Fossils of possible new human species found in China

[GardenerGal]

I wouldn't say quite that we evolved from apes, but that modern apes and humans evolved from a common/shared ape-like ancestor that we split off from tens of millions of years ago. Many primatologists group humans -- including us and the now-extinct neanderthals (which some consider to be a sub-species of modern humans) -- with the Great Apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, organgutans), each species of which branched off from that common/shared ancestor to gradually come to its current form.

For brain size" When I was doing some grad studies in biology -- with a focus on primate evolutionary ecology -- my paleoanthropology prof brought in skull casts of modern humans from around 28,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, and of neanderthals and Homo erectus (AKA Homo ergaster) skulls from China that dated back around 300,000 years. What was remarkable was the size of the brain case in both neanderthals and H. erectus. The brain cases of the neanderthal skulls we held, were larger than those of the modern humans' (including our own). The brain cases of the H. erectus skulls were somewhat smaller than ours, but still quite substantial compared to chimps and gorillas. H. erectus first appeared about 1.8 million years ago, according to the fossil record. They created stone tools, which is a sophisticated task that requires manual dexterity, are believe to have been the first hominids to have lived in bands (cooperative hunting), and there is strong evidence that they used fire, which really requires intelligence and insight!

Yeah the 20 million is totally wrong, but you got my point. Still, since it's said that these early humans from 200,000 had the same brain capacity and intelligence as we do today, surely they'd have done something a little more interesting than make a spear, drill a hole in a shell, and paint a picture for us to find a bit sooner than 75,000 years ago. I don't really question whether or not evolution has great evidence, only the timelines. And I think the Sphinx is indeed VERY much older than the Egyptologists would have us believe. Again, their timeline doesn't match the evidence.
I still hold that it's theory that we evolved from apes. I think it's pretty likely, but it's still not absolute proven fact and shouldn't be presented as such.

 

[GardenerGal]

chickened,
By "pure luck" I meant that it was lucky we found them at all. But also that the deep cave and the atmospheric conditions there, and of course their isolation (so as not to be touched or disturbed) preserved the pigments that were used.

You may well be right that, at least in some ways, the body developed faster than the brain's sophistication to handle and utilize it. But more than that, external environment probably was a greater stimulus for brain AND body development, necessity being the mother of invention. In some ways, mutations to the body and its function that proved beneficial to survival (and passing along one's genes) must have forced the brain to develop functions to keep up with those changes. Increasing functions such as tool-making and the need for manual dexterity, may have forced the brain to create more "neural wiring" that in turn led to more sophisticated tool making and use, etc.

Lucky they were painted or lucky we found them?

I was referring to some sort of findings that showed intelligence. Fashioned tools and the like.

I did read where the oldest evidence of fishing is a hook made from elk antler imbedded in a petrified log in a Swiss lake village with a hand hewn basket beside it and a pole from about 14,000 years ago.

The human brain must not have evolved as quickly as the body.

 

[galanie]

We do not know they had the same intelligence -- we know only that their brain volume was similar. Intelligence does tend to increase along with brain volume, but it's not the only factor. Cognition relies on the interconnectedness of neurons, which can differ even when brain volume remains the same, and cannot be inferred from fossils. The earliest dates of archaeological evidence of these "cognitive breakthroughs" being younger than "modern brain capacity being reached" suggests that much more was going on with regards to changes in the brain than simply "getting bigger." Thus it is incorrect to say that humans from 200,000 years ago had the same intelligence of humans today -- it's possible they might have, but available evidence doesn't support the assumption.

As far as making something "interesting" (I read that as something not necessary for survival, but something more artistic or aesthetic), we must recognize that to do so, in addition to possessing cognitive ability for symbolic thought (which may not have been present to the degree it is today in humans 200,000 years ago), there must be a surplus of time that did not need to be devoted to procuring food and other necessary resources -- in essence, leisure. It is likely that increasing cognitive ability allowed for more efficient food procurement, which resulted in an increase in leisure time, and "art" resulted as a by-product. Some hypothesize that production of art developed along a sexual-selection pathway -- art serving to attract females was beneficial because in order to create art, males would have to be cognitively developed enough to solve food-procurement problems successfully enough to leave leisure time for art production. Art thus worked like the peacock's tail -- an attractant that served to advertise the artist's fitness. This is all just interpretive, however.

