Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

[Endus]

Everyone = you and Endus.

Missing link is an outmoded term in biology, which I have to say most of us think should be forgotten and never used
There is No “Missing Link” in Evolution

Not just us. It's an unscientific bit of nonsense.

Exactly, which is all the more reason for the likelihood of finding a specimen that fills the gap between austrolopithecus and homo.

There's gaps between every specimen and every other one. This one's important to us only because it's in our own evolutionary history, but it isn't evidence of anything but an absence of examples.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

It was Africa for sure.

[McFuu]

Only Gen-OT could turn science into a debate not based on science.

[Puupi]

Missing link is an outmoded term in biology, which I have to say most of us think should be forgotten and never used
There is No “Missing Link” in Evolution

Not just us. It's an unscientific bit of nonsense.

Okay, fine. You don't like the term "missing link". How about a transitional fossil between the genera austrolopithecus and homo? Happy?

There's gaps between every specimen and every other one. This one's important to us only because it's in our own evolutionary history, but it isn't evidence of anything but an absence of examples.

It's not supposed to be evidence of anything except being the proof of where our genus started.

[McFuu]

What sort of debate would you expect? Any claim that this in and of itself proves hominins emerged in Europe is ridiculous and it's not like any of us can go personally examine the pieces, let alone would be qualified to really dispute the classification of them.

I'm not disputing that. What I'm confused on is, while the article title is a bit misleading, evolutionary theory general assumes that homo evolved out of Africa. Except hard evidence doesn't exist. Finding any evidence anywhere else can cast doubts on currently accepted assumptions. But does it completely disprove the previous assumption of origin, no. Mainly because it's an assumption based on evidence, but it has yet to be proven.
But the finding may be an unrelated offshoot that isn't linked to homo either.
The whole arguing about the concept of a missing link is laughable too. The missing link is a complete abstract concept, but it's important to find these evolutionary markers. No one skeleton will be the missing link, it's a chain that helps us understand where we came from. We don't need these species to prove we evolved from here or there, but their discovery helps us learn.

It's all theory, where people are taking it entirely at face value.
Science is science, there is no lie, there is no accepting only what you want to believe.

[Endus]

Okay, fine. You don't like the term "missing link". How about a transitional fossil between the genera austrolopithecus and homo? Happy?

Not really. Because most fossils are "transitional fossils", it depends entirely on what you're talking about them transitioning between. It's a term that has relevance when talking about the emergence of particular features, but that's about it. Archaeopteryx is probably one of the best-known, but that critter was running around for a couple million years; it's not like it was just a stepping stone that only existed for a moment.

[Puupi]

Not really. Because most fossils are "transitional fossils", it depends entirely on what you're talking about them transitioning between. It's a term that has relevance when talking about the emergence of particular features, but that's about it..

The first known homo and the last known austrolopithecus look entirely different - hence the different genus. So what I'm talking about is something that is between those two.

[kenthovind]

It's bullshit pseudoscience. The whole concept of discrete species is itself an oversimplification, and evolution does not proceed by a sudden shift from one generation to the next. It's a slow drift (albeit one where the rate and degree of drift can vary considerably). In stable environments, a single species will tend to diversify into multiple offshoots, or develop a significant internal diversity of form (like what we've done with dogs, through selective breeding). And then some even will occur with puts pressure on that species group, and some will survive, others won't, and when you repeat that over millions of years, you get evolution.

The "missing link" is nonsense. ALL fossils are "transitional fossils". There will ALWAYS be "missing links", because we don't have the bodies of literally every creature that has ever lived. That isn't anything that calls evolutionary theory into question.



This is nonsense. Not only is there huge amounts of evidence backing macroevolution, we've seen it happen under laboratory conditions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.ca/200...-evidence.html

I am curious, though, how frilled sharks "disprove" evolution. I'm sure you think it's because they're similar to much older shark forms, and have survived relatively unchanged? That doesn't disprove evolution, it proves that frilled sharks have survived and continued to prosper across hundreds of millions of years. That frilled sharks exist alongside all the other forms of sharks is pretty massive evidence as to how thoroughly wrong you are.

DNA is a program, the designers program, DNA changes only in the way the creator designed it to be able to change to. Bacteria has and always will stay bacteria, and your imaginary 100000000 year old lizards stayed lizards to this day.

[Endus]

The first known homo and the last known austrolopithecus look entirely different - hence the different genus. So what I'm talking about is something that is between those two.

