(think, maybe Lucy's ancestors came from Bulgaria. or had a dead family tree which lived in Bulgaria.)
>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
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.
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.
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.
What is the "specific thing"?
Current school of thought, we think that man originated in Africa. But this recent finding (based off of a partial skull fragment) shows that non-chimp pre-humans existed in Europe, possibly hundreds of thousands of years earlier than previously theorised.
This means the split may have happened in Europe, as that is now the earliest evidence of pre-human remains.
(that's how I understand it, at least)
That's not really relevant, as the Mesopotamian civilizations are still millions of years after the era of the skeletons found here.
"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.
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.
Ive wondered if over a very long period of time it might be possible for our descendants to build a simulation which can aproximate the entropy difference b/w now and our past on earth. Or if such calculations would be forever practically impossible, even given enormous power, i.e. a computer harnessing the power of the sun
Edit: created a separate HN thread.
I have no idea what that even says :(
"Evolutionary Ancestors of Modern Humans Originate from Greece Instead of Africa"
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).
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.
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.
People routinely describe HN as left-leaning or right-leaning depending on their own leanings. Since these descriptions are all contradictory they have little to do with HN.
What if the title said "South America" or "New Zealand" was the birthplace and people upvoted would you have found the title just as offensive?
Or to put it as another thought experiment, what continent region being upvoted would you find least offensive.
Can you please explain further or qualify your statement so that I can learn. As I said in my comment I'm happy to be wrong but you provided nothing. I'd say your comment as it stands is ad hominem if anything.
I also like my little pun :)
As for the origin and global point of emergence of the human species, this could be debated ad nauseam. I would contend that no current view would be entirely correct.
For several years we were tracing the beginnings of mankind to Africa. Now there is another source in Europe. In the future other sources might be discovered. How is it offensive? What does it change for you?
Your meaning is not clear but based on the context it seems likely that you are implying that a group of caucasians have upvoted the article because they desperately want humanity to have come from Europe. If this is the sentiment that led you to post, then it is more than a little ironic.
For the record, I did upvote the story simply because it was interesting.
If you continue to post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN, we are going to ban your account.
At the time of this comment, there are 101 up-votes on the article. Making no other judgement of your critique, engaging in exaggeration like this weakens it, especially given the volatility of the topic.
There some incredibly interesting comments about human history here now.
Note: lobbing explosives is not doing so respectfully and thoughtfully.
It allows all sorts of people to gather in their own echo chambers, and feed off of their emotions. Echo chambers consume information that matches their biases, discards other information, and treats any source which argues differently as the enemy.
Rinse repeat for any and all causes. (Some causes may have inherent dampeners in extreme behavior, others will not.)
At least that's my understanding of the current dynamic.
(related reading: The spreading of misinformation on social media - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full)
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.
Also, the use of the term SJW might appear 'edgy' but its overuse has turned it into a marker of nothing but intellectual vapidity.
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 . 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.
The first is that "pointing out" is not where the story ends; like parent said, there is a small minority of people who use this "average man"(an amalgamation of features that doesn't actually exist in reality) to shame specific individuals(e.g. calling out novel authors for being "privileged" and thus shouldn't write characters with a different skin colour). This usage opens you up to an obvious reciprocal attack you would probably object to - one could point out that the average black person is much more likely to be arrested(https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-...) and use this to call specific black people "dangerous". In both cases, you are prejudging based on a stereotype.
The second objection is that once you start to delve into the "privileges", the label just doesn't seem to fit the actual things being described. Actually searching for "white male privileges" leads me to articles that are so easy to fight that I feel like I'd be addressing a strawman, so if possible, could you provide a list? My general contention is that the lists of "privileges" end up being a mix of: significant outcome benefits which have controversial correlation-not-causation interpretations(e.g. is blacks being arrested more "white privilege" or simply the amalgamated effect of high poverty, low education and latent racism?); things you would not really describe as "privileges" but simply different choices(e.g. men having longer careers due to spending less family time); things that are incredibly petty("I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time." from )
 - http://www.winnipeg.ca/clerks/boards/citizenequity/pdfs/whit...
 - http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/lessons-white-privilege-...
 - http://www.care2.com/causes/what-exactly-is-white-privilege-...
It also get's used to diminish the accomplishments of many white people that did not have privileged backgrounds.
All too often true, but...
> Feminists made sure of that.
I think you have the "war on some drugs, especially those in the possession of non-whites" confused with "feminists".
More to the point though, a lot of white people didn't get in on that economic boom either, a lot of Balkan refugees during the 90's for instance, they don't like being told how privileged they are.
I have not been in a traffic stop ever but I had been under fire (from military, not quite police so maybe not as scary?), does it count?
>Please tell me about all the times your value as a human being has been determined solely based upon your appearance.
I imagine you did not think this one through, you are actually implying my value as a human being has been determined high based on my appearance.
Seeing your edit, how is it related to being enslaved for generations and oppressed after that? I have all rights to be afraid of racist cops of different color. I am not a woman so my chances of assault and murder are way higher, check out statistic before repeating ignorance. And yes, I am not disabled, are you saying everyone else is???
Especially if they're racist against you, of course you do. That's the point. Please see my reply to 'flukus's comment that is a sibling to yours.
> I am not a woman so my chances of assault and murder are way higher...
I was speaking primarily of domestic violence. If you give any kind of credence to the statistics about how under-reported that is, women get beat up a lot more often than men.
This person or their parents probably had to deal with exactly that. They may even have first hand experience with genocide.
If you don't have to worry about all the shit that comes along with those things then you have privilege, regardless of your skin color.
Of course. Race and privilege are only joined insofar as their cultural context makes them. In a society that's virulently prejudiced against grey-eyed Slavs, 'pandaman is necessarily going to be "less privileged" than whoever that society favors.
That's exactly what the concept was created to indicate: how much of a given society's aggregate human mental garbage (racism, sexism, ableism, whatever-else-ism) a given person has to deal with, on the basis of who they happen to be, within that society.
And the disadvantages faced by short people, fat people, non athletic people, poor people, ugly people, old people, uneducated people, etc etc etc.
My point being that everyone faces a different set of advantages and disadvantages that other people and classes either can't benefit from or prosper from.
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?
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.
It says that textbooks as late as 1981 had this stuff in them. Fascinating. Boy am I glad they got rid of this stuff by the time I was in school in the '90s.