Two Ancient Human Species Coexisted In Ethiopia 2.6 Million Years Ago, One Possibly Unknown
Fossilized teeth found in Ethiopia show that two human ancestor species, including a possibly unknown one, lived there 2.6 million years ago.
A decades-long archaeological project in Ethiopia's Afar region uncovered fossilized teeth revealing that two different types of early human ancestors- including a possible previously unknown species- lived in the same area between 2.6 and 2.8 million years ago.
The findings, published in Nature, challenge long-held views that species of the genus Homo emerged only after the extinction of Australopithecus. Instead, the discovery shows they coexisted. Researchers from the Ledi-Geraru Research Project identified ten teeth belonging to Australopithecus and three to early Homo. The Australopithecus fossils, discovered between 2018 and 2020, did not match known species such as afarensis- the species of the famous 'Lucy" fossil- or garhi, suggesting a new species may have walked the Earth alongside early Homo.
While Australopithecus species walked upright but had smaller brains, Homo had larger brains and different teeth structures. The team is continuing excavations to find more skeletal remains to determine how these species lived and whether they competed for resources.
Lead author Brian Villmoare of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said, 'This discovery adds a critical piece to the puzzle of where we came from. But to fully understand it, we need more fossils."
Location :
Washington D.C., United States of America (USA)
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 hours ago
- The Hindu
How does plastic pollution affect health?
The story so far: Around 180 countries have failed to find consensus on an internationally binding legal agreement that sought to restrict plastic pollution. Talks in Geneva remained deadlocked on the issue late this week. While there is already a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-backed resolution on the need for such a move, only a binding agreement will actually force countries to take concrete action. However, countries are divided on several questions: should they address plastic waste alone or include plastic production?; should developing countries be funded by developed countries for the purpose? The key point of contention is the role of plastics in health. What are the challenges from plastic? No material symbolises the global, industrialised, consumption-based economy like plastic. The chemical constituents of plastics are polymers, and they can be natural — like cellulose, lignin, and are the basis of nearly everything in nature — or made in labs. Polymers derived from fossil fuel and then shaped into objects are in general called 'plastic.' As a derivative of crude oil, it has the ability to be moulded into a nearly infinite variety of objects, from critical things, including aircraft and medical equipment, to cosmetic items such as tinsel, baubles and packaging. Add to that its low cost of production relative to materials such as glass and aluminium. The ubiquity of plastics and the fact that it is cheap has led to it being the prime source of litter and a symbol of the collapse of waste management systems. However, plastic's flexibility also implies its persistence. Plastics are mixtures of various types that include monomers, polymers, and chemical additives. There are more than 16,000 chemicals potentially used or present in plastic materials and products. There is little or no information about the potential impact on human health or the environment by over 10,000 of these chemicals. A report last year in the journal Nature concluded that more than 4,000 chemicals of concern can be present in each major plastic type, such as PVC, polyurethanes, PET, polyethylene and others. Given that most of these are synthetic and non-biodegradable, public opinion has generally focussed on recycling or waste management. Over the years, however, there has been a body of scientific investigation into how these chemicals — that are indestructible — may make their way into living organisms in rivers, oceans, land and ultimately inside people. What is evidence that plastic harms health? Ethylene, propylene, styrene and their derivatives are commonly used to make plastic. Ethylene derivatives such as polypropene (PP), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) comprise the largest portion of downstream petrochemicals used to make plastic packaging. However, manufacturing them requires a range of other chemicals, several of which are monomers (the building blocks of polymers). These include bisphenols, phthalates, polychlorinated-biphenyls (PCB), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). They are used to produce food containers, drink bottles, teething toys, polyester, intravenous bags, cosmetics, paints, electronic components, adhesives and sealants. For years, there have been a bulk of studies where medical researchers have investigated if exposure to these chemicals, via the products used, is having a discernible impact on health. Earlier this month, Boston College in the U.S. and Australia's Minderoo Foundation launched a dashboard that compiled such evidence. There are around 1,100 primary studies involving about 1.1 million individuals that have linked changes in thyroid function, hypertension, kidney and testicular cancer, and gestational diabetes to exposure to these chemicals. The vast proportion of these individuals studied are in the developed world. Nearly, all of these studies are 'associative', in the sense that the measured disease outcome could be a result of exposure to the chemicals as well as a range of other factors, and it is not always possible to tease apart individual effects. The true 'gold standard' of exposure is a 'longitudinal study', where a fixed group of people are tracked over a long time to discern the effects of chemical exposure, but this is time consuming. There are studies underway, said Dr. Sarah Paul, neuroscientist and head of Plastics and Human Health, Minderoo, to evaluate if a group of people who were consciously less exposed to certain plastics would have improved health outcomes. What about microplastics? Microplastics are plastics smaller than five millimetres and can refer to the constituent elements of a variety of additives or plastic products. Given that technology available to detect them is relatively recent, they have over the years been found in blood, breast milk, placenta and bone marrow. While their exact impact on human health is unclear, they too are implicated in a wide range of disorders. What is India doing about plastic? There is a ban on the production and use of single-use plastics in nearly 20 States. These are the category of plastic goods that are the least re-usable and difficult to recycle. Given that they constitute a waste management problem, India has a range of administrative process meant to push companies towards ensuring that a proportion of plastic that is used are collected back. However, this has had limited effect. India doesn't yet recognise the impact of plastics and chemicals on health. In international negotiations on the global plastics treaty, India and other countries have expressed reservations on including discussions on health in the plastic treaty and said that these are matters to be taken up at the World Health Organization. Thus, plastics is primarily a waste management problem, as far as India is concerned.
