A Eurasian origin for Homo?

Many(25+) years ago I read an article about an early homonid that lived in europe around 5-7 mya, at the time it was thought they were a migrating african species. That may not be the case, a newly published article in PLOS one, you know that "psudo science publication" as Andrew pinter would call it(1), details a 7.2 my old homonid fossil from the balkans.

The common lineage of great apes and humans split several hundred thousand earlier than hitherto assumed, according to an international research team headed by Professor Madelaine Böhme from the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment at the University of Tübingen and Professor Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The researchers investigated two fossils of Graecopithecus freybergi with state-of-the-art methods and came to the conclusion that they belong to pre-humans. Their findings, published today in two papers in the journal PLOS ONE, further indicate that the split of the human lineage occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean and not -- as customarily assumed -- in Africa.

El Graeco

And once again dentition is a key identifying trait for Homo,

"While great apes typically have two or three separate and diverging roots, the roots of Graecopithecus converge and are partially fused -- a feature that is characteristic of modern humans, early humans and several pre-humans including Ardipithecus and Australopithecus," said Böhme.

The lower jaw, nicknamed 'El Graeco' by the scientists, has additional dental root features, suggesting that the species Graecopithecus freybergi might belong to the pre-human lineage. "We were surprised by our results, as pre-humans were previously known only from sub-Saharan Africa," said Jochen Fuss, a Tübingen PhD student who conducted this part of the study.

a reply to: punkinworks10

The big problem I see here is that there were no anthropoids in the area. No fossil apes near the Balkans.

It's not a likely habitat for apes or hominids, either. I can't see them hotfooting it from the savannahs of Central Africa, over the Ethiopian Mountains to the Balkans without leaving a trail of other remains behind.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: punkinworks10

The big problem I see here is that there were no anthropoids in the area. No fossil apes near the Balkans.

It's not a likely habitat for apes or hominids, either. I can't see them hotfooting it from the savannahs of Central Africa, over the Ethiopian Mountains to the Balkans without leaving a trail of other remains behind.

We do not know what that area was like twenty thousand years ago let alone a million years ago. To say that man originated out of Africa is not science, but it is accepted consensus of the day. There is proof here that there was a more closely related Hominid to humans than Apes, which is actually evidence that should be strongly considered.

I read a lot of the research of out of Africa, and I am not even slightly convinced modern Humans originated there. Humans migrate, some might have moved to Africa, that is a strong possibility. But remember, there were other hominids in this planed for millions of years, I have neanderthal in my genetics, I am not just human. Some people have other mixes, almost seventy five percent of humans are of mixed genetics with the other hominoids

I am not alone, many scientists dispute that. To me it does not matter where we evolved from, what matters is that people are being led to believe something that may not be true....by scientists.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: punkinworks10

The big problem I see here is that there were no anthropoids in the area. No fossil apes near the Balkans.

It's not a likely habitat for apes or hominids, either. I can't see them hotfooting it from the savannahs of Central Africa, over the Ethiopian Mountains to the Balkans without leaving a trail of other remains behind.

We do not know what that area was like twenty thousand years ago let alone a million years ago. To say that man originated out of Africa is not science, but it is accepted consensus of the day.

It IS science and also the accepted consensus of the day. It's not just someone's opinion. We have fossil evidence. New finds generally corroborate the old. No doubt human evolution is more complex and diverse than we first thought or even thought fifty years ago, but the new evidence tends to fill in the gaps rather than point in any vast new direction. It's rarely contradictory.

Plus, from a COMPLETELY different direction, we have DNA evidence that agrees with the fossil evidence. Both point to an African origin. Now someone finds a single fossil and suddenly people are willing to drop the Africa theory--even though the fossil is an isolated find with no other evidence. That's neither credible nor science. There are many many fossils dug out of Africa that show a slow evolution toward Homo sapiens, and with the DNA evidence as well you're going to have to do a bit better with evidence before claiming some other place of origin or claiming "we don't know." Maybe you don't, but claiming we all don't is a severe misstatement and not at all credible either.

a reply to: Byrd

The big problem I see here is that there were no anthropoids in the area. No fossil apes near the Balkans.

Bryd, with all due respect, what part of,

The team analyzed the two known specimens of the fossil hominid Graecopithecus freybergi: a lower jaw from Greece and an upper premolar from Bulgaria. Using computer tomography, they visualized the internal structures of the fossils and demonstrated that the roots of premolars are widely fused.

,
is not understandable.

graecopithecus 7mya

Graecopithecus freybergi is a hominid originally identified by a single fragment of skull found in 1944. Since then more specimens have been found, indicating that the specimen may be the oldest known direct ancestor of modern man.(3)

The mandible with a (tertiary molar) m3 that is very worn, the root of a (secondary molar) m2 and a fragment of a (premolar) p3 is from the Tour la Reine site(4) and is dated from the late Miocene. Excavation of the site is not possible (1986) due to the owner having built a swimming pool on the location.(5)The mandible was found on the Greek mainland at Pyrgos Vassilissis, north west of Athens.

Graecopithicus

Gripopithicus, 14-15mya

he interpretation of the fossil material assigned to this genus is problematic, as even generic attributions have been unstable (see below). While Dryopithecus is regarded as a crown hominoid with close relevance to the African apes, Griphopithecus has been consistently grouped with stem hominoids. The material therefore indicates the range of hominoid locomotor anatomy in mid-Miocene Europe, rather than a specifically crown hominoid anatomy.

