Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

Feb 16, 2011

"Too simple" and "not so fast" suggest biological anthropologists from the George Washington University and New York University about the origins of human ancestry. In the upcoming issue of the journal Nature, the anthropologists question the claims that several prominent fossil discoveries made in the last decade are our human ancestors. Instead, the authors offer a more nuanced explanation of the fossils' place in the Tree of Life. They conclude that instead of being our ancestors the fossils more likely belong to extinct distant cousins.

"Don't get me wrong, these are all important finds," said co-author Bernard Wood, University Professor of Human Origins and professor of Anatomy at GW and director of its Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid . "But to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is naïve."

The paper, "The evolutionary context of the first hominins," reconsiders the evolutionary relationships of fossils named Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus, dating from four to seven million years ago, which have been claimed to be the earliest human ancestors. Ardipithecus, commonly known as "Ardi," was discovered in Ethiopia and was found to be radically different from what many researchers had expected for an early human ancestor. Nonetheless, the scientists who made the discovery were adamant it is a human ancestor.

"We are not saying that these fossils are definitively not early human ancestors," said co-author Terry Harrison, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology and director of its Center for the Study of . "But their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible. We believe that it is just as likely or more likely that they are fossil apes situated close to the ancestry of the living great ape and humans."

The authors are skeptical about the interpretation of the discoveries and advocate a more nuanced approach to classifying the fossils. Wood and Harrison argue that it is naïve to assume that all fossils are the ancestors of creatures alive today and also note that shared morphology or homoplasy – the same characteristics seen in species of different ancestry – was not taken into account by the scientists who found and described the fossils. For example, the authors claim that for Ardipithecus to be a human ancestor, one must assume that homoplasy does not exist in our lineage, but is common in the lineages closest to ours. The authors suggest there are a number of potential interpretations of these fossils and that being a human ancestor is by no means the simplest, or most parsimonious explanation.

The scientific community has long concluded that the human lineage diverged from that of the chimpanzee six to eight million years ago. It is easy to differentiate between the fossils of a modern-day chimpanzee and a modern human. However, it is more difficult to differentiate between the two species when examining fossils that are closer to their common ancestor, as is the case with Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus.

In their paper, Wood and Harrison caution that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships. They point to the case of Ramapithecus, a species of fossil ape from south Asia, which was mistakenly assumed to be an early human ancestor in the 1960s and 1970s, but later found to be a close relative of the orangutan.

Similarly, Oreopithecus bambolii, a fossil ape from Italy shares many similarities with early human ancestors, including features of the skeleton that suggest that it may have been well adapted for walking on two legs. However, the authors observe, enough is known of its anatomy to show that it is a fossil ape that is only distantly related to humans, and that it acquired many "human-like" features in parallel.

Wood and Harrison point to the small canines in Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus as possibly the most convincing evidence to support their status as early . However, canine reduction was not unique to the human lineage for it occurred independently in several lineages of apes (e.g., Oreopithecus, Ouranopithecus and Gigantopithecus) presumably as a result of similar shifts in dietary behavior.

Explore further: Answer to restoring lost island biodiversity found in fossils

Related Stories

An early ape shows its hand

Aug 08, 2007

Fossils often have provided important insights into the evolution of humans and our ancestors. Even small fossils, such as bones from the hand or foot can tell us much about our ancestor’s and their behavior. Such may be ...

Humans related to orangutans, not chimps

Jun 18, 2009

New evidence underscores the theory of human origin that suggests humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, according to research from the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of ...

Fossil finger records key to Neanderthals' promiscuity

Nov 03, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Fossil finger bones of early human ancestors suggest that Neanderthals were more promiscuous than human populations today, researchers at the universities of Liverpool and Oxford have found.

New species of early hominid found

Apr 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A previously unknown species of hominid that lived in what is now South Africa around two million years ago has been found in the form of a fossilized skeleton of a child and several bones ...

Recommended for you

New hadrosaur noses into spotlight

Sep 19, 2014

Call it the Jimmy Durante of dinosaurs – a newly discovered hadrosaur with a truly distinctive nasal profile. The new dinosaur, named Rhinorex condrupus by paleontologists from North Carolina State Univer ...

Militants threaten ancient sites in Iraq, Syria

Sep 19, 2014

For more than 5,000 years, numerous civilizations have left their mark on upper Mesopotamia—from Assyrians and Akkadians to Babylonians and Romans. Their ancient, buried cities, palaces and temples packed ...

New branch added to European family tree

Sep 17, 2014

The setting: Europe, about 7,500 years ago. Agriculture was sweeping in from the Near East, bringing early farmers into contact with hunter-gatherers who had already been living in Europe for tens of thousands ...

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sean_W
3.4 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2011
I agree that some may be a bit too fast to call a fossil a *direct* ancestor. But "cousin" species can be useful in knowing about our lineage since they were living at the same time/climate and were probably not that far removed from our line. Anyway, I will now get out of the way so that the creationists can try to somehow spin this into a defeat for evolutionary theory.
gvgoebel
3.1 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2011
Aw c'mon, SW, as long as the creobots are being quiet there's nothing to complain about -- why encourage them to break the silence before they actually do so?

Admittedly it's not a very good bet they'll stay quiet for long. Sort of like the way every time an ambulance races past in my neighborhood, all the dogs start barking.
DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2011
qvqoebel your comment is just a sad attempted to keep creobots from shinning a little light in your dark narrow mind.
This topic always gives me a good laugh. These educated people really think we evolved from apes. Well apes is only one of the steps in their stupid theory. But it gives the best laugh value.
gvgoebel
3 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2011
qvqoebel your comment is just a sad attempted to keep creobots from shinning a little light in your dark narrow mind.


No worries there matey. But I must admit that I'm not too keen on picking up "gramur and speling" from them.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you might be playing Loki troll. But if so, you're wasting your time. The real thing is much funnier.
arofibook
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2011
The crappy thing is that the creationists will cherry pick some of the info from this article.
Terrible_Bohr
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2011
This topic always gives me a good laugh. These educated people really think we evolved from apes. Well apes is only one of the steps in their stupid theory. But it gives the best laugh value.

We didn't evolve from apes; we share a common ancestor with them. If you don't even understand the _very_ basics of human evolution, it really undermines your credibility when criticizing it.

But hey: at least you're not a hypocrite when you mock people with an education!
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2011
Terrible Bohr:

You may share a common ancestor with them, but "we" do not.

Quit hijacking real science and biology with your crackpot psuedoscience.
gvgoebel
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2011
You may share a common ancestor with them, but "we" do not.


"Walk on two legs, not on four. Are We Not Men?"
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2011
Quantum_Conundrum:
Terrible Bohr:

You may share a common ancestor with them, but "we" do not.

Not all of us are lucky enough to be made of sand and dirt.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2011
We didn't evolve from apes; we share a common ancestor with them.


Who's name is?

Perhaps all the "creobots" are confused when you never name what that ancestor is...

Honestly, all this article shows is the constant lack of clarity amongst anthropologists.
Johannes414
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2011
The evolutionists puzzle was missing too many pieces already, but with every new discovery it is falling apart even further. One day science will finally admit that Darwinian evolution was just a pseudo-scientific aberration.
gvgoebel
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2011
One day science will finally admit that Darwinian evolution was just a pseudo-scientific aberration.


Possibly so -- but people have been saying this for a lot longer than you've been around, and on the basis of how accurate they've been so far, it wouldn't be a good bet that it's going to happen within your lifetime.
mjc
not rated yet Feb 17, 2011
when I first began reading this site it was all about the science - I didn't read the subsequent chat's at all, initially. Now I'm hooked! I particlarly like the banter between the Bible people and the "science" oriented people. IMHO the bible people are loosing the debate. Please keep it up though - it's funny.
gvgoebel
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2011
IMHO the bible people are losing the debate.


