E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
msnbc.com
How did pre-humans like australopiths, shown at left in this illustration, make the transition to early members of the genus Homo, shown at right? Perhaps it happened more than once.
The discoverer of the famous "Lucy" fossil says fresh findings suggest that more than one ancient species made the transition to more humanlike forms in different parts of Africa.
Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Don Johanson shook up the scientific world in 1974 when he came across the traces of a 3.2 million-year-old skeleton in Ethiopia, a pre-human ancestor that came to be called Lucy. A similar shake-up may well be in the works due to the detailed analysis of another set of 1.977 million-year-old bones found in South Africa.
In a series of studies published this week in the journal Science, researchers make a strong case that the bones, ascribed to a species called Australopithecus sediba, illustrate how the bodies of humanlike primates became more suited for upright walking, tool-making — and bigger brains.
The international research team, led by the University of Witwatersrand's Lee Berger, says A. sediba is a good representative of the type of creature leading to the emergence of the genus Homo, which includes us Homo sapiens types as well as Neanderthals and a host of other now-extinct species.
Courtesy of Donald Johanson
Anthropologist Don Johanson holds a cast of the skull of Lucy, one of the world's best-known hominid fossils.
But Johanson told me today that few of the reports about the latest findings touch on "the real crux of the matter." Even though A. sediba is a transitional form, with features of Australopithecus as well as Homo, he said there are other specimens of the genus Homo in eastern Africa that have been dated to roughly the same time. "There is a diversity of Homo already at 1.8 million years," he said.
In fact, at least one of the fossil bones traditionally ascribed to Homo — an upper jaw from the same area of Ethiopia where Lucy was found — has been dated to an age of 2.3 million years, Johanson said. He sees that as a sign that some primates in east Africa had completed the transition to Homo while others in southern Africa were still in the midst of that transition.
"Right after 3 million years toward the present, we see that there is a response in eastern and southern Africa which are on two different evolutionary trajectories," Johanson said. One trajectory led to grass-eaters such as Paranthropus robustus and Paranthropus boisei, and the other trajectory led to bigger-brained species such as Homo ergaster, Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis. He said Homo habilis appears to have existed in east Africa at the same time that australopiths in southern Africa were becoming more Homo-like.
Courtesy of Lee Berger
Anthropologist Lee Berger holds the cranium of Australopithecus sediba.
"For the very first time, we've found the roots of Homo in south Africa, but it's too late to be the roots of Homo in east Africa," Johanson said.
During a teleconference, Berger said it can be difficult to tease out the relationships between the various species along the evolutionary path leading to modern humans.
"We're dealing with a period between, say, 2.3 million years and 1.6 milion years where the entire remainder of the fossil record could fit into a small shoebox, as opposed to these very well-preserved skeletons," Berger said. But he insisted that A. sediba "may very well be as good a model or better than the Homo habilis one, which actually only has a larger brain to go with it." He pointed out that our knowledge about Homo habilis was based on "very fragmentary fossils."
Darryl de Ruiter, an anthropologist at Texas A&M University who is part of Berger's team, said researchers considered whether A. sediba represented nothing more than an evolutionary dead end. "But as we pointed out, and as all these papers are demonstrating, in every aspect of the skeleton — cranium, teeth, jaw, mandibles, hand, pelvis, foot, everything that we look at — we see characteristics that align this species more closely with Homo than any other australopith," he said.
When the discovery of the A. sediba fossils was announced last year, Johanson speculated that the species might be more appropriately considered a part of the genus Homo than the genus Australopithecus. "I've actually changed my view," Johanson said. Now he agrees with Berger's team that it's an australopith. And who knows? Anthropologists may well change their minds many times as more fossils come to light.
In any case, Johanson said, this week's revelations are "very, very interesting."
"It does show that there are probably different ways of being an upright walker, and there are different ways of arranging the anatomy," he said. "There isn't just one strict way."
More about human evolution:
- Humans had sex with now-extinct relatives
- Fossils suggest Lucy's species used stone tools
- Lessons still being learned from Lucy
- Search for human evolution on msnbc.com
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
The unspoken fear about an interpretation like this is that racists might misuse it to claim that sub-Saharan blacks are somehow less evolved than everyone else. There is a similar fear about the polygenesis theory.
Uh, Don? This is about a completely separate species from humans.
Yep jock59801, I'm sure you have all the answers. (Eye roll)
Is there even such a thing as less evolved? Isn't all things currently living evolved enough to suit an enviroment and pressures they live within? And if not is it more because their enviroment and/or pressures are changing instead of the species itself?
skepology, interesting point. here's my take.
all areas considered, i agree with you that there is no such thing as a less evolved group because we all have the same amount of time to evolve. however, as you stated, different groups evolve differently to adapt to their environments. some are more evolved in certain areas than the rest because their specific environment requires it. and common sense suggests that the more evolved you are in a certain area, the less evolved you are in other areas (than you could have been otherwise).
for example, if you happen to live in a region in which food is sacred because there isn't enough rain, then you need to be strong, tall and testosterone sufficient to hunt animals. so for the group that you are in, strength, height and testosterone level play a bigger role in natural selection than other attributes such as spirituality or intelligence. on the other hand, if you live in a more peaceful region that has food all year round, then strength, height & testosterone level aren't that big of a deal and other factors such as intelligence play a bigger role than the other 3.
as far as i know, there have been 3 books written on race and intelligence and all 3 have conclusively put it in this order: Asian > Whites > Blacks. as for testosterone levels, the order is reversed. too much of a coincidence? i think not. when you look at the weather of Asia, which is raining all year long, the cold climate of Northern Europe, which is where the Germanic tribes came from, and the hot climate of Africa, it all makes sense. do you agree?
Skep, yes, that is exactly right. And of course, everything living today has been evolving for exactly the same amount if time, by definition. If they are not evolving in any particular direction very fast, it is because there is currently no selective pressure for them to do so.
Battlestar Galactica explains everything...thought people knew that? ;)
Yes, I agree Mark. One thing to note in humans that skin color did play roles depending on climate. We all know that paler skin came about when humans migrated up north into areas with less sun light. However, those with dark skin that remained in the south still continued thriving and having generations as well. It's good to note that it is the climate that judges the forms and processes of the creature and what we may consider very simplistic, like those of the single cells, are still very effecient. In fact more effecient than ourselves in some cases.
But does not the Out of Africa Theory of human evolution beg the question of:
Which came first, …. the hairless hominoid or the black skinned hominoid?
Well, SamC, considering that all apes have dark skin now, potentially to help them survive in hot climates, I would guess that they all started with dark skin. So yes, all you crazy white people that are afraid of people with dark skin, you're ancestors were black too. :P
jock...and what role does mutation rate play?
hs321 - Mutation rate determines how much genetic variability there is for natural selection to act upon. Natural selection reduced genetic variation (by weeding out some types), but usually natural selection is slow enough that there is enough variation available fromthe ongoing mutation rate. However, sometimes when selection is really intense (such as in dog breeding), it can deplete all of the available variation, and evolution will slow or stop until mutations can replenish it.
@ guillermo
Meh. No worries. Racists don't need theories. The real fear is that it explains the existence of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, the people who support them, and the freakin idiots who designed this sight with the lame lame lame older and newer links floating along the sides - all of which, Gingrich, Perry and the lame links creators, bring to mind famous film "The Turd That Will Not Flush" (referenced by character in Oprah selection, 'The Corrections.')
A more obvious derivative is that the vegetarians (paranthropus) where the small-brained ones. ;)
Actually the latter it is thought might be the one that evolved into Homo Sapiens being that it had both Ape and Human characteristics.
Human beings have always been just that human beings Apes have always been just that.
In truth (not being racial or claiming anyone to be superior) Black people were the first people on the planet and have been on it since the beginning of time. The Caucasian race can only be traced back approximately 6000 years.
The unspoken fear about an interpretation like this is that racists might misuse it to claim that sub-Saharan blacks are somehow less evolved than everyone else. There is a similar fear about the polygenesis theory.
But this isn't a fork that would apply to that, since all modern humans would have come from one side of this fork. This is very early.
You don't need to repeat yourself, Don, and yes, every time someone comes up with a new finding in the human line, someone tries to use it for some freakish theory to make themselves feel better about their skin color. I wouldn't worry too much, it won't be any worse than the last one. As a pasty white guy with Irish blood living in an arid part of the country, I wouldn't mind some extra pigmentation myself. I have to settle for being hot and wearing long sleeves and a hat. So much for white people being so much more evolved for their environment. If I stay out in the sun around here without protection, skin cancer will be my lot.
I don't see it happening among anybody that has paid attention in a good high school biology class or in a college class on genetics. Anybody with good science education won't be going there. Especially considering, as noted above, that this study is about another species, not about races or other groups within H. sapiens.
People did jump onto the science wagon and concoct crackpot theories in the 1920s that aligned with their notions of racial and masculine superiority. Really crackpot science. For example, without any factual basis, they postulated that larger scull size would be associated with higher intelligence, measured that women on average have smaller skulls then men, and thereby "proved" that men are genetically more intelligent then women. (I'm not joking--only a man could do science this bad, eh?)
At the same time, they "proved" that those they categorized as belonging to inferior races had smaller scull sizes and were therefore less intelligent. Guess how they did that? By using something light, like seeds, to measure scull volume for their "inferior types, and something heavy, like metal balls, to measure skull volume for "superior types." Surprise, surprise, their superior types always had higher measures. You've got to wonder what these people were smoking. As it turned out, there is no relationship between skull size and IQ, but there is a relationship between height and skull size. On average, men are taller then women, so on average men have larger skull sizes. But taller women will also, on average, show larger skull sizes than shorter men.
There were people doing good science at the time. A mathematical basis for genetic inheritance in populations that we're still building on was painstakingly worked out in the 20's and 30's. Evolutionary biologists also worked out that the average genetic difference between human races is far less than the actual difference between any two unrelated individuals within a race. Conscientiously performed science undermined the prejudices of the time.
In other words, I would concur with theCavalier. I also wouldn't mind additional pigmentation in a sun-drenched environment. When looking for science that aligns with their prejudices, 'F' students in science will often latch onto crackpot theories that align with their prejudices, and deny actual evidence that doesn't. That's an important reason for scientific literacy in any society. Also something to think about when you walk into a voting booth knowing that some candidates are wearing their ignorance of modern science like a badge of honor. I have to wonder before marking a ballot how far that ignorance extends.
We already new that there were a few forks in the human "family bush," and there were times when multiple species of hominins lived at the same time. This is just a new one. But a very interesting one.
Take a fork......stab it and slab it.
Not even the founder believed in his own tricked up monkey science.
Huh? If you want people to respond, please try to make sense
Feel free to show a single piece of evidence from a credible, peer-reviewed source that even suggests that the theory of evolution is inaccurate, CJ.