It is theory that we evolved from apes -- to "prove" it would require a time machine and the ability to tag all offspring from all individuals of all proposed ancestral species and track them through a few million years to the present day, determining how offspring vary through all generations. While that is not feasible, we can find evidence that would be left behind should the theorized pathway have occurred -- fossils of individuals intermediate in form and dating, and DNA investigation of shared and divergent heritage, for example. This is utilization of "if...then..." statements to test a theory, and results in an accumulation of evidence favoring one scenario over another. It's akin to trying to determine the origin of a fire by analyzing remains left behind -- we can't "prove" exactly how something happened without documenting its course from start to finish, but we can trace a most likely sequence of events based on interpretation of evidence and an understanding of the properties of the original parts.

Actually, so far as something "interesting" I was thinking more along the lines of shelters or tools. Sure there are the caves and a few rocks that appear to have been formed by humans, but surely someone came up with the idea to stack rocks or something before the current dates for that? Or not. I suppose it depends on which of many theories you subscribe to.

Still, to state something as fact that can be reasonably doubted is inaccurate. Even saying "these people were the first to hunt in groups" is inaccurate. They were the first we know of to hunt in groups. A difference that could be missed by a lot of readers but not by me.

 

[AquaEyes]

I wouldn't say quite that we evolved from apes, but that modern apes and humans evolved from a common/shared ape-like ancestor that we split off from tens of millions of years ago. Many primatologists group humans -- including us and the now-extinct neanderthals (which some consider to be a sub-species of modern humans) -- with the Great Apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, organgutans), each species of which branched off from that common/shared ancestor to gradually come to its current form.

For brain size" When I was doing some grad studies in biology -- with a focus on primate evolutionary ecology -- my paleoanthropology prof brought in skull casts of modern humans from around 28,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, and of neanderthals and Homo erectus (AKA Homo ergaster) skulls from China that dated back around 300,000 years. What was remarkable was the size of the brain case in both neanderthals and H. erectus. The brain cases of the neanderthal skulls we held, were larger than those of the modern humans' (including our own). The brain cases of the H. erectus skulls were somewhat smaller than ours, but still quite substantial compared to chimps and gorillas. H. erectus first appeared about 1.8 million years ago, according to the fossil record. They created stone tools, which is a sophisticated task that requires manual dexterity, are believe to have been the first hominids to have lived in bands (cooperative hunting), and there is strong evidence that they used fire, which really requires intelligence and insight!

From what I remember, the theorized split between the human and chimpanzee/bonobo lineages was about 5-6 million years ago, and the split from gorillas a couple million years more -- meaning that the last common ancestor of Homo, Gorilla, and Pan lived no more than ten million years ago. The split from the lineage leading to Pongo was a little older still.

Neanderthal provides an example of brain size and cognitive ability -- bigger doesn't always mean better. Some think that the larger brain size of Neanderthal might be a result of climate-induced selection for an overall larger body mass. In any case, it's likely that their "wiring" differed from that found in modern humans, being as their cultural artifacts showed less variation and innovation through time when compared to our species. Perhaps this specialization was selected for the rigorous Ice Age environment of Europe but later had the effect of "painting themselves into a corner" when the climate changed and a more behaviorally and culturally flexible competitor invaded their territory. It's hard to write the story based on what was left behind, but with each new discovery, we get another page.

 

[GardenerGal]

AquaEyes,

Yeah -- I was not thinking about chimps but the general split of the mainline ape ancestors that became gorillas, orangs... You're right. Chimps are our closest "kin," as is often noted!

Neandertals had greater overall body mass than modern humans, and their skull size also reflected the massive musculature that connected the powerful jaws to the skull. The comparison of their chewing abilities to our more gracile mandibles is shocking. They had the use of fire and cooking, but were still ripping apart tough meat, and those jaws and their dentition allowed for this.

Also, there has been some theoretical connection to their overall head size and sinus size for cold adaptation. The larger sinus cavities are believed by some to have allowed for air to be warmed before going to the lungs, thus keeping the individual's core temperature warmer and so using less energy to stay warm.

But Neanderthals are believed by many reseachers to have been as intelligent as we. My paleo prof, Erik Trinkaus (now one of the world's top neandertal peeps!) back when I was a grad student, was and is a proponent of that. The large braincase wasn't just a reflection of massive body size (neanderthals weren't necessarily taller/bigger than modern humans -- they had more muscle mass on what was often a shorter frame). Gorillas are both large and massive, but their brain cases are much smaller than ours.

To your prior post, I don't think we need a time machine to determine the chain of human evolution. But we need time, a lot of time, and lots of people and equipment to dig in relevant areas of the world, through each layer of earth to find the fossil records of every epoch. A time machine would be easier.

