Europe against GMO crops! Please, sign the Avaaz petition! I already did.
It's us who decide, not Monsanto!!!

Monday, 13 August 2007

Fossils Shake Human Family Tree

The article below just prove evolution is much more comlex than we thought. The first and most annoying obection to the Darwin Theory is "The why there are no animals becoming human now?" and I think now we actually have a scientific answer. Evolution is no straight forward- one species becomes another and so on. Acutally it is like a tree- a branches appear from all directions, but one part of the tree always seeks for the sky (which eventually are we, hopefully). Now we see that two of our ancestors actually lived side by side. Which evokes so many questions- they eat different stuff (one is vegeterian and one carnivorous), they mate in different ways (one monogamic, the other-probably not). Why did we follow exactly this direction. Was it just by chance, or by The Law of the Best.
I'd rather don't believe that, but I'm from the people that supports Creationist Theory with Evolution. The only thing that's we have to find now is an alien DNA near those skull and we'll be just there. :)

Only one more thing- just imagine how much time is 0.5 million years-the time the two species coexisted. And compare it with the 10-20 000 years of know human history. That definitely gives me a WOW, you? 


Cheers! One day, we'll all know the truth.

----------------------------------------------------------
The new research by famed paleontologist Maeve Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us , Homo sapiens. But 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, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.
In 2000 Leakey found a complete H. erectus skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.
The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact with each other, each having their own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and 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.

They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
....
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(homo errectus) are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said study co-author Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist.

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species 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 H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The H. 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 H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the same time.
(for more details check the source, cuz what I posted is just parts of the original)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/08/08/fossil_arc_02.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070808160030

No comments: