Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Skull Unearthed in Africa
BrianGa writes "This BBC article reports on
a skull which scientists say is the most important discovery in the search
for the origins of humankind since the first
Australopithecus ape-man remains were found in Africa in the 1920s.
The newly discovered skull finally puts to rest any idea that there might be a single missing link between humans and chimpanzees, they say. Analysis of the
ancient find is not yet complete, but already it is clear that it has an
apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features."
It could be a relitive of that guy that played in
Alien resurection
You know the big caveman looking guy with short hair
Jokes aside
whouldn't money be better spent prowling
the ocean. there is alot of area thats untouched.
The "Complex Hominid Tree" is nice, and clear, even though most people would not have heard of many of the Hominids. But even as a layman I can see it misses out Politicians and Lawyers.
On a more serious note, seeing as a human being has already been cloned, would it be too much to expect a clone of this guy or girl? It would only take a tiny amount of good DNA... If it survived.
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
This is cool but I am surprised to hear them say "A find like this does make us question the trees people have built up of human evolution". Of course there are forks in evolution. I don't think the human is a direct ancestor of the ape, rather the apes and humans likely evolved separately from a similar much older species.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
How is it that the internet law thing made the front page but this didn't?
In my mind while this does raise a slew of new questions, it still amounts to increasing proof of some form of evolution (even if Darwin's exact description of the process doesn't turn out to be all that accurate).
On the funny side, this will be the second time in recent history the right has been upset over hanging chads (from trees this time
11*43+456^2
Evolution is one theory that explains it, creation is another.
The difference is that we have overwhelming evidence for evolution, as well as actual observation. For creation, we have zero evidence and no possibility of ever having evidence.
of the jury, I am just a simple caveman. Your "scientists" found me frozen in an ice flow and unthawed me. /. I wonder if little men are inside my screen writing messages to me.
Your ways frighten and confuse me. When I read
But there is one thing I do know, that picture of the skull is my dead brother!
Wasn't that claim made about the Piltdown Man, which was in the textbooks for a number of years, before it was found to be a fake? Good science means extensive and thorough testing. Once said testing has taken place, then that claim be made.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
Hell, in 1862 Lord Kelvin (absolute zero guy) deducedthe world was only 400 million years old, so evolution couldn't possibly happen [his math was valid, but was based on assumptions that were later discovered to be wrong].
Anyhow, the dawn of humans/humanoids has consistently been pushed back and assumptions proven wrong as more artifacts are discovered.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
And in the interest of fairness, will moderators be willing to equally mod up the rebuttal to SciAm's article?
Note: posted anonymously so no "karma whore" charge can be leveled on asking for mod-up.
There should be far more Creationist trolls attached to this article. I've only seen two or three. Are all the Slashdot trolls lazy>
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
> > Evolution is one theory that explains it, creation is another.
> The difference is that we have overwhelming evidence for evolution, as well as actual observation. For creation, we have zero evidence and no possibility of ever having evidence.
Also, creation isn't much good as a theory because it's a wildcard explanation. Two species are similar? God re-used a good design! Two species are different? God used a different design! The predator is well equiped to ravish the prey? God didn't want it to go hungry! The prey is well equiped to escape from or defend against the predator? God didn't want it to be eaten!
It's a wildcard explanation, and because it can "explain" anything, it explains nothing.
The only thing the "theory" of creation is incompatible with is the theory of evolution. And that's only because creationists don't want it to be.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I think that you should set this story a little higher. While the ethno-palentologist(s) who found the skull (and jaw fragments) won't say that its the missing link (quite correctly, we don't know that such a thing exits yet), it does fit right into the middle of a five million year gap in our knowledge (between 10 and 5 million years ago we had nada).
--
imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein-
We know they've do so in the past but...
"On this new story, "ANCIENT HUMAN SKULL FOUND" the original headline was "NEW FOSSIL DISCOVERY CHALLENGES EVOLUTION THEORY.""
http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=5071513
Anyone save a copy of the original? I suppose it doesn't matter anymore.. most of this crowd knows how sleazy big media is, but just FYI.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Exactaly... Religions were made up a long time a go in order to have something to tell annoying kids who asked questions their parents couldn't answer. Later, such stories were used to control and exploit people (cults).
Oh right, and "The Theory of Evolution" isn't? When was the last time you read of someone using "The Theory of Evolution" to make a valid, provable prediction on the evolution of a species?
- Chris Z. Wintrowski -
[ Site ]
> > Also, creation isn't much good as a theory because it's a wildcard explanation.
> Oh right, and "The Theory of Evolution" isn't? When was the last time you read of someone using "The Theory of Evolution" to make a valid, provable prediction on the evolution of a species?
As a matter of fact, I read that kind of stuff quite regularly. The ToE predicts intermediate forms; we find intermediate forms. A new one was announced today, if you happened to read the story at the top of this thread.
The ToE also makes interesting predictions about how DNA comparisons will turn out, what age of rock certain fossils will appear in, etc. And the DNA and rocks serve it up, as expected, regularly.
Learn a bit about the facts before you try your hand at evaluating the theory.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nature have made access to the original research paper behind this story free. There's also a nice collection of older stuff about hominid evolution...goes back to 1925 and the discovery of the first "ape-man" of Africa.
Can you provide me a reference to the paper in which the above story's "intermediate form" was predicted?
- Chris Z. Wintrowski -
[ Site ]
The article stated:
"...but already it is clear that it has an apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features."
Sort of like that hoax however many years ago where they just slapped an ape jaw on a human skull?
In the article it even said "The jaw was found later"
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
ThereIsNoSporkNeo... The Paranoid
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
The article states:
Estimates of when this common ancestor might have existed have been based on DNA comparisons between humans and chimps, and put at between five and seven million years ago.
Can anyone out there explain to a laymen how this particular ageing process works? I just don't get it. Since they don't explain the method here, I can't really say anything, but it sounds pretty shaky to me. I imagine that trying to get an age based on any DNA comparison would have a honkin' big margin of error.
Haha, this is so funny :)
You say that creationism is a wild card! Bwahahaha!
How old is the earth? 4.5 billion years. Dinosaurs were around 70million years ago. Criticism: woah, that doesn't sound like long enough given the improbability of evolution. Reply: well, we don't know for sure, maybe it was longer.
You watch, the earth will get older and older as evolutionary wild-card explanations are used more and more often.
Common evolution wild cards:
1. We're talking about millions of years
2. Chance did it (creationist equivalent: God did it). Even if the chance is 1 in 10^2000000 for humans to evolve (according to Carl Sagan), chance still must have done it.
When was the last time you read of someone using "The Theory of Evolution" to make a valid, provable prediction on the evolution of a species?
This is pretty ironic.
Given that Darwin himself predicted the past existance of a common ancestor between humans and the great apes, the very article which you are posting about answers your question.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Common Creationist Misconceptions.
1. Yes, it does take time. Fortunally the historical records rate of evolution change is fully consistent with lab studies on the rate of evolutionary change.
2. If you take a pack of cards, shuffle them, then lay them out one by one, what is the probability that you get the particular sequence that you just drew? Pretty damm low. Likewise for any particular evolutionary sequence.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
For those interested in more details than the BBC is reporting. The original scientifc articlle is in Nature, and here is a /a> to a series of articles published on the subject. Many of the articles are wuite technical, but perhasp some of you are amateur (or professional) paleontologists?
The summary of the article read as follows: "The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7million years old. The fossils display a unique mosaic of primitive and derived characters, and constitute a new genus and species of hominid. The distance from the Rift Valley, and the great antiquity of the fossils, suggest that the earliest members of the hominid clade were more widely distributed than has been thought, and that the divergence between the human and chimpanzee lineages was earlier than indicated by most molecular studies."
1. Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations. Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.
S cie nces39.html
Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive. That means that natural selection plays no role in the survival of that beneficial genetic mutation. Also take note, that along with the single beneficial recessive mutation a host of harmful recessive mutations are becoming deeply ingrained in a creature's gene pool. This is known as genetic load - the combined disadvantage far outweighs any advantage.
Consider this problem also - for a recessive beneficial mutation to express itself, both parents must possess the same gene, and both parents must pass the gene on (1 in 4 chance). Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations - of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.
This is why close relatives marrying is both essential to evolution, and the very thing that proves it wrong. No-one would argue that brother/sister or cousin marriages produces superior creatures by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, this process reduces diversity and kills evolution.
Face facts: genetic diversity decreases under normal circumstances. The history of genetic traits points all creatures to a common ancestor merely 6000 years ago.
2. You want to talk about chances? Try this:
"To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10450, realize that the visible universe is about 1028 inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The oddsb are much less than one chance in 1099,999,999,873. Your odds of drawing at random one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms is about one chance in 10112--much better. "
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Life
> Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations. Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.
...Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations - of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.
The merest moment's thought would have told you that the more "fit" a species is, the less likely any given mutation is going to be beneficial. However, as the climate changes, or meteors strike, or a new predator moves into your stomping grounds, you suddenly find that your species is less fit than before. The result is that for purely external reasons, the rate of "good" mutations is suddenly higher.
This is a simple optimization problem, and like all optimization problems, there is a law of diminishing returns.
It's also the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium, q.v..
> Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive.
Even if that is true (and I've certainly never heard it before), "most" isn't sufficient to disrupt evolution. At worst it would slow things down, but no one says evolution is in any hurry.
In fact this may help evolution along since it increases diversity in the population by sheilding some "bad" mutations from being selected out. Because what's "bad" today might suddenly be "good" after the big meteor strikes next week.
>
Who's making up all these rules requiring "a number of other harmful recessive mutations"?
> Face facts: genetic diversity decreases under normal circumstances.
No, it's extraordinary circumstances that decrease genetic diversity, such as the genetic bottleneck that reduced the population of cheetahs to something like 17 in the not too distant past, almost eliminating their genetic diversity in the process.
> The history of genetic traits points all creatures to a common ancestor merely 6000 years ago.
That statement smells exactly like you would expect it to smell, considering where it came from.
<Snip silly probability argument based on a parody of the theory of evolution and made-up numbers; see last week's thread if you are interested in such guff. The surest sign that creationism is a pseudoscience is that its proponents keep offering arguments long after they have been refuted.>
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Perhaps they really did find the missing link - or perhaps not. Either way, it's an interesting find given its age.
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
I can refer you to a work as primary as references get: Darwin's book 'On the Origin of Species'.
Wow, nice long answer. Because I'm lazy, I'll only look at the second part of it (the first part is also shot with flaws but it's late here...).
Your part 2 is essentially a giant strawman arguement. That is, you (or rather Walt Brown, who's answer it is) have misconstructed an arguement, and attacked this false arguement rather than the real one.
In reality, simple probability calculations fall apart when a concept like "selection" is thrown into the mix. A very key part of evolutionary theory is "natural selection". Even creationists should have heard of it.
For a excellent example of the effect of selection on probabilities you should investigate Richard Dawkins example of Methinks like a weasel (or words to those effect, it's been a long time for time).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
erg...thanks for replying...
:)
I would love you to reply to the first portion, since it is an argument I use on occasion, and if it is flawed I would love to know so that I can stop using it. Also in case I didn't explain something properly. So have some sleep, then let me know
On the second part - I am well aware of natural selection as most reasonable creationists are. The probability example is not flawed as far as I can see, because natural selection takes no part:
Recipe - take a simple form of life as a template. Give all the necessary components to create a new one. Give it the most favourable conditions possible to evolve. Mix then about randomly to form something meaningful. Repeat a billion times a second for 20 billion years. Chance of getting life:
1 in 1099,999,999,873 chance.
I know what you mean about natural selection, but it is not relevant in this case, since we are talking about the simplest possible life form. As such, it had to be spontaneously created in this form initially - it couldn't evolve to this state. We are talking about the simplest living thing:
"The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter."
Hope that clears it up a bit and shows why natural selection doesn't play a part.
And the weasel example is very unrepresentative. You start of knowing the outcome to produce a meaningful sentence. Evolution requires the entire sentence to be complete to be meaningful. It can't work if one character is missing. So each example should randomnly select every character in the string, not just the ones that aren't for the weasel sentence. Get it? The sentence only has meaning as a hole, otherwise natural selection plays no role and it will die out like everything else. So the weasel example is flawed from the beginning, and not a good representation of how evolution works (since our body is made up of very complex, long strings that must be in a certain order to function properly.
The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules.
Let me shoot this one down so you'll (hopefully) stop using it. This is a HUGE strawman, because no one has EVER claimed that a 600 protein single-celled life spontaneously occurred.
The very, very first "life" was not life as we know it at all. It started as a very simple chemical reaction that happened to have the quality of self reproduction. Over a very large period of time, it naturally selected toward more complex life. We have no idea what this originator reaction was, but this is something that I think we could conceivably someday figure out.
Also keep in mind that life very well maybe 10^450 power likely, but it doesn't matter. We don't know how much time has elapsed. The universe could have cycled 10^400th times (assuming a cyclical universe model), and we wouldn't know it.
My personal opinion is that life is extremely unlikely, but it's not that unlikely. But here's a hint: anyone trying to assign a number to the probability is automatically a crackpot idiot who should be ignored, and that includes the Drake equation.
>book 'On the Origin of Species'.
So, I'll ask you: How do you know this skull
is "an intermediate form"?
- Chris Z. Wintrowski -
[ Site ]
I've got one minor disagreement with your post, I feel that the Drake equation is very useful, not in generating answers, but rather for provoking discussion about the variables are.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Ok, I'll reply the first part of post in a different one, but now onto this post...
Firstly, you have confused evolution with abiogensis (sp?) (creation of life from nonliving matter via. natural causes). As far as Darwin's fine theory is concerned, it is irrelevent as too how the first life got here. Whether it was planted by aliens, created by God, emerged out of a warm pool, or whatever other reason you can think of, doesn't matter one bit. The theory of evolution says nothing about the creation of the first life on earth. What you are argueing against is abiogensis (which is incidently a much weaker theory, which is why I suspect many creationist organisations confuse the two).
Unfortually, your probability calculations are irrelevent with reguards to abiogensis as well as they don't address real abiogensis works (at least the current theories of it). I don't think that any researcher proposes that single celled life arose out of random combinations of peptides. I'm not a expert on abiogensis, but I believe theories such as the RNA world, plus clay catalysised reactions are what you need to rebute, not this strawman. That being said, you may find this essay interesting.
As for Methinks it's a weasel, it isn't meant to be a model of evolution, but rather a graphic illustration about the effects of selection of probability. Until creationist calculations take into effect selection, they mean nothing.
Evolution requires the entire sentence to be complete to be meaningful. It can't work if one character is missing.
This statement is also false. Take the humble protein haemoglobin (it transports oxygen round your body and gives blood it's red colour), did you know that gorrilla haemoglobin is just one amino acid different than mine and yours (and chimp) haemoglobin?
Clearly biochemistry can happly ignore some spelling mistakes.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
I feel that the Drake equation is very useful, not in generating answers, but rather for provoking discussion about the variables are.
I would buy into that, if that's what it ended up being used for. But witness the recent article where Drake proclaims that ET Life is "a certainty". Making a proclamation like that is just idiocy. Never mind the Fermi Paradox, which pretty much proves to me that at least the Galaxy is empty.
I'll agree with the creationists on one point: We are astoundingly, unbelievably complex. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we are completely unique in the universe, which just implies that a very large amount of time had to elapse for intelligent life to happen.
Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations.
:) ) the best situation for your case, and ignored the possiblity that one or both parents are homozygous recessive. If the mutation is beneficial, this is likely to the case (that natural selection thing again). And if this happens the chance of the trait being expressed rises to 1 in 2 for the case of one homozygous parent, to 1 in 1 for the case of two homozygous parents. This changes your odds very significantly.
This is irrelevent. Natural selection kills off harmful mutations, leaves the neutral alone, and boasts the effects of positive mutations. This leads to a net increase in postives, despite that before natural selection applies it's filter there is a net decrease.
Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.
Sickle cell anemia in malaria effected areas. Now can you define a beneficial mutation?
Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive.
Is this true? It doesn't really matter, but it seems more logical to me for about half of mutations to be recessive.
That means that natural selection plays no role in the survival of that beneficial genetic mutation.
Wrong. It acts on homozygous individuals, also hetrozygous individuals sometimes show traits (just to a lesser degree than there homozygous cousins).
Also take note, that along with the single beneficial recessive mutation a host of harmful recessive mutations are becoming deeply ingrained in a creature's gene pool. This is known as genetic load - the combined disadvantage far outweighs any advantage.
Why does the incorporation of one mutation lead to the addition of multiple harmful mutations? This only occurs if you pretend selection doesn't occur.
Consider this problem also - for a recessive beneficial mutation to express itself, both parents must possess the same gene, and both parents must pass the gene on (1 in 4 chance).
Wrong. Your example is true in the case of two hetrozygous parents having a homozygous recessive offspring. There is also a 1/2 chance that the mutation will be passed on, but masked.
However, you have selected (and whoever said creationists ignore selection events?
Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor
Your use of the word "must" is misleading, and should be replaced with "most likely".
- meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations -
Only if you have a strawman arguement is true.
of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.
And then his or her chance of passing on genes (and hence harmful mutations) on is reduced, and more fitter individuals take his place. Natural selection in action.
This is why close relatives marrying is both essential to evolution, and the very thing that proves it wrong.
Wrong, you have shown that peusdoevolution is wrong. Luckly, nobody beleives in peusdoevolution, so better luck next time.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Note that this skull was found in sand, not in volcanic rock. It clearly fossilized in a different area (sand is not high enough in calcium carbonate to cause petrification) and got relocated into the sand. The dating was done by comparison with other fossils found in the area, but if they were all relocated there somehow, why assume they're from the same layer of rock somewhere else? There were no skeletal bones which would indicate whether this skull belonged to a bipedal species, nor were there any gender identifying bones found. So that means we have a skull with the size of a chimp skull, the brain capacity of a chimp skull, less striking canines than modern chimps(male) but about the same as modern chimps(female). Hmmm, wonder if this is just a female chimp. Apply Occam's razor, folks! Look at this without the hype, and it's pretty clear it's not what many claim it to be.
Got Wisdom?