Slashdot Mirror
40 Million Year Old Primate Fossils Found In Asia
sosaited writes "It has been widely believed that our ancestors originated out of Africa, but a paper published in Nature by Carnegie Museum of Natural History scientists puts this in doubt. The paper is based on the fossils of four primate species found in Asia which are 40 million years old, during which period Africa was thought to not have these species. The diversity and timing of the new anthropoids raises two scenarios. Anthropoids might simply have emerged in Africa much earlier than thought, and gone undiscovered by modern paleontologists. Or they could have crossed over from Asia, where evidence suggests that anthropoids lived 55 million years ago, flourishing and diversifying in the wide-open ecological niches of an anthropoid-free Africa."
They were Atlanteans/aliens from outerspace.
Looking at this map it seems that they may have been in contact.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The fossils were NOT found i Asia, but in Libya, which was and is a part of Africa. The point of the paper is, that the variety of fossils indicate a much deeper evolutionary history than the African fossil record accounts for, and that Asia is the likely candidate for the earliest primates.
For the sufficiently clueless, even trivial applications of common sense are indistinguishable from wisdom
Prior civilisations would have left artefacts in space. Geosynchronous orbit is both attractive and stable, but it was empty when we got here. Then there is all the fossil fuel we are burning. Why would an earlier civilisation leave it for us?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
There are plenty examples of other more "primitive" civilizations leaving things alone because they know they cause more harm than good.
(Los Angeles, for instance. Native Americans knew that it wasn't practical to inhabit it, because smoke would stay there. Not a natural resource, but still...)
"The discovery of four ancient, lemur-like creatures in what is now Libya suggests the human family tree’s taproot is in the Middle East, not Africa."
Correct me if I am wrong but Libya is in Africa. Nowhere in the article does it mention any Asian country. It says that these were found in Libya which is Africa but then goes on about these animals crossing over from Asia to Africa. So, where exactly were these fossils found?
But other humans came along and lived there. If as the AC claims other species had civilisations like ours on Earth it is reasonable to assume they visited both LA and Tranquillity Base.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
There in a link in the comments section to a much better article that explains why even though these fossils are from Africa they are being linked to primate origins in Asia.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/where-did-all-these-primates-come-from-fossil-teeth-may-hint-at-an-asian-origin-for-anthropoid-primates/
Of course your African primates are non-migratory you see...
We are a civilisation only for 50 - 150 years?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Can you clarify?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Where is the Carnegie Museum Of Natural History Scientists located, and does it keep them in formaldehyde, or are they just pinned to the wall with a glass pane in front?
Oh okay but lets assume our civilisation lasts a million years. We are going to be scattering material through the solar system for a lot of that time.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Indeed... this article is better (thanks for pointing that out).
What I haven't found in the article though is how monkeys are supposed to cross over from Asia to Africa...
Here is a map of how the continents were connected about 50 million years ago. It seems to me that it would have been a long swim.
It would be nice to see the two fields of study (paleogeology and paleontology to combine their efforts.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/35moll.jpg (taken from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/mollglobe.html ) is probably the more accurate map of the period. Interestingly there seems to be a lot of (shallow?) water separating Africa and Asia.
According to these maps the land-bridge only developed later, when the Arabian peninsula emerged and connected both continents.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
lol. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You honestly believe that?
Geosynchronous orbit might be stable over the course of hundreds or even thousands of years, but millions or tens of millions? No. Even the moon is moving away from the earth. Anything further out would have long vanished into the shadows. As for fossil fuels, who says a civilisation needs to go through that stage at all? From wood burning steam to vegetable oil powered diesel is a natural step, even using ethanol, after that electric would be inevitable, assuming they wouldn't have just focused on that from the outset. Over geological time periods, even our mighty civilisation would leave basically nothing behind. There is absolutely no reason why a previous intelligent life form might not have existed and vanished at a high level of technological capability on earth.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
There are good reasons to assume no civilisations prior to ours. But yeah, lack of technological artifacts isn't one of them, and not only because most (not all) of them would rapidly decay ("vanished at a high level of technological capability on earth" goes too far - why would they even have high level of technological capability? We didn't have it for many millennia). Lack of fossil record (before our recent primate ancestors came along) suggesting trends toward intelligence comparable to ours - much better.
One that hath name thou can not otter
What would you say are the chances of detecting human artifacts in a few million years? I could imagine some signs of technological advancement last quite a bit (architecture, car/airplane relics, railroads, ...). Although I can't really quantify that. Perhaps someone else can?
Does TFA mention traces of tall dark monoliths nearby? We might need to take a closer look at the magnetic field of the Moon :D
Huh, guess you should go find some Tongva and tell them they didn't exist and weren't forced off their land in the Los Angeles area. Oh, and be sure to mention that their ancient burial grounds desecrated by developers didn't exist either, and they're totally full of shit. Either that or you are, I wonder which it is?
You're an ignorant dumbass.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
why would they even have high level of technological capability?
Why not?
Lack of fossil record (before our recent primate ancestors came along) suggesting trends toward intelligence comparable to ours - much better.
We have barely got the tiniest sliver of the biological diversity at any given point for the last hundreds of millions of years. There are enormous numbers of creatures we'll never know about. Couple that with burial practices, which usually don't lend themselves to fossilisation, and we would literally never know, unless they managed to land something on an asteroid or something, and even then its really unlikely that we'd find anything.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Just look at us. We have high level of technological capability only for a fraction of the existence of our civilisation. We were quite static for millennia.
As were the neanderthals and their civilisation.
With fossils it's not quite as straightforward as you put it. It's not merely about not discovering any fossils of "them", those creatures of intelligence close to ours; also none possibly leading to them and their high intelligence.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Geosynchronous orbit is not forever, the Earth will have a gravitational pull on it and eventually bring it down.
Without a civilization there to monitor the satellites and perform stationkeeping routines, eventually they would come down.
We don't really know where early hominds or early primates came from. Signs point to Africa merely because 1) it geologically has a good track record of fossilization and 2) yearly powerful rains directly pounding millions year-old exposed mud and rock make it easy to find fossils at ground level. For all we know, early primates and hominids could have come from where Detroit or Seoul or Sydney currently is. If those sites are geologically poor at lending itself to fossilization, we'd never know.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
Except some American Indians did inhabit the LA Basin.
http://www.tongva.com/links.htm
http://www.habitatauthority.org/pdf/native_american_history.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_California
Humans have been leaving artifacts of technology for over 30,000 years. Advanced technology and urban centers for roughly 8-10,000 years.
Just look at us. We have high level of technological capability only for a fraction of the existence of our civilisation. We were quite static for millennia.
So what's the cutoff point beyond which an extinction level event would leave some members of a species alive and able to rebuild? We certainly haven't reached it yet.
it's not merely about not discovering any fossils of "them", those creatures of intelligence close to ours; also none possibly leading to them and their high intelligence.
Nope, I mean really, what percentage of the total biodiversity of any given age does the fossil record represent? A few percent? If they had existed, we'd probably never know. What we do know is that the earth's history is peppered with mass extinctions of varying sizes and dubious origin, more than a few, almost as if some dominant life form rose and did pretty much what we've done.
Added to which nobody can really quantify what constitutes intelligence, or what might lead up to it, and how much of the brain is dedicated to problem solving, memory and the like as opposed to mechanical control.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Well obviously we are not at the point of no return - but one other recent member of genus homo (one that I mentioned...) certainly did reach it. Without reaching much in terms of technological advance (despite being around much longer than us, and apparently of very comparable intelligence)
And sure, we can go even into region of swarm intelligence if we really want to. But it's not very productive, brings you more and more into the area of science fantasy without much grounding in available facts.
What we can say is that there doesn't appear to be even singular trace of any lineage (many species!) much older than but generally in the style of hominidae during the last 15 million years - with increasing brain sizes, high metabolism, high brain-body mass ratio, etc.. More - all the evidence points at quite gradual development of brain. Why ignore it?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Very nice map link. And do you know what is also very evident? That the ice capped poles are VERY recent and NOT the normal climate of our world. So everyone please STOP complaining about the ice cap melt, they are not supposed to be there in the first place. Climate change is normal, but what we really need to be concerned about is the effect of our pollution and deforestation on the planet. Fix man's destructive effects and the climate will change as it is intended.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
The argument was about lack of "their" geostationary satellites and existence of oil reserves...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Then there is all the fossil fuel we are burning. Why would an earlier civilisation leave it for us?
The oil *was* the earlier civilization.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
OK, lets say there was a civilization here*, oh 10 MYA.
They could have very well gotten their oil from locations that have since uplifted and had the oil deposits fractured and destroyed, not tapping or discovering or playing out the deposits we've worked.
The Rift Valley, Anatolia, Brooks Range, Rocky Mountains of Wyoming and Colorado all come to mind from Petrology class of places that used to have a lot of oil, but mountain uplift destroyed most of it.
Or hell, maybe they settled mostly in Antarctica 30 MYA
As for geosync satellites, those would have spun off or come back down within a million years.
* - I don't believe there was
That wasn't my argument...
Tell that all to the guy who said "because we have oil, there was no such civilisation" (which, as both you and I point out, is fundamentally flawed; even if we point out different reasons), or general "lack of space artifacts" (supposedly thinking also about the Moon...)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well obviously we are not at the point of no return - but one other recent member of genus homo (one that I mentioned...) certainly did reach it.)
Eh so where are they now? I think you may have misread the comment, the point was that a species might have even ended up a lot more advanced than us ten million years ago and get wiped out completely.
And sure, we can go even into region of swarm intelligence if we really want to. But it's not very productive, brings you more and more into the area of science fantasy without much grounding in available facts.
That was a reference to brain to body mass ratios.
What we can say is that there doesn't appear to be even singular trace of any lineage (many species!) much older than but generally in the style of hominidae during the last 15 million years - with increasing brain sizes, high metabolism, high brain-body mass ratio, etc.. More - all the evidence points at quite gradual development of brain. Why ignore it?
I'm not ignoring it. Why are you ignoring that we have at best a tiny single digit percentage picture of all of the biodiversity at any given period? Although if you wanted to talk about graduated brain sizes, there might not have been much to distinguish mankind from many other kinds of animals even a million years ago. If mankind were to vanish today and some other species were to achieve our technological advancement in fifty million years, what evidence would remain for them to find?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The point was that lack of technological artifacts isn't the best argument - simply because (demonstrably) civilisations don't have produce any substantial ones.
Yes, brain to body mass ratios which are very robust at roughly estimating the intelligence of group of species (groups unrelated for a long time, too, most importantly). Lower rates of metabolism in some major groups of the past wouldn't help...
You are acting like our fossil sample would be totally biased to exclude that particular lineage, supposedly changing at vastly different rates and directions than the other. That is ignoring fossils records.
And check again sizes of "our" brains from one million years ago, they were already quite big.
The issue here isn't mankind, we of course already developed many prominent technological artifacts (though most of them would be wiped away anyway) - but we did so only very recently.
One that hath name thou can not otter
You are acting like our fossil sample would be totally biased to exclude that particular lineage, supposedly changing at vastly different rates and directions than the other
Nope, I'm pointing out that the fossil record is unbelievably short of the big picture at any given point. Another poster explained it fairly well:
Consider dinosaur fossils. We've found maybe, what, 50 T-Rex fossils and not a single 100% complete skeleton. Admittedly, there are probably tons more of them to find out there, but that's not the point, even though scientists are looking, they haven't found them yet. How many T-Rex actually existed in the 15 million or so years they walked the earth. If there were never more than a million alive at one time, and they lived for 100 years, that's 150 billion of them, largely swept away by the planet over the years, and traces of civilization just don't fossilize as well as bones do.
