Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"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.
"An international team of researchers say the findings entirely change the beginning of human history and place the last common ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans - the so-called Missing Link - in the Mediterranean region."
I don't expect this to be settled in my lifetime and I don't follow the history of the history of mankind. But this would upset a pretty big apple cart if it becomes accepted, let alone proven true. A lot of reputations, careers and egos are at stake.
I didn't know people could date things millions of years old within 200,000 years. That's a remarkable degree of accuracy.
"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.
"An international team of researchers say the findings entirely change the beginning of human history and place the last common ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans - the so-called Missing Link - in the Mediterranean region."
I don't expect this to be settled in my lifetime and I don't follow the history of the history of mankind. But this would upset a pretty big apple cart if it becomes accepted, let alone proven true. A lot of reputations, careers and egos are at stake.
I didn't know people could date things millions of years old within 200,000 years. That's a remarkable degree of accuracy.
They date by examining the strata where it was located. They date rocks, not bones.
Bone dating can only be used on semi recent fossils, something like 50K yrs or whatever, not millions.
The complete skeletons found in the rising star cave system in Africa were discovered laying on top of the cave floor, not buried, so dating them has been very difficult.
7 M yrs ago europe was probably identical to Africa, there are tiger fossils in England.
Anyway, all they found is a tooth and a jawbone, not enough to change things yet.
Arguing about this seems unrewarding since ten or twenty or one hundred years from now, other new discoveries might render what we know now, obsolete. By 2117 they may have it that all life originated on Miami Beach.
Just because some intermediary specie between apes and man was found in Europe doesn't mean it was ancestral to modern humans. It could have been an evolutionary dead-end. More of those are being found, these days. Naturally, a scientist with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences would declare it as the earliest "missing link". Why would anyone expect him to be objective?
Notice the article uses the term "international team" to lend legitimacy to the story. An "international team" made up of Greeks, Bulgarians, and others with a stake in declaring the Balkans the "cradle of man" isn't convincing.
Interesting article, but wanted to note I reviewed the actual study that is linked within the article. It stated as follows:
Quote:
Graecopithecus shares derived characters with African apes (ventrally shallow roots, buccolingually broad molar roots; [32, 75]). Therefore, we consider four principle alternative interpretations of its phylogenetic position: Graecopithecus is a stem-hominine (last common ancestor of African apes and Homo), a gorillin, a panin, or a hominin.
It also stated:
Quote:
Taken at face value, the derived characters of Graecopithecus (p4 root morphology and possibly canine root length) may indicate the presence of a hominin in the Balkans at 7.2 Ma. In many publications, de Bonis, Koufos and colleagues have proposed that Ouranopithecus, from northern Greece and more than 1.5 million years older, is a hominin [47, 79, 80]. Other researchers have interpreted the similarities between Ouranopithecus and australopithecines as homoplasies [81]. It is possible that the similarities between Graecopithecus and Ardipithecus and some australopithecines are also homoplasies
FYI "homoplasy" is a character shared by a set of species but not present in their common ancestor per blackwell publishing/evolution.
Regardless though it is interesting.
I'd be more interesting to see a DNA analysis if it can be completed with such a limited sample. I've read a lot on DNA genetic research and all of it so far points to an African maternal ancestor. I recently was reading about, after watching a documentary about the idea that our original paternal ancestor of modern humanity may be Asian.
Maybe this newly reviewed Greek specimen is a part of this Asian line.
FWIW, I always found it odd, even as a child that Europe was considered its own continent considering that really it is a part of Asia (Eurasia would be better to call it IMO).
There are a number of other, better-written, accounts of what this story is about. Humans came from Africa. Some of our very ancient cousins might have strayed beyond Africa at some point. Other animals did. I'd be a little surprised if they didn't.
As is so often the case, general news articles covering scientific subjects often get things wildly wrong. In this case, we have one preliminary data point that is being held up as accepted fact that represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of early hominims. This is not the case.
It's one data point. It's not even known that Graecopithecus freybergi is ancestral to Homo sapiens or a tangential lineage that ultimately went extinct. And this is not, at this point, scientific consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
"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.
Beyond that, it certainly does not prove that there were no earlier hominids in Africa, nor that Africa was not where hominims primarily developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
I don't expect this to be settled in my lifetime and I don't follow the history of the history of mankind. But this would upset a pretty big apple cart if it becomes accepted, let alone proven true. A lot of reputations, careers and egos are at stake.
Words of wisdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
I didn't know people could date things millions of years old within 200,000 years. That's a remarkable degree of accuracy.
From the article:
Quote:
“This study changes the ideas related to the knowledge about the time and the place of the first steps of the humankind,” said Professor Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
“Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
That's annoying. Humans are, by definition, apes. The clade 'apes' is defined as all members of the superfamily Hominoidea - which includes the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans).
FYI - here is the actual scientific study. Note that it is, as is invariably the case, less breathlessly rendered than the article meant to sell copies and get clicks. It is very careful to note that this specimen is possibly a human ancestor, and that this could be a hominim. Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe
7 M yrs ago europe was probably identical to Africa, there are tiger fossils in England.
There were undoubtedly similarities, yes. Identical? No?
Also, tigers are an Asian (not African) species, and have never been present in the British Isles. Smilodon, the so-called sabre-toothed 'tiger', was in no way related to the modern big cats beyond that they were all members of the family Felidae.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlwarrior
False and a lie. All DNA traces back to Africa. Some historians are known for changing African history to benefit Europe's image.
I can't tell if your post is serious or some sort of lame troll performance art. Either way...
[quote=Ruth4Truth;48255916]Just because some intermediary specie between apes and man was found in Europe doesn't mean it was ancestral to modern humans. It could have been an evolutionary dead-end. More of those are being found, these days. Naturally, a scientist with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences would declare it as the earliest "missing link". Why would anyone expect him to be objective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Notice the article uses the term "international team" to lend legitimacy to the story. An "international team" made up of Greeks, Bulgarians, and others with a stake in declaring the Balkans the "cradle of man" isn't convincing.
The paper was authored by two Germans, a Canadian, and a Bulgarian. I doubt the Germans and the Canadian were emotionally vested in advancing Balkan glory.
How can the scientists discuss anything having found only two bones? How can they draw the image of this animal? What are the proves ?
There is a photo of the head of an Graecopithecus freybergi in the article (post #1). The fantasy of the artist is great and the creature looks very clever . So clever that I have no doubts the creature could be able to talk about art, technic, ... even science!
Last edited by good_deal_maker; 05-23-2017 at 02:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this evidential science or belief?
?
