Evolutionary Theory Challenged By Fossils

Discovery In Africa Suggests Two Early Species Of Man Lived Side By Side For Half-Million Years

(AP)  Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests 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. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.

It is the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably did not interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while 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.

There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and was not part of the Leakey team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

[gmcnally2]

Evolutionary Theory Challenged by Fossils.
At least they are acknowledging it is a theory. One day the scientists will have enough data to acknowledge God exists, though I am sure by then they will have a new religion that removes God's ethics and Man's sin and need for redemption to be restored to God. The world is heading for a wake up call.

[bunnybaum]

Sorry, I read this entire article and I still don't know what the heck they are talking about. Aren't we all decendants of Adam and Eve? That is what I've been told and I believe. I am having a little bit of trouble understanding where this story is going. Would someone kindly explain, please?

[the_quietman]

Good article except that it makes one false assumption. Just because two species coexist does not mean that one is not evolved from the other. The cockroach coexists with the termite but we all know that the termite evolved from the cockroach. It is still most probable that erectus did evolve from habilis but that habilis was well enough adapted to continue on in it's own niche that was either not contested by erectus or that it caused erectus to vacate their habitat.

[the_quietman]

bunnybaum
To put the article into a Biblical frame, Adam and Eve were the first humans (genus ****). If we look at the species within the genus we are looking at habilis and erectus (in this article), so the question is was Adam (erectus) decended from habilis or were they decended from the same predecessor. This subject is first testament so outside of Christ's teaching and really should not be compared but I hope this helps.

[the_quietman]

gmcnally2
The title of the article is a misnomer. It does not in any way challenge evolutionary theory. It challenges the current view of progression according to the writer (in fact it does not) but does not challenge factual evolution. Adam and Eve belong to Jewish mythology, not to the teachings of Christ.

[mperkel]

The tone of the article and the presentation suggest that it was written by someone who is trying to create controversy where there is none. It is not surprising that our understanding of evolution is evolving. But to say there's a war between evolutionists sounds like a religious point of view.

[infidel_us]

Bummer, huh libs? Whether you know it or not, you are all religious. You just worship at the feet of evolution. Good luck in hell.....talk about global warming! LOL

[the_quietman]

infidel_us
Just like the pope I believe in God and the teachings of Christ and just like the pope I accept evolution. Ignorance is believeing that childrens stories are factual. They were intended to teach children and child-like adults mores, not to be worshipped as the word of the Hebrew god.

[gangesdak]

Two thirds of the humanity does not know Adam-Eve story. it is just a story like that of a stork delivering the baby. There is a purpose behind the story; take that purpose if you want. That's all. Accepting Adam-Eve story has nothing to do with whatever religion you profess. What was Adam's last mane? Did Eve change her last name after she married Adam? did they get married, or just lived together for a while?

[mtracy9]

The human family is the product of incest, because the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) intermarried. The human family gradually migrated north (some to the North Pole) and Santa Claus was born, which is why we all get presents on Christmas. It's all in one of the lost books of the Bible.

[the_quietman]

gangesdak
The story of Adam and Eve is an old Hebrew story intended to teach moral values to children just the "the little boy who cried wolf". You are quite correct in that the majority of people in the world are not aware of the story but they do have their equivalent creation myths. The difference is that a handful of christians have tried to perpetrate their creation myth as fact while the rest of the world accepts these myths for what they are.

[the_quietman]

mtracy9
According to the biblical story Adam and Eve had sons who went out and "found" wives, so the sin was not incest but of necessity had to be beastiality.

[ericdobbs]

A common error in discussions of evolution is the misunderstanding of the word "theory" as it is used in science. Among us laymen, a theory is a speculative guess as to why something should be as it seems to be. In science, a theory is, among other things, a plausible explanation of an observed fact. The observed fact in this case is that evolution has occurred. By the middle of the nineteenth century generations of naturalists had collected data about the living world that indicated that changes, some of them dramatic, had occurred over time in the numbers, kinds, and distribution of species. In consideration of these data, Darwin and Wallace nearly simultaneously published in the 1850s their explanations of evolution by the process of natural selection. This theory has been found to be such a good explanation of an observed fact that modern biology would be crippled without it. This is not to say that natural selection is not subject to revision and refinement or even rejection, should a better explanation that corresponds to the data be offered. Scientists love to catch each other out, and to find a better explanation for evolution and have the scientific community agree that it is an improvement would insure the fame of the scientist who offered the better explanation. The appearance of a new theory, however, does not necessarily mean the wholesale scrapping of earlier theories. Witness Newton and Einstein on gravity.

[the_quietman]

ericdobbs
WELL SAID

[mtracy9]

How could Adam and Eve's sons find wives if Adam and Eve had no daughters? Adam and Eve must have had daughters (although the Bible doesn't meantion this) who intermarried with the sons. Therefore, the human family is the product of incest.

[mygramma]

"still don't know what the heck they are talking about. Aren't we all decendants of Adam and Eve?"

Oh, goody! Here we go again. The ignorance of people dumb enough to be informed through the pursuit of scientific knowledge is about to be wiped out by the return of the pharging proselytizers to this blog.

[the_quietman]

mtracy9
So, you don't know what beastiality means?

[mtracy9]

You don't know what incest means?

[the_quietman]

There is a second article entitled "Fossils Challenge Old Evoluton Theory" on this website that does not have a comment section. You will notice that the title is MUCH more accurate than the title to this article.

[davegf]

Bible thumping, voodoo worshiping, superstitious morons.......f**k off!!

[the_quietman]

mtracy9
Incest is what Adam and Eve practiced, their sons practiced beastiality because the bible does not state that they had daughters and if you take the bible as LITERAL FACT (I do not) then my statement MUST be true; the point that I am trying to make is that it is a story, THE HEBREW CREATION MYTH, and not intended to be taken as fact.

[jimfinster]

the_quietman:

How do you get human children from having sexx with animals? My friend, you are going down Crazy Street now!

[tucano2]

Past is past. There is a curiosity, certainly, concering our parentage, but it does not matter in the least. What is important is NOW, and to some extent the future.

[tucano2]

Adam and Eve are inventions of the ancients to explain the unknown. "They" were never real, actual, persons. Every society has its myths.

[jshmks]

You all sound REALLY gay arguing about a fossil. lmfao

[nggr]

"How do you get human children from having sexx with animals?"

Posted by jimfinster at 12:56 PM : Aug 09, 2007


anything us possible if god is your co-pilot, of jesus carries you on the beach.
now, where is my cat ...

[jimfinster]

tucanofulano:

That is how most rational people view the entire bible.

[the_quietman]

jimfinster
I am trying to point out EXACTLY that improbability. Either you take the story LITERALLY which is highly improbable or you accept it as a primitive creation myth. I offer as an analogy that H.erectus was the first human and that H.habilis was still a beast. Hence procreation may have produced viable offspring, and erectus sons of Adam could have found wives of beastly habilis.

[actornaught]

I think quietman and ericdobbs make excellent clarifications. Certainly the title of this article is misleading, and it will suck in the anti-science crowd pretty quickly. The article itself is not clearly written, either.

further, there's no discussion when people like fiddy refuse to accept language and definition. Science is not religion, religion is not science. And lucky for all of us, where anyone goes after they die isn't up to some blowhard hiding behind a computer.

[jimfinster]

nggr:

HA! I can just see young Cain & Abel, chasing the poor scared animals through the woods...

[the_quietman]

nggr
Don't know, live by a chinese restraurant?

[jimfinster]

the_quietman:

So you accept some parts of the bible as true, some as false? How do you know which is which ?

[the_quietman]

actornaught
Thank you

[jimfinster]

the_quietman:

The commonly held view is that A&E had daughters, and that brothers married sisters. I have never heard your "animal wife" theory before :)

[the_quietman]

jimfinster
As a Catholic I was taught to believe the teachings of Christ which are all in the new testament. Christ's parables are stories to teach us how to live with each other. The old testament is the Hebrew bible that is not taken as factual by the Catholic church and most of the old testament's laws were contradicted by Christ. Eye for an eye was replaced by turn thy cheek, etc. There is NOTHING in the new testament that contradicts evolution. There is nothing in the new testament that promotes ignorance. Therefore you can, as a christian accept the truth of the new testament and should reject the teachings of the old testament.

[the_quietman]

jimfinster
I do not have an animal wife theory, but my wife is a bit of an animal at times, but that, my friend, was a story intended to show the probable rather than the impossible. There was no Adam, no eve, no cain, no able. They are characters in an old Jewish story intended to teach morality.

[nggr]

"There is nothing in the new testament that promotes ignorance."

Posted by the_quietman at 01:19 PM : Aug 09, 2007

not even the god as a man "theory", dead israelites rising from the grave, and the telling of the same story with 4 different fact/detail pools?

[nggr]

religious thumpers, remeber to read before discounting solid theories. the fossils are still 1.5 MILLION years old, your argument will not hold up if you claim a young earth stance.

[skyk-2009]

Oh Joy! Now we're going to HAVE to go through an whole new round of these Religous Nut Case's wanting to teach kids the Bible and it's version in School. Having grown up in the South and being taugh the "Equal but Different" version of the Begining and the Bible, that is the LAST thing we need. People the Bible teaches us that the SUN travels AROUND the Earth AND that the Earth is the center of the Universe or at least that's how the Religious Nuts taught it until science so disproved it that they had no option, for the most part, to drop those Insane teachings. I believe the Fascist in some Southern Schools still teach the Equal but Different View, they just leave out the right to lynch and bomb people who are difffernt part... or at least I hope they do!

