Carson Trinh June 10, 2016 Homo naledi In 2015, a major, yet baffling find sparked much attention from both the scientific and public community. A massive collection of fossils of some sort of species had been found in the Dinaledi Chamber of South Africa's Rising Star cave system. While parts of it seemed to be of the genus Homo, other parts seemed to be much more primitive; it was a mix of old and new traits. The age of the fossils have not been confirmed yet, but it appeared to have existed around the split between Homos and australopithecines. The research team for the project has decided that the fossils are a new and very early species of the genus Homo. They named the new species Homo naledi. How did these scientists come to their …show more content…
These conclusions were decided based on the evidence provided by the fossils. In addition to the remains, the unique placement of the bodies and the discrete location of the site may indicate a burial chamber, supporting the Homo status of the species as Homo sapiens is one of the few species to bury their dead. So while Homo naledi have several features present in the genus Australopithecus, they share more features with the Homo species. Homo naledi remains support the conclusion that Homo naledi is a new species of the genus Homo. The limbs of Homo naledi strongly indicate the Homo nature of these species as opposed to australopithecines, or any other genus or species for that matter. Among the 1500 fossils found, a nearly fully articulated hand was recovered. This has never happened for any of the other early Homo fossils discovered. The bones of the Homo naledi hand appear to be more similar to modern humans than any australopithecines, although there are traces of both genuses, as is the case for the other parts of Homo …show more content…
One of the great controversies of Homo naledi is how to bodies got to where they were. The cave in which the bodies were found is highly inaccessible. Four hypotheses of how the bodies got there occupation, water transport, predation, and death trap were ruled out. A new hypothesis was formulated what if Homo naledi intentionally buried their dead? Although there is not enough evidence yet to confirm this, such behavior would be significant in that it would precede previous cases of the behavior in Neanderthals and humans. This would add to the argument that Homo naledi are of the genus Homo. When Homo naledi was first uncovered, the confusing yet rich set of fossils shrouded the species' past, leaving anthropologists around the world scratching their heads and stroking their chins. It was not clear where the species fit on the evolutionary tree was it part of the genus Homo or the genus Australopithecus? Upon examination of these fossils, it was concluded that Homo naledi were definitely a new species of the Homo genus. While its exact location on the evolutionary tree has not been determined, this ambiguity is a testament to how early this species might have existed in relation to the genus. As new information surfaces, we may be able to gain an even deeper understanding of our roots.
These fossils are having a major impact on the scientific world’s view of human evolution and scientists may even have to rethink some present ideas about it. Because the skull of Toumai has characteristics that are very similar to those found in the Homo family, some scientists are beginning to question whether or not Australopithecus, an early member of the hominid family from about four to one million years ago and they are characterized by their fully upright posture and their small brain size, is even part of the evolution record of humans from apes. Bernard Wood, of George Washington University in Washington DC, argues that if Australopithecus has more ape-like features than the features found on an older
The first morphological features that later would become typical of Neanderthals, the projecting middle part of the face and a depression at the back of the skull, have been observed in fossils found in Europe as old as 400,000 years (Stringer & Hublin, 1999). These fossils belonged to Homo heidelbergensis, which in one of the various evolutionary scenarios that ties Neanderthals and modern humans is considered the ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens (Hubmlin, 2009).
As time progress on the phylogeny, Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis were considered to be direct descendants of Proconsul heseloni. However it was decided that A. afarensis branched off and became extinct with no other descendants. Reasons for branching A. africanus and A. afarensis include the data taken from the brain vs....
As revealed in this paper, we can see that the discovery of homo floresiensis has brought many debates and many questions are yet to be answered.
In recent years, the Homo Neanderthalensis were viewed as “subhuman brutes”, but are now seen as a different species from our own (Balter 2001). The Neanderthals were a branch of the Homo genus that evolved in Eurasia at least 200,000 years ago (Fagan 2010). The first Neand...
As an example of transitional fossils found outside of Africa and in accordance with the multi-regional model of human evolution, the remains found in the Ngangdong beds of the Solo River in Indonesia are an excellent beginning. Dating from roughly 250,000 years ago, the skulls of the thirteen individual recovered lack faces, but the crania are markedly archaic, football-shaped and flattened in general contour (Poirier 1987: 222). Other archaic features include heavy supraorbital ridges and thick cranial walls (222). Their archaic features put the Solo remains in the classification of Homo erectus, but the skulls display at least one distinctive modern tra...
Disagreements surface in regard to the publishing of a paleoanthropologist’s discoveries of new hominid species. According to Luskins, “paleoanthropology is rife with dissent and with few universally accepted theories among its practitioners.” A large quantity of the controversies within paleoanthropology arises from fellow paleoanthropologist. In the midst of the field, each
The species A. afarensis is one of the better known australopithecines, with regards to the number of samples attributed to the species. From speculations about their close relatives, the gorilla and chimpanzee, A. afarensis’ probable social structure can be presumed. The species was named by Johanson and Taieb in 1973. This discovery of a skeleton lead to a heated debate over the validity of the species. The species eventually was accepted by most researchers as a new species of australopithecine and a likely candidate for a human ancestor.
Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for well over 100,000 years. Then suddenly Homo neandertalensis began to die out and surrender the earth to Homo sapiens. Paleontologists and anthropologists have entertained several possibilities to the causes of this event: interbreeding among Neanderthals and humans, competition for natural resources, and Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest.” What the real cause has been has plagued scientists for years. Now, due to an international research team from Germany, those possibilities have been even further deduced, making it easier to pinpoint the exact reason Homo neandertalensis became extinct.
In 2004, the world was shocked by the discovery of Homo floresiensis. The discovery opened up worldwide debates about the validity of the species. To this day, the excavators and researchers are still examining the archaeological site at Liang Bua to get more insight into whether or not H. floresiensis was extinct before H. sapiens, or if their existence overlapped (Callaway et al., 2014). However, with the information from the excavation that already has already been researched, aids to the validity of the species. An examination of the history of the discovery, ancestral patterns, and the LB1 feet and mandible determines that H. floresiensis is, in fact, a novel species.
Paleoanthropology: Pliocene and Pleistocene Human Evolution. Paleobiology, 7:3:298-305. Frayer, David W. and Milford Walpoff 1985 Sexual Dimorphism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14:429-473 Key, Catherine A. 2000 The Evolution of Human Life History.
In the quest to explain human origins it is necessary to find a species that bridges modern man (Homo sapiens) with the apes. To fill this gap evolutionists have set forth Homo erectus, who lived approximately 400,000 to 1.6 million years ago (Johanson and Shreeve1989). Although the distinctions are somewhat vague, below the neck, Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are practically Identical and Homo erectus was responsible for pioneering the use of standard tools (such as the hand axe), big-game hunting, and the use of fire (Johanson and Shreeve1989).
The earliest known peoples of the world are known as Homo Habilis. These early peoples have been known to have lived in Ethiopia millions of years ago. They started out being around 4 feet tall weighing about 100 pounds. They had strong jaws allowing them to eat meat, long arms which helped them climb trees, and could walk upright. As for their shelter, they slept in nest high up in trees. Their existence helped the development of hand tools. Fossils have shown signs of the beginning of stone tools called “primitive tools” which included lumps of rocks but also sharp flakes used for cutting (Choi). However, lack of resources, and attacks of
In the article by Lee Berger and his team titled ‘Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa’ they describe the analysis of the newly found fossil.
The best and the worst thing about a question like, “who was the first real human?” is that it is impossible to answer. There is no universally accepted, definitive trait that defines humanness. Consequently, I can attempt to answer this question, but intrinsic in the question is the inability to answer it. Each possible theory may have strong evidence to support it, but it will also have strong evidence against it. In this paper I will assert that Homo erectus is the first official human. I will explore Homo Erectus’s control of fire, use of acheulian tools, morphological and anatomical advances, and human like diet as evidence to support my theory. Although there are flaws in my theory, I am inclined to believe that Homo erectus was the first