• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fossils Challenge old Evolutionary Theory

jesusfreak22

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2005
319
14
34
North West Indiana (near Chicago)
✟570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry, its kinda long, but it is interesting.


WASHINGTON - 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's 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 didn't 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 wasn't 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.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
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 isn't 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 Anton. 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.


(work cited: "http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution")
 

RealSorceror

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2006
457
25
The 2nd layer of Baatar!
✟23,248.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
After I read the first 4 sentances, I knew where the whole article was going.

You do realize that a species can exist at the same time as the species it evolved from, yes?
Notice how monkies still exist even though apes evolved from monkies?
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Upvote 0

Brennin

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith
Aug 2, 2005
8,016
376
California
Visit site
✟10,548.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
After I read the first 4 sentances, I knew where the whole article was going.

You do realize that a species can exist at the same time as the species it evolved from, yes?
Notice how monkies still exist even though apes evolved from monkies?
Even I, as a common descent skeptic, know the party line:

Apes did not evolve from monkeys. Rather, apes and monkeys share a common ancestor.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,816
7,829
65
Massachusetts
✟391,551.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Even I, as a common descent skeptic, know the party line:

Apes did not evolve from monkeys. Rather, apes and monkeys share a common ancestor.
I've heard that line too, but it isn't right. Apes and living monkeys descend from a common ancestor, which was also a monkey. That is, the common ancestor would be classified, by both biologists and everyone else, as an Old World monkey.

The main point, however, is correct: just because a daughter species has been produced, the ancestral species doesn't need to become extinct. More precisely, if a species splits into two species, there is no reason that one of them cannot resemble the ancestral species very closely, closely enough to be classified as the same species.

This paper does suggest that H. erectus evolved somewhere else and later migrated into this area, and that by the time that the two species overlapped they had different lifestyles (since two species in the same geographic area with identical resource requirements and lifestyles will compete until one is extinct). This is interesting, but poses no problem for evolutionary theory, or for an evolutionary account of human origins. Everyone knows that precise reconstructions of ancestor-descendant relationships and of speciation are speculative -- well, possibly everyone except the paleontologists who propose them.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

RealSorceror

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2006
457
25
The 2nd layer of Baatar!
✟23,248.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Even I, as a common descent skeptic, know the party line:

Apes did not evolve from monkeys. Rather, apes and monkeys share a common ancestor.
Ok, so I made a semantics error.

Still, like I said, a species can coexist with the species it evolved from.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so I made a semantics error.

Still, like I said, a species can coexist with the species it evolved from.
They can, but it isn't quite that simple. Since coexisting species in the same niche will tend to have one out compete the other, there would have to be two groups seperated geographically long enough to speciate (or what ever the verb would be) and then re-mingle. Of course, the original population would have to be fairly free from evolutionary pressures to continue being the same species. Furthermore, the two species would have to fill different ecological niches. In this case, one may still have lived largely in trees with the other being more ground based.

This story is interesting, but not all that different from when Neanderthals were established as their own line and not our direct ancestors.
 
Upvote 0