That's right, I didn't think so...
anything presented by a journalist is going to be heavily influenced by the journalist's own ignorance
anything presented by PBS, the National Geographic Channel, etc. is going to be severely lacking in credibility - this is always due, at least in part, to the influence of media 'specialists'
mass media entertainment is geared more to the perpetuation of ignorance than to the spread of enlightenment because the status-quo thrives on ignorance
Paps, National Geo. is usually very good on science, and PBS at least tries to be. The hetwork nes can be pretty weak sometimes. Like CBS flubbed this story badly.
No, journalists are not scientists, but since most Americans don't (or can't) listen to scientists any more, it's all they get.
Hey Papsmear, Whats your point?
cjb, darwin didn't even know how right he was about many aspects of evolution. we now know it can happen much more rapidly than he ever thought. some detectable changes occur in just a few generations. it's been observed in finches, guppies and chiclids.
I don't know about the other species, but the work with finches is a rock solid case of adaptive mutation.
Very important work, so I'm not trying to slight it, but it lacks proof of evolution, even though journalists always seem to want to lump the two together.
The finches are an example of natural selection. Mutation could be involved but wasn't addressed, as far as I know. And that IS evolution. Natural selection is the main mechanism of evolution, and the finches have been observed to evolve as fast as anything in the fossil record.
Evolution Theory is an explanation of how speciation happens, but speciation is NOT the foundation of Evolution Theory. The general statement that holds evolution true is that living things diversify through generations. So if the whole biosphere were that of domestic dogs, lots of diversity through generations yet not so much speciation, than Evolution Theory would be the field of study to explain how this is. So Darwin's finches is a perfect example of Evolution Theory.
What's the difference between adaptive mutation and evolution? Wouldn't adaptive mutation eventually lead up to evolving? I'm just wondering...
Jock you surprise me. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the work involving finches. Maybe mutation wasn't involved? Their beaks showed through natural selection they adapted to better fit their surroundings by a mutation of the orginal species beaks...adapted mutation. To extrapolate it into cross species evolution through natural selection is clearly pushing the envelope to see what you want to see, not what was shown.
First tater, you have to keep in mind that evolution deals with changes over generations and not changes from a certain individual. So if some humans went from a cold climate and into a hot climate and started to tan, adjust to the foods, and begain learning ways of coping we could consider that adaptive. However, if that human had children and if some children had genes more suited to the hot climate than the other offspring. And if that child grew up to pass those genes on to their offspring... rinse and repeat etc etc. Until you have those certain genes as a normal niche in that population it would be a prime example of evolution. Adaptiveness helps with evolution because if you can't adapt to a new climate than you are not likely to have offspring in the climate either. Darwin's finches is an example of evolution. They have those beaks because genes have became a normal niche, through generations of natural selection, not by pokemoning as individuals.
Further more when they talk about mutations in evolution it's mutations that occure in the genes (due to radiation, the repatitiveness of tearing apart copying and combining, viruses attaching to DNA etc.) and if those mutations get passed down the blood line and become a normal nich it is than no longer really a mutation as it is just a common fixture. It's all about if those genes passing down to offspring.
Skep, I had to give you a thumbs up for your use of 'pokemoning'. :-)
Mitchell
Lol Mitchell thanks! Honestly though, I've seen enough of "fish jumping out of water and growing legs..." BS from people, who don't know wtf they are talking about, to properly assume they get their biology education from Saterday cartoons or websites that I would consider cartoons of bad taste.
Skepology, you can’t have the former without first having the latter.
A mutation in a certain individual must precede changes over generations.
Natural selection then becomes the “driver” of that mutation into succeeding generations.
It is amazing how life can be so adaptable to its environment, able to change as the conditions around it change. It must be very well designed.
tater tot: everyone is just wondering, because we've yet to see one species turn into another. All that is still guesswork. I won't weigh in on what I think, because, well, it's just none of 'yall's business ;) but it's pretty obvious, and easily provable that adaptation happens within species.
Will "It is amazing how life can be so adaptable to its environment, able to change as the conditions around it change. It must be very well designed."
Not so much for the millions (probably billions) of species that didnt make it.
perhaps those screw up designs dont count huh?
theCavalier: "everyone is just wondering, because we've yet to see one species turn into another"
And we never will, because it takes too long. New species arise gradually over thousands of generations. It cannot happen suddenly, and evolutionary theory does not say that it would, so the fact that we haven't seen it yet is not a test of anything.
Jessica: "Not so much for the millions (probably billions) of species that didnt make it. perhaps those screw up designs dont count huh?"
But that is exactly how natural selction designs organisms: by weeding out the screw-ups. Lots of screw-ups is evidence of the process, not evidence against it.
Actually, theCavalier, the DNA and fossil evidence for one species becoming another is overwhelming. Are you another one of those people who feel that it is fine to accept the science that doesn't inconvenience you and reject that which is uncomfortable? I assume that you have no problem with the chemistry theory on the structure of the atom, the cell theory of biology or the earth science theory about the internal structure of the Earth. I also imagine that when you have a physical ailment you take advantage of the knowledge of an actual medical doctor and do not rely on witchcraft or a medicine man.
When confronted with an idea that challenges you, however, you choose to reject science. The Theory of Evolution conflicts with the mythical creation story from Genesis which makes that science impossible for you to accept. Many people - you may be one yourself - won't accept the theory that humans are causing climate change because to believe in that theory may be accompanied with a moral obligation to participate in a solution to the problem.
The mission of science is to understand the natural world. The scientific method, which has been used for hundreds of years to advance our knowledge of the Universe, is apolitical in the sense that truth is the only object of those pursuits. Those of you who accept science when it is "comfortable" for you to do so and reject that which happens to conflict with your preconceived religious notions (like creationism, which has absolutely no basis in fact) or that which might affect your lifestyle (if we believe the global warming theory we are compelled to change our energy policy) you are intellectually dishonest, even to yourselves. You should always be aware of why you believe whatever you believe and if your beliefs are dishonest, so are you.
No design necessary. Just selection. Classic coin experiment where 'heads' are better than tails. Flip all the coins. Leave the heads and reflip the tails-- over and over. Eventually you'll get all heads. Each event is random but the outcome is optimal. THATS natural selection / evolution.
this whole "even the founder didn't believe it" stuff is perhaps the most misquoted aspect of Darwin's original work. The section often quoted by creationists is taken so far out of context as to be worthless. Also, Darwin didn't talk about mutations b/c genetic theory didn't exist at the time, at least not as it's understood today.
any time anyone uses either of these arguments against evolution I simply roll my eyes knowing that I'm dealing with someone who hasn't ever really read the relevant literature and has simply taken the word of the greedy creationist ring-leaders like Ken Ham and the folks at the Discovery institute.
@peanutgallery: that's one of the best and simplest explanations of evolution I've ever heard... I'm going to have to remember that.
Typical Creatard response: When in doubt, make s**t up. Stick to quote-mining and ducking your semi-empty skull into the sand of superstition.
We'll stick to science.
I simply enjoy the fact that more information has been added to our picture of evolution.
It is called "OUT of Everywhereica". Australopithecines like designer dogs could cross-breed everywhere with Dryopithecenes or with Homo Archaic or Modern. Most recently they did it with LatterDay Australopithecus floresiensis.
I still haven't seen a pre-hominid species such as Australopitecines come from anywhere other than Africa. Have there been any other continents with similar species that were related to us?
I think the dry conditions of Africa have preserved fossils better than anyplace else. I'm sure they were all over asia and possibly into europe.
IMHO, that's right; no Australopitecines have been found outside of Africa. H.omo erectus was the first to leave Africa
Of course, when Mount Toba erupted and pretty much wiped them out, I'm sure that H. Erectus probably regretted it.
Mike is right - in the early 80's my N.AmericanAustralopitecines got moldy in the basement after spring rains. Should have installed the french-drains, downspout extensions, & dehumidifier sooner. Maybe find one on Ebay or Craigslist - the neighborhood kids love it perched on the porch rail on Halloween. Grrrrr! Scary.
I don't think it was very nice to have kept them chained up in the basement in the first place.
They weren't chained - were packed with other holliday ornaments lying in a big box on the floor (thus the mold). Should have been more careful for sure.
I'm sticking with Straight Amoeba Origins...life was so simple then!
Seriously, amoeba J26-8930-H57-85711 just HAD to mutate and start us on the road to Homo Sapiens...
It's Turtles all the way down!
Mitchell
Very interesting. During the last 50 years or so our knowledge of the orgin of our species has advanced quite far.
Now, if we could only get our politicians to come up to the modern age.
Please do not forget CB radio users,some of those people are still at the fork.
Yet during the past 50 years there has not been one shred of solid evidence that evolution has ever occurred. Nor will there ever be.
LOL'd on the the CB comment - too funny.
Yeah, breaker breaker - there's a jack-knifed black monolith on '80 - we're backed up all the way to Ramapithecus lufagensis! Advise avoiding the Australopithecines and taking the direct Neandertal side road. But watch out for Smokey (and Dino). Goin 10-10....
;-)
Timothy1Mil: "Nor will there ever be."
LOL. That's faith, not science.
"Yet during the past 50 years there has not been one shred of solid evidence that evolution has ever occurred"
And that's just ignorance.
Hell, we've SEEN it happen in just the last twenty years. Literally, witnessed it, not just found irrefutable evidence like we've been doing for the last hundred. We've actually witnessed and recorded it, with twenty years of samples documenting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
"Yet during the past 50 years there has not been one shred of solid evidence that evolution has ever occurred. Nor will there ever be."
Unless you count newer sanitation resistant bacterial strains, evolving common colds & virius we suffer, basic science fruit fly experiments, naturally changing and back traceable plant adaptation & mutation examples, the long studied land & sea examples in places like the galapagos islands, DNA evidence of trait retention & tracing back of modern animals to different extinct permafrost preserved animals.....etc etc. Not a shred.....likewise with all that Hubble data - not a shred of evidence that our flat word is not the center of the universe. Science be damned they ain't gonna fool me either! ;-)
the solid evidence for evolution is exhaustive and overwhelming, in fossil remains, in visibly transforming organisms and in genetic analysis. it has indisputably convinced 99% of biologists. the only dissenters are thoroughly discredited cranks trying desperately to defend religious dogma. biologists are people that have devoted their entire careers to studying life. what exactly are your qualifications for telling them they are all completely wrong? produce proof overturning 150 years of scientific consensus and the nobel prize is yours.
Timothy-- I can show you a pretty convincing picture of evolution, one with solid evidence to back it up. Chihuahuas. Pomeranians. Tea-Cup Poodles. These animals are descended from wolves. Due to human interaction (domestication, selective breeding) we have, over the past 20,000 years, bred 2-5 pound yapping balls of hilarity from 90 pound alpha predators. This was accomplished in just 20,000 years! Now, please imagine the same adaptability across MILLIONS of years.