"Lose"? Who's keeping score? It's just a mutual amusement. "Like trainspotting, but more like spotting train wrecks."
Terrible_Bohr
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2011
You heard it here folks: Quantum Conundrum will now redefine science for us all! I hope he takes away the math component, because that shit is hard!

@ Yellowdart: Wait for it. Scientists aren't just making answers up on demand. Is it not enough to now for now that we have human ancestors in the ground AND proof of human and ape genetic similarity?

Let's get Johannes and all the others in here, too: It's easy to reach a consensus when no one's actually doing any interpertation of data, but rather are being spoon-fed the answers. You can sit there in a position of comfort with a complete and unfalsifiable creation myth, or you can accept the tangible evidence around you for evolution. You can choose to reject the idea that life evolves, but please be so kind as to offer some sort of alternative theory based on observations rather than faith.
Blue_Hat
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
Terrible_Bohr - we not only share a common ancestor with apes and evolved from apes, humans are apes. We just happen to be the upright walking and talking ones.

As for the article - not much to argue. Until we get a more complete fossil record for the Pan/Hominin split, it's impossible to say which fossil apes are in our phylogenetic lineage.
Michael_David
not rated yet Feb 23, 2011
One thing that bugs me, is you criticize Darwin your assumed to be a creationist. I am a strong believer in evolution. I just think that evolution according to Darwin is limited. And that there needs to be many revisions.

I just think Darwin is becoming more and more outdated. And that within evolution on a galactic scale with millions of planets just in our galaxy likely capable of developing life that evolution is not exclusively local. In other words, I think evolution is scaled up to even potentially differing verities and cross pollinations in different regions of the galaxy. But that is too far ahead of potential data right now.
gvgoebel
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2011
I just think Darwin is becoming more and more outdated.


Well, duh. That's like saying the Wright Brothers are becoming more and more outdated. THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES was published in 1859. Know any other classic works of science that are up-to-date?

We've come a long way from Chuck D, but it's been along the road he started down to begin with -- and if he were to survey the work today, he'd have no reason to be anything but pleased with the way things turned out. So many questions that he was asking, we have the answers for.

On the other side of that coin, Darwin being at the roots, you can't yank him out and leave all that came later standing. If you remove Darwin from modern evo science, there wouldn't be anything of substance left intact. One might as well say one buys modern physics and then try to cut Newton out.
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 24, 2011
One thing that bugs me, is you criticize Darwin your assumed to be a creationist.
Because it is almost always the case. Even in many of the cases where the poster refuses to admit to being a creationist such as Dogbert.
I am a strong believer in evolution. I just think that evolution according to Darwin is limited.
Have you read it? What do you think the limit is? What are your problems with it?
And that there needs to be many revisions.
He has a been dead for rather a long time so I don't think Charlie is going to revise it. Again. He wrote six editions. HOWEVER when people speak of Darwin they usually really mean moder evolutionary theory which include genetics and LOTS of revisions so I would have to say that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
I just think Darwin is becoming more and more outdated.
I think you have learned anything about modern evolutionary theory that you didn't get from a Creationist.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 24, 2011
within evolution on a galactic scale with millions of planets just in our galaxy likely capable of developing life that evolution is not exclusively local.
What does that have to do with evolution on Earth and the processes that have been going on here? Nothing.
In other words, I think evolution is scaled up to even potentially differing verities and cross pollinations in different regions of the galaxy.
Have you smoking strange stuff? Reading the Book of Urantia? Do you know that we have no evidence of life on other planets yet? While it is likely there is extraterrestrial life it is unlikely to be able to interbreed with life on Earth.
But that is too far ahead of potential data right now.
Also irrelevant to the evolution of life on Earth.

So would you care to share with us some specifics on your reservations about the evolution of life on Earth and the process of natural selection? Please stick with the Earth as anything else is rampant speculation.

Ethelred