News18
a day ago
- News18
Two Ancient Human Species Coexisted In Ethiopia 2.6 Million Years Ago, One Possibly Unknown
Last Updated: Fossilized teeth found in Ethiopia show that two human ancestor species, including a possibly unknown one, lived there 2.6 million years ago. A decades-long archaeological project in Ethiopia's Afar region uncovered fossilized teeth revealing that two different types of early human ancestors- including a possible previously unknown species- lived in the same area between 2.6 and 2.8 million years ago. The findings, published in Nature, challenge long-held views that species of the genus Homo emerged only after the extinction of Australopithecus. Instead, the discovery shows they coexisted. Researchers from the Ledi-Geraru Research Project identified ten teeth belonging to Australopithecus and three to early Homo. The Australopithecus fossils, discovered between 2018 and 2020, did not match known species such as afarensis- the species of the famous 'Lucy" fossil- or garhi, suggesting a new species may have walked the Earth alongside early Homo. While Australopithecus species walked upright but had smaller brains, Homo had larger brains and different teeth structures. The team is continuing excavations to find more skeletal remains to determine how these species lived and whether they competed for resources. Lead author Brian Villmoare of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said, 'This discovery adds a critical piece to the puzzle of where we came from. But to fully understand it, we need more fossils." Location : Washington D.C., United States of America (USA) First Published:
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
How scientists built a password-protected mind-reading brain implant
Scientists have developed a brain-computer interface (BCI) — a device that allows the human brain to communicate with external software or hardware — which works only when the user thinks of a preset password. The findings were detailed in a study, 'Inner speech in motor cortex and implications for speech neuroprostheses', published in the journal Cell on August 14. The new system was developed by researchers based at Stanford University (the United States). Here is a look at how scientists built a password-protected BCI. But first, why are brain-computer interfaces significant? BCIs allow the user to control an application or a device using only their mind. Usually, when someone wants to interact with an application — let's say, they want to switch on a lamp — they first have to decide what they want to do, then they coordinate and use the muscles in their arms, legs or feet to perform the action — like pressing the lamp's on/off switch with their fingers. Then, the device — in this case, the lamp — responds to the action. What BCIs do is help skip the second step of coordinating and using the muscles to perform an action. Instead, they use a computer to identify the desired action and then control the device directly. This is the reason why BCIs have emerged as promising tools for people with severe physical disabilities. They are also being used to restore speech in people who have limited reliable control over their muscles. How was a password-protected BCI developed? The researchers involved in the study focused on 'internal-speech' BCIs, which translate brain signals into text or audio. While these types of devices do not require users to speak out loud, there is always a risk that they could accidentally decode sentences users never intended to say. To resolve this issue, the researchers first 'analysed brain signals collected by microelectrodes placed in the motor cortex — the region involved in voluntary movements — of four participants,' according to a report by the journal Nature. All of these participants had trouble speaking and were asked to either try to say a set of words or imagine saying them. The researchers then analysed the recordings of participants' brain activity. This helped them discover that attempted and internal speech originated in the same brain region and generated similar neural signals, but those associated with internal speech were weaker. This data was used to train artificial intelligence models, which helped BCIs to interpret sentences imagined by the participants after they were asked to think of specific phrases. The devices correctly interpreted 74% of the imagined sentences. To ensure that the BCIs do not decode sentences that users do not intend to utter, the researchers added a password to the system, allowing users to control when decoding began. 'When a participant imagined the password 'Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang' (the name of an English-language children's novel), the BCI recognised it with an accuracy of more than 98%,' the Nature report said. (With inputs from Nature)