You seem to be trying to look at human evolution as a "chain", from one species to the next.

That's not how evolution works.



There's the age ranges for what we've found, for the various hominids. You'll note that austalopithecus were still around 1.5 million years ago, alongside homo forms. They didn't progress from one to the other in a convenient chain. Look at around 2.1 million years ago; we would've had populations of two different australopithecus species living at the same time, as well as three species of homo. Same for 1.7 million years, though homo rudolfensis has gone by then and homo erectus has come to be.

The tree of life sends out new shoots constantly, and various branches get trimmed here or there. It's an ongoing diversification, not a chain from one to the next.

[Aggrophobic]

Bold to draw that conclusion from so little evidence.
Seems more like sensationalism than actually science or more likely, the scientists said nothing of the sort and the journalists made most of it up themselves.

But hey, it generates clicks.

[Puupi]

You seem to be trying to look at human evolution as a "chain", from one species to the next.

That's not how evolution works.

There's the age ranges for what we've found, for the various hominids. You'll note that austalopithecus were still around 1.5 million years ago, alongside homo forms. They didn't progress from one to the other in a convenient chain. Look at around 2.1 million years ago; we would've had populations of two different australopithecus species living at the same time, as well as three species of homo. Same for 1.7 million years, though homo rudolfensis has gone by then and homo erectus has come to be.

The tree of life sends out new shoots constantly, and various branches get trimmed here or there. It's an ongoing diversification, not a chain from one to the next.

Yes, yes. There have been overlapping with australopithecus and homo, but there is still the first homo and its connection (missing link! haha there it is again!) to one or more of these australopithecusi(sp?). The first homo came from somewhere, it didn't just magically appear out of nowhere.

[Dhrizzle]

They haven't said humanity evolved in Europe, simply posited that the graecopithecus specimens, found in Greece and Bulgaria, are hominin. These remains are upwards of 7.2 million years old, so assuming their position is true, it would make this the oldest known last common ancestor between apes and man discovered thus far.

There's a problem with the press once again sensationalising one remote possibility from the findings - the Telegraph headline reads "Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find."

[Shinra1]

Misleading title. Misleading article.

exactly. this reminds me of the recent Tutankamun thread that claimed that the ancient Egyptians including all the Pharoahs were alabaster people.

[NED funded]

Evolution is a sham.

[DaSandman]

I think I'd wait and see what comes up. I have to question this article though. If we evolved in Europe, assuming Europe was even cold around the time humans evolved, why do we have sweat glands? Why didn't we have thick layers of hair? Why aren't out bones thicker and our bodies more muscular?

[Deleted]

Yes, yes. There have been overlapping with australopithecus and homo, but there is still the first homo and its connection (missing link! haha there it is again!) to one or more of these australopithecusi(sp?). The first homo came from somewhere, it didn't just magically appear out of nowhere.

To me, the idea of a "missing link" is suggestive and exciting: there's more science to be done out there, and bones to dig up.
But it's been taken and modified by deniers to mean something else.
Given that using the terminology gives too much credit to denier nonsense, and that experts are phasing it out, I think it's wise to stop using it altogether.

[Mormolyce]

This has nothing to do with the Out of Africa theory. Anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago and migrated outwards in at least two waves, 130,000 years ago and 50,000 years ago.

This fossil of a pre-human primate in Europe does not contradict that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent..._modern_humans

Ahh. Can't wait to shove this up in Twitch chat's face.

FeelsGoodMan
New spicy meme inc.

It'll go nicely with the rest of the fake news.

- - - Updated - - -

Evolution is a sham.

Explain colds then.

[omfgreally]

This has been known to most people before hand, but good for letting the unwashed masses know.

- - - Updated - - -

It'll go nicely with the rest of the fake news.

Yeah like CNN, MSNBC, NBS, MSN, Politico, BBC, etc, etc.

[Techno-Druid]

I don't see how this invalidates our understanding on the origins of anatomically modern humans. We've known that hominids were present in Eurasia since the Miocene.

Orangutans didn't magically show up in Asia one day.

[NED funded]

This has nothing to do with the Out of Africa theory. Anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago and migrated outwards in at least two waves, 130,000 years ago and 50,000 years ago.

This fossil of a pre-human primate in Europe does not contradict that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent..._modern_humans



It'll go nicely with the rest of the fake news.

- - - Updated - - -



Explain colds then.

What about them?