43 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

shaddow134, on 20 March 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Maybe the Toba super eruption was the defining moment in our Evolution,I know the evidence is lacking but the massive climate change could have made us what we are today after nearly wiping us out.Would that be the reason why we changed from hunter gatherers to Farmers and Civilisation builders?

More likely that was because somebody finally understood what the seed was about. Not that this made people farmers right away, there were many more things that had to be known before successfully sowing.

[Leonardo]

Peter Cox, on 19 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Hey all,

Im curious to your thoughts on the origins of where man/woman came out of?

I live in South Africa, and have been to the caves (sterkfoutain) caves and the cradle of human kind here in JHB.

But my question is did we really start in Africa like these guys claim? if so where abouts?

Thanks all

Currently, the evidence points to an African origin for H. sap. sap (although maybe not specifically South Africa, be wary of political reasons for countries making 'origin claims'.)

This is not to say other closely related hominins did not occupy other regions of the globe before H. sap. ventured out of Africa. We know H. neaderthal was living in the Europe/Levant region. We know H. erectus spread to Asia. We know the Denisovans lived in the Caucasia/Russia region.

None of those were H. sap., but there is evidence that H. sap. interbred with the Neanderthals and with the Denisovans. If we take the view that modern groups of H. sap. are defined by all their descendents, that would mean a regional origin for various groups.

[cormac mac airt]

Harte, on 20 March 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

In fact, that's not true.

She's called "mitichondrial Eve" for a reason.

If you check into what mitochondria actually are, you'll see why I say that.

Also, while I didn't read it, I'm sure your own link will explain to you that this "Eve" is just the earliest person (tyheoretically) that everyone alive today is related to.  That doesn't mean that she was the first.  It means that her lineage perservered, while that of others died out.
I'll leave a more in-depth explanation to Cormac (the Magnificent.)

That being said, since you ask where "we" came from but seem disintereste4d in H. Sapiens Sapiens, perhaps you should start by defining what you mean by "we," since "we" are modern humans.

Harte

Hello Peter Cox,

Harte would be right. Mitochondrial Eve is NOT the first human (Homo sapiens) to have ever existed, but the first human from whom all humans today have inherited their mtDNA haplogroup. There were others alive during her time, but their lines are no longer extant.

The earliest evidence from fossil remains (Omo 1 and 2) as well as the genetic evidence for Mitochondrial Eve suggest a location of Ethiopia for Homo sapiens and likely to include Kenya and Tanzania for the Australopithecines. NOTHING however would suggest we started in South Africa.

I further have to agree with Harte, you should define "we" as it can mean many things depending on point in time.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

cormac mac airt, on 21 March 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Hello Peter Cox,

Harte would be right. Mitochondrial Eve is NOT the first human (Homo sapiens) to have ever existed, but the first human from whom all humans today have inherited their mtDNA haplogroup. There were others alive during her time, but their lines are no longer extant.

The earliest evidence from fossil remains (Omo 1 and 2) as well as the genetic evidence for Mitochondrial Eve suggest a location of Ethiopia for Homo sapiens and likely to include Kenya and Tanzania for the Australopithecines. NOTHING however would suggest we started in South Africa.

I further have to agree with Harte, you should define "we" as it can mean many things depending on point in time.

cormac

The Cradle of Humankind is officially in South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia....le_of_Humankind

BUT I am unsure whether to class them as 'man' or not - I'd be more inclined to think 'man' was the homo sapiens sapiens migration out of Africa and why I havent posted here yet - what IS the definition of 'we' or 'man' - we are not Neanderthals, even though they are a hominid - so does man in Peter Cox question refer to all other species of hominids that lived and migrated out long before us, not that I'm asking you, just contemplating the actual question still...

[cormac mac airt]

The Puzzler, on 21 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

The Cradle of Humankind is officially in South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia....le_of_Humankind

BUT I am unsure whether to class them as 'man' or not - I'd be more inclined to think 'man' was the homo sapiens sapiens migration out of Africa and why I havent posted here yet - what IS the definition of 'we' or 'man' - we are not Neanderthals, even though they are a hominid - so does man in Peter Cox question refer to all other species of hominids that lived and migrated out long before us, not that I'm asking you, just contemplating the actual question still...

