Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Faithful Ancestors
Science News Magazine ^ | 6-11-2005 | Bruce Bower

Posted on 06/17/2005 8:33:25 AM PDT by blam

Faithful Ancestors

Researchers debate claims of monogamy for Lucy and her ancient kin

Bruce Bower

A weird kind of creature strode across the eastern African landscape from around 4 million to 3 million years ago. Known today by the scientific label Australopithecus afarensis, these ancient ancestors of people may have taken the battle of the sexes in a strange direction, for primates at any rate. True, no one can re-create with certainty the court and spark that led to sexual unions between early hominids. Nothing short of a time machine full of scientifically trained paparazzi could manage that trick.

All is not lost, though. Scientists are looking to fossil remains of A. afarensis to provide, as a prehistoric tabloid would, a revealing exposé of the hominid's intimate tendencies. A statistical analysis 2 years ago indicated that A. afarensis males exhibited only a moderate size advantage over females, rather than the larger difference seen in gorillas. According to Owen Lovejoy and Philip L. Reno, both of Kent (Ohio) State University, who directed that study, the size similarity implies that A. afarensis adults of both sexes favored long-term relationships, which arose as a matter of survival, not morality. Sleeping around just didn't cut it during hominids' start-up era.

That view has generated controversy, which comes as no surprise to the Kent State scientists. They themselves had unabashedly dismissed other researchers' earlier work that depicted A. afarensis males as the considerably larger sex, with the fiercest male fighters monopolizing the mating game.

However, some recent work provides evidence for A. afarensis sex differences that were considerably greater than those in modern people and that approach those in gorillas, according to J. Michael Plavcan of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and his colleagues. They report their analysis in the March Journal of Human Evolution. Large sex differences would indicate a mating style similar to that of modern gorillas.

Lovejoy and Reno, however, stand by their earlier conclusions. "It's entirely possible that much of our sexual physiology and anatomy had already evolved in australopithecines," Lovejoy says. "That set the stage for massive brain growth in our later fossil ancestors."

Lucy's love life

Anthropologists discovered evidence of A. afarensis, including the partial skeleton dubbed Lucy, in eastern Africa more than 30 years ago. The bones seemed to fall into two size categories. At that time, researchers butted heads over whether these bones represented two species of human ancestors that lived at the same time or one species that included males with big, bulky bodies relative to those of females.

After noting similar shapes of the larger and smaller remains, proponents of the one-species view won out. Using measurements of people's bones in relation to body weight as a reference, investigators then estimated that A. afarensis males weighed an average of 98 pounds, while their female counterparts tipped the scales at only 65 pounds. That's a much greater sex disparity in weight than is found in people today but approaches that measured among gorillas and orangutans.

Many researchers concluded that in Lucy's species, as among gorillas, the toughest males dominated the mating scene. Gorilla males tend to fight among themselves, baring daggerlike canine teeth. Winners do the lion's share of mating with available females, whom the dominant males guard from skulking suitors.

Demonstrating another lifestyle, chimps exhibit virtually no size differences between sexes, but males retain large, fanglike canines, Lovejoy notes. A female typically mates numerous times with several partners during periods of sexual receptivity, which she advertises via temporarily swollen breasts and hindquarters.

According to Lovejoy, though, behaviors of gorillas or chimps can't serve as a model for Lucy and her comrades. In 1981, he proposed that they were descendants of a new kind of primate built for what he calls social monogamy. A. afarensis males blended an upright stance and unusually small, nonthreatening canine teeth. And the female anatomy masked signs of ovulation through features such as permanently enlarged breasts, he says.

Given this species' million-year run of success, Lovejoy theorizes, its males probably obtained food consistently by forming working alliances, mainly among close relatives. Each successful provider thus upped his chances of being accepted as a female's sole mate, the best way to ensure that he would become a dad. From the female perspective, a steady mate would be a good bet not only to bring home food but also to assist in child care.

However, modest size differences between the sexes typically characterize mammals with a penchant for soul mates, rather than the gorillalike pattern that had been proposed.

Simulating sexes

Ten years after Lovejoy set forth the idea of social monogamy among australopithecines, evidence continued to pile up supporting a substantial size difference between males and females. In 1991, Henry M. McHenry of the University of California, Davis published estimates of large weight disparities.

Lovejoy countered that those calculations used as a reference point the sex differences observed in modern people, which he says probably don't correspond to those of 3-million-year-old hominids. He also pointed out that McHenry's analyses rested on a small number of fossils that covered a time span of at least 500,000 years and were unearthed at sites separated by nearly 500 miles. The specimens could have come from populations showing a variety of unique male-female anatomical contrasts.

Finally, cursed with a scarcity of pelvic remains that could clearly distinguish wider-hipped females from slimmer-hipped males, McHenry simply assumed that big bones came from males and small bones came from females, Lovejoy says.

