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.

 

SCI/TECH: Ancient Hominid Remains Identified as Earliest Known Member of Human Species

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Originally thought to be a younger female, "Toumai", as the newly identified fossils are called, have recently been discovered to be the oldest of all known human fossils. The remains, found in Chad by French archeologist Michel Brunet, may be one of the greatest ancient-human historical discoveries, some scientists say.
 



www.reuters.com
"Toumai is not a chimp. Toumai is not a gorilla," Brunet told Reuters. "It is perfectly clear Toumai is a hominid."

The first reliable records of hominids, members of the human family distinct from chimpanzees and other apes, suggest they did not appear until about 5 million years ago.

...But some scientists doubted its human links because they thought the skull was too squashed to draw any conclusions. They also said its short face, small canine teeth and other characteristics were not evidence it was a direct ancestor of humans.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


As noted in the reference above, many scientists also find this 'discovery' to be inconclusive, saying, in so few words, that the remains were too damaged to allow an accurate conclusion as to whether or not they were human.

As I, or any of the readers, do not have physical access to the fossils, it is difficult to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the remains are genuinely human. Until further testing is conducted, none of us can be certain.

Regardless of human relation, it is exciting to find such ancient fossils. Even if they are not related, we may be able to learn other truths from this ancestor of life.

Related News Links:
www.bradshawfoundation.com
www.accuracyingenesis.com
www.esimpletech.com
www.wired.com




posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Now, I heard that the general concensus was that it did belong to the hominid phylogeny, what was in dispute was whether it was bipedal or not. Just going off of memory here, but the fragments of skull were all they found (no knees, hips, or ankles) and the skull was "distorted" but 3-D images have virtually "un-distorted" the skull. I can't remember if the foramen magnum suggests bipedalism (I think it does), but scientists need more fossils/data/etc, (what's new?)

Good find!



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
how old is this fossil supposed to be?



new topics
 
0

log in

join