[the_quietman]

nggr
Most of the new testament is made up of fictional stories that teach moral virtue and are admitted to be just that, stories. The "miracles" can all be justified by science as understood today, even the raising of the dead. People 2000 years ago did not understand the human body and it's malfunctions as well as they are understood today and there is still much that is not understood today. Some seizures can be mistaken as death, etc. so that even if you are not a christian you can accept that these miracles were possible. The new testament was not intended to be taken literally and it has since been altered and embellished from it's original form so that like the old testament it can not be taken literally.
The truth in the bible is the moral values of the stories, not the stories.

[the_quietman]

nggr
Most of the new testament is made up of fictional stories that teach moral virtue and are admitted to be just that, stories. The "miracles" can all be justified by science as understood today, even the raising of the dead. People 2000 years ago did not understand the human body and it's malfunctions as well as they are understood today and there is still much that is not understood today. Some seizures can be mistaken as death, etc. so that even if you are not a christian you can accept that these miracles were possible. The new testament was not intended to be taken literally and it has since been altered and embellished from it's original form so that like the old testament it can not be taken literally.
The truth in the bible is the moral values of the stories, not the stories.

[jimfinster]

the_quietman:

Now you are talking sense.

But you understand that in America, the majority of Christians believe that the ENTIRE bible is the infallible literal truth of god? Which is where people get into all this silliness about the earth being 6,000 years old, Noah's ark, etc etc.

[jn122736]

Therefore you can, as a christian accept the truth of the new testament and should reject the teachings of the old testament.
Posted by the_quietman at 01:19 PM : Aug 09, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have never heard of a Christian faith that did not include the writings from the Old Testament in their sermons/teachings. Nor have I seen a bible that didn%u2019t include the Old Testament. However, I have made no effort to actually search for any such %u201Cbible%u201D.

Abraham, et al, are mentioned in every book of the bible beginning with genesis in the Old Testament, through Peter in the New Testament.

I have always found it interesting that, without exception, people using the bible to expound their belief, always quote a part that agrees with them, and usually choose verses or lines scattered through out the entire bible.

When confronted with apparent contradictory verses or lines they usually say something like, %u201Cthat%u2019s not what that verse/line means.

[the_quietman]

jimfinster
Sorry, I have a peculiar sense of humor. I AM a true Darwinist but he is NOT my god. My biggest problem with the whole evolution vs genesis argument is the misunderstanding of BOTH. Many people, including scientists misquote Darwin, leading the thumpers away from the truth. As an example, a scientist states "giraffes grew longer necks to reach higher leaves". Charles Darwin rolls over in his grave on that and similar statements. That statement supports Lineaus, not Darwin. The statement should have been "the giraffe with the variation of a long neck survived hard times because it could reach food that the short necked variation could not, and therefore survived long enough to pass on this genetic variation while the short neck variation became extinct." The new theory of PE is actually a subtheory of Darwin, explained in "On the Origin of Species". These people did not study Darwin or read his book otherwise they would not be misquoting him or reinventing his theory.

[blazercoach1]

But you understand that in America, the majority of Christians believe that the ENTIRE bible is the infallible literal truth of god? Posted by jimfinster at 01:42 PM

Jim, this statement does not reflect the view of Catholics (nor most Protestants, for that matter, but I'll stick to Catholics in this post). Catholics do not believe in solo scriptura nor in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Parts, yes. However, Christ taught with parables.

[blazercoach1]

"Many people, including scientists misquote Darwin, leading the thumpers away from the truth." Posted by the_quietman

Quietman,

Many people misquote and misinterpret the Bible and other revelations of God, leading others away from the truth :)

[the_quietman]

jn122736
It is called the Roman Catholic Bible and it is labelled the "New Testament". You may have never heard of it but among christian bibles it has more readers than any other. Italians, Irish, Spanish, Slavic and Greek peoples are predominately catholic (Russians and Greeks are "Orthodox" and most of the remainder are Roman Catholic). Catholics are the minority in the US but make up the the majority of worldwide christians; hence the majority of world christians do not read the old testament.

[blazercoach1]

But you understand that in America, the majority of Christians believe that the ENTIRE bible is the infallible literal truth of god? Posted by jimfinster at 01:42 PM


Jimfinster,

Neither Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, or Catholics believe this to be true. Can you please clarify your statement?

[politicus]

Arguing false science against false religion - or vice versa - is futile.

There are many interpretations of the Bible, thus Catholicism and its many Protesters or Protestants breaking away to form the cacophony of modern-day Christendom (Catholicism with its fairy-tales and superstitions as well - run a bunch of beads through your fingers while praying to a plastic idol sitting on your dashboard).

As well as the fallacy of Evolutionary Theory which has been changed so many times to fit the facts, rather than the Theory being tossed out the window because the facts have never agreed with it. See definition of "Scientific Method"

Whatever floats your boat - you **** saps. A sucker evolves every second.

[the_quietman]

blazercoach1
I will quote myself since you failed to do so: "My biggest problem with the whole evolution vs genesis argument is the misunderstanding of BOTH". And you have just proven my point.