Question 1

1. Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus afarensis lived between 3 to3.9 millions years ago. It was found in the Afar Depression of Ethiopia by Donald Johanson.Australopithecus afarensis is classified as an ape. It has closely related to humans beings, because it has some characteristics with human. Its overall body size, brain and skull shape like a chimpanzee. Its height was 1, 0-1, 5 metre. Weight was 30-70 kg. It has cranial volume of 400-500cc.The skull form, low, flat, forehead; projecting face and has prominent brow ridges jaws/teeth, has relatively large incisors, canines gap between upper incisors and canines it has moderate sized molars. Females were smaller than males. Its nickname is Lucy. Lucy was 1.2m tall and has 29 kg
The way the hip joints and pelvis indicates that Lucy walked upright like a human not like chimpanzee.
(http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafarensis.html)

2. Australopithecus African’s
Australopithecus Africanas existed between 3, 3to, 4 2 million years ago. The fossil from Taung was described by Raymond Dart in 1924. It has 1metre tall. It has significally more similar than Australopithecus aferansis. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 400to500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains the back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of African’s are much larger than those of humans, it has small incisors like canines no gap between upper incisors like and canines, larger molars
They are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes. Weight ranges from 30-60kg.according to skull form, it has higher forehead, shorter face, brow ridges, less prominent. Its physique was light bulb, brobably relatively long arms and more human futures.
(http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafricanus.html)

3. Australopithecus Garhi
Australopithecus garhi existed between 2-3 million years ago. In the middle awash region of Ethiopia .it has the cranial volume of about 350-550cc. it has huge molars like homo genus. Canines and premolars are like homo genus. It has no distema.it has apes like arms and legs. faces the very large teeth in this partial skull suggest that Australopithecus garhi may have descended from other Australopithecus species like Australopithecus afarensis.This one of the more striking features of Australopithecus garhi remains, is the size of the post canine dentition, which is at or beyond the no robust austrapithecine or Australopithecus robustus extremes. This is the only features that suggest any link to the robustus
The research discuss the idea that garhi represents a direct ancestor of Morden humans that is derived from Africana which is likely derived itself from afarensis .The limbs look like something halfway between apes and human. Its height is 1.2metres tall
It has large faces, jaws and cheek teeth and the dental tend to be rectangular. The ribcage is funnel-shaped. The feet are basically bipedal and resemble humans. (www.mordenhumanorigins.com/garhi.html)

4. Australopithecus bahreghazali
It was discovered by Michel brunet in 1993in the ancient riverbed of bahrel ghazi in Chad. It dates between 3.0and 3.5 million years ago. Its jaws and teeth were similar to Australopithecus afarensis but it had Morden chin. The skull is similar to that of Australopithecus aferensis and Australopithecus africanus.the teeth were the combination of evolved human traits of molars with the threat-root teeth typically of chimpanzee and other apes. (http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/anp440/bahrelghazali.htm)

5. homo habilis

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains .Habilis existed between 1, 8to2, 5. Million years ago. It was discovered in Oduvai, Tanzania between 1962to1964by Mary and Louisa Luaky.The skull was more human than ape-like but half the capacity of morden man. The brain size was vary between 590to650cc.. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The brain shape is also more humanlike.Homo habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to Morden human. It has a brain of less than half of size of Morden man. Its height was 1, 0 metre. Its physique was relatively long arm. Jaws, it has thinner jaws smaller, narrow molars.
(www.talkorigin/fags/homs/species.html#habilis)
6. Homo Rudolfensis
Is a species of early homo from Africa roughly 2 million years ago. Its brain size is large than Homo habilis .homo rudolfensis had a flatter, Broader face and broader post canine teeth with more complex crown and roots, thicker enamel. It has large cranium. Its cranial capacity is 752cc.some researcher said; it was more like Ape-like than human like. It’s ancestral of homo Erectors. but it has differences in this skull, when compared to other habilis, are too pronounced, leading to the formulation of the species Homo rudolfensis, contemporary with Homo habilis.its height was 1,5 metre .its jaws was robust jaws, large narrow molars..Accourding to physique was robust but human skeleton.
(http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/hrudolfensis.html)