Sorry Puzzler, but NO. Wiki is NOT your friend. The oldest ancestor of australopithecines is A. anamensis at between 4.12 - 4.17 million years BP, found in Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Which is decidedly NOT South Africa.

New specimens and confirmation of an early age for Australopithecus anamensis

also

Phylogeny of early Australopithecus: new fossil evidence from the Woranso-Mille (central Afar, Ethiopia)

That some descendant groups may have lived in South Africa does not mean that the lineage originated from there. And "we" as meaning "human" and therefore members of the genus Homo show no evidence for having originated in South Africa.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

cormac mac airt, on 21 March 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Sorry Puzzler, but NO. Wiki is NOT your friend. The oldest ancestor of australopithecines is A. anamensis at between 4.12 - 4.17 million years BP, found in Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Which is decidedly NOT South Africa.

New specimens and confirmation of an early age for Australopithecus anamensis

also

Phylogeny of early Australopithecus: new fossil evidence from the Woranso-Mille (central Afar, Ethiopia)

That some descendant groups may have lived in South Africa does not mean that the lineage originated from there. And "we" as meaning "human" and therefore members of the genus Homo show no evidence for having originated in South Africa.

cormac

I'm pretty sure that article is correct. It's a World Heritage UNESCO site. The important word here is CRADLE. No one said it was where hominids first appeared - they can find a Lucy here and an A. anamensis there but the Johannesburg site is where they have found alot of the hominids and also the first area to have controlled fire burning from evidences.

The name Cradle of Humankind reflects the fact that the site has produced a large number, as well as some of the oldest, hominid fossils ever found, some dating back as far as 3.5 million years ago.[2] Sterkfontein alone has produced more than a third of early hominid fossils ever found.

The oldest controlled use of fire was also discovered at Swartkrans and dated to over 1 million years ago.

It's where 'humankind' was cradled - we actually became 'humankind' - which imo is the earliest term of us being 'man/woman' - prior to that we are just an evolved ape becoming human like.

Like I said, the definition of man is very broad in a subject like this imo.

Edited by The Puzzler, 21 March 2012 - 04:11 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

The important word here is CRADLE.

No, the important word is not "cradle" the important word (per the OP) is "we" which is what I said. And the Cradle of Humankind is not where "we" started as Australopithecines and Homo sapiens both started in Central Africa.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Quote

Hey all,

Im curious to your thoughts on the origins of where man/woman came out of?

I live in South Africa, and have been to the caves (sterkfoutain) caves and the cradle of human kind here in JHB.

But my question is did we really start in Africa like these guys claim? if so where abouts?

Thanks all

Since he did mention in his OP about the Cradle of Humankind, I felt it was relevant.

[Leonardo]

The Puzzler, on 21 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Since he did mention in his OP about the Cradle of Humankind, I felt it was relevant.

While the area denoted so is archaeolgically signficant, the term "Cradle of Humankind" is nothing more than a politically-motivated, "feelgood" phrase that has no scientific value.

The region supported conditions which were conducive to fossilisation, and may have been richer in terms of population than other regions. This does not signify any primacy in terms of origin.

[Peter Cox]

Hey all, sorry was a bank holiday in S.A yesterday so was not around my pc at all

When I say we I mean Humans, or the origination of humans. I can't believe that we just appeared out of the blue.

So we evolved from earlier forms of humanoids, my questions is where did these humanoids come from what region, what dates etc etc.  

The reason for asking is I personally dont think it is the cradle in S.A that is where it all started. I feel Kenya or N.E Africa is more likely but for all I know it could be the Americas or anywhere for that matter. What does the proof say? the real evidence, as yes the cradle world heritage site has some serious evidence in the form of fossils of ancient ancestors to homo sapiens (homo erectis, is what I think they were classed at but could be very wrong?)

And thanks for the info on Eve, i understand much better now what they are referring too now so thanks a million for that.

[cormac mac airt]

Peter Cox, on 22 March 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Hey all, sorry was a bank holiday in S.A yesterday so was not around my pc at all

When I say we I mean Humans, or the origination of humans. I can't believe that we just appeared out of the blue.

So we evolved from earlier forms of humanoids, my questions is where did these humanoids come from what region, what dates etc etc.  

The reason for asking is I personally dont think it is the cradle in S.A that is where it all started. I feel Kenya or N.E Africa is more likely but for all I know it could be the Americas or anywhere for that matter. What does the proof say? the real evidence, as yes the cradle world heritage site has some serious evidence in the form of fossils of ancient ancestors to homo sapiens (homo erectis, is what I think they were classed at but could be very wrong?)

And thanks for the info on Eve, i understand much better now what they are referring too now so thanks a million for that.

For the earliest Australopithecines, see my Post #20. For the earliest members of Homo sapiens see the following:

Quote

In 1967 the Kibish Formation in southern Ethiopia yielded hominid cranial remains identified as early anatomically modern humans, assigned to Homo sapiens 1, 2, 3, 4. However, the provenance and age of the fossils have been much debated5, 6. Here we confirm that the Omo I and Omo II hominid fossils are from similar stratigraphic levels in Member I of the Kibish Formation, despite the view that Omo I is more modern in appearance than Omo II1, 2, 3. 40Ar/39Ar ages on feldspar crystals from pumice clasts within a tuff in Member I below the hominid levels place an older limit of 198  14 kyr (weighted mean age 196  2 kyr) on the hominids. A younger age limit of 104  7 kyr is provided by feldspars from pumice clasts in a Member III tuff. Geological evidence indicates rapid deposition of each member of the Kibish Formation. Isotopic ages on the Kibish Formation correspond to ages of Mediterranean sapropels, which reflect increased flow of the Nile River, and necessarily increased flow of the Omo River. Thus the 40Ar/39Ar age measurements, together with the sapropel correlations, indicate that the hominid fossils have an age close to the older limit. Our preferred estimate of the age of the Kibish hominids is 195  5 kyr, making them the earliest well-dated anatomically modern humans yet described.

Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia

and

Quote

The origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens and the fate of Neanderthals have been fundamental questions in human evolutionary studies for over a century1, 2, 3, 4. A key barrier to the resolution of these questions has been the lack of substantial and accurately dated African hominid fossils from between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago5. Here we describe fossilized hominid crania from Herto, Middle Awash, Ethiopia, that fill this gap and provide crucial evidence on the location, timing and contextual circumstances of the emergence of Homo sapiens. Radioisotopically dated to between 160,000 and 154,000 years ago6, these new fossils predate classic Neanderthals and lack their derived features. The Herto hominids are morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans. They therefore represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans. Their anatomy and antiquity constitute strong evidence of modern-human emergence in Africa.

Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia

Again, nothing here would support a South African point of origin for humans or the hominid family tree.

cormac

[Peter Cox]

Thanks Cormac,

That's what I was looking for, so likely candidate is central Africa and not S.A.

thanks a million.

[Abramelin]

Peter Cox, on 22 March 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Thanks Cormac,

That's what I was looking for, so likely candidate is central Africa and not S.A.

thanks a million.

But the next finds are from 2010:

Homo gautengensis is a hominin species proposed by biological anthropologist Darren Curnoe in 2010. The species is composed of South African hominin fossils previously attributed to Homo habilis, Homo ergaster or in some cases Australopithecus and is argued by Curnoe to be the earliest species in the genus Homo.

Analysis announced in May 2010 of a partial skull found decades earlier in South Africa's Sterkfontein Caves in Gauteng near Johannesburg identified the species, named Homo gautengensis by anthropologist Dr Darren Curnoe of the UNSW School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. While earlier fossils belong to the genus Homo, none have yet been classified in any species.[2]

The species' first remains were originally discovered in 1977 but had been left largely ignored.[3] They had been catalogued StW 53 and were noted as being anomalous

=

Earlier in 2010, the discovery of a new fossil primate species Australopithecus sediba was announced. A. sediba seems "much more primitive than H. gautengensis, and lived at the same time and in the same place," according to Curnoe, and as a result, "Homo gautengensis makes Australopithecus sediba look even less likely to be the ancestor of humans.

