• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Earliest Human Fossil?

Not sure why you're skeptical. Seems at least plausible. I thought humans and chimpanzees were supposed to have diverged 5 million years ago. I guess they've moved that back a bit.
 
That aspect of the work, led by Christoph P.E. Zollikofer and Marcia S. Ponce de Leon of the University of Zurich-Irchel in Switzerland, started with a CAT scan of the skull, which had become deformed during its 7 million-year-old interment. It looks as though it had been squeezed centrally from both ears, with the right side of the cranium shifting upward and the left pushed downward. "The thing was sort of squashed and unlike anything that had been seen before, so you could only say so much about it," Fleagle said.

With a detailed three-dimensional X-ray image in hand from the CAT scan, the team was able to move the pieces around -- on a computer monitor -- until they lined up and fit together in what appears to have been their original form. That image reveals a skull wider than initially anticipated, with round eye sockets that look more human than ape. The relatively vertical face and other cranial and dental features "support the conclusion that Sahelanthropus is a hominid," the team concluded.

In addition to fitting all the pieces together, the researchers did an experiment: They tried to get the virtual pieces to fit into the general outline of a hominid skull, and also tried to get them to fit into an outline of a 3-D ape skull.

In the first case, the pieces fit together almost perfectly. In the second, there were overlaps and gaps -- evidence that the reconstruction was correct.

"The digital restoration is excellent," said anthropologist Tim D. White of the University of California. "The original interpretation [that Toumai was a hominid] is probably correct."

Hmm, statements like these start alarm bells ringing for me, but I was honestly interested to know if anyone here had any thoughts on the matter. Obviously not. :)
 
asthmatic camel said:
Hmm, statements like these start alarm bells ringing for me, but I was honestly interested to know if anyone here had any thoughts on the matter. Obviously not. :)

I agree. Fitting the reconstruction to the different skulls just screams subjectivity and room for wishful thinking. I'd like to see those "fits" myself, since I don't really have any vested interest in the matter :)

Are there any paleontologists out there? Didn't they just extract soft tissue from a dinosaur bone? Could we do the same sort of thing here? I apologize in advance if that's a seriously ignorant question. Bones aren't my thing, you know?
 
Bones are certainly not my thing either. For some reason, words like "results", "continued" and "funding" sprang to mind when I read the article. :)
 
Walter Wayne said:
No, the contention here is obviously about whether the skull is homonid, not it's age.

I don't care about people's sexuality....

:p ;)
 
I read about this find not long ago and the estimate was between 5 and 7 million, and there was alot of uncertainty about whether it was a human ancestor, which certainly seemed like a more objective article than this one.

Given the many branches that there no doubt have been, I think the probability that this is a human ancestor is quite small. But a fascinating find nonetheless.
 

Back
Top Bottom