Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Ancient Skull Unearthed in Africa 113

Posted by michael from the alas-poor-yorick dept.
BrianGa writes "This BBC article reports on a skull which scientists say is the most important discovery in the search for the origins of humankind since the first Australopithecus ape-man remains were found in Africa in the 1920s. The newly discovered skull finally puts to rest any idea that there might be a single missing link between humans and chimpanzees, they say. Analysis of the ancient find is not yet complete, but already it is clear that it has an apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ancient Skull Unearthed in Africa More

Ancient Skull Unearthed in Africa

Comments Filter:

  • The "Complex Hominid Tree" is nice, and clear, even though most people would not have heard of many of the Hominids. But even as a layman I can see it misses out Politicians and Lawyers.

    On a more serious note, seeing as a human being has already been cloned, would it be too much to expect a clone of this guy or girl? It would only take a tiny amount of good DNA... If it survived.

    Ali

  • This is cool but I am surprised to hear them say "A find like this does make us question the trees people have built up of human evolution". Of course there are forks in evolution. I don't think the human is a direct ancestor of the ape, rather the apes and humans likely evolved separately from a similar much older species.

    • Re:Cool.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Cleon ( 471197 )
      Not to be rude, but "duh." Even Darwin said that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor--the only ones who talk about humans descending from apes are horribly misinformed creationists. It's akin to your family tree--unless you live in West Virginia, typically you're not descended from your cousin. From an evolutionary standpoint, modern apes are our cousins, not our ancestors.

      Regarding the statement you quoted--the mystery is not that our family tree has branches. That much we know. For example, based on DNA analysis we know that Neandertals were probably a subspecies that died out, not our ancestors--another branch in the tree, you could say. The wonder lies in investigating these branches, and discovering new forks, roots, and origins.
      • If the scientist that was responsible for the quote was under the impression that the found creature was a cousin, then why would it change "the trees people have built up of human evolution"? It would add another fork yes, but it does not change the previously accepted model of the evolution of man itself. I was disagreeing with the quote.
      • I'm not an expert in the area but it is my understanding that we are decended from apes, just not modern apes. Infact I wonder if we still may even be considered one of the great apes by some standards. I suspect in many regards there is more in common between us and a baboon than a baboon and a gorilla.
        • It depends on how you define "ape." Zoologists are pretty specific when it comes to that definition--they mean modern "great apes;" chimpanzees, gorillas, orangs, etc.

          If a layman was to run across an australopithecine in the woods, their first thought would be that it's an ape. Australopithecines were covered with hair, had a broad nose, etc.--never mind that they were bipedal. So in a certain sense, yeah, they were apes, but not in the sense that zoologists use the word.

        • > I'm not an expert in the area but it is my understanding that we are decended from apes, just not modern apes. Infact I wonder if we still may even be considered one of the great apes by some standards.

          Yes, we are considered apes by any reasonable standard.

          That is, it's impossible to draw the primate family tree such that every species below some chosen fork is called 'ape' and these two constraints hold true for the chosen sub-tree:

          • everything we think of as an ape is in the sub-tree
          • humans are not in the sub-tree
          To get a conventional meaning for 'ape' requires special pleading, a definition to the tune of "all the species in this sub-tree except humans".

          That can be done, of course, and in fact that's how the traditional list of 'apes' works out now that we know the cladistic relationships, but the result is a definiton that obscures rather than reveals. Best just to call ourselves apes and let the creationist snivel.


  • In my mind while this does raise a slew of new questions, it still amounts to increasing proof of some form of evolution (even if Darwin's exact description of the process doesn't turn out to be all that accurate).

    On the funny side, this will be the second time in recent history the right has been upset over hanging chads (from trees this time :)

    • Re:asdf (Score:2, Interesting)

      by voisine ( 153062 )
      Not necessarily. The creationist view would be that
      God created men, apes and whatever this creature
      was. It's just extinct now. The fact that it has
      similarities to other species in and of itself is
      not proof of common ancestry. Evolution is one
      theory that explains it, creation is another.

      • Re:asdf QWZX (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Evolution is one theory that explains it, creation is another.

        The difference is that we have overwhelming evidence for evolution, as well as actual observation. For creation, we have zero evidence and no possibility of ever having evidence.

        • > > Evolution is one theory that explains it, creation is another.

          > The difference is that we have overwhelming evidence for evolution, as well as actual observation. For creation, we have zero evidence and no possibility of ever having evidence.

