position of where the spine was attached, which shows whether the species naturally walked up right like us, or on all fours like modern apes. Species that naturally walked up right are usually considered direct descendants to us, well species that didn't are not.

Of course it's not an exact science, since we had to have evolved from a species that naturally walked on all fours at some point in time and there were also probably species that evolved who naturally walked up right and are not direct descendants. But without the DNA evidence, it is the only real method we have of determining whether the species is in fact a direct decedent to us.

That's how I understand it anyway.

Yes I certainly agree with you, but as always....we dont Really know the real truth.
It is all speculation, an educated guess.

The whole australopithecus thing, was that they supposedly walked on 2 legs.

But Chimpanzees also walk on 2 legs, in some instances, as do Gibbons, Baboons, Gorillas etc.
As do Kangaroos.

Humans sometimes walk on 4 legs (well 2 arms too), crawling, climbing trees/walls etc.

I have no doubt that the European Neanderthals were "Hairy".....
but we must remember, ones persons hairy, is another persons hairless.
A Chinese or Japanese person may think hairy is a bit of pubic and underarm hair.....chest hair is positively gorilla like..
Some Europeans, who are covered head to toe in hair, hairy back, front and all around...and yes there are millions of people like that, may think hairy means like a monkey or other mammal.

So hairy is even a speculative opinion, based on your experience/knowledge/race/culture etc etc.

Ancient Europeans probably did have good eyesight because of the dim light.
Much like many human tribes have large brows or eyelids and small opening to compensate for the sunlight.

Some Africans have "Chinese eyes"....are they Chinese??
Note Australian natives, the Oldest known culture on Earth, and has lived in some of the Harshest Sun and Light conditions known to man for 100,000 years, DO Not have Chinese eyes, BUT have European eyes..........so where does that leave the expert theories?? .

We guess a lot of what we find, nothing is concrete and only survives until the next Big discovery or Theory.
All good and interesting fun tho.

I always remember one of David Attenboroughs shows, which I have mentioned before.
Everyone goes on about "Evolution" etc.
There is a fish in North East Australia, that was 150 Millions years old BEFORE!!! the dinosaurs even appeared, that STILL lives to this day, unchanged from fossil records of that time..... it is over 400 million years old, yet still survives and looks as it did back then, How is that Possible????.
It is called the Lungfish.

originally posted by: gort51
Yes I certainly agree with you, but as always....we dont Really know the real truth.
It is all speculation, an educated guess.

The whole australopithecus thing, was that they supposedly walked on 2 legs.

But Chimpanzees also walk on 2 legs, in some instances, as do Gibbons, Baboons, Gorillas etc.
As do Kangaroos.

Yes, Apes and monkeys are more than capable of walking on two legs, but there bodies are simply not designed to do it for long periods comfortably, they expend large amounts of energy doing it and put a lot of stress on there hips. Just like we are capable of walking on all 4 limbs but waste a lot of energy and are simply not designed to do it in the long term.

Kangaroos have evolved a very interesting and unique form of movement, but despite popular belief are not actually capable of ‘walking’ on two legs, they have a evolved springs in there legs that allow them to bounce when they wish to move fast or travel longs distances, but both legs leave and land on the ground at the same time. When foraging and moving short distances they do adopt an awkward walk, but when moving this way they do in fact need to use there front limbs to walk on in order to keep there balance.

Birds have a natural bipedal walk but are not mammals and clearly separated from our evolutionary branch long before hominids were even around.

I have no doubt that the European Neanderthals were "Hairy".....
but we must remember, ones persons hairy, is another persons hairless.
A Chinese or Japanese person may think hairy is a bit of pubic and underarm

You’re not wrong there. The idea that Neanderthal was hairy is a pure guess and imo probably not true. I mean Scandinavians are known for having more Neanderthal genetics than any other race and are for the most part certainly not a particularly hairy race today. I've inherited the typical Scandinavian traits of blue eyes and thin straight blonde hair and am pretty much the least hairy person I know, I can only grow a pathetically patchy and thin beard, lol.

But having said that, considering most races are no longer isolated and have interbreed many times though the modern age, there really is no way of determining how hairy they were. But I would argue that it’s a fairly insignificant issue when determining their facial features and body structure.

Some Africans have "Chinese eyes"....are they Chinese??
Note Australian natives, the Oldest known culture on Earth, and has lived in some of the Harshest Sun and Light conditions known to man for 100,000 years, DO Not have Chinese eyes, BUT have European eyes..........so where does that leave the expert theories??

