Posted on 04/19/2006 11:19:40 AM PDT by furball4paws
More from that Ethiopian fossil find that sends hominid roots back more than 4 million years.
toothy pingy
|
To prove that Au. anamensis branched from an earlier, as-yet-unknown population would require evidence that the Australopithecus species lived at the same time as Ar. ramidus, the Berkeley scientist notes. No such evidence exists.
That's a rather large leap of logic.
Thanks for the ping!
"That's a rather large leap of logic."
It's clearly their working hypothesis and it is based on the little information they have. Why is it a leap of logic?
Damn that evidence, it just keeps on coming
"There may have been times when one early hominid species evolved into another one without branching off into multiple species," White says.
I'm not sure how anyone could substantiate that without having perfect knowledge of the record.
"Since Ar. ramidus and Au. anamensis lived in the same place and negotiated comparable habitats, it's plausible that the earlier hominid evolved directly into the later one,"
...
"Australopithecus evolved increasingly larger jaws and teeth from one species to the next with minimal or no evolutionary branching, Walker proposes."
I'm not sure what he's arguing here. Maybe I'm missing the point (or something) ...
So A. anamensis branches from Ar. ramidus. Then anamensis survives and ramidus goes extinct.
-- or --
A. anamensis derived from Ar. ramidus. The branch anamensis becomes the trunk. No more ramidus?
I don't see what is different from the current understanding.
Or is he arguing that no ramidus were left because they all mutated to anamensis?
placemarker ping
They are basing their hypothesis on lack of disproving evidence. The hypothesis is falsifiable, but the given the scant supporting evidence, I don't think I would be so confident.
/ sarcasm
Let's check with Dr. Piltdown, of the University of Sussex, for his opinion.
Who says they are confident? As soon as a piece of evidence comes along that their thoughts are not quite right - BAM they toss it out. Such is the life of a scientist.
Because it's based on the little information they have.
Well the current "understanding" has some dashed lines. Perhaps they are simply saying some slight revision is in order, as is usually the case when new info is found. This is not Earth shattering stuff, just another nail in the Creo coffin, which by now is almost all nails.
You want them to base their hypotheses on no information?
I wouldn't be writing about my findings if I weren't confident that I were correct. But that's probably just me.
I think those teeth are from the Designer's dentures. This is the long-awaited proof of ID. Teach the controversy!
Yep, it is just you. A few of the most noble purposes of scientific publishing are to invite debate, reveal evidence found and provoke commentary on the working hypotheses. Unless otherwise stated, few scientists will claim to have the last, correct word on any subject.
Doesn't look like any of my relatives....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.