Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

[sox4lifeinPA]

'Ruh 'Roh...

 

Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 23 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

 

There remains 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, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, 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 part of the Leakey team.

 

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we 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.

 

For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.

 

Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."

 

Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.

 

Because the Homo 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 malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo 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. Primates 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 Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

 

The Homo 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 Homo erectus and Homo 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.

 

so in other words, a group of people convinced their way of thinking is the "right" one, can't agree on the specifics of what that way really looks like. ah.

 

I'm not much of a literalist, biblically speaking, so for me this really doesn't do a whole lot. I do like seeing people fumbling over themselves and their "knowledge."

 

[jackie hayes]

So, let me get this straight. You're mocking scientists because they haven't learned everything yet.

 

Well alright then.

[CrimsonWeltall]

stupid science, gathering new knowledge and updating ideas

[santo=dorf]

 

They don't teach this in Sunday school, do they?

[StrangeSox]

How dare the science community not blindly agree to everything and never, ever change their minds in spite of new evidence!

 

"That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, 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 part of the Leakey team.

 

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals."

 

That's the basis of science. Hypothesize, Research, Revise.

[Texsox]

yet they almost universally agree that creation is wrong. It takes a lot of faith to beilieve in any theory on how this all got started.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Wow, get a load of all of Dawin's Bulldogs here in SLAM. You do me proud.

 

The nice, neat ladder-like depiction has, of course, always been the pop culture view of human evolution – a quaint popular icon of scientific culture but way too teleological (end-point oriented) to have ever been given much credence by actual evolutionary biologists.

 

Hominid evolution is absolutely of the bushy variety, and we've had som good discussions on here about it. The notion that there was a time when several hominid lines with common descent co-occurred on Earth should be no more surprising than the idea that there are now several different lines of great apes, or penguins, or dung beetles. In fact, that's at the heart of organic evolution by means of natural selection. Each species line is a natural experiment carried out over tens of thousands to several millions of years. Are the genes contained within the gene pool of the species sufficient to produce phenotypes (the physical organism and its expressed traits) that are well-suited to survive the gauntlet of environmental filters at a given point in time? If so, the line persists. If not, the line dies out.

 

And there are no ladders involved. It's dendritic, haphazard, life's off the cuff solutions to changing environments with no clearly defined end point. The 'surgeon-turned-evolutionist' in that piece PA posted doesn't quite seem to get it.

[Balta1701]

Good summary of where the evolutionary tree stands after this here.

[Texsox]

Good summary of where the evolutionary tree stands after this here.

 

Thank you for the link. That is a well written and illustrated piece.

[santo=dorf]

yet they almost universally agree that creation is wrong. It takes a lot of faith to beilieve in any theory on how this all got started.

No, they believe creationism isn't part of the scientific method.

Yes it takes faith to believe in somthing as complex as the creation of life, but it sure helps your cause when you have factual, scientific evidence to support your beliefs.

[Texsox]

No, they believe creationism isn't part of the scientific method.

Yes it takes faith to believe in somthing as complex as the creation of life, but it sure helps your cause when you have factual, scientific evidence to support your beliefs.

 

For science to accept a fact, I believe, it has to be repeatable. So far we haven't created life. Imagine that primordial soup and all the variety of life that emerged. Amazing. You don't think it takes faith to believe that all that stuff could somehow be placed together in the exact right proportions, under the exact right conditions, for life to begin? There has to be a beginning of time. Matter was created somehow. Why? How? Since no one alive was there, it takes faith to believe in whatever you believe.

[FlaSoxxJim]

For science to accept a fact, I believe, it has to be repeatable. So far we haven't created life. Imagine that primordial soup and all the variety of life that emerged. Amazing. You don't think it takes faith to believe that all that stuff could somehow be placed together in the exact right proportions, under the exact right conditions, for life to begin? There has to be a beginning of time. Matter was created somehow. Why? How? Since no one alive was there, it takes faith to believe in whatever you believe.

 

Faith in the slow but steady step-wise process fo scientific inquiry, sure, but no need for faith in the knowledge that there is some goal-oriented grand plan of Grand Planner.

 

The "but what are the chances. . . " arguments often used (I'm not saying you are here) to suggest a need for a plan or a Planner is a logical fallacy. If we use a conservative estimate of 10^22 stars in the universe and allow that most of those stars have planet sassociated with them, then the number of times the universe has had to get the in the "exact right proportions, under the exact right conditions" is staggeringly large. Our planet is at least one of the pinpoints in the universe where the right conditions and elemental components converged and it seems so miraculous as to require a Planner. But the universe has had billions upon billions upon billions of chances to roll the dice and mix and match variables and that kind of replication obviates the need for divine explanations.

[StrangeSox]

Faith in the slow but steady step-wise process fo scientific inquiry, sure, but no need for faith in the knowledge that there is some goal-oriented grand plan of Grand Planner.

 

The "but what are the chances. . . " arguments often used (I'm not saying you are here) to suggest a need for a plan or a Planner is a logical fallacy. If we use a conservative estimate of 10^22 stars in the universe and allow that most of those stars have planet sassociated with them, then the number of times the universe has had to get the in the "exact right proportions, under the exact right conditions" is staggeringly large. Our planet is at least one of the pinpoints in the universe where the right conditions and elemental components converged and it seems so miraculous as to require a Planner. But the universe has had billions upon billions upon billions of chances to roll the dice and mix and match variables and that kind of replication obviates the need for divine explanations.

 

That's an excellent point. People just see one of the few successes (Earth) and forget about the countless failures (every other known planet).

 

Besides, doesn't evolution deal with everything after the creation of life? The origins of the universe and life itself are outside of the realm of evolution science.

[Texsox]

Faith in the slow but steady step-wise process fo scientific inquiry, sure, but no need for faith in the knowledge that there is some goal-oriented grand plan of Grand Planner.

 

The "but what are the chances. . . " arguments often used (I'm not saying you are here) to suggest a need for a plan or a Planner is a logical fallacy. If we use a conservative estimate of 10^22 stars in the universe and allow that most of those stars have planet sassociated with them, then the number of times the universe has had to get the in the "exact right proportions, under the exact right conditions" is staggeringly large. Our planet is at least one of the pinpoints in the universe where the right conditions and elemental components converged and it seems so miraculous as to require a Planner. But the universe has had billions upon billions upon billions of chances to roll the dice and mix and match variables and that kind of replication obviates the need for divine explanations.

 

Not saying there is or isn't a divine planner, that's a much differnt argument that isn't worth debating here. What I am pointing out is many people believe there is scientific proof of the beginning of life, and there isn't. There is a theory, but at this point in time, it can not be proven. So it takes faith to believe either in a random series of events coming together to create this great diversity of life, or faith to believe in a bigger than us planner.

 

The choice is simple for most people. But either side you believe in, it is a matter of faith, not scientific fact.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Not saying there is or isn't a divine planner, that's a much differnt argument that isn't worth debating here. What I am pointing out is many people believe there is scientific proof of the beginning of life, and there isn't. There is a theory, but at this point in time, it can not be proven. So it takes faith to believe either in a random series of events coming together to create this great diversity of life, or faith to believe in a bigger than us planner.

 

The choice is simple for most people. But either side you believe in, it is a matter of faith, not scientific fact.

 

Tex, I don't know who these people are who believe there is scientific proof of the beginning of life, certainly not scientists. The how it all got started part is still seriously murky stuff. But the mere fact it's murky doesn't necessitate a divine agent either.

 

I get your point, of course, and certainly there is something bigger than us. It's the vast universe, and the trillions of little physical and chemical experiments playing out in its far flung corners, according to the rules of the physical and not the metaphysical.

Edited August 10, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

Just look a few posts up for someone who believes there is scientific fact to believe in. The more I studied evolution, the mosr questions arise. I think many people adopt a "I am not religious, so I will believe in Science" without understanding the gaps and leaps of faith of either.

[sox4lifeinPA]

hilarious thread that served my purposes well.

 

The usual suspects so quick to 1) assume what I was implying, 2) defend something I wasn't questioning, 3) ridicule my personal beliefs and 4) ignore what I actually said after the article.

 

 

The next time I get banned, I'll pull out this gem and give myself a laugh. PA likes to laugh.

 

 

 

this is like Christmas, er, I mean Winter Solstice.

[NorthSideSox72]

hilarious thread that served my purposes well.

 

The usual suspects so quick to 1) assume what I was implying, 2) defend something I wasn't questioning, 3) ridicule my personal beliefs and 4) ignore what I actually said after the article.

The next time I get banned, I'll pull out this gem and give myself a laugh. PA likes to laugh.

this is like Christmas, er, I mean Winter Solstice.

I just re-read the thread, and I don't see anyone ridiculing your personal beliefs. Could you point that out please?

 

And if it served your purposes well, then why are you acting high and mighty about having people disagree with you? That's kind of the purpose of these forums, is to discuss. Not to mention that starting a thread with the purpose of getting people to react badly is... I don't know... passive aggresive?

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Dude, give me a break. Your post was full of snark like

 

"Ruh Roh"

"the 'right' one"

and "their 'knowledge'"

 

What kind of reaction could you possibly expect?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I remain proud of the Darwin's Bulldogs.

 

And I fundamentally disagree with Tex in equating faith in the existence of an untestable divine agent with faith in the scientific process as a means to critically examine that which testable. These are polar opposites.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Dude, give me a break. Your post was full of snark like

 

"Ruh Roh"

"the 'right' one"

and "their 'knowledge'"

 

What kind of reaction could you possibly expect?

 

I wasn't surprised by the reaction. I just find it pathetically predictable at best.

 

The ironic part is that I was implying that the church and science seem to both have the same thing in common: a candle at the bottom of the ocean when it comes to knowledge on the macro level. I was paralleling that fact that church's can't seem to agree on their own theology whilst science seems pretty factionalized in what the ARTICLE described as a war between two camps.

 

 

THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE gave it that title, not me. And Snark is the middle name of Soxtalk...

 

so give ME a break.

 

Again, in my brief comments following the article, I didn't really say WHAT I believed about all of it and was particularly vague for a reason (but you all assume I'm some bible thumping creationist). Honestly, I just find it amusing christian or pre christian when people think they have it figured out.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Again, in my brief comments following the article, I didn't really say WHAT I believed about all of it and was particularly vague for a reason (but you all assume I'm some bible thumping creationist). Honestly, I just find it amusing christian or pre christian when people think they have it figured out.

 

I guess that's just it. Nobody in the field is suggesting they have it figured out. New discoveries and new tools beget new avenues of inquiry and the science continues to come of age. That's how it works.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

I guess that's just it. Nobody in the field is suggesting they have it figured out. New discoveries and new tools beget new avenues of inquiry and the science continues to come of age. That's how it works.

 

So when my cultural anthropology prof told me in class on numerous occassions that evolution was fact, he was full of s***, just like I was thinking when he said it? gotcha.

 

I think a lot of people are suggesting a lot of things... being "right" is an ugly affliction that we as humans seem to suffer from quite uncontrollably. Gun to the head most normal folk will say "yes, I don't think we've fully figured things out"...I'm just making sure the proverbial gun gets passed around so BOTH sides see how ridiculous they can be.

 

 

[jackie hayes]

hilarious thread that served my purposes well.

 

The usual suspects so quick to 1) assume what I was implying, 2) defend something I wasn't questioning, 3) ridicule my personal beliefs and 4) ignore what I actually said after the article.

The next time I get banned, I'll pull out this gem and give myself a laugh. PA likes to laugh.

this is like Christmas, er, I mean Winter Solstice.

Mind providing examples?

 

You clearly were mocking the scientists. That's kinda the whole point of using scare quotes (around "right" and "knowledge"). Whether or not you hold the opinion, you expressed it.

 

I look through this thread, I see reasonable responses followed by a pretty calm discussion. Kudos on yer victory.

[Texsox]

I remain proud of the Darwin's Bulldogs.

 

And I fundamentally disagree with Tex in equating faith in the existence of an untestable divine agent with faith in the scientific process as a means to critically examine that which testable. These are polar opposites.

 

I too have faith in the scientific process. It's as solid as it comes. But there are some things that can not be tested, can not be duplicated. The origin of all matter is one such thing. Some people believe that evolution has passed a scientific gold standard of "fact". There are too many gaps in out knowledge to do that. When people fill in those gaps with untested information and guesses, that is faith.

 

If there is a planner, divinity, God, or whatever someone chooses to call it, then science is really the process of understanding the methods that the planner has used. No threat to people of faith, in fact it is a welcome process that unravels those mysteries and moves us closer to that divine being.

 

As Ben Franklin said "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy".