An Asian Origin For Human Ancestors? 125
InfiniteZero writes "Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."
Re: (Score:3)
We were probably trapped on some remote island ...
We are trapped inside this gravity well
Re:I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.
Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".
Once we'd diverged, the talking apes found they were better off in the savanna and beaches than the forest (where speed is more important than strategy).
Re: (Score:2)
yelling "run" seems to be to swift and simple enough
Re: (Score:2)
Not in a social setting. The hero who saves all the young females by yelling run/danger/leopard becomes the center of attention and gets all kinds of benefits. Extra grooming, food treats, more sex and offspring.
Pretty good deal if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3)
Not in a social setting. The hero who saves all the young females by yelling run/danger/leopard becomes the center of attention and gets all kinds of benefits. Extra grooming, food treats, more sex and offspring.
Pretty good deal if you ask me.
The guy who gets sex is the big guy who beats on his women. Just like in ye olde cave days.
Nice guys finish last, white knights get friend zoned, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
So nothings changed then. In my HS the guys with all the girls paying attention to them were the biggest and stupidest assholes :P
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, something major changed - most modern women would rather have a man all to themselves than be part of the harem of the biggest, baddest guy on the block, and that's rather uncommon among primates. Most recent theory I've heard is that at some point underdog males hit upon the idea of picking a single/few female(s) to pamper, and the idea caught on well enough to reshape the species
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.
And better haircuts. Don't forget that!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".
Or we're descended from the few who understood when one of the walking, talking apes came back into the forest and said, "DUDE! There's a whole f***ing WORLD out there!"
Re: (Score:2)
You left out that we have huge peckers [softpedia.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.
Actually, I think that idea has pretty much been discredited with the discovery of "Ardi", the oldest direct human ancestor ever found, that was actually more like a human than a chimp. If anything, chimps evolved MORE from that common ancestor than humans did, despite the similarity in the genome.
Re: (Score:1)
Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.
And, believe it or not *enormously* better impulse control
Re: (Score:2)
Neoteny accounts for a lot of the differences between chimps and humans.
In a sense that's not even divergent evolution, as humans are just discarding the specializations that chimps develop as they mature, rather than replacing them with a different set of specializations.
Skull question: Which two of these skulls are the most similar?
Re: (Score:2)
Many thanks for the new knowledge that I've gained from your tremendously useful comment !!
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense that's not even divergent evolution, as humans are just discarding the specializations that chimps develop as they mature, rather than replacing them with a different set of specializations.
Nah, it's just that humans don't live long enough. [wikipedia.org] :-)
Re: (Score:2)
proto-human talking chimps
So, you're saying that Lancelot Link was THE MAN!... quite a while before there were men....
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (Score:5, Informative)
as we all came from a single cell organism.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
...and further back than that: we came from a single incredibly dense point of matter.
.... and if we go further back than that: all these came from literally nothing
Re: (Score:1)
Its turtles all the way down!
Re: (Score:1)
No, if we try to go further back we fail. We do not currently have enough information to do more than suggest what happened before the "big bang" it is not like there is much left of "before" (if time even works such that that word means something in this context) that event. Current thinking is that there may have been something, but what is anyone guess.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how can an event (creation) occur if there were no time in which it could occur? That's a realllllyyyyyy bizarre thought. There was forever of no-time and then an event happened where time was created and stuff could happen?
No, there was a time, or not-time, or however it may be described, that we can't describe in any meaningful manner because it was not part of this universe. Whatever is in the metaverse, or whatever we use to describe what is "outside" cannot be described by the rules of this univers
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, this does not mean that our universe is a simulation or works like that. This is just to show how it can be possible for something to occur even if there's no time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, since we're tracing the origin of our species anyway, why not simply say our ancestors came from the sea? You can't get any further back than that, unless you think that life migrated from outer space [wikipedia.org].
Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.
Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
Re: (Score:1)
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
How much censorship are you rooting for ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The headline makes no suggestion of multiregional origin. You misinterpreted it; any shame should be on you for that error.
The out-of-Africa hypothesis implies that our ancestry – back as far as we can meaningfully trace it – was entirely in Africa (back as far as that designation is also meaningful). If it turns out that our primate ancestors instead evolved elsewhere, and relocated there, that is relevant to the question of human origins, because.... it's a part of that origin.
