Origins of Human Evolution

The science or study of primitive societies and the nature of man.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Postby Beagle » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 pm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uou-ett121807.php

Scientists long have focused on how climate and vegetation allowed human ancestors to evolve in Africa. Now, University of Utah geologists are calling renewed attention to the idea that ground movements formed mountains and valleys, creating environments that favored the emergence of humanity.

“Tectonics [movement of Earth’s crust] was ultimately responsible for the evolution of humankind,” Royhan and Nahid Gani of the university’s Energy and Geoscience Institute write in the January, 2008, issue of Geotimes, published by the American Geological Institute.

They argue that the accelerated uplift of mountains and highlands stretching from Ethiopia to South Africa blocked much ocean moisture, converting lush tropical forests into an arid patchwork of woodlands and savannah grasslands that gradually favored human ancestors who came down from the trees and started walking on two feet – an energy-efficient way to search larger areas for food in an arid environment.



Good article on evolution of hominems, from Archaeologica News. 8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Nice Idea.

Postby fossiltrader » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:20 am

But not set out well

they quote--Royhan Gani says the earliest undisputed evidence of true bipedalism (as opposed to knuckle-dragging by apes) is 4.1 million years ago in Australopithecus anamensis, but some believe the trait existed as early as 6 million to 7 million years ago.

After havind said--mountains in Tanganyika and Malawi were uplifted mainly between 5 million and 2 million years ago, and the wall’s southernmost end gained most of its elevation during the past 5 million years.
Which would show that the two clearly are not conected.

Which makes the statement--Nature built this wall, and then humans could evolve, walk tall and think big,” says Royhan Gani. “Is there any characteristic feature of the wall that drove human evolution?”

Absolutely without any purpose if bipedalism existed before the mountains changed as they state many think what is the point of the article.Either the mountains caused the change therefore having changed before bipedalism or they didnt having formed after you cannot have it both ways?????
User avatar
fossiltrader
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Postby Digit » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:37 pm

I have to agree with FT, and this bit puzzles me!

an energy-efficient way to search larger areas for food in an arid environment.


Having watched my grandson trying to stand unaided, and the constant muscular activity involved, I would have to question that.
If bipedalism is so effecient why has only one species developed it?
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Digit.

Postby fossiltrader » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:48 pm

My next paper is a critique on the developement of concealed ovulation being the cause of the formatipn of family groups i will post in here after releasing it easy to see many researchers just rush to publish.
This one is 5 years work lol.
User avatar
fossiltrader
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Postby Digit » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:52 pm

Pass! What's concealed ovalation? :?
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Postby Beagle » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:25 pm

Digit wrote:Pass! What's concealed ovalation? :?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_ovulation

Here ya go Digit.
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Digit » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:29 pm

Ta!

At least one recent study has argued that men are more likely to initiate sex with fertile women[


More like one who's drunk now a days. :cry:
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Postby kbs2244 » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:34 pm

I cannot wait to see what this has to do with the formation of the family group.
kbs2244
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47 pm

Family group.

Postby fossiltrader » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:58 pm

Ask Lovejoy he the one im critiquing lol
User avatar
fossiltrader
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:24 am

Postby Beagle » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:02 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080227/ts_alt_afp/scienceusfrancechadpaleontology_080227225851;_ylt=AvmclfXJAvigVxfk4JrbDWVFeQoB


CHICAGO (AFP) - French fossil hunters have pinned down the age of Toumai, which they contend is the remains of the earliest human ever found, at between 6.8 and 7.2 million years old.

The fossil was discovered in the Chadian desert in 2001 and an intense debate ensued over whether the nearly complete cranium, pieces of jawbone and teeth belonged to one of our earliest ancestors.

Critics said that Toumai's cranium was too squashed to be that of a hominid -- it did not have the brain capacity that gives humans primacy -- and its small size indicated a creature of no more than 120 centimetres (four feet) in height, about the size of a walking chimp.

In short, they said, Toumai had no right to be baptised with French researcher Michel Brunet's hominid honorific of Sahelanthropus tchadensis -- he was simply a vulgar ape.

Toumai's supporters used 3D computer reconstructions to show that the structure of the cranium had clear differences from those of gorillas and chimps and indicates that Toumai was able to walk upright on two feet, something our primate cousins cannot do with ease.

If Toumai is truly an early human, that means that the evolutionary split between apes and humans occurred far earlier than previously thought.



This pushes the curtain back quite a bit. 8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Flintz » Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:47 pm

Beagle wrote:This pushes the curtain back quite a bit. 8)


Yup, pushes it back much closer to the time when apes had their heyday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Fauna
Approximately 100 species of apes lived during this time. They occupied much of the Old World and ranged in size, diet, and anatomy. Due to scanty fossil evidence it is unclear which ape or apes contributed to the modern hominoid clade, but molecular evidence indicates this ape lived from between 15 to 12 million years ago.


Gotta love the Toumai find - unique and very interesting with the dates now independently confirmed :D
To know the limits of what's possible, try the impossible.
Flintz
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:03 pm
Location: Sussex, UK

Postby Beagle » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:58 pm

CHICAGO (AFP) - French fossil hunters have pinned down the age of Toumai, which they contend is the remains of the earliest human ever found, at between 6.8 and 7.2 million years old.


Thanks Flintz. About the above quote from the article I posted, I don't think they can remotely use the word human here. They should probably describe Toumai as an ape that may have contributed to the human line.

We need to fill in the blanks between 2 and 3 million years ago. Some big things happened but we lack fossils.
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Beagle » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:24 pm

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/538806/

Newswise — A shape comparison of the most complete fossil femur (thigh bone) of one of the earliest known pre-humans, or hominins, with the femora of living apes, modern humans and other fossils, indicates the earliest form of bipedalism occurred at least six million years ago and persisted for at least four million years. William Jungers, Ph.D., of Stony Brook University, and Brian Richmond, Ph.D., of George Washington University, say their finding indicates that the fossil belongs to very early human ancestors, and that upright walking is one of the first human characteristics to appear in our lineage, right after the split between human and chimpanzee lineages. Their findings are published in the March 21 issue of the journal Science.



8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Beagle » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:34 am

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080320-biped-ancestor.html

An analysis of six-million-year-old bones from an early human ancestor that lived in what is now Kenya suggests that the species was the earliest known hominin to walk, a new study says.

"This provides really solid evidence that these fossils actually belong to an upright-walking early human ancestor," said study lead author Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Orrorin tugenensis, known by only a handful of bones, has generated controversy since its discovery in the hills of northwest Kenya in 2000.

The species existed during a critical period in the human evolutionary timeline. The genetic differences between human and chimpanzee lineages point to divergence from a common ancestor that lived somewhere between five and eight million years ago.



Another article about the 6 million yr. old upright man.
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Postby Beagle » Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:53 pm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080429204255.htm

A University of Arkansas professor and his colleagues used a combination of microscopy and fractal analysis to examine marks on the teeth of members of an ancient human ancestor species and found that what it actually ate does not correspond with the size and shape of its teeth. This finding suggests that structure alone is not enough to predict dietary preferences and that evolutionary adaptation for eating may have been based on scarcity rather than on an animal's regular diet.

"These findings totally run counter to what people have been saying for the last half a century," said Peter Ungar, professor of anthropology in the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences. "We have to sit back and re-evaluate what we once thought


Article on the "Nutcracker Man". 8)
Beagle
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

PreviousNext

Return to Anthropology and Primitive Societies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests