Fossil Discovery: More Evidence for Asia, Not Africa, as the Source of Earliest Anthropoid Primates

Science Daily ^ | 06/07/2012

[SeekAndFind]

An international team of researchers has announced the discovery of Afrasia djijidae, a new fossil primate from Myanmar that illuminates a critical step in the evolution of early anthropoids -- the group that includes humans, apes, and monkeys. The 37-million-year-old Afrasia closely resembles another early anthropoid, Afrotarsius libycus, recently discovered at a site of similar age in the Sahara Desert of Libya.

The close similarity between Afrasia and Afrotarsius indicates that early anthropoids colonized Africa only shortly before the time when these animals lived. The colonization of Africa by early anthropoids was a pivotal step in primate and human evolution, because it set the stage for the later evolution of more advanced apes and humans there.

The scientific paper describing the discovery appears June 4 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For decades, scientists thought that anthropoid evolution was rooted in Africa. However, more recent fossil discoveries in China, Myanmar, and other Asian countries have rapidly altered scientific opinion about where this group of distant human ancestors first evolved. Afrasia is the latest in a series of fossil discoveries that are overturning the concept of Africa as the starting point for anthropoid primate evolution.

"Not only does Afrasia help seal the case that anthropoids first evolved in Asia, it also tells us when our anthropoid ancestors first made their way to Africa, where they continued to evolve into apes and humans," says Chris Beard, Carnegie Museum of Natural History paleontologist and member of the discovery team that also included researchers from Myanmar, Thailand, and France.

Beard is renowned for his extensive work on primate evolution and anthropoid origins. "Afrasia is a game-changer because for the first time it signals when our distant ancestors initially colonized Africa."

[TigersEye]

Making an argument from a facetious comment isn’t logical it’s neurotic.

[onedoug]

I'm a staunch advocate of Old Testament theology - a Noachide, if you will - and I find this material simply fascinating.

Being far from an expert on any of it - I find molecular biology very difficult, even for its frequent deemphasis of God - yet I can't help but be moved by some of the argumentation contained therein.

From the Wiki entry, for example on "Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup":

Understanding the evolutionary path of the female lineage has helped population geneticists trace the matrilineal inheritance of modern humans back to human origins in Africa and the subsequent spread across the globe.

The letter names of the haplogroups run from A to Z. As haplogroups were named in the order of their discovery, they do not reflect the actual genetic relationships.

The woman at the root of all these groups is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. She is commonly called Mitochondrial Eve.

It's very compelling, and unless one is a "young Earth creationist", which I'm not, nonetheless the "Glory of God" shows forth very clearly to me in these datum, although certainly not conclusive - as good science never really is - yet it can't help but challenge my faculties at least, such as they may be.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Making an argument from a facetious comment isn’t logical it’s neurotic.

Why? we can always assume that the comment is serious... it is always an exercise for the mind.

[The Cajun]

Are you sure?

Dang asteroid missed one!

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks SeekAndFind. The Scars of Evolution: What Our Bodies Tell Us About Human Origins by Elaine Morgan "The most remarkable aspect of Todaro's discovery emerged when he examined Homo Sapiens for the 'baboon marker'. It was not there... Todaro drew one firm conclusion. 'The ancestors of man did not develop in a geographical area where they would have been in contact with the baboon. I would argue that the data we are presenting imply a non-African origin of man millions of years ago.'" To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[null and void]

Asteroid??? EXCUSE ME???

[wildbill]

This study is motivated by racism. Why? Because it attempts to reorder the ‘settled’ science about where humans evolved from Africa to Asia. [sarcasm/]

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

If we all came from asia, when did our wieners get so big?

[Little Bill]

I have had a problem with the out of Africa theory for about thirty years. Asia is a tabula rasa, things might get interesting in a few years.