Posted on 07/02/2004 7:55:48 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate 18:47 01 July 04 NewScientist.com news service
The remnants of a remarkably petite skull belonging to one of the first human ancestors to walk on two legs have revealed the great physical diversity among these prehistoric populations.
But whether the species Homo erectus, meaning "upright man", should be reclassified into several distinct species remains controversial.
Richard Potts, from the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, and colleagues discovered numerous pieces of a single skull in the Olorgesailie valley, in southern Kenya, between June and August 2003.
The bones found suggest the skull is that of a young adult Homo erectus who inhabited the lush mountainside some 930,000 years ago. The prominent brow and temporal bone resemble other Homo erectus specimens found elsewhere in Africa, and in Europe, Indonesia and China.
But the skull itself is around 30% smaller, which is likely to have corresponded to a similar difference in body size. The specimen helps fill a gap in the fossil record as very few Homo erectus specimens of this age have been found in Africa so far.
Strong arm
Many stone tools of similar age to the skull fragments have been found at the same site, and Potts' team suspect these may have required considerably more strength to manufacture than the small Homo erectus probably possessed. If so, this would imply a considerable physical variation within the local population.
Some experts even go so far as to suggest that a complete rethink of the human genealogical tree may be in order. "Recognising that Homo erectus may be more a historical accident than a biological reality might lead to a better understanding of those fossils whose morphology clearly exceeds the bounds of individual variation," says Jeffrey Schwartz of Pittsburgh University.
But Fred Spoor, at University College London, UK, disputes this interpretation, saying there is probably similar variation among modern human populations and ape species. "It's completely justified to call it Homo erectus," he told New Scientist. "This just gives some insight into the great variation of later specimens."
Spoor notes that the paucity of the fossil record means that many conjectures about Homo erectus remain unproven.
He hypothesises that a Homo erectus of this size may in fact have been muscular enough to make the stone tools found in the Olorgesailie valley. "They may have been small individuals, but incredibly powerful," he says.
Journal reference Science (vol 305, p 75)
Will Knight
But how do you come up with all that without either evidence of it or Faith ?
What might be found that you would regard as evidence of evolution?
bump
It's EXACTLY the same 'process' of Evolution.
Namely: "Any random change that enhances more offspring will most likely be kept by the organism."
Therefore the converse MUST be true as well; don't you think?
The Basic Process of Evolution The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:
Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today (as well as those we no longer see, like dinosaurs). That simplest life form, through the processes of mutation and natural selection, has been shaped into every living species on the planet. In the book "The Dragons of Eden," Carl Sagan summarized the theory of evolution in this way:
Accidentally useful mutations provide the working material for biological evolution -- as, for example, a mutation for melanin in certain moths, which changes their color from white to black. Such moths commonly rest on English birch trees, where their white coloration provides protective camouflage. Under these conditions, the melanin mutation is not an advantage -- the dark moths are starkly visible and are eaten by birds; the mutation is selected against. But when the Industrial Revolution began to cover the birch bark with soot, the situation was reversed, and only moths with the melanin mutation survived. Then the mutation was selected for, and, in time, almost all of the moths are dark, passing this inheritable change on to future generations. There are still occasional reverse mutations eliminating the melanin adaptation, which would be useful for the moths were English industrial pollution to be controlled. Note that in all this interaction between mutation and natural selection, no moth is making a conscious effort to adapt to a changed environment. The process is random and statistical. Can such a simple theory explain all of life as we know it today? Let's start by understanding how life works and then look at some examples.
CONTINUE---> |
Really?? And where did you get that truth? I am more convinced than ever that people like you once crept on their belly like a reptile. And I am also convinced that you also have a "petite" scull size, which encases your equally petite brain.
Except that evolution works across populations. If the changes in the populations result in fewer offspring surviving to reproduce, then it's not going to go anywhere.
I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.
In the words of Stephen Jay Gould:
Every time a new fossil is found which fills in a gap in the sequence we have found a "missing link"--but one can always insist on more and more links. This is a variation on one of the Greek philosopher Xeno's paradoxes, who said that no matter how precisely you measure the position of an arrow in flight, between one point and another you can always imagine another intermediate point. Scientists don't use the term "missing link." This is a bit of biased vocabulary from the 19th century used by opponents of evolutionary theory who trusted that scientists would fail to find enough links in the chain of evidence to link us with our prehuman ancestors. In the sense that there can never be a wholly unbroken chain, they are right; but in the sense that we have lots more links now, and the evidence overwhelmingly favors the evolution of apes and hominids from a common ancestor, they have been outdated by science.
yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.
Other than that slight detail, how is it?
TO --> TO -->
Yes, and you illustrated it nicely.
God allowed evolution to work - in the case of living things though genetics, in the case of machines through man. The process is similar. That which works is kept and improved on, that which doesnt work falls by the wayside.
Any fossil find will sooner or later be assigned to a species. That this happens does not change that many fossils form seemingly obvious (except to creationists) transitional sequences. Creationism builds its "science" upon not seeing, upon ignoring away the obvious. That's not really very useful.
The OJ jury saw no evidence of Simson's guilt. Sure, there was some of his blood at the crime scene, and some of the victims' blood on his clothes at his house, but that's not evidence of anything. It's just blood!
Oh my, nice job on "scull"
You creationists are always good for a laugh, at least you got over the notion of burning witches.
No. The objects in the photographs do not make imperfect copies of themselves.
If by "de-evolved", you mean that certain traits that our ancestor species had have been replaced with other traits, then I guess you're right.
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.