Skull discovery sheds light on human species

SuperFrog

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

Would like to remind all preliminary stuff right now and months of study and tests before conclusion can be drawn. Stay tuned for the opposite side to come out with their theories. Nothing is as it appears.

The Bot

gort51
There are hundreds of species of Primates in Africa (and elsewhere), yet, supposedly, there is only One species of Human alive today.

One species of humans with racial difference mostly based on origin and ethnicity...

Wonder why would you question scientists knowledge in recognizing human-like species and being able to tell them apart... and why are you scared if scientist say "We don't know yet" or "Based on current finding, this might be correct"?!

Is it because you have simpler answer, perhaps?

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 BS?

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

It doesn't. There are numerous non human archaic ape fossils from east africa such as Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus

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

So scientists with a vague idea have no clue and spout BS but I should take your word for it that this is just a new ape? Actually you are correct, humans ARE apes.

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

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

No, more like inclined to folow the trail of evidence that currently exists. If you've got some ideas for new dig site feel free to post them, get some funding and show thew world at large how wrong we've been.

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???

Not to be a stickler for details but the largest of the 3 known Gigantopithecus species, G. Blacki was only 10 feet tall. As for why it is only found in Asia, there honestly isn't a clear picture of that as we have few very remains to work with. It's mostly molars and bits of jaw bone. Without a pelvis or femur we can't even say if they were bipedal or quadrupedal. Orangutan weren't always exclusively Asian. They're ancestors, going by genetic analysis, diverged from other apes and left Africa around 13 MYA. Asking why some species only live in a certain locale isn't much different than asking why Dendropithecus went extinct in Europe( there were several species of European ape at one time as well). Was it speciation? Adaptation? A by product of punctuated equilibrium? We aren't sure at the moment but that doesn't mean you take a dump on people who are genuinely seeking the truth about our origins. The easy part is locating and retrieving the remains. Once you start your analysis is when the real work begins and thats where this skull is at right now.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Is the skull in the photo and article still in the dirt
where it was found, really the only one they can supply ?
Will the skull crumble to dust if they take a picture of it ?
Why do an article if we can't even see the actual specimen ?

randyvs
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Is the skull in the photo and article still in the dirt
where it was found, really the only one they can supply ?
Will the skull crumble to dust if they take a picture of it ?
Why do an article if we can't even see the actual specimen ?

Randy, try this link. there are a couple of better views of this particular specimen which is only 1 of 5 skulls found at this site. www.mediadesk.uzh.ch...

reply to post by peter vlar


Thanks Peter !
That was actually my only gripe !

randyvs
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Thanks Peter !
That was actually my only gripe !

Any time. You're one if my favorite sparring partners, I can't leave you hanging without the most up to date information possible after all!

Not sure I got all the information right....I must be missing something, which is probably the case but...

They found this skull in Europe(the nation of Georgia) soo.....wouldn't that make it an ancestor of Neanderthal? Why are they calling it an ancestor of Homo S.?

I'm confused because apparently they started in Africa and this shows they moved into Eurasia and other parts of Europe but did they then make a move BACK into Africa where Homo S. were thought to first appear?

A2D

edit to add: nevermind, I couldn't stop thinking about it and I think I figured out the answer to my own question . I guess I was overlooking that only some of the homo's in Africa moved into Eurasia and other parts of Europe while others stayed In Africa and that's how the split came about. The ones in Europe eventually evolved into Neanderthal and the ones in Africa became Homo S. Right?....It's really interesting but sometimes I get so confused

Just a couple of visual aids. Consider it tender for the fire.

The first one is a comparison between G. Blacki (far left), one I don't recoginze (G. something, I think) and H. Sapiens (us - far right). Note the large Sagittal Crest on G.Blacki and the lack of any crest on H. Sapiens.



Now take a look at Skull Five:



There is no Sagittal Crest, but there is the heavy jawline and brow ridge found in gorillas.

Lack of any crest seems to place this skull somewhere in the Hominid camp, in my opinion. Once they dentition is studied, I may revise my position.

Open Fire.

Since we have Lucy...

Will this be Ricky?

Crazy thing is, I've met guys who looked like that...

Artist Rendering the humanoid of Skull 5
i.huffpost.com/gen/1413013/thumbs/o-SKULL-5-570.jpg?1
i.huffpost.com...

Huh, looks like one of my cousins.

This is really an extraordinary find and could rewrite the story of early human evolution.
With body proportions much like a modern human's and half the brain size, in addition to the variations of all five of the skulls, suggest different species in the genus Homo are being defined too narrowly due to the variation among species.

This will no doubt be debated for some time to come, paleontologist are already arguing that skull 5 may be a new species in the genus Homo, perhaps Homo habilis, while other say it represents Homo erectus.

In any event this discovery is a significant contribution to the study of early human evolution and I look forward to more discoveries expected from this site.

Here is a high-res image of the face of skull 5.

Between the artists rendering and the teeth does it strike anyone as completely
human ? Even tho I can understand the observations of evolutionary sequencing
in the skulls characteristics. It falls short of being very convincing only because
it lacks any remnant of those sharp fangs we see in apes. In other words I'd be
almost convinced if there was just some remnant of the sharp teeth we see,
even in the fossils of early apes shown in this thread. I realise a lot more study
is needed and I am trying to see this from both sides with fairness..

Peter

Any time. You're one if my favorite sparring partners,

I relish the compliment.

I'm gonna have to give OP an SnF at least.

reply to post by iterationzero


... i do agree with part of your statement "fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works"
cos evolution is just THE THEORY! so what do U want to understand here?
i have theory to.
if NO GOD, if no ET then my theory go to mushrooms...
one day, long long time a go some "HOMO" MONKEY eat a lot of mushrooms with all the family... (party night)
then booooom, the very next day they all find out they are change. They mutated over night to HOMO SAPIENS... and start give them selfs names... like ADAM or EVE or what ever U like ...
good day to all

Thank you all for great discussion. It is indeed important find and this and further discoveries will change some of previous theories how humans evolved and at what time.

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by iterationzero

 

... i do agree with part of your statement "fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works"
cos evolution is just THE THEORY! so what do U want to understand here?
i have theory to.
if NO GOD, if no ET then my theory go to mushrooms...
one day, long long time a go some "HOMO" MONKEY eat a lot of mushrooms with all the family... (party night)

then booooom, the very next day they all find out they are change. They mutated over night to HOMO SAPIENS... and start give them selfs names... like ADAM or EVE or what ever U like ...
good day to all

I strongly suggest you to watch 'Chimpanzee' and you will find that you might be much closer to our origin then believing in some super-being making it all up.

It is fascinating that chimps are using tools to get to food and how they are learning at young age.

LetsGoViking
Just a couple of visual aids. Consider it tender for the fire.

The first one is a comparison between G. Blacki (far left), one I don't recoginze (G. something, I think) and H. Sapiens (us - far right). Note the large Sagittal Crest on G.Blacki and the lack of any crest on H. Sapiens.

Now take a look at Skull Five:

There is no Sagittal Crest, but there is the heavy jawline and brow ridge found in gorillas.

Lack of any crest seems to place this skull somewhere in the Hominid camp, in my opinion. Once they dentition is studied, I may revise my position.

Open Fire.

edit on 17-10-2013 by LetsGoViking because: Tired...

The Sagittal Crest is insignificant feature, it is common in gorillas and orangutans but rare in male chimpanzees.
Check out the female chimpanzee skull, pretty close to the skull #5 only flat or missing canines.



Looks much closer to this than any human skull.

AbleEndangered
Since we have Lucy...

Will this be Ricky?

Crazy thing is, I've met guys who looked like that...

Artist Rendering the humanoid of Skull 5
i.huffpost.com/gen/1413013/thumbs/o-SKULL-5-570.jpg?1
i.huffpost.com...

I know a guy that looks a lot like that, seriously.

reply to post by SuperFrog


i see Your point! but try this:... www.google.co.uk... .9.9.0....0...1c.1.29.hp..0.11.534.xLqvHdUzvvE

do i am descendant of all of those or just something is not right?

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

i see Your point! but try this:... www.google.co.uk... .9.9.0....0...1c.1.29.hp..0.11.534.xLqvHdUzvvE

do i am descendant of all of those or just something is not right?

edit on 18-10-2013 by ZakOlongapo because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2013 by ZakOlongapo because: (no reason given)

No, but you're ancestrally related to them. Regardless of that, why couldn't other evolutionary branches independently learn how to use tools, as they have done? Your logic is very, very flawed.

reply to post by SpearMint


i agree that part of Our DNA have... roots from Earth. but not all...