Latest news with #Australopithecus
The Independent
10-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Two-million-year-old teeth transform theory of prehistoric human evolution
The enamel that forms the outer layer of our teeth might seem like an unlikely place to find clues about evolution. But it tells us more than you'd think about the relationships between our fossil ancestors and relatives. In our new study, published in the Journal of Human Evolution, we highlight a different aspect of enamel. In fact, we highlight its absence. Specifically, we show that tiny, shallow pits in fossil teeth may not be signs of malnutrition or disease. Instead, they may carry surprising evolutionary significance. You might be wondering why this matters. Well, for people like me who try to figure out how humans evolved and how all our ancestors and relatives were related to each other, teeth are very important. And having a new marker to look out for on fossil teeth could give us a new tool to help fit together our family tree. Uniform, circular and shallow These pits were first identified in the South African species Paranthropus robustus, a close relative of our own genus Homo. They are highly consistent in shape and size: uniform, circular and shallow. Initially, we thought the pits might be unique to P. robustus. But our latest research shows this kind of pitting also occurs in other Paranthropus species in eastern Africa. We even found it in some Australopithecus individuals, a genus that may have given rise to both Homo and Paranthropus. The enamel pits have commonly been assumed to be defects resulting from stresses such as illness or malnutrition during childhood. However, their remarkable consistency across species, time and geography suggests these enamel pits may be something more interesting. The pitting is subtle, regularly spaced, and often clustered in specific regions of the tooth crown. It appears without any other signs of damage or abnormality. Two million years of evolution We looked at fossil teeth from hominins (humans and our closest extinct relatives) from the Omo Valley in Ethiopia, where we can see traces of more than two million years of human evolution, as well as comparisons with sites in southern Africa (Drimolen, Swartkrans and Kromdraai). The Omo collection includes teeth attributed to Paranthropus, Australopithecus and Homo, the three most recent and well-known hominin genera. This allowed us to track the telltale pitting across different branches of our evolutionary tree. What we found was unexpected. The uniform pitting appears regularly in both eastern and southern Africa Paranthropus, and also in the earliest eastern African Australopithecus teeth dating back around 3 million years. But among southern Africa Australopithecus and our own genus, Homo, the uniform pitting was notably absent. A defect … or just a trait? If the uniform pitting were caused by stress or disease, we might expect it to correlate with tooth size and enamel thickness, and to affect both front and back teeth. But it doesn't. What's more, stress-related defects typically form horizontal bands. They usually affect all teeth developing at the time of the stress, but this is not what we see with this pitting. We think this pitting probably has a developmental and genetic origin. It may have emerged as a byproduct of changes in how enamel was formed in these species. It might even have some unknown functional purpose. In any case, we suggest these uniform, circular pits should be viewed as a trait rather than a defect. A modern comparison Further support for the idea of a genetic origin comes from comparisons with a rare condition in humans today called amelogenesis imperfecta, which affects enamel formation. About one in 1,000 people today have amelogenesis imperfecta. By contrast, the uniform pitting we have seen appears in up to half of Paranthropus individuals. Although it likely has a genetic basis, we argue the even pitting is too common to be considered a harmful disorder. What's more, it persisted at similar frequencies for millions of years. A new evolutionary marker If this uniform pitting really does have a genetic origin, we may be able to use it to trace evolutionary relationships. We already use subtle tooth features such as enamel thickness, cusp shape, and wear patterns to help identify species. The uniform pitting may be an additional diagnostic tool. For example, our findings support the idea that Paranthropus is a 'monophyletic group', meaning all its species descend from a (relatively) recent common ancestor, rather than evolving seperatly from different Australopithecus taxa. And we did not find this pitting in the southern Africa species Australopithecus africanus, despite a large sample of more than 500 teeth. However, it does appear in the earliest Omo Australopithecus specimens. So perhaps the pitting could also help pinpoint from where Paranthropus branched off on its own evolutionary path. An intriguing case One especially intriguing case is Homo floresiensis, the so-called 'hobbit' species from Indonesia. Based on published images, their teeth appear to show similar pitting. If confirmed, this could suggest an evolutionary history more closely tied to earlier Australopithecus species than to Homo. However, H. floresiensis also shows potential skeletal and dental pathologies, so more research is needed before drawing such conclusions. More research is also needed to fully understand the processes behind the uniform pitting before it can be used routinely in taxonomic work. But our research shows it is likely a heritable characteristic, one not found in any living primates studied to date, nor in our own genus Homo (rare cases of amelogenesis imperfecta aside). As such, it offers an exciting new tool for exploring evolutionary relationships among fossil hominins.
