It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Human Origins May Have Been Pushed Back 400,000 Years

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I read about this yesterday in the news, I love how in this days and times we are still learning and discovery our own humble beginnings as humans.

I hope I live long enough to see more discoveries coming forward.




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Anyone know how many homids were around at the same time?.
I know Neanderthal Us and Erectus shared the planet at one time but any more?.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I know Neanderthal Us and Erectus shared the planet at one time but any more?.


I believe there was also Monkeyboyis Hugebicpetus.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: rickymouse
I still think hominids may have evolved from some sort of Raptor dinosaurs.


We 100% definately did not evolve from dinosaurs. They're not even mammals.


I'm going with worms
www.scientificamerican.com...

no wait sea sponge, not to be confused with sponge Bob square pants
www.ibtimes.com...

or

Aquatic Ape
www.animalplanet.com...
edit on 073131p://bThursday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Im not suggesting we are reptiles, just that we share similar traits which is not that out of the ordinary considering we survive in the same biosphere.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did not suggest that we were reptilian simply pointing out, just like yourself, that we share similar genetic traits. Perhaps you misunderstood?

As to how we classify life on this planet? That seems to change over time just look at our discovery regarding extremophiles.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 5-3-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Ok, just checking. Too many people are uninformed about these matters on these boards. That is why I offered the information.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldworldbeliever
This discovery seems to be blowing up all my nerdy science sites, so I thought I would share it with you and see what your thoughts were.

Homo fossil.



A Homo Fossil

LoL


Korg.
edit on 5-3-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

It is most likely because dinosaurs and mammals share a common ancestry in Therapsids.

www.britannica.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Anyone know how many homids were around at the same time?.
I know Neanderthal Us and Erectus shared the planet at one time but any more?.


Add Denisovan to that list and if Floresiensis pans out as a distinct species throw those little bastards in the mix as well.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I know Neanderthal Us and Erectus shared the planet at one time but any more?.


I believe there was also Monkeyboyis Hugebicpetus.


Yes we were the first and will be the last.
I welcome the day us Monkeyboyis Hugebicpetus's rise up and destroy the weak homo sapian sapians.
Either let your woman mate with us and adapt or die...

Mahahahahahahahhaha.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Are those the Indonesian hobbit folk?.
So we had five types running around the world.
Only about 100k years ago.
I finished watching a programme about erectus and wow I wouldn't like to fight one of those even though they were very similar.
Just our big ole brains defeated them Mahahahahhahaha.
I just find it fascinating that If born 100k ago I could have met another human type being.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Yep,Homo Floresiensis are the indonesian "hobbits".

Its that particular thought process that pushed me into Anthropology in the first place...contemplating that only a few tens of thousands of years ago we potentially could have met up with Neanderthal in Europe. 20 odd years after the fact I turned out to be right but even then it didn't occur to me that there could have been others in the same geographical regions living contemporaneously, like Denisovans. That's the part that keeps me interested in keeping up with research despite not doing anything with my degree currently... The fact that no matter how much we learn and know, there's always something else out on the horizon waiting to be discovered.

And yes... I'm with you on Erectus. Physically, they're an impressive hominid, better suited to bipedalism than we are, could probably run a bit faster for quite a bit farther and we wouldn't be us if not for them. They don't get enough credit in my opinion. Neanderthal are always the cooler ones and I'm guilty of that myself as they were the focus of my grad school work but who knows, its still early and you can never collect enough knowledge. Or degrees haha



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Well this is an all round "win win".

We get another transitional species, and creationists get 2 new missing links.




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: idmonster

What missing links? all we see are transitions! " Now get back on your turnip trucks and go home!"



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: oldworldbeliever

So how long are they going to sell this human origins in Africa story they made up?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Probably until you or someone else finds older remains at a non African site. As long as the oldest hominid remains are being located in Africa then I wouldn't expect the current paradigm to change. Unless you're aware of a non African site that will change the way we view the past? Or perhaps you have an alternate hypothesis you would like to share?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I apologize for my foul language, but could people not post this total # without looking at a #ing anthropology book first? I'm really sorry but there's just so much bad information being spread by uneducated idiots. Or even simpler, use wikipedia. Its information on anthropology is actually very accurate in most regards, and especially with the timelines, which is relevant to this thread.

Anyway, there is no gap in the lineage. There's no mystery. So shut the # up and read a book.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Schmidt1989
I apologize for my foul language, but could people not post this total # without looking at a #ing anthropology book first? I'm really sorry but there's just so much bad information being spread by uneducated idiots. Or even simpler, use wikipedia. Its information on anthropology is actually very accurate in most regards, and especially with the timelines, which is relevant to this thread.

Anyway, there is no gap in the lineage. There's no mystery. So shut the # up and read a book.


Don't these books get update periodically based on new information?

In a related article................



The researchers were able to date the fossil by analysing the radioactive isotopes in layers of volcanic ash above and below it, Villmoare told Choi. "This find helps place the evolution of Homo geographically and temporally - it tells us where and when Homo evolved," he added.

On its own, the find is exciting enough, but another paper was also published in Nature today, which suggests that an important Homo habilis fossil, which is currently believed to be the oldest known Homo species, had an unexpected mix of primitive and advanced traits. This makes it a potential match for the new LD 350-1 fossil.


www.sciencealert.com...



Besides Homo erectus (sensu lato), the eastern African fossil record of early Homo has been interpreted as representing either a single variable species, Homo habilis1, or two species2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In the latter case, however, there is no consensus over the respective groupings, and which of the two includes OH 7, the 1.8-million-year-old H. habilis holotype7. This partial skull and hand from Olduvai Gorge remains pivotal to evaluating the early evolution of the Homo lineage, and by priority names one or other of the two taxa. However, the distorted preservation of the diagnostically important OH 7 mandible has hindered attempts to compare this specimen with other fossils8, 9. Here we present a virtual reconstruction of the OH 7 mandible, and compare it to other early Homo fossils. The reconstructed mandible is remarkably primitive, with a long and narrow dental arcade more similar to Australopithecus afarensis than to the derived parabolic arcades of Homo sapiens or H. erectus. We find that this shape variability is not consistent with a single species of early Homo. Importantly, the jaw morphology of OH 7 is incompatible with fossils assigned to Homo rudolfensis8 and with the A.L. 666-1 Homo maxilla. The latter is morphologically more derived than OH 7 but 500,000 years older10, suggesting that the H. habilis lineage originated before 2.3 million years ago, thus marking deep-rooted species diversity in the genus Homo. We also reconstructed the parietal bones of OH 7 and estimated its endocranial volume. At between 729 and 824 ml it is larger than any previously published value, and emphasizes the near-complete overlap in brain size among species of early Homo. Our results clarify the H. habilis hypodigm, but raise questions about its phylogenetic relationships. Differences between species of early Homo appear to be characterized more by gnathic diversity than by differences in brain size, which was highly variable within all taxa.


www.nature.com...

BTW, I am not an anthropologist, Just someone curious about our past.

No need to be rude.


edit on 5-3-2015 by oldworldbeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldworldbeliever

Don't these books get update periodically based on new information?



Of course, just like any field of science. But the author of this thread is using information that states we have an evolutionary gap. Unless that article is 100 years old, it's incorrect and irrelevant.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join