You didn't come from "white and delightsome" Nordic alien beings dropped on Earth from the planet Kolob. Too bad, Mormons. You and your evangelical cousins can deny, yell, scream, and fume all you want -- but this is what you come from:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/08/28/face-earliest-human-ancestor-recreated-scientists-find-remarkably/

The human family album just gained a new portrait, after scientists discovered a skull of our earliest ancestor and reconstructed its face.

Australopithecus anamensis (meaning "southern ape of the lake") is the oldest known species of the human evolutionary tree after it branched away from more ape-like creatures around 4.2 million years ago.

But until recently paleoanthropologists had only found fragments of jaw, limb bones and teeth, making it difficult to know what it looked like.

In February 2016, a global excavation team discovered the 'remarkably complete' fossil skull in the sediment of an ancient lake in the Afar region of Ethiopia, around 35 miles from Addis Ababa.

Now, after years of careful comparison with other fossils, scientists have confirmed that it belonged to Australopithecus anamensis, and have recreated the face of the species for the first time.

Dr Stephanie Melillo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, said: “A. anamensis was already a species that we knew quite a bit about, but this is the first cranium of the species ever discovered. It is good to finally be able to put a face to the name.”

The fossil skull - dubbed MRD - dates from 3.8 million years ago, a period when human ancestor fossils are extremely rare.

It was dated using minerals in layers of volcanic rocks nearby. It was found to have canine teeth which were much smaller than its ape-like predecessors, and a broader flatter face common to later australopithecines.

One of the most significant findings was that the species overlapped with Australopithecus afarensis by about 100,000 years, contradicting the long-held believe that anamensis evolved into afarensis, and rewriting the human lineage.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2019 10:59PM by anybody.

3.8 million years ago, back to our first known human ancestor.

The reconstruction is wonderful: recognizably both "recently ape" and, simultaneously, recognizably "human."

(I know the eyes are artistic renditions, but they are extremely well done....and certainly human.)

Thank you for this, anybody!

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3.8 million years ago, back to our first known
> human ancestor.
>
> The reconstruction is wonderful: recognizably both
> "recently ape" and, simultaneously, recognizably
> "human."
>
> (I know the eyes are artistic renditions, but they
> are extremely well done....and certainly human.)
>
> Thank you for this, anybody!

I don't know anyone who looks like that creature. Do you?

Recognized Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 3.8 million years ago, back to our first known
> > human ancestor.
> >
> > The reconstruction is wonderful: recognizably
> both
> > "recently ape" and, simultaneously,
> recognizably
> > "human."
> >
> > (I know the eyes are artistic renditions, but
> they
> > are extremely well done....and certainly
> human.)
> >
> > Thank you for this, anybody!
>
> I don't know anyone who looks like that creature.
> Do you?

Depends on what the phrase "looks like" means.

Unsurprisingly, I have seen similar human physiognomies in Africa, especially in some black groups which have been largely "segregated" (either by their own choice, or because of geography, etc.) from other ancestral lines....and I have also seen the same among the most physically distressed, in the lowest socio-economic groups, in the USA (very much including white people, and particularly when these sorts of physical appearances go back many generations with significant inbreeding).

And in addition, there is also a strong resemblance to some contemporary primates: at least some gorillas and some orangutans, which is probably more clearly evident among those primates who have had significant interaction with humans: they have been socialized with humans....or they have learned to communicate with humans via sign language or other means....or they go to orangutan school with human teachers (as is true with the contemporary orphaned orangutans in the palm tree oil production areas of southeast Asia).

When humans and primate species have the means to communicate, and can learn specific techniques and information from each other, and can share emotions with one another, a physical resemblance (which is likely a matter of perception on the part of both) can occur, and it is not all that far off from the picture in the article.

I come from the entertainment industry, and in general audience books and magazines, in "minstrel shows," and in silent films on through pre-mid-twentieth-century films, black American characters (in particular--and whether or not they were in real life "white," or in real life were "black," or none of the above) were visually presented with facial features and with mannerisms which appear ludicrous today, but "made sense" to (at minimum) white people back then. (The same was true for characters who were supposed to be of Asian descent, and for characters who were supposed to be of Native American descent.)

