Exhibition of Skull/Facial Reconstruction of some of Man's Earliest Ancestors

I just looked at the Daily Mail article and I think they've updated it. I don't remember reading about X Woman when I first posted it.

Anyway, here is a New Scientist article about this find:

www.newscientist.com...

The human family tree may be in for a dramatic rewrite. DNA collected from a fossilised finger bone from Siberia shows it belonged to a mysterious ancient hominid – perhaps a new species.

"X-woman", as the creature has been named, last shared an ancestor with humans and Neanderthals about 1 million years ago but is probably different from both species. She lived 30,000 to 50,000 years ago.

"This is the tip of the iceberg," says Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London who was not involved in the find. More hominids that are neither Neanderthal nor human are likely to be discovered in coming years, particularly in central and eastern Asia, he says.

Previously, anthropologists thought that Neanderthals and humans were the only hominids roaming Europe and Asia during the late Pleistocene. The discovery of 17,000-year-old Homo floresiensis – the "hobbit" – dispelled that notion, but many anthropologists look on H. floresiensis as an anomaly, isolated from the human–Neanderthal hegemony on the mainland.

The newly discovered creature, which probably lived in close proximity to humans and Neanderthals, suggests that things were not that simple. "The picture that's going to emerge in the next years is a much more complex one," says Svante Pääbo, a palaeogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

I've only quoted about half of the article.


ATS member D.E.M has started a thread on this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-3-2010 by berenike]

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


People who conduct reconstructions from fossils use traits from current living species to make a realistic "best guess" at what things might have looked like. However, it is also based highly on bone and muscle structure which can be determined quite accurately from said skulls. So, while the artist used many traits from living apes, monkeys, chimps and people, it is also accurately based on the evidence from the skull.

S&F - best thread I've seen in a long time! Very interesting

Originally posted by bagari
reply to post by BeastMaster2012

 

People who conduct reconstructions from fossils use traits from current living species to make a realistic "best guess" at what things might have looked like. However, it is also based highly on bone and muscle structure which can be determined quite accurately from said skulls. So, while the artist used many traits from living apes, monkeys, chimps and people, it is also accurately based on the evidence from the skull.

S&F - best thread I've seen in a long time! Very interesting

thanks for the post, didn't know that.

This is such a cool article, i have been staring at our ancient ancestors for a long time now and my brain is spinning.

I think it could be time for someone to make a movie about our super ancient relatives.

What if the world was crawling with these super humans?

I think comparing our ancestors to extant chimps and bonobos is somewhat useless. Although we can see some obvious similarities, as shown by previous posters, we also have to remember that Pan has been evolving since the end of the Miocene, as well. A extant chimp most likely does not look like a chimp ancestor from 3 million years ago.

Looking at this thread I totally didn't expect to see a reconstruction of Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, but I really like it. I'd really like to find some postcranial fossils once I get into the field. Hopefully nobody has already found it and just hasnt published it yet or anything! The chances of it being bipedal are very slim, but possible. Ardipithecus Ramidus was bipedal, but only facultative bipedal, unlike australopithecus afarensis.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
Well Mrs. Ples and the Bonobos are almost an exact match.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/9db9732ef1c1c633.jpg[/atsimg]

The ears, lips, nose and brow are insanely similar.

I am starting to believe that whoever constructed these could have been bull#ting and could be just messing with us because this is too eerie.

Yes that it certainly what this looks like. Just an ape skull said to be human.

Originally posted by randyvs
I doubt Darwins theory, even he had that much sense. Why argue about it
though, we all die. So we will all find out Gods truth in the end.
Good thread.

Someday we all solve the great mystery. I look forward to it. With a kind of melancholy anticipation of a great adventure on the other side.
I always wonder what atheists look forward to.

You often come across ignorant theologians, but rarely do you actually come across a real creationist. They're like the exotic animals only some zoos have. Or seeing a bear in the wild. It just doesn't happen often. Why? Because evolution is based in so much fact its undeniable, except to those who are extraordinarily ignorant.

You, sir, are one of these people.

I'm interested to know why you doubt Darwin's theory, as it's been tried and tested and proven true countless times. Please, present me with some evidence that he is wrong.

This would be a good time to use, "God works in mysterious ways." Which is the theological equivalent to, "Hey, look over there!" as you run in the opposite direction.

I'm also interested in what you consider to be the great mystery. As an anthropologist, atheist, and existential nihilist, I believe that the purpose in life is to procreate and evolve, while nature takes its course, killing our species, or allowing it to thrive for another day.

I speak only for myself when I say atheists don't look forward to anything. There is no afterlife. I will spend this life the best I can, as i believe it is my only one.

reply to post by Schmidt1989

You often come across ignorant theologians, but rarely do you actually come across a real creationist. They're like the exotic animals only some zoos have. Or seeing a bear in the wild. It just doesn't happen often. Why? Because evolution is based in so much fact its undeniable, except to those who are extraordinarily ignorant. You, sir, are one of these people.

Randyvs is a cool member of ATS. I've argued the atheist point of view with him several times and found him to be a decent guy. He's got my respect for his ideas, questions and generally good presence on the boards. Far from being ignorant, he's amongst the few regular ATS members who are able to change their mind or adapt an idea following new information.

This isn't a criticism of you or your posts...just offering a different point of view and giving respect where I feel it's due

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Schmidt1989

 

You often come across ignorant theologians, but rarely do you actually come across a real creationist. They're like the exotic animals only some zoos have. Or seeing a bear in the wild. It just doesn't happen often. Why? Because evolution is based in so much fact its undeniable, except to those who are extraordinarily ignorant. You, sir, are one of these people.

Randyvs is a cool member of ATS. I've argued the atheist point of view with him several times and found him to be a decent guy. He's got my respect for his ideas, questions and generally good presence on the boards. Far from being ignorant, he's amongst the few regular ATS members who are able to change their mind or adapt an idea following new information.

This isn't a criticism of you or your posts...just offering a different point of view and giving respect where I feel it's due

It's not so much me arguing atheism, it's more me asking what evidence he has to say that darwin is wrong. Evolution is such a set in stone fact (literally ) around the world that it seems so archaeic that people still believe otherwise. Thats where I base my ignorance.

reply to post by Schmidt1989
No worries. The majority of creationist members demonstrate wishful thinking rather than critical thinking. A long copy and pasted quote from Genesis is considered equal in relevance to a source from evolutionary biology. Knives and gunfights spring to mind

Take it easy

While I was looking for some more information to add to this thread I came across this Smithsonian site.

It features 3D images of fossils and artifacts. You can left click on the pictures and the item turns right round so you can see it completely.

humanorigins.si.edu...

Well worth a look.

Bit more information on Sangiran 17:

www.talkorigins.org...

Sangiran 17, "Pithecanthropus VIII", Homo erectus
Discovered by Sastrohamidjojo Sartono in 1969 at Sangiran on Java. This consists of a fairly complete cranium, with a brain size of about 1000 cc. It is the most complete erectus fossil from Java. This skull is very robust, with a slightly projecting face and huge flaring cheekbones. It has been thought to be about 800,000 years old, but a recent dating has given a much older figure of nearly 1.7 million years. If the older date is correct, it means Homo erectus migrated out of Africa much earlier than previously thought.

(The above site features a lot of skulls with a short description of each - very informative)

Picture of skull from a different source:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c84c9f15d74c.jpeg[/atsimg]

Picture of reconstruction taken from Daily Mail article:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a82f4d1a0bb6.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 26-3-2010 by berenike]

Some information of the Old Man of La Chapelle aux Saints:

www.worldmuseumofman.org...

Comments: Our previous misconceptions of Neanderthals being stooped, knuckle-dragging ape-men go back to the discovery of the famous and first Neanderthal skeleton - "The Old Man" of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Fortunately, with the subsequent discovery of the skeletons at La Ferassie, were we able to accurately understand that the original reconstruction of what Neanderthals looked like was completely wrong.

The Neanderthal skeleton known as "The Old Man" of La Chapelle-aux-Saints was discovered by A. and J. Bouyssonie and L. Bardon on August 3, 1908. The remains were found in a purposeful burial in the limestone bedrock floor of a small cave near La-Chapelle-aux-Saints, France. Discovered was the first ever found nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton - a well-preserved skull with mandible, most vertebrae, several ribs, most primary arm and leg bones as well as some small bones of the hands and feet. The bones belonged to an elderly male but the old age of the individual was not known at the time of reconstruction.

Here's his skull as featured in the article (there are several more pictures of it shown from different angles):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5bf00449b5f8.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's the reconstruction featured in the Daily Mail article:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d7780ad8dd5.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 26-3-2010 by berenike]

Originally posted by randyvs
I doubt Darwins theory, even he had that much sense. Why argue about it
though, we all die. So we will all find out Gods truth in the end.
Good thread.

