Hm, earliest hominid not from Africa but Europe? :o

[warpus]

I don't know much about it either, so I defer my understanding of this to the experts. These experts seem to think that this is a "game changer", so..

 

[Traitorfish]

Experts are by definition more deeply involved in a subject than the general public, so are likely to attribute greater significance to discoveries that don't mean much to everyone else; a game-changer to them might be a curiosity to everybody else. The goal of science journalism is to translate new discoveries into terms comprehensible to the layman, not to distort those discoveries so they seem as significant to the layman as to experts.

 

[bernie14]

I don't see how the racial/clinal differences between homo sapiens has anything to do with this finding

 

[warpus]

Experts are by definition more deeply involved in a subject than the general public, so are likely to attribute greater significance to discoveries that don't mean much to everyone else; a game-changer to them might be a curiosity to everybody else. The goal of science journalism is to translate new discoveries into terms comprehensible to the layman, not to distort those discoveries so they seem as significant to the layman as to experts.

But are they doing that?

I agree that the people who discovered this might be more tempted to report it as a more important thing than it should be. But I also don't see why we shouldn't take their findings at face value, especially since nobody else in the field is saying "wait a second, that's way off"

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't know much about paleontology, but I'm pretty sure this isn't how it works.

Say there were two styles of ancient metalwork, Type A and Type B. Type B seems to have developed out of Type A, and as both had been found predominantly in Italy, it has been assumed that this development happened in Italy. Now say we discover what seems to be a transitional form, earlier than any previous transitional form, Type AB, and say this is found in Gaul. Does it follow that Type A was exported to Gaul, developed into Type B, and then exported back to Italy? It's plausible, but it's not at all evident from the simple fact that Type AB was found in Gaul, because it's equally plausible that Type AB developed and Italy and spread to Gaul, we just haven't found any yet; Absence of evidence is not evident of absence, as any first-year archaeology student could tell you.

It's not clear that this should be any different if we happened to dealing with specimens that can walk themselves back and forth between Italy and Gaul.

Yes, yet this is about a 7,2 million year old specimen. It seems the oldest specimen up to now was 7 million year old (in Africa), so there is quite a gap between the two. Naturally the narration can change again, ie if some older than 7,2 mil is found in Africa. Apparently the running theory up to now was that nothing hominid-typed existed in Europe at any time close to that (and possibly -?- earliest hominid types in Europe were argued to exist many many millions of years later -?-).

 

[Traitorfish]

But are they doing that?

I agree that the people who discovered this might be more tempted to report it as a more important thing than it should be. But I also don't see why we shouldn't take their findings at face value, especially since nobody else in the field is saying "wait a second, that's way off"

What's "face value", though? The only inherent information contained in the discovery of these bones in this place is that there were some bones in a place. Everything else is cross-referenced with other finds and existing thought about those finds, even if it challenges that thought. Whatever additional significance can be attributed to these bones is for scientists who know what they're talking about, not journalists.

 

[warpus]

But aren't the scientists the ones concluding that the earliest hominid originated in Europe, not Africa? Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I thought

 

[Berzerker]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17225-were-our-earliest-hominid-ancestors-european/

Millions of years before early humans evolved in Africa, their ancestors may have lived in Europe, a 12-million-year-old fossil hominid from Spain suggests.

The fossil, named Anoiapithecus brevirostris by Salvador Moyà-Solà of the Catalan Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona, Spain, and his colleagues, dates from a period of human evolution for which the record is very thin. While only the animal’s face, jaw and teeth survive, their shape places it within the African hominid lineage that gave rise to gorillas, chimps and humans. However, it also has features of a related group called kenyapithecins.

Moyà-Solà says that A. brevirostris and some similar-looking kenyapithecins lived in Europe shortly after the afrohominid and kenyapithecin lineages split, and so that the divergence itself may have happened there. If he is right, our hominid ancestors lived in Europe and only later migrated to Africa, where modern humans evolved.

This “into Africa” scenario is likely to be controversial. Critics argue that discoveries like Moyà-Solà’s are more likely to reflect the quality of the fossil records in Africa and Europe than offer clues to the actual origins of hominids.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/european-fossils-may-belong-earliest-known-hominid

Many mammals, including apes, giraffes, antelopes and hippos, lived in Africa and in Europe’s eastern Mediterranean region between 9 million and 7 million years ago, Begun says. These creatures probably moved back and forth between continents, he holds, making it difficult to pin down where each line of animals originated. Graecopithecus could have evolved in either Europe or Africa

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...n-detect-ancient-humans-even-without-fossils/

wow, dna laced mud

 

[warpus]

Is it controversial because the evidence is inconclusive or because "We originated in Africa" has political connotations unrelated to the science being done?

 

[Berzerker]

inconclusive...

but if apes were living in Europe 10-7 mya its possible an offshoot (us) lived there too and migrated into Africa

I think its more likely apes lived in Africa and migrated outward and some had or evolved a few traits we find in later hominids

didn't camels and horses originate in the new world, spread to the old world as the new world populations died out?

 

[warpus]

Why would you say one is more likely than the other?

I bet we'll keep finding new evidence every once in a while and will have to continue updating our understanding of early humanity and our origins. And those people ready to politicize "We originated in Europe" or "We originated in Africa" will just have to suck it up, whatever teh scientific consensus ends up landing on.

 

[uppi]

But aren't the scientists the ones concluding that the earliest hominid originated in Europe, not Africa? Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I thought

No. Once you strip out the attention-grabbing, what remains is that the earliest hominid might have originated in Europe. So far there has been no evidence of that, now there is a tiny bit. It is way too early to rewrite the pre-history books.

There are several explanations that do not require hominids originating in Europe:
1) This species was not native to Europe and this fossil just represents a small group that wandered far off
2) There are older hominids in Africa, which have not been found yet - It is very unlikely that this will remain the oldest hominid fossil forever.
3) The specimen was misclassified as a hominid. It might have been an ape that developed hominid-like features in convergent evolution. Or some features have been overinterpreted as hominid.
4) The dating is off for some weird reason and this fossil is actually younger than those that were found in Africa.

Or in other words: There needs to be way more evidence before any definitive conclusion can be drawn. It is a challenge to the most favored models, however, and might intensify the search for hominid fossils in Europe.

 

[warpus]

Interesting, thanks for clarifying!

How will we know once/if/when scientific consensus changes and the conclusions alter our understanding of our past, in this context? I mean, we obviously can't trust the media to report this stuff responsibly. But scientific journals are not so easily accessible to the layman. And you're probably a busy guy who can't jump in and clarify what's what all the time

 

[Kyriakos]

No. Once you strip out the attention-grabbing, what remains is that the earliest hominid might have originated in Europe. So far there has been no evidence of that, now there is a tiny bit. It is way too early to rewrite the pre-history books.

There are several explanations that do not require hominids originating in Europe:
1) This species was not native to Europe and this fossil just represents a small group that wandered far off
2) There are older hominids in Africa, which have not been found yet - It is very unlikely that this will remain the oldest hominid fossil forever.
3) The specimen was misclassified as a hominid. It might have been an ape that developed hominid-like features in convergent evolution. Or some features have been overinterpreted as hominid.
4) The dating is off for some weird reason and this fossil is actually younger than those that were found in Africa.

Or in other words: There needs to be way more evidence before any definitive conclusion can be drawn. It is a challenge to the most favored models, however, and might intensify the search for hominid fossils in Europe.

Re 1,2: Well, yes, no one would claim this proves the earliest hominid ever originated in Europe, yet it does prove that the earliest hominid specimen we have found is from Europe, which in turn does cancel the theory that earliest hominids must have migrated from Africa. Now if the theory was "earliest hominids may have originated in Africa", it wouldn't cancel it. Yet such a claim would not be needing any specimen found in the first place. A bit like "in the next room there may be a human", so whatever, it is true regardless if there is any human there.
Re 3,4: ok, yet scientists don't seem to speak against methodology in this case (AFAIK).

 

[Ryika]

which in turn does cancel the theory that earliest hominids must have migrated from Africa.

That was never the theory to begin with though, it's just the most likely conclusion based on the evidence that was available.
Making a definitive statement about what "must have been the case" would be a serious overreach.

 

[Berzerker]

Why would you say one is more likely than the other?

I bet we'll keep finding new evidence every once in a while and will have to continue updating our understanding of early humanity and our origins. And those people ready to politicize "We originated in Europe" or "We originated in Africa" will just have to suck it up, whatever teh scientific consensus ends up landing on.

Good question, I've paid attention to information about our origins for decades and I'm biased now. My mind has been trained to accept the out-of-africa theory and reject the multi-regional theory, and this theory is outside the parameters I've been considering. But as I think about it, why not? I imagine S Europe may have been wetter and warmer back then while modern apes are confined to equatorial regions

 

[timtofly]

Once humans had started re-writing history nothing should ever be dogmatic. Going all ape about it probably doesn't help either.

 

[Berzerker]

you made a funny

 

[Kyriakos]

Once humans had started re-writing history nothing should ever be dogmatic. Going all ape about it probably doesn't help either.

 

[uppi]

Interesting, thanks for clarifying!

How will we know once/if/when scientific consensus changes and the conclusions alter our understanding of our past, in this context? I mean, we obviously can't trust the media to report this stuff responsibly. But scientific journals are not so easily accessible to the layman. And you're probably a busy guy who can't jump in and clarify what's what all the time

I would say you would have to search and read the sources that are accessible to you. Obviously, the closer the source is to the actual science, the better, but it tends to get less accessible. So you need to find the sweet spot for you somewhere in between. Blogs from scientists in the field tend to be a good source, because they can be close to the science, can be quite accessible and scientists are less pressured to exaggerate and more prone to give their honest opinion. But keep in mind that the scientific consensus is not something every scientist agrees upon, so you should consider different sources.

Re 3,4: ok, yet scientists don't seem to speak against methodology in this case (AFAIK).

Even if you are doing everything correctly, you can get stray results. This is true for any science, but particular for paleontology, where the evidence is usually thin to begin with. Just because nobody found a mistake, does not mean they did not make one (I am not saying they did, but there is always a small probability).

In addition, there are enough scientists saying that the evidence is extremely thin for the claim they are trying to make and it is too early to jump to conclusions.