Earliest humans in Britain

Wibbs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10531419.stm

A million years ago they were wandering around our nearest neighbour. In enough numbers to leave their traces, so what are the odds they werent here too?

Galvasean

No Wibbs, they just CANT be!!!!

steddyeddy

wibbs that is amazing im delighted to hear that i love when the accepted is changed dramatically, reminds me we dont know everything.

JuliusCaesar

I love the last picture in that link. A very crowded landscape!

rccaulfield

Hominids yes- but to call them Humans? I wouldn't agree with that. Very interesting-thanks for posting, there's some good links beside that article about neandartals too!

Wibbs

Why not humans? They made tools, had fire, seems they could communicate and there's even recent evidence that erectus made symbolic items. They're hardly apes anyway. Is it high culture that marks out one as human? If so anatomically modern humans werent doing much of that until 60,000 years ago. Indeed Neandertals may have even gotten there first.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not humans? They made tools, had fire, seems they could communicate and there's even recent evidence that erectus made symbolic items. They're hardly apes anyway. Is it high culture that marks out one as human? If so anatomically modern humans werent doing much of that until 60,000 years ago. Indeed Neandertals may have even gotten there first.

I would agree that they were more human than most hominds and im sure the more we discover the more well come to see that, they had tools fire ect they are closer to humans than apes like the gorilla and bonobo which are also classed as hominids

Galvasean

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not humans? They made tools, had fire, seems they could communicate and there's even recent evidence that erectus made symbolic items. They're hardly apes anyway. Is it high culture that marks out one as human? If so anatomically modern humans werent doing much of that until 60,000 years ago. Indeed Neandertals may have even gotten there first.

Agree with everyting but what I've put in bold. Of course they are apes. Same way humans are.

Wibbs

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/study-published-in-nature-early-humans-endured-cold-northern-climates/19545186 more possible evidence for sophisticated thinking

As for the ape human difference. I would say there is one. We're not pongoids anyway. We're all primates yes, but I've always felt the notion that we're all great apes a very dubious one. I think its been as much a sentimental one as a scientific one. The "ahh they're just like us, look at their little faces" brigade. Or as a scientific backlash to previous religious notions of our "god given" status above the animals. This gained more favour when some of what we thought were our unique differences were found in other primates. But crows use tools, bees have a language, dolphins have big brains, but no one is lumping them in with us.

The thing is we are quite different. There's at least 6 million years if not more of evolutionary change between us and say a bonobo, which would be considered closest to us(longer again between us and a gorilla). Socially we're very different(this holds true for all of the great apes). There is a definite point where we diverged radically from the other primates. One can argue over the point itself(bipedalism, opposable thumbs, speech, complex culture etc) but that evolutionary toolkit is radically different to the great apes. Beyond being different species we're a whole new evolutionary paradigm. Personally there is no way I would objectively place bonobos or gorillas as hominids. Not even close.

Galvasean

Until recently I thought the term hominid refered excluively to the genus Homo and it's ancestors (hence the name). Turns out it's more in line with what I refer to as 'the great apes'. I'm quite happy to class humans as members of the great apes, the smae way I'm happy to call a tyrannosaur a member of the coelurosaurs, despite having a very different evolutionary upbringing from it's fellow coelurosaurs.

One kind of stands out doesn't he?

steddyeddy

Wel ape is a really dodgy term and often poorly defined much like the word species is ape is a blanket term to include hominids, pongids ect.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/study-published-in-nature-early-humans-endured-cold-northern-climates/19545186 more possible evidence for sophisticated thinking

As for the ape human difference. I would say there is one. We're not pongoids anyway. We're all primates yes, but I've always felt the notion that we're all great apes a very dubious one. I think its been as much a sentimental one as a scientific one. The "ahh they're just like us, look at their little faces" brigade. Or as a scientific backlash to previous religious notions of our "god given" status above the animals. This gained more favour when some of what we thought were our unique differences were found in other primates. But crows use tools, bees have a language, dolphins have big brains, but no one is lumping them in with us.

The thing is we are quite different. There's at least 6 million years if not more of evolutionary change between us and say a bonobo, which would be considered closest to us(longer again between us and a gorilla). Socially we're very different(this holds true for all of the great apes). There is a definite point where we diverged radically from the other primates. One can argue over the point itself(bipedalism, opposable thumbs, speech, complex culture etc) but that evolutionary toolkit is radically different to the great apes. Beyond being different species we're a whole new evolutionary paradigm. Personally there is no way I would objectively place bonobos or gorillas as hominids. Not even close.

wibbs the transition of bonobos and gorillas from general homindae to hominids isnt thought to be based on their apearance culture ect many people involved in the change of classification were involved with the great ape project ie the movement to grant basic human rights to the non human great apes. No real reason was given to their classification. i do personally think that the hominid line is very distinct and large to exclude the knuckle walkers (excuse the term) from hominds but im happy if it affords them further protection.

Wibbs

I agree 100% they need as much protection as possible but like you intimated and I would agree its more a sentimental delineation than a scientific one. I personally think pongoid and hominid as distinctions are better scientifically. We may be part of the same family, but there is well enough of a step between them and us as there is between them and monkeys as far as biology, physiology and behaviour are concerned. While its semantics I do feel hominid when ascribed to say a gorilla is just not particularly scientific. Our particular biological box of tricks stands alone and has done for a very long time.

...but we'll agree to disagree *watches Galvasean polishing his geological hammer and thinks better of it*

rccaulfield

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not humans? They made tools, had fire, seems they could communicate and there's even recent evidence that erectus made symbolic items. They're hardly apes anyway. Is it high culture that marks out one as human? If so anatomically modern humans werent doing much of that until 60,000 years ago. Indeed Neandertals may have even gotten there first.

Well would Humans not imply Homo sapiens? Which these were certainly not nor our direct evolutionary ancestors?

steddyeddy

rccaulfield wrote: »

Well would Humans not imply Homo sapiens? Which these were certainly not nor our direct evolutionary ancestors?

well no humans definatly doesnt only imply homo sapiens, in fact we are homo sapiens sapiens, there is at least 28 types of extinct human

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100% they need as much protection as possible but like you intimated and I would agree its more a sentimental delineation than a scientific one. I personally think pongoid and hominid as distinctions are better scientifically. We may be part of the same family, but there is well enough of a step between them and us as there is between them and monkeys as far as biology, physiology and behaviour are concerned. While its semantics I do feel hominid when ascribed to say a gorilla is just not particularly scientific. Our particular biological box of tricks stands alone and has done for a very long time.

...but we'll agree to disagree *watches Galvasean polishing his geological hammer and thinks better of it*

I do agree wibbs another apesct of the reclassification of the gorilla was that recent discoveries excluded it from its former group but again that was no reason to place it in with hominids, I know its not very scientific but when i think of hominids i think if creatures like homo erectus and neaderthal something amazing happened in the evolution of hominids that enabled langauge and advanced communication ect and to put chimps and bonobos in that group would down play the uniqueness of hominid evolution.

When I hear people say that chimps are so amazing and so close to humans ect i wish they would read up about neanderthals and homo erectus because they were so amazingly close to us. Its amazing to me that gorillas and chimps survived and these more adaptable creatures didnt!

Galvasean

steddyeddy wrote: »

well no humans definatly doesnt only imply homo sapiens, in fact we are homo sapiens sapiens, there is at least 28 types of extinct human

Yup, it's hard to imagine that there was more than one species of human on this Earth at the same time. We're so used to being the only humans around that we've become quite egocentric withour definitions and tend to forget what human actually is (the genus Homo, forget all that compassion/forward palnning lark)
.

steddyeddy wrote: »

When I hear people say that chimps are so amazing and so close to humans ect i wish they would read up about neanderthals and homo erectus because they were so amazingly close to us. Its amazing to me that gorillas and chimps survived and these more adaptable creatures didnt!

Niches are the key. Gorillas and chimps occupied seperate ecological niches to us. Unfortunately for the neanderthals, they occupied a very similar one and suddenly it was a case of 'this town aint big enough for teh both of us' in evolutionary terms.

Wibbs

rccaulfield wrote: »

Well would Humans not imply Homo sapiens? Which these were certainly not nor our direct evolutionary ancestors?

Well they were our direct evolutionary ancestors. Certainly in the case of erectus. Direct is a problematic word. Its not a straight line by any stretch. Recent research has shown that modern european populations can carry up to 4% neanderthal DNA(so far found too. There may be more), not found in Asian or African populations. So they contributed ancestry to us. A tooth found in central asia has DNA sequences that are completely unknown which may suggest yet another human out there in the past. This stuff is very complex and we've so very little in the way of physical evidence to go on. It appears Neanderthals were the last to die off 20,000 yrs ago, yet we dont have a single complete skeleton of one. Even with "us" we have a serious dearth of remains. Theres a big gap between 100,000 yrs ago and 40,000 years ago. We're also very interrelated. Two troops of chimps living a few miles apart have a bigger genetic spread than all the humans alive today. Its amazing we're not all banjo playing freaks There may well have been a lot more DNA lines of modern humans that died out. We're only scratching the surface.

Galvasean wrote: »

Yup, it's hard to imagine that there was more than one species of human on this Earth at the same time.

It is that. It would be weird to meet another human that isnt quite us. Judging by how we've treated other modern humans who looked slightly differently it may not bode well for them. Though personally I think that's been more the case since the agricultural revolution. When you look at first contact with remote tribal types in the past, for the most part they're twitchy because of fear of the new and culture, rather than skin colour etc. That seems to fascinate them more than freak them out. I recall reading about one explorer type who bumped into some amazonian tribal lads back in the 30's. They were freaked out until he stripped off his clothes at which point they were like "jeez yer mans a bit bloody pale, but he's human".

We're so used to being the only humans around that we've become quite egocentric withour definitions and tend to forget what human actually is (the genus Homo, forget all that compassion/forward palnning lark)

Oh I agree, but the forward planning lark is part of our unique box of tricks. I think in many ways we've swung from an abrahamic homocentric view to a "we're not really that special/just another bauble on the tree of evolution" view. From one extreme to another. IMHO somewhere in the middle works better. We're not that special, but we are special. Nothing like us has been seen before in evolutionary history. Intelligence to our degree was an entirely novel event. Both for good and ill too. We should be equally mindful of hubris. But if we died out tomorrow and this bauble fell from the tree forever, an alien probe looking at the history of the planet would mark the event out as being up there with fish crawling out of the water. We've stood in the most alien environment of all. The one outside our world. Neil may have said one giant leap for mankind I'd paraphrase him and say one giant leap for evolution and biology.
.

Niches are the key. Gorillas and chimps occupied seperate ecological niches to us. Unfortunately for the neanderthals, they occupied a very similar one and suddenly it was a case of 'this town aint big enough for teh both of us' in evolutionary terms.

+1 and now we're encroaching on the niches of gorillas and chimps and its not going well for them.

Galvasean

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but the forward planning lark is part of our unique box of tricks. I think in many ways we've swung from an abrahamic homocentric view to a "we're not really that special/just another bauble on the tree of evolution" view. From one extreme to another. IMHO somewhere in the middle works better. We're not that special, but we are special. Nothing like us has been seen before in evolutionary history. Intelligence to our degree was an entirely novel event.

I just get bugged when people say 'forward palnning is a uniquely human trait' when it is not. Although it is far more developed in us than in any other animal to have graced this planet. While it certainly makes us unique and special, I would say no more so unique and special than the jellyfish that has seemingly evolved the key to 'immortality' or the falcon that has figured out a way to travel at speeds of 200k per hour.

Wibbs

Yes I agree, but our box of tricks is about the most unique in evolutionary history for a couple of reasons. We can ask the questions for a start and find the answers. We can change the environment, to a degree unlike any creature before. With the notable exception of bacteria and they just did it, never asked why. And most of all we can discern the very mechanism of evolution itself and more, we can can actually change it. Every type 1 diabetic or chronic asthmatic out there is living proof. We're manipulating the book of life to help make tofu for the plate, we've digested and started to explain the millions of pages of that book of life. Nothing before has come close to this. No jellyfish, no chimp, no dinosaur. We named the world and in that naming changed it. That is why we are unique.

rccaulfield

Wibbs wrote: »

Well they were our direct evolutionary ancestors. Certainly in the case of erectus. Direct is a problematic word. Its not a straight line by any stretch. Recent research has shown that modern european populations can carry up to 4% neanderthal DNA(so far found too. There may be more), not found in Asian or African populations. So they contributed ancestry to us. A tooth found in central asia has DNA sequences that are completely unknown which may suggest yet another human out there in the past. This stuff is very complex and we've so very little in the way of physical evidence to go on. It appears Neanderthals were the last to die off 20,000 yrs ago, yet we dont have a single complete skeleton of one. Even with "us" we have a serious dearth of remains. Theres a big gap between 100,000 yrs ago and 40,000 years ago. We're also very interrelated. Two troops of chimps living a few miles apart have a bigger genetic spread than all the humans alive today. Its amazing we're not all banjo playing freaks There may well have been a lot more DNA lines of modern humans that died out. We're only scratching the surface.

QUOTE]

Well maybe i should have said from our direct line as it seems we came from a small migration from Africa circa 200'000 years ago(Spencer wells a genetic odyssey) So any hominid from a million years back that was roaming around Britain was of a very different line. Im not saying you didn't know just making the point!

Wibbs

Yea but its way more complex than that. You have gene flow back and forth for a start. Plus look at Mungo man in Australia. A different DNA line that died out and he was a fully modern human from 50 odd thousand years ago. OK who where those peeps in southern england? Homo erectus. Where did we originally come from? yep Homo erectus. The same species. Recent genetic theories show that many Asian populations have had erectus genes that still exist today. If the two could mate and have viable offspring then that shows we were close enough to be species in general and sub species in particular. Just like Neanderthal genes in modern Europeans and they diverged long before us from the erectus wellspring, first into heidelbergensis and then them and possibly us from the same stock. That small migration didnt spring from nowhere and it didnt stay pickled in genetic aspic.

TBH I thought Well's book, while generally informative and a fine work brought little to the party. Little of novel account anyway.

steddyeddy

Im finding the whole out of africa single migration a bit hard to beleive

Yitzhak Rabin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im finding the whole out of africa single migration a bit hard to beleive

I reckon in about 10 or so years most paleo-anthropologists are going to be looking at the single migration theory as fairly daft.

Galvasean

I'm sure if one was to search through the tags on this very forum they'd find evidence that dismantes the single migration out of Africa theory...




PS: a two page discussion - righteous!

rccaulfield

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im finding the whole out of africa single migration a bit hard to beleive

I know me too but irrefutable evidence is evidence. In saying that its VERY incomplete at present, i'm open to the idea of a well of human remains being found throughout the world that refutes the theory but until then its the most reasnable explanation according to genetic/fossil evidence so thats what we have. Everything else is opinion imo:p

Galvasean

rccaulfield wrote: »

I know me too but irrefutable evidence is evidence. In saying that its VERY incomplete at present, i'm open to the idea of a well of human remains being found throughout the world that refutes the theory but until then its the most reasnable explanation according to genetic/fossil evidence so thats what we have. Everything else is opinion imo:p

Orly?

steddyeddy

humans or hominds like most mammals probably made use of natural travel opportunities when they became available, if they had the chance to expand more than once why didnt they, advocates of the single migration theory need to explain this.

steddyeddy

saying the evidence available proves the single migration theory is like me finding a skeleton in my backyard dated from 20,000 years ago and then saying humans definatly arrived here at earliest 20,000 years ago, no it would mean that the oldest skeleton i found would be from that time. common sense seems to be left out of this theory. Especially given that hominids probably were very neophillic (love of the new) and had a strong urge to explore.