The birthplace of mankind?

[spintheblackcircle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...africa-scientists-find/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.

Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained for the next five million years before venturing further afield.

But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.

The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid.

Click to read more...

 

[Leafsdude7]

Be careful there. This was published in an open access journal (read: publish for profit), which are notorious for poor peer-review processes. This one in particular has had controversy in the past for publishing papers that probably should have been stopped by rigorous review.

The claim itself is also controversial. The Telegraph's title, implying that the result is accepted by scientists, is false: there's definitely a long way to go before this becomes accepted consensus.

There's definitely a possibility of it being true, but healthy skepticism still needs to be applied here. I think it's also worth noting that, even if true, while the initial split of the human lineage would be in Europe, the majority of our development, including many significant changes, would still have occurred in Africa.

ETA: Here's a more well-rounded take on the story:

Ape that lived in Europe 7 million years ago could be human ancestor, controversial study suggests

One of the most notable comments:

Kelley questioned the significance of the fused premolar root. Some of the earliest hominins didn’t have these fused tooth roots, whereas some of the later hominins did, he said. Given this discrepancy, it's a feature “that may have evolved independently in several different lineages,” he said.

“The evidence that canine root reduction indicates the hominin status of Graeco is also not very convincing,” Potts said. Only one canine root was studied. Plus, he said, there's no way to consider the root in the context of the entire tooth — the canine crown had snapped off. “So there’s little basis for accepting the exceptional claim that a 7.2 million year old fossil from Greece is the oldest known human ancestor!”

 

[jdhebner]

As a rule I'm always skeptical of claims like this. Follow up this claim in a year or two and I bet it gets dismissed or retracted or debunked. I routinely dismiss any "science" news that appears in the popular media; it is either greatly distorted or crap in the first place.

Modifications to modern theories make their way very slowly into science textbooks. This method is slower and can be quite boring but the errors tend to be pretty small and easily corrected

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Interesting, thanks.

 

[jdhebner]

Interesting, thanks.

Any time. Please feel free to ask any questions or post things on this board. I've found that the discussions very helpful, and (for a great majority of us here) it's always about the science. Our disagreements with posts are almost always based upon evidence.

 

[LadyStanley]

PBS did a series on evolution of mankind a year back or so.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

My opinion is humans didn't entirely originate from one specific region. Both out of Africa and Europe are somewhat valid and true, but also somewhat false and agenda like.

 

[Puck]

Be careful there. This was published in an open access journal (read: publish for profit), which are notorious for poor peer-review processes. This one in particular has had controversy in the past for publishing papers that probably should have been stopped by rigorous review.

The claim itself is also controversial. The Telegraph's title, implying that the result is accepted by scientists, is false: there's definitely a long way to go before this becomes accepted consensus.

There's definitely a possibility of it being true, but healthy skepticism still needs to be applied here. I think it's also worth noting that, even if true, while the initial split of the human lineage would be in Europe, the majority of our development, including many significant changes, would still have occurred in Africa.

Yeah I tend to agree with you. But to add to it, I think that article is a terrible misrepresentation. Even if that primate in Europe tends to be true, Graecopithecus freybergi did not evolve into Europeans just like that, that's not how it works.

I suspect some people really dislike the out-of-Africa theory and would grasp at anything to get out. However you would really want to have the African mt-haplogroup mutations in your genes, they are what make you an advanced human.

 

[Desdichado93]

PBS did a series on evolution of mankind a year back or so.

There are two very good BBC docus as well.
Origins of us http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013gmh1
The incredible human journey http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00klf6j

 

[Kestrel]

Yeah I tend to agree with you. But to add to it, I think that article is a terrible misrepresentation. Even if that primate in Europe tends to be true, Graecopithecus freybergi did not evolve into Europeans just like that, that's not how it works.

I suspect some people really dislike the out-of-Africa theory and would grasp at anything to get out. However you would really want to have the African mt-haplogroup mutations in your genes, they are what make you an advanced human.

I've learned to be very careful of any origin (of the species, of advanced culture, of anything of the sort) stories. Years back, I came across a story about tall, red haired mummies being found in sand dunes in China, suggesting some ancient Caucasian culture that had been in China. Further googling to find out more information quickly led me to realize it was a story invented by white supremacists. I went from thinking "awesome - here's a cool piece of history I've never come across before" to being really angry that someone could play with history like that to advance such a disgusting agenda. Never again.

 

[Puck]

I've learned to be very careful of any origin (of the species, of advanced culture, of anything of the sort) stories. Years back, I came across a story about tall, red haired mummies being found in sand dunes in China, suggesting some ancient Caucasian culture that had been in China. Further googling to find out more information quickly led me to realize it was a story invented by white supremacists. I went from thinking "awesome - here's a cool piece of history I've never come across before" to being really angry that someone could play with history like that to advance such a disgusting agenda. Never again.

Yeah, you really have to be careful in any field of study, especially anthropology it seems. There are hoaxes in this discipline going back to Piltdown Man, not to mention all the evolution-deniers from Darwin days.

The latest scams that get to me are the various exaggerations of science coming from firms looking for some investment capital, especially in the energy or engineering fields (new fuels, engines).

 

[AfroThunder396]

The author's data does not warrant such a conclusion. From other known hominin fossils like Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus we know that canine reduction and migration of the foramen magnum relative to non-hominin apes were already happening long before other classical "human" features evolved.

3/5 modern apes (gorilla, chimp, human) being of African origin is weird, relatively speaking. African apes are the oddballs and are overrepresented in extant ape phylogeny. The primary ape radiation happened in Eurasia roughly 14-7 mya. It should be no surprise that there were fairly advanced apes with variant anatomy in Europe prior to the last glacial cycle.

Quite frankly, a partial tooth means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The evidence suggesting an African origin is very strong. While this is a cool fossil, it does absolutely nothing to challenge our current understanding of hominin evolution.

 

[Kestrel]

Yeah, you really have to be careful in any field of study, especially anthropology it seems. There are hoaxes in this discipline going back to Piltdown Man, not to mention all the evolution-deniers from Darwin days.

The latest scams that get to me are the various exaggerations of science coming from firms looking for some investment capital, especially in the energy or engineering fields (new fuels, engines).

Yeah... I guess this difference with this one was the outrage I felt at finding out WHY this hoax was being perpetrated. I tend to actually have fun with possible hoaxes and cryto-anthropology/zoology - for example, I don't believe in Sasquatch, but the what-ifs are still kind of fun to ponder and wonder about. Giants are fun to ponder about. These particular red headed mummies in China - would have been fascinating if real, and at least fun if not real - but I felt pretty dirty when I found out the real reason behind them.