Evolutionary Theory Challenged By Fossils

CBS NEWS ^ | 08/09/2007

[SirLinksalot]

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 is 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 did not 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 was not 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 is not 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.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

[gdani]

This finding is hardly a surprise.

After all, it's uncontested that Eve was made from Adam's rib. And we still have ribs, don't we? DUH!

(/sarc off)

[RobbyS]

In general what is taught in high school science is outdated. The average students comes to think that the atom is like the planetary model proposed by Niels Bohr in, what, 1912?

[Caesar Soze]

Article: The two species lived near each other, but probably did not 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.

Chimps are apes, but the journo gets points for trying.

Article: 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.

So if I get big and fat, can I get lots of petite little wives?

TM: Exactly! These fools will do whatever they have to, including believing in something like evolution which there are no FACTS for to avoid facing real truth of the Bible, because the evolution religion doesn’t have morals. Gays, lesbians and other deviants are what keep this junk in our schools.

Exactly! The Gay-Lesbian-Deviant Alliance has been plotting for years to teach evolution to our schoolchildren. Why, they just recently awarded the GLDA Medal of Onner to Hizzonner JEJIII.

[TraditionalistMommy]

I don’t think many so-called “scientists” are conservative, but I’d be curious if that was true. Scientists usually seem to be on the side of athiests. Being a “thinker” doesn’t mean you’re thinking the right things.

[allmendream]

“Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.”

Chimps avoid apes? That is funny because whenever I see a chimp it is with apes. When a chimp is born it nurses from an ape, when it plays it plays with an ape, and when it looks to mate to looks at an ape. Chimps ARE apes. Maybe the Journalist doesn’t know what he is talking about. CBS. See B.S..

[the OlLine Rebel]

Not at all true. Most of us engineers are conservative.

I’d agree with your last, but it’s clear that Dems don’t think, period.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. Thanks Lurker. Blam, I think there has been a similar topic? I was too lazy to look. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[therut]

Yep this was taught in the late 1970’s and also in collage.

[dmz]

Gays, lesbians and other deviants are what keep this junk in our schools.
__________________________

So every heterosexual evolutionary scientist is a deviant?

[Caesar Soze]

But generally you’re correct; I don’t know why 2 species coexisting means that 1 could not possibly have originated from the other.

I think the difficulty lies in the fact that they coexisted in the same place. Geographic separation could have led to speciation, but otherwise you'd think the population would remain homogenous. There could be some migrations or some kind of weird ring species effect going on; either might account for the parent species and daughter species coexisting in space and time. (IANAB.)

[The Electrician]

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man. . . . That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised

No doubt they will now revise it by replacing the briefcase with a laptop computer and an iPod...

[RobbyS]

Haekel and other early Darwinians latched on the old Greek model of the chain of being. The branch model is no more valid. It comes from animal husbandry. Darwin several times alludes to this science, since he had personal knowledge of it. Anyway, if we go by the evidence, we should show virtually parallel lines ending in dots whose convergence can be extrapolated, but at a time unknown. Bottom line: no one knows anthing about the common ancestor.

[TraditionalistMommy]

This is the kind of thing I get a kick out of. The way evolutionsists come up with complicated explanations to defend the dead THEORY. Isn’t the whole point of a theory supposed to be that when its wrong you drop it and find a better one?

[The Electrician]

"they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

I'd like to know how he knows this. Direct observation? Interviewing them? Guessing?

He either got the info from a GEICO rep or from the caveman's shrink...

[SunkenCiv]

aha.

Finds test human origins theory
BBC News | James Urquhart
Posted on 08/08/2007 1:58:39 PM EDT by Domandred
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878232/posts

Skull Suggests Two Early Humans Lived at Same Time
Foxnews.com | August 8, 2007 | AP
Posted on 08/08/2007 11:36:16 PM EDT by RDTF
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878518/posts

Ancient Human Fossils Show Women Much Smaller
Reuters | 8-9-2007
Posted on 08/09/2007 4:18:21 PM EDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878873/posts

more “Maeve Leakey” hits:

Is “Flat-Faced Man” Your Ancestor? (new thread)
Source: Lew Rockwell
Published: 3/24/01 Author: Bill Sardi
Posted on 03/25/2001 12:45:52 PST by Ada Coddington
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3abe590037a9.htm

One Giant Step for Mankind (Evolution alert)
Source: Time Magazine
Published: 07/23/2001 Author: MICHAEL D. LEMONICK and ANDREA DORFMAN
Posted on 07/15/2001 14:31:05 PDT by Pokey78
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b520b992806.htm

Debate Heats Up On Role Of Climate In Human Evolution
Eurekalert | 11-3-2003 | Geological Society Of America
Posted on 11/03/2003 10:52:15 PM EST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014106/posts

[Wuli]

Thanks. Finally, someone who did their own critical analysis instead of accepting that either the author of the article or their scientific sources did due diligence with the information.

To put your good point another way:

What does it mean when two of anything “exist” at the same time? Does it automatically mean that one could not in fact have “existed” at an even earlier time when the other might not have? No, it doesn’t.

Actually, the mere fact that both species existed at one time can neither confirm or refute either hypothesis - that one preceded and was ancestor to the other, or that both had a common ancestor. The facts prove only what they define - at one time both species existed at the same time, period. The rest is mere speculation.

[gdani]

This is the kind of thing I get a kick out of. The way evolutionsists come up with complicated explanations to defend the dead THEORY. Isn’t the whole point of a theory supposed to be that when its wrong you drop it and find a better one?

Science is HARD! Tee hee.

[U_N_l_O_N J_A_C_K]

This is Fun: The Evolution of the Bible
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/evolution-Bible.htm

Even the bible evolves!!! How funny is that...

[Stark_GOP]

Haekel and other early Darwinians latched on the old Greek model of the chain of being.

---

Is that the reason behind Haekel lending his artistic license to the TOE?