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
If humans evolved from apes ... why didn't the apes evolve ?
Too bad the premise of an evolutionist is that God doesn't exist…
Show me the proof of this statement.
Since you are so bright (and I admittedly am not) which came first, the chicken or the egg ?
The egg.
So where did the egg come from ?
If it requires indisputable proof, show me the proof that a Supreme Being created everything from nothing.
Proof is not required...only Faith is required.
Proof is not required...only Faith is required
Darwin said it,
I believe it,
and that settles it!
If the USA was formed by splitting off from England, why is England still around?
Do you really think creationists will actually bother to read the article?
They got's thumbs on their FEET!
The other apes have certainly evolved since our species went their separate ways. They haven't evolved into humans, but so what?
There's no such thing as "de-evolution."
The reptile came first.
Then you're not much of a scientist. The rest of us require supporting evidence, not just someone's word. I "believe it" because there *is* a mountain of overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.
The last common ancestor of chimps and humans would definitely be considered an ape. It wouldn't exactly be a chimp or any other modern species of ape, but it would have looked rather more like a chimp than like us.
For that matter, if you could take time machine voyage and trace our line far enough, you would arrive at something which would be classed as a monkey, because that's the pre-existing stock from which apes arose. It wouldn't be any modern monkey species, but you'd admit it to be a monkey.
If you go back farther yet, way back this time, there's nothing "more advanced" (in the human-like direction) than fish. Go back to the Vendian and there aren't even any fish. Nevertheless, our ancestry would be there, in some primitive form.
Oh...?
You have this on some authority???
I seem recall that ALL of the fishy stuff that was BEFORE mammals seems to have devolved away....
(t least that's what my MIRROR tells me...)
[Well, in the winter, my HANDS do become a bit scaly...]
Put me on the ping list. Looks like this is gonna be another fun one from the crevos. Its no fair really, the evolutionists have to actually use facts and data, the crevos just say "its a miracle!"
Very true, and that is my point.
For the religionist, only faith is required to believe that God created all that there is - but at the same time the religionist requires absolute proof of science. If there is any perceived crack in the proof, than they claim that science is wrong and religion is right.
I do believe that God created it all.
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.
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.