The Independent
09-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Discovery of two-million-year-old teeth reveals secrets of ancient humans
The enamel that forms the outer layer of our teeth might seem like an unlikely place to find clues about evolution. But it tells us more than you'd think about the relationships between our fossil ancestors and relatives. In our new study, published in the Journal of Human Evolution, we highlight a different aspect of enamel. In fact, we highlight its absence. Specifically, we show that tiny, shallow pits in fossil teeth may not be signs of malnutrition or disease. Instead, they may carry surprising evolutionary significance. You might be wondering why this matters. Well, for people like me who try to figure out how humans evolved and how all our ancestors and relatives were related to each other, teeth are very important. And having a new marker to look out for on fossil teeth could give us a new tool to help fit together our family tree. Uniform, circular and shallow These pits were first identified in the South African species Paranthropus robustus, a close relative of our own genus Homo. They are highly consistent in shape and size: uniform, circular and shallow. Initially, we thought the pits might be unique to P. robustus. But our latest research shows this kind of pitting also occurs in other Paranthropus species in eastern Africa. We even found it in some Australopithecus individuals, a genus that may have given rise to both Homo and Paranthropus. The enamel pits have commonly been assumed to be defects resulting from stresses such as illness or malnutrition during childhood. However, their remarkable consistency across species, time and geography suggests these enamel pits may be something more interesting. The pitting is subtle, regularly spaced, and often clustered in specific regions of the tooth crown. It appears without any other signs of damage or abnormality. Two million years of evolution We looked at fossil teeth from hominins (humans and our closest extinct relatives) from the Omo Valley in Ethiopia, where we can see traces of more than two million years of human evolution, as well as comparisons with sites in southern Africa (Drimolen, Swartkrans and Kromdraai). The Omo collection includes teeth attributed to Paranthropus, Australopithecus and Homo, the three most recent and well-known hominin genera. This allowed us to track the telltale pitting across different branches of our evolutionary tree. What we found was unexpected. The uniform pitting appears regularly in both eastern and southern Africa Paranthropus, and also in the earliest eastern African Australopithecus teeth dating back around 3 million years. But among southern Africa Australopithecus and our own genus, Homo, the uniform pitting was notably absent. A defect … or just a trait? If the uniform pitting were caused by stress or disease, we might expect it to correlate with tooth size and enamel thickness, and to affect both front and back teeth. But it doesn't. What's more, stress-related defects typically form horizontal bands. They usually affect all teeth developing at the time of the stress, but this is not what we see with this pitting. We think this pitting probably has a developmental and genetic origin. It may have emerged as a byproduct of changes in how enamel was formed in these species. It might even have some unknown functional purpose. In any case, we suggest these uniform, circular pits should be viewed as a trait rather than a defect. A modern comparison Further support for the idea of a genetic origin comes from comparisons with a rare condition in humans today called amelogenesis imperfecta, which affects enamel formation. About one in 1,000 people today have amelogenesis imperfecta. By contrast, the uniform pitting we have seen appears in up to half of Paranthropus individuals. Although it likely has a genetic basis, we argue the even pitting is too common to be considered a harmful disorder. What's more, it persisted at similar frequencies for millions of years. A new evolutionary marker If this uniform pitting really does have a genetic origin, we may be able to use it to trace evolutionary relationships. We already use subtle tooth features such as enamel thickness, cusp shape, and wear patterns to help identify species. The uniform pitting may be an additional diagnostic tool. For example, our findings support the idea that Paranthropus is a 'monophyletic group', meaning all its species descend from a (relatively) recent common ancestor, rather than evolving seperatly from different Australopithecus taxa. And we did not find this pitting in the southern Africa species Australopithecus africanus, despite a large sample of more than 500 teeth. However, it does appear in the earliest Omo Australopithecus specimens. So perhaps the pitting could also help pinpoint from where Paranthropus branched off on its own evolutionary path. An intriguing case One especially intriguing case is Homo floresiensis, the so-called 'hobbit' species from Indonesia. Based on published images, their teeth appear to show similar pitting. If confirmed, this could suggest an evolutionary history more closely tied to earlier Australopithecus species than to Homo. However, H. floresiensis also shows potential skeletal and dental pathologies, so more research is needed before drawing such conclusions. More research is also needed to fully understand the processes behind the uniform pitting before it can be used routinely in taxonomic work. But our research shows it is likely a heritable characteristic, one not found in any living primates studied to date, nor in our own genus Homo (rare cases of amelogenesis imperfecta aside). As such, it offers an exciting new tool for exploring evolutionary relationships among fossil hominins.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Is So Rich It Would Take You 6.8 Million Years On A Median Salary To Catch Up — That's Over 20 Times Longer Than Humans Have Existed
You've probably seen the Reddit threads. Maybe it was a YouTube video with a scrolling bar chart or a guy counting grains of rice to represent Jeff Bezos' wealth. These visual stunts go viral for one reason: normal people can't wrap their heads around billionaire money. But even those fall short of capturing just how far ahead Elon Musk is. He's not just rich. He's the richest person alive. As of now, Forbes estimates Musk's net worth at $424.7 billion—mostly from Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI, and every other empire he's casually juggling. Now let's make this painful. Don't Miss: Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — Inspired by Uber and Airbnb – Deloitte's fastest-growing software company is transforming 7 billion smartphones into income-generating assets – The median U.S. salary is $61,984. If you earned that exact amount every year—without spending a cent—it would take you 6,851,768 years to match Musk's net worth. Let that number sit. For comparison, modern Homo sapiens have existed for about 300,000 years. One of our earliest known ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis—nicknamed Lucy—walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago, according to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. You could have started earning the median salary back then and still be nowhere near Musk's bank account. The math here assumes annual income, not hourly work. So forget 40-hour workweeks or overtime. This is based on a full year of pre-tax, pre-life, pre-anything earnings, stacked for nearly 7 million years. It's wealth on a geologic scale. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Sure, Musk's net worth fluctuates with Tesla stock and private company valuations. But even on a "bad" day, he's playing a game that isn't relatable. Most people are worrying about 5% raises. He's watching billions go up or down depending on how Cybertruck memes are trending. According to Forbes, the planet has 2,781 billionaires—as of their 38th Annual World's Billionaires List published in October.. And even among that elite crowd, Musk isn't just at the top—he's in another financial galaxy. The gap between Musk and the second-richest billionaire is often larger than the total net worth of hundreds of the world's poorest billionaires combined. So next time you see someone try to visualize billionaire wealth—stretching cash down a highway or stacking rice to the moon—just remember: even those stunts are underestimating it. And if you're earning the median salary? You're not behind. You're on a completely different evolutionary timeline. Read Next: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . Invest where it hurts — and help millions heal:. Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Elon Musk Is So Rich It Would Take You 6.8 Million Years On A Median Salary To Catch Up — That's Over 20 Times Longer Than Humans Have Existed originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
The Advertiser
21-05-2025
- Science
- The Advertiser
Ask Fuzzy: What happens when you cook meat?
It's thought that, between 2.6 and 2.5 million years ago, our distant human ancestors were subsisting mostly on fruits, leaves, seeds, flowers and tubers. Then, when the Earth became significantly hotter and drier, forests were replaced by great grasslands. Nutritious plants became scarce, forcing hominins to find new sources of energy. Meanwhile the growing number of grazing herbivores across the savanna grasslands meant there was also more meat. Evidence uncovered by archaeologists reveals cut marks from crude stone tools in the bones of large herbivores 2.5 million years ago. Without sophisticated tools they wouldn't have been capable hunters, but there were sabre-toothed cats. Even if those were efficient killers, they were probably also messy eaters, leaving enough meat for hominin scavenging. The earliest evidence of widespread human meat-eating coincides with the emergence of Homo habilis, the "handyman" of early humans. At a 2 million-year-old site in Kenya, flaked stone blades and hammers were found near piles of bone fragments. Butcher marks show that Homo habilis used their crude stone tools to strip flesh off a carcass and crack open bones to get at the marrow. That meat would literally have been a tough transition because, even though they had stronger jaws and larger teeth, they were not adapted to eating raw meat. Their mouths and guts were designed more for grinding and digesting plants. MORE ASK FUZZY: Something that they (in fact, all life) had to deal with is that you have to spend energy to get energy. Cooking changes this balance by making it easier to extract nutrients. The earliest clear evidence of cooking dates back roughly 800,000 years ago, although it could have begun sooner. This has been crucial to human evolution because our brains are far larger than that of other primates and three times the size of our distant ancestors, Australopithecus. Those big brains are expensive, consuming 20 per cent of our body's total energy. That's far more than other mammals, whose brains only use about 4 per cent of their energy. Cooking also has reduced the need for a long digestive tract and, over hundreds of thousands of years, the human gut has shrunk. This makes cooking another one of those apparently ordinary technologies that have been integral to the rise of humans and, ultimately, to civilisation. The Fuzzy Logic Science Show is at 11am Sundays on 2xx 98.3FM. Send your questions to AskFuzzy@ Podcast: It's thought that, between 2.6 and 2.5 million years ago, our distant human ancestors were subsisting mostly on fruits, leaves, seeds, flowers and tubers. Then, when the Earth became significantly hotter and drier, forests were replaced by great grasslands. Nutritious plants became scarce, forcing hominins to find new sources of energy. Meanwhile the growing number of grazing herbivores across the savanna grasslands meant there was also more meat. Evidence uncovered by archaeologists reveals cut marks from crude stone tools in the bones of large herbivores 2.5 million years ago. Without sophisticated tools they wouldn't have been capable hunters, but there were sabre-toothed cats. Even if those were efficient killers, they were probably also messy eaters, leaving enough meat for hominin scavenging. The earliest evidence of widespread human meat-eating coincides with the emergence of Homo habilis, the "handyman" of early humans. At a 2 million-year-old site in Kenya, flaked stone blades and hammers were found near piles of bone fragments. Butcher marks show that Homo habilis used their crude stone tools to strip flesh off a carcass and crack open bones to get at the marrow. That meat would literally have been a tough transition because, even though they had stronger jaws and larger teeth, they were not adapted to eating raw meat. Their mouths and guts were designed more for grinding and digesting plants. MORE ASK FUZZY: Something that they (in fact, all life) had to deal with is that you have to spend energy to get energy. Cooking changes this balance by making it easier to extract nutrients. The earliest clear evidence of cooking dates back roughly 800,000 years ago, although it could have begun sooner. This has been crucial to human evolution because our brains are far larger than that of other primates and three times the size of our distant ancestors, Australopithecus. Those big brains are expensive, consuming 20 per cent of our body's total energy. That's far more than other mammals, whose brains only use about 4 per cent of their energy. Cooking also has reduced the need for a long digestive tract and, over hundreds of thousands of years, the human gut has shrunk. This makes cooking another one of those apparently ordinary technologies that have been integral to the rise of humans and, ultimately, to civilisation. The Fuzzy Logic Science Show is at 11am Sundays on 2xx 98.3FM. Send your questions to AskFuzzy@ Podcast: It's thought that, between 2.6 and 2.5 million years ago, our distant human ancestors were subsisting mostly on fruits, leaves, seeds, flowers and tubers. Then, when the Earth became significantly hotter and drier, forests were replaced by great grasslands. Nutritious plants became scarce, forcing hominins to find new sources of energy. Meanwhile the growing number of grazing herbivores across the savanna grasslands meant there was also more meat. Evidence uncovered by archaeologists reveals cut marks from crude stone tools in the bones of large herbivores 2.5 million years ago. Without sophisticated tools they wouldn't have been capable hunters, but there were sabre-toothed cats. Even if those were efficient killers, they were probably also messy eaters, leaving enough meat for hominin scavenging. The earliest evidence of widespread human meat-eating coincides with the emergence of Homo habilis, the "handyman" of early humans. At a 2 million-year-old site in Kenya, flaked stone blades and hammers were found near piles of bone fragments. Butcher marks show that Homo habilis used their crude stone tools to strip flesh off a carcass and crack open bones to get at the marrow. That meat would literally have been a tough transition because, even though they had stronger jaws and larger teeth, they were not adapted to eating raw meat. Their mouths and guts were designed more for grinding and digesting plants. MORE ASK FUZZY: Something that they (in fact, all life) had to deal with is that you have to spend energy to get energy. Cooking changes this balance by making it easier to extract nutrients. The earliest clear evidence of cooking dates back roughly 800,000 years ago, although it could have begun sooner. This has been crucial to human evolution because our brains are far larger than that of other primates and three times the size of our distant ancestors, Australopithecus. Those big brains are expensive, consuming 20 per cent of our body's total energy. That's far more than other mammals, whose brains only use about 4 per cent of their energy. Cooking also has reduced the need for a long digestive tract and, over hundreds of thousands of years, the human gut has shrunk. This makes cooking another one of those apparently ordinary technologies that have been integral to the rise of humans and, ultimately, to civilisation. The Fuzzy Logic Science Show is at 11am Sundays on 2xx 98.3FM. Send your questions to AskFuzzy@ Podcast: It's thought that, between 2.6 and 2.5 