Interesting article. Doesn't conflict with theories of African origin for modern humans, but looks back beyond that to earlier primates.
An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors? - ScienceNOW
An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors? - ScienceNOW
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Ultimately, an Asian origin for human ancestors?
- Thread starter Steerpike
- Start date
Jabrosky
Banned
The oldest fossils of primate-like mammals (e.g. Purgatorius) have been found in North America, so this finding doesn't surprise me at all. Primates would obviously have to travel through Eurasia in order to get to Africa from North America.
What I must take issue with is the article's misleading title. Most people equate "human ancestor" specifically with "hominin" (e.g Sahelanthropus, Australopithecus, the various Homo species, etc.), so while this Afrasia may indeed attest to an Asian origin for anthropoids as a whole, it would be more accurate to call such basal anthropoids "ancestors of all monkeys and apes".
What I must take issue with is the article's misleading title. Most people equate "human ancestor" specifically with "hominin" (e.g Sahelanthropus, Australopithecus, the various Homo species, etc.), so while this Afrasia may indeed attest to an Asian origin for anthropoids as a whole, it would be more accurate to call such basal anthropoids "ancestors of all monkeys and apes".
- Thread starter
- #3
Yeah, I think the headline is a bit misleading - probably a ploy to get people to click on it. When I first saw it, I thought they were talking about hominids, and I thought "that doesn't fit with what I know," and I clicked on it to see what they were talking about. The article still interests me, but I could do without the sensational headline.
Jabrosky
Banned
The meaning of "hominid" has changed in the last few decades. Originally it was used to refer specifically to humans and their ancestors after the human/chimpanzee divergence 6-7 mya, but now the family Hominidae has expanded to additionally include the Great Apes (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos). The reason for the change was monophyly; since chimps and bonobos are genetically more closely related to humans than to gorillas or orangutans, the Great Apes could not all be sorted into their own "Pongidae" family without dragging humans along with them.
This cladogram should be helpful in showing current thinking about hominid classification:
Nowadays we use "hominin" to address humans and their ancestors after the human/chimp split (e.g. Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, etc.).
Sorry if this sounds pedantic.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #5
Makes sense.
It has been about 15 years since I was involved in any research on human origins/relationships, and even then everything I did was at the genetic level. It looks like the findings in this particular study would give an ancestor to hominids, but wouldn't change the out-of-Africa theory for modern humans.
It has been about 15 years since I was involved in any research on human origins/relationships, and even then everything I did was at the genetic level. It looks like the findings in this particular study would give an ancestor to hominids, but wouldn't change the out-of-Africa theory for modern humans.