In 2003, Lovejoy and his coworkers employed a novel statistical method to simulate skeletal-size differences between ancient sexes without trying to gauge their weights. The enterprise hinged on using measurements of Lucy's partial skeleton to estimate sizes of crucial but missing bones for a set of A. afarensis individuals known as the First Family. These fossils, which represent as many as 22 or as few as 5 individuals, were unearthed near the spot where Lucy was found and, like her, date to 3.2 million years ago.

The researchers first measured the width of Lucy's well-preserved femur head, the ball of the upper-leg bone that fits into the hip joint. They then determined the size of various other parts of Lucy's arm and leg bones relative to femur-head width. Lovejoy focused on femur-head size because it's considered a reliable indicator of overall body size.

Next, the scientists measured the First Family arm and leg fossils that corresponded to those for Lucy. Armed with Lucy's skeletal dimensions, the team calculated femur-head sizes. They tagged individuals with big femur heads as male and those with small femur heads as female. In further studies the researchers found that femur-head sizes accurately predict sex and overall body size in people, chimps, and gorillas.

Whether the First Family included two dozen or only a half-dozen members, males exhibited a moderate size advantage over females, close to that observed in people, Lovejoy's team found.

Moderate, humanlike size differences between A. afarensis males and females accompanied both an evolutionary shriveling of males' canine teeth and a shift of sexual physiology away from chimplike ancestors and toward humans, Lovejoy asserts. For instance, he suspects that that's when ovulation became concealed and males evolved physical accommodations to mate regularly rather than for short, intense periods during ovulation. The new-style males produce modest amounts of sperm continuously rather than larger amounts timed to ovulation, as do gorillas.

Australopithecines, as highly mobile creatures locked into a socially complex mating game, lit a fuse of brain expansion that exploded in ensuing Homo species, Lovejoy proposes. Ironically, large brains unleashed cultural evolution, resulting in a plethora of human sexual and mating practices that go far beyond anything Lucy could have imagined, he says.

Weighting game

The Kent State scientists' portrayal of A. afarensis sexes has received some positive reviews. Robert G. Tague, an anthropologist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge calls Lovejoy's method of estimating skeletal-size differences "a promising one" and suspects that Lucy's kind indeed preferred social monogamy.

Lovejoy's findings indicate that early hominids "may have been more humanlike [than apelike] in their basic social behavior," comments Clark S. Larsen, an anthropologist at Ohio State University in Columbus.

But other researchers contend that the accumulated evidence supports striking size differences between A. afarensis sexes. These scientists reject Lovejoy's unconventional approach. To begin with, says Plavcan, the First Family consists mainly of large-bodied males and thus fosters an underestimate of size differences.

Plavcan and his colleagues determined the relationship between various skeletal measures and body mass for 658 people from eight populations in different parts of the world. With those correlations, the team made new calculations of femur-head size and body mass for seven A. afarensis specimens not in the First Family and assigned sex on the basis of size.

This work reveals sex differences considerably greater than those in people and approaching those in gorillas, according to Plavcan's team.

Particularly fierce males in Lucy's species probably monopolized mating, although how they did so without sharp canines remains unclear, Plavcan says.

Mating-minded A. afarensis males, McHenry theorizes, literally took up arms. An upright posture freed their hands for punching, throwing rocks, and other mayhem. The best fighters thus defended their exclusive sexual access to adult females.

It's risky to judge a hominid's body weight by the size of its bones because nutrition and other factors influence the amount of muscle and fat, says Christopher Ruff of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. He discounts Lovejoy's conclusions, arguing that an individual's skeletal size often bears little relationship to body weight.

UC-Davis' McHenry is sticking with his earlier calculation that A. afarensis males were about 50 percent heavier than females. Humanlike size proportions for the sexes evolved much later, around 1.7 million years ago in Homo erectus, McHenry argues. Men today are about 15 percent heavier than women.

Too much sex

Other scientists express a mix of chagrin and disdain at the amount of energy that researchers have expended on trying to separate fossil boys from girls. Investigators need to drop their obsession with the sex of fossils and examine how individual differences in skeletal anatomy arise, contends Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide in Australia. For body weight and many skull measurements, including braincase size and facial width, individuals within each sex usually differ far more from each other than average members of opposite sexes do, he argues.

Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis also derides efforts to identify the sex of ancient bones. Sex assessments always begin with the unjustified assumption that bigger bones must belong to males and smaller ones to females, he says. And the numbers of individual specimens of A. afarensis and other ancient hominid species are too few to generate reliable estimates of male and female size ranges, in his opinion.

Louisiana State's Tague doesn't go that far, but he notes that even the pelvis, the body part regarded as the gold standard for telling apart primate sexes, is surprisingly tough to read. His work shows no consistent pattern of the pelvis being larger in females than in males.

The shape of Lucy's partially preserved pelvis leaves her sexual identity unclear, Tague notes. Her diminutive size led Tague and Lovejoy in a 1998 paper to peg Lucy as female.

Reports on new fossil finds of A. afarensis and even older hominid species are expected soon. Lovejoy plans to factor skeletal data from these discoveries into a larger examination of ancient sex differences.

From Lucy's era to our time, the battle of the sexes appears destined to rage on.

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ancestors; anthropology; archaeology; crevolist; faithful; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; lucy; multiregionalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last

1 posted on 06/17/2005 8:33:25 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

GGG Ping.

2 posted on 06/17/2005 8:34:07 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam; joeclarke; mlc9852

I read 'Lucy' back in the early 80s and loved it. Never read a book from a creationist that could match even the Bookcover Summary of Lucy's investigative brillance. In fact I never read a creationist book that proposed 'any' ideas at all except the other side is wrong.

If you want to read nonsense. Go to this post:

3 posted on 06/17/2005 8:45:59 AM PDT by marylandrepub1 (God does not insist that we be stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
For body weight and many skull measurements, including braincase size and facial width, individuals within each sex usually differ far more from each other than average members of opposite sexes do, he argues.

That's a sign of someone that has not absorbed any scientific education received.

Variation within groups is certainly interesting, but variation among groups is extremely significant, especially when the groups have widely different medians. Think of Pygmies and Watusi: this guy would have you believe that the individual variations among all Pygmies or all Watusi are more important than any group differences -- which is patently a crock.

If I didn't see people who sat through four years of college-as-indoctrination make such innumerate statements daily, I'd never believe anyone with a four year degree could make such a retarded comment. It's a complete straw man, and this guy i as much a scientist as Jeffrey Dahmer is a surgeon.


Criminal Number 18F

4 posted on 06/17/2005 9:22:22 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (If timidity made you safe, Bambi would be king of the jungle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

That would be a fateful trip, jumping into a time machine and setting the dial to a time which never existed.

And I swear, my ancestors were not monkeys. If there was a planet 3 million years ago, and it had monkeys on it, they looked exactly like monkeys do today.

5 posted on 06/17/2005 10:06:50 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandrepub1
" In fact I never read a creationist book that proposed 'any' ideas at all except the other side is wrong."

What malarky. The creationist argument has much more science on it's side than does the evolutionist argument, which has none, other than theory and wild guesses. try again.

6 posted on 06/17/2005 10:11:40 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marylandrepub1
I guess you haven't heard, as apparently lots of people haven't, that lucy was discounted in the 1990s as a chimpanzee species. As for the rest of this article there hasn't been enough fosil fragments of Afarensis recovered to make any judgements on size and variations between the sexes, there have been, however, many people who claim they are simply chimpanzees, and with good evidence to support them.

It seems strange, doesn' it, if one just thinks about it, that although Louie Leaky and others can find so called ancestors to man all over african, apparently at will, that not one specie of Chimpanzee ancestors have been found. Think about that for a while.

If you haven't read any books by creationists that make sense to you perhaps you haven't read the right books or are simply letting your hidebound mind set get in the way.

7 posted on 06/17/2005 10:14:25 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach; StayAt HomeMother; 24Karet; 3AngelaD; ...
Thanks Blam.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest
-- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

8 posted on 06/17/2005 10:15:30 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FR profiled updated Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Fewer graphics, faster loading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

A time which never existed? Um, excuse me, but isn't there light visible from objects a LOT more than 3 million light years away? Wouldn't this indicate to a reasonable person that the universe is at least as old as the time it would take for the light from the most distant visible objects in the universe to reach us?

9 posted on 06/17/2005 10:48:57 AM PDT by Mylo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; calex59

No ideas, none. The last two ideas from creationists were from the so called Book of Moses. There are 2 Creation stories and 2 Noah's Ark stories in Genesis . Each of the stories contradict the other (in most details) because they were written by different people at different times (JE+P). One was written in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the other in the southern kingdom of Judah, both as competing stories, after the Kingdom split. Both must have had the same verbal folklore origins. You can't possibly claim that these stories explain anything about nature.

Lucy was the upright walking human relative with the chimps brain. Even if Don Johanson made mistakes at least he had an idea and explained how he came to his conclusions. Creationists never pose any ideas so they assume they win because they have nothing to defend(sound familiar?)

10 posted on 06/17/2005 10:49:03 AM PDT by marylandrepub1 (God does not insist that we be stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"but isn't there light visible from objects a LOT more than 3 million light years away? "

You forget. God created light in mid transit so we would 'think' the universe is older than it 'really' is. This is typical creationist brillance.

