[IMG]http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo379x64.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/18/science/18skull/18skull-popup.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]After eight years spent studying a 1.8 million-year-old skull uncovered in the republic of Georgia, scientists have made a discovery that may rewrite the evolutionary history of our human genus Homo.
It would be a simpler story with fewer ancestral species. Early, diverse fossils — those currently recognized as coming from distinct species like Homo habilis, Homo erectus and others — may actually represent variation among members of a single, evolving lineage. In other words: just as people look different from one another today, so did early hominids look different from one another, and the dissimilarity of the bones they left behind may have fooled scientists into thinking they came from different species.
This was the conclusion reached by an international team of scientists led by David Lordkipanidze, a paleoanthropologist at the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, as reported Thursday in the journal Science.
The key to this revelatory conclusion was a cranium excavated in 2005 and known simply as Skull 5, which scientists described as “the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull” of such antiquity. Unlike other Homo fossils, it had a number of primitive features: a long apelike face, large teeth and a tiny braincase, about one third the size of that of a modern human being. This confirmed that, contrary to some conjecture, early hominids did not need big brains to make their way out of Africa.
[B]...[/B][/QUOTE]
[B]Read more please:[/B][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fossil-skull-may-rewrite-humans-evolutionary-story.html?ref=science[/url]
So Neanderthals were just big-boned?
[QUOTE=Explosions;42557386]So Neanderthals were just big-boned?[/QUOTE]
Neanderthals aren't humans.
[QUOTE=TheSaladMan;42558083]Neanderthals aren't humans.[/QUOTE]
I heard there may have been quite a few races in the past that are very close to human but are very different, like the Neanderthals.
[QUOTE=TheSaladMan;42558083]Neanderthals aren't humans.[/QUOTE]
Well they did interbreed with us and produce fertile offspring, so you could say that they are.
[QUOTE=TheSaladMan;42558083]Neanderthals aren't humans.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying comparing a hawk and an eagle and saying one isn't a bird.
Wait, I thought the Skull Fossil belonged to Cranidos, not a humanoid
I think the biggest point made with this article is the fairly arbitrary way that we define different species.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42558546]I think the biggest point made with this article is the fairly arbitrary way that we define different species.[/QUOTE]
there is no definition of "species" that isn't arbitrary.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
at least not that i'v ever read
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42558383]That's like saying comparing a hawk and an eagle and saying one isn't a bird.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Humans are defined as a species in the genus Homo. Neanderthals are the species H. neanderthalensis in the genus Homo.
So they aren't humans, they are hominids.
[quote]After eight years spent studying a 1.8 million-year-old skull uncovered in the republic of Georgia, scientists have made a discovery that may rewrite the evolutionary history of our human genus Homo.[/quote]
yes please say the creationists have been verified [sp]as crazy idiots who are worse than the flat-earthers[/sp]
[editline]17th October 2013[/editline]
i thought though that the different "evolutionary stages" of humans had been hashed out because of the vast differences in time between specimens. i mean if its from 10000 years before the previous finding, its kind of a safe assumption that its a different sub-species rather than an oddly grown member of the same species, i'm really not sure though just how much our skeletons differ from person to person though i guess thatd be a good question to answer
If "simpler" is another way of saying "vastly more complicated", I suppose that's correct.
take a look at dwarfism, gigantism, differences in skull shape between races, etc.
Wait, so there's a chance the main hominid has been homo sapiens for much longer than we thought? This is crazy shit, man. Although, aren't we considered to be homo sapiens sapiens nowadays for some reason?
God must have placed that skull there for a reason, not because of 'evolution'.
[sp]Just kidding, creationism is a boatload of crap for minds of the weak.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;42559653]Not really. Humans are defined as a species in the genus Homo. Neanderthals are the species H. neanderthalensis in the genus Homo.
So they aren't humans, they are hominids.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that everything in the genus Homo is human.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42562056]Pretty sure that everything in the genus Homo is human.[/QUOTE]
You're thinking of the genus homo not hominids. orangutans are hominids. Depending on whether you consider the word human a species or a genus then that could be correct but if you consider humans to be homo sapiens then you can't call Neanderthals fully human
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;42562429]You're thinking of the genus homo not hominids. orangutans are hominids. Depending on whether you consider the word human a species or a genus then that could be correct but if you consider humans to be homo sapiens then you can't call Neanderthals fully human[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that anthropologically, any species that's part of the genus Homo is human. What you consider a word to mean generally doesn't matter when it comes to scientific definitions.
Neanderthals were human because they were [I]Homo [/I]Neanderthalensis; same with Homo Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, Floresiensis and all the other ones.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
Hominidæ is all the great apes, so all species of Human, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Orangutan.
Neanderthals were Hominids, but that's only because they were also Human. You can't be human without being a Hominid; like you can't be a squirrel without being a mammal.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42562567]I'm saying that anthropologically, any species that's part of the genus Homo is human. What you consider a word to mean generally doesn't matter when it comes to scientific definitions.
Neanderthals were human because they were [I]Homo [/I]Neanderthalensis; same with Homo Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, Floresiensis and all the other ones.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
Hominidæ is all the great apes, so all species of Human, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Orangutan.
Neanderthals were Hominids, but that's only because they were also Human. You can't be human without being a Hominid; like you can't be a squirrel without being a mammal.[/QUOTE]
This is gonna sound weird but I read your post as hominid and not homo. I agree with that sentiment although I wouldn't call species within homo human as human is usually reserved for homo sapien. Unless I'm totally wrong and homo is synonymous with human. Early species within homo lacked a lot of defining features of the species homo sapien. But I'm not an anthropologist so I could be wrong
[QUOTE=Siduron;42562043]
[sp]Just kidding, creationism is a boatload of crap for minds of the weak.[/sp][/QUOTE]
thats pretty ignorant to say
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;42562673]This is gonna sound weird but I read your post as hominid and not homo. I agree with that sentiment although I wouldn't call species within homo human as human is usually reserved for homo sapien. Unless I'm totally wrong and homo is synonymous with human. Early species within homo lacked a lot of defining features of the species homo sapien. But I'm not an anthropologist so I could be wrong[/QUOTE]
I'm not an anthropologist either, I just spent a lot of time researching early humans for a short story I never ended up writing.
Homo is latin for man, so they are technically synonymous. But colloquialisms being what they are, I can't fault you for making a distinction between H. Sapiens and H. everything else.
Also what the fuck happened to my post? Double spaces all the way.
-something messed up please ignore-
[QUOTE=Araknid;42562734]thats pretty ignorant to say[/QUOTE]
In a way your post comes off as more ignorant; but I understand if you took the way he said it in a bad way.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42558841]there is no definition of "species" that isn't arbitrary.
[editline]18th October 2013[/editline]
at least not that i'v ever read[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.[/QUOTE]
If your kids can have kids then you're both the same species, so arbitrary.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
