Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Skull discovery sheds light on human species

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Scientists trying to unravel the origins of humanity mostly study scraps — some ancient teeth here, a damaged bone there. But now a lucky research team has uncovered a fossil superstar: the first complete skull of an early human adult from the distant past.

The 1.8 million-year-old fossil, known as Skull 5, is like nothing seen before. It has a small brain case and a heavy, jutting jaw, as did some of humanity's older, more ape-like ancestors. But other bones linked to Skull 5 show its owner had relatively short arms and long legs, as does our own species, Homo sapiens. Those who've studied Skull 5 say it also provides support for the provocative idea that, 1.8 million years ago, only one kind of early human held sway, rather than the throng of different species listed in today's textbooks.

"We're not against the idea that there might have been more than one species at some point about 2 million years ago," Christoph Zollikofer of the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Switzerland, who helped analyze the new fossil, said at a news conference Wednesday. "But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."




* Source




posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Fascinating discovery of 1.8 million year old skull that as suspected shows evolution of our species...




What is great about this discovery is that it is skull of mature adult, as most of earlier discoveries are either of too young or too old to be very useful representatives of their species.

Wonder how people who believe in creationism see this find.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



"But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."


Well, that's...reassuring.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


...sheds nothing. one more monkey. missing link still missing. cos there is no link...



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

"But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."


Oh boy... Incoming God brigade to tell us that this doesn't prove evolution in 3... 2... 1...



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Other scientists disagree. Paleoanthropologist Susan Antón of New York University, while praising the new analysis, says the Dmanisi team didn't compare fossil features, such as the anatomy around the front teeth, that differ most starkly between two different species of early humans. So the Dmanisi team's hypothesis that there was only one lineage is not totally convincing, she says.

Wood also has doubts, but he agrees with the Dmanisi researchers that they have an exceptional resource on their hands, most of it still awaiting excavation.

Looks like we'll be waiting for "peer review" before we have anything solid on this one. Not everyone is on board with the current analysis just yet. Most certainly an interesting find, though.



Wonder how people who believe in creationism see this find.

It depends on the creationist. Some creationists believe evolution is the preferred method of god. For others, the Devil is in the details.
edit on 10/17/2013 by Klassified because: grammar
edit on 10/17/2013 by Klassified because: spelling



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It's a blatant flaw and you know it. They are admitting it is a nearly worthless find without additional contextual evidence by which to compare it to the tapestry of evolutionary history. To admit anything less would be intellectual dishonesty, which I'm fairly certain is not their objective as professional scientists. I approve of their willingness to admit the flimsy nature of their discovery, and I also think that time will fill in the blanks.

edit on 17-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I Love how they make a drawing of it with how it looked but they have in their back head since they believe it's human related (maybe) they make it less hairy with a more human look.
They could be far off but I just don't like it that they show it kinda like a human even when the skull is more ape then human like.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Little brain? a jutting jaw that looks like he'd have a hard time with His 'esses'? That is "Gary" and He lisps like Cindy Brady. He hailed from what is now Parma, Ohio, a group of us went hunting and gathering and heard weird noises, we 'zigged' and Gary 'zagged' I guess Gary is fulfilling His wish to work in science...

Way to go Gary!



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

"But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."


Oh boy... Incoming God brigade to tell us that this doesn't prove evolution in 3... 2... 1...


You can almost feel the thud of the jackboots.

Interesting find. Looking forward to DNA results if there are any.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

"But we simply say … we don't have sufficient fossil evidence."


Oh boy... Incoming God brigade to tell us that this doesn't prove evolution in 3... 2... 1...



I like to think of them as "The Lords Force"
Thanks Workaholics.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Restricted
You can almost feel the thud of the jackboots.


Those jackboots you're hearing are coming from you and everyone else going off topic. I mean really, get a grip. You and the others are the only one to bring religion into this discussion.

Back on topic: That's an interesting find. To the commenter who commented on making this look "more human", there's more to it than just sticking skin on a skeleton. I'll agree with the hair part, as that's often quite difficult to really figure out. But it's easy to see the muscle growth due to the shape of the skeleton. So I'm pretty sure it's a relatively accurate resemblance.

With so many people alive throughout the ages, I'm sure we'll find more skulls and bones that will help us paint an accurate picture of our collective human past.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Once again, scientists with only a vague idea...

"It has ape like features"...but it is our human ancestor....what bs.

Why is it, every old skull found in Africa, HAS to be some old human relative in their opinion

More than likely, it is an Ape, that evolved into an ape, that may or may not, still have relatives now.

They are obsessed with this Human "Out of Africa" theory.

As I've said a thousand times and no one knows the answer.

Why was the 15' tall Gigantopithecus, only found in Asia, Why is the Orangutan, only found in Asia.

Where did they come from? Whom did they "evolve" from??

Answers Anybody?? Somebody???



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 


Of course they don't know. It's only speculation at this point with a good ground in reality thanks to previous findings. Plus, don't you think they'd know an ape skull and skeleton when they find one? That's why we're so excited when we find things like this, as it helps paint a bigger picture.