Make no mistake, there were no roaming "tea-cup poodles of the Serengeti" -- these are animals that we, as a species, personally evolved (or devolved, depending on your take). That's evidence that you can see. So head on down to your local pet store and marvel at the incredible malleable nature of biology. :-)
How naive, Fish. The "Round Earth Theory" is just an attempt by pinko commie scientists to kill God and turn us into socialists.
"How naive, Fish. The "Round Earth Theory" is just an attempt by pinko commie scientists to kill God and turn us into socialists."
Shhhhh! Watch out or the Anthonys of the world will wish you away into the cornfield...thinking you're a very bad man! They think wishing away nuisance truth is a good thing - a really good thing....isn't it! (duck!)
....sorry, was watching some Twilight Zone reruns recently....that Billy Mumy sure could act @ age 5, now where where were we...oh yea, so called solid SCIENCE (queue Thomas Dolby music). Muhhahahha
timothy1: ever heard of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics? has it happened in the last 50 years? sorry to disappoint you, this is evolution. and it will affect you in your lifetime, if you live another 20 or so.
I love it when people say stuff like that. Reminds me of when people said, "If God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings".
They use absolute terms on the intangible. Well, at least it is good for a laugh when that, "Nor will there ever be." turns into an "it is".
And that's the thing. Evolution is already a known fact. It's like someone saying "man will never fly" fifty years after the Wright Brothers invented the airplane.
I wonder what it must be like to be a pretty religious person, walking around in today's society believing the earth is only a few thousand years old, and therefore all this "science" is just charltans at work trying to DE-GOD the planet.
how many of them do you think still think the earth is flat, and evil godless scientists are just making up those photo's from space showing a round earth, trying to lure more people away from GOD?
and we dont classify this way of thinking as a mentall illness why?
People who think aliens are trying to read their minds are considered mentally ill...and i see their beliefs equally as valid as the god nuts.
@Jessica: a lot of the folks who believe these things just never thought much about the consequences of their beliefs. Many of them have simply been duped by their pastors or the charlatans that run the various creation museums and the Institute for Creation Research. My wife believes b/c her father believes and he is a pastor who (scarily) does sessions on "evidence for creation" for school science teachers in his particular church schools. He's not even a crook, he's a good man with a deep faith, who just won't let go of the literalism b/c it's what his church teaches and what he was brought up with. I think it's a deeper issue than "mental illness" as you put it.
In any case I agree with everyone else above about the support for evolution. It's as proven as anything can be science. We may not yet know (and may never know) all the specific branches involved in our own development, but we can know that it happened.
Now we know where sasquatch came from
You are joking, right? This article does not prove anything, another useless theory screwing up minds both young and old.
Uh, Tim? You do realize that evolution is, you know... A scientific fact, right?
Yes, Mo-Pho was joking. I'm afraid Timothy isn't though.
Mo-Pho= Joking
Timothy1Mil= A Joke
PBS just aired a program the other day about all this that maybe can be accessed on their website.
It was very interesting.
family trees fork at every generation
so. just exactly WHAT type of statement is being made here?
That's a good point, but here they are talking about a different kind of "Family." A Family of species rather than a family of individuals.
It would be more along the lines of what wolves are to foxes if this split on our tree lived to be among us today. Or is that a bad analogy? Please set of a better one if so.
the title here is idiotic. as others have pointed out, our 'family tree' is bushy in the extreme. there were hominids evolving and going extinct right and left at this time. it is highly unlikely we will ever trace out an exact progression of ancestors.
True, but because we have so few archaic hominid fossils every little find is interesting.
There have been quite a few studies of Lucy. Most people who blindly accept evolution fail to see the problems with Lucy, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and others, most which have been proven to be frauds. In the case of Lucy her ribcage is that of a chimp and her pelvis is to small for a birth canal so it was probably a male chimp. Those who yearn to find proof of evolution try to manipulate their finds for fame to fit into a darwinian world. Example: Lyall Watson, writing in Science Digest, put it bluntly: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin"
tim, LOL. Where do you get this stuff? That nonsense on Lucy is obviously false. There has never been ANY doubt about her authenticity. "Piltdown Man" was the only forgery, and a bad one that would have been rejected outright by today's scientists.
The quote is more or less correct, but that material is from about 15 species, and as this artcle shows it is increasing all the time.
Tim, Lyall Watson was also a big fan of new age junk science. Lyall also made that statement in 1982. You creationists really need to keep up with MODERN science, you know.
By the way evolution is an unproved theory no more fact than the theory that aliens built the pyramids
If you only knew how ignorant you sound to educated people.... well, maybe you wouldn't care.
Evolution is one of the most successful and well-supported theories in the history of science. And it is also a fact.
Tim, theory in science has a different definition. A Theory in science is a scientific fact based on the information currently available. This does not mean that science has stated it will always be true, that is reserved for Laws, like the law of gravity. However it does mean that at present it is considered to be true because there is not enough evidence to disprove it.
What you are thinking of is called a Hypothesis in science, a theory which has little evidence to support that it is true, however which has some evidence to state that it might be true.
When did they stop teaching basic scientific theory in schools?
Scientic theory isn"t taught by some homeschooling parents.
Tim, go back to reading your bible. Grownups are trying to talk here. shhhh...go play and let the adults talk, now...LOL!
Tim,you should read the definition of theory.
Um... Tim? You do understand that Scientific theories are explanations of observations (i.e. facts), yes? Evolution, the observed phenomena that life changes over time, has some very sound theories (scientific) explaining these observations.
Or, to simplify it, evolution is both fact and theory.
Tim I am repeating myself but here goes,
In science A theory is the process attributed to how a scientific fact works. The fact is not the theory but how it works is the theory
Gravity is a fact, and the Theory of Gravity is a set of testable attributes which helps explain the fact.
Evolution is a fact, we see it everyday in the petri-dish, how this process happens is our Theory of (the) Evolution(ary fact).
This does mean that creationism (I know I opened that can of worms) can not be considered a theory or even a fact. With creationism there are no parameters or models that can be tested, it fails the first scientific test.
Timothy, I guess cancer doesn't prove that mutation and evolution exist.
Breeding dogs, cats, chickens, cows, etc... has nothing to do with evolution. Evoulution is a theory that tries to prove every organic thing on this planet came from one single cell organism that somehow appeared or came together from a few bits of carbon which were somehow created in the big bang. Fact is no one has ever found any credible evidence to show one kind of animal evolving into another, such as cat to dog, rat to cat, cow to horse, chimp to human.
Ah yes.....the Cretinist hypothesis of "kinds". Meaningless and ignorant drivel.
Breeding dogs and cats IS evolution, and nothing different than the kind of evolution that produced all life forms.
Well, one was evolution through artificial selection, while the other was evolution through natural selection.
Toasty. True, but I think many would say that is a distinction with no difference, or that artificial selection is just a subset of natural selection (selection is selection, wherever it comes from). Which is why Darwin started his argument with examples of artificial selection. And we often do the same today.
What doesn't get selected by humans either directly or indirectly anymore? Deer are starting to pass down offspring that grow up to be smaller and have less of a pronounced rack, because the deer we hunt are the big racked ones. Same with fish.
Bible believing Creationists are well noted for having “tunnel vision”. It is what they have to have to keep their eyes and mind focused on their Religious beliefs and averted away from all the beautiful, wonderful …… and tasty ….. examples of the evolutionary process that they see, touch and eat most every day of their life.
Life evolved, and not just animal life, but plant life also. And plant life evolved/evolves more quickly and is more diverse than animal life. And thus, not only is the plant fossil record horrendously greater than the animal fossil record, there are literally hundreds of examples of one species of plant evolving into completely different species of plant.
And the majority of all “tasty foods” that Bible believing Creationists “say grace” over every day is proof positive of the Evolution of the Species. And with their eyes closed, I might add, thus averting their eyes and their minds to what lies in front of them.
Tim is right. The evolutionists are nothing more than brainwashed idiots. The fanciful tales that evolutionists believe in are insanely amusing at best. It is quite funny that they consider themselves as educated.
skepology, same goes for frenchmen. They'd put the tall one's in front of the army to be more intimidating therefore the short one's were more likely to survive and make baby frenchies.
oh, barnyfife, people like you are so much fun. Dead wrong, and yet so sure of themselves that they feel justified in insulting others who disagree.
i get the sense barny is trying to be funny... just look at his name. however, if he's actually serious, then he's a total moron.
Yeah evolution is just a theory... just like gravity, the belief the microscopic organisms cause disease (germ theory), atomic theory, plate tectonics, the big bang, etc etc etc....
These "just a theory" trolls liek Tim are a joke. When you hear someone say "just a theory" with regards to anything science related it is safe to assume they are an idiot not worth listening too.
Hey Tim, next time you feel sick just pray. Don't take those medicines designed to kill microorganisms which supposedly cause you to feel sick, that is all just a theory anyway....
"Fact is no one has ever found any credible evidence to show one kind of animal evolving into another, such as cat to dog, rat to cat, cow to horse, chimp to human"
No one's trying to prove such a dumbed down theory - you're comparing one present generation animal to another present generation animal - that they both exist does not disprove that they may have related (literally) progenitors. Try again.
Unfortunately that is the intellectual level of a growing number of today's citizens. Heck, one even ran for Congress office recently. "If evolution is correct, then why are there still monkeys in the world? They should all be humans by now." C. O'Donnell.
Mutation and evolution are two totally different things. In human history as long as we have known or recognized cancer has cancer ever caused chimp to become human. I am educated enough to not blindly accept what the so called intelligenca and educated force feed children as soon as they can read. If you are truly open minded to the truth why don't you do a little research of your own. Darwins theory of evolution is racist if you look at with an open mind. It proposes that humans developed in africa and evolved into other races which would therefore be superior to the original. Look at the title of Darwins book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Might i suggest a good book for you to read by a PHD. Google the book Convicted and give it an honest unbiased read.
Mutation is one mechanism of evolution, and the only one providing genetic variation.
"caused chimp to become human" is not what evolution says
"other races which would therefore be superior to the original" - Why would they be superior? All humans are so similar that the concept of race is really not very useful.
"The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" refers to types races as a scientific term for types of animals. There is virtually no mention of humans in the Origin of Specis.
I think this is the point at which chivalry will compel you guys to leave tim alone
Well, cancer is actually a bad example, since it is usually a somatic mutation and not a genetic one; but I think genetics can have a role in some types (oncogenes).
I googled it, didn't find the book you were recommending Tim, should I call a local Christian propaganda...erm, I mean Christian "Book" Store? HAHAHA!
Darwin's book was published in 1859, and he got a lot of it dead wrong, but the bits that he got RIGHT, he got VERY right. There are many MODERN books on evolution that might help to educate you on how the process works.
Yes, evolution is a theory, but so is gravity. Both have been proven to exist. Grow up and get over it.
Tim why do you kick against the pricks? Surely you have read in the end times the wisemen would become scoffers and the pot would tell the potter you made me not. It was all foretold thousands of years ago, so that you should marvel not when you see it come to pass. The "wisemen" of the end times will concern themselves with the wrong questions. Prefering to dwell on HOW rather than WHY. It allows the individual to avoid critical self reflection and go merrily on their way, assured they are smarter than others. Clearly they attack your education, as though they know their education has been superior, when the truth is online who knows the background of the other and many assumptions are made as fact.
@sob: you sound even worse than tim. you do realize the Bible (which I assume is what you are loosely referencing) is a hodgepodge of mideastern nomadic mysticism with some historical facts thrown in. Other parts are good moral lessons for all of us and should be respected. However, to treat scripture as a literal science lesson is an abuse of scripture.
@Tim; Darwin was a product of his time just like any one else. He was actually less bigotted than most people in Britain at the time. His use of the term "favored races" was in a different sense than the way a bigot would use it today. Besides that, a person's political/social attitudes regarding racism do not change the validity of a scientific theory. If Einstein had been a racist it wouldn't change the truth of his mathematics and science.
P.S. Tim: I just did google the book you reference but can't find it. Would you give us an author? Having a PhD doesn't mean you know anything about evolution. Most of the evolution deniers with advanced degrees have their degrees either from diploma mills, have completely falsified their credentials, or their degrees are in fields totally unrelated to biology, molecular biology, genetics, etc.
Difference between germ theory, atomic theory, gravitation, and many other theories is they have been proven. Evolution, alien abduction, etc.. have not regardless of what many think.
Evolution has been proven at least as well as atomic theory.
Sorry Tim, But I don't think you were "educated" enough.........
Gravity was thought to be a fact until Einsten proved him wrong (or at least not completely accurate). But Newton was still close enough to be useful.
Quote from famous NASA evolutionist Robert Jastrow "At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief."
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
Look Tim, you're not an expert, we get that. But these are some VERY basic concepts that you're not grasping. Either you can't or you don't want to.
""At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth."
That is true, but it has nothing to do with evolution. HOWEVER life got started, evolution is about what happened AFTER that.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how the first living cell came to be. If there is a God who created the first cell, this in no way disproves subsequent evolution.
The issue I have as a Christian is not with evolution, believe it or not. I'm willing to accept and even teach others that evolution has happened and can happen. However, I take issue with the assertion that evolution has somehow edged a creator God out of the picture. No matter how far evolutionary science goes, it will never account for every fossil everywhere, nor will it describe every change in a creature's genome from one species to the next, and even if it does, these are just still images of what is supposedly a gradual process, with long periods of time intervening between our observations. There is still room for God to get his foot in the door to do creative work, even between generations, because each fossil found is a 'snapshot' of a continuous process. Like the frames of a film, if you run the snapshots quickly enough our eyes will perceive continuous, fluid motion, but the frames of a film provide no evidence that an external force did not act in a moment between two frames to influence either a gradual progression or a sudden change as observed from one frame to the next. The methods available to science will never prove that evolution was the only game in town, and that God wasn't also there. Only the philosophical presupposition that observable nature is all there is ("naturalism") can accomplish that, but that assertion cannot provide proof of itself.
What I'd like to see explained is, at what point did apes develop reason? That is, when did they develop the ability to infer the presence of complex systems of causation between an observed cause and an observed effect, rather than just associating an effect with its observable cause? None of the animal species we have access to today have demonstrated that capability, yet human society's advancements hinge upon it.
Fairy tales. *yawn*
" However, I take issue with the assertion that evolution has somehow edged a creator God out of the picture."
And not all scientists think it does. Most think they are really separate questions. Evolution is based on scientific observation. Questions of purpose and "creation" are something in addition to that.
Tristan, you've yet to make an educated point in this discussion other than insulting other people...hopefully you will evolve beyond that level of ignorance in the next 20 or so years. Be nice. Just be nice.
Jack-you make a good point.
Tate--a couple of things. First, the principles of evolution and the present understanding the mechanisms involved DO account for the dimensions, shape, and functions of the fossil bones that have been found, especially pithecine, hominoid, and hominid specimens. There are no mystery bones in terms of form and function.
Second, as the person who insists that there is, if not supernatural interference, then at least "extra-national interference," the burden of proof is on you to provide clear, verifiable, testable, definitive proof of not only the EXISTENCE of this Mover, but its actual participation in and impact on the process and the results. You have to show something unique that cannot be accounted for by the principles of evolution.
Finally, breeding different types of dogs is simple genetic manipulation and it is at best the handmaiden of evolution. It demonstrates one of the mechanisms of evolution. A better example are old and new world monkeys: at one time there was only one prehensile-tailed, tree climbing, vine swinging primate on Gondwana. When South America and Africa separated, the single species became two distinct species that cannot now interbreed--because over time, in their isolation, each new group adapted, adjusted, and evolved to fit its particular ecological niche. That's evolution on a macro scale.
Tate,I am with you on this,Just because we evolved by evolution does not mean that god did not cause it to happen that way.
I am neither christian or atheist,agnostic.
Tate, the thing is... science is based upon what's observable, tangible. When a scientist observes something then tries to explain what he sees (such as observing evolution then developing the theories that best explain the observation) it turns out that one doesn't need to invoke a god as part of the equation. As a matter of fact, adding a god into the mix takes it out of the realm of science by adding the supernatural and adds layers of unneeded complexity to otherwise (relatively) simple things. So it's not that God is being edged out, just that based on what we observe no gods are needed in the first place. You can wrap the entirety of the scientific observations with God serving as an observing supervisor if you wish without taking the science out of what's contained in that wrapper, but the science will end where the wrapper begins.
Well, there are many, many humans who still haven't haven't developed reason...lol. No one said you can't believe God got a foot in there or assisted if you feel that is how it happened/happens. It isn't a necessity to believe that of course, but I don't remember anyone saying you couldn't believe it if you wish.
Making a bunch of monkeys of us? Takes a lot of unscientific imagination.
Tate - God was never part of the evolutionary picture to be edged out in the first place.
Of course evolution is fact and life is part of a great tree streching back ~700my or further but why can't we reproduce macro evolution in a lab? I'm not talking about small changes to an existing species. The artifical selection of dogs for example can give us a wide variety of evolutionary traits but why only so big, so small with a seemingly limited amount of variety. Why don't we see say a functional 5 chamber heart evolve for example?
Sure we can turn on dormant genes to produce, say, chicken's teeth but why never any novel new function? With such simple mechanisims such as gene duplication, random mutation and natural selection one would think that it would be easy to reproduce novel biological function in the lab.
"but why can't we reproduce macro evolution in a lab?"
Because it takes millions of years. Suddenly leaps between generations almost never occur, and are limited to parts being moved around. Macroevolution is just microevolution stretched out over millions of years.
Funny you should mention creating macro-evolution in a lab. The closest thing to that was an experiment started by Soviet scientists breeding silver foxes, in order to breed them tame. In the process, the foxes many, many, generations later now exhibit very dog like behaviors. The experiment is still ongoing. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1.
Actually, someone did produce it in a lab. Literally in a lab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
We can, it is called ..... horizontal gene transfer.
Yeah but E. Coli is like, the work or Satan or something! NONBELIEVER
short term evolution (natural selection) happens all the time. For example the Black Death killed everybody how didnt have immunity from the D32 mutation. Now many more people have that mutation. The Black Death never hit Africa so blacks are less likely to have. Now HIV comes along is is affected by the same mutation therefore blacks are being hit alot harder that europeans. Cuz whites without the D32 were already killed off.
Jock the whole point of evolution is things evolve into superior things not degrade into inferior things. Go stand in a nuclear reactor for a while. Go find the monkey or true missing link. Which one is a proven scientific fact?
"the whole point of evolution is things evolve into superior things not degrade into inferior things"
That's not true. Sometimes evolution hits a dead end. Sometimes the species just dies out. It's a process, not some plan created by a god. That statement simply shows your lack of understanding of the subject.
Mutations are either beneficial or they aren't. Some are, some aren't. It's a NATURAL PROCESS. Nothing more.
Oh, while we're finding your so-called "missing link" (which is a misnomer of major proportions, by the way), find God. Show it to us. Game over. our "coffin full of evidence" trumps your zero evidence for God. bye bye now. :)
"Jock the whole point of evolution is things evolve into superior things not degrade into inferior things"
Completely and utterly false. You have NO IDEA what evolution actually says. Some of the creationists we argue with actually have some sophisticated knowledge of the basic issues. You are throwing out stuff that is so old and dusty it is hard to know where it came from.
Tim, if Americans are descended from the British, why are there still British people?
Once again, you used an argument that an above average third grader could answer. You clearly don't want to inform yourself about science, which is alright. But don't expect everyone else to be as uneducated as you.
Tim, I'm not one of the bunch here, but, if I may, I'd like to correct one small flaw in your statement: The principles of evolution do not in any way imply or require that "things evolve into superior things not degrade into inferior things"--All evolution does, basically, is to measure a mutation, a genetic change, in a neutral laboratory: the time, place, and ecological conditions where the organism lives. If the change is not beneficial, the organism either dies pretty quickly or, over time, is unable to pass the change on in sufficient numbers that it survives. The change and the line carrying it dies out.
If, on the other hand, the change is beneficial--dark skin in the tropics is useful for preventing an overdose of vitamin D, just as lighter skin farther north is beneficial for getting your daily dose--if the change is beneficial, the organism with the change has a slight advantage when it comes to reproducing. Eventually, the beneficial effect becomes widespread and is the new normal. Until something else changes, and then IT gets tested.
No change is ever prejudged--it is weighed and tested in the only thing that matter: passing on the trait.
So, you can accept this explanation or not. I wanted to take the effort because maybe you really do understand. But until you can prove, clearly and with testable, repeatable examples that some outside influence has been at work, you can't criticize evolution. Well, you can criticize it, but you'll get snarked at. If you don't care about that --criticize away.
Ugh.
The whole "point" of evolution is simply that we observe the simple fact that life changes over time. Everything branches off that one simple fact.
Species come to a dead end cuz the conditions that they're mutation was adapted to changes therefore the mutation is no longer an advantage. Some other species now has the advantage.
peanutGallery. Well, it is not a single mutation that differes between species but usually many; but you are correct that some species lose out because other ones come in that are better adapted. But of course there are other reasons for species to go extinct, like a meteor falling on their head.
tim: would you please just use the REPLY button instead of starting new threads in response to comments in other threads. It makes it hard to follow your arguments.