Origin of homo sapiens may be pushed back to 400,000 yrs ago

CIS · #1 by **CIS** » Dec 29, 2010 2:21 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_ ... ient_teeth

JERUSALEM — Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

johnbrandt · #2 by **johnbrandt** » Dec 29, 2010 2:52 am

I like the way they have been reporting that it "may call into question human originas", and "asks questions about the theory of evolution", and things like that. :nono:

No it doesn't...it merely means the theories will have to be adjusted to suit the new evidence...it doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong. However, that seems to be the slant I am seeing put on it in various media releases. Of course there will be people who will point and shout that this means the whole idea of evolution is false...I give them a week at most to start saying it. :nono:

Dracena · #3 by **Dracena** » Dec 29, 2010 3:15 am

I read this on a Swedish news site yesterday where it clarified that the teeth might aswell be Neanderthal.
Israel isn't really that far from Africa, had they been sure that the teeth are from homo sapien and were found in
South America, I might raise an eyebrow.

Jörmungandr · #4 by **Jörmungandr** » Dec 29, 2010 5:00 am

That's a lot more than 6000 years old.

Mishakal · #5 by **Mishakal** » Dec 29, 2010 7:29 am

I'm sure the creationists are enjoying this, even though the time frame stille wont allow for the naked chick, the talking snake, and the dude with a leaf on his junk.

tnjrp · #6 by **tnjrp** » Dec 29, 2010 7:33 am

They tend to like anything that "upsets" theories of the origin of humans, regardless of if the finding actually bolsters their own case or not. It's all proof that "evolution is a theory in crisis", after all
:coffee:

Anyway, it's certainly interesting news if it does pan out. Not all of this stuff does.

rEvolutionist · #7 by **rEvolutionist** » Dec 29, 2010 8:07 am

CIS wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_teeth

JERUSALEM — Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

A cave in Israel, you say? It's just Jeebus. God made his bones look older to confuse the scientific community.

Daan · #8 by **Daan** » Dec 29, 2010 10:23 am

I don't know what creationism has to do with this. It's probably an exageration, given the article. But, if it isn't, than it is another example in which new evidence can change scientific knowledge.

johnbrandt · #9 by **johnbrandt** » Dec 29, 2010 11:02 am

That's what annoys creationists the most sometimes. Scientists are quite happy...positively eager even...to have long-held and cherished theories overturned by the discovery of new evidence. Creationists do not understand this as thier world view is absolute, unchangeable, and absolutely flawless and immune to outside evidence. Scientific theory works by moving forward all the time and if new evidence turns up, you happily embrace it as a chance to either prove old theories correct by finding the evidence is wrong, or finding the evidence is correct, which means it opens up a whole new area of study!

tnjrp · **#10** by **tnjrp** » Dec 29, 2010 11:09 am

Daan wrote:I don't know what creationism has to do with this

One assumes they'd find the "modern human is from Israel" concept appealing, since they can then easily add the ubiquitous "therefore God".

Anyway, can't say about creationists specifically yet but the out-of-anywhere-but-Africa crowd are apparently getting fairly jubilant about this find already...
:coffee:

pilot · **#11** by **pilot** » Dec 29, 2010 11:37 am

If it turns out to be confirmed all it does is move the time and place marker for a particular evolutionary development.

Spearthrower · **#12** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 29, 2010 12:33 pm

From the article:

Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, said the study is reputable, and the find is "important" because remains from that critical time period are scarce, but it is premature to say the remains are human.

"Based on the evidence they've cited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.

I'd like to know where they've published, because I can't find it!

tnjrp · **#13** by **tnjrp** » Dec 29, 2010 12:47 pm

Should be this, one assumes (doesn't look like it's freely available tho :pissed:

):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 21446/full

Don't have time to trawl further myself, but there might be more @ Qesem website?
http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeo ... index.html

katja z · **#14** by **katja z** » Dec 29, 2010 1:59 pm

tnjrp wrote:Should be this, one assumes (doesn't look like it's freely available tho ):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 21446/full

That's what I found as well.

