Goldenages Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Interesting: Europe Birthplace of Mankind not Africa Scientists find Quote ... 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. ... regards Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kikker Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 That title is incredibly misleading, the creature discovered was in fact what we consider an ape. It still walked on four feet and has, presuming it's in fact our ancestor, multiple ape and humanoid branches in the more recent past. The most important thing is that our species (homo sapiens) originated form Africa 7 millions years later (200.000 years ago). Which makes Africa still the "birthplace" of mankind, unchanged by these findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldenages Posted January 9, 2018 Author Share Posted January 9, 2018 Shure Let alone to define what can be seen as human after so many years. However, as far as I know all findings concerning human family tree were made in Africa, and it was safe knowledge that Africa was the only playground for human evolution. regards Andi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spladam Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 In that case, I guess everyone belongs in Europe... Anyway, this is misleading. Gaecopithicus Fraebergi was a completely different genus to us. If this ape was in fact our direct ancestor, then we are still roughly 3 genus' away from them. Graecopythicus > Selanthropus > Ororin > Adrpithicus > Australopithicus > Homo. That would be our lineage from us to them, unless the Kenyanthropus and Paranthropus genus' are also part of our direct ancestory (which is still debatable). Point is, they were not human. The human genus is Homo. The human sub-family is Homininae and includes the human specie and species of chimpanzees. If this Graecopithicus is the birther of humanity, it would either have to be the ape which 'split' into humans and chimps, or the first homo. Neither of these options are true and no other reasoning has been put forward. "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." (from the article). Also, the study does not claim that we come from Europe. If you read the actual study (hyperlinked below), it acknowledges that there are still other possible candidates for the position of 'birther of humanity'. There were many possible candidates from all across the middle east, the south east corners of Europe, and all throughout Africa. This Graecopithicus fossil was discoverd in 2 places (Greece and Bulgaria) and put together to make a single fossil. The danger of putting two very unsubstantial bits of fossil together is that they may not be from the same species, especially if they are separated by hundreds of kilometers rather than found at the same site. If it was at the same site then understandable, but still dangerous as animals (especially apes) can fight each other to the death and both be leave their fossil behind at the scene. "Graecopithecus is known from a single mandible from Pyrgos Vassilissis Amalia (Athens, Greece) [38] and possibly from an isolated upper fourth premolar (P4) from Azmaka in Bulgaria." (From Study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127) Key-phrases: "single mandible" and "possibly from an isolated upper fourth molar". The specie is barely even classified, yet the article claims that "Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find" Moral of the story is: you can't trust the media to tell you the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 You are all wrong, cellular precursors were created near volcanic activity, so the real origin of man is in the Pacific Rim where we emerged from under the water to conquer the planet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Jsbrads said: You are all wrong, cellular precursors were created near volcanic activity, so the real origin of man is in the Pacific Rim where we emerged from under the water to conquer the planet. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyattstorch Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Jsbrads said: You are all wrong, cellular precursors were created near volcanic activity, so the real origin of man is in the Pacific Rim where we emerged from under the water to conquer the planet. "Cellular precursor lives matter..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts