PDA

View Full Version : Human Ancestor Had a Pea Brain


doc_simon
May 15, 2007, 03:28 AM
Linky (http://www.livescience.com/animals/070514_tiny_brain.html)

Oh, and by human ancestor they mean "29-million-year-old fossilized skull [that] belonged to a common ancestor of humans, monkeys and apes." So not really all that close to us! But none the less an apparently important find:


Tiny enough to fit into the palm of your hand, the skull comes from a female Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, which means "linking Egyptian ape." This early monkey lived about 33 million years ago, a time when primates were evolving rapidly. The cat-size primate ate fruits and leaves in a tropical rainforest in what is now the Fayum in Egypt.

The discovery, published online this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sheds light on the evolution of human-like brains .

"The reason Aegyptopithecus is so important is that it's at the base of the family tree of the Old World higher primates, the group that we're in," Simons told LiveScience. "So this is telling us something about the chapter in our own ancestry."


The article has a few other interesting factoids too.



The team estimates the female weighed about five and a half pounds, or half the weight of the male. This size difference between males and females, called "sexual dimorphism," is comparable to that in gorillas, whose genes make them our second-closest relatives next to chimpanzees.

The stark size difference indicates the monkey-like animals were social and hung out in multi-male and multi-female troops of 15 to 20 individuals. "If we infer that an Aegyptopithecus had a large social group, that suggests it had enough sense to tell all of those members apart from nonmembers," Simons said.
...
Other features also point to an evolving primate. The skull shows features similar to other higher primates, including a developed visual cortex, suggesting Aegyptopithecus had acute vision. "So the visual sense, which is regarded as a very important feature of anthropoids, or higher primates, had already expanded," Simons said.

And unlike the prosimians, which run around at night, the animal had small eye sockets and was likely diurnal (awake during daylight) like modern and ancient higher primates.

RAFH
May 15, 2007, 05:06 AM
Frankly, its a very poorly written article. There doesn't seem to be much connection between the headline and the information presented and there's very little support for a large number of inferences. From two skulls they are able to deduce body mass, and from that brain/body ration and large dimorphism and the probable size and makeup of their social groupings. Perhaps there is more evidence than what's presented but it seems more like someone came up with a headline and wrote the vaguest article they could to fill it out.

doc_simon
May 15, 2007, 05:14 AM
Frankly, its a very poorly written article. There doesn't seem to be much connection between the headline and the information presented and there's very little support for a large number of inferences. From two skulls they are able to deduce body mass, and from that brain/body ration and large dimorphism and the probable size and makeup of their social groupings. Perhaps there is more evidence than what's presented but it seems more like someone came up with a headline and wrote the vaguest article they could to fill it out.

I assume all the details are in the paper (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) - but I couldn't see the paper. Perhaps I'm blind/it's not up yet.

J. T.
May 15, 2007, 08:21 AM
Evolutionists are just trying to equate brains to peas so they can justify eating them.

Oolon Colluphid
May 15, 2007, 08:31 AM
Evolutionists are just trying to equate brains to peas so they can justify eating them.
Mushy peas?

J. T.
May 15, 2007, 09:12 AM
Ew. Nobody can justify eating mushy peas.

Oolon Colluphid
May 15, 2007, 09:59 AM
Ew. Nobody can justify eating mushy peas.
Watch me at Harry Ramsden's. They are essential in the perfect chip butty.

post tenebras lux
May 15, 2007, 10:03 AM
Ew. Nobody can justify eating at Harry Ramsden's.

Tigers!
May 15, 2007, 10:37 PM
I work with far too many modern humans who act as if their brains are the size of a pea.

Occam's Aftershave
May 16, 2007, 12:51 AM
Human Ancestor Had a Pea Brain

Would this then be evidence for evolution as an example of atavism? ;)

http://www.assistnews.net/Imaages05/Web%20mi%20Ken%20Ham.jpg

Ergaster
May 16, 2007, 09:53 AM
Frankly, its a very poorly written article. There doesn't seem to be much connection between the headline and the information presented and there's very little support for a large number of inferences. From two skulls they are able to deduce body mass, and from that brain/body ration and large dimorphism and the probable size and makeup of their social groupings. Perhaps there is more evidence than what's presented but it seems more like someone came up with a headline and wrote the vaguest article they could to fill it out.

Seems like a typically-written press-release to me: get your attention with an irrelevant headline (Human ancestor?? Please!) and then give a few measly tidbits with no details, emphaisizing THIS find without much context. You guys should know better by now. ;)

Aegyptopithecus is a relatively well-known anthropoid primate, and there has been enough of it found over the past 40 years (craniodental and postcranial remains) to be able to estimate body mass. The importance of this find seems to be in its being a very well-preserved female skull (check the image with Elwyn Simons--he's holding the male skull which is beautifully preserved and whose cast is a fixture in every decent physical anthro lab), so far better inferences can be made about sexual dimorphism and such. I suspect this find is important more because it is confirmatory, rather than startlingly new.

Social structure inferences are derived based upon the behaviour of modern primates, which has an element of risk, since we are simply assuming that extinct groups behaved in much the same way as modern ones do, but with that caveat noted, it's not an outrageous inference.

RAFH
May 16, 2007, 04:27 PM
Seems like a typically-written press-release to me: get your attention with an irrelevant headline (Human ancestor?? Please!) and then give a few measly tidbits with no details, emphaisizing THIS find without much context.



My point exactly.