9.7 million-year-old teeth found in Germany resemble those of human ancestors in Africa

9.7 million-year-old teeth found in Germany resemble those of human ancestors in Africa
researchgate.net/blog/post/9-7-million-year-old-teeth-fossils-raise-questions-about-human-origin
We evolved from black niggers right guys? Right...?

>niggers
Why the racism?

nigger isnt a racist term. african americans call their friends niggers. it does often mean stupiid talking monkey, but its use is fluid and can also be a term of endearment

that’s some next level autism

>africans invading germany millions of years ago
and we still have learned nothing

Seems like its been a really good year for archaeology

A good year in Archaeology is impossible because of political correctness and the pervasive threat of violence from physishits directed at anyone who questions radio carbon dating.

what is wrong with radio carbon dating?

This is from the research paper in the link you posted op.

>A comprehensive publication on Miocene hominoid fossils from Germany, which is also discussing their “extremely complex” history of study, was published by Pickford (2012). This paper shows how difficult or even impossible it is “analyzing isolated teeth and post-cranial bones”. Summing up his research on these finds Pickford (2012: 135) states: “… the small sample of Swabian Alb hominoid fossils has been attributed to a bewildering variety of species”. Unfortunately, this also applies to the teeth from Eppelsheim and Wissberg. Seehuber (2008) recently figured some new finds of pliopithecids from sand- and clay-pits in the fluviatile “Obere Süßwassermolasse” of Swabia (i. e. Upper Burdigalian – Lower Tortonian, MN 5 – MN 9) but these remain to be studied in detail. In any case, these teeth – like the already published finds from Wissberg and Eppelsheim – also differ from our new finds Epp 13.16 and Epp 30.16.

In other words it's still up in the air because there's no corresponding skeletal remains to collaborate with the teeth. Which is a problem because the teeth found could easily be a result of convergent evolution.

Not saying the teeth couldn't be related to human ancestors but we need more definitive proof that points to at least a partially complete specimen ancestor.

Blacks real terms, niggers slang, Afro americas or people of color Politics correct shit.

Reminder that has happened before.

Also from the research paper from op.

>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

Blacks call each other niggas, not niggers.

>Blacks call each other niggas, not niggers.
You obviously don't live in Chicago.

literally nothing as long as you realize that its only useful for up to around 30k years and not millions
anything past like 7 or 8 half lives of the given isotope is hard to count as valid.

Africans traveled to Europe, looks like Europe used to be black too just like Africa

Looks like blacks are finally returning to their homeland :)

>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

Shut up poltard, go be butthurt somewhere else

>>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

>>>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

>>>>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

>>>>>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

>>>>>>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

>>>>>>>>We do not know how much the hiatus between both major Vallesian sediment bodies is. Regarding the age of the older sediment body the find of a left upper P or M of Hippotherium cf. Primigenium (field number Epp21 .16, MNHM PW 2016/227-LS) coming from same gravel bed as the two hominoid teeth is meaningful. since the first appearance of date (FAD) of Hippotherium in Central Europe is 11.1 Ma our new hominoid has a maximum age of 11.1 and a minimum age of approx.7 Ma (MVC). Although a few urolian age have been recorded for " Eppelsheim " ( Deinotherium proavum : Pickfort & Pourabrishami 2013) at our excavation site no species indicating a Turolian age been found so far. There we aren rule out a Turolian age. Additionally, we can exclude a Serravalliat age of both teeth since these very likely would not have been re-deposited only a few centimeters away from each other in the same sedimentyer in such a perfect preservation. These observations evidence that on specimen-labels the location designation "Eppelsheim"may not stand for several different locations (sandpits) in the northern near the village but also for sediments of considerably different ages. We have also to infer that the "standard profile" compiled in the years 2001 - 2005 by Sommer (2005, comp. Franzen 2011) depicts the situation for a very limited area meters only . A few meters aside the sediments show quite different fabrics. Thus, even at its "type locality" , it is impossible to give a "standard profile" for the Eppelsheim-Formation

>migration? whats that?
>resembles
>RE
>sembles
>implying it wasnt from a nigger
>.net

how many 404s do you need to stop posting this thread.

Not defending the use of racism in /sci, where it clearly does not belong, but there is some truth to the foregoing statement. For example: my cat's name is Nigger and he is well loved and treated.