Our first ancestor does not come from Sub Sahara

"The savanna area of Europe provided an area of retreat for the pre-humans, but it was not where they originated," said Böhme. (from Timojin's link)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where/when remain unknowns.
and, I'm ok with that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if related species were so wide spread that early in the evolutionary chain, it would also be in conflict with the notion of a single "common ancestor", who I am sure could not have produced offspring in places 4000 miles apart. Instead it would suggest several common ancestors in different places, far apart from each other and possibly at different times.

It would be interesting to find out if that new find already had 23 pairs of chromosomes (homo sapiens) instead of 24 (all other hominids). That would be a definitive tell-tale sign.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Knowing the proclivity for hominoid males to have sex with anything that looks female and looks somewhat like a hominoid, it is quite plausible that there was extensive exchange of DNA with Homo evolving in Africa/Eurasia throughout.

As to the fossils, if there is any chromosomal material left, I would find that amazing (but not impossible, depending on the fossilization mechanism in play).

 

Yes, indeed, in view of the fact that at that evolutionary stage both species would still look very much alike.

Aah, this why we are told when a fossil still contains DNA. Not all fossils do, there's the rub.

 

So, now all I learned about Australopithecus and Pithecanthropus Robustus and Olduvai Gorge and Louis B. Leakey are relegated to the dust bin. My utter miseducation is almost complete.

Is it too late to ask for a refund?

 

Noooo ..... it's much too early for that. After all we are trying to look back millions of years, from fragments of once living things. It's a wonder and good great fortune when we find any fossils with viable DNA at all.

But someday we'll find a pattern in these fragments that that can be genetically traced to wherever it leads.

We know about Africa, but could there have been other places where precursors lived. The precursor family may have spread to several places, and developed hominoids and later hominid species (variations) independently.
If it is a matter of intelligence, there are many intelligent species, which developed independently, why not independent offspring from a widely distributed precursor?

 

I know there was no Ark of the Noah flavour

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When we finally find the "precursor" of all homonids, it is likely to have these characteristics:

1) Older than anything else we ever found
2) Fewer and sparser samples than any other precursor we have ever found, because of 1)
3) Not widespread, or "widely distributed".

In addition to this, DNA in bone marrow has been found to have a "half life" of about 521 years, so for every muliple of that, less and less base pair sequences will remain intact sufficiently to read any genetic information.

Humans have two fewer pairs of chromosomes than primates (46 instead of 48) because some of an anomaly having to do with chromosome #2. When we have found the missing primate link, this will be the key. It is not known whether Lucy or Homo Erectus had 23 or 24 pairs, mainly because of the DNA half life already mentioned meant that not enough uncorrupted, undecayed DNA remained in the fossil record in order to make this determination.

Quebec currently holds the record for evidence of the oldest life form on the planet at 4.5 billion years.

 

@ Michael,
I just really noticed your signature.
"Curiosity did not kill the cat
It made the cat a scientist"

The scientist's curiosity killed the cat when he opened the box.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you're referring to Schroeder's cat

It was only hiding in the box because it didn't want to take a bath

It wasn't even in the box when it was opened

Which lead to Schroeder wondering if it was MIA dead and blah blah blah to the outstanding stupid revelation

we don't know anything until we investigate and find out

Whoopee

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1) Yes
2) Possibly because they are too old to have survived in a fossil state.
3) We do find monkeys and apes over very widespread areas. from Africa to Asia.
Moreover, at that time the continents may not have drifted apart yet allowing easy
migration. The Gibraltar monkey is an example. A similar example can be found in Japan

I found this very interesting and seems to support widely distributed varieties of the primate evolutionary branch.
http://chestofbooks.com/crafts/scie...f-Monkeys-And-The-Countries-They-Inhabit.html

 

http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/monkeycomparisons.html

This was also taught in Anthropology 101 (Old World vs. New World monkeys).

 

Schroedinger.

 

Different person

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Different cat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Different box

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Different result

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bad spell checker + my active dyslexia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dylsexier?

 

No no no

D i s eh wait a minute

D e s

44444get it

Now you made me stretched and stttuer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can you contribute anything beside hog washing ?