Someday we all solve the great mystery. I look forward to it. With a kind of melancholy anticipation of a great adventure on the other side.
I always wonder what atheists look forward to.
[edit on 24-3-2010 by randyvs]

[edit on 24-3-2010 by randyvs]

I look forward to waking up tomorrow. And when I wake no more I will wake no more. Live and love while you can.

Originally posted by berenike

Picture of skull from a different source:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c84c9f15d74c.jpeg[/atsimg]

Picture of reconstruction taken from Daily Mail article:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a82f4d1a0bb6.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 26-3-2010 by berenike]

Looks like the Govenator. That explains a lot right there.

reply to post by ..5..


I had to go and look up Governator.

You little rascal

*****************************************

Here is some information on the 'hobbit' like being:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Scientists have found skeletons of a hobbit-like species of human that grew no larger than a three-year-old modern child (See pictures). The tiny humans, who had skulls about the size of grapefruits, lived with pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons on a remote island in Indonesia 18,000 years ago.

The original skeleton, a female, stood at just 1 meter (3.3 feet) tall, weighed about 25 kilograms (55 pounds), and was around 30 years old at the time of her death 18,000 years ago.

The skeleton was found in the same sediment deposits on Flores that have also been found to contain stone tools and the bones of dwarf elephants, giant rodents, and Komodo dragons, lizards that can grow to 10 feet (3 meters) and that still live today.

Homo floresienses has been described as one of the most spectacular discoveries in paleoanthropology in half a century—and the most extreme human ever discovered.

Picture of 'hobbit' skull besides that of a human skull (taken from the above source):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e85ae794ed47.jpg[/atsimg]

Reconstruction of 'hobbit' as featured in the Daily Mail:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a53ccb1c47fc.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 27-3-2010 by berenike]

Here is news on the Missing Link. I've quoted the article in full, but I've not included a diagram that comes with it:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The discovery of a 'missing link' between man and apes could revolutionise our understanding of how we evolved, scientists say.
They believe the two-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a child, found in South Africa, is that of an entirely new species and an intermediate stage between our ape-like ancestors and modern man.
And they claim it could help us crack one of the great mysteries of our evolutionary tree - exactly when humans began to walk on two feet.

The bones were found in the Malapa Cave in the Sterkfontein region of South Africa by Professor Lee Berger, of Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg.
The caves were made a Unesco world heritage site in 1994 after an almost complete fossil of a 3.3million-year-old Australopithecus was found there.
Professor Phillip Tobias, an anthropologist at the university, said that the discovery was a 'wonderful and exciting' find. 'To find a skeleton as opposed to a couple of teeth or an arm bone is a rarity,' he said.
'It is one thing to find a lower jaw with a couple of teeth, but it is another thing to find the jaw joined on to the skull, and those in turn uniting further down with the spinal column, pelvis and the limb bones.'
The discovery, along with a number of other partially complete fossils, could now help scientists understand how our ancestors evolved from the apelike Australopithecus, which emerged in Africa around 3.9million years ago, to Homo habilis, the first human-type species which appeared around 2.5million years ago.
The skeleton, which will be unveiled on Thursday and has already been visited by the country's president Jacob Zuma, is believed to be an evolutionary intermediate between these two species.
It includes a pelvis and whole limbs which could reveal whether the new species walked upright or on all fours.
Hand bones could also say how dextrous the species was and give researchers the first clue as to when humans' ability to hold stone tools first emerged.
Dr Simon Underdown, an expert in evolution from Oxford Brookes University, said: 'A find like this could really increase our understanding of our early ancestors.'

[edit on 5-4-2010 by berenike]

reply to post by lambs to lions


You could try reading up on the subject. It's clear from this post that you haven't done so before.

And the starchild skulls are human. They have been tested. It's simply that their "discoverer" keeps shopping around demanding a test that will say "OMG THEY'RE ALIENS!"

Originally posted by Schmidt1989

Originally posted by randyvs
I doubt Darwins theory, even he had that much sense. Why argue about it
though, we all die. So we will all find out Gods truth in the end.
Good thread.

Someday we all solve the great mystery. I look forward to it. With a kind of melancholy anticipation of a great adventure on the other side.
I always wonder what atheists look forward to.

You often come across ignorant theologians, but rarely do you actually come across a real creationist. They're like the exotic animals only some zoos have. Or seeing a bear in the wild. It just doesn't happen often. Why? Because evolution is based in so much fact its undeniable, except to those who are extraordinarily ignorant.