7. homo Ergasters
The species have height of about 1.9 TO1, 4metres .it has the cranium volume of about 700-850cc and is distributed in Africa into Asia. The skull form has higher cranial vault, thinner cranial bone. Jaws, it has robust jaw is larger individuals, smaller teeth than Homo habilis.homo ergasters its body mass is 58kg.IT DISTINGUISH as homo erectors because of its thinner skull bone. it has small face but larger brain. it was existed between 1.8to1.2 million years ago.
(http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/ergastershtml)

8. homo erecters
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago and it was discovered by Durbois in Indonesia in 1991.Darwins predict that human ancestors were probably African .most people at the time believed in Asia origins. it has 1,79 metre brain size varying between 950 to1100 cc.it was the first makers of tools Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans,. Body proportions vary; the Turkana boys tall and slender like modern humans from the same area. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Homo erectus is the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens by a gradual worldwide Americas and evolutionary transformation of all populations of Homo erectus. the skull form was flat, thick skull, with large occipital and brow ridge.its teeth was robust jaws in larger individuals, smaller teeth than Homo Habillis.

http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herectus.html

9. Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago. Homo antecessor was about 5 and a half to 6 feet tall, and males weighed roughly 200 pounds (91 kilograms). Their brain sizes were roughly 1000 to 1150cc, smaller than Homo sapiens'it is decendent of or form of Homo Heidelbergensis.it has height of 1,83metreand its weight was 91 kg.it is the earliest know homonids in Europe with 78000 years. The researchers think that Homo antecessor had the same development stages as Homo sapiens. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and brow ridges are much more primitive. Many anthropologists believe that Homo antecessor is either the same species or direct descendent to Homo heidelbergensis.
(http://www.answers.com/topic/homo-ancessor)

10. Homo heidelbergensis

It was existed between 60000to25000years ago .in Europe.it descended from African Homo ergastersbut it is simillar to Homo rhodensiensisfound in Zambia.its height was 1,8 and it has 91 kg weight bigger and more muscular than mordan humans.the brain size varies beween 1100to1400cc.this species was serious hunters and killed and ate animals.jaws vare simillar to homo erectors but teeth may be smaller.its physicue was robust but human like that of the morden human skeleton.it was distributed in Africa,Asia and Europe
Homo heidelbergensis may have been ancestral to Neanderthals. This species is often also referred to as "Archaic Homo Sapiens”. Its skull form was higher skull, face less protruding and more than homo erectors.
http://www.answers.com/topic/homo-heidelbergensis

11. Homo Rhodesiensis

The species was know dated about 400.00-100.000cc million years ago and distributed in Africa, Asia and Europe .the skull form is higher skull, and face less protruding. Jaws, robust jaws are larger individuals. (Homo erectors).it has a cranial volume of 1100-1400cc .The species height is 1.5-1.7 metre and its physical is robust, but human skeleton but adapted to cold (homo heidelbergensis)
http://www.answers.com/topic/homo-rhodesiensis

12.Homo Neanderthalensis

Neanderthals man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans; about 12000to1700 cc.its height was 1.53to1.65metres and its weight was 76kg. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans. They had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. Neanderthals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East.
Western European Neanderthals usually have a more robust form.
And are sometimes called "classic Neanderthals

http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Neanderthalensis)

12. Homo Sapiens Idaltu

The brain capacity of this species was 1450cc.the skull features are very human, with a face that is flat with prominent cheek bones. Their braincase is rounded, like a soccer ball. The skulls were larger than all of the 600 Morden human skulls with which they were compared. The skulls also have deep faces and long rugged cases that enclosed large brain. it was existed between 160.00in Euphopia in 1997 by Tim.Homo Sapiens Idaltu was the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens .Woodland announced that the skull was similar to morden man.

13. homo sapiens sapiens(wise man; modern human)

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. its skull was forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile.
The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens.

http://www.talkorigins.org/fags/homs/species.html#neadertals)

14. Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis is a species of dwarf human discovered at the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003.H. floresiensis was only about 1 meter in height and fully bipedal. The skull has human-like teeth with a receding forehead and no chin. The brain size of the floresiensis skull is extraordinarily small, at 380cc. This is as small as any australopithecine ever discovered, and fairly typical for a chimpanzee. Its nickname was Hobbit. it used fire for cooking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/fags/homs/flors.html

QUESTION 2

Piltdown man is one of the most famous in the history of science. Discovered the first two skulls, skulls of an apparently primitive hominid, an ancestor of man.
As the time goes on, new finds of ancient hominids were made. The truth came out. Piltdown man was a hoax, the most ancient of people who never were.
The original plit down teeth were produced and examined by 3 scientists.
Fogering fossils
Sir Kenneth Oakley tests, to find where the bones had come from and how old they were.
Originally it had been believed that one skull had been used. The skulls were unusually thick. The jawbone was not definitely established as being that of an orangutan. Paper summarizes all that were used. Not only were the bones gathered from a variety of sources.