As long ago as 1856, Édouard Lartet described a humeral shaft lacking both epiphyses representing Dryopithecus fontani from St. Gaudens in France. Slightly more recently, Paidopithex rhenanus was described by Pohlig (1892, 1895) on the basis of an intact femur from Eppelsheim in Germany. Griphopithecus darwini (Abel, 1902), dated to c. 14–15 Ma, was named from a single lower molar (now one of four teeth and two postcranial fragments) from Middle Miocene deposits at Devínska Nová Ves, near Bratislava in Slovakia. A humerus and ulnar shaft from Kleinhadersdorf in Austria have also been referred to this genus by palaeontologist David R. Begun (2002), although Begun (1992) refers to them as Austriacopithecus and Szalay & Delson (1979) had referred them to Sivapithecus darwini. By far the largest number of finds of Dryopithecus come from Rudabanya in Hungary, and these include a distal humerus, proximal radial and ulnar fragments, a talar body, a fragmentary distal first metatarsal and several phalanges (Begun, 1992). Begun (2002) refers most of these to Dryopithecus brancoi.

and then there is the euarsian homonid database,

The following database includes 61 hominoid‐bearing sites from the Miocene of
Western Eurasia. Three doubtful citations are excluded from this synthesis:
Montrejeau, Kalfa and Eldar. The 1911 geological map of Saint Gaudens reports the
presence of Dryopithecinae indet. at Montrejeau (Haute‐Garonne, France). Even
though the material was never figured nor described, this citation is repeated by some
authors (Szalay & Delson, 1979). However, no one knows what the material is or where
it is stored (Mein, 1986). Oreopithecus sp. has been cited from Kalfa (Moldova) (Lungu,
1974), but the material has never been published and even its existence is uncertain
(Delson, 1987). On the other hand, the presence of Oreopithecus in Moldova is highly
unlikely, since this genus is known to be endemic to the Tusco‐Sardinian
palaeobioprovince. Szalay & Delson (1979) also mention the presence of Dryopithecus
fontani at Eldar (Georgia), a locality close to Udabno 1. Nevertheless, this material has
not been figured or described and it has not been mentioned in recent publications, so
it is questionable if it ever existed.

An updated chronology for the Miocene hominoid radiation in Western
Eurasia

a reply to: punkinworks10
Is this the same claim that was being discussed in the Evolution forum?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Perhaps the two threads should be read in conjunction.

If you set your mind on everyone evolved out of Africa, you will not see evidence popping up elsewhere. You begin to think only your mindset is correct, this is what is happening to this science. Stuff preserves better in Africa than other places because there was better conditions there because of the environment. So you will usually find more.....especially if you are looking in that spot and not looking elsewhere.

How much evidence to the contrary of this out of Africa has been found and mislabeled because people believed nobody was elsewhere. A hundred years ago human bones were all considered no more than six thousand years old.

Humans may have originated in Africa but I have not seen any evidence of it so far, Humans have been on this planet a very long time, the physiology of our genetics shows we are very old. We broke off the same being as the apes and monkeys did, millions of years ago.

But I also have some ancestors that were neanderthals, I am not a pure human, most people are not purebred.

originally posted by: rickymouse
How much evidence to the contrary of this out of Africa has been found and mislabeled because people believed nobody was elsewhere. A hundred years ago human bones were all considered no more than six thousand years old....

Humans may have originated in Africa but I have not seen any evidence of it so far...

This doesn't make sense.

First you say that evidence to the contrary of the Out of Africa theory may have been mislabeled (presumably as evidence supporting Out of Africa) due to other theories not being considered, then you say that you've "not seen any evidence of it so far (the Out of Africa theory).

Which is it?

Additionally to say that you've seen no evidence of Out of Africa would be to ignore the enormous amount of both fossil and DNA evidence. Just because you've come across a relatively small amount of material that might complicate the Out of Africa theory, does not mean that evidence of Out of Africa simply doesn't exist.

originally posted by: purpleivan

originally posted by: rickymouse
How much evidence to the contrary of this out of Africa has been found and mislabeled because people believed nobody was elsewhere. A hundred years ago human bones were all considered no more than six thousand years old....

Humans may have originated in Africa but I have not seen any evidence of it so far...

This doesn't make sense.

First you say that evidence to the contrary of the Out of Africa theory may have been mislabeled (presumably as evidence supporting Out of Africa) due to other theories not being considered, then you say that you've "not seen any evidence of it so far (the Out of Africa theory).

Which is it?

Additionally to say that you've seen no evidence of Out of Africa would be to ignore the enormous amount of both fossil and DNA evidence. Just because you've come across a relatively small amount of material that might complicate the Out of Africa theory, does not mean that evidence of Out of Africa simply doesn't exist.

The evidence that I have seen that they say we evolved out of Africa is not conclusive. Any evidence that seems to say that out of Africa is not true is not considered, it is discounted because consensus of the time is now we evolved out of Africa. Maybe I did not explain this right so you could understand it. I do not know where man originally originated, but I do not believe a lack of evidence else where proves anything because I have seen in my research that it is a lot more difficult for bones to survive being preserved in other areas of the world. Africa is just a good place to find human remains, they have a good environment there to preserve them. Just because bones break down in other parts of the world and cannot easily be found does not mean that man came out of Africa.

The fact that evidence collected is more abundant in Africa means nothing. Like I said, I would rather believe it is a mystery than to believe humans evolved from somewhere they may not have. To me it really does not matter where humans evolved from, but I will not believe something when I know many of the parameters and conditions effecting the research.

I also do not believe in the big bang theory. Just because lots of people do means nothing. There is no way in hell that we can determine there was a big bang from this point in space. I would rather believe that is a mystery that we can never solve than to believe a sci-fi interpretation. Just because there is a small chance that theory can be correct, maybe one in a hundred, does not mean it is correct.

Euro origins for Homo?
Homo eroticus, maybe.

I know this does not contribute, but holy subforum batman, the managers need to collect a sense of humor along with all the categorized brainpower given away to the agency for free.


Off to another comment section