http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4759535.stm

The Rungwecebus kipunji sports a distinctive Mohawk stripe of hair, and is found in Tanzania, Africa.

The monkey, first described from photographs last year, was originally thought to be a new species but tests reveal it is even more special.
....
"Simply put, the genetics said that it was closely related to baboons, but the skull wasn't anything like a baboon. The conclusions we drew from the genetic and morphological data, meant that it had to be named as a new genus."

That's always nice to read. Not only was a new species of monkey discovered, it turns out that it is so different that it is a member of a new genus alltogether. And it was 83 years ago since this happened last time.

"The evolution of this unique monkey from a baboon and not a finely tuned lineage that was already "monkey" offers us a unique opportunity to understand the evolution of monkeys in Africa.

"And the most likely reason for baboon and not monkey ancestry is that the Southern Highlands were separated from the great primate communities of central Africa by Lakes Tanganyika and Rukwa."

Not all are so optimistic though. Professor grumpy says:

But Professor Colin Groves, a biological anthropologist from Australian National University, Canberra, was more cautious about the research.

"I'm not certain if this is a new genus. I'm unsure of the molecular analysis - when I look at the phylogenetic tree (a diagram of the evolutionary relationship of a groups of organisms) there are aspects of it are quite different those that other people have generated. I would like to see them explore their DNA tree much much more."

I hope they grant them the right to vote and go to college.

I hope they grant them the right to vote and go to college.
Wow, you’re so funny and witty! That’s what you want to hear, isn’t it? http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Why are you hiding behind cryptic posts? Why don’t you have the balls to say what you really want to say?

For any visitors to this forum, a quick note of explanation. ‘Firecross’ is a lowlife racist, most likely a sock puppet of ‘JB’. What he/she/it is alluding to is he/she/it’s opinion that blacks are no more evolved than monkeys and, thus, neither should be allowed to live with whites.

Isn’t that right, Grand Dragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) or Imperial Wizard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) or whatever your title is?

I hope they grant them the right to vote and go to college.

New order of worm detected.

I'm not a racist and I'm unfamiliar with 'JB'.

In my opinion blacks can do whatever they want and don't need approval from me or any poster in this forum.

LOL No sure what all this monkey business is about, some monkeys look like white people some look like black people. The white-headed capuchin monkey looks like a white human and the gorrilar looks like a black human. I personally prefer monkeys to any human, monkeys are cute and cuddly and they won't destoy hundeds of people and animals with a bomb.

A few days ago, in a Sao Paulo newspaper I have now discarded there was a photo of the monkey and a reproduction of a full color drawing made by a naturalist in Brazil at least 200 years ago. (In drawning the monkey, in side view, is on the ground on three legs with right front limb holding bunch of red berries just in front of his closed mouth. - It is obviously the same "blond monkey", which (in latin) is the name he gave to it. The article stated that it was named by him prior to the establishment of some standard nomenclature system that now exists, but that is all I remember.

I am sure that this "re-discovery" will soon be known by all interested in this.

Let's combine this thread with the other new species of monkey that was found in Africa: "Toumai" or "Sahelanthropus tchadensis." The original one in the this thread is called "Rungwecebus kipunji." It is suggested that hominids (people) may have been interbreeding with this lineage of monkeys for 4 million years till full speciation 5.4 mya. This is going to reek havoc with the creationists. http://www.livescience.com/humanbio...chad_bones.html

Let's combine this thread with the other new species of monkey that was found in Africa: "Toumai" or "Sahelanthropus tchadensis." The original one in the this thread is called "Rungwecebus kipunji." It is suggested that hominids (people) may have been interbreeding with this lineage of monkeys for 4 million years till full speciation 5.4 mya. This is going to reek havoc with the creationists. http://www.livescience.com/humanbio...chad_bones.html


Jesus fuck. Monkey? Monkey? Hominids interbreeding with monkeys? It's another hominid they are breeding with. Apes! It's not a monkey. They are filthy apes!


This is going to reek havoc with the creationists.

That stinks. I think the educational system wreaked havoc with you.

I thought you had a Ph.D.in biology? Why should this be objectionable to you? Are you disputing scientific evidence that this might be a fact? Shouldn't you be open-minded to such an occurrence if in fact it were true? Your reaction sounds like that of a creasionist? Spurious, Hello?

Jesus fuck. Monkey? Monkey? Hominids interbreeding with monkeys? It's another hominid they are breeding with. Apes! It's not a monkey. They are filthy apes!

Sounds like Chas Heston.

"Get your filthy paws off me! I'm Moses, for fuck's sake! You can have my rifle when you pry it out of my cold dead hands!"

(OK - I'm not really down with the NRA but that last was a pretty cool quote nonetheless. :D )

Geoff

I personally prefer monkeys to any human, monkeys are cute and cuddly and they won't destoy hundeds of people and animals with a bomb.

Says you. Give the little fuckers a bomb and see what happens.

In all seriousness, primates are primates. Basically all assholes.

Geoff

No species is "filthy." If you study the science of biology, then you must know this.

"Sahelanthropus tchadensis , a new fossil discovery is currently the oldest hominid fossil. S. tchadensis shows a mix of primitive and evolved characteristics not expected in such an old fossil." http://www.ecotao.com/holism/huevo/body_index.html

"Sahelanthropus tchadensis has a neck attachment to the skull from below, a feature of a bipedal animal, forcing a review of the origins of bipedalism. As no absolute date could be established, scientists had to use other fossils, such as pigs and elephants, found with the skull and that had been dated at other sites, to get an age estimate. This creature has a face similar to Homo habilis of 2 million years ago according to Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, a Harvard palaeontologist. The Lucy fossil of 3.2 million years ago is very chimp-like by comparison! This suggests that the australopithecines (now called australopiths) my turn out to be a side branch outside the human ancestral line. Its face is "tall" with a massive brow ridge, while the mid-face is short (in the superoinferior dimension), being less prognathic than either Pan or Australopithecus. The teeth of the new fossils are taxonomically distinctive enough to assign the fossils to a new species and genus. Its brain volume was chimp-like at 320 to 380 cc. The site where S. tchadensis was found (TM 266) had a rich aquatic fauna of fish, crocodiles and amphibious mammals, alongside gallery forest and savannah animals such as primates, rodents, elephants, equids and bovids. This and sedimentological evidence, suggests that S. tchadensis lived close to a lake, and a sandy desert. The fauna suggests a biochronological age between 6 and 7 million years. This fossil could be close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. The current evolutionary scenario emerging is that, the original fossils identified as Homo habilis were as mix of species. However, the specimens described were too variable to belong to a single species. Larger-brained specimens have been renamed as H. rudolfensis. Homo habilis is now considered to have evolved from the Australopithecines, but not to have evolved on to become Homo sapiens. It is even possible that tool use atributed to H. habilis, was really that of H. rudolfensis." http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_austral.htm#Sahelanthropus

"The discovery in Africa in 2002 of a good condition fossil skull now named Sahelanthropus tchadensis has upset many of the previously accepted concepts of the flow of evolutionary development. This is because the best archaeological dating we have of it place it as having lived between 7 and 10 million years ago. However it has morphological characteristics that are mixture of those we are used to seeing on both Australopithecines and Hominins. The well developed brow ridge for instance is similar to those found on Hominins living less than 2 million years ago." http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/human-evolve.html

""One of the most important things this skull tells us is how much we don't know. It suggests how diverse hominids might have been in Africa, and shows that lots of things were going on in Africa that we can't imagine. The braincase is chimp-like, but the face, teeth, and somewhat flattened head resemble those of humans. What's most astonishing is that the facial features are like those that we don't see until 1.8 million years ago in the genus Homo. It is more Homo than australopithecine (referring to the best-known group of hominids, which appeared in East Africa three to four million years ago and whose fossils have provided most of what we know about the earliest human ancestors)."

The researchers compared the ancient skull and related fossils with the fossils of many other known hominids and primates. Based on characteristics such as the tooth type and the thickness of the enamel, the shape and positioning of the head, and the facial features, the team concluded that the creature represented a new genus and species of hominid. They officially named it Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Its nickname is "Toumaë," a Goran-language word meaning "hope of life"; in the Djurab Desert, the name is given to babies born just before the dry season." The desert site in northern Chad where Sahelanthropus was found is 1,500 miles (2,500 kilometers) west of Africa's Rift Valley. The east side of the Rift Valley has long been regarded as the "cradle of humanity" because of the abundant hominid fossils recovered there. Stringer thinks much more interesting human fossil evidence is likely to turn up in West and Central Africa now that scientists know it's a good place to look. "This [discovery] makes us realize how limited a view we have of human evolution because until now we've concentrated on East Africa." The Rift Valley has long been associated with early human evolution because many scientists believe the opening of the rift millions of years ago—which left jungle on the west and savanna or grasslands to the east—was an important factor that helped shape adaptation. One widely held theory suggests that early human ancestors became bipedal—walking upright—when they moved out of forests and trees and into savannas. Presumed traits of the new hominid are somewhat at odds with that view. Brunet believes Sahelanthropus was bipedal at least part of the time. Yet his colleague Patrick Vignaud and other members of the research team have published a paper in the same issue of Nature indicating that the environment where the ancient skull was found consisted of lake, forest, river, and wooded savanna during the Upper Miocene. This suggests bipedalism may have developed apart from migration to savannas, the researchers say. The region where Sahelanthropus dwelled was teeming with other animals, according to Brunet and his colleagues. Since 1994, they have recovered tens of thousands of vertebrate fossils from the excavation site in northern Chad. The fossil remains represent 42 species that include elephants, giraffes, antelopes, hippopotamus, crocodiles, lizards, monkeys, fish, and wild boar.

Some observers have suggested, for example, that because of its small canine teeth, Sahelanthropus may be a female chimp. Brunet was in the field in Chad and unavailable for comment. In an interview with a newspaper reporter in Chad, however, he said: "This brow ridge is thicker than that of a male gorilla so the probability that it's a female is very low." "It is a hominid," he declared. Stringer said such questions in the world of paleontology are always complex because evidence is usually incomplete and there is little agreement about what key features characterize a distinct human ancestor. "Everyone has a favorite model of or take on what would identify early members of the human line—it's a matter of interpretation." Brunet and his colleagues argue that age and primitive anatomical features of Sahelanthropus suggest it may be closely linked to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, making it "a likely ancestor of all later hominids." Scientists believe that the two branches of primates—apes and humans—diverged five to eight million years ago and evolved along separate paths. Molecular and DNA analysis in the past decade has indicated that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, sharing as much as 98 percent of their genetic material. This means they shared a common ancestor somewhere along the way. According to Wood, "molecular clock" studies indicate that the hypothetical common ancestor of modern humans and chimpanzees probably lived between about five and seven million years ago. Brunet said of his new fossil discovery: "Here we are not far from the divergence between chimp and human. The next skull we have is four million years later, so we don't know what happened in between. But with this new guy and species, we have the beginnings of new knowledge. This is just the beginning of our knowledge of the human lineage." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull.html

Early Hominids and Their Immediate Ancestors:

SPECIES TIME RANGE (millions of years ago):
Sahelanthropus tchadensis 7 - 6 ?
Orrorin tugenensis 6.0
Ardipithecus ramidus 5.8 - 4.4
Early Hominids Gracile Species:
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 - 3.9
Australopithecus afarensis 4.0 - 2.9
Kenyanthropus platyops 3.5 - 3.2
Australopithecus bahrelghazalia 3.4 - 3.0
Australopithecus africanus 3.3 - 2.3
Australopithecus garhi 2.5
Robust Species:
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.5
Australopithecus robustus 2.0 ? - 1.5
Australopithecus boisei 2.0 - 1.2

Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/table_of_species.htm

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Sounds like Chas Heston.

"Get your filthy paws off me! I'm Moses, for fuck's sake! You can have my rifle when you pry it out of my cold dead hands!"

(OK - I'm not really down with the NRA but that last was a pretty cool quote nonetheless. :D )

Geoff

Yep, it was a reference to pop culture.

No species is "filthy." If you study the science of biology, then you must know this.

You are such an idiot. You didn't even get how dumb you were in your post. That's dumb. When people point out the dumbness and you don't even realize.

"Sahelanthropus tchadensis , a new fossil discovery is currently the oldest hominid fossil. S. tchadensis shows a mix of primitive and evolved characteristics not expected in such an old fossil." http://www.ecotao.com/holism/huevo/body_index.html

Yep. Filthy.

Geoff

Hello everyone. I am your host tonight Howie Mandel. Our show tonight is "Truth or Consequences." And my question to you is "Deal, or No Deal?"
http://www.palaeos.com/Evolution/ascentofman.jpg

What is the most "filthiest"? The chimp at the left. The ape in the center: "Sahelanthropus tchadensis." Or the person at the right? Deal or No Deal?

You said something stupid again. And can't admit it. It's always the same with you. Just shut up when that happens or admit you don't know much besides the shortcut keys to copy and paste.

But he is doing it much more expertedly and with more endurance than most spambots that I came across.

"Ancestral ape species split into two isolated populations about 10 million years ago, then got back together after a few thousand millennia. At that time the two groups, though somewhat genetically different, would have mated to form a third, hybrid population. That population could have interbred with one or both of its parent populations. Then, at some point after 6.3 million years ago, two distinct lines arose." Eric Lander, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html

Kipunji chimp not related to hominids: in a class of its own:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/11/newgenus.ap/index.html

Stop spamming.

Ahhhh! Origin of AIDS traced to Chimps! Those filthy chimps! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12966623/from/RS.5/
"from Friday's edition of the journal Science."

stop polluting threads. What's the point of quoting random articles in a science thread. It's fucking impolite and pointless.

Aahhh! Man bites dog... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4009567.stm

Sorry just to clear:-

Few may argue on that "humans had borned by chance in today's or near to today's form".

Can it be possible either by cross fertilization of two non-human previous species or otherwise?

I like spam. It's great to have, especially to take along when you're out camping or doing field research.

Current understandings may not yet become complete and absolute.

....or doing field research.
You do field research? Who for? As part of what program?

(I'm not expecting any answers as you have steadfastly refused to answer any such questions..... :rolleyes: )

Toumai Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 6-7 mya. The brain case is the size of chimpanzee (320-380 cc) but the face includes brow ridges which are human features. This suggests that chimpanzees branched off from hominids much earlier than thought. The authors of the findings (Brunet et al., see below) say that "it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal." Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body. Brunet considers Toumai to be a hominid and that it was bipedal.

In a statement issued by Nature, which reported the discovery in its July 11 issue, anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman of Harvard stated, "What's most astonishing is that the facial features are like those that we don't see until 1.8 million years ago in the genus Homo. It is more Homo than australopithecine." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull.html

"Toumai, a new genus and species of the hominid clade. Based on associated fossils, the six specimens found in Chad in Central Africa are believed to be beween six and seven million years old. Because of both primitive and advanced morphological features, the fossils suggest more diversity in the human lineage than previously thought - rendering the antiquated concept of the "missing link" to further invalidity. Sahelanthropus has many traits indicative of hominids, such as smaller canines, and thicker tooth enamel than apes, and the point at the back of skull where neck muscles attach suggests that Toumaï walked upright. Many of these advanced features are missing from later fossils such as Australopithecus, but reappear in still later species that are classified in the genus Homo. The age of the fossils suggests than human and chimpanzee lineages diverged earlier than indicated by most molecular studies."
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/UD%20desktop/UD_destop_postings/Paleobiology/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/images/nature00879-f1.2.jpgSource: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/fig_tab/nature00879_F1.html


Original Citation: "A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa." by Brunet et. al., Nature 418, 145 - 151 (11 July 2002); doi:10.1038/nature00879, online at: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/nature00879_fs.html

As the story of Toumai Sahelanthropus tchadensis check back on its new homepage for updates: http://www.sahelanthropus.com/

you know that humans are a species of primates right?.. But yea i do agree though apes are filthy to me. Not because they are apes but because they throw feces and never try to bathe or anything.