Well, interestingly when travelling to the very isolated region of North western Australia I observed a lot of Aboriginals living on the coast who do actually have the almond shape eyes which is usually associated with people of Asian decent. But they were trading with the people of Indonesia long before Europeans arrived and so I have always assumed they inherited this trait from these interactions.

It’s also interesting to note that native north Americans are direct descendants of the people of eastern Asia, yet they lack the almond shaped eye trait, which indicates that this trait probably evolved very recently, like less than 20 thousands years ago.

We guess a lot of what we find, nothing is concrete and only survives until the next Big discovery or Theory.
All good and interesting fun tho.

Yeah, there is a lot of guesswork that goes on, but they are discovering a lot of good theories with solid evidence to back it up the more they research evolution and the journey of what made us what we are today. For example, we now know though DNA evidence that modern humans did breed with Neanderthal and Erectus and there for we can observe certain traits of these ancient hominoids by studying modern humans.

Everyone goes on about "Evolution" etc.
There is a fish in North East Australia, that was 150 Millions years old BEFORE!!! the dinosaurs even appeared, that STILL lives to this day, unchanged from fossil records of that time..... it is over 400 million years old, yet still survives and looks as it did back then, How is that Possible????.

I would say it was possible though a combination of pure chance and having the good luck of evolving an incredibly efficient design. Crocodiles are another one, but you just need to study modern day crocodiles to understand why they didn’t die out with the dinosaurs. There body structure is incredibly tough and they can bunker down for years without any (or very little calories) until the good times return.

Evolution has no direction, there is no universal rule that dictates life must evolve into another species over time, it’s all just simply are product of circumstance.

originally posted by: gort51
Yes I certainly agree with you, but as always....we dont Really know the real truth.
It is all speculation, an educated guess.

Supported by genetic evidence so less of an educated guess than you may think

The whole australopithecus thing, was that they supposedly walked on 2 legs.

But Chimpanzees also walk on 2 legs, in some instances, as do Gibbons, Baboons, Gorillas etc.
As do Kangaroos.

Humans sometimes walk on 4 legs (well 2 arms too), crawling, climbing trees/walls etc.

Except that in Australopithecus there are tell tale signs showing that it definitely was bipedal. The shape of the pelvis and the angle of the foramen magnum as well as morphological features of the feet and knee as well as the Laetoli foot prints that clearly show by weight distribution, strong heel strike with follow through to the ball of the foot with the hallux making last contact with the ground before pushing off. There's not much of an argument to be made for them to be only a part time bipedal hominin.

I have no doubt that the European Neanderthals were "Hairy".....
but we must remember, ones persons hairy, is another persons hairless.
A Chinese or Japanese person may think hairy is a bit of pubic and underarm hair.....chest hair is positively gorilla like.

.
Some Europeans, who are covered head to toe in hair, hairy back, front and all around...and yes there are millions of people like that, may think hairy means like a monkey or other mammal.

So hairy is even a speculative opinion, based on your experience/knowledge/race/culture etc etc.

Not really. Having completely decoded the Neanderthal genome we know what parts code for hair as well as how hairy they were. For perspectives sake, they were about as hairy as an Itallian male but nowhere near gorillas or any of the other great apes.

Ancient Europeans probably did have good eyesight because of the dim light.
Much like many human tribes have large brows or eyelids and small opening to compensate for the sunlight.

no argument from me there

Some Africans have "Chinese eyes"....are they Chinese??
Note Australian natives, the Oldest known culture on Earth, and has lived in some of the Harshest Sun and Light conditions known to man for 100,000 years, DO Not have Chinese eyes, BUT have European eyes..........so where does that leave the expert theories??

.

The epicanthic fold in the corner of the eyes is a result of pretty simple climatic factors and stresses. Aborigines were part of the first wave of modern humans to leave Africa 75,000 YA All fetuses have this feature until 3-6 months of gestation. One of the reasons Australian aborigines do not have the epicanthic fold is because they mated with Denisovans on their way to what is now Australia incorporating their genes in the process.The eyes aren't European, they are just eyes. In Africa, this feature is restricted to the San people and not wide spread.

We guess a lot of what we find, nothing is concrete and only survives until the next Big discovery or Theory.
All good and interesting fun tho.

No, we don't really guess a lot of what we find. Certainly at the beginning with new discoveries there is some educated guessing as hypothesis develop but by the time it gets to the peer review process things have to be backed up and supported by data and evidence

There is a fish in North East Australia, that was 150 Millions years old BEFORE!!! the dinosaurs even appeared, that STILL lives to this day, unchanged from fossil records of that time..... it is over 400 million years old, yet still survives and looks as it did back then, How is that Possible????.
It is called the Lungfish.

