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.
[snip]
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.
2 comments:
This is news? Well, OK, about H. sapiens and relatives or ancestors, it may be news. But the concept is not. Anyone who has followed the past few decades of research on evolution knows that many parts of the tree are broad, thick with branches, shallow, and relentlessly pruned (to use a metaphor that implies consciousness at work, which I most certainly do not mean to imply). My favorite example can be seen in several museums, including (if I recall correctly) the National Museum of Natural History: the Burgess Shale. Before you contemplate hominins (hominids, whatever) that have no living descendants (and/or ancestor relationships among themselves), take a moment to look at whole phyla that have no living descendants!
(I love the graphic. The whole "chain of being" drawing is such utter crap in the first place, this send-up gives it exactly what it deserves.)
Not really news, but I love scientific discoveries and anything to do with evolution. It drives the fundies crazy...
Post a Comment