Human Origins Theory Tested By Recent Findings

annamadrigal writes "The BBC news is reporting on findings presented in Nature which suggest that Homo Erectus and H. Habilis were in fact sister species which co-existed. This challenges the view that the upright humans evolved from the tool users."

Comments

We do science right!

[Webs 101]

When writing the binomial nomenclature of a species, you capitalize the genus but not the species. Therefore, the correct way to right this would be "Homo erectus" and "H. habilis".

Next, both species walked very much erect. The primary difference between them is the skull and brain.

The BBC got it right. there's no reason the submitter, or Slashdot, should not have gotten it right, too.

As to the science, the wisest words in TFA come from Professor Spoor (snicker):

"It's always possible that Homo habilis lived, let's say, 2.5 million years ago and then in another part of Africa, away from the Turkana basin, an isolated population evolved into Homo erectus."

After a sufficient amount of time to allow both species to develop different adaptations and lifestyles, Homo erectus could have then found its way to the Turkana basin.

Of course, that assumes the new skull really is H. erectus, which is dubious. Maybe it was an H. erectus ancestor, small like H. habilis but with an H. erectus-like brain.

Why yes, I do have a degree in physical anthropology. Thank you for asking.

Re:Homo Mormonus

[dave1g]

Modern humans are dimorphic as well. Not to the extent as many other species but, for example, male brains are slightly larger, even accounting for their larger body size vs female.
This suggests that throughout humans and their ancestors have been moderately polygynous.

My source being The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mating_Mind

Re:I'm not sure I see the problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is known as the Aquatic Ape Theory. The mainstream anthropological view is that it is not correct. I still think most objections would disappear if you postulate partially aquatic near fresh water lakes instead of 100% aquatic life in salt water. But still, intriguing as it is, and as much as I would like to believe it is correct, the AAH (they have demoted it from theory to hypothesis) is not the current mainstream view.

Re:My own $0.02

[meringuoid]

The other thing I'd like to have an atheist tell me is how they believe water got here initially, and more specifically, why the water cycle starts on some planets and not on others. From what I was reading a while back, water actually initially gets produced in a closed-circuit chemical reaction, with the three elements, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Once it gets started, the loop can keep going as long as those three elements are all present; my question is, how did those three elements become present here on Earth, especially when oxygen in particular seems to be rare almost to the point of being entirely unique in the universe, from what I've seen?

Hydrogen is by far the most abundant chemical element in the Universe. Helium is second. Oxygen is third. Carbon is fourth. None of these are in any way scarce; I have no idea where you got the notion that there was a shortage of oxygen in the Universe. As for water, the solar system is full of the stuff; water vapour is present in the atmosphere of Venus, water ice is present at the Martian poles, and the outer solar system is practically made of ice. The only thing that's unusual about Earth is the presence of liquid water.