Fossil Find New Branch in Human Family Tree?

Where do we come from? That's often the first question a child asks and it has bedevilled scientists for centuries. Well, today we're a little bit closer to answering it.

This past Thursday it was announced - with great fanfare - that the remains of a nine-year-old boy were found in South Africa. He is almost two million years old.

He's being called "Sediba," which means "source," and he stands somewhere on the road between ape and human. He lived in a period when our ancestors climbed down from the trees and started living on the ground. He belongs to a previously unidentified species and anthropologists will be studying him for decades.

Before the announcement, "60 Minutes" and correspondent Bob Simon were given rare access to the discovery, which could be among the most important of our time.

His unveiling was a major happening this past Thursday, when he appeared at a press conference in Johannesburg.

Professor Lee Berger, an American paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, named him Australopithecus sediba. And the most astonishing thing about him is his skull: 1.9 million years old and so well preserved that you can count his teeth - so very much like ours.

Full Segment: Discovery
Web Extra: The 1.9 Millon Year Old Boy
Web Extra: Matthew Berger, The Kid Who Made History
Web Extra: X-Raying The Skull
Web Extra: The Controversy Begins
Wits University's Institute of Human Evolution
Maropeng - The Cradle of Humankind
The European Synchrotron Radiation Facility
Becoming Human

Where did Sediba live? In hills just 50 minutes from Johannesburg, in what is called the "Cradle of Human Kind." After all, we humans came from Africa. And scientists there have spent the better part of a century looking for fragments of our earliest ancestors.

"There's probably nowhere else on planet Earth that has a denser, better record of human origins than this land right here," Berger explained.

Yet Berger had been searching for fossils in caves here for years and hadn't found much of anything. So he started a mapping project using a very modern tool: Google Earth. He discovered some 500 caves in the region, which no scientists had ever explored.

"And then I started walking. And I walked a lot. Hundreds of kilometres," he explained.

Berger was walking through the Malapa Nature Reserve with his trusted dog Tau, his nine-year-old son Matthew and his colleague Job Kibii.

They came across a cave and that was the beginning of an astonishing series of events.

"I...literally said, you know, 'Here's the site. There are bones here. Let's look around.' Matthew got up, ran over in that direction. A minute and a half later, he called me," Berger remembered.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page »

[mandylian]

I am a Christian who earned a major in anthropology - specifically, human evolution - in college, and I don't understand the conflict. The Bible says God created, but it never says how, probably because Moses wasn't privy to Darwin or genetics at the time he wrote Genesis. Why does everything have to be either/or? Creation by evolution is no less a miracle.

[caesar_bc]

Since when has new finds and new information been a bad thing? As I see it, new discoveries move science forward. These new discoveries will always bring about controversy, just read any debate in anthropology. As far as those people who criticize Berger for his discovery, and how he found it, they should reevaluate their own methods and not take it so personal that it wasn't them who found it. This doesn't look like a Piltdown forgery.
As far as all of the people discussing the whole "Creationism" versus "Evolution" false dichotomy, they don't have to go there. People are going to believe whatever it is they are going to believe. Humans have the ability to choose their beliefs, and I am not suggesting that "evolution" is a belief. What I am saying, is that people who side with creationism tend to think that evolution is a belief, and they are entitled to that, even though it may be incorrect - they are entitled to it. Do not try to correct them.

[elderbigggs]

Only 5% of the people within the complete world believe E-volution.
So the 95% of us that remain are not narcissisticly unastute?

[wf_tx]

1. Since when is scientific validity determined by a popularity poll?
2. If by "narcissisticly unastute" you mean "ignorant," then yes, you are.

It matters not whether the non-scientific community believes it. It matters not whether it conflicts with Biblical creation. It matters not whether ham and eggs are really green. It matters NOT. The simple truth is that the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence favors the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other credible hypotheses. That's just the way it is - I don't know how else to put it more plainly.

Your problem with evolution stems from its conflict with your faith. Nothing wrong with that. You can be entirely credible by saying, "My faiths compels me to disbelieve evolution."

But when you start saying that scientific evidence does not support the theory of evolution, you are in error, my friend. And that's because the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence favors the theory of evolution.

By the way, did you know that a scientific theory is about as close to absolute truth as you can get in the realm of science? It's true. But many people confuse the common use of "theory" with the scientific use. The common use of the word "theory" means "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." However, the scientific use of the word "theory" means "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

I hope this helps.

[caesar_bc]

I'm not so sure about this statistic, I have my doubts. Can you supply any references?

