Our African ancestry: Puzzling over human origins

Union Leader ^ | August 8 2002

[2Trievers]

JULY WAS one of the most momentous months in the history of paleontology. Two major findings were reported that are beginning to reshape our theories about the origin of human beings.

Scientists revealed that a skull found in the central African nation of Chad has both ape and human characteristics. This would not be so unusual were the skull not 7 million years old. That’s a million years older than the skull that previously was the oldest known hominid remain.

Another skull, this one found in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, also shows ape and human characteristics. This was a completely unexpected find because until this 1.7-million-year-old skull was found, paleontologists and anthropologists believed that the only humanoid to migrate from Africa was homo erectus, our direct ancestor. If we weren’t the first hominids to leave Africa, who were, and when and why did they leave?

It is a shame the brilliant Harvard anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould died earlier this year. It would be interesting to hear what he would have had to say about the new findings. Gould was a sort of radical among anthropologists. He believed in and popularized a different theory of the way evolution works, and his deviancy from the accepted orthodoxy on the subject revealed to the rest of the world what these newly discovered skulls are reinforcing: that evolution is, after all, a theory that has yet to complete its own evolutionary cycle.

The truth is, science cannot yet tell us anything conclusive about the origin of our species. The fossil record is scant, and what we don’t know about our own ancestry greatly outweighs what we do know.

The one thing scientists seem to universally agree on is that the human race was spawned in Africa. How, when, where and why we changed after leaving that continent is a mystery. We guess that means that, anthropologically speaking, we who inhabit the United States of America are all African-Americans. And this leaves us to wonder two things. 1.) Can understanding this common ancestry help to break down racial barriers and tensions that unfortunately still survive? 2.) Will we look good in a dashiki?

[2Trievers]

Interesting editorial out of NH. Is Nackey Loeb flipping in her grave? &;-)

[2Trievers]

Good morning Blam! &;-)

[Junior]

Bump.

[meenie]

Umpteen million years after the discovery of these specimens, the skeletal structure of humans bear a resemblance to apes. Does this mean Darwin's theory is right and the theory of the creation of man is wrong? Hardly. To each his belief, but to force the issue through "scientific" evidence is a waste of time.

[Wonder Warthog]

Why don't you folks start a continuing thread in the "Religion" section on "Evolution vs Creationism" (like "The Hobbit Hole" or "The USO Canteen" in general interst), and discuss these SCIENCE threads THERE by reference--instead of infesting EVERY ONE OF THEM with your anti-evolution bullbleep.

That would leave the base thread open to those of us who are actually interested in the SCIENCE posted.

[Icthus]

"..The truth is, science cannot yet tell us anything conclusive about the origin of our species. The fossil record is scant, and what we don’t know about our own ancestry greatly outweighs what we do know.."

Never thought I'd hear an evolutionist admit that.

[BruceS]

We guess that means that, anthropologically speaking, we who inhabit the United States of America are all African-Americans.

Now let's discuss reparations!

[2Trievers]

Put down that phone Bruce ... a call to the Porsche dealer may be a bit premature ... wait until we know more! LOL &;-)

[ASA Vet]

A science forum would be nice, but alas the
supernaturalists would come there to argue,
rather than to just talk amongst themselves in their supernaturalist forum.

[Greeklawyer]

"The one thing scientists seem to universally agree on is that the human race was spawned in Africa."

Sarcasm on:

100% of humans are part of one minority.

Sarcasm off

[jwh_Denver]

Never thought I'd hear an evolutionist admit that.

Take a look at this site. Evolution scientists baring their buns on the fossil issue.

http://trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils

A Freeper sent me this. Stunned me. At least it's not a religion for some scientists.

[Icthus]

Interesting read, thanks.

[Junior]

I ain't anti-evolution, fella. And we do discuss real science on these threads.

[Junior]

Does this mean Darwin's theory is right and the theory of the creation of man is wrong?

There is no "theory of the creation of man." There is a religious belief that man was created directly by God, but that belief has no predictive powers and cannot be falsified, which means it is not a theory in the scientific sense.

[Tolik]

Posted article: "..The truth is, science cannot yet tell us anything conclusive about the origin of our species. The fossil record is scant, and what we don’t know about our own ancestry greatly outweighs what we do know.."

Icthus: Never thought I'd hear an evolutionist admit that.

This is what scientific approach is about: if you don't know, you say I don't know, not enough evidence, etc. Theories come and go, some remain as the best explanation of observable facts. The difference between scientific approach and faith-based one is that when faced with contradictory facts, science eventually will develop a better theory explaining new facts as well. Contrary to this, if you just believe in your theory, what do you do when you are faced with the new facts you can't explain?

There is no shame for a scientist to admit that his knowledge is not complete, or that the existing theory can't explain all facts. It is a shame for a scientist to ignore new facts and rigidly hold for the old wrong theory. Of course, history of science is full of examples when indeed even big name scientists could not bring themselves to admit that they were wrong. But this is just a human failure, not the wrongs of the scientific method of inquiry.

But just because our knowledge is limited, it does not mean that science as principal needs to be abandoned in favor of faith-believes every time when our old theories are challenged.

[blam]

Good morning, running a little late.

[Icthus]

"..There is no shame for a scientist to admit that his knowledge is not complete, or that the existing theory can't explain all facts.."

I absolutely agree. But it is usually the exception rather than the rule. Creationists have been tagged as superstitious idiots, ignorant of scientific facts. My beef with the Evo's revolves more around their absolute "refusal" to admit that #1, they don't have any concrete proof of macro evolution, and #2 that the creation theory could be just as much of a possibility.

From an archeaological standpoint, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and again, rarely is it questioned from a historical context. Yet science, by its very nature, cannot accept something as fact unless it can be proven true (which is where the beef with the Evo's comes in)

Science attempts to answer a question using all available data and probabilities. Faith doesn't necessarily require that I know the answer....just that I believe it is correct.

[Publius6961]

"The one thing scientists seem to universally agree on is that the human race was spawned in Africa."

I am willing to concede that if they would just shut up and go away.

What unstated profound PC message are we failing to infer that causes these "scientists" to continue beating that dead horse?

[jody]

it's good that stephen gould died. he was a liar.

[Tolik]

To summarize the points of contention, as they are discussed on Creation/Evolution threads here: two separate points are discussed, and some people insist on very sharp distinction, that we should not mix them together.

1. Origin of life and ultimately origin of the Universe: creation by G-d versus natural (no G-d involved). This is a clearly argument between believers and non-believers.

2. Once the life exist, the evolution of it. A number of believers insist that there is no contradiction between their faith in G-d creating the beginning of life, and their acceptance of the science of life developing: Evolution. So this argument is between Evolutionists (including believers and non-believers) versus creationists who don't accept evolution.

From an archaeological standpoint, the Bible has been shown to be accurate time and again, rarely is it questioned from a historical context.

Many events in Bible looks like did happen some time in history. You don't need to be a believer to have a high regard to Bible as a historical document.

Yet science, by its very nature, cannot accept something as fact unless it can be proven true (which is where the beef with the Evo's comes in) .

Science attempts to answer a question using all available data and probabilities. Faith doesn't necessarily require that I know the answer....just that I believe it is correct.

Yes. I absolutely agree. We differ in approach. I have a deep respect to believers and their faith. But I use science to explain the universe. I don't think science needs to revert to concept of G-d every time when it encounters an unexplainable. Honest "I don't know" is quite acceptable to me. There are countless examples of things that were absolutely unexplainable at previous levels of knowledge, had a "divine" explanation at that time, and received a scientific explanation later on.