|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two New Hominid Finds (re: Time overlap of H. habilis and H. erectus) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We have a couple of takes on this:
A Kenyan researcher has discovered two fossils that are likely to stir fresh debate on evolution of man.
quote: Note this makes the most recent Homo habilis more recent than the oldest Homo erectus ... and their fossil records now overlap. News | The Scotsman
quote: This of course is not at all what the current picture of human evolution shows. Where do journalists get off publishing such poppycock ... especially when later in the article it says:
quote: So they interview the lead author who clearly states the current thinking and they STILL get it wrong! Just as an aside the current human evolutionary tree can be seen on http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
quote: This finds adds two individuals to the count, and they add another overlap, coexistence, between species. But the evolution of Homo sapiens has been considered descending from Homo ergaster and NOT from Homo habilis for some time (the above graphic is two years old). {abe} Note that many of the branches in this graphic are from the middle of other species -- because speciation can branch from existing species. So even IF there were a linear descent of sapiens from habilis it wouldn't have to be from the last habilis. {/abe} Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : abe Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "(re: Time overlap of H. habilis and H. erectus)" part to topic title. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNem Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thanks for posting this, RAZD. Fascinating.
You inspired me to bone up a bit on hominid fossils. Here's a good first stop for us non-specialists: Smithsonian Institute: Hall of Human Ancestors The text is well written and the 3D graphics enable examination of specimens in the round. (You need QuickTime.) The site is still in progress, though. Some species still lack profile pages. Here are their discussions of the early human species now in the news.
The posted material gives some idea what a jolt it is that these creatures were contemporaries. How do you see this discovery shuffling the usual suspects? Did Homo rudolfensis just became the prime suspect in the Homo ergaster paternity suit, or is habilus in it as much as ever?
____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : tinkering. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
See here.
Terry says:
The funniest quote there is "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." So the Old Earth Evolutionists are wrong again, and that is spun into a GOOD thing?LOL! Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Smithsonian Institute: Hall of Human Ancestors The text is well written and the 3D graphics enable you to examine specimens in the round. The site is still in progress, though, so some species still lack profile pages. Yes I have their pages bookmarked too. They keep adding material and revising to keep as up to date as possible, so it is good in that regard too.
How do you see this discovery shuffling the usual suspects? Did Homo rudolfensis just became the prime suspect in the Homo ergaster paternity suit, or is habilus in it as much as ever? The handprint site (my link above) has it as rudolfensis, while the Smithsonian tree has it as habilis or rudolfensis: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
quote: See the website for the hypertext linked version of the graphic. Their page on the debated phylogenetic relationships for Homo ergaster talks of this specific debate (which precedes these finds): http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/habdebate.html
quote: Certainly it is logical that there were many subpopulations of hominids moving into new ecological areas, and this could cause some speciation events. When you read Mayr on peripheral isolates leading to speciation you get the feeling that there could have been a lot of experimentation going on back then with a number of different ecologies being explored (though Mayr lumped most hominids into one or two species). Such peripheral isolates could evolve into new species while the main population still carried on, so yes it could go either way. This of course brings up the question of rates of change in new ecological situations compared to old ones (faster? same?). One of the keys here is the difference in diet noted in the article, as that is a clue on the difference in ecologies between the two species -- if we can get the same info on rudolfensis and ergaster that would be a further clue (but there are much fewer specimens yet). Think ecological and behavioral isolation rather than just geographic isolation. My feeling is that the ancestral tree will get more branches as we get more fossil finds. Species will continue after branching (if we evolved from x why are x still around ...) and this may make a final answer messy. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Homo rudolfensis is known from only one skull I believe, and a badly damaged one at that. And a recent reconstruction suggests that the skull shows considerable differences to earlier reconstructions.
Link to Abstract Popular Science version
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thanks, Mr Jack.
Here's a link to a student site summarizing the fossil evidence for rudolfensis: http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/rudolfensis.htm Looks like just the type skull and various bits. You have to wonder if this one won't eventually be considered a variant of habilus. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Mr Jack.
Your abstract discusses fossil Stw 53 from Sterkfontein, S.Africa (Raymond Dart country), while the other concerns KNM-ER 1470 (Koobi Fora, Kenya) ... which is considered the type specimen for Homo rudolfensis.
quote: While it is always possible to update reconstructions based on new information, it is also true that this method here is new and relatively untested. The computer model will only predict certain changes, and we see from evo-devo that there can be environmental effects of development that can account for different kinds of changes. But yes, H.rudolfensis has a very small set of fossils to represent it at this time. Thanks. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks
quote: I notice they do not make any judgment of which species it should represent, leaving that to the taxonomists to see if they put it back in habilis or put it in ergaster -- or keep it as rudolfensis due to the other differences. And we still have the issue of diet. It looks like this came out in March this year -- any response from the Leakey camp? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024