Yet another article challenging the 'Out of Africa' Theory. What are we to make of this?
Dudlow


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90915101355.htm

ScienceDaily (July 1, 2009) — A new fossil primate from Myanmar (previously known as Burma) suggests that the common ancestor of humans, monkeys and apes evolved from primates in Asia, not Africa as many researchers believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major focus of recent paleoanthropological research has been to establish the origin of anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes and humans) from earlier and more primitive primates known as prosimians (lemurs, tarsiers and their extinct relatives). Prior to recent discoveries in China, Thailand, and Myanmar, most scientists believed that anthropoids originated in Africa. Earlier this year, the discovery of the fossil primate skeleton known as "Ida" from the Messel oil shale pit in Germany led some scientists to suggest that anthropoid primates evolved from lemur-like ancestors known as adapiforms.

According to Dr. Chris Beard–– a paleontologist at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and a member of the international team of researchers behind the Myanmar anthropoid findings––the new primate, Ganlea megacanina, shows that early anthropoids originated in Asia rather than Africa. These early Asian anthropoids differed radically from adapiforms like Ida, indicating that Ida is more closely related to modern lemurs than it is to monkeys, apes and humans.

The 38-million-year-old Ganlea megacanina fossils, excavated at multiple sites in central Myanmar, belong to a new genus and species. The name of the new species refers to a small village, Ganle, near the original site where the fossils were found, and the greatly enlarged canine teeth that distinguish the animal from closely related primates. Heavy dental abrasion indicates that Ganlea megacanina used its enlarged canine teeth to pry open the hard exteriors of tough tropical fruits in order to extract the nutritious seeds contained inside.

"This unusual type of feeding adaptation has never been documented among prosimian primates, but is characteristic of modern South American saki monkeys that inhabit the Amazon Basin," says Dr. Beard. "Ganlea shows that early Asian anthropoids had already assumed the modern ecological role of modern monkeys 38 million years ago."

Ganlea and its closest relatives belong to an extinct family of Asian anthropoid primates known as the Amphipithecidae. Two other amphipithecids, Pondaungia and Myanmarpithecus, were previously discovered in Myanmar, while a third, named Siamopithecus, had been found in Thailand. A detailed analysis of their evolutionary relationships shows that amphipithecids are closely related to living anthropoids and that all of the Burmese amphipithecids evolved from a single common ancestor. Some scientists had previously argued that amphipithecids were not anthropoids at all, being more closely related to the lemur-like adapiforms.

The discovery of Ganlea strongly supports the idea that amphipithecids are anthropoids, because adapiforms never evolved the features that are necessary to become specialized seed predators. Indeed, all of the Burmese amphipithecids appear to have been specialized seed predators, filling the same ecological niche occupied by modern pitheciine monkeys in the Amazon Basin of South America. During the Eocene when Ganlea and other amphipithecids were living in Myanmar, they inhabited a tropical floodplain that was very similar to the environment of the modern Amazon Basin.

Fossils of Ganlea megacanina were first discovered in Myanmar in December 2005. The fieldwork is a long-term collaboration by scientists from several institutions in Myanmar; as well as the University of Poitiers and the University of Montpellier in France; Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, PA; and the Department of Mineral Resources in Bangkok, Thailand. Funding was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal reference:

1.K. Christopher Beard, Laurent Marivaux, Yaowalak Chaimanee, Jean-Jacques Jaeger, Bernard Marandat, Paul Tafforeau, Aung Naing Soe, Soe Thura Tun and Aung Aung Kyaw. A new primate from the Eocene Pondaung Formation of Myanmar and the monophyly of Burmese amphipithecids. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, July 2009

I will still go with the africa theory, based on the work of Dr. Spencer Wells and his tracking of mitochrondial (i think it was...) DNA...pretty solid scientific proof to me...

see "the Journey of Man" if you don't have a clue of what I'm talking about....

cheers

hey dudlow everyone very inportant new article new thread updates as this continues.. ty bill g

No worries. These do not contradict each other in the least. One can still maintain the Out of Africa for humans theory based on DNA since it does not project that far back in time, and do so without being in conflict with this recent theory, which is interesting for sure but not all that radical. This fossil record is dating back to 38million years in this case and comes from an area that would have been part of a very diverse and productive landscape running from warm shallow seas that predate the mediteranean basin, across asia minor, and along what is now the north region of the northward moving African continental landmass, onward to the East and along the slowly accreting landmass that was being amassed as the Indian sub-continental landmass upifted the slowly sqeezed Tethys Sea as it was creating a vast highland that was to become eroded into the still rising Himalayan Mountains. This Out of Africa concept has become something of a meme. The complex history of the early and complex record of the neogene is seldom considered when popular literature discusses human origins. I presume because it takes additional understanding in geology, tectonics, physical geograhpy, and cladistics, and keeping it simple for the public is key.
The recent discussion regarding homo being more closely related to pongids or pan by Russel Chiochon, based on dental morphology likewise speaks of an Out of Africa theory, and is apparent conflict with what we suppose the DNA relationships between us and the apes should be, and so does the question of H. erectus about 2 mya, leaving, returning, leaving again? The record is sparse and so connecting the dots is open to a bit of interpretation within the accepted framework.
If one goes back to really early times the concept of "back into Africa" starts to make a lot more sense and is widely considered a viable possibility and is not unreasonable considering that the changes that have taken place are immense in scale. cheers

This does not challenge the human origins from Africa theory, this questions the rise of the Anthropoids and where it took place. Anthropoids include monkeys, both new world and old world, and apes. The Anthropoids split off from or had a common ancestor with the prosimians, which include lemurs, Aye-Aye, bushbabies, & tarsiers. So what these two differnt articles you have here, both the one you linked to, and the one you quoted, are both research trying to point down when and where that occured. The article you linked to says the 50 million year old fossil found in Africa was believed to be a Anthropoid is actually a Prosimian, so is not the earliest monkey ancestor as previously thought. That same article also talks about the Anthropoid fossils in North Africa being 38 million years old, while the article you quoted claiming an Asian origin of Anthropoids also has a date of 38 million years old.

Look at the article linked, and see the size of the jaw. It is amazing we are finding primate fossils that small from around this 40 million year old time table. You can expect these "Who was earliest" debates and findings to go on for a long time. But it does not change the evidence for modern humans originating from Africa. StoneyRocks, awesome documentary, though Dr. Wells needs to work on his approach to Cultural Anthropology.



I guess I missed this discussion, homo more closely related to pongo by tooth morphology?