Solution

Iron was used to stain the bones; fossil bones deposited in gravel pick up iron and manganese.
Before staining the bones were treated with Chromic acid
The skull may have also been boiled in an iron sulphate solution.
The canine tooth was painted after staining.
The jaw bone molars were filed to fit.
The connection where the jawbone would meet the rest of the skull was carefully broken so that there would be no evidence of lack of fit.
The canine tooth was filed to show wear. It was filled with sand.

FINDINGS

According to Dawson, had discovered the skull shortly before his visit and had broken it up. Dawson found the skull and took them to Arthur Smith Woodward. At the same meeting, Woodward announced that a reconstruction of the fragments had been prepared which indicated that the skull was in many ways similar to that of modern man, except for the occiput and for brain size about two.
He indicates the presence of two human-like teeth the jaw bone found would be indistinguishable from that of a modern. Piltdown man missing link between ape and man.
Fluorine absorption test has done. The results of the fluorine test said the probability of the [Piltdown] mandible and cranium represents the same creature.

POSSIBLE PERSONS INVOLVED IN PERPETUATING HOAX

Dawson is the obvious suspect. He made the initial find of the two skull fragments and the Piltdown II find. He discovered that there is no confirmation by another party. He was the one who made the Piltdown quarry a special object of search.
There is poor quality of the original X-ray photographs the bogus jaw remained undetected at the outset.
Le Gros Clark has emphasized that the forger's of the teeth was there for all to see if only someone had looked for it.
Millar's argument sounds plausible but it doesn't stand up well.
Dawson was a man of many interests, both antiquarian and paleontological. There is considerable evidence that Dawson had been involved in a number of forgeries and plagiarisms.
Walsh emphasizes was the discovery of the jawbone by Dawson. Most of the other bones were found in spill, dug up gravel. The jawbone was found in situ by Dawson.
In retrospect it is hard to see how Dawson could not have been involved.
Walsh argues strongly that Dawson and Dawson alone was the culprit

Hinton was a rodent specialist and a collection of carved and stained pieces of fossil hippopotamus and elephant teeth, as well as assorted bones, that looked as if they belonged in the Piltdown collection.
Hinton had published a paper in 1899 showing that fossils in river gravels would be impregnated with oxides of iron and manganese, staining them a characteristic chocolate- brown colour.
Hinton was fond of and was famed for his elaborate practical jokes

Verdict on their guilty

The way that Piltdown was done, is not good because people they do not trust other fossils information because, at the beginning the scientist tells us how the fossils was made and how it looks like at the end they change the statement.e.g Piltdown man used iron to stain the bones Before staining the bones were treated with Chromic acid to convert the bone apatite to gypsum to facilitate the intake of the iron and manganese solution used to stain the bones
The skull may have also been boiled in an iron sulphate solution. The canine tooth was painted after staining. The jaw bone molars were filed to fit. There would be no evidence of lack of fit. The canine tooth was filed to show wear. It was filled with sand. This is not good.
www.bcb703.blogspot.com

Question 3

The Taung specimen was the first early human fossil found in Africa. Raymond Dart is the one who recognized its importance. The fossil consisted of a face and mandible with dentition, several pieces of cranial bone, and most importantly, a natural endocast. The skull was that of a child whose first molars had just started to erupt.
Dart recognized distinctly human features in the fossil and proposed the classification of a new genus -- "Man/Ape of southern Africa". These features included a flatter, less projecting face than in apes, a rounded head with a lack of browridges, and a lightly built mandible that did not have a diastema which is seen in apes. The natural endocast gave a cranial capacity of 405cc with a projected adult measurement of 440cc, somewhat larger than in modern apes. Dart’s publication on the "Taung Child," as it was being called, met with immediate criticism from an established community for the most part committed to piltdown Man
Much of the criticism centered on the fact that this was the fossil of a child. Many of the features listed above are known in modern apes prior to maturity, and the fact that the first molars of the Taung Child had only just started to erupt indicated that the individual was a juvenile.
Sir Arthur Keith, anatomist and prominent supporter of Piltdown, argued that this was an immature chimpanzee.
However, there was one additional feature to the Taung Child that was not easily explained away as a characteristic of an immature ape. The position of the foramen magnum, or the hole through which the spinal chord connects with the brain, was positioned well to the front of the skull, an adaptation of a bipedal creature whose head would rest atop the neck in a relatively balanced position. Conversely, a quadrupedal ape whose head would rest in front of the neck would need a foramen magnum positioned to the rear of the head to keep its eyes facing forward, and not down, as it moved. If this truly was a chimpanzee, and not an early human, why the forward positioning of the foramen magnum?

In conclusion
They say so because, Arthur Keith suggests that is like a chimpanzee. There was one additional feature to the Taung Child whose head would rest atop the neck in a relatively balanced position. The position of the foramen magnum, or the hole through which the spinal chord connects with the brain, was positioned well to the front of the skull, an adaptation of a bipedal creature whose head would rest atop the neck in a relatively balanced position
Robert Broom said Dart was right .the beautiful specimen of a. africanus known as the taung baby, which was discovered by Raymond dart in 1924, is of infant prognathus face of the adult. Consequently it has an appearance which did much to convince popular opinion of its state us as a human ancestor. The expert of the time, who was more mindful of the phenomenons of a developed species to resemble the juveniles of their progenitors, were less convinced .surprisingly the taung skull, displayed both ape-like and human-like anatomical features .he named the fossil africanus.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anhtro/humanorigins/ha/taung1.html

QUESTION 4
Gibbons
Orangutans
gorilla
Humans
Chimpanzees

http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/hominiod-phylogeny/hominoid-phylogeny-overview: dated 14-03-2006
Chimpanzees and humans are sister species, with gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons successively more divergent from the human line. Within this arrangement, humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas is especially close. While most genes show similarity between humans and chimpanzees than between either species or gorillas, the relative differences are very small. Some genes show greater similarity between humans and gorillas than between humans and chimpanzees. This pattern means that the gorilla lineage diverged only slightly before the split between the human and chimpanzee lineages. Gibbons differ from,, and in being smaller, pair-bonded, in not making nests.
They more closely like than apes do.

Gibbons are the small. One unique of gibbon physiology is that the wrist is comprised of a ball and socket joint. They also has long hands and feet. The fur of these apes is usually black, Gray, or brownish, often with white markings on hands, feet, and face. Gibbon skulls was like apes. Gibbons have the typical nose of primates the stomach is not sacculated. Teeth are also similar to those of the great apes. The upper molars usually have a cingulum, which is sometimes large. The are prominent but not sexually dimorphic.


Chimpanzee
Common Chimpanzees have an , but beta males are hunters which is led by relatively weak, and highly complex social relationships;
Booboons, on the other hand, have a mostly diet. The exposed skin of the face, hands and feet varies from pink to very dark in both species but is generally lighter in younger individuals, darkening as maturity is reached. Booboons have longer arms and tend to walk upright most of the time.



Gorilla

Gorillas are mainly, eating fruits, leaves, and shoots. A silverback gorilla has large canines that come with maturity. Silverbacks are the strong, dominant troop leaders. Gorillas are closely related to humans and are considered highly intelligent.

Orangutans
Orangutans are the most arboreal of the great apes, spending nearly all of their time in the trees, making a new nest in the trees every night.. Orangutans are highly in the wild. Orangutan due to, and has been increasing rapidly in the last decade.
Orangutans are remarkably intelligent. Although orangutans are generally passive. Immature males will try to mate with any female. Mature females easily fend off their immature suitors, preferring to mate with a mature male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan

Question 5


The "African Eve" or "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis is an example of political correctness in biological theory. The basic idea is that modern humans can all be traced to one woman in Africa. The "African Eve" hypothesis has been put into the racial nihilists. Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living . Each mitochondrion contains.

Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis has caused some misunderstanding among people.

