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

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.
What? No it doesn't. It's equally plausible, and much more likely, that hominids simply began leaving Africa earlier than we thought. It's not as if we're surprised to find that humans left Africa before the emergence of modern humans; I mean, the first specimen of Homo erectus was found in Indonesia.
 
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.

I guess the potential problem with this approach for me is that wrt to a lot of scientific disciplines I am a layman. So to make sense of the conclusions and context of a scientific paper might take some time, and in some cases might not really be possible unless it's explained to me by someone who can help bridge the gap
 
What? No it doesn't. It's equally plausible, and much more likely, that hominids simply began leaving Africa earlier than we thought. It's not as if we're surprised to find that humans left Africa before the emergence of modern humans; I mean, the first specimen of Homo erectus was found in Indonesia.

Maybe it is my own mistake, due to unfamiliarity with paleontology, yet i was just noting that the "must" cannot be supported by finding an earlier specimen not from there. It still may be true (first hominids in Africa + later migration) but apparently this 7,2 mil specimen (assuming it is dated correctly and is a hominid) is earlier than any hominid specimen in Africa (7 mil) (again going by the article).
 
The "must" is not inherent to the specimens themselves, though. What it means is, "this is the only reasonable model we have". This find doesn't overturn that, because it does not in itself tell us anything except that hominids left Africa earlier than previously thought. It doesn't overturn the overall course of human evolution indicated by previous finds.
 
Some technical features of our species worthwhile to consider on this topic:

There are early hominids (this post) and modern hominids.
Modern hominids have a much bigger brain (absolute but more important relative to their size and food intake).

The hominid succes was also boosted by preparing food in a primitive way with fire or fermenting to get a higher yield out of it => causing a smaller belly and freeing resources to sustain a bigger brain (high energy consumption per weight) and enabling better survivability during famine periods.

This bigger brain is for 8% weight composed out off Omega-3 fatty acids.
Savannah food has a low Omega-3 yield, unless you eat enough mammalian brains.
Sea food has it in abundancy.
The hominid development of a bigger modern hominid brain almost must have happened along the seashore.

If the early hominid was succesfull enough to spread all over Africa-Europe-Asia, this Omega-3 brain boosting step may have happened anywhere: both paralel as multiple times.
But it is unlikely that brain boosting phase happened on the big mainlands of the African savannah or Euro-Asian planes.

And for a fact: the lenght of the seashore of the Northern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, Aegian Sea, black Sea is longer than the North and East shore of Africa.

Evidence for the unique function of docosahexaenoic acid during the evolution of the modern hominid brain.
Crawford , Bloom M, Broadhurst CL, Schmidt WF, Cunnane SC, Galli C, Gehbremeskel K, Linseisen F, Lloyd-Smith J, Parkington J.
Abstract
The African savanna ecosystem of the large mammals and primates was associated with a dramatic decline in relative brain capacity associated with little docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which is required for brain structures and growth. The biochemistry implies that the expansion of the human brain required a plentiful source of preformed DHA. The richest source of DHA is the marine food chain, while the savanna environment offers very little of it. Consequently Homo sapiens could not have evolved on the savannas. Recent fossil evidence indicates that the lacustrine and marine food chain was being extensively exploited at the time cerebral expansion took place and suggests the alternative that the transition from the archaic to modern humans took place at the land/water interface. Contemporary data on tropical lakeshore dwellers reaffirm the above view with nutritional support for the vascular system, the development of which would have been a prerequisite for cerebral expansion. Both arachidonic acid and DHA would have been freely available from such habitats providing the double stimulus of preformed acyl components for the developing blood vessels and brain. The n-3 docosapentaenoic acid precursor (n-3 DPA) was the major n-3-metabolite in the savanna mammals. Despite this abundance, neither it nor the corresponding n-6 DPA was used for the photoreceptor nor the synapse. A substantial difference between DHA and other fatty acids is required to explain this high specificity. Studies on fluidity and other mechanical features of cell membranes did not reveal a difference of such magnitude between even alpha-linolenic acid and DHA sufficient to explain the exclusive use of DHA. We suggest that the evolution of the large human brain depended on a rich source of DHA from the land/water interface. We review a number of proposals for the possible influence of DHA on physical properties of the brain that are essential for its function. [7]
 
Neanderthals probably had larger brains than Cro Magnons, but sadly it didn't help them as they were just the first of many species we wiped out along the way.
 
Neanderthals probably had larger brains than Cro Magnons, but sadly it didn't help them as they were just the first of many species we wiped out along the way.

This "killer ape" scenario as to why the Neanderthals became extinct is a thread on her own.
Would be real nice to find remains indicating this "war".

It can also be that the Neanderthal had overinvested in the size of their brain, could not upkeep the cost, perhaps had a less efficient foodprocessing system, and was losing the "war" on the economy of evolution.

EDIT
The Neanderthals were also more muscular.
A clear disadvantage to survive famine periods, because muscle tissue has a high metabolistic upkeep cost.
 
Last edited:
the neanderthals were not wiped out per se, they were assimilated :assimilate:, so were the Denesovians and perhaps more....
 
Dolphins' religion states that humans are result of divine retribution to those who sinned against dolphins' deity: they were turned into humans!
 
A lot of nationalities believe that being born English is punishment for wrongs in a past life.
 
Presumably the ones we've had long dealings with over a dozen centuries or so.
 
crossing the red sea...hmm... and along the arabian coast...leads right to the persian gulf

and God took the man he made and placed him eastward in the Garden
:rolleyes:

So your next claim would be some pretzel-twisted event that explains how women existed before Eve?

Perhaps apes evolved from hominid ancestors, who migrated to Africa?
Have you ever considered reading a basic physical anthropology book?

I guess this finding new missing links will continue for centuries to come
and new theories as well

Our addiction to come to conclusions on insufficient facts is great indeed.
We need the picture, the big picture.
And if our eyes don't see proper, our mind will make up for it.
It is how evolution made us hominids perceive the world :)
Let's hope reason prevails over making up stories and believing the tabloids.
 
:rolleyes:

So your next claim would be some pretzel-twisted event that explains how women existed before Eve?


Have you ever considered reading a basic physical anthropology book?


Let's hope reason prevails over making up stories and believing the tabloids.

For someone who fails to take the Bible as literal, you pick and choose what is? Eve was never the first female. That is not how genetics works, on any level of interpretation. While genetically similiar to apes it may be assumed we are cousins. And seeing as how the Bible does not fit in any accepted time line what is the first woman? It does not have to be Eve. Eve was not even a bottleneck. It just so happened a bottle neck occurred much later, in genetic standards and all other genetic lines were lost. Eve did not literally give birth to every biological creature in existence. Nor was Eve a representative of the concept that there was a female entity that birthed the universe. That would be the queen of heaven mythological notion. At the most Eve represents the aversion to the female causing the downfall of what it is to be male, while at the same time praising her for providing life to all creation. Females get a bad rap in all mythology. I am pretty sure though, that most theologians from the very first considered Adam to be responsibly at fault in the scenario. The point about Eve, was that through her genealogy all other genetic lines would be lost and hers would prevail.
 
You are aware that Valka doesn't believe in Adam or Eve? :crazyeye:
 
Top Bottom