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.

[kaiyo4u]

Posted by singinrick,
Remember the parable of the farmer who spread seed on the three different types of ground?
I think you're dealing with the rocky ground, let it go. There are other parables that need to be reviewed about what you have been trying to do.
If the ground is not not good for sowing, there is nothing you can do. Remember it says that in the Bible too.

[brianbwb-2009]

've answered the questions logically on here regardless of the ridicule.....so lay off the insults and just accept the fact that there are some of us Christians out here that actually care about others and who want others to know that Jesus Christ love them.
Posted by singinrick

Sure, no problem, dude, but I would also ask you to accept the fact that there are some of us who don't subscribe to organized religions, and don't wish to accept others' beliefs as fact, and would like to discourse on subjects without multiple identical posts that attempt to posit faith as fact.

[archangelric]

It would figure that an article on fossil findings would bring out the crazies who deny the age and findings in their anti-intellectual, know nothing point of view.

The Bible's story (fable / parable) of Creation was borrowed from an earlier religion wherein each of 7 generations of gods did EXACTLY the same as was done in each 7 days in the Bible. The ancient Jews were telling a bedtime story to their children; Not objectively explaining the creation.

When will these people accept the reality that God speaks to us by objectively learning from his creations: Evolution does NOT say whether God exists or does not, but HOW He / She created us. To Deny evolution is to deny God.

This story goes along with one a few weeks back wherein they discovered that some generations of "dinosaurs" that were presumed to have died out before the next generation actually lived longer and were displaced by the newer, more efficient and aggressive species in the same way.

We killed off our predecessors / ancestors by being more efficient at getting to the food they needed; we starved them to death. That's basically what evolution is. Does this sound like something that happens overnight? Of course not. Yet, just as the wackos above want to hold on to ridiculous beliefs, Dr Wood,above wants to hold on to his and ignore the obvious.

So let me ask this question: obviously evolution is Still happening; will we recognize when our replacements are here?

[my2centss]

Survival of the fittest also has been questioned. It states that only the strongest survive. That is wrong in the human race. We send our best and brightest off to war, where they are killed, the cowards stay home and hide, where they are left to breed. Therefore it should be changed to survival of the weakest, and cowards.

[farmerbb]

The sub-title of this article is very poor writing. That is not what the story is about at all. Yes, there is a challenge to ONE evolution sub-sub-sub-theory, that h. erectus descended from h.habilis, but that was a million and a half years ago. The risk of a dating error when examining these old fossils is considerable. But the bible-thumpers will point to this article with glee. Here is a question for them.....assume you were debating evolution and the age of the earth with scientists, and both sides could choose one book the other side could NOT use. Suppose the other side said you could NOT use the bible. You could choose one book the scientists could not use for their side. Each would have to find other supporting books. Guess what ! There are very few indeed for your side, nowhere near the number supporting evolution and the earth being millions of years old. In addition, those you DO find supporting your ideas, are often written and published by individuals/groups trying to push their specific brand of religion, from one-issue publishing houses in the U.S. They don't have a track record of writing or publishing articles and books on other scientific areas of interest. One issue only. The rest of the world publishes very few books like that. These authors and publishers are therefore suspect. The huge number of books supporting the other side come from ALL branches of science, and "peer review" is done all the time. That helps weed out the bad science.

[jasonking4]

For Pete's sake,

That the two species of human were on the planet at the same time would be expected in evolutionary theory, in fact commen sense dictates that the two species would be found at the same time.

Natural selection is the differential survival and propagation of one species over another in the same space. A minimum of 2 species would need to be required for this to happen, therefore the fact that the two species were found together is entirely normal and would be expected.

**** sapiens (that's us) lived at the same time as Neantherthal man and Neantherthal man only died out 15-20,000 years after **** sapiens arrived in europe. So it entirely natural to fossils of both species at the same time.

The cbsnews article is so badly written it is embarassing.

[brianbwb-2009]

You make the choice.
Posted by singinrick

We have made the choice, rick, and for many of us it happens to be other than what you would impose upon us, so give it a rest, repeated posting accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you presume, it makes you look like an Alzheimer's patient with bad memory.

[brianbwb-2009]

"that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man"

Yes the iconic progression chart is wrong, most of us have known this for decades, because the "knuckle draggers" sadly are still with us, pretending to be religious, while being simultaneously ignorant, intolerant war mongers, and their tools...

[bbrundj]

Some readers may have come from monkeys, but personally, I was created into a human, and I am so GLAD!

[jimfinster]

The real funny part about it is this, that evolutionists always will hack at religion as a means to divert attention away from those problems.
Posted by pwrslm at 10:44 PM : Aug 10, 2007

You seemed to be a little confused. The religious people are attacking here. Go read the posts...

[jimfinster]

singinrick:

Seems like jimfinster asked a fair question. Why not a Muslim instead? Or a Buddist?

[pwrslm]

I have previously noted that religious fanatics "cherry pick" information to fit their story. This is a perfect example of that. Plus, it is very dishonest on the part of singinrick to post a portion out of context. Is that one of the Christian values he is so proud of??
Posted by jimfinster

I always laugh when I hear this angle. Reality is that anybody with basic common sense can see huge problems in evolution, you dont have to have religion to have common sense.

The real funny part about it is this, that evolutionists always will hack at religion as a means to divert attention away from those problems.

It never fails. The truth is basic, evolution is like a wing on a plane without skins, it looks like it is supposed to fly, but it just dont do it.

[actornaught]

Pardon me; pro-war deathmonger s'ick.

[actornaught]

s'ick dumps all over evolution by going after the messenger darwin, like darwin invented evolution. He didn't, he only pointed out an obvious conclusion to obvious clues, what perhaps thousands of others would have, had he not.

The real reason s'ick dumps on evolution here is because he's a fake, and he just can't leave it alone, post after post after post.

Where was he when the discussion was about health care for kids? WWJD? Certainly not what deathmonger s'ick espouses.

[jimfinster]

Posted by gramto11 at 09:23 PM : Aug 10, 2007

I have previously noted that religious fanatics "cherry pick" information to fit their story. This is a perfect example of that. Plus, it is very dishonest on the part of singinrick to post a portion out of context. Is that one of the Christian values he is so proud of??

[gramto7]

Here is some more of the letter from which singinrick's quote is derived. As you can see, the person to whom he is writing has agreed with Darwin.

I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works...

[fizzal-2009]

I have a telephone that sounds like my mother I guess its part of my family too?

[jimfinster]

You atheists fear death also. You have more to fear however because you have no assurance of where you are going.
Posted by singinrick at 07:43 PM : Aug 10, 2007

For once I actually agree with you. Religion gives you hope of an afterlife, even though it may be a false hope. It is called the placebo effect.

[actornaught]

The only fact in this article that's new is that home erectus is older than was previously known. I think somehow the author took it as strange that it existed side by side with habilus, it's most likely ancestor. But there's nothing striking about that. In fact, it would have to be almost impossible for them to not coexist, and along with the linking variants.

[jimfinster]

singinrick:

Why are you a Christian, and not a Muslim?

Can you answer that in one sentence?