Most of our genes are coded in the DNA of the cell nucleus, were as some are in the cytoplasm, associated with mitochondria. Mitochondrial genes lack the introns .Such DNA lacks repair enzymes which correct mutations

"African Eve" theory said that, mtDNA is maternally inherited. Because sperm provide no mitochondria to the fertilized egg. This is an assumption of the theory and if it is not correct the theory immediately collapses.

History proved that eve is the mother of existing population even though she was not the only woman alive during her time.
It was shown that the shape of the genetic tree was affected by the order, so an African origin is no more likely than an origin elsewhere Eve, was no made by a man

Others have attempted to get around these statistical problems The Eve theory was talk about hypothesis which says that, the past 2 million years humans have been a spread polytypic species, with multiple, evolving, inter-linked populations.
For the politically correct, the African Eve theory said that modern man was formed in Africa and did not interbreed with Homo erectus and the Neanderthaloids. The mtDNA of Neanderthals differs from modern Europeans, because the Neanderthals were not the ancestors of modern Europeans

Modern humans clean out Homo erectus and the Neanderthals in acts of "racial" genocide.
The Eve model and human origins model is based on assumptions.
First, one must evaluate mtDNA sequence data.
Second, an estimate must be given of annual substitution rates.
There is no agreement to the change of mtDNA. Some theorists have questioned whether the light skin-colour have evolved in "short" time-periods, and accepting the statement of African genesis.

Goodhart has inverted "African Eve", arguing that sematic flushing and blushing evolved under pale skin and the dark skin came later.
Charles Darwin Clearly said that, this is highly speculative and politically motivated. Professor Henry C. Harpending has argued that current genetic approaches to separating human ancestry may be clean.
Geneticists have studied neutral markers than adaptive genes.
Biologically, different populations have many neutral markers in common from interbreeding, and they may differ in adaptive genes.
The study based on neutral markers would be unfair for giving the common ancestry for groups.
Finally, the African Eve theory assumes that only mtDNA is transmitted from mother-to-offspring through the egg cytoplasm. But this is known to be false. Most mammalian sperm, including humans, do in fact pass on mtDNA of the egg at fertilisation. Human sperm mitochondria can be identified in the embryo for several fertilisations.
http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/Critique%20of%20the%20African%20Eve%20Theory.htm

Eve and the Out-of-Africa theory

Mitochondrial Eve is sometimes referred to as African Eve; this is ancestors who have been found on the ground of fossil and DNA evidence. According to the mitochondrial DNA data, the titles belong to the same hypothetical woman. Mitochondrial DNA shows that the living humans whose mitochondrial lineages branched earliest from the tree are indigenous Africans.
Researchers therefore reason that all living humans come down from Africans, some migrated out of Africa to populate the world. If the mitochondrial analysis is correct, therefore many researchers take the mitochondrial evidence as support for the "single-origin" or Out-of-Africa model.


Critics of the "African genesis" model argue that the mitochondrial can be explained better by trees. Eve most closely to the indigenous peoples of Asia. The strongest support that mitochondrial DNA offers for the African-origin hypothesis may not depend on trees.

One finding is that the greatest diversity of mitochondrial DNA exists among Africans. This diversity would not have accumulated, researchers argue, if humans had not been living longer in Africa than anywhere else. Analysis of Y chromosome sequences have corroborated the evidence that mitochondrial DNA has provided for an African origin for hominids.

The "African Eve" or "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis is an example of political correctness in biological theory. Its basic idea is that modern humans can all be traced to one woman in Africa. Africa then is the mother of us all.
The "African Eve" hypothesis has been put into the service of racial nihilists who wish to eliminate the White race through race mixing. If racial differences are trivial then there can be no objection to race mixing.

"African Eve" theory is as follows
While most of our genes are coded for in the DNA of the cell nucleus, some are in the cytoplasm, associated with mitochondria, the site of much of the cell's energy metabolism. Mitochondrial genes lack the introns and long expanses of functionless DNA found in the nucleus, and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evolve quickly. Such DNA lacks repair enzymes which correct mutations, so that genetic changes accumulate at around 10 times the rate of nuclear DNA
The standard "African Eve" theory holds that mtDNA is maternally inherited because sperm provide no mitochondria to the fertilized egg. This is an absolutely crucial assumption of the theory and if it is false the theory immediately collapses.
On this view mtDNA contains a matrilineal history . construed of a computer program to represent a tree of relatedness, and surprise, surprise, found that all existing humans were descended from a woman who lived in Africa .Although this "Eve" was not the only woman alive, she was the one who is the "mother" of existing humanity.
it was soon shown that the shape of the genetic tree was affected by the order in which the data was entered, so an African origin is no more likely than an origin elsewhere as a multitude of alternative conflicting models can be generated. Eve, it seemed, was no more than a statistical artefact.
http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/Critique%20of%20the%20African%20Eve%20Theory.htm