the abstract wrote:
This study presents a description and comparative analysis of Middle Pleistocene permanent and deciduous teeth from the site of Qesem Cave (Israel). All of the human fossils are assigned to the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex (AYCC) of the late Lower Paleolithic. The Middle Pleistocene age of the Qesem teeth (400–200 ka) places them chronologically earlier than the bulk of fossil hominin specimens previously known from southwest Asia. Three permanent mandibular teeth (C1-P4) were found in close proximity in the lower part of the stratigraphic sequence. The small metric dimensions of the crowns indicate a considerable degree of dental reduction although the roots are long and robust. In contrast, three isolated permanent maxillary teeth (I2, C1, and M3) and two isolated deciduous teeth that were found within the upper part of the sequence are much larger and show some plesiomorphous traits similar to those of the Skhul/Qafzeh specimens. Although none of the Qesem teeth shows a suite of Neanderthal characters, a few traits may suggest some affinities with members of the Neanderthal evolutionary lineage. However, the balance of the evidence suggests a closer similarity with the Skhul/Qafzeh dental material, although many of these resemblances likely represent plesiomorphous features.

Spearthrower · **#15** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 29, 2010 2:04 pm

tnjrp wrote:Should be this, one assumes (doesn't look like it's freely available tho ):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 21446/full

Don't have time to trawl further myself, but there might be more @ Qesem website?
http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeo ... index.html

Ta!

Yes, it looks like they've found something with traits neither neanderthal or modern human, but with some aspects similar to both. There's a pattern forming with recent findings, it looks like a pretty much near constant wave of out of Africa human ancestors bringing new traits into existing populations. It's going to be messy but fun wading through all this new data arising.

physalis17 · **#16** by **physalis17** » Dec 29, 2010 2:33 pm

I found this very fascinating. I find it funny that the fundies are bitching about the age of the fossil.

The new discovery of pre-historic human remains by Israeli university explorers in a cave near Ben-Gurion airport could force scientists to re-think earlier theories. Early humans: Middle Awash Aramis, Ethiopia, where the first 'modern' human beings were thought to have been discovered

Archeologists from Tel Aviv University say eight human-like teeth found in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin - 10 miles from Israel’s international airport - are 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, making them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.

The size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man. Until now, the earliest examples found were in Africa, dating back only 200,000 years.

Other scientists have argued that human beings originated in Africa before moving to other regions 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens discovered in Middle Awash, Ethiopia, from 160,000 years ago were believed to be the oldest 'modern' human beings.

Other remains previously found in Israeli caves are thought to have been more recent and 80,000 to 100,000 years old.

The Daily Mail

So here are my thoughts on two things and I'd like some input and corrections from the Biologists on here. My thinking is that either modern humans are older than we think and still migrated from Africa to other parts of the world like the Middle East or maybe humanity has multiple common ancestors that they evolved from at different locations in time to the type of human that we have found which could support older findings in Spain, Israel and China.

ie: A common ancestor for Denisovans, a common ancestor for Neanderthal, etc. I am leaning towards humanity just being older than we think they are and still having the common ancestor come out of Africa.

Spearthrower · **#17** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 29, 2010 3:04 pm

Well, first of all these findings are not yet established. There have already been queries about the dating, and the validity of their conclusions. More importantly than that, the teeth also show neanderthal traits as well as archaic human ones.

However, there's nothing here that necessarily indicates that a multi-regional hypothesis is suddenly more favoured. The past 5 or 6 years has provided a wealth of new finds that, while challenging some of the specifics of early human evolution, is generally painting a more complete picture. It is definitely messy, but the data coming in suggests a continual radiation from Africa, and a continual interbreeding.

The problem seems to lie more in the need for discrete categorisations - it's either A or B, whereas reality wouldn't ever be so clear cut. That's why these findings over the last half decade are so important - they're improving on the simplistic models we held before the data started filling out the gaps.

Tyrannical · **#18** by **Tyrannical** » Jan 04, 2011 1:19 pm

I'd like to see more than just teeth. Morphologically, teeth can have an overlapping variance of characteristics that make it more difficult to strictly classify.

rainbow · **#19** by **rainbow** » Jan 04, 2011 1:31 pm

pilot wrote:If it turns out to be confirmed all it does is move the time and place marker for a particular evolutionary development.

...or more likely it could turn out to be an evolutionary dead end.

FRAP38 · **#20** by **FRAP38** » Jan 08, 2011 6:48 am

Really thought there would be more buzz on this topic . . . o well. If you want the full art it is here

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeo ... PA2010.pdf