[RoryRoybal]

Bedeviled scientists is right. Soft tissue and intact DNA found in dinosaur fossils can't be more than 100,000 years old at the very maximum, but evolutionists still claim such creatures and sedimentary rocks they are found in are on the order of 100 million years old. Clinging to long ages isn't science when it contradicts clear observational evidence, but irrational as is the entire 'space dust to a frog to a prince' fable. This is yet another supposed 'missing link' that will join the pile of all other disproved ones since they are all eventually shown to be either fully functioning apes or men, but never transitional forms with partially developed features. See http://www.miraclesormagic.com/creation-evolution.html to see what science truly reveals about our origins.

[wf_tx]

Rory - I have visited that site on a number of occasions and it is nothing more than cherry-picked propaganda. C'mon, now, think about it: are most scientists actually deluded about evolution to the exception of a brilliant few such as yourself, or does the preponderance of the evidence actually support the theory of evolution? Let's have a bit of intellectual honesty here, OK? It's one thing to say that your faith compels you to reject evolution, but it's quite a stretch to say that science compels you to reject it. And that's because the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. As with elderbiggs, you have started out with a conclusion based on faith (e.g., that the earth and all its flora and fauna was created about 6,000 - 20,000 years ago as described in the Bible), then set about trying to find scientific evidence to back it up -- and all you can muster are some cherries here and there, never coherent and never enjoying broad consensus.

[walt9800]

My last couple of posts appear to have been censored, or some technical problem prevents them from appearing. This post is more of a test than anything else.

[elderbigggs]

Don't try to flip your none PFE to me the RNA has No Working models, it is invalid, there is nothing of E-volution within the Precambrian nor the Cambrian explosion, you are missing at lease 25,000 links or more, you have faith within a single cell impossible factor, did I miss anything? And Oh yes a NUMBER of PEOPLE are walking around with PIGS ORGANS with there HUMAN bodies when there should be APE ORGANS. This is your religion tell your story walking I and many God fearing and Non God fearing scientist, who also have presently seen the Light of your Religion heard it already. Thank you Sirs have a nice Day.

[nic1234567-2009]

elderbigggs

First off, you?re the one that first ask about RNA question and yes there are working models, but this really has nothing to do with Evolution. It falls under the natural sciences, category of abiogenesis or biopoesis (the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter). Try learning about something about it.

As for Cambrian explosion it was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya. The Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya. Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya. There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australi. Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004). Also there are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

As for the pig organ argument, we already been over this. Your faulty logic that PIGS ORGANS are uses because they are a better organ match to humans than Apes is nonsense. They are use because of the relative size and availability period. Give the little PFE box you painted yourself into, none of this is going to make any difference in your view anyway. What you personally views on these subjects are does not matter to me any way. I?m just try to provide a counter balance between your ?because I say so logic? and what the actual scientific endeavor are. People can then compare the two and make up their own mind. By the way if you are going to continue to make statements like this you really to back them up with facts. You tend to undermine your own arguments without them.

By the way, I do have great respect for God-fearing people like you. Personally, I prefer to think of myself as a Theological Evolutionist. This is the way I?ve chosen to come to terms with my own mortality.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html

Have a good day and God bless.

[elderbigggs]

Theorized to work Mr. wf_tx Defined
To formulate theories or a theory; speculate
here is a theory for you Mr. wf_tx, All things being equal the simplest answer tens to be the right one. William of Ockham you may have heard of him?
What his statement says in the old German is, If you do not add anything to the equation, and if you do not subtract anything from the equation then the simplest answer tens to be the right one. And I submit to you sir that you have add something to nothing, however, it still remains nothing.

[nic1234567-2009]

I am well aware of Occam's razor. It is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is not a theory in the classic sense of being a model that explains physical observations, relying on induction; rather, it is a heuristic maxim for choosing among such theories. However, I summit to you that you are in correct in application of it. When you substitute evolution for creationism, you are actually substitution one explanation for an even more complex one God (i.e. Where did god come from). By definition, Occam's razor would favor evolution over creationism.

I assume you are not ready to go down that road.

[nic1234567-2009]

By the way, your statement that this small fraction of the mass is converted into energy by fusion requires Oxygen is false. Nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple atomic nuclei join together to form a single heavier nucleus. Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in stars. Artificial fusion in human enterprises has also been achieved.

[elderbigggs]

Okay let?s close this.

Let us start at the beginning,

Every one of science believes in the big bang theory,
This means that from nowhere by no cause and effect by no fault of its own, and all of a sudden with the power that could be consumed in a thimble there came this enormous huge Big Bang.

I believe that it was a snapping of the finger and the Power said let there be light! Sorry my religious belief. You see I believe that the bang was created based on the above statements that are irrefutable.

But we are talking about the progression of the e-volution?s ideology and its line.
After this big bang was an exposition of all the planets the stars and the universe as we know it. All of the planetoid bodies are line up today as they were from this big bang.
Most of the planets were mouton lava and hot we can assume around 3000? but for some reason the -200 decrees that is within space cooled the planets.

Logical common sense question:

Why were the Sun, Venus and Mercury, also not cooled?
Elements burning in space without oxygen? This is not science.
But we move forward, so now we have a hard rock in Space.

Logical common sense question:

Where did all the water come from that created our oceans?
There are a number of ideologies but no foundation and no validity. But we move on.
For some reason unknown to all a perfect protein was formed from four letters on the DNA strand that created this one cell that would create many cells for just one insect.
This would have to be even more perfect if it was a human. This also would take a 10 to the 74 power chance of this ever happening. That?s like finding Michael Jordan?s right thumb nail in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean 7 miles down. But we go on religiously. This cell created is now an amoeba, 5000 missing links later it has become a fish, 5000 missing links later it has come on land, 5000 missing links later it has developed legs and lungs from gills and finis, 5000 missing links later it has become a reptile, 5000 missing links later it has become a mammal, 5000 missing links later it has become a animal, 5000 missing links later it has become us.

This single celled creature produced everyone on the planet had to be a female because every living human that has ever lived on this planet was born from one female she is the model for our complete bodies. This one cell female has to be asexual? So here we are at present day? But wait we are not all asexual females, you see asexual procreation leads to asexual reproduction with out help? That?s science. The female has the double X. helix within her reproductive DNA, and because we were all born from her.
But wait that ideology would not fly because like I said we are not all asexual females and sense the male has within his DNA the X. and the Y he gets to choose the gender of the offspring to be born. So our ideological scenario should be an asexual human male right?
Oh, but, we are not all asexual males are we? So the two ideological scenarios presented along the evolution line are both INVALID.

Because science says that it takes two cells (Sperm and Overy) in order to create one human being and one cell would not be enough to create one human being.
So if the chance is ten to the 74th power that one protein could be created that would develop into one cell for only an insect, think of the chances of this taking place for it to create two perfect proteins because this is what it would take to create one human being. This would be like finding both of Michael Jordan?s thumbnails in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean 7 miles down. It is a biological impossibility.
So to conclude 25,000 missing links later a scientist says he has found one missing link and this means that evolution is true. Is this irony, logic, reasoning, or illogic?
To believe in something without a large number of facts or as Darwin put it ?TRANSITIONAL? is a religious experience, religious fervor, and religious enthusiasm.


See not just Christian scientist are disbelieving the ideology of evolution but none Christian scientist are also falling away due to the lack of (PFE), proof, facts, or evidence.


So call me what you will it takes a blind man not to look ahead of himself on the road that leads to nowhere. And a wise man looks up from his bowl to see where he?s going.

E-volution is a fraud it?s nothing more than a religion.

Prof. J. Biggs Junior, turn if off

[wf_tx]

Prof,

I'm just curious. Do you truly believe that this posting constitutes proof that the theory of evolution is invalid?

What I mean by that is that your rhetoric contains a few hints of scientific terms and principles, but taken as a whole they are nothing but babble -- and I don't mean that as an insult. I'm just pointing it out to you.

Look at it this way. A clever person who wanted to "debunk" evolution could speak and use scientific terms in such a way that he could mislead the average reader. In other words, only a well-educated person could see through it. On the other hand, a person who wanted to "debunk" evolution could speak and use scientific terms in such a way that he fools no one. This is what your rhetoric sounds like, Prof. It is very apparent to even the casual reader that you know very little, if anything, about how evolution works.

Common sense says that you must know your enemy. If you want to "debunk" evolution, you have to know how it works. And, you must avail yourself of at least the rudimentary principles of logic and persuasive rhetoric. I'll give you an example using your own construct of what you call "PFE". The theory of evolution constitutes a virtual mountain of "proofs", "facts", and "evidence." Anyone who knows anything about science knows this. So when you accuse the scientific community of not having "PFE", it makes you look uninformed and silly. Another example: your rhetoric in this post makes it obvious to practically anyone that you don't know the math of probability. Lastly, your repetitive claim that evolution is a fraud and that it is a religion fails even YOUR standard of so-called "PFE."

Bottom line, Prof, is that your postings are long on rhetoric and short on substance. I genuinely and affectionately suggest you find a book on evolution and read it so that you at least understand how evolution is theorized to work.