Question 6

The two articles talk about 2 different species. The first articles talk about the Australopithecus aferensis, This species was 1m tall, 45kg and had a small teeth and ate fruits and nuts gathered from trees and plants, and scientist said, this species did not look like Morden man and more closely like chimpanzee. It has jaws low forehead, and ridge over the eye, flat nose, no; chin, pelvis and legs were similar to Morden man. And it walk on 2 feets, where as the second article talk about the Australopithecus africanus .The methods of isotopic analysis were used in analysing teeth of africanus.Australopithecus africanus eat small mammals while on the other hands Australopithecus africanus are unable to eat meat because of their small teeth.Autsralopithecus afarensis were used fire and stone tools to hunt and to kill animals while Australopithecus africanus used stone tools to hunt and kill animals.

Australopithecus africanus was eaten a diet much like Morden chimpanzee in Taste for man. This is a hominid that live 3 millions years ago.

During the stone age the teeth was not strong they eat grass and herbs because the teeth are unable to cut meat. But during the taste for meat, under isotopic carbon strengthen the teeth and the development of large brain occurs after they began eaten nutrients. The Stone Age, Robert suss man, Missouri said after his studies, Australopithecus aferensis had small teeth and ate fruits and nuts gathered from trees and plants.Sussan said, its small teeth was not able to eat meat. He said it did not have sharp blades to cut such foods.

Australopithecus africanus is a species lived about 3 millions years ago. This hominid they search food in wooded areas and in more open environment.

The Stone Age
Julie wheldom said, early man is dangerous hunters. But now researcher said, humans who lived 2 millions years ago were not hunters, they were meek and mild, and were they hunted. They warded off predators by living in group .but since 1920 scientist said that, people who live 2 million years ago were hunters and killer
Suss man after he studied A. aferensis .he said its small teeth was not able to eat meat
He said our ancestors began to hunt and eat meat when they started using fire and sharp tools. He also found that this species live in both trees and on ground. Now some animals are hunted and eaten by animals for food.
Suss man said early human used their brains and social skull to escape predators. Then he was not hunting them
Darwin noted that animals did not live in group if there is no normally something, or reason for it. Most ecologist pressure from predators is one of reasons why they live in groups.

A Taste for man

New researchers said that, distance relatives to man developed a taste for meat. They search food in wooded areas. Hominid on the other hand looked for food in more open environment.e.g grasslands and ate the meat of animals they killed by stone. After studying the fossils teeth of Australopithecus, they ate small mammals that could be caught without tools.
A taste for meat started when there is a development of isotopic .The teeth were subjected to isotopic analysis.
The teeth were subjected to isotopic analysis. This techniques show that different types of isotopes of a particular atom exist in the environment.e.g grasses and sedge display an isotopic ratio of carbon atoms .since animals absorb carbon they eat into their teeth. It means the study of isotopic ratio in the enamel should say something in the environment in which animal lived.
The scientist say common that our ancestors in homo developed their large brain after they began eating nutrients and energy rich animals foods necessary to fuel the larger brains .
Although in isotopic analysis, grasses and sedges display a different isotopic ratio of carbon atoms. Since animals absorb carbon, they eat into their teeth
Hominid looked for food in more open environment, grasslands and ate animals they killed with stone tools.


References


1. (http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafarensis.html)
2. (http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafricanus.html)
3. http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/Critique%20of%20the%20African%20Eve%20Theory.htm
4. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan

5. http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/hominiod-phylogeny/hominoid-phylogeny-overview: dated 14-03-2006
9. http://www.mnh.si.edu/anhtro/humanorigins/ha/taung1.html
10. www.bcb703.blogspot.com
11.http://www.answers.com./topic/piltdown-man
12http://www.talkorigins.org/fags/homs/species.html#neadertals)
13(http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafarensis.html)
.(http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/anp440/bahrelghazali.htm)
14. .(http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/anp440/bahrelghazali.htm)