
Scientists find 7.2M-year-old pre-human remains in the Balkans - vixen99
https://www.phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html
======
bpodgursky
I'm not remotely an anthropologist, but my very-simple take on this is that it
has no impact on the out-of-africa hypothesis which happened relatively
recently (~60k years ago) -- this just suggests that ~7mm years ago, earlier
human hominids were found in Europe.

(think, maybe Lucy's ancestors came from Bulgaria. or had a dead family tree
which lived in Bulgaria.)

~~~
flukus
Rather than disputing the out of Africa theory, it seems to propose an earlier
"into africa" stage. It may lend some credence to the multi-regional
hypothesis though.

~~~
microwavecamera
[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151013-how-interbreeding-
sh...](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151013-how-interbreeding-shaped-us)

Seems likely.

------
defen
For a somewhat skeptical take:
[http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/g...](http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-
fuss-2017.html)

~~~
a_bonobo
This is a good take which, IMHO, fits the dominant out-of-Africa data

Quote: >I think we should take seriously that Graecopithecus premolar root
morphology may be yet another demonstration that supposed “hominin” characters
actually evolved in other branches of apes during the Miocene. This feature is
far from alone. Many other features that supposedly link Ardipithecus or
Sahelanthropus with hominins are also found in other Miocene fossils. My
colleagues and I documented some of these Miocene ape-like features in
Sahelanthropus in 2006.

So the tooth-form that appears only in hominins could not be a marker, but a
very similar tooth-form could have developed in non-hominins

------
not_that_noob
The human evolutionary 'tree' is very tangled, and evidence exists for the
emergence of homonim from Africa, some of which moved into Europe, and some of
which could have then possibly migrated back to Africa. As sea levels rose and
fell, new routes were forged or land disappeared, enabling all this back and
forth.

Homo Sapiens is a descendant of this tree, and emerged from Africa. So that
has not changed. What they find is that a hominim in Europe could have been an
ancestor to Homo Sapiens way back in the tree. So the potential explanation is
that this or a descendant found its way to Africa, and then gave rise
eventually to Homo Sapiens.

~~~
trhway
>So the potential explanation is that this or a descendant found its way to
Africa, and then gave rise eventually to Homo Sapiens.

given that Mediterranean dried out completely about 1M years later, back then
there weren't 2 different things - Europe and Africa - like today, just a huge
valley where may be a large part of our ancestors' evolution took place.

~~~
valuearb
Wow, did not know that. The idea that the Mediterranean was a huge valley with
some areas more than a mile below sea level is crazy.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis)

------
WillyOnWheels
This article goes into the supporters and detractors of the research

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132026-our-common-
ance...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132026-our-common-ancestor-
with-chimps-may-be-from-europe-not-africa/)

------
dgellow
Could someone "explain like I'm five" the article?

~~~
pjreddie
They found two really old skeletons in Europe that are older than other
skeletons. They are skeletons of a "modern"-ish human. They know because the
teeth of the skeletons have a specific thing that the teeth of humans have but
not the teeth of other primates.

The older skeleton is 1 million years older than old skeletons found in
Africa. So now the oldest skeletons that we know about come from Europe not
Africa, raising the possibility that humans evolved in Europe.

~~~
insulanian
> They know because the teeth of the skeletons have a specific thing that the
> teeth of humans have but not the teeth of other primates.

What is the "specific thing"?

~~~
metafunctor
I don't care to explain like to a five year old, but the authors of the paper
propose that only the modern human lineage have a total of four premolars in
the lower jaw with a single root each. They claim these were never present in
other hominid species.

~~~
weavie
I was under the impression that it was because humans learned to control fire,
meaning we could eat softer food which altered the human teeth. However, 7.2m
years massively predates our current understanding of when fire was first
utilised..

------
z3t4
an idea: Early humans walked a lot. We might have been season movers.

------
rosser
TL;DR: They found some fossils in Greece and Bulgaria, the jaws and teeth of
which suggest they belonged to an evolutionary ancestor of _Homo sapiens
sapiens_ , and which seem to be older than any other such fossil records.

"If this status is confirmed by additional fossil evidence, Graecopithecus
would be the oldest known hominin..." where _hominin_ is defined in the paper
to mean "humans and their non-ape ancestors".

EDIT: phrasing and clarity.

~~~
LoSboccacc
it's weird to find just one fossil, with all the excavations going on and
around in Europe.

~~~
dirktheman
There are roughly about 200 Neanderthal/Denisovan/older skeletons (whole or
partially) found. Or, according to 'A short history of nearly everything', the
amount of bones of our ancient ancestors fit in the back of a small pickup
truck.

Let that sink in: over 4 million years of human history, and all remains we
have found fit in the back of a pickup truck.

Scientists draw conclusions based on evidence found, but truth is, we really
don't know that much about our ancestors. The vast majority of bones don't
fossilize and just decay. You can excavate all you want, but it takes very
specific circumstances for organic material to be preserved over a course of
hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Most of it is just gone.

~~~
restalis
Add that that humans millions years ago were not in billions as today. They
were actually in very small numbers, like tens of thousands on the entire
planet.

------
torrance
The title on this needs to be corrected to match the article.

~~~
ry_ry
"Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of
Europe"

I have no idea what that even says :(

~~~
gatlinnewhouse
I'll take a stab

"Evolutionary Ancestors of Modern Humans Originate from Greece Instead of
Africa"

~~~
pavanky
Some people may read it as immediate ancestors. But I don't know how we can
clarify that in a succinct manner.

------
gatlinnewhouse
This is #1 on the front page right now. 41 people have voted for it.

Please, someone explain this article; I like others have noted, have no idea
what is going on and the title is a fairly large claim (at least from my
understanding which is that of a high schooler's).

~~~
chx
While there's little doubt of a "recent" spread of humanity out of Africa, 100
000 years ago or so and also development of earlier humans there. This is
perhaps what you've learned. But this article talks about an earlier period of
time, it discusses some fossils in Greece / Bulgaria that are some 7 million
year old and are more human than ape. It's possible that the well known and
documented development of humanity in Africa was preceded by a migration of
these into Africa perhaps seeking warmer places during a cooler period
millions of years ago. We simple do not know much about the transition from
ape to human and this might be an important step. An emphasis on might. We
know little.

------
rubyn00bie
The title is misleading (as written on HN) because the meaning of "hominim" is
more to do with what we, humans, and other hominim (like neanderthals etc)
evolved from. See linked chart:

[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yEUEavwMSCE/ULtMp3e_cVI/AAAAAAAAAD...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yEUEavwMSCE/ULtMp3e_cVI/AAAAAAAAADQ/Y_JxBB5ag0s/s1600/familytree_page.tif)

This isn't our specific species but rather whatever we and similar species
evolved from.

I'm absolutely no expert on the subject.

I actually find the title offensive if I'm right but I'd happily be wrong.
Mostly because I'm sensitive to how unlikely it is people are up voting this
because they understand it and rather they want it to reflect their world
views.

Edit: for those downvoting me, could you explain why? I'm happy to learn. It's
just weird to see a sudden surge in down votes with no comments explaining how
I am ignorant or wrong.

~~~
landon32
Adding on to this:

The human ancestors before this single instance were all from Africa. This
title picks one particular definition of human and uses that as the basis for
its claim. The ancestors of this species were certainly from Africa, and many
later human descendants were also from Africa. Africa has much stronger ties
to Human kind's birth than Europe does.

Also, it's very possible that this species died out and left no descendants.
There are many examples of this at many stages in humanity's histories--
Paranthropus robustus, homo neanderthalensis, and Denisovans. If a common
ancestor of Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens really originated in Europe, we
should be finding more evidence soon. Even if we find more evidence of that,
we still can't say that Europe is the birthplace of mankind, because so much
of Mankind's evolution (Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc) took place in
Africa.

It's just silly to call Europe the birthplace of mankind.

~~~
mirimir
Maybe it's silly to say that either Africa or the Mediterranean (or wherever)
is "the birthplace of mankind". That is, maybe there was considerable
migration and interbreeding throughout the process. We know now that both
Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed to the modern human genome. So why not
more backcrossing, going back further?

~~~
flukus
This is known as the multi-regional hypothesis:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans)

------
grzm
Article title: Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late
Miocene of Europe

------
guelo
What is up with the resurgence of euro-pride among young white guys? I'm
genuinely curious were it's coming from, it definitely feels like a new
phenomenon in the last 2-3 years.

~~~
ryanx435
It's push back against the toxic strands of SJW culture that have gone from
"diversity is good" to "white culure is bad".

It's a small but very vocal branch of SJWs against a small and very vocal
branch of counter SJWs, but both sides of it are in a meme war (using the
scientific definition of meme: a mechanism to transfer ideas and culture) and
the effects of their culture clashes are large enough for you and I to notice.

~~~
tacomonstrous
Is it really so toxic to point out that the average white male in American
society enjoys certain privileges that are unavailable to the average member
of any other class? Or that the average black male is subject to multiple
_dis_ advantages that members of other classes don't usually experience?

Also, the use of the term SJW might appear 'edgy' but its overuse has turned
it into a marker of nothing but intellectual vapidity.

~~~
yorwba
See it like this: You know how the other side has those incredibly stupid
people who can't even make a coherent argument, tout a blog post as a credible
source and react to rational argument with insults and threats?

Well, your side has them, too. If you care about social issues, they are toxic
SJWs. If you are a patriot, they are white supremacists. If you are a Muslim,
they are Islamist terrorists.

Arguments are not soldiers [0]. Don't let a disagreement turn into a war. If
you see someone support a cause you care about, but for the wrong reasons; and
do so in a manner that alienates anyone who disagrees, you should call them
out on it.

[0]
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/)

------
vgy7ujm
I knew it!

~~~
ZenoArrow
How?

Aside from that, this are just the oldest known fossils with human traits, how
will your world view change if we find evidence of an even older ancestor
outside Europe?

------
hl5
The problem with these scientists is they are far too young to have played
Ultima II and thus missed out on the opportunity to learn about Pangea.

------
manojlds
Look up Kumari Kandam for what (we) Tamils think as the origin of mankind.

Edit - Not sure why I am being downvoted. I didn't claim it to be true. It
seemed relevant and a lot of folks around me believe it.

~~~
flukus
TLDR: It's Lemuria, the Atlantis of the subcontinent
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumari_Kandam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumari_Kandam)).
It has about as much relevance as the biblical garden of eden.

