Slashdot Mirror
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."
"The other discussions have been archived. No new comments can be posted."
What?
It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.
If erectus was very sexually dimorphic [sex size diff] it may have had multiple mates at a time. This differs from the more monogamous nature of modern humans, indicating that Homo erectus was not as human-like as once thought.
Polygomy is and was fairly common in humans.
Table-ized A.I.
What is with the obsession with tools? Plenty of animals use tools. Humans aren't unique in that respect.
There is a saying amongst psychologists that at some point, each must come up with a reason why humans are fundamentally different from the other animals, only for someone to eventually prove them wrong.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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):
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.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Other great apes were evolved for primarily eating fruit (orangutang), veggies (gorillas), or a more mixed diet (chimps). I'd say that human ancestors didn't take to the flatlands all that great but were actually well adapted to rivers and for the style of fishing known as noodling. (Paddle-like foot shape, thinned out body hair, improved hand dexterity, downturned nose, these seem better adapted for mucking in water than walking around on some grassland.) Afterall, in comparison to the great apes we're related to, humans are the only ones that can swim worth a damn. Crocodiles as a competing apex preditor would be a lot more predictable for pre-tool hominid primates than any lion, jaguar, or hyena. (Easy enough to get out of the water when crocs are around, but good luck outrunning one of those large cats.) Also there's likely more protein to be had from fish than any small grassland type creature that could be caught until toolmaking became more mainstream.
Now if only an actual anthropologist would pick up on that idea...
...why monkeys aren't extinct. If it's survival of the fittest and we are clearly superior to monkeys, why are they still here? They should have died-out a long time ago!
The game.
Man evolved from dirt when dinosaurs ate coconuts. It says so in the bible.
The Farewell Tour II
from the creationism museum that they lived with Velociraptors.
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
I don't see why co-existence would discount evolving from Homo Habilis. Since after all if we really did evolve from primates, there would be no primates today under this logic.
It' still possible that some Homo Habilis evolved into Homo erectus while others remained homo habilis. Just as monkeys evolved into whatever became the H. Habilis, yet monkeys still exist.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Ugh. You're killing me here. I'm reminded of all the times I've heard "Creationist scientists say dinosaurs ate leaves and used their sharp teeth to grind leaves."
No. Just... no. No, no, no, no, NO!
Honestly, I'd LOVE to see a T-rex or an Allasaurus or another obvious carnivore TRY to eat leaves with a mouth like that. We KNOW today that flat teeth are used for grinding plants. I mean, it's basic instinct. When you eat meat, you use your slimmer and pointer front teeth to tear it into slimmer pieces. When you eat a salad, you don't use your front teeth at all, and simply let the back teeth grind the leaves.
It's pure bullshit, and it's easily debunked by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Same for sharks. They have rows upon rows of sharp, serrated teeth. Are you going to tell me they ate kelp?
Not to mention that we see hundreds of cave drawings of bison and deer and other roaming mammals... yet does anyone find it strange that no caveman decided to draw a HUGE monstrous death machine roaming the lands? I mean, not ONE SINGLE MENTION anywhere in all of human culture until we discovered their bones?
No, I am no a biologist, archaeologist, or any other professional, but I think my evidence stands as is. I'm sure a real scientist could provide FAR more examples.
Creationism science is an oxymoron, because Creationism is the polar opposite of science. You start with a conclusion (God made the Earth and the Bible shows how he did it) and then proceed to find evidence that supports that, as opposed to finding evidence and then making a conclusion based on the evidence.
The Bible is not literal. Period. It is a series of stories and ideas put into writing in ancient times to explain, back then, how they thought things came to be.
To me, believing in Creationism is like saying "I believe the sky is green." It's just wrong. Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in it, such as how "green" something is before it's green, but with science, we can break down light and find its wavelength and say "This light is blue." You can still believe that it is green, just as you can believe men walked the earth alongside dinosaurs, that a man with a boat carried two of EVERY species of animal on Earth for over a month after a God gave him the designs for it, and the first woman came from the ribs of the first man.
But you'd be wrong. "Believing" that 2+2=5 doesn't change the fact that it's 4, even if you call it an "opinion." Facts do not care what you think.
(Note: Yes, I know the Parent was joking. But this stuff SERIOUSLY pisses me off)
Anyways, the real story here is the incredibly poor coverage of this finding by the mainstream press. The BBC article linked to here isn't so bad, but just go to Google News and look at some of the headlines, in what I would consider increasing order of ridiculousness:
"Fossil find casts doubt on origins of man"
"new theory on the dawn of humanity"
"Fossils Paint Messy Picture of Evolution"
"Fossil Discoveries Challenge Theory of Human Evolution"
"Darwin's rolling over"
They make it look like this is somehow a CHALLENGE to THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ITSELF. In other words, "let's take some story we don't really understand, but it hey it has the word 'evolution' in it, so we can manipulate this to stir up that ol' hornet's nest and sell papers!"
I think this is the most disappointing example in a while of the sorry state of science journalism.