Thesis: The tooth morphology of robust australopithecines suggests that Australopithecines spent most of their time consuming hard materials.
Tooth abrasion and isotopic analysis and discrepancies among researches
Tooth abrasion shows hard foods.
Carbon isotopic evidence suggest that they consumed a diet mostly of dark leafy greens and nuts.
You must compare the modern and archaic human skull to the Australopithecines to see the greatest variation of tooth and craniological evolutionary modifications.
What implications do teeth size have on overall energy efficiency?
A mid-sagittal crest is designed to exert maximum force with minimal effort.
S. Zuckerman (1956), “Cranial Crests in the Anthropoidea” .
There is a evolutionary need for the mid-sagittal crest, its disappearance is just as
…show more content…
Prinz (1997), suggests in the paper “An optimization model for mastication and swallowing in mammals” that bolus formation and the consistency of the food has varying “viscous cohesion” and that if too much time is spent chewing, and swallowing is delayed, swallowing becomes more “prearious”. Prinz’s model suggests that there is an optimal stage of oral food processing for mammals to swallow, as defined by an increase in cohesion in food particles.
L. Englen’s (2012) in the book, “Food Oral processing: Fundamentals of Eating and Sensory Perception”, suggests that saliva serves a multitude of purposes beyond creating a thin viscous layer on our food that creates a bolus and aiding swallowing by lubricating the materials. Saliva is secreted in the oral cavity both before and during the consumption of food. This is due to the “initiation of both mechanical and chemical stimuli via neural reflexes. Saliva is therefore a critical component during the consumption of food and beverages, and its properties are important to texture, mouthfeel and taste perception, as well as for oral
A study performed by Martin Hausler and Peter Schmid of the University of Zurich, Switzerland, appeared in the October 1995 issue of Journal of Human Evolution, igniting controversy over the 1974 Australopithecus discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia. The most famous of the Hadar specimens is the 3-million-year-old skeleton, “Lucy,” who was recovered by paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson. In his article, Shreeve presents the methods and findings of Hausler and Schmid’s study as well as some counter arguments from other scientists in the field.
The first morphological features that later would become typical of Neanderthals, the projecting middle part of the face and a depression at the back of the skull, have been observed in fossils found in Europe as old as 400,000 years (Stringer & Hublin, 1999). These fossils belonged to Homo heidelbergensis, which in one of the various evolutionary scenarios that ties Neanderthals and modern humans is considered the ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens (Hubmlin, 2009).
Three incomplete skulls of Homo sapiens were discovered in 1997. Bruce Bower’s article “African Legacy: Fossils plug gap in human origins” discusses the fossils. These findings are important because according to the discoverers, they are the oldest known fossils of modern people. The skulls were found in Herto, Ethiopian located in eastern Africa. The fossils are dated between 154,000 and 160,000 years ago.i[1] The fossils were dated radioisotopically.ii[2] Since the fossils are the oldest known fossils of modern people, it is probable that these hominids represent the immediate ancestors of humans that are anatomically modern. Tim D. White’s (et al) article “Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia” describes the discovery of the Herto fossils and the research of the artifacts in great detail.
Gould, S.J., & Vrba, E.S. 1982. Exaptation- a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1): 4-15.
Australopithecus afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. The distinctive characteristics of A. afarensis were: a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, no chin, more humanlike teeth, pelvis and leg bones resembled those of modern man. Females were smaller than males. Their sexual dimorphism was males:females; 1.5. A. afarensis was not as sexually dimorphic as gorillas, but more sexually dimorphic than humans or chimpanzees. A lot of scientists think that Australopithecus afarensis was partially adapted to climbing the trees, because the fingers and toe bones of the species were curved and longer than the ones of the modern human.
The evolution of the human species has significantly changed during the course of evolution to what is now the modern day Homo sapiens. Some of the changes that have occurred through the evolution are bipedalism, changes in body features such as brow ridges, and an increase in brain capacity.
Australopithecus africanus' brain size are similar to apes (435-530 cm³), they have projecting faces, some postorbital constriction, small canine teeth no diastema, their lower premolar has two cusps, thick tooth enamel, fairly parallel tooth rows, relatively long arms, somewhat curved finger bones thumbs/finger length ratio similar to humans, lumbar curve of spine, lliac blade short and wide, lliac blade twisted towards the side, shaft of femur angles in, and placing knee over foot.
The mouth is where digestion begins and the mechanical breakdown of food takes place. This is because the food is chewed and then
Bindon, Jim 2004 Fossil Hominids. ANT 270 Notes. http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/ hominids1.pdf Delson, Eric 1981
All Old World monkeys, apes, and humans share this 2.1.2.3 dental formula. This not only sets us apart from New World monkeys and prosimians, but it also reflects the evolutionary closeness of the Old World anthropoid species. By comparison, the general placental mammal dental formula is 3.1.4.3.
If you are abreast with the history, some thousands of years ago, during the Paleolithic Age, cavemen had very few options for the foods that they could eat. As a result, their food intake was usually just restricted to fish, vegetables, nuts and the like.
Modern-day genetic technology has granted mankind with the opportunity to bring back extinct species from the dead. If humans have come to possess the DNA from an extinct animal population, it is possible to create an identical clone of the animal in question, effectively “bringing it back from the dead”. Many ethical dilemmas surround the practice of de-extinction, and rightfully so. Recreating an extinct species could produce groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs, generating exciting opportunities for future genetics-based research. However, there could also be monumental consequences: the newly revived, once-extinct species might destroy the ecological equilibrium of modern Earth
Strait, David S. "The Feeding Biomechanics and Dietary Ecology of Australopithecus Africanus." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 12 Dec. 2008. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. .
The gustatory system is the system that determines taste senses. Taste is detected by the molecules that enter the mouth, either in liquid or solid form (Goldstein, 2010). Taste can be known as a gatekeeper, which its purpose is to create a connection between the substance’s effect and the taste quality. Most people enjoy sweet and salty compounds that contain nutritive value and are essential for comforting. Not only do sweet compounds produce a satisfying sensation, they also provoke an anticipatory metabolic response that prepares the gastrointestinal system for digesting these foods and cause an automatic acceptance response (Goldstein, 2010).
The increase in brain size may be related to changes in hominine behavior (See figure 3). The third major trend in hominine development is the gradual decrease in the size of the face and teeth. According to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia ’98, the fossil evidence for direct ancestors of modern humans is divided into the category Australopithecus and Homo, and begins about 5 million years ago (See figure 1). Between 7 and 20 million years ago, primitive apelike animals were widely distributed on the African and, later, on the Eurasian continents (See figure 2). Although many fossil bones and teeth have been found, the way of life of these creatures, and their evolutionary relationships to the living apes and humans, remain matters of active discussion among scientists.