One reason for the sudden increase in the discovery of Homo species is improved analysis methods, often based on prior finds, DNA work, and a better understanding of where such remains might exist.[10]

Curnoe instead proposes that Australopithecus garhi, found in Ethiopia and dating to about 2.5 million years ago, is a better possibility for the earliest non-Homo direct ancestor in the human evolutionary line.

Bones even older than those of Homo gautengensis await study and classification. According to Colin Groves, a professor in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University in Canberra, "There were a number of distinctive, perhaps short-lived, species of proto-humans living in both eastern and southern Africa in the period between 2 and 1 million years ago."

http://en.wikipedia....mo_gautengensis

[Peter Cox]

That fascinating stuff, thanks for taking the time to post it.

Leaves one thinking...

[Peter Cox]

AUSTRALOPITHECUS
The first example of Australopithecus was found in 1925 in a limestone cave near Taung, in South Africa, by the anthropologist Raymond Dart. He found the skull of a six year old creature with an ape-like appearance but human characteristics. Australopithecines were small, with long arms, prominent skulls and small brains and retained the ability to climb trees.

Since 1925 there have been numerous finds of Australopithecus fossils in East and Southern Africa, mainly based around the Great Rift Valley - a fracture in the earth's surfaces that runs 3,500 kilometres from the Red Sea to Mozambique. The non-acidic nature of the Rift Valley soil and sediment has made it the ideal environment for the preservation of specimens.

In 1997 an Australopithecus skull and skeleton was found in a cave in Sterkfontein north of Johannesburg. It is thought to be around 3.5 million years old. The bones are likely to be of a hominid, who fell through a shaft and died while trapped underground.

One of the most famous finds was in Ethiopia's Omo Valley in 1974. It was the skeleton, about 40% complete, of a young girl known to the outside world as Lucy and to Ethiopians as Dinqnish - the wonderful or precious one. She was about the same age as Sterkfontein man.

Australopithecus split into several different species. Some developed powerful teeth and jaws and became known as 'robust' while others were more lightly built and dubbed 'gracile'.

HOMO HABILIS
By around 2.5 million years ago a more recent ancestor - Homo habilis or 'man, the toolmaker' appears to have evolved. It is not clear whether Homo habilis developed directly from Australopithecus, but if so, it is likely to have been from one of the gracile, rather than robust species.

Homo habilis was an individual whose larger brain size enabled it to manufacture simple stone tools, usually pebbles which were split and then chipped to give a cutting edge.

Such technology is most clearly on display in the excavations at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania - one of Africa's most extraordinary geological sites. The gorge cuts through five colourful volcanic layers, each representing a different period in time, ranging from two million to 500 thousand years ago.

Listen to an expert at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania explaining the use of lava and chert rock tools

HOMO ERECTUS
With this species, which evolved around 1.5 million years ago, we encounter an ancestor who looked a good deal like a modern human. Homo erectus was taller than Homo habilis, more robust and had a larger brain. They developed tool-making further, producing a characteristic hand axe known as the 'Acheulian'.

Fossils of Australopithecus and Homo habilis have been found only in Africa, but examples of Homo erectus have been found in the Far East and China while the hand axe has been found in Asia and Europe.

The widely held belief is that these other parts of the world were populated by Homo erectus who left Africa.

LAUNCHED IN AFRICA
"There is no question that Africans contributed towards the development of human beings as we know them today. They were the first to use their physical capabilities to enlarge their brains.

They were able to develop the technology of stone tools…they were the first ones to move out of trees and walk upright…and they were the first ones to explore….crossing the seas and going out to Asia and Europe….and to me this is the greatest achievement that humanity has ever done."
George Abungu, of the National Museums of Kenya

http://www.bbc.co.uk...2chapter1.shtml


Just googled it and this came up pretty cool and simple to understand. is it correct is the question?

Thanks