Have a nice day.

[nic1234567-2009]

elderbigggs writes: ?Why were the Sun, Venus and Mercury, also not cooled? Elements burning in space without oxygen? This is not science. But we move forward, so now we have a hard rock in Space.?


You are kidding right. The Sun is not burning as anyone who is ever take a basic a science courses should know. Do you know anything at all about science? The heat from the sun is generated through fusion.

In the core of the Sun hydrogen is being converted into helium. This is called nuclear fusion. It takes four hydrogen atoms to fuse into each helium atom. During the process some of the mass is converted into energy.

Mass of 4 H atoms: 4.03130 AMU
Mass of 1 He atom: 4.00268 AMU
1 Atomic Mass Unit (AMU) equals 1.67x10-27kgs

The difference between the mass of 4 H atoms and 1 He atom is 0.02862 AMU which is only 0.71% of the original mass. This small fraction of the mass is converted into energy. If 4 grams (1/8 ounce) of H are converted to He, only 2.8x10-3 grams of the mass is converted to energy:

How much energy is generated from converting such a tiny amount of mass? We can calculate by using Einstein's famous formula.
E = mc2
E = (2.8x10-3 grams) x c2
E = (2.8x10-6 kgs) x (3x108m/sec)2
E = 2.6x1011 joules

That?s Enough energy to keep a 60-watt light bulb shining for over 100 years! Give the size of the sun this equates to a huge amount of energy.
As for Venus and Mercury , they remain hot because of their proximity to the sun. However in case of Venus the CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 ?C (860 ?F).

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by elderbigggs April 12, 2010 9:30 AM EDT
No you are a religious person to believe some thing without the facts. It's not about education of which I am it's about what adds up? Do you even know what the Cambrian Explosion is? Precambrian? Interesting,this is the problem right here. people like you think that only you can think and read. In 2010 technology has caught up with you and anything can be found on Google if one can read.

The title of my book,

E-volution is a fraud; its nothing more than a religion.
By Elder Jimmy Jay Biggs Junior
==============================================================

And let me tell you, it's burning up the Amazon website! Straight to paperback, no reviews, no image available and (big surprise) it's out of stock. Wait, that's not totally true. There is one (1) used copy available. My guess is that copy it was a gift. But hey, never look a gift horse in the mouth when you can sell it on Amazon.

An alternate explanation for it being out of print? That literary tome must have been the buzz in scientific communities last year and has since been snatched up by any and all persons associated with the scientific community.

(I'm puttin' my money on THEORY #1 though.)

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

Oh did I mention the product review? Obviously written by the author:

In this time of increased knowledge and prosperity there are some that have taken advantage of those who just don't know or have a full understanding of certain topics. We live in a time now of increased knowledge if you look back in time over the past 6 to 4000 years you will see that there was a slow pace of progression of knowledge and travel a kind of crawling along at a snails pace that didn't curve upwardly but ever so slightly forward at a consistent pace until for some reason we became more knowledge and traveled more. The experience of living on this planet however as of late the learning curved has turned over the past 150 years to lean straight upward...

[memphispiano]

I think the point that many of you miss is that there are many people secularists that do not believe in evolution. Gallup's poll last year found that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. The percentage is actually not much different among Christians.
The fact of the matter is that few dispute "evolution", it's that people with good logical skills have a hard time believing "the theory of evolution"... that a single cell organism ultimately turned into a human being. They say giraffes evolved long necks because their food supply was all in the trees. Well, by their own theory it would take a million years to evolve that long neck. They would die out before they could evolve the neck. I can spend my life stretching my neck (and many cultures successfully do this), but amazingly it does not pass to their children. "The Theory of Evolution" requires millions of "1 in a million chances" to happen. Sorry, folks, but a lot of scientists who are not creationists do not believe the theory of evolution.

[nic1234567-2009]

You throw out statements like "what about giraffes with short necks" as if you think that is a problem. If you were truly interested in finding out (which you obviously are not), you would have done a simple search. Here is the answer, found by clicking the search button and typing in "giraffes":

Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

[elderbigggs]

Thank you for an honest true PFE statement

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by elderbigggs April 12, 2010 4:05 PM EDT
Believe what you want? We are not talking about religion are we? We are talking about UNPROOFED FACTS AND EVIDENCE. TO DATE E-volution only has ADJECTIVES!
========================================

You're the one that exposed yourself as an incomplete and willing rube of the preposterous young Earth theory.

You started this tangential lunacy.

You've exposed yourself as a hack and (poor) interpreter of science.

[elderbigggs]

Is there a question within your life or mind? I am signing off soon.