Fossils challenge old evolution theory

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests 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. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.

More at link.

Anyone know if they've ever done enough DNA research to figure out if any of us have Neaderthal roots?

[beastieboy]

1. Clearly this proves republicans are cave men.

[Subdivisions]

3. Neanderthals, to me more specific. n/t

[Richard Steele]

15. That's actually an insult to Neanderthals.

Seriously- lots of evidence shows that they were
technologically and socially MORE advanced than their
"human" neighbors. Which is pretty much the opposite
of the current "Homo Republicus" primate subgroup.

[greyl]

25. I see your scare quotes, but to be clear, Homo neanderthalensis were human.

If it's within the genus Homo, it's human.

[Richard Steele]

30. Yup.

The net could benefit from several different types of quotes,
to denote specific intent, but that's a whole 'nother thread right there!

[HamdenRice]

46. Wrong

If an individual is homo sapien, it is human. Homo erectus, for example, is not a human being. Whether neanderthal should be homo sapien is a different question.

And there is no need to find obscure comments in which people refer to homo erectus as "human" or "human ancestors." Sometimes people use the word human metaphorically or generically.

But just because tigers are sometimes called "big cats" doesn't mean that a tiger is a felis silvestris catus.

I realize that your talking gorilla has a different view, but he is wrong.

[Ian David]

But humans had a 13% greater chance of surviving to reproductive age than Neanderthals...

for SOME reason, as yet unknown.

[Richard Steele]

33. "Yet unknown" is one of the great things about archaology...

So much yet unknown, and we don't often know if something is
even knowable until the moment we actually know it.

Any given day, a single find might shift the mightiest
theoretical paradigms. How can ya not love that?

[glitch]

36. Probably those huge heads and surviving birth. Mother and child. nt

[Richard Steele]

24. "Mister beastieboy? UWC lawyer on line three."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[beastieboy]

43. Uh Oh.

[AngryAmish]

2. This is so cool

(BTW, I think there was something a few months ago about Neaderthal DNA not being present in modern humans but I could be wrong.)

There is so much we do not know about our roots and the more research the better.

Now I'm waiting for the skeletons of Adam and Eve to be found by the fundys.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Kane and Abel

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Who?

Rosebud?

[Subdivisions]

5. Hence the designation "theory". I believe in evolution and finding

out how we evolved is a puzzle. Sometimes pieces fit and sometimes they don't. That what keeps it interesting for me.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Right, because the precise details and map can be updated with new data.

The idea that because it's called a "theory", however, means that the factuality of it occurring and the mechanism through which it occurs are somehow up for "debate", is fallacious, of course.

[redqueen]

6. I think they did do enough research...

and found that there were no Neanderthal descendants. The Genome project, I think they worked from.

Not positive though! Just half-remembering this...

[Warren DeMontague]

7. I read that in today's paper, as well. Fascinating. Although in my NY Times owned paper, they

truncated the headline to say, and I quote, "Fossil find calls into question evolution theory".

Nice. (Like Time and Newsweek of late, as well, they have a disconcerting habit of running puff pieces designed to appeal to the allegedly vast swaths of highly religious "values voters" in this country.)

Of course, framing the headline like clearly attempts to convey to less-informed people that it is the "theory" of evolution itself which is called into question by this find, and not the precise lineage of the evolution -which indisputably occurred, in one way or another- of humanity's ancestors.

I'm fully expecting a whole bunch of letters to our paper next week from fundy pinheads who didn't actually read the article, going "see! see! The Bible is RIGHT!" :eyes:

[Maestro]

42. Exactly. I find nothing that calls into question evolution.

It is simply a finding where two species that were thought to have lived one after another may have coexisted. Okay, great, but the headline as you point out is wrong. :eyes:

[Evoman]

8. hmmmm

This isn't as huge as it sounds. As far as I know, that "old theory" has already been debunked. No scientist I know that studies evolution takes the "march of progress" seriously. Evolution doesn't work like that. Its not linear except for very few cases.

And its not like one species morphs into another one. Usually what happens is that a common ancestor will diverge in two or more directions, and there is nothing stating that a derived species cannot coexist with an older form.

[Ediacara]

9. The title of this article is misleading

But then again, "Early species of Homo underwent allopatric speciation" would probably confuse a lot of people.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. See post #7. What they did in my paper was even WORSE.

:eyes: Sigh.

[Ediacara]

22. Holy Crap!

You should call up the publisher and possibly the NYT.

[Evoman]

20. Yeah, this happens a lot.

Barely literate journalists offering misleading titles, misunderstanding the source articles and drawing wrong conclusions.

[BlooInBloo]

12. lol! The state of American idiocy: neither reporters nor editor can spell....

... And they idiotically tailor their headlines to pander to the stupidest among us.


EDIT: The stupid leading the stupid - the essence of America.

EDITEDIT: And a weird copy/paste typo.

[youthere]

13. Ha! Further proof of Intelligent Design!

See all the pokey-pokey holes in your little "evolution theory"

FIRST the banana...NOW this. All hail Kirk Cameron.

Signed,
Fran the Fundy

:sarcasm:

[KharmaTrain]

16. National Geographic Channel Ran A Show On This

It was on just last night...described two early species that went back 2.5 million years in the Kenya region but it didn't mention Leaky's name. Also, that our branch of the tree came from an evolutionary ancestor who was a giant compared to the other "versions" of homo sapien.

Now there was the species Homo-GOOPus that evolved from lizards and skanks...and yes, they evolved in just 7 days...and haven't changed since.

:rofl:

[greyl]

17. Are you making fun of Neanderthals? :) pic:

www.ifi.unizh.ch/staff/zolli/CAP/Main_face.htm

[dipsydoodle]

18. You missed out the bit

about subgroupos which came to dead ends. It wasn't just that one of those species evolved from the other - it was survival of the fittest /best adapted.

[Malikshah]

Thank You-- that's what I lecture about in my world civ classes

History is never linear the way people want.

The same idea holds true for the idea of going from Hunter-Gather to Settled Society--

The false linear notion is that as soon as people became settled, no more hunter gatherers... Quite clearly not the case.

The issue is: competition

The idea that Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus lived in Kenya at the same time for no matter how many eons doesn't mean that one didn't outcompete the other, etc.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. Anyone who has done genealogical research

knows that history isn't linear. A family doesn't start our on the East Coast and go to the West Coast, for example. And one generation may be professionals, and the next farmers. And of course there's always "pedigree collapse" where cousins marry each other so that the number of great grandparents is diminished.

[Ian David]

19. Uhm... No... no and no... Who's the idiot who thought that human evolution was a straight line?

And current theory is leaning toward humans and neanderthals co-existing but not inter-breeding, coming instead from a common ancestor.




And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer = Moron.


"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."

That is the key take-away in the article.

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.

Which we have known for about a CENTURY now, unless your name is Seth Bornstein, AP Science Writer, Moron.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. No, see, your evolution science witchery is "further discredited".

The fact that they found homo habilis bones from 1.5 million years ago along with homo erectus bones from 1.44 million years ago obviously means the world was created 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

Silly!

[H2O Man]

21. Here is a

photo of my Olduvai Gorge collection, from Bed 1 (1.75 to 1.88 million years old). It's a fascinating area of study, and there are new finds and new theories. The "family tree" has many, many branches.

The 11-85 edition of National Geographic is, 22 years later, still an important resource for people interested in this science.

I think that there has been a significant amount of research that indicates that there is little if any chance of much Neanderthal DNA in us. The set-up of the brain indicates some important differences. But we all came from much older ancestors, including those who fashioned the tools in this photo:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Thanks for the photos

One thing I've never quite understood is why the Neanderthal, which had a bigger brain, died out and we lived on. I read somewhere that it had to do with the development of language--but there are other ways of communicating besides speaking--ask anyone who is deaf.

[Evoman]

31. Brain size doesn't matter.....its the shape and make up of the brain that does.

Sulci, fissures, grey matter..that sort of thing. Size is irrelevant.

[H2O Man]

37. Right.

It's the "set up," so to speak. When the back portion of our brain grew, it created a new level of consciousness. Sagan writes about "Eden" as a metaphor in the evolution of our brains.

[H2O Man]

34. One of the best

books on this issue remains Carl Sagan's wonderful "The Dragons of Eden." There is some evidence in the fossil record that indicates that some of our relatives began to die out around the time that our family began to use tools. The relationship between our use of clubs and the smashed skulls of others may be connected.

Competition for resources likely played a role in the end of the Neanderthal. Verbal communications dramatically increase people's ability to hunt, etc. More, the brain development in our skulls seems to have created an awareness of our surroundings that they did not have -- differences in the size of the front and the back portions being some of the most fascinating things Sagan explains.

It's funny -- last month, an old associate that I had not seen in 25 years stopped by. We were discussing local archaeology, and he mentioned being friends with one of this county's experts on Olduvai Gorge, a man who worked closely with the Leakeys. He was surprised that I had a collection from there.

[Cameron27]

41. That's a great book that I dig out and read again and again.

I remember when Elaine Morgan's "Descent of Woman" came out. I was completely entranced, too bad it's become something of a cult and the scientific community doesn't think the theory has merit. It was very hard for me to put my enthusiasm aside though, the aquatic-ape had a lovely resonance for me.

[Ian David]

28. But then again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1550318&mesg_id=1550318

[H2O Man]

35. !! n/t

[Evoman]

27. Oh, and about the Neanderthal roots.

I think some mitochondrial DNA has been extracted from neanderthal bones. So you may find something if you google "neanderthal mitonchondrial DNA"...I would, but I have to get back to work :(.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. I'll check this out when I'm at home, too

can't stray too far from the phones at work.

[glitch]

32. Present day experience demonstrates this "new" theory daily.

Not going to mention any names, no one needs to have their evolutionary-challenge pointed out. Could be seen as hateful. :evilgrin:

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Is it possible that erectus evolved from a small subpopulation of habilis?

I'm not an evolutionary biologist and am wondering if anyone can explain that to me. I know that various species of Australopithecine continued after the appearance of more modern lineages.

In any event, my impression is that the iconic image hasn't been taken seriously in scientific circles for decades.

[WindRavenX]

39. Horrible, horrible writing

That man is an AP science writer? Gah.

[mainegreen]

40. Fossils challenge editors not to write hyperbolic articles. n/t

[Solon]

45. Can I just say that AP's science writer is a fucking idiot?

Allow me to rail against the M$M and their moronic way to report science news. I could NEVER stand this shit, NEVER, these bastards wouldn't know what the fuck is a scientific theory if they were smacked in the head with a textbook of general science. Seriously, what the fuck is this "science" writer's qualifications? Did he watch an episode of Dexter's lab or some stupid shit? Better off watching Bill Nye the Science Guy.