Famed Human Ancestor "Lucy" Wasn't Alone: Meet Little Foot

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: lostbook

I really get the feeling the whole Lucy thing is askew.

Taking found fossils and presuming the whole ancestry story is ludicrous. There are older HE finds in Israel and perhaps much older elsewhere.

Perhaps the more new finds there are, the sooner the story can get back on track.

You skipped the part about analyzing and studying the fossils for almost a decade, and the large amount of fossils found, but let's pretend they just completely guessed out of the blue, lol. The story never went off track. There are 20+ other hominid species that have been identified via fossils. Are they are all made up as well? I don't get why people try to pick apart Lucy as if evolution will fall apart without her.

originally posted by: gort51
Every time they find some sort of old Ape skull, it is Always some New version of a creature that turned into a Homo.

Never do they say, well we have this Old Ape skull that could evolve either, into some sort of Monkey/great ape, or modern Africans...another great Ape.

Im sorry, but these scientists are losing credibility.

Why would they ever say that? Common ancestry isn't up for debate, it's pretty conclusively backed up by evidence. No matter what fossil you find, it will be a transition from one organism to another. To ignore this fact after the thousands upon thousands of fossil found and mapped genomes of recent ancestors is silly. Losing credibility? Really? Every new find makes the already strong case, even stronger. You have to deny a LOT of evidence to maintain your position.

Every old skull they find in Africa CAN NOT ALWAYS be some long lost ancestor of humans.....as there are many more other apes in Africa, the likelyhood is that they are related to other apes.

This is a false assumption by you. The real likelihood is that they are related to BOTH and since humans are technically classified as apes, your objection makes no sense.

PLUS, not all hominids found are classified as human ancestors. There are other branches outside of homo sapien and several of them lived on earth at the same time before dying out during the last glacial period.

Also there is no law to say Everything has to evolve to a higher state.

Correct. There is no law that states that.

Why cant an Australapithicus type creature Devolve?? for whatever reason.

Because nothing devolves. That term is nonsensical as evolution is not linear and is highly dependent on the environment. You seem to think that evolution requires creatures to improve themselves, but this isn't always the case.

This whole agenda is to keep pushing the Out of Africa theory....theory!!!.

Is that theory offensive to you? I'm not accusing you of being racist, but I've noticed that a good amount of folks that are against OOA, are indeed only against it because they are offended by originally having darker skin, or the lighter skin genes originating from dark skin. I ask this because your post seems more like an emotional rant, than anything based on fact or science.

Then please explain the Asian Orangutan, the giant Asian Gigantopithicus, and all the other Asian and American Monkeys.
These "experts" conveniently forget about them, AND their ancestors.

They do? Please explain how these creatures are forgotten? Every evolutionary tree that I've seen includes them. Asking why apes and monkey are in Asia is like asking why humans are there. It's called migration. How do you think monkeys got to South America? That doesn't go against evolution in the least.

Yes monkeys and apes are cousins, as we are, hence the reason for my post...they dont ALL automatically evolve into Humans.

Who said that all monkeys and apes automatically evolve into humans?

Yes Homo Erectus is THOUGHT???? to have spread from Africa...in Theory.

In theory according to the determined age of fossils using radiometric dating. The oldest fossils were found in Africa, so logic states they were originally from there. If they one day find fossils in Asia that predate the african homo sapien or homo erectus, then you might have a point, but thus far this is not the case.

a reply to: Barcs

Stop making presumptions based on prejudices.

1. I believe in evolution.
2. There are older human remains than Lucy found in Israel
3. There are probably more that could be anywhere
4. The above negates OOA theory
5. People that don't believe OOA do so because of logic
6. There is research that suggests white was the original colour of black people
7. That disproves your offensive presumption about OOA detractors being racist
8. ATS rules: go after the post not the poster

phys.org...

Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, the leader of excavations in Israel said on Tuesday.

"The teeth are scattered through the layers of the cave, some in the deeper part, that is to say from 400,000 years and through all kinds of other layers that can be up to 200,000 years. The oldest are 400,000 years old", he added."
Human teeth found in the Qesem Cave
A handout photo made available by the Tel Aviv University shows human teeth found in the Qesem Cave near Rosh Haayin, in central Israel. According to researchers from Tel Aviv University they have uncovered finds that indicate the existence …more
That calls into question the widely held view that Africa was the birthplace of modern man, said Gopher, who headed the dig at Qesem Cave.
"It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old, or a little less. We don't know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens," he said.
Gopher said the first teeth were discovered in 2006 but he and his team waited until they had several samples, then conducted years of testing, using a variety of dating methods, before publishing their findings.
Digging continues at the cave, the university said, with researchers hoping to "uncover additional finds that will enable them to confirm the findings published up to now and to enhance our understanding of the evolution of mankind, and especially the appearance of modern man."