Do you see what's being said? Its not only possible that entire lineages, many of them, are absent from the fossil record, its all but guaranteed.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Lineages which follow very different paths that all the available ones - don't conveniently forget that "small" detail.
But funnily enough, he concluded more in line with what I'm saying - "traces of civilization just don't fossilize as well as bones do" (though I also point out how, demonstrably (still on our example, and of our evolutionary relatives), most of the time is spent before that stage - and without guarantee (again, demonstrably) of achieving it at all)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Everyone repeat after me: "i will not fall for false cognitive closure."
There have been many ice ages, including one (before that graph starts) in which the entire planet was covered in ice for hundreds of millions of years.
"Global warming" is recognition that we are not in a natural rising cycle, but have pushed temperatures up artificially. The evidence is broad and deep, and people who say it's wrong are, to a man, either ignorant or self-serving.
Your use of "most likely" and "civilizations" are inept.
Homo sapiens is the first and only civilization on this planet.
There have been several ages of development of life, but sapience has only shown itself once, that we have evidence of, and we have no evidence that there was any capacity to develop it at any point in the past.
I don't even know why I need to point this out. I mean, what the fuck, this is 3rd-grade science class stuff.
Spiraling out, because of the rotation of the Earth. And that's slowing the Earth's day down in the process.
1. It's a Wired article.
2. It's not really an article, it's a summary. /. doesn't have any experience with those being of poor quality, which is why this one caught it unawares. Its real purpose is to make you click on a link at Wired before googling for the real article that it doesn't bother to link to though it links to dozens of advertisers and a honey-pot of cascading abysses of other Wired articles - sorry, summarylinktraps.
3. The real article is in Nature, which is usually a little better at getting facts right. But also depends on revenue from what was known in the past as a "magazine", and so has embargoed truth and fact from the in-tar-webs by setting up what is known in the future as a "paywall". If anyone knows how to ePolevault this, please warez it:
Late middle Eocene epoch of Libya yields earliest known radiation of African anthropoids
Wow. That title must have made the "editors" at Wired put down their wiimotes for almost ten seconds.
Stop attempting to insinuate that liberals are genetic mutants.
Lineages which follow very different paths that all the available ones - don't conveniently forget that "small" detail.
I find when presented with a response which goes against the basic reality of a situation, the element of rationality has vacated the premises. Whether simply unable to comprehend what is being said, invested in the idea that our species' civilisation is the first, dogmatism, or simply into getting the last word, interest wanes.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Without evidence, there's no reason to believe it. Since there is no evidence left of any ancient civilization, there is no reason to believe one exists. That's the way science works.
The argument in question is one of whether or not such a civilisation or civilisations could have existed, and we would know nothing about it. The answer is unarguably yes. Sznupi seems to feel that a lack of fossil record leading to homonid intelligence denies the possibility of such a happening, despite that the fossil record is in all likelihood less than one percent of all the biodiversity in any particular period in time.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Oh, don't forget about selectively choosing to disregard important parts of quoted posts, just so what's left suits your fantasies... (but missing the ending sentence of used section) ...how cute.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Sigh... what you're saying is that the possibility does not exist because of the lack of a fossil record, which is the exact opposite of what the poster in question is saying. Let me spell this out for you - we probably have less than a single percent of the biodiversity of any given period stored in the fossil record. Not only is there room for the lineages you are looking for, there is room for hundreds of thousands of them.
Also, on the issue of fantasies, I'm not saying that any such civilisation has existed. I am, however, saying that you most certainly can't rule out the possibility.