Imagine our human history as a puzzle. We've got the outlines pretty much set up, but we haven't been able to piece all the center pieces together yet. But each time a discovery like this comes to light, we're closer to finding those pieces and putting it into the puzzle to get a better picture of what we're looking at.

Maybe there will come a find that totally blasts the theory we have now on our evolution. Like I said, our puzzle isn't complete. But we're looking at an incomplete image and guessing what the picture is, at least that's what we're doing so far.

So I wouldn't be so quick to blast any findings or beliefs yet.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
This new find is clearly far more human than modern chimps or other great apes. The intact and well photographed in-situ shots are fantastic!



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

gort51
Once again, scientists with only a vague idea...

"It has ape like features"...but it is our human ancestor....what bs.

Why is it, every old skull found in Africa, HAS to be some old human relative in their opinion

More than likely, it is an Ape, that evolved into an ape, that may or may not, still have relatives now.

They are obsessed with this Human "Out of Africa" theory.

As I've said a thousand times and no one knows the answer.

Why was the 15' tall Gigantopithecus, only found in Asia, Why is the Orangutan, only found in Asia.

Where did they come from? Whom did they "evolve" from??

Answers Anybody?? Somebody???



You should have read the source article. The fossil was found in the country of Georgia which is north of Turkey and certainly not in Africa. I don't think you know the question. Other anthropologists aren't convinced about this find (also in the article).



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
After rereading the article, I see the skull (s) were found in Georgia, not Africa.

Clearly Homo?..Even other Anthropologists question that finding.

Basically, and rightly so, they don't have a clue and they try to make an "educated" guess.....we will never know if their theories are correct.

There are hundreds of species of Primates in Africa (and elsewhere), yet, supposedly, there is only One species of Human alive today.

Line up 3 skulls, a Baboon, a Gorilla, and a Chimpanzee....

They will all Look total different, but eerily similar, much like any old primate skulls they find, including man.

About the only theory they probably have correct, is that man and all primates, have a connected lineage somewhere in the eons of time, and just like the monkeys and apes, diverged into other species, of which some survived and some did'nt.

Like climategate, these scientists have to justify their large wages and 4 years of study, so they will always be searching for grants and funding, which is a good incentive to keep coming up with Another mind blowing, Earth shattering theory on the path of Homo Sapiens.
This will continue for ever i'm afraid.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ZakOlongapo
 


...sheds nothing. one more monkey. missing link still missing. cos there is no link...

It only sheds nothing for you. Because the whole concept of a "missing link" is a fallacy. It's an argument founded in a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works and what the theory of evolution actually claims.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Plugin
I Love how they make a drawing of it with how it looked but they have in their back head since they believe it's human related (maybe) they make it less hairy with a more human look.
They could be far off but I just don't like it that they show it kinda like a human even when the skull is more ape then human like.

Initial depictions of Neanderthal had it look more like an ape, but as time moved forward, the results became more human to align with the evidence.

I think you're exaggerating the degree to which we spin the evidence. You may be right that it turns out more ape-like, but that depends on the evidence.
edit on 17-10-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

gort51
After rereading the article, I see the skull (s) were found in Georgia, not Africa.

Clearly Homo?..Even other Anthropologists question that finding.

Basically, and rightly so, they don't have a clue and they try to make an "educated" guess.....we will never know if their theories are correct.

There are hundreds of species of Primates in Africa (and elsewhere), yet, supposedly, there is only One species of Human alive today.
An educated guess based on careful measurements of morphological features isn't the same as an educated guess based on reading an article online. Is there only one species of human right now? sure but that wasn't always the case. Modern Humans lived not just nearby but in the same villages as Neanderthal for roughly 50,000 years in the Levantine Valley of northern Israel up into central Lebanon. I guess it also partially depends on how you want to classify hominids. There may only be one "human" but there are 5 apes, humans being one along with Gorillas, Chimps, Bonobo's and Orangutan's


Line up 3 skulls, a Baboon, a Gorilla, and a Chimpanzee....

They will all Look total different, but eerily similar, much like any old primate skulls they find, including man.
Not really, there are a lot of morphological features that differentiate different primates. Older proto-humans had a sagital crest for example, something that gorillas still have but modern humans do not.



Like climategate, these scientists have to justify their large wages and 4 years of study, so they will always be searching for grants and funding, which is a good incentive to keep coming up with Another mind blowing, Earth shattering theory on the path of Homo Sapiens.
This will continue for ever i'm afraid.


Could you point me in the direction of one of these high paying science jobs? I'd love to send my resume over because last I checked most scientists weren't making the big money you seem to believe. Certainly there are a select group who make decent money from books and lectures but the average scientist working at a university is sorely under paid and over worked just like the rest of the world. Believe it or not, most people who go into science do it because they love the field they are working in and they love finding answers. It's not about money or grants, though they are nice to have. With that said, its not like theres an open check book for anyone promoting any random hypothesis. There has to be something tangible to justify giving a grant and competition for them is pretty high.






top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join