Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa. Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained for the next five million years before venturing further afield. But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago. The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/[/url] I think this kinda blurs the line between what defines a human in terms of remains

At the end of the day it honestly shouldn't matter but people will still care that isn't to say this isn't important to know of course, history is important

[QUOTE]However some experts were more skeptical about the findings. Retired anthropologist and author Dr Peter Andrews, formerly at the Natural History Museum in London, said: "It is possible that the human lineage originated in Europe, but very substantial fossil evidence places the origin in Africa, including several partial skeletons and skulls. "I would be hesitant about using a single character from an isolated fossil to set against the evidence from Africa."[/QUOTE] Still some skepticism about whether this is correct or not.

given that the lay of the land looked a fuckton different back then I dunno how they can clearly define geographical boundaries from seven million years ago.

[QUOTE=1239the;52270416]given that the lay of the land looked a fuckton different back then I dunno how they can clearly define geographical boundaries from seven million years ago.[/QUOTE] Continental drift is a pretty well known thing. See: pangea

[QUOTE=1239the;52270416]given that the lay of the land looked a fuckton different back then I dunno how they can clearly define geographical boundaries from seven million years ago.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;52270421]Continental drift is a pretty well known thing. See: pangea[/QUOTE] [t]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5576/14882571621_73f961f11e_o.jpg[/t][t]https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/99/101699-004-2B01A79C.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52270414]Still some skepticism about whether this is correct or not.[/QUOTE] If it's correct, I will become the first denier to not buying it.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52270426][t]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5576/14882571621_73f961f11e_o.jpg[/t][t]https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/99/101699-004-2B01A79C.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] That's still 100 million versus 10

So how long until someone calls this study racist because it's taking away a notable historical achievement from Africa?

Yeah 10 million years ago there would be relatively little difference between how the Earth looks now vs. how it looks today, when it comes to placement of continents and their shapes.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52270448]That's still 100 million versus 10[/QUOTE] I couldn't find one for the 7-10mya range but I found this one which is 20mya: [url=http://www.earthgrind.com/earth-100-million-years-in-future/][img]https://i.imgur.com/ha98jBV.jpg[/img][/url]

meanwhile, in a universe where science reporting isn't sensationalist trash [url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132026-our-common-ancestor-with-chimps-may-be-from-europe-not-africa/[/url] [quote]Sergio Almécija, also at George Washington University, says it is important to bear in mind that primates seem particularly prone to evolving similar features independently. “Single characters are not reliable to make big evolutionary [claims].” Others are even more blunt. Tim White at the University of California, Berkeley, says the new research “tries to resurrect Begun’s tired argument with a long-known crappy fossil, newly scanned”. However, Begun rejects these criticisms. “The fact is that if this specimen had been found in Africa at this age there would be much less scepticism,” he says. Ultimately, however, the early human fossil record is so poorly known that it’s impossible to definitively dismiss the new claims, says Alba. “Of course, it is possible that hominins first evolved in Europe – however, evidence favouring this view is anecdotal at best,” he says. Likewise, Graecopithecus might be a hominin, he says, but that can only be confirmed if more fossils are found.[/quote] before everyone starts jumping to conclusions

There's still going to be a lot of scrutiny over these discoveries. I find it people getting up in arms over this sort of thing though, this is science. The point of science is to be able to accept new discoveries as they come. While I don't think by any means this is definitive conformation of the cradle of humanity in Europe I wouldn't be surprised if it is in fact just that.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52270464]Yeah 10 million years ago there would be relatively little difference between how the Earth looks now vs. how it looks today, when it comes to placement of continents and their shapes.[/QUOTE] For the most part yes, but climate was quite a bit warmer since the panama isthmus wasn't closed yet. Allowing warm waters move through. Also central europe and balkans were vastly different since pannonian basin was still a sea. I wonder if they came from africa there before or if they leave to africa after climate got colder.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52270448]That's still 100 million versus 10[/QUOTE] Continents more [I]very[/I] slowly, and that's without volcanoes and earthquakes thrown into the mix Earth 10 millions ago was pretty much an almost finalized sketch of today's Earth

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52270460]So how long until someone calls this study racist because it's taking away a notable historical achievement from Africa?[/QUOTE] Well, if they do then it doesn't really matter because this might not be all the evidence that's found to the birthplace of humanity. Someone can claim racism and science can still provide the evidence they're wrong or just lying and whatever historical achievement they just lost is still a good peice of the whole mystery behind humanity. It's a better idea than someone in the sky spawning us all imo.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52270478]I couldn't find one for the 7-10mya range but I found this one which is 20mya: [url=http://www.earthgrind.com/earth-100-million-years-in-future/][img]https://i.imgur.com/ha98jBV.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] guess I stand hella corrected. :v:

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52270460]So how long until someone calls this study racist because it's taking away a notable historical achievement from Africa?[/QUOTE] how long until white supremacists instantly latch on to this study as proof that white people are the OG humans without any consensus

Another thing to keep in mind is that several different hominids had coexisted throughout the entire history of early hominids up until the Neanderthal went extinct only 40,000 years ago These could just be another hominid that branched off of a common ancestor of ours, much like Neanderthal or Denisovans. [QUOTE]Go back 12 or more million years ago and Europe was an ape’s paradise. But, about 10 million years ago, environmental conditions deteriorated and the European apes began to disappear. Apes became largely confined to Africa, splitting there into gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.[/QUOTE] Even if one of our ancestors happened to inhabit Europe, this was only temporary and the later parts of our evolution occurred in Africa. Also considering how rare hominid fossils are to find, I doubt that much will be able to come of this any time soon.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52270526]There's still going to be a lot of scrutiny over these discoveries. I find it people getting up in arms over this sort of thing though, this is science. The point of science is to be able to accept new discoveries as they come. While I don't think by any means this is definitive conformation of the cradle of humanity in Europe I wouldn't be surprised if it is in fact just that.[/QUOTE] Science isn't just accepting whatever new theory gets thrown your way. It's weighing evidence, and if the evidence is not strong, and contradicted by much stronger evidence, the correct assumption is that the weaker evidence either plays a different part in the puzzle (in a case like this) or is just false (There was an article from april about even earlier human habitation in the Americas iirc, their evidence to say was lacking).

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;52270635]how long until white supremacists instantly latch on to this study as proof that white people are the OG humans without any consensus[/QUOTE] That possibility hadn't crossed my mind, but you're equally right. Sargon of Akkad just made a video about this. I haven't watched it, but it might answer that question.

[QUOTE=T553412;52270546]Continents more [I]very[/I] slowly, and that's without volcanoes and earthquakes thrown into the mix Earth 10 millions ago was pretty much an almost finalized sketch of today's Earth[/QUOTE] Exactly what i meant

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;52270656]Another thing to keep in mind is that several different hominids had coexisted throughout the entire history of early hominids up until the Neanderthal went extinct only 40,000 years ago These could just be another hominid that branched off of a common ancestor of ours, much like Neanderthal or Denisovans. Even if one of our ancestors happened to inhabit Europe, this was only temporary and the later parts of our evolution occurred in Africa.[/QUOTE] Considering this is dated back to 7.2 mya, it's likely this was a separate branch of hominid (if it is one) that left no living descendents and not a case of them returning to Africa. The genus Homo has been around less than 3 million years, while the estimated divergence of chimpanzees and humans is usually assumed to be between 7-to-14 million years ago. For a perspective on how far back this fossil is, full bipedalism did not evolve in humans until around 4 million years ago, nearly 3 million years after this. Likewise, the most well-known human-like ape genus, Australopithecus, did not evolve until no less than 2 million years after this fossil was found, and even despite being the closest genus to our's (Homo), it still looked very apelike. As pre-human non-chimp homininans are virtually exclusively found in Africa, it's far more plausible to assume that humans evolved in Africa. A major reason for the contestment is that most other Hominids are known exclusively in Africa, and that the only lineage that had a Eurasian distribution, Ponginae (which contains the Orangutans), is the subfamily most frequently considered when finding European hominid fossils and the one considered most plausible for Graecopithecus.

lmao what a stupidly sensationalist article. even if these findings come out to be true, mankind's lineage comes from [i]africa[/i] and there's a mountain of evidence behind this current understanding of our evolution. a single skeleton of something that that is most likely an unrelated species isn't going to upturn shit. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] isn't this the same one that was used to fuel white nationalism back in the day? hasn't this thing been discredited to death already?

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52271151]lmao what a stupidly sensationalist article. even if these findings come out to be true, mankind's lineage comes from [i]africa[/i] and there's a mountain of evidence behind this current understanding of our evolution. a single skeleton of something that that is most likely an unrelated species isn't going to upturn shit. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] isn't this the same one that was used to fuel white nationalism back in the day? hasn't this thing been discredited to death already?[/QUOTE] Calm your tits, the thread title might be sensationalist but the original article suggests Europe as a potential birth-place. And no, this is not fuel for white nationalists and neither has been "discredited". It's a recent find and you can find the original (peer-reviewed) research article in here. [url]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127[/url] In there it basically explains that the Graecopithecus is open to 4 phylogenetic positions, a "a stem-hominine (last common ancestor of African apes and Homo), a gorillin, a panin, or a hominin." the stem hominine and hominin being proposed as part of the Graecopithecus. And yes, a Hominin is related to our species.

This makes me wonder about the missing link of hominid that links homo sapiens to humans because Asia and Africa have different kinds of primates, but Europe does not despite all three being connected by land.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;52275810]This makes me wonder about the missing link of hominid that links homo sapiens to humans because Asia and Africa have different kinds of primates, but Europe does not despite all three being connected by land.[/QUOTE] Homo sapiens are humans. The genus Homo, is the human genus, while the species sapien is modern man, like you or I, as opposed early humans like homo erectus. It's also worth noting that the missing link is a minsnomer, and such a concept does not exist in modern anthropology, remaining a hold over from the false and diest inspired belief that we evolved from apes, rather than alongside them.

[QUOTE=cxcxxxxx;52276034]Homo sapiens are humans. The genus Homo, is the human genus, while the species sapien is modern man, like you or I, as opposed early humans like homo erectus. It's also worth noting that the missing link is a minsnomer, and such a concept does not exist in modern anthropology, remaining a hold over from the false and diest inspired belief that we evolved from apes, rather than alongside them.[/QUOTE] "If your elitist east-coast evolution is real, then why has no-one found the missing link between modern humans and ancient apes?" "We did find it! It's called Homo erectus!" "Then you have proven my case, sir! For no-one has found the missing link between apes and this Homo erectus!" "Yes they have! It's called Homo habilis!" "Aha! But no-one has found the missing link between ape and this so-called Homo habilis!" "Yes they have! It's called Australopithecus africanus!" "Ho-ho! I've got you now..."

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52271151]lmao what a stupidly sensationalist article. even if these findings come out to be true, mankind's lineage comes from [i]africa[/i] and there's a mountain of evidence behind this current understanding of our evolution. a single skeleton of something that that is most likely an unrelated species isn't going to upturn shit. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] isn't this the same one that was used to fuel white nationalism back in the day? hasn't this thing been discredited to death already?[/QUOTE] You're no better than them if you just discard it without looking further into it.

There's a ton of fossils found in Bulgaria, dating prior to the Roman empire and even further back, but this is indeed a big, big leap back.