joigus Posted January 13, 2022 Posted January 13, 2022 https://phys.org/news/2022-01-earliest-human-eastern-africa-dated.html?fbclid=IwAR3qOIHmKKO6EsILQUbh6DCngk5MjeQl3pI-ugX_n6yrHc5k-WPp5GhYkEM 2
mistermack Posted January 13, 2022 Posted January 13, 2022 This does push back the age that can confidently be attributed to homo sapiens, although there are other finds that are now being dated as even older than this, to about 300,000 years ago. It's a blurry picture, because it seems likely that there was quite a bit of inbreeding with neanderthals, on various occasions. This site in Morocco, Jebel Irhoud, seems to be even older, but dating and classification are maybe not as certain as the Omo site. The remains are classified as homo sapiens, but there looks to be some neanderthal element, in the tools and some features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud 1
joigus Posted January 13, 2022 Author Posted January 13, 2022 That seems to be the trend. The discontinuity of the fossil record is very important to keep in mind. I think we're in for more surprises. Dmanisi was another big big surprise in a different direction. Thanks for the link to Jebel Irhoud.
J.C.MacSwell Posted January 16, 2022 Posted January 16, 2022 If, say, we had 100% knowledge of our lineage/lineages, how arbitrary would the point we define as Modern Humans be? Maybe a better way of stating it would be "what is our current definition?". 1
Danijel Gorupec Posted January 16, 2022 Posted January 16, 2022 On 1/13/2022 at 2:33 PM, mistermack said: there was quite a bit of inbreeding with neanderthals, on various occasions. What an uneasy thought, considering that it seems to me the homo sapiens was moslty on the receiving end of this 'interbreeding' process.
mistermack Posted January 16, 2022 Posted January 16, 2022 14 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said: What an uneasy thought, considering that it seems to me the homo sapiens was moslty on the receiving end of this 'interbreeding' process. I've personally never been able to understand what women see in men, but the other way round, it's any port in a storm. (And yes, I mistyped interbreeding. I do know the difference, until I'm typing it. )
joigus Posted January 16, 2022 Author Posted January 16, 2022 1 hour ago, mistermack said: (And yes, I mistyped interbreeding. I do know the difference, until I'm typing it. ) Neanderthals did indulge in some inbreeding though. That's probably bound to happen when the girl next-door lives, eg, 100 miles NE. 3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: If, say, we had 100% knowledge of our lineage/lineages, how arbitrary would the point we define as Modern Humans be? Maybe a better way of stating it would be "what is our current definition?". My picture of human evolution is getting closer and closer to a turbulent river with thousands and thousands of eddies, and rivulets of genetic flow diverting off course and rejoining the main stream later, or getting lost forever. When I look at the crania of these humans in Jebel Irhoud... The experts say it's modern human, though they look so neandertalish. I don't know what modern humans are anymore.
DaviBrons Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 I fully agree with joigus. Given the frequency of new discoveries regarding our origins and origins, the concept of "modern man" is simply blurry. Some scientists claim that Homo sapiens originated 300,000 years ago, another team screams about 360,000, a third about 400,000. It is quite possible that a completely new figure will appear next week or next month and irrefutable evidence of its correctness.
CharonY Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 On 1/16/2022 at 8:48 AM, J.C.MacSwell said: If, say, we had 100% knowledge of our lineage/lineages, how arbitrary would the point we define as Modern Humans be? Maybe a better way of stating it would be "what is our current definition?". As with other forms of categorization it is obviously a bit arbitrary and at least theoretically based on genetic distance and/or fossil similarity. But obviously that is not trivial and fossils do not show linear progression. This article has a nice discussion https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0237. 1
J.C.MacSwell Posted January 20, 2022 Posted January 20, 2022 10 hours ago, CharonY said: As with other forms of categorization it is obviously a bit arbitrary and at least theoretically based on genetic distance and/or fossil similarity. But obviously that is not trivial and fossils do not show linear progression. This article has a nice discussion https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0237. Thanks CY.
Mehboob97 Posted February 23, 2022 Posted February 23, 2022 On 1/13/2022 at 5:20 PM, joigus said: https://phys.org/news/2022-01-earliest-human-eastern-africa-dated.html?fbclid=IwAR3qOIHmKKO6EsILQUbh6DCngk5MjeQl3pI-ugX_n6yrHc5k-WPp5GhYkEM Interest signature. No doubt history is continuously warning us but it is human who don't take warning until they experienced it.
Recommended Posts