million years ago, our distant human ancestors were subsisting mostly on fruits, leaves, seeds, flowers and tubers. Then, when the Earth became significantly hotter and drier, forests were replaced by great grasslands. Nutritious plants became scarce, forcing hominins to find new sources of energy. Meanwhile the growing number of grazing herbivores across the savanna grasslands meant there was also more meat. Evidence uncovered by archaeologists reveals cut marks from crude stone tools in the bones of large herbivores 2.5 million years ago. Without sophisticated tools they wouldn't have been capable hunters, but there were sabre-toothed cats. Even if those were efficient killers, they were probably also messy eaters, leaving enough meat for hominin scavenging. The earliest evidence of widespread human meat-eating coincides with the emergence of Homo habilis, the "handyman" of early humans. At a 2 million-year-old site in Kenya, flaked stone blades and hammers were found near piles of bone fragments. Butcher marks show that Homo habilis used their crude stone tools to strip flesh off a carcass and crack open bones to get at the marrow. That meat would literally have been a tough transition because, even though they had stronger jaws and larger teeth, they were not adapted to eating raw meat. Their mouths and guts were designed more for grinding and digesting plants. MORE ASK FUZZY: Something that they (in fact, all life) had to deal with is that you have to spend energy to get energy. Cooking changes this balance by making it easier to extract nutrients. The earliest clear evidence of cooking dates back roughly 800,000 years ago, although it could have begun sooner. This has been crucial to human evolution because our brains are far larger than that of other primates and three times the size of our distant ancestors, Australopithecus. Those big brains are expensive, consuming 20 per cent of our body's total energy. That's far more than other mammals, whose brains only use about 4 per cent of their energy. Cooking also has reduced the need for a long digestive tract and, over hundreds of thousands of years, the human gut has shrunk. This makes cooking another one of those apparently ordinary technologies that have been integral to the rise of humans and, ultimately, to civilisation. The Fuzzy Logic Science Show is at 11am Sundays on 2xx 98.3FM. Send your questions to AskFuzzy@ Podcast:
NDTV
25-04-2025
- Science
- NDTV
South Africa's 'Cradle Of Humankind' Caves Reopen After Flooding
Seated on sandbags in a knee-deep grid dug in South Africa's Sterkfontein caves, where one of our earliest ancestors was found, Itumeleng Molefe swept ancient soil into a blue dustpan, each brushstroke hunting for hidden clues. Nearby, visitors marvelled at the weathered limestone rocks hanging from the ceiling of the caves, millions of years old. Located 50 kilometres (30 miles) northwest of Johannesburg, the caves closed nearly three years ago due to flooding and reopened in April with a new experience bringing tourists closer to the scientific action. The complex is housed within the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, a rich source of artefacts for palaeontologists since it was first discovered. "My aim is to find important bones here," said the 40-year-old Molefe. His most prized find since joining the excavation team in 2013 was an early human hand bone. His father was part of the team that uncovered South Africa's most famous find, a skeleton dubbed "Little Foot", in the caves. Deriving its name from the size of the bones first discovered in the 1990s, it is the most complete specimen of a human ancestor yet discovered, estimated to be between 1.5 and 3.7 million years old. Little Foot is from a branch of the human family tree called Australopithecus, Latin for "southern ape" -- considered the ancestors of modern humans, with a mixture of ape-like and human characteristics. "This reopening represents a significant evolution in how we share the story of human origins," said Nithaya Chetty, dean of the University of the Witwatersrand faculty of science, which manages the caves and the nearby museum. "Visitors now have unique opportunities to engage with active live science and research, all happening in real time," said the professor. 'Missing something' At their peak before the Covid-19 pandemic, the caves received up to 100,000 tourists a year. The closure had left a lingering feeling of sadness, said Witwatersrand archaeology professor Dominic Stratford, recalling busloads of schoolchildren and inquisitive visitors. "Everyone felt like we were missing something," he told AFP. A temporary exhibit of the fossils has been set up at the museum, where visitors will also get a chance to see "Mrs Ples", the most complete skull of an Australopithecus africanus, found in South Africa in 1947. Guiding helmet-clad visitors through the 2.5 kilometres of caves bathed in soft blue LED lights, Trevor Butelezi gestures toward a shadowy passage that leads to an underground lake. "It's actually a beautiful cavity," said the 34-year-old tourism graduate, his voice echoing gently off the walls. "Africa gave rise to humanity and it's not a small thing," he said, paraphrasing a quote from the South African palaeontologist Phillip Tobias. For now, those hoping to glimpse the original Little Foot will have to wait for heritage month in September. The skeleton, which took two decades to excavate and assemble, is only displayed on special occasions.