Oh, and GTFU.
Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (Score:4, Interesting)
If it turns out that our primate ancestors instead evolved elsewhere, and relocated there, that is relevant to the question of human origins, because.... it's a part of that origin.
No, you said it yourself: "as far back as we can meaningfully trace". It seems that there is some ambiguity with some of the early hominin ancestors, but basically, humans and their immediate predecessors originate from Africa. This is what happens when computer geeks think they're fully qualified to talk about paleo-anthropology or other messy science things that don't involve mathematical proofs.
Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
And which is based on four teeth from an animal the size of a chipmunk. I love it when they say they have discovered a new species of human, with reconstructions etc, when all they have is a jawbone, a piece of skull, or a few teeth. The fossil record of early humans is breathtakingly scanty in my view, and an lot of awfully long bows seem to be drawn from the available evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I just love it when some fucktard makes an objection like this without considering a very old and active field called... wait for it... comparative anatomy. You know, that field of research where you can take partial remains, sometimes very minimal remains, and reconstruct the organism from them. Not just paleontologists and taxonomists use it either. It's used in criminal forensics as well. But you're right, some anonymous idiot on /. must know more than the scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'd have to agree with the GP, when talking about human ancestors the obvious cuttoff point is when they started becoming human, as opposed to any other species out there. Prior to that it would be hominid ancestors, ape ancestors, primate ancestors, mammalian ancestors etc. At the very least pre-human ancestors. After all we can fairly reliably track our ancestry back to the pre-dinosaur proto-mammals and beyond, calling those human ancestors, while technically true, would be disingenuous and most l
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just a part of the origin - it may help give further insights about the origin. And for that reason, it's extremely interesting. If anthropoids evolved in (or migrated to) Asia, but humans did not evolve there, what does that mean? That's my point, but if it's not clear, the rest of this will just elaborate.
It could be that the climate, or geography, or some other factor, was a trigger for adaptation. I'm certainly not a geographer, so take this with a grain of salt. Asia, for me, tends to evo
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate to reply to myself, so please no need to moderate this, but I forgot to paste this part of the article (for those unaware, Slashdot stories are largely, but frequently inaccurately, based on something posted on another site, which you can read for more information before commenting off-topic or redundant statements, or already-answered questions).
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.
Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
As usual, press articles reflect shallow (or completely missing) understanding of scientific concepts. A better way to describe it would be to say, "Possible Asian Origin for Primates" and go on to describe the Asian animals as "possibly the most recent common ancestors of all primates."
Re: (Score:2)
You're not thinking like an editor. Bullshit headlines generate clicks. Huzzah Slashdot! Huzzah authors!
Re: (Score:2)
This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.
Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.
You do have to agree though, that the multi-regional hypothesis does solve the one truly glaring issue with the whole "out of Africa meme".... people from New Jersey.
halfway to the dinosaurs (Score:1)
37 million years ago is a looooong time ago. More than halfway along the time dimension to the age of the dinosaurs. I'm surprised primates arose that quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: I'm surprised [simians] arose that quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The feces-throwing came first - after all we all know the primordial slime evolved from politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't know - proto-mammals arose before the dinosaurs, and mammals arose somewhere in late Triassic or early Jurassic, depending on how exactly you define the term (a matter of some debate). Lots of time to accumulate genetic potential before the -saurs were wiped out and the mammalian explosion began. It's not like a primate is any more biologically sophisticated than a horse or squirrel.
island or continent? (Score:1)
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:3)
Australia reporting in here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, that sounds less scientific than the Germano-Norse idea than the world was built from Ymir's body, which was licked from the ice by a big cow. A "retard fish crawled out and had butt sex with a squirrel or something" -- ok, from where did the squirrel come, and since when did "butt sex" work for reproduction? Just because the fish step seems the same does not make the AC a master of paleontology or evolutionary history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have skipped over a rat
They say the first mammal supposed to be a rat
They said it, not me.
I swear, I wasn't there !!
Re: (Score:3)
So it is true that lawyers predate humans. I thought that was just a myth...
It's Burma not Myanmar (Score:3, Insightful)
Please at least use the correct name for the country. It happened 37Ma ago, the junta went rampant only in 1962. We don't use renamed months when talking about Rome by Commodus or Turkmenistan by Niyazov.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm ...
You mean, some 37 Million Years ago, someone already christened that place with the name of "Burma" ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What's the problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
If it wasn't for "The West" it would be neither Burma nor Myanmar, it would be part of "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
(and written in Japanese)
The Burmese people can call their country what they want (actually they can't right now since the military is in charge (what does Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers want to call the place?)
Different languages have different names for countries - according to the French, the country in which I now reside is called Les Etats Unis, but we don't use that nam
Re: (Score:1)
Is that you Mr Peterman?
Monkey Magic viewers (Score:1, Informative)
have known this for decades [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We Are All...? (Score:1)
Wait, so instead of the slogan "We are all Africans", we might have to change it to "We are all Asian-Africans"?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so instead of the slogan "We are all Africans", we might have to change it to "We are all Asian-Africans"?
Inb4 someone came in and add " ... no wonder we are all so fuck-up !!! "
An Argument for creationists. (Score:1)
This would mean (Score:1)
Buckminster Fuller was right all along
What made us 'human' (Score:1)
Parallel evolution, again? (Score:2)
Weren't there theories in the early 20th century that humans had evolved from different primates in different places roughly simultaneously (at that time, used as a justification for a sort of patronizing racism - that of course the nonwhite peoples were 'not as evolved' as whites)?
Trying not to resurrect that theory's rationale, but would the article's line of reasoning perhaps suggest that humans MAY in fact have evolved in at least 2 places?
Racism's bad enough today. What would be the result if we figur
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the article is saying that humans emerged in Asia and Africa and then intermingled. It's that some primates emerged in Asia. A group of these primates migrated to Africa where some of their descendants evolved into humans who spread across the globe. So while our ancestors came from Africa, they came from Asia before that. (Not really surprising, given the millions of years time-span, that multiple migrations like this would have occurred.)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's just me, but I seem to keep hearing absolute conclusions in ancient anthropology from what amounts to 2 points of facts, and 98 points of sheer speculation.
For example, the 'neanderthals did/didn't interbreed with humans' discussion. Some say absolutely not, never, no way. Some say absolutely yes, all the time.
Now this. Considering the snapshots we have of ancient human activity are such a tiny slice of huge spans of time, is it impossible/inconceivable that parallel evolution DID occur and
Found buried in the swams of Burma (Score:1)
so how about two different places of origin (Score:1)
i find similarities in the sound of language where i'm from and japanese but none in any of the african sounds, its far fetched ofcourse, and it might indeed lead to master race theories but still, why couldnt it have been like that? All these duds with their huge theories dont have actual proof, just a little evidence and a lot of deduction
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jethro, get offuh Slashdot! Gonna be late for the Klan meetun!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
In the case of Neanderthals, it is very possible that there was enough genetic similarity that cross breeding could happen even though technically they were different species.
Other examples of this can be found with other mammals such as Horses and Donkeys reproducing to produce Mules as well as Tigers and Lions producing Ligons and Tiglons [wikipedia.org]. While such unions typically produce infertile offspring when they are of the same genus but different species (like Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis), such infer
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek script writers did a whole bunch of handwaving and even made up a bunch of BS to try and explain how that worked.
That was one thing that always annoyed me about Star Trek. It's bad enough that anyone would think that an alien species would look anything like us (which was the point of a short SF story I wrote [slashdot.org]) but to think species from completely different solar sytems could mate is beyond ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, wasn't it a TNG episode that involved tracking down some ancient message encoded in the combined DNA of various worlds that turned out to be a "We were here" from an earlier race that found itself alone in the galaxy and seeded various worlds with their DNA so that the later races would have someone to talk to? Maybe you include that in the BS category, but really something like that is probably the only realistic way you'd get a galaxy full of hominids (or DNA-based life for that matter), and it
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, an artist's rendering of an early human looks more like the modern-day people in the region than the modern-day people of other regions. What a compelling argument.
Even if accurate the similarities would mean nothing more than that white people had to adapt to a significantly different environment when they left the tropics, it's not like any species is "more evolved" than another - we've all been evolving since life first arose, the parent stock doesn't stop evolving just because part of the popul