Read more at: phys.org...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

A scientist argues that once we were all white; then we were all black; then some of us went back to white.

Can you explain when and why our human ancestors became black?

The genetic evidence suggests that black skin became the norm in Africa some 1.2 million years ago, around the time that early humans were colonizing the savanna and had lost most of their body hair. Most investigators believe that black pigmentation was an essential adaption to protect naked, pale skin against solar ultraviolet radiation, which is high all year round near the equator.

So you're saying that skin cancer played a part in skin color: Humans were originally white under all their hair, then evolved to black a million or two million years ago, then 50,000 to 100,000 years ago some went back to white as they migrated farther north?

That's exactly what I am suggesting. But unless Jared Diamond and Darwin [two scientists who dismissed skin cancer as a factor in evolution] are right and skin color variation is just incidental and endorsed by sexual preferences, then there has to be an evolutionary logic.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
2. There are older human remains than Lucy found in Israel

Source please. Lucy goes back 3 million + years. You are claiming that a homo sapien fossil was found that dates back 3 million + years? What is your definition of human if not homo sapien? I don't understand your position here. Please clarify and back it up if you wish for us to take this claim seriously. Your article below says 400,000 years, not 3 million, so your claim that there are older human remains than Lucy holds no water.

3. There are probably more that could be anywhere
4. The above negates OOA theory

Too bad #3 is pure speculation and #4 relies on #2 being true, but it is not true.

I didn't attack you, I even clearly stated that I was not accusing you of racism. I drew parallels because your rant seemed highly based on emotion. Anyways I'm not going to argue skin color as I feel it's irrelevant in the big picture whether light or dark skin came first.

Back to your article, Israel is pretty much right next to Africa, so it's not surprising in the least. I believe that OOA is correct but there is much more to it. I do not think there were 1 or 2 migration events. I believe that it was a constant migration, that lead to all kinds of inter-species relations. But this homo sapien fossil does not predate the other hominids on earth during that time, so it makes your point moot. Case in point, there are much older fossils than this found in Africa, and no this doesn't predate Lucy. What of the fossils that predate your 400,000 year old fossil that were found in Africa? My main point still holds true that the oldest hominid fossils have been found in Africa, which fully supports OOA.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
2. There are older human remains than Lucy found in Israel

"Lucy" is 3.2 MA please name me one member of the genus Homo found anywhere in the world older than 3.2 MA

3. There are probably more that could be anywhere

The above statement is nothing more than idle speculation and based solely on teeth.

4. The above negates OOA theory

Not in the least as it is predicated on conjecture and not actual physical evidence. the proximity of the Levant as pointed out by Barcs doesn't call into question the legitimacy of OOA. It calls into question the time frame of Homo Sapiens ans the when and where of their origins. H. Heidelbergensis which is the immediate precursor of H. Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans, was everywhere from South Africa to Northern Europe to South East Asia to Siberia. Slow progressions towards each of these branches could have taken place at any point in history anywhere geographically and anytime geologically. Based on a collection of 8 teeth from Qesem Cave this is nowhere near as cut and dry as your source article leads you to believe. The dating I personally call into questions as there was no direct dating of the teeth as yet(and the article is 5 years old now). All the dating was done on the geologic features and strata of the cave and gave dates ranging from 400KYA to 200KYA or less. Any competent Anthropologist is going to question those dates because several methods of geostratigraphicral intrusion can skew the results. If there were a complete set of remains that were 100% H. Sapiens then we would be having a very different conversation. I think you would find many anthropologists are actual very open to the possibility of H. Sapiens coming into its own in the ME as opposed to East Africa. Based on the prevalence of Erectus and Heidelbergensis remains quite literally everywhere here it's not a huge leap to get to that point IF the physical evidence proves itself. Currently, the oldest remains of Homo Sapiens are ~200KYA and in Ethiopia. Give me something more than somewhat speculative teeth in Israel and I will certainly sing a different tune. It really comes down to what can be definitively proven. The data from Qesem Cave is interesting but beyond that not conclusive or else we would be discussing a peer reviewed paper on the site not a blurb from an article.

5. People that don't believe OOA do so because of logic

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat argument about what you find logical and I find illogical because it will just come off as a personal attack to you and will get neither of us any forward traction.

6. There is research that suggests white was the original colour of black people
Yes, there is. There is likewise additional research that calls into question the outcome of the research in favor of your hypothesis or at least the timeframes within which they are ascertaining in the conclusion of their research. There is nothing definitive as yet on skin color and when one or the other or something else entirely became the paradigm. Just remember that "white" includes a whole lot of shades from Nordic to Persian to North African. Hell, even in places like Ethiopia which are considered the cradle of humanity there is no standard skin color so when you get right down to brass tacks, the point is somewhat moot except to those with a specific point they are trying to prove. which for the record, I don't think is the case with you. I honestly believe you are simply following the data and acknowledging that there are many conflicts between current research of the last decade versus the media portrayal of humanities path the last several million years. Just keep in mind that when it comes to the actual academics investigating these time periods, it is widely known and openly acknowledged that there is no single, cut and dry or easy answer or scenario. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread...human evolution isn't a straight line it's a zig zag and we don't have a family tree. It's a family bush with many branches and points in time where several of those branches are overlapping and coexisting simultaneously through most of our history.

a reply to: peter vlar

I will explain my comment to you and the previous poster later when I have time.

Essentially though, OOA is just a theory, based on scant evidence, and it is ludicrous that there are continually aggressive comments against those that do not believe it. Hence the previous reply, albeit a very hurried comment.

I am aware of anthropology despite nasty comments from those suggesting otherwise, and no I am not some idiot posting ''emotionally'', the comment that was originally aggressively attacked was and is valid and rational.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I apologize if I came off aggressive, but you did claim that there is evidence that goes against the out of africa theory and then claimed human fossils predate Lucy in support of that, which ended up being false. Essentially OOA is based on dates of fossils and the locations they were found. If you have something that goes against it, I'd be interested in reading about it. Sure, it's not absolute 100%, but the dates of the fossils say it's right and it will stand until a fossil shows up out of place. I've heard speculation about genetic links, but nothing objective to support a different idea. I guess I just have trouble understanding why people so strongly oppose OOA. Also, I confused you with Gort above, when I was talking about the emotion. That wasn't you, that was him.

a reply to: lostbook

Pretty cool story, mainly because I went to Purdue University for undergrad and studied in the life sciences department. This is fairly close to home for me (figuratively).

a reply to: Barcs

Personally I am still waiting on the "Evidence", the poster has had time to reply, has posted a LOT in other threads. Perhaps its evidence based on "I know someone"? The point really is, there is no credible evidence

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I apologize if I came off aggressive, but you did claim that there is evidence that goes against the out of africa theory and then claimed human fossils predate Lucy in support of that, which ended up being false. Essentially OOA is based on dates of fossils and the locations they were found. If you have something that goes against it, I'd be interested in reading about it. Sure, it's not absolute 100%, but the dates of the fossils say it's right and it will stand until a fossil shows up out of place. I've heard speculation about genetic links, but nothing objective to support a different idea. I guess I just have trouble understanding why people so strongly oppose OOA. Also, I confused you with Gort above, when I was talking about the emotion. That wasn't you, that was him.

Not trying to support anyone's claims or pov here, only that some people might be interested in this. There are different interpretations of the available fossil record (not necessarily well accepted though). Here is one that goes not so much against OOA theory, rather against it as presently understood. One that would throw a very different light on such fossils as in the OP.

It is a bit "fringe" and hasn't gained much (or any) mainstream support, though it has at least appeared in the form of a paper in mainstream peer reviewed journal. It postulates that Homo Sapiens have a closer relationship to Orang-utan than to Chimps (conflicting with genetic studies), with some explanation as to why this would be. It is based on morphology and the fossil record, in fact it highlights inconsistencies that seem to arise between morphology studies/ genetic studies. There was at one time some fascinating discussion on the subject.

Not saying it is necessarily valid, it's very understandable that it hasn't gained support and there can obviously be other reasons for the inconsistencies the author(s) focus on. Only that such things should at least be encouraged and discussed if they can be supported at least to a reasonable level (which they seem to have been both reasonably supported and hence discussed by the scientific community). Would be fascinating to hear opinion of those more knowledgeable.

What doesn't seem to be in dispute, is that there is a massive amount to learn yet.

www.livescience.com...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

ps. forgot to link to the paper in the "Journal of Biogeography".

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

They claim we are the "second Orangutan" (shouldn't that be "third Orangutan" anyway?) rather than the "third Chimpanzee". Fascinating stuff and even if they are wrong, they seem to make some good points. Either way it seems like there is a lot left to understand about it.

Found parts of their conclusions fascinating.

We infer that the human–orangutan common ancestor had established a widespread distribution by at least 13 Ma. Vicariant differentiation resulted in the ancestors of hominids in East Africa and various primarily Miocene apes distributed between Spain and Southeast Asia (and possibly also parts of East Africa). The geographical disjunction between early hominids and Asian Pongo is attributed to local extinctions between Europe and Central Asia. The EARS and TOC correlations suggest that these geomorphological features mediated establishment of the ancestral range.