Today, no serious, general audience, films could use those same physical, or dialogue, or physical action "characterizations"--and even today, it is sometimes really tough to view these films (etc.) because of the incredible (by our contemporary standards), blatant prejudice involved. Even when the films are "good," they can hurt when you are seeing them.

As a society, our perceptions have changed significantly, and what once made complete, logical, VISUAL (and audial) "sense," is now a historical curiosity....and it is not because reality itself has changed, but because our perceptions of reality have changed.

This is why you and I are "seeing" different things when we look at these pictured recreations of our mutual biological ancestors. I see, very clearly, a "bridge" species between primates and us....and you (I think) see a non-human creature who is inferior, and also alien, to your present perceptions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2019 11:55PM by Tevai.

“I don't know anyone who looks like that creature. Do you?”

No, but I’d date her.

How did he get to Ethiopia all the way from Missouri?

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How did he get to Ethiopia all the way from
> Missouri?

It's easy!

Walk north from Missouri, over the North Pole....continue over the ice as you veer south, through what is now Russia, and after that it's a more-or-less direct line south to Ethiopia.

Might take awhile more than anticipated, but you COULD eventually get to Ethiopia without too much swimming along the way.

Easy peasy!

I've done my genealogy clear back to Australopithecus anamensis.

Speak for yourself, anybody.

My ancestors sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus!

>> My ancestors sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus!

you mean like a drop of sweat or a pimple? :)

Watch it Roy, or I'll have anybody kick your backside.

I'd prefer to be kicked by nobody rather than anybody. Then when I run around holding my backside in pain and people ask who kicked me, I can scream "nobody" and they'll all be confused.

What? You think Roy's allusion was unintentional?

You underestimate him!

HA!

Anybody must have read it with only one eye open and missed that ;)

Sacker Of Cities, Destroyer Of Troy, son of Laertes, and King of Ithaka!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmn3Ihrzffo

Here here! Love that story!

Meanwhile in these gender-neutral times I'm still lashed to the mast, listening to the song of the sirens. . .

But please do bring me some mutton stew!

You Mormons (ex- or otherwise) are such pathetic amateurs, taking "intelligences" and gathering "chaos" into some paltry planetary system with a few governing stars. In my pre-existent past lives, I was building and destroying entire planets, solar systems, fleets of celestial battle cruisers, and casting them into dark holes!

And you hope to qualify for some miserable "Celestial Kingdom," Level III? Hey--I'm a Level X Operating Cretin!

How can anthropologists determine the color of the skin? Or the color of the hair?

I also don't think there's a way of reconstructing the cartilage of the nose and ears.

If they had depicted the nose properly, and given this dude blue eyes and yellow hair, he would look just like my ex-husband!

They can't... these are just guesses.... besides Gawd put those fossils there to confuse us pathetic humans and test our faith. Back to TCOJCOLDS ye heathens!!!

nah, that's just Aunt Josephine

Our earliest known ancestor? Better candidates would be microbial fossils, early sponges, the rodent-like early mammals, lemur/tree shrew style proto-primates etc...

Weird Science Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our earliest known ancestor? Better candidates
> would be microbial fossils, early sponges, the
> rodent-like early mammals, lemur/tree shrew style
> proto-primates etc...

True that we have a plenitude of different species and forms of earlier-than-primate Homo Sapiens Sapiens ancestors, but "right now" (at this current time in scientific work) general interest, and scientific energies, are with our larger network of primate ancestors....both because our ancestor primates are so [relatively] close to us, and also because this particular kind of knowledge directly affects our cultural and historical conceptions and understanding (the Adam and Eve story, etc.).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2019 04:14PM by Tevai.

My understanding of this is that it makes it less clear who/which primate we descended from, because we now know there were two primate ancestors who overlapped and existed at the same time. And there is still a missing link.
I’m an atheist and believe in evolution; this was interesting but didn’t provide more clarity, just more pieces to the jigsaw puzzle that is still incomplete.

It makes me wonder what humans will look like 4 million years from now, should we have the privilege of surviving that long (being an optimist, I like to think that we will.) Will our far-flung descendants look back and think how primitive we looked? How ape-like? Will they feel any sense of connection to us? I surely hope that they will.