You, sir, are one of these people.

I'm interested to know why you doubt Darwin's theory, as it's been tried and tested and proven true countless times. Please, present me with some evidence that he is wrong.

This would be a good time to use, "God works in mysterious ways." Which is the theological equivalent to, "Hey, look over there!" as you run in the opposite direction.

I'm also interested in what you consider to be the great mystery. As an anthropologist, atheist, and existential nihilist, I believe that the purpose in life is to procreate and evolve, while nature takes its course, killing our species, or allowing it to thrive for another day.

I speak only for myself when I say atheists don't look forward to anything. There is no afterlife. I will spend this life the best I can, as i believe it is my only one.

Great mystery - That which lies beyond death. Is it not a great mystery?
Or perhaps you have all the answers. You can claim there is nothing and
at the same time, say life is a space between two nothings. Dosn't that
seem a bit illogical though. I don't buy Darwins theory because it says
monkey to man and I'm sorry but no where has that been proven.
Also I really have a problem with the amount of information that exists in the
Genome and how that information got there in the first place. Informatiopn requires a vehicle of some sort. That dosn't mean I think
there is not some basis for evolution. Atheism is something else all together. When someone says there is no God? Well that's the very definition of ignorance.
If I seem ignorant to you well you really arn't anybody anyway.

Oh and run? From what?
Good thread by the way. SnF

[edit on 5-4-2010 by randyvs]

I found this reconstruction of him (by Gary Sawyer):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ca87e232d47.jpg[/atsimg]




[edit on 24-3-2010 by berenike]

I find this reconstruction of him interesting, the skin colour as much as anything i always presumed early man would of had black skin and the pigment only became lighter when certain tribes moved north to colder climates. The skin no longer needed as much protection from the sun. This guy was found in kenya too at a time way before the subtle differences between races took shape.

reply to post by R-evolve


Oh crumbs

My first guess was that the climate wasn't as warm 1.6 million years ago as it is today.

I had a quick search on Google and found out that at the end of the Pliocene Epoch (5.33-1.81 million years ago) the cool temperatures from the Miocene period were continuing but were still 2-3 degrees warmer than today.

This article is quite helpful as far as information on the climate goes, but it doesn't say anything in relation to skin pigmentation:

www.palaeos.com...

Here is what the article has to say about hominids:

In Africa the emerging savanna grasslands and retreating forests caused some apes to come down from the trees and take up life in the open, where they co-existed with early elephants, antelopes, and other types of animals. An erect posture was necessary for these vulnerable creatures to watch for predators, which also freed the hands for the use of makeshift tools (sticks etc). Thus the hominid lineage appeared in the rift valleys of north-east Africa during Early Pliocene. As with the bovids, the hominids underwent an evolutionary radiation, with a number of lines of gracile and robust Australopithecines inhabiting Ethiopia and Tanzania, and probably spreading throughout most of Africa. The large-brained australopithecine Homo habilis continued on into the Early Pleistocene, giving rise to Homo erectus , the common ancestor of both Neanderthal and modern man during the late Pleistocene.

Some time later:

I've spent a bit of time thinking about this and I'm wondering how hairy the early hominids were. For instance, if they started out living in trees they might have been quite furry. Once they moved out into the savannah they might have found they were better off thinning out their body hair and developing a darker skin to cope with their new environment. That would have taken quite a bit of time, I imagine.

Believe it or not, I found this after writing the above paragraph:

www.springerlink.com...

In the early stage of human evolution, as the hominids began to inhabit the savanna mosaic in Africa some three or four million years ago, a functional complex of skin features contributed to their effective exploitation of resources and survival in the new environment. Thermal radiation from the sun combined with internally generated heat from muscular effort posed problems of thermoregulation. As a mechanism for dissipating body heat and maintaining brain temperature, eccrine sweat glands throughout the body surface combined with reduction in body hair enhanced the evaporative cooling effects of sweating. As body hair diminished, deeply pigmented skin was selected for as a protection against harmful ultraviolet radiation. When human populations left the equatorial regions of Africa, the adaptive significance of deeply pigmented skin may have shifted in response to other factors, such as latitude, diet and cultural pratices. We view the structure and function of human skin within a comparative and evolutionary framework that focuses on the environment in which the hominids evolved.

Just to go entirely off topic, I found out the other day that, although rare, fossilized dinosaur skin can be found. That was amazing to me.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by berenike]