Quite simply, there was no environmental pressure that necessitated a change in morphology. Not that they relly remained completely unchanged, there not exactly like they were 380 MYA there were many other types of lungfish that have gone stint over the years. In addition to Australia, lungfish also live in Africa and South America as well.

a reply to: peter vlar

You clearly seem to have a good understanding on this issue, but I'm a little confused on one your statements.

Not really. Having completely decoded the Neanderthal genome we know what parts code for hair as well as how hairy they were. For perspectives sake, they were about as hairy as an Itallian male but nowhere near gorillas or any of the other great apes.

I'm just very interested in where Scandinavian traits originated from and have always thought it must have come from Neanderthal since we are told they evolved to specialize in surviving in cold environments. But from what I've read we have no way of knowing for sure what colour eyes and hair they had nor there skin tone, yet your claiming we know how hairy they were.

Can you elaborate on how we can be so sure of how hairy they were, yet don't know if they had blue eyes or light toned skin?

originally posted by: flyingfish
I find it fascinating to peer back millions years into the eyes of a survivor, to the exquisite detail and pure emotion of “Toumai”, a Sahelanthropus tchadensis skull found in Chad in 2005.

Actually, it was found in mid 2002, not 2005, and by October of that year, after all the hype generated about Toumai supposedly being a missing link from ape to man, quite a few evolutionists then came out refuting the hype as premature. Five of them did a report on this skull, showing that this skull is in fact nothing more and nothing less than an ape. Part of the conclusion from the report reads as follows:

TM 266 is a young specimen of indeterminate sex. Its
canines are large for a Miocene ape female and small for
a Miocene ape male, in absolute and relative dimensions.
Canine wear is apical and transversely distal, a condition
found in many other Miocene ape specimens, but it is possible
that the TM 266 canine is more heavily worn than most
other Miocene canines of similar dental age. Unlike australopithecines,
the evidence indicates that TM 266 did not habitually
hold its head in an upright position over the spine
and thus lacked this significant obligate bipedal adaptation.
By itself this contrasts with all known hominids, and even
in the absence of postcranial remains this anatomy is suf-
ficient to exclude Sahelanthropus from the hominid clade as
we currently understand it, an exclusion compatible with
genetic estimates of the chimpanzee/hominid divergence.
It is this exclusion, and not any combination of synapomorphies,
which demonstrates that TM 266 was an ape.

source: www.paleoanthro.org...

originally posted by: flyingfishTo the wonder and awe of Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis.

Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans

Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”

The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine’s department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, “The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.”

The robust hominids were discovered in southern Africa 69 years ago and are believed to have lived between 2 million and 1.2 million years ago. Their jaws and jaw muscles were adapted to the dry environment in which they lived.

Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the “ramus element” of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man’s direct ancestors. They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, “be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours.”

Their research has just been published in the on-line edition of PNAS, the Proceedings of the [US] National Academy of Sciences.

Lucy, which means “you are wonderful” in Amharic, was discovered (40 percent of its skeleton) by the International Afar Research Expedition in Ethiopia’s Awash Valley. Fitting the bones together, they said it was an upright walking hominid (Homo sapiens, which comprises modern Man and extinct manlike species). They later found its jaws and additional bones.

Further analysis led the Afar researchers to believe it was of a female, and the skeleton listed as AL 288-1 was nicknamed Lucy because the Beatles’ song “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” was often played at the camp.

The specimen was only 1.1 meters tall, estimated to weigh 29 kilograms and look somewhat like a common chimpanzee. Although it had a small brain, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, proving that these hominids had walked erect.

Although fossils closer to chimpanzees have been found since then, Lucy – which is housed in the national museum in Addis Ababa – is prized by anthropologists who study Man’s origin.

Rak and his colleagues also wrote that the structure of Lucy’s mandibular ramus closely matches that of gorillas, which was “unexpected” because chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans, and not gorillas.

sourc: www.jpost.com...

So what exactly is 'wonderful and awe inspiring' about Lucy?

a reply to: BlackManINC

So what exactly is 'wonderful and awe inspiring' about Lucy?

Aside from the obvious I was referring to the emotion captured in the Lucy model.

One fossil does not represent the whole species, it would not matter to human ancestry in the slightest. What is evident is features intermediate between ape and man. As should be expected.

New information is always possible that will refine our understanding of the natural history of life on earth. What is critical is that the whole pattern of life is understood properly, and one of the persistent questions is whether the fossil is a uncle or parent species. An uncle species would still be a descendant from a common ancestor and it would share many hereditary traits, but not be necessarily from the direct lineage of Homo sapiens.