Human skull is 7 million years old

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by William J. Cromie, Harvard News Office

Human skull is 7 million years old
Its owner walked upright

Who or what was Toumai? Those who found his skull in 2001 insist he is the oldest human ancestor, a small fellow who lived by an African lake some 7 million years ago. Doubters have maintained that the skull belongs to an ancient chimpanzee or a gorilla.

More recent findings, announced last week (April 7), include teeth and jaw fragments unearthed in Toumai's neighborhood. Together with a reconstruction of his cracked skull, they support the idea that he was more man than ape.

When the skull was first found, Daniel Lieberman, a professor of anthropology at Harvard, called it "one of the greatest discoveries of the past 100 years." After studying the new evidence, Lieberman stands by that statement. "The next oldest, reasonably complete humanlike skull we have is just over 3 million years old," he notes. "The Toumai fossils go back close to the time when anthropologists believe our ancestors separated from chimpanzees." ...

Neither Lieberman nor Pilbeam did any digging in Chad, but they and former Harvard postdoctoral fellow Franck Guy closely studied the old and new evidence. They were particularly intrigued with what they saw when they cooperated with Brunet's team and researchers at the University of Zurich to restore Toumai's beat-up skull with the help of sophisticated computer techniques. Details of the skull and its relation to his face reveal that Toumai's neck would have pointed downward when he walked or stood up. That's typical of humans, not of apes and other knuckle walkers....

More at Harvard News

Are we getting closer to the missing link?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Are we getting closer to the missing link?

Who or what was Toumai?
Shouldn't that be spelled Tormod.................Just havin a little fun Tormod.

[niviene]

This is so awesome. Unfortunately, when they showed it in the paper a few years back, a religious nut I used to work with dismissed it as a conspiracy since it's impossible that anybody existed that long ago... sigh.

Of course, I know some humans who are still knuckle walkers.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by niviene

Unfortunately, when they showed it in the paper a few years back, a religious nut I used to work with dismissed it as a conspiracy since it's impossible that anybody existed that long ago... sigh.

Unfortunately there are people that have their mind made up. They don't believe anything other than what they believe just might be possible. They're so close-minded you have to feel sorry for them.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Are we getting closer to the missing link?

This really is a pretty interesting discovery. I do suspect, unfortunately, that we will not find any real coherent "link" evidence. The fact that our fossil record has a 4 million year gap suggests that our ability to uncover enough information to fill in the spaces is pretty small. And I suspect that the anthropoligists will reinterpret the nuances of these bone fragments for decades (as we did with Lucy/australopithecus and homo habilis lines). If history is any guide, more ancient bone discoveries will yield more hominid branches. We will get more data, but more confusion.

And I have to admit that I take the inferences (like the ones in the article about posture) with a grain of salt. Still, it is a pretty intersting find.

[Fishteacher73]

There is VERY LITTLE concensus among anthropaleologists on what is what and how it fits in. Most everyone agrees that we are in a lineage from chimps. Aside from that about the only other agreeing factoes are that Homo erectus is the dividing line. Pre H. erectus is closer to chimp and post- H. erectus is closer to modern man. And that there were two imigrations of early man from Africa (although some dispute this idea too). There is huge amounts of tension in the taxonomy of these finds and whether they are dead end split-offs or stages moving toward modern man.

Many also consider Lucy a specimen from a dead end line based on hip morphology.

[Turtle]

___We are not in a lineage FROM chimps, rather we share an ancestral form that is described as 'lemur-like'.
___Having a skull this old with so large a brain case is very significant inasmuch as it demonstrates just how possibly old we are. That as opposed to using ancient texts, tools, fire pits, etc. to answer how old humans are. We really mean to know about humans like us in all this; how long have thinking humans like us been here?
___Having a human back 7 million years is enough to allow many, many, many types of civiizations to rise and fall and have their every trace rubbed out by geologic forces.

[Fishteacher73]

Tool usage is ambiguos at best, most are associations made by proximity only. by this method I read a quote that impled this method meant that most ancient tools were made by in fact antelopes..

The oldest (Oldwan are in the neighborhood of 2.5 million years old) and are very primitive. Essentially just rocks fashioned to sticks. The second wave (Acheulean are aprox 1.2 million years old) and these show shaping of the rock by the hominids.


This skull is way older than almost 3 times the oldest tool. Tools are maganitudes of times more common than ancient remains. I think it is a bit early to imply unknown civilizations.

Most lit. I have read indicates lineage through chimps, but as I stated earlier just about every aspect of human evolution is in debate...

[Fluffy]

I find this very interesting, too, and I have to agree with the hard-headedness of the religious fanatics. I don't know much about the lineage of the human race outside what I've learned in my science classes but I still find this interesting. How can people continue to ignore the data that is continuing to be collected that supports the theories of Darwin and other evolutionist?

[niviene]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I find this very interesting, too, and I have to agree with the hard-headedness of the religious fanatics. I don't know much about the lineage of the human race outside what I've learned in my science classes but I still find this interesting. How can people continue to ignore the data that is continuing to be collected that supports the theories of Darwin and other evolutionist?

I think that particular man's exact words when he saw me reading the paper was to point at it and declare, "That's a lie. They're in a conspiracy. Know how I know? The Earth didn't exist that long ago." This was the same person I overheard talking about keeping the extra money he got back in change a few times from the same cashier at some store... if he were a real religious person, that would be like stealing, in my opinion, and he'd be violating his own order... but, who am I to judge?

There are so many different types of people, and I don't understand how anyone can be closed minded to that there are other possibilities. There are infinite possibilities, of course, ranging in probabilities, but still possible. This particular man once informed me also that it is impossible that any other lifeforms exist in the universe, and I know others who refuse to believe it's possible. I'm not sure if it is out of fear of the unknown or just obstinance. Even if things did exist that far back, it doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity would be wrong, just that some modifications would have to be made, and if we've learned anything in our lives and history it should at least be that nothing is absolute and that we must be open to change.

My studies have shown one chronology which suggests that the first bipedal locomotion was at around 4 million years ago, even though other ape-like forms showed as far back as 33 million years ago. I like to think about what finding a skull such as this - nearly twice as far back as the earliest known hominids - will do to that chronolgy and anyone who stubbornly believes that there is no other alternative. I guess I'm excited when "solid" ideas are shook up by relatively concrete evidence!!