seeder Posted May 28, 2015 #1 Share Posted May 28, 2015 The bones were found in the Afar region of Ethiopia. The remains belong to four individuals and date to between 3.3m and 3.5m years old The ancient remains are thought to belong to four individuals, who would have had both ape and human-like features.. Living with Lucy Lead researcher Dr Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator of physical anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in the US, told BBC News: "We had to look at the detailed anatomy and morphology of the teeth and the upper and lower jaws, and we found major differences. "This new species has very robust jaws. In addition, we see this new species had smaller teeth. The canine is really small - smaller than all known hominins we have documented in the past." The age of the remains means that this was potentially one of four different species of early humans that were all alive at the same time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32906836 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted May 28, 2015 #2 Share Posted May 28, 2015 is it a different species of humans or apes? Were they a deformed family? As stated in the article,, very complex stuff.....and very fascinating. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 28, 2015 Author #3 Share Posted May 28, 2015 is it a different species of humans or apes? Were they a deformed family? As stated in the article,, very complex stuff.....and very fascinating. Yep, early humans!! The plot thickens!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StRoostifer Posted May 28, 2015 #4 Share Posted May 28, 2015 This is a fascinating read Seeder. Thanks for sharing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loggins Posted May 29, 2015 #5 Share Posted May 29, 2015 (edited) http://www.dagbladet...kning/39401311/ (Norwegian - use translate) Found in Afar-region in Etiopia "Nature Magazine" concludes it would be : "Australopithecus deyiremeda" 3,3 mill - 3,5 years ago Older than Lucy ("Australopithecus afarensis") -- closer to our "missing link"? Jaw was found 4. mars 2011. I repeat -- "Unknown human species" (Yet they specified it) Exciting though - new paleontological information. "- Det er små anatomiske forskjeller som påpekes, og de lever i dette tilfellet ikke opp til å kunne bevise biologisk artsulikhet. Lucys art har bare fått et par flere nye fossiler, sier Tim White til Sciencemag.org." Translate: " There are small anatomical differences that is mentioned (Lucy), and they dont live up to the biological evidence of special diversion. Lucy's species has simply gotten a few more fossils say Tim White in Sciencemag.org" So - i got fooled by my newspaper perhaps. Anyone able to check facts? Edited May 29, 2015 by Loggins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loggins Posted May 29, 2015 #6 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Someone is always going to see a bigfoot - so who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted May 29, 2015 #7 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Someone is always going to see a bigfoot - so who knows. Maybe, but based on the size of the mandible, these australopiths were around the same size as the others, around 4 feet. Just a bit short to be confused for a bigfoot, I would think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loggins Posted May 29, 2015 #8 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Maybe, but based on the size of the mandible, these australopiths were around the same size as the others, around 4 feet. Just a bit short to be confused for a bigfoot, I would think. Im excited though -- Lucy has been our queen for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted May 29, 2015 #9 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Im excited though -- Lucy has been our queen for so long. New finds are always cool. Hopefully they dig up a few more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loggins Posted May 29, 2015 #10 Share Posted May 29, 2015 The reason i first put it in Cryptozoolgy was that the article was headlined with "Unknown human species" found. I realized soon that we were talking about one of Lucy's friends -- or older even. Im not superstitious, but i like Crypto-forum for some reason. Anyways ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted May 29, 2015 #11 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Yes, confirmed (and I can confirm that the teeth shown ARE human. There's a "Y" pattern in the molar that's unique to humans) http://www.science20.com/news_articles/australopithecus_deyiremeda_new_human_ancestor_in_ethiopia-155829 Just a note... they had to sit on this announcement for years after they found it because they presented it to several conferences and to others who study hominids and had to defend it as a new species. I saw Tykoski and Fiorello go through this with Nanuqsaurus. The process to declare a new species is not a quick and simple "Hey! I found a bone!" one. They have to fight tooth and nail to prove it, and sometimes (I heard a few stories about the competition in the hominid paleontology field) they have to fight egos and Famous People to prove they are right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted May 29, 2015 #12 Share Posted May 29, 2015 (and I can confirm that the teeth shown ARE human. There's a "Y" pattern in the molar that's unique to humans) Y-5 molars are found in all apes, not just humans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted May 30, 2015 #13 Share Posted May 30, 2015 It's a bit misleading for the article to state this find constitutes a "human ancestor" as the actual lineage of the species - apart from being a hominid - has yet to be ascertained. Indeed, I could trumpet a trilobite fossil as being a "human ancestor" with about as much accuracy (okay, a slight exaggeration ) as this claim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastieRunner Posted May 31, 2015 #14 Share Posted May 31, 2015 This is some ground-breaking and fascinating anthropological news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted May 31, 2015 #15 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) You have 2 parents. They have four parents. Your four have sixteen parents... 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024, 2,048 parents. That's only 10 generations or about 200 to 250 years. If you go back 100 generations, there was a hundred gazillion people on the earth. That's not true, of course, but for that truth, "We are all related." Edit: I have to add, "Hey cousin!" Edited May 31, 2015 by Likely Guy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarbinks Posted May 31, 2015 #16 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Mitochrondria eve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted May 31, 2015 #17 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Mitochrondria eve Way too old to be Mitochondrial Eve. cormac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
She-ra Posted May 31, 2015 #18 Share Posted May 31, 2015 You have 2 parents. They have four parents. Your four have sixteen parents... 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024, 2,048 parents. That's only 10 generations or about 200 to 250 years. If you go back 100 generations, there was a hundred gazillion people on the earth. That's not true, of course, but for that truth, "We are all related." Edit: I have to add, "Hey cousin!" This made me giggle Likely Guy Hey cousin!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 1, 2015 #19 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Given that within modern humans, dental differences can have a large range, I wonder if just the teeth actually is enough to establish a new species... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travelnjones Posted June 4, 2015 #20 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I see John Voight in the reconstruction picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBeliever Posted June 13, 2015 #21 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Frankly i don think we came from monkeys. I believe we came from more human like creatures. I don think monkeys will become village tribesmen a million years later. They most likely will still look the same. Living fossils r best examples.. Edited June 13, 2015 by TheGreatBeliever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted June 13, 2015 #22 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Frankly i don think we came from monkeys. I believe we came from more human like creatures. I don think monkeys will become village tribesmen a million years later. They most likely will still look the same. Living fossils r best examples.. You are right, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an animal that was a distant ancestor to both us and monkeys. The evolutionary split between monkeys and humans occured millions of years ago. The whole "we evolved from monkeys" is a mistake that has been perpetuated ever since Darwin ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinrenee Posted June 14, 2015 #23 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Frankly i don think we came from monkeys. I believe we came from more human like creatures. I don think monkeys will become village tribesmen a million years later. They most likely will still look the same. Living fossils r best examples.. I agree. I believe that about 3 billion years ago a multi-celled creature slithered out of the primordial soup. It was a human. It's DNA was human, and even though there was a time when he/she looked more like a lizard, it was a human. Even though there was a time when it looked more like a monkey, it was a human. We are the smartest, baddest, craftiest creature in the universe. God created us in His image and gave us dominion over the earth and all that dwells therein. We have no peer in the animal kingdom... never have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBeliever Posted June 15, 2015 #24 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) You are right, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an animal that was a distant ancestor to both us and monkeys. The evolutionary split between monkeys and humans occured millions of years ago. The whole "we evolved from monkeys" is a mistake that has been perpetuated ever since Darwin ! I agree. I believe that about 3 billion years ago a multi-celled creature slithered out of the primordial soup. It was a human. It's DNA was human, and even though there was a time when he/she looked more like a lizard, it was a human. Even though there was a time when it looked more like a monkey, it was a human. We are the smartest, baddest, craftiest creature in the universe. God created us in His image and gave us dominion over the earth and all that dwells therein. We have no peer in the animal kingdom... never have. Cheers to both of u! Edited June 15, 2015 by TheGreatBeliever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now