PDA

View Full Version : Absurd Theory of Human Evolution given another kick in the teeth!


PopCulturePooka
08-11-2007, 12:57 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292572,00.html


Skull Suggests Two Early Humans Lived at Same Time

WASHINGTON — Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens.

But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period.

That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact with each other, each having their own "ecological niche," Spoor said.

Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said.

Like chimps and gorillas, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.

He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't involved in the research team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said.

Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus.

Because the H. erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak.

The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of any type of malformations or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't H. habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.

That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils.

They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said study co-author Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist.

Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said.

Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

This suggests that our ancestor H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the same time.

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

The straight line theory has always been absurded and overly simple.

Yay for it being shattered even further.

mawande
08-11-2007, 01:02 AM
*puzzled look* But I thought everyone knew it wasn't so straight. I mean, look at all the different kinds of dogs out there with hundred of different skull-and-jaw shapes. And body shapes.

Jetsetlemming
08-11-2007, 03:29 AM
*puzzled look* But I thought everyone knew it wasn't so straight. I mean, look at all the different kinds of dogs out there with hundred of different skull-and-jaw shapes. And body shapes.
There are a lot of people who actually believe the evolutionary argument is Chimpanzee -> Human. :P People are stupid.

Masa the Masta
08-11-2007, 03:32 AM
There are a lot of people who actually believe the evolutionary argument is Chimpanzee -> Human. :P People are stupid.

IT'S NOT?! :eyepop:

Citizen
08-11-2007, 03:37 AM
There are a lot of people who actually believe the evolutionary argument is Chimpanzee -> Human. :P People are stupid.

Most people probably don't know because it's not their line of work or anything they're even remotely interested in.

Granted, I'm one of those people, and I still knew.

Disney's doug89
08-11-2007, 03:54 AM
I thought that PCP was pro evolution. Is he pro creation? Are you pro creation?

Citizen
08-11-2007, 03:59 AM
I thought that PCP was pro evolution. Is he pro creation? Are you pro creation?

The straight line theory has always been absurded and overly simple.

Considering the fact that he considers the old evolution theory to be overly simple, I'm willing to bet he's not pro-"GOD DID IT!".

Jetsetlemming
08-11-2007, 04:00 AM
There's a difference between being a creationist and not believing a stupid theory that's based on evolution. :3 For example, I think the idea tacked on to evolution to explain the very origins of life to be entirely retarded. It doesn't pass muster on any scientific scale, fails to test, and doesn't make biological sense.

Cherub Rock
08-11-2007, 04:01 AM
They should know it though because there's a lot of scientific evidence backing it up and it's pretty important if you ask me. I fail to see how this article debunks the theory of evolution in the slightest. If anything it furthers it by proving that natural selection played a part in determining the course of human development. It's not like the idea of two seperate species living together in the same time period is completely foreign. We know Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon lived together in Europe before Neanderthal's went extinct. This just proves that we don't know the exact times and circumstances that species such as Homo habilis and Homo eretus lived, and nobody ever really claimed we did in the first place.

Buckwheat
08-11-2007, 05:04 AM
It doesn't debunk evolution as a whole, just one of the common misconceptions about evolution. If you had read the entire post you would have realized that.

Silverhawk
08-11-2007, 05:48 AM
It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.
This just reminded me of this (http://www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm)

A species which evolved from another species can and will co-exist with each other. Its not like when a species evolves, the old species just automagically goes extinct.

Cherub Rock
08-11-2007, 02:30 PM
Well the idea is that it is at first a slight change. Maybe a small mutation that leads to an advantageous trait, or a slightly larger brain. This gives the mutated being a competitive or sexual advantage. Assuming this trait is genetic and can be passed down, and assuming this being lives to reach adulthood then it can pass the trait along to the next generation. Since it is advantageous it is more likely to continue to be passed along. However the thing to remember is at this point the two groups are still the same species. They can interbreed with each other and really, the difference between the two is hardly noticable (no more than what you would see between two average people today physically). But in time that one dominant trait would lead to such an advantage that it would spread itself across the entirety of the human population. Several hundred thousand years later you have a slightly more developed being, and thus a new species. That said it's possible that it never spread as perfectly as that. It's just as likely that the advantage homo erectus had over habilis wasn't so great that it completely overwhelmed it. As long as habilis had a niche to fill it could have survived alongside eretus for hundreds of thousands of years as well. After all, the article states, "The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact with each other, each having their own 'ecological niche'"

Evolution is a lot of guesswork. They still have the basic idea correct, but now they just have to rework some things. But based on the principles of evolution, we knew that habilis and erectus lived besides each other for a long time to begin with. This new evidence shows that habilis hung around for longer than we originally thought.

Roxie
08-11-2007, 03:03 PM
Paragraphs are your friends.

Isn't this the same thing we did with Neandertals, theoretically?

Cherub Rock
08-11-2007, 04:05 PM
Paragraphs are your friends.

Isn't this the same thing we did with Neandertals, theoretically?

Don't like AP format, eh? It looks much better when it is posted in a newspaper or on a webpage with narrow margins.

Citizen
08-11-2007, 04:20 PM
Isn't this the same thing we did with Neandertals, theoretically?

Yes. It mentions it in the article.

Micah the Great
08-13-2007, 02:47 AM
Ooops. I shat bricks.

Trump
08-13-2007, 01:12 PM
Ooops. I shat bricks.

New evolutional brekthrough?

Seriously though, this doesn't change anything. It just gives us a little more information about what really happened. And just because one evolved from the other doesn't mean they couldn't exist at the same time. One population of the original may have mutated and then been isolated from the main body also isolating the mutation from the main body of the species. So it doesn't change history, only how much we know about it.

Anders
08-13-2007, 08:49 PM
I'm confused as to what this article means. Maybe someone can help me with that. Is the article stating that prior to this discovery we assumed that earlier species became extinct the moment the newer species showed up? Does it assume that the two species did not interact or even breed with each other?

I'm going to try to get my hands on that journal and watch how other people much smarter than myself respond. For some reason, this article just doesn't seem right.

Jetsetlemming
08-13-2007, 09:59 PM
Is the article stating that prior to this discovery we assumed that earlier species became extinct the moment the newer species showed up?
Fades from one to the other, actually. :P A far BIGGER myth of evolution IMO is that changes between species happens instantaneously, jumping from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien for example without any sort of in between creature. Evolution works one gene at a time. :P

Trump
08-14-2007, 12:59 PM
I think the major concern was that based on previously discovered fossils they had dated the evolution between the species to start with one and then fade to another. Now they have evidence the dates where each species existed are incorrect and have much more overlap than previously thought.