This ancestor of ours once felt the warmth of the sun on his back, the pleasure of a good meal, and the deep satisfaction of watching his offspring be nurtured and prosper.

To any LDS church authorities that are lurking, this is what Adam looked like. This is our ancestor who was ejected from "the garden" -- the verdant jungles of tropical Africa -- in favor of the hot, dry, demanding savannahs that signaled our evolution, our salvation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2019 07:53PM by summer.

Perfectly expressed, summer!

My feelings, as well.

:)

Until recently, the evolution of hominins was dictated by natural selection. Whatever genetic combinations conferred a survival or reproductive advantage in a given environmental niche tended to do better than other combinations.

Presuming that HSS is not wiped out by global climate change, disasters of extraterrestrial origin like wayward asteroids, or high-tech warfare, natural selection no longer works as well on humans. We use agriculture, medicine, etc., to mitigate natural processes and render most humans capable of survival regardless of handicaps that would previously have doomed many. That is in many ways a great thing: Stephen Hawking, for one, would not have lived past childhood in the old circumstances.

So for the most part natural selection will be replaced by unnatural selection as technology increasingly enables people--particularly the rich--to edit their own DNA and that of their children. So it is entirely possible that our distant progeny will look at photos of us and think we look distinctly primitive.

I don't mind a continuation of evolution, but the prospect of human beings deciding the course of such change is deeply unsettling. There is little in history to indicate that people are capable of understanding the biological, economic, social and political risks of the new technologies let alone managing them wisely.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't mind a continuation of evolution, but the
> prospect of human beings deciding the course of
> such change is deeply unsettling. There is little
> in history to indicate that people are capable of
> understanding the biological, economic, social and
> political risks of the new technologies let alone
> managing them wisely.

I totally, absolutely, agree 1,000,000%

[My opinion, in large part, is based on growing up in the family I grew up in. My further experiences, as I gradually evolved into an adult part of the world beyond my birth family, largely verified that my observations in childhood were, for the most part, valid.]

You have voiced one of my greatest fears.

The second I heard about "altering genes" of the unborn or embryos or even egg and sperm, a chill ran down my spine. Because . . . .

Are the creators and the practitioners of this technology going to be edited as well? Will souless Big Pharma with their mega-profits, still run it all, with religion adding its dollop of unhinged control? Will no one want gay people anymore? Brown people? Is Kim Kardashian's butt going to be the hot ticket item for genes to buy?

I'm mean look what we've done to dogs in the last couple centuries. Legs so short they can barely walk. Bodies so long that spines are weak. Noses so pushed into the face that breathing is labored and causes massive farting. Traits bred in to make them clamp down and never let go.

Scares the hell out of me.

In a world in which people like Peter Thiel purchase citizenship in New Zealand lest they be caught up in an American apocalypse and other billionaires make arrangements to have their bodies permanently preserved in the hope that technology eventually renders an effective resurrection possible, I worry about the convergence of technology and wealth.

Imagine a world in which genetic engineering is possible but extremely expensive. Many of the "elect" will probably do what they can to give their children social and economic advantages: taller stature, more attractive appearances, and eventually perhaps athletic or even intellectual advantages. The upshot could be a new class structure based in biology and hence more difficult to neutralize. The ideal of "all men created equal" would then become even more illusory.

A brave new world indeed.

You mean the Earth is older than 6,000 years? ;)

(That was a joke.) Interesting article. Thanks.

LOL @ exmos who beleeve this nonsense ~


in b 4 ~ an atheistic scientist finds a bone ~


brb ~ OPie thinks it is his great-grandma ~


LOL ~


in b 4 ~ exmos who once beleefed Joseph Smith, Jr.'s lies now beleef these atheistic scientist lies ~


brb ~ LOLing ~


any exmo that takes one look at ziller's facial aesthetics ~

or the facial aesthetics of his women ~

or the facial aesthetics of his children ~

would agree that there is no way in Mormon Hell that some hideous ape-person is remotely related to ziller's fam ~


or your fam OPie ~


come into the light OPie ~


peas ~

Note to self: When you get your own planet, do NOT buy junior a home gene splicing kit.