<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">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.</div> <div align="center">Source: Yahoo! News</div> Opinions? I'll post mine later.
I wish this came out a year ago, when I was taking a class on evolution. I forgot so much of the theories and discoveries that I studied back then. But: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">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.</div> Isn't that more in line with Darwin's theory?
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). </div> Darwin's Theory Yea, it somewhat sounds like Darwin's, where everything comes from a common ancestor. I love Charles Darwin because of his huge beard, like a Rabbi almost.
tracking the evolution of man is pointless because there have been too many monkeys with the ability to walk. there are hundreds of species alive now that can walk. and ther have been thousands upon thousands of species of monkey since the begining of time. and we cant look at the thousands of species that we will never know existed because of destruction by natural earth processes. its all speculation/ theory and we will never know the facts. but its still interests me and is fun to discuss.
There actually is a pretty big point in doing this research. We have found out so much about where humans may have come from rather than having no idea whatsoever. There are still missing pieces to the puzzel, but there were even more missing pieces even fifty years ago. People are still figuring things out and learning about our ancestors.
How does that challenge the theory of evolution? It has been known for a long time that neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) lived next to Homo sapiens for some time in and around Europe until they died out less than 30000 years ago.
<div class="quote_poster">michiganave17 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">tracking the evolution of man is pointless because there have been too many monkeys with the ability to walk. there are hundreds of species alive now that can walk. and ther have been thousands upon thousands of species of monkey since the begining of time. and we cant look at the thousands of species that we will never know existed because of destruction by natural earth processes. its all speculation/ theory and we will never know the facts. but its still interests me and is fun to discuss.</div> It certainly might not interest you, but calling it pointless is ignorant. What amazed me most about this study is the oversite by previous scientists. One problem with a person's theory is they are so hell bent on proving it right, they cloud the facts and manipulate data so it falls in line with their theory. This was a great quote... "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."
<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It certainly might not interest you, but calling it pointless is ignorant. What amazed me most about this study is the oversite by previous scientists. One problem with a person's theory is they are so hell bent on proving it right, they cloud the facts and manipulate data so it falls in line with their theory. This was a great quote... "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."</div> Slow down man. dont make side ways remarks about me. read my whole post. I love science and thats my opinion. but calling my opnion ignorant because you disagree was uncalled for.
<div class="quote_poster">michiganave17 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Slow down man. dont make side ways remarks about me. read my whole post. I love science and thats my opinion. but calling my opnion ignorant because you disagree was uncalled for.</div> I did read your entire post, and I wasn't trying to insult you. I referred to the word "pointless" as an ignorant statement. Being ignorant about a topic isn't bad, it just means you're not familiar with it.
My thing is, if evolution, is like it says it is, why isn't still happening? Why aren't monkeys, or apes turning into humans? I think evolution is a very real thing, but why aren't things still evolving. Have we come to a point in the human race were possibly scientist's are stopping it? Maybe Area 51 is keeping all the evolving monkeys? I have always wondered what was there, other then Aliens, maybe the evolving monkeys and other things are their, and they don't want humans to know about it. Just a thought.
<div class="quote_poster">Master Shake Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">My thing is, if evolution, is like it says it is, why isn't still happening? Why aren't monkeys, or apes turning into humans? I think evolution is a very real thing, but why aren't things still evolving. Have we come to a point in the human race were possibly scientist's are stopping it? Maybe Area 51 is keeping all the evolving monkeys? I have always wondered what was there, other then Aliens, maybe the evolving monkeys and other things are their, and they don't want humans to know about it. Just a thought.</div> Evolution is a pretty long process. I don't know if the monkeys existing today will eventually turn into humans or not but I think the thoery is that 500 million years from now, we as humans we won't look the same as we do now.
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Evolution is a pretty long process. I don't know if the monkeys existing today will eventually turn into humans or not but I think the theory is that 500 million years from now, we as humans we won't look the same as we do now.</div> Yea, we'll look like 1 kind of person. Like that South Park episode. We will speak a language that combines every language. Then, they will take our Jobs. On a serious note, I hope we still look the same, but I guess we won't be around to know.
<div class="quote_poster">Master Shake Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">My thing is, if evolution, is like it says it is, why isn't still happening? Why aren't monkeys, or apes turning into humans? I think evolution is a very real thing, but why aren't things still evolving. Have we come to a point in the human race were possibly scientist's are stopping it? Maybe Area 51 is keeping all the evolving monkeys? I have always wondered what was there, other then Aliens, maybe the evolving monkeys and other things are their, and they don't want humans to know about it. Just a thought.</div> You should really read up on evolution. Evolution is not something that happens in an instant, it may take thousands of generations for a single altered genetic trait to take precedence in a species, even locally. Nature favors the fittest, and while some genetic mutations to (germ) cells may avoid being corrected, most don't. Among those who do, chanses aren't great that the new trait will offer any advantages for the individual. If it does, and the individual manages to live long enough to reproduce, that mutation can be spread to others, giving them an advantage over normal individuals. The chanses of the mutation surviving and how long it will take to become dominant depends on the species.
A great example of evolution are those breed of snakes that are starting to grow legs. They have little stubs where the legs are coming in. Then the Koala is another great example where they used to be ground dwellers like their relatives the Wombat, but when it became too dangerous for them on the ground they started to live in trees. Over time they adapted through evolutionary change and grew a second thumb to assist in their climbing. Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years and some things actually never evolve. Like hedgehogs for example. They're one of the six oldest creatures on this planet still remaining and yet look exactly as they did millions of years ago.
<div class="quote_poster">M Two One Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">A great example of evolution are those breed of snakes that are starting to grow legs. They have little stubs where the legs are coming in. Then the Koala is another great example where they used to be ground dwellers like their relatives the Wombat, but when it became too dangerous for them on the ground they started to live in trees. Over time they adapted through evolutionary change and grew a second thumb to assist in their climbing. Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years and some things actually never evolve. Like hedgehogs for example. They're one of the six oldest creatures on this planet still remaining and yet look exactly as they did millions of years ago.</div> Do you know what this breed of snakes is called? That's amazing, nature is great.
And you can't look for evolution in the human race as much anymore, either. The whole concept of natural selection is built around the idea of certain species randomly developing mutations that give them a competitive edge when it comes to surviving. But that "survival of the fittest" aspect that allows certain species to flourish and kills off others, is effectively eliminated in human society. Food and shelter are not necessarily acquired through physical means and the weaker/physically incapable are not left to fend for themselves.
<div class="quote_poster">Karma Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Do you know what this breed of snakes is called? That's amazing, nature is great.</div> No actually I forget. It was pointed out by Jeff Corwin a few years ago though.