I respect Dawkins and all that guff, but he's really spawned a lot of self righteous authoritarians on the internet, a plague previously seen in the middle ages before it gave way to true scientific curiosity and open mindedness.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Cute, now you put words in my mouth. Or really like fantasizing.
Where did I say the possibility does not exist? Where?
I said "only" how we had good reasons to assume their lack of existence (which would of course require throwing a very large part of what we know about evolution of life on this planet out the window...), how there isn't a trace, and indeed all the evidence pointing to the contrary - we have no justifiable reason assume such large discrepancies.
The most important thing I'm saying, and the other poster in almost completely not-quoted part agrees, is - let me spell this out for you - that fossil evidence (or lack thereof(*)) is a much more probable point of data than the lack of technological artifacts. Artifacts which might have been simply almost not created in the first place (I was assuming I'm speaking with somebody who can guess, when I tell about what some distant civilisation might had most likely not done, that it would require their existence in the first place; required to even contemplate what they could do or not do)
(*)That ALL the available evidence, and constantly being unearthed, evidence paints certain picture is only too convenient. But hey, since you mention Dawkins - maybe there were giants, who knows...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Cute, now you put words in my mouth.
Better than you putting words into the mouths of others.
Or really like fantasizing.
Mmm, sarcasm is no replacement for a critical mind. Although some clearly feel that it is.
which would of course require throwing a very large part of what we know about evolution of life on this planet out the window...)
On the contrary, it merely involves educating you on the limits of our knowledge, which doesn't take long.
we have no justifiable reason assume such large discrepancies.
In flat defiance of the clear predominance of possibility pointed out by the poster you misrepresented, and which you have thus far failed to refute.
That ALL the available evidence, and constantly being unearthed, evidence paints certain picture is only too convenient. But hey, since you mention Dawkins - maybe there were giants, who knows...
You're not interested in evidence. You should, however, look up calls to authority as they were used in the medieval period. Most of us have moved on, you know.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I'm not saying we are not having an adverse effect on climate - we are. However, I do believe even without the effects of man we would still be coming out of the last ice age and the polar caps would melt. My point was that we need to worry less about climate change (as this happens naturally) and more about how we are polluting the planet.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
If mankind were to vanish today and some other species were to achieve our technological advancement in fifty million years, what evidence would remain for them to find?
LM descent stages on the moon. Satellites in geosynchronous orbit. The lunar hardware should be recognizably artificial even after a billion years. GEO is stable because of minima in the earth's gravitational field. Satellites will slide along the orbit and collect (some of them) over Sri Lanka (Arthur Clarke loved that bit). Once in that stable location only impacts will move them out.
Practically everything on Earth will be gone. maybe a few durable metal components will survive. I once visited an old graveyard in Ireland. Gravestones more than 300 years old had eroded to unreadability.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Not very likely. Pottery for example has been produced by pretty much every known civilization and lasts "forever". The same would go for gold objects.
Did you find any shards or jewelery that don't fit to any known human civilization?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
What normal? there are cycles. They come and go. and now there aren't supposed to be going..but they are.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Very nice map link. And do you know what is also very evident? That the ice capped poles are VERY recent and NOT the normal climate of our world. So everyone please STOP complaining about the ice cap melt, they are not supposed to be there in the first place.
You might want to check your phrasing. Saying that the polar ice caps are "not supposed to be there" is nonsensical. How did they get there? Did god spilled a glass of ice water? I think the point you're trying to make is: There was a time when the polar ice caps didn't exists, and primates still managed to survive (evidently). Sorry to nitpick.
Climate change is normal, but what we really need to be concerned about is the effect of our pollution and deforestation on the planet. Fix man's destructive effects and the climate will change as it is intended.
The effect of pollution and deforestation on the planet is an acceleration of natural climate change, which is leading to the melting of the polar ice caps! So yes, you're correct: We need to seriously curtail pollution and deforestation to reduce the anthropogenic portion of climate change. But the melting polar ice caps are a big deal.