Again, I wouldn't say we evolved "from apes," but that both modern apes and modern humans descended from an ape-like common ancestor we split from (and went in our various directions) tens of millions of years ago. But some primate biologists do consider humans to be one of the Great Apes. I lean that way myself.

 

[AquaEyes]

Actually, so far as something "interesting" I was thinking more along the lines of shelters or tools. Sure there are the caves and a few rocks that appear to have been formed by humans, but surely someone came up with the idea to stack rocks or something before the current dates for that? Or not. I suppose it depends on which of many theories you subscribe to.
Still, to state something as fact that can be reasonably doubted is inaccurate. Even saying "these people were the first to hunt in groups" is inaccurate. They were the first we know of to hunt in groups. A difference that could be missed by a lot of readers but not by me.

Oh, of course I agree with you about shelters and tools and such. In my readings for my classes, it was emphasized that we can't study what wasn't left behind and preserved. Artifacts made from wood are (for the most part) lost to time, and while it's likely that wooden tools existed earlier than stone tools, we can only infer them as being likely -- we don't have much physical evidence to support them as fact.

And yes, properly written, such things should be "the earliest evidence of ___ dates to ___" but too often things get written in a way that is easier to read when presented in popular media or pre-college text books. Information in these areas is modified for the purpose of being read by a different audience than those that would read the scientific publications -- it is more "digested", so to speak. The hope, I suppose, is that those taking an interest in the "digested" presentation of information would seek further research by tapping into the literature published in scientific journals -- there, because colleagues are itching to tear apart proposed ideas through peer-review, authors are much more careful with their wordings.

 

[chickened]

As they should be, their reputations are at stake when they go out on a limb like that. I think funding procurement is always a factor in the "conclusions" notable in recent times. Plato and Galileo never worried about such things really as they were few and far between and their work I am sure was cheaper to perform as an example.

Oh, of course I agree with you about shelters and tools and such. In my readings for my classes, it was emphasized that we can't study what wasn't left behind and preserved. Artifacts made from wood are (for the most part) lost to time, and while it's likely that wooden tools existed earlier than stone tools, we can only infer them as being likely -- we don't have much physical evidence to support them as fact.

And yes, properly written, such things should be "the earliest evidence of ___ dates to ___" but too often things get written in a way that is easier to read when presented in popular media or pre-college text books. Information in these areas is modified for the purpose of being read by a different audience than those that would read the scientific publications -- it is more "digested", so to speak. The hope, I suppose, is that those taking an interest in the "digested" presentation of information would seek further research by tapping into the literature published in scientific journals -- there, because colleagues are itching to tear apart proposed ideas through peer-review, authors are much more careful with their wordings.

 

[chickened]

I,m sorry, it is just when I hear the phrase "boy we were lucky" I shutter, I believe everything has a contributing factor by an action. Anyways I just find it odd that we developed technologies so fast in such a short time... almost surreal.

chickened,
By "pure luck" I meant that it was lucky we found them at all. But also that the deep cave and the atmospheric conditions there, and of course their isolation (so as not to be touched or disturbed) preserved the pigments that were used.

You may well be right that, at least in some ways, the body developed faster than the brain's sophistication to handle and utilize it. But more than that, external environment probably was a greater stimulus for brain AND body development, necessity being the mother of invention. In some ways, mutations to the body and its function that proved beneficial to survival (and passing along one's genes) must have forced the brain to develop functions to keep up with those changes. Increasing functions such as tool-making and the need for manual dexterity, may have forced the brain to create more "neural wiring" that in turn led to more sophisticated tool making and use, etc.

 

[perchie.girl]

Wow I just stumbled on this thread. Just got done reading the whole thing.... Just Wow.

I just love these kinds of conversations. I have a friend who is off the scale smart. She studied Anthropology both Cultural and Physical. One of the things she told me was the Cro magnon man could walk amongst us and wed never know the difference and that they existed along with Neanderthals. The following picture is from http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/336cromagnon.php :



Fascinating stuff for sure.

I have a son in College and he is brimming full of stuff he has just "come across" while he was looking for something else. We are history buffs but he takes it a little further. It was he that told me about the diversity in genomes within populations not being what you'd might expect between races.

I hope they find more of that Skeleton from the original post.

deb

 

[Fowl_Odor002]

Funny thing this "creationism"

I remember from the bible
after Cain killed Able and God kicked him out (made Cain leave)
Cain was afraid of being killed by "others"

so if Adam and Eve were the "first"
and Cain and Able were their only children
who were these "others" that Cain was afraid would kill him?