Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

originally posted by: Xtrozero

A rodent-looking thing most likely 60+ million years ago. ...

First off, that's a picture of a lemur, which isn't a rodent and I would say it's not very rodent-looking either.

Anyway, this is from the wikipediapage about the species that was assigned to "fossil Ida", which I spoke about in my 1st comment in this thread (I'll quote that after wikipedia):

... lived approximately 47 million years ago ...
The only known fossil, called Ida, ... [whereislogic: really? You're going to invent a whole new species based on 1 fossil? Which...]
... appeared superficially similar to a modern lemur. [then why not just call it a lemur? Why invent a new species? Here's why...]

Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”(4) Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”(5) However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”(6)

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”(7) [added remark now to clarify the "why" question I added in the wikipediaquote: because they have a story to sell. Sounds to me that fossil Ida is just a variation on the lemur kind. And I see no hint of any evolutionary relation/link to the human kind. “A Fine Fossil​—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” quoting Chris Bead, see reference below.]

Why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes (Latin: pithecus; whereas the Latin word for human is homo)? ...

...

4. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil​—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.

5. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009.

6. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.

7. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.

Where are the “links”?

Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.” (Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.) Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.” (Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.)

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. ...

As demonstrated with this fossil Ida stuff, just a lemur, no need to invent a new species based on 1 fossil ("minimal evidence"). And then draw them a little different from modern day lemurs in your artistic supposed "representations", to justify a new species name (while confusing people about the term "species", re-defining it, using different definitions in different circumstances, as needed to sell a story, "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language", as per the standard propaganda tactic that I spoke about in another thread, all 3 comments; there was another thread where I used some examples of words that have been re-defined, twisted, or capitalized on because they are a little vague/ambiguous, "species" was included in that list, other examples are: "science", "nothing", although that one shouldn't be ambiguous, so they create the ambiguity, "information", "evolution" and "design").

Fossil Ida (found in Germany):

a reply to: Xtrozero

The "rodent" phase is far older than the chimp / human split.
What the OP is suggesting is that this find in Greece is the 'missing link' from a time close to the split. But chimpanzees evolved only in Africa, so did gorillas, and a lineage of apes moved out of Africa to become orangutans. As did other close cousins to modern humans, ie H.erectus.

The notion that modern humans evolved outside Africa has almost no evidence based on other modern primate evolution alone. It all leads back to Africa.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...there was another thread where I used some examples of words that have been re-defined, twisted, or capitalized on because they are a little vague/ambiguous, "species" was included in that list, other examples are: "science", "nothing", although that one shouldn't be ambiguous, so they create the ambiguity, "information", "evolution" and "design").

Ah, that was this thread indeed, I couldn't find it anymore and I wasn't sure if it was this thread, so that's why I put it like that above. It was my last comment on page 2. Now it's a bit repetitive if it wasn't another thread. Cause I now noticed I already talked about the tactic of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language in this thread as well.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic
...there was another thread where I used some examples of words that have been re-defined, twisted, or capitalized on because they are a little vague/ambiguous, "species" was included in that list, other examples are: "science", "nothing", although that one shouldn't be ambiguous, so they create the ambiguity, "information", "evolution" and "design").

Ah, that was this thread indeed, I couldn't find it anymore and I wasn't sure if it was this thread, so that's why I put it like that above. It was my last comment on page 2. Now it's a bit repetitive if it wasn't another thread. Cause I now noticed I already talked about the tactic of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language in this thread as well.

There is some confusion again in your replies. Nobody doubts evolution via natural selection. It's mainly the people who are against evolution is good try to capitalise on ambiguity or bring ambiguity into the conversations. Scientists and experts debate the details (don't forget about this) and none of them argue humans, animals, plants, are a result of some form of a creator religions describe and believe.

originally posted by: strongfp
The "rodent" phase is far older than the chimp / human split.
What the OP is suggesting is that this find in Greece is the 'missing link' from a time close to the split. But chimpanzees evolved only in Africa, so did gorillas, and a lineage of apes moved out of Africa to become orangutans. As did other close cousins to modern humans, ie H.erectus.

The notion that modern humans evolved outside Africa has almost no evidence based on other modern primate evolution alone. It all leads back to Africa.

The problem I see with some Greek theory is that would mean humans would then migrate from Greece to Africa and the rest of the world in 3 phases and there is no proof of that in any way. Another problem might be to suggest humans evolved separately from apes in two different areas. Would that mean for example that Neanderthals evolved separately from us in a different location and different lineage of Hominidae? I would say no since we could still breed with each other. This means humans evolved in one area and it all points to Africa.

They would need a ton more supporting evidence and there just isn't any.

originally posted by: whereislogic
First off, that's a picture of a lemur, which isn't a rodent and I would say it's not very rodent-looking either.

Well, I first wrote my post and then decided later to add a picture and didn't change my post to fully match....

Why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes (Latin: pithecus; whereas the Latin word for human is homo)? ...

The reason why "missing link" does not work is because it is a stupid term. There is no real missing link other than a gradual evolution over millions of years, so which one is that special link as they all are links?

The other problem if is we piled up all the evidence of accent man it would all fit in the back of a pickup truck. We can look at Lucy 3+ million years ago and she was more ape-like than human but has much of our traits. When we go back 2 to 5 million years there were a very large number of primitive hominins back then. We just happened to be the only ones to survive the ages.

So there really isn't a missing link out there to be discovered, just a large bucket of many different primitive hominins with one of them ending up as us. In the end, we can see the evolution of all hominins and we are the result of one of them.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: strongfp
The "rodent" phase is far older than the chimp / human split.
What the OP is suggesting is that this find in Greece is the 'missing link' from a time close to the split. But chimpanzees evolved only in Africa, so did gorillas, and a lineage of apes moved out of Africa to become orangutans. As did other close cousins to modern humans, ie H.erectus.

The notion that modern humans evolved outside Africa has almost no evidence based on other modern primate evolution alone. It all leads back to Africa.

The problem I see with some Greek theory is that would mean humans would then migrate from Greece to Africa and the rest of the world in 3 phases and there is no proof of that in any way. Another problem might be to suggest humans evolved separately from apes in two different areas. Would that mean for example that Neanderthals evolved separately from us in a different location and different lineage of Hominidae? I would say no since we could still breed with each other. This means humans evolved in one area and it all points to Africa.

They would need a ton more supporting evidence and there just isn't any.

It's not a Greek theory.

You haven't understood the point of the article and the various publications.

It has been argued human ancestors evolved in more than one place. Including Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia and not just in Africa. According to some authors human ancestors first evolved in Europe and then migrated.

Fossils have been found in Anatolia (modern day Eastern Turkey) belonging to a potential hominin. They date back to 7.2 million years, that's 200 thousand years before the human ancestors started evolving in Africa.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Neanderthals have a pretty solid evolutionary path, and they were part of the Hominidae family, a group of a common ancestor to us and them must have migrated into europe and became isolated until modern humans met up with them again, hence why we could breed with them.

The problem is, we know that other hominid, and hominin populations left Africa and spread around the world. Orangutans are in the same evolutionary path as gorillas, H.erectus and Neanderthals for modern humans. Finding another hominin or hominid in a place like Greece isn't surprising, it just simply means they too probably migrated from Africa at some point.

originally posted by: Consvoli
It has been argued human ancestors evolved in more than one place. Including Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia and not just in Africa. According to some authors human ancestors first evolved in Europe and then migrated.

Migration patterns and tools used in each exist out of Africa say otherwise. We know there was divergence within the homo genus, but to say different homo species all evolved all over the world independently of each other while still being related doesn't make much sense.

At what point are we starting at? All Homo species came from divergence within the Homo Erectus that was here over 2 million years ago. Homo Erectus also spread far and wide even in China 2 million years ago.

In the 2010s, studies in population genetics uncovered evidence of interbreeding that occurred between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Eurasia, Oceania and Africa, indicating that modern population groups, while mostly derived from early H. sapiens, are to a lesser extent also descended from regional variants of archaic humans.

What makes up Homo Sapiens is only shown to exist in East/Southeast Africa 300,000 years ago with migrations starting about 280,000 years ago. There really isn't much divergence within humans to suggest we didn't evolve in the same place. Homo Sapiens is not some known final product, we are just the result of a product with a million variables, so if we evolved in different places there would be vastly more variables within our race.

originally posted by: strongfp

The problem is, we know that other hominid, and hominin populations left Africa and spread around the world. Orangutans are in the same evolutionary path as gorillas, H.erectus and Neanderthals for modern humans. Finding another hominin or hominid in a place like Greece isn't surprising, it just simply means they too probably migrated from Africa at some point.

I agree... H erectus was in China 2 million years ago, so it is very easy to suggest over 2 million years other variants evolved, but they would not be H. sapiens. We are rather unique to East and Southeast Africa, and we are the most recent of variants.

Or maybe we were planted here in different areas of the world.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Consvoli
It has been argued human ancestors evolved in more than one place. Including Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia and not just in Africa. According to some authors human ancestors first evolved in Europe and then migrated.

Migration patterns and tools used in each exist out of Africa say otherwise. We know there was divergence within the homo genus, but to say different homo species all evolved all over the world independently of each other while still being related doesn't make much sense.

At what point are we starting at? All Homo species came from divergence within the Homo Erectus that was here over 2 million years ago. Homo Erectus also spread far and wide even in China 2 million years ago.

In the 2010s, studies in population genetics uncovered evidence of interbreeding that occurred between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Eurasia, Oceania and Africa, indicating that modern population groups, while mostly derived from early H. sapiens, are to a lesser extent also descended from regional variants of archaic humans.

What makes up Homo Sapiens is only shown to exist in East/Southeast Africa 300,000 years ago with migrations starting about 280,000 years ago. There really isn't much divergence within humans to suggest we didn't evolve in the same place. Homo Sapiens is not some known final product, we are just the result of a product with a million variables, so if we evolved in different places there would be vastly more variables within our race.

Different homo species coexisted at given times and we know there were interbreeding with each other.

There is evidence of potential hominins outside Africa... long before the human ancestors first evolved in Africa (prevailing hypothesis). If this can be proven then the African origin of humans is in big trouble. Point of the article.

Parallel evolution of different homo species but with interactions with each other is not a far fetched idea. A few years ago nobody would have thought different homo species coexisted and interbred with each other. If you were to make this hypothesis they would exclude you from the conversation.

originally posted by: Consvoli
There is evidence of potential hominins outside Africa... long before the human ancestors first evolved in Africa (prevailing hypothesis). If this can be proven then the African origin of humans is in big trouble. Point of the article.

Parallel evolution of different homo species but with interactions with each other is not a far fetched idea. A few years ago nobody would have thought different homo species coexisted and interbred with each other. If you were to make this hypothesis they would exclude you from the conversation.

We agree on the interaction part, but when you suggest Humans could evolve separately in different parts and not just other homo species then you drift off in the impossible. As I said humans are because of the unique divergence in Africa that also had interbeing to some level, so that is what makes up H. sapiens. If we had as you say "potential hominins outside Africa" then they would be different and not H. sapiens

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Consvoli
There is evidence of potential hominins outside Africa... long before the human ancestors first evolved in Africa (prevailing hypothesis). If this can be proven then the African origin of humans is in big trouble. Point of the article.

Parallel evolution of different homo species but with interactions with each other is not a far fetched idea. A few years ago nobody would have thought different homo species coexisted and interbred with each other. If you were to make this hypothesis they would exclude you from the conversation.

We agree on the interaction part, but when you suggest Humans could evolve separately in different parts and not just other homo species then you drift off in the impossible. As I said humans are because of the unique divergence in Africa that also had interbeing to some level, so that is what makes up H. sapiens. If we had as you say "potential hominins outside Africa" then they would be different and not H. sapiens

The interaction part we agree on seemed impossible a few years ago! Most scientists thought different homo species never coexisted. To argue they did coexist and they were interbreeding you would be regarded as crazy.

The point of the article is that fossils of could-be hominins have been found in different places such as Greece and Turkey and probably elsewhere and they date back to over 7 million years which gives a major problem to the African origin of humans. That's what you have to consider.

a reply to: Consvoli

That's not true at all... H.erectus, and H.neanderthalensis are both in the genus Homo, which H.sapiens did indeed interact with, we have known this for decades. But the fact still stands that H.sapiens, evolved in Africa and migrated out, not in.

originally posted by: Consvoli

The point of the article is that fossils of could-be hominins have been found in different places such as Greece and Turkey and probably elsewhere and they date back to over 7 million years which gives a major problem to the African origin of humans. That's what you have to consider.

Hominins, not sapiens....

Sure why not... But the 7 million years for the homo genus is really pushing it, and where would they come from?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Consvoli

That's not true at all... H.erectus, and H.neanderthalensis are both in the genus Homo, which H.sapiens did indeed interact with, we have known this for decades. But the fact still stands that H.sapiens, evolved in Africa and migrated out, not in.

The discussion is on hominins and that date back to more than 7 million years. I don't know why you are stuck with homo erectus. I don't know what is not true.

If you claimed a few years ago that different homo species coexisted and interacted you wouldn't be taken seriously.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Consvoli

The point of the article is that fossils of could-be hominins have been found in different places such as Greece and Turkey and probably elsewhere and they date back to over 7 million years which gives a major problem to the African origin of humans. That's what you have to consider.

Hominins, not sapiens....

Sure why not... But the 7 million years for the homo genus is really pushing it, and where would they come from?

.
It's exactly what the article does and a number of scientists who are pushing it.

a reply to: Consvoli

They're examples. The potential hominini found in Greece would have nothing to do with modern humans or the genus homo. That's the point, it's just another gangly armed looking creature. And the question still stands, where did it come from? Not europe or Eurasia.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Consvoli

They're examples. The potential hominini found in Greece would have nothing to do with modern humans or the genus homo. That's the point, it's just another gangly armed looking creature. And the question still stands, where did it come from? Not europe or Eurasia.

The story covers the potential origin of hominins which are related to humans. The article hasn't claimed otherwise but why did hominins have to come from Africa?? when they have been found all over the place in Europe and Asia and long before the first hominins allegedly evolved in Africa. It shows hominins existed in many different places and not necessarily first evolved in Africa. You are making a different argument but you just have to revisit the first page of the thread to see again what the argument is. Homo erectus didn't exist 8-9 million years ago. The most prevailing hypothesis is that hominins first evolved in Africa but it may not be true after all.