11 posted on 06/17/2005 10:52:03 AM PDT by marylandrepub1 (God does not insist that we be stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marylandrepub1
If God created a universe 6,000 or so years ago that, to all intents and purposes, appearers to be billions of years old; then for the purpose of observing and predicting the universe (using the scientific method) there is absolutely no use is "knowing" that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

In other words, Creationism is useless.
12 posted on 06/17/2005 11:15:38 AM PDT by Mylo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"In other words, Creationism is useless."

Yes-Exactly!!! And it tells Christians that they have shut down their brains to be believers. The creationists allow Liberals to paint Christians as uneducated illogical red-necks.

13 posted on 06/17/2005 11:26:42 AM PDT by marylandrepub1 (God does not insist that we be stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
"More Science"? We got more o' dat science on our side!

Try facts, evidence, experiments, falsifiable and accepted theories that help to observe and predict the universe.

Science is a process, not a result. Saying "More Science" is like a Communist insisting that they have "more Economics" on their side. And he may well be right in that there is more WRITTEN on his side, but unfortunately for the millions who have suffered under that sick system, the facts, evidents, and experiments all indicate that Capitalism is a much better system.

You don't even have that going for you. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific journals that discuss evolution, molecular evolution, geology, paleontology, and astronomy; and they all contradict the Creationist view of a young Universe and an Earth inhabited by unchanging species.
14 posted on 06/17/2005 11:28:39 AM PDT by Mylo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marylandrepub1
Creationist also try to set up a false dichotomy of anti-religious scientists versus all Christianity. This allows them to assert that they are defending Christianity from the atheists.

Most American scientists are Christians, and they see no conflict between the evolutionary theory of natural selection and their belief in the God of the Bible. Many Christians worldwide, including the Pope, also see no conflict between the evolutionary theory of natural selection (which the Pope said the evidence for was overwhelming)and belief in the God of the Bible.

Science is not the enemy of truth, it is a tool used to ascertain that which is predictable and replicable; and therefore true.
15 posted on 06/17/2005 11:33:23 AM PDT by Mylo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

"Um, excuse me, but isn't there light visible from objects a LOT more than 3 million light years away? "

Let me try the old Creationist Game:

Well the evolutionists came up with the distance to the stars using circular reasoning, assuming an old universe. But in fact if we go back to when the creator said, 'Let there be light' and multiply a short time times the speed of light we can prove the stars are a few feet way. The distant start theory is just another plot by atheists. It is now common fact (except for those evolutionists) that the stars are orbiting the earth.

Now let's re-write the science books

16 posted on 06/17/2005 11:39:00 AM PDT by marylandrepub1 (God does not insist that we be stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
I've heard college graduates, indoctrinated into believing that all of the differences between men and women are cultural, deny that male hormones influence muscle mass, that the size and strength differences between the sexes are cultural, etc. There's just nothing like twisting the data to fit your theory. Let's just hope the socialists don't rediscover Lemarkian evolution.

You might find this article, written by a liberal, interesting.

17 posted on 06/17/2005 11:57:13 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Ignore the scientists; they will only taunt and torment you with facts. I'm with you - I've believe in a young earth as well, as recounted in this Norse tale:

18 posted on 06/17/2005 12:12:05 PM PDT by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blam
The article is interesting to me in that it brings up, without actually saying it, the relation between sexual dimorphism (males being larger than females) and polygynous species(one male with more than one female). The correlation is almost absolute, the larger the male is in relation to the female the more females per reproducing male. Among sea lions there is no overlap in sizes, the male is HUGE, and has about a dozen females that his large bulk defends from other males. Among humans there is significant overlap in our sizes, but males are slightly larger; indicating that we are a slightly polygynous species (highly successful human males throughout history have had more than one female).

It is also interesting in that they mention human females cryptic ovulation (i.e. neither you nor they know precisely when they are ovulating and ready to be impregnated)and relate it to our sexual behavior. Only two species I have ever heard of have cryptic ovulation, the bonobo chimp and humans; and both species engage in recreational sex (i.e. WAY more often than needed for reproduction). Males of most species are simply not interested in sex unless there is a possibility for reproduction. A male that will refuse sex with a receptive female he has already inseminated will somehow find the energy to inseminate a new female (This is called the Coolidge effect, due to a funny story involving President Coolidge and his wife at a government chicken farm). Because women hide their time of ovulation, unlike most female mammals that let the entire neighborhood know, men are interested in sex at any time because any time MIGHT be an opportunity for reproduction; one simply never knows. This allows frequent (although not as frequent as most men would prefer) recreational sex to strengthen the pair bond, and ensures that males will stick close by their mates instead of only dropping in when they were receptive to reproduction.
19 posted on 06/17/2005 12:33:41 PM PDT by Mylo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandrepub1
There's really little point in attempting conversation with the super-naturalists.
To do so only encourages them in their thread hijackings.

Ignore them completely and they'll move on to targets who'll give them the attention they crave.

20 posted on 06/17/2005 12:35:31 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson