Missing Link Found Between Human Ancestors

simetra writes "Researchers with a University of California, Berkeley team are now saying they have 'proof' of human evolution. Fossils have been found linking two types of pre-human species." From the article: "The remains of eight individuals found in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia belonged to the species Australopithecus anamensis -- part of the Australopithecus genus thought to be a direct ancestor to humans, according to a report due to be published Thursday in Nature magazine. 'The fossils are anatomically intermediate between the earlier species Ardipithecus ramidus and the later species Australopithecus afarensis,' he said."

Comments

Let's think about this now...

[Chiropotes]

I'm disappointed to see so many news agencies and readers taking this hype at face value. Before I even begin, can I just appeal to everyone to read up on Karl Popper's assertions regarding our ability to 'prove' anything using scientific insight? We can't! Especially, when we consider that deducing anything from a patchy fossil in an even patchier fossil record is a dodgy proposition to begin with... First: this is not a new taxon, as news agencies and apparently Tim White would like us to believe; Australopithecus anamensis has been known for quite some time now, and its exact position in the hominin lineage is still under dispute last time I heard (making the assertion that it's in a direct relational line to modern humans suspect). Second: is the evidence White cites convincing? Is linking these new A. anamensis specimens to Ardipithecus ramidus robust, or merely convenient (in other words, did White discover Ard. ramidus, as well)? Are they even comparable? I may be wrong, but I thought Ardipithecus ramidus was only represented by a few teeth and some postcrania... in which case, how convincing is White's evidence? If the new specimens can be successfully placed in A. anamensis based on the few specimens found, how can it also be so similar to Ardipithecus ramidus? I wish the popular media would ask such questions... maybe then every new fossil 'hominin' could be examined without quite so much bias, frenzy, and politics.

Re:In all seriousness though

[hcob$]

You illuminate a good point. For the creationist folks, they'll continue to dispute this because their blind faith requires it. It's like the entropy argument. They'll say that spontaneous organization can't happen because of entropy and ignore the fact that entropy only applies to closed systems.

It's cool that they discovered this but it won't change the debate.

Look at me, I can make sweeping, unfounded, and moroning generalizations too:

For all you evolutionist folks, you'll continue to belive anything a "scientist" puts in front of you.....

Sure, I'll get modded TROLL, but the fucktard partent get's modded insightful becuase he's against the "CRAZY RIGHT WINGERS!!!!!!!!!!"

sigh....

[paladin3970]

You guys want this to be true soooo bad :-/ Nothign to see here - move along....