          Also, creation isn't much good as a theory because it's a wildcard explanation. Two species are similar? God re-used a good design! Two species are different? God used a different design! The predator is well equiped to ravish the prey? God didn't want it to go hungry! The prey is well equiped to escape from or defend against the predator? God didn't want it to be eaten!

          It's a wildcard explanation, and because it can "explain" anything, it explains nothing.

          The only thing the "theory" of creation is incompatible with is the theory of evolution. And that's only because creationists don't want it to be.

          • Exactaly... Religions were made up a long time a go in order to have something to tell annoying kids who asked questions their parents couldn't answer. Later, such stories were used to control and exploit people (cults).
          • >Also, creation isn't much good as a theory because it's a wildcard explanation.

            Oh right, and "The Theory of Evolution" isn't? When was the last time you read of someone using "The Theory of Evolution" to make a valid, provable prediction on the evolution of a species?

            • > > Also, creation isn't much good as a theory because it's a wildcard explanation.

              > Oh right, and "The Theory of Evolution" isn't? When was the last time you read of someone using "The Theory of Evolution" to make a valid, provable prediction on the evolution of a species?

              As a matter of fact, I read that kind of stuff quite regularly. The ToE predicts intermediate forms; we find intermediate forms. A new one was announced today, if you happened to read the story at the top of this thread.

              The ToE also makes interesting predictions about how DNA comparisons will turn out, what age of rock certain fossils will appear in, etc. And the DNA and rocks serve it up, as expected, regularly.

              Learn a bit about the facts before you try your hand at evaluating the theory.

            • When was the last time you read of someone using "The Theory of Evolution" to make a valid, provable prediction on the evolution of a species?

              This is pretty ironic.

              Given that Darwin himself predicted the past existance of a common ancestor between humans and the great apes, the very article which you are posting about answers your question.
              • >Given that Darwin himself predicted the past existance of a common ancestor between
                >humans and the great apes, the very article which you are posting about answers your question.

                So how do you know this skull is an intermediate
                form?

                I have a theory my house evolved from funny-
                looking ancient crustaceans. If I dig up a fossil
                of a funny-looking ancient crustacean in my
                backyard, could I class that as proof of my house
                evolving from funny-looking ancient crustaceans?

                Oh, and by the way, Darwin predicted the past-
                existence of a common ancestor between "savages"
                and the great apes.

                • If you had a series of fossils with crustaceans and house characteristics, you might have a arguement instead of a strawman.

                  However, rather than stupid arguements, Darwin's theory predicted that a series of ancient proto-human apes lived. Given that evidence this was only found in 1925, it's a pretty good prediction. Creationism has absolutely nothing like this.

                  Oh, and by the way, nice try at slandering Darwin. Yes, he was a man of his age, but just because he doesn't meet todays PC standards (btw, you could have found real example of what he said rather than mischaracterising his words) it doesn't effect his theory one bit. Even if Darwin beat up priests and sold poisoned milk to schoolkids, it still wouldn't make creationism right.
                  • >However, rather than stupid arguements, Darwin's theory predicted
                    >that a series of ancient proto-human apes lived. Given that evidence this
                    >was only found in 1925, it's a pretty good prediction.

                    Alright, back to my original question which you
                    seem to have ignored: how do you know this skull
                    is an intermediate form?

                    >Creationism has absolutely nothing like this.

                    The reason why Creationism has "absolutely nothing
                    like this" is because it's not a scientific theory.
                    To assume Creationism is a scientific theory is
                    absolutely wrong (and any Creationists out there
                    arguing from a scientific standpoint are wasting
                    their time).

                    >Oh, and by the way, nice try at slandering Darwin. Yes, he was a
                    >man of his age, but just because he doesn't meet todays PC standards
                    >(btw, you could have found real example of what he said rather than
                    >mischaracterising his words)

                    Since you insist, I'll refrain from quoting the
                    entire first part of "Descent of Man" and give you
                    the following quote from the last chapter of the
                    first part:

                    "Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto
                    only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition
                    to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of
                    natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding."
                    [Descent of Man, Ch 5]

                    >Even if Darwin beat up priests and sold poisoned milk to
                    >schoolkids, it still wouldn't make creationism right.

                    How can something "make creationism right?" You
                    either accept and believe Creationism to be correct,
                    or you don't and opt for some half-baked theory
                    due to a racist and a bad scientist that appeals
                    to, and promotes, your Liberalist and hedonistic
                    mind frame.

                    • back to my original question which you
                      seem to have ignored: how do you know this skull is an intermediate form?

                      Because it has traits common to both species. For example the braincase is comparate in size to a chimps, yet, the face has features only found in humans (and proto-humans).

                      The reason why Creationism has "absolutely nothing like this" is because it's not a scientific theory. To assume Creationism is a scientific theory is absolutely wrong (and any Creationists out there arguing from a scientific standpoint are wasting their time).

                      While I have no arguement with this statement, many creationists would very strongly disagree with you.

                      As for the quote, nice one, but your orginal post (which included a one word quote from Darwin, hence very easy to mischaractarise, then supply the full one when challenged) implied that Darwin seperated civilised people from the great apes. Something that he didn't.

                      How can something "make creationism right?"

                      Evidence.

                      You either accept and believe Creationism to be correct,

                      And surrender your ability to think and reason. At least scientific creationists have a look outside their window.

                      or you don't and opt for some half-baked theory due to a racist and a bad scientist that appeals to,

                      Wow, harsh judgement. Many would disagree with you (especially with reguards to the bad scientist remark). However, your slandering of those who you disagree with is duely noted.

                      and promotes, your Liberalist and hedonistic mind frame.

                      If this wasn't so funny, I might be offended. Given that you have never met me, and read (at most) only a tiny fraction of my thoughts, this is one of the most stupid things you could writen.
                    • >Because it has traits common to both species.

                      So? How do you know it's not a separate species
                      that happened to die out? There is no evidence to
                      suggest members of this species went on to evolve
                      into great apes, humans, or anything else. Using
                      topological similarities as proof is absurd.

                      >As for the quote, nice one, but your orginal post (which included a one
                      >word quote from Darwin..

                      No it didn't. It included a word frequently used
                      by Darwin in his exposition "Descent of Man" for
                      the purpose of stating Darwin believed the beings
                      he called "savages" evolved from great apes. He
                      clearly treats the evolution of "civilised nations"
                      as being different. The quote I subsequently
                      supplied clearly illustrates this, and if one were to
                      continue reading "Descent of Man" from this point,
                      it would become even more clear.

                      >>How can something "make creationism right?"
                      >
                      >Evidence.

                      Like what? Topological similarities between fossils?

                      >>You either accept and believe Creationism to be correct,
                      >
                      >And surrender your ability to think and reason.

                      This is a retarded claim. Am I not here thinking
                      and reasoning against a flaky scientific theory?

                      >However, your slandering of those who you disagree with is duely noted.

                      For it to be slander, it must first be untrue.
                      Nothing I have said about Darwin is untrue.

                      >and promotes, your Liberalist and hedonistic mind frame.
                      >
                      >If this wasn't so funny, I might be offended. Given that you have never
                      >met me, and read (at most) only a tiny fraction of my thoughts, this is
                      >one of the most stupid things you could writen.

                      Given my entire sentence was written in the second
                      person plural, taking it as a personal statement
                      about you is one of the most stupid things you
                      could have done.

          • Haha, this is so funny :)

            You say that creationism is a wild card! Bwahahaha!

            How old is the earth? 4.5 billion years. Dinosaurs were around 70million years ago. Criticism: woah, that doesn't sound like long enough given the improbability of evolution. Reply: well, we don't know for sure, maybe it was longer.

            You watch, the earth will get older and older as evolutionary wild-card explanations are used more and more often.

            Common evolution wild cards:
            1. We're talking about millions of years
            2. Chance did it (creationist equivalent: God did it). Even if the chance is 1 in 10^2000000 for humans to evolve (according to Carl Sagan), chance still must have done it.
            • Common Creationist Misconceptions.

              1. Yes, it does take time. Fortunally the historical records rate of evolution change is fully consistent with lab studies on the rate of evolutionary change.

              2. If you take a pack of cards, shuffle them, then lay them out one by one, what is the probability that you get the particular sequence that you just drew? Pretty damm low. Likewise for any particular evolutionary sequence.

              • 1. Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations. Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.
                Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive. That means that natural selection plays no role in the survival of that beneficial genetic mutation. Also take note, that along with the single beneficial recessive mutation a host of harmful recessive mutations are becoming deeply ingrained in a creature's gene pool. This is known as genetic load - the combined disadvantage far outweighs any advantage.
                Consider this problem also - for a recessive beneficial mutation to express itself, both parents must possess the same gene, and both parents must pass the gene on (1 in 4 chance). Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations - of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.
                This is why close relatives marrying is both essential to evolution, and the very thing that proves it wrong. No-one would argue that brother/sister or cousin marriages produces superior creatures by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, this process reduces diversity and kills evolution.
                Face facts: genetic diversity decreases under normal circumstances. The history of genetic traits points all creatures to a common ancestor merely 6000 years ago.

                2. You want to talk about chances? Try this:
                "To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probabilitya that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10450, realize that the visible universe is about 1028 inches in diameter.

                From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a "simple" form of life, such as bacteria. Next, we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The oddsb are much less than one chance in 1099,999,999,873. Your odds of drawing at random one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms is about one chance in 10112--much better. "
                http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeS cie nces39.html

                • > Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations. Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.

                  The merest moment's thought would have told you that the more "fit" a species is, the less likely any given mutation is going to be beneficial. However, as the climate changes, or meteors strike, or a new predator moves into your stomping grounds, you suddenly find that your species is less fit than before. The result is that for purely external reasons, the rate of "good" mutations is suddenly higher.

                  This is a simple optimization problem, and like all optimization problems, there is a law of diminishing returns.

                  It's also the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium, q.v..

                  > Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive.

                  Even if that is true (and I've certainly never heard it before), "most" isn't sufficient to disrupt evolution. At worst it would slow things down, but no one says evolution is in any hurry.

                  In fact this may help evolution along since it increases diversity in the population by sheilding some "bad" mutations from being selected out. Because what's "bad" today might suddenly be "good" after the big meteor strikes next week.

                  > ...Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations - of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.

                  Who's making up all these rules requiring "a number of other harmful recessive mutations"?

                  > Face facts: genetic diversity decreases under normal circumstances.

                  No, it's extraordinary circumstances that decrease genetic diversity, such as the genetic bottleneck that reduced the population of cheetahs to something like 17 in the not too distant past, almost eliminating their genetic diversity in the process.

                  > The history of genetic traits points all creatures to a common ancestor merely 6000 years ago.

                  That statement smells exactly like you would expect it to smell, considering where it came from.

                  <Snip silly probability argument based on a parody of the theory of evolution and made-up numbers; see last week's thread [slashdot.org] if you are interested in such guff. The surest sign that creationism is a pseudoscience is that its proponents keep offering arguments long after they have been refuted.>

                • Wow, nice long answer. Because I'm lazy, I'll only look at the second part of it (the first part is also shot with flaws but it's late here...).

                  Your part 2 is essentially a giant strawman arguement. That is, you (or rather Walt Brown, who's answer it is) have misconstructed an arguement, and attacked this false arguement rather than the real one.

                  In reality, simple probability calculations fall apart when a concept like "selection" is thrown into the mix. A very key part of evolutionary theory is "natural selection". Even creationists should have heard of it.

                  For a excellent example of the effect of selection on probabilities you should investigate Richard Dawkins example of Methinks like a weasel (or words to those effect, it's been a long time for time).
                • Tell me of examples of rates of mutation where a beneficial mutation occurs compared to harmful/harmless mutations.

                  This is irrelevent. Natural selection kills off harmful mutations, leaves the neutral alone, and boasts the effects of positive mutations. This leads to a net increase in postives, despite that before natural selection applies it's filter there is a net decrease.

                  Cite an example where such beneficial mutations are shown to take place on enough of a regular basis to be useful.

                  Sickle cell anemia in malaria effected areas. Now can you define a beneficial mutation?

                  Also, take note of this: most mutations are recessive.

                  Is this true? It doesn't really matter, but it seems more logical to me for about half of mutations to be recessive.

                  That means that natural selection plays no role in the survival of that beneficial genetic mutation.

                  Wrong. It acts on homozygous individuals, also hetrozygous individuals sometimes show traits (just to a lesser degree than there homozygous cousins).

                  Also take note, that along with the single beneficial recessive mutation a host of harmful recessive mutations are becoming deeply ingrained in a creature's gene pool. This is known as genetic load - the combined disadvantage far outweighs any advantage.

                  Why does the incorporation of one mutation lead to the addition of multiple harmful mutations? This only occurs if you pretend selection doesn't occur.

                  Consider this problem also - for a recessive beneficial mutation to express itself, both parents must possess the same gene, and both parents must pass the gene on (1 in 4 chance).

                  Wrong. Your example is true in the case of two hetrozygous parents having a homozygous recessive offspring. There is also a 1/2 chance that the mutation will be passed on, but masked.

                  However, you have selected (and whoever said creationists ignore selection events? :) ) the best situation for your case, and ignored the possiblity that one or both parents are homozygous recessive. If the mutation is beneficial, this is likely to the case (that natural selection thing again). And if this happens the chance of the trait being expressed rises to 1 in 2 for the case of one homozygous parent, to 1 in 1 for the case of two homozygous parents. This changes your odds very significantly.

                  Consider also that for two parents to possess the same beneficial mutation, they must have obtained it from a common ancestor

                  Your use of the word "must" is misleading, and should be replaced with "most likely".

                  - meaning that they likely inherited a number of other harmful recessive mutations -

                  Only if you have a strawman arguement is true.

                  of which there is a much greater chance of the child inheriting them and expressing them. So if a child has both recessive genes of a harmful mutation, he likely has inherited a number of other, harmful recessive genes.

                  And then his or her chance of passing on genes (and hence harmful mutations) on is reduced, and more fitter individuals take his place. Natural selection in action.

                  This is why close relatives marrying is both essential to evolution, and the very thing that proves it wrong.

                  Wrong, you have shown that peusdoevolution is wrong. Luckly, nobody beleives in peusdoevolution, so better luck next time.

      • Re:asdf (Score:3, Informative)

        by Royster ( 16042 )
        Read 15 Answers to Creationist Nonesense [sciam.com] in this month's Scientific American.

        • Answers to SciAm's article (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          And in the interest of fairness, will moderators be willing to equally mod up the rebuttal [answersingenesis.org] to SciAm's article?

          Note: posted anonymously so no "karma whore" charge can be leveled on asking for mod-up.
          • And in the interest of fairness, will moderators be willing to equally mod up the rebuttal to SciAm's article?

            Geez. Why not post it as a logged in account holder, so that it will be archived without needing to be marked up?

            Here, I'll do so here [answersingenesis.org] so it doesn't silently disappear from the discussion thread.

            Please, nobody needs to mark this up or down. I'm not even using my +1 to post it. But it belongs in the archived version of this discussion.
      • Science is based on data and evidence. Repeatable, tangible evidence that anyone with the same tools and knowledge can recreate every time. Science is not based upon belief. Rather, it is based upon consistency. What I see when I hold all the facts is the same as anyone else. If I am skeptical of science, I can investigate and verify the findings myself. Science REQUIRES questions and verification. Religion is based upon belief. Blind, unwavering, unquestioning belief. I can't touch, feel, taste or smell any of 's tenets. If I am skeptical of what I am told, there is no means other than rhetoric to satisfy my issues. Religion DEFIES questions and verification. Logic will never win this debate though, otherwise it would have been over a long time ago.
      • Evolution is one theory that explains it, creation is another.

        Except that "creation" isn't a theory. To be a theory, it has to make testable predictions, and it has to be falsifiable. Creationism fails on both counts.

  • Ladies and Gentelman (Score:3, Funny)

    by HappyPhunBall ( 587625 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2002 @04:51PM (#3860339) Homepage
    of the jury, I am just a simple caveman. Your "scientists" found me frozen in an ice flow and unthawed me.
    Your ways frighten and confuse me. When I read /. I wonder if little men are inside my screen writing messages to me.
    But there is one thing I do know, that picture of the skull is my dead brother!

    • > of the jury, I am just a simple caveman. Your "scientists" found me frozen in an ice flow and unthawed me. ... But there is one thing I do know, that picture of the skull is my dead brother!

      Is that you, Cain? Most other people never get a chance to see what their brother's skull looks like.

  • The newly discovered skull finally puts to rest any idea that there might be a single missing link between humans and chimpanzees, they say.

    Wasn't that claim made about the Piltdown Man, which was in the textbooks for a number of years, before it was found to be a fake? Good science means extensive and thorough testing. Once said testing has taken place, then that claim be made.

    • well.. that would pretty much put the concept of NEWS to rest, wouldn't it?
      If you can't post it when it's new, odds are, a lot fewer people will ever hear about it, hence a lot fewer to prove it wrong or right - a parallel to closed source could be drawn....
      however - only the naive read news without the required grain of salt, news are news, if you want fact, get an encyclopedia...
  • In the 1940s, the prevailing opinion among scientists was that humans were 4,000 years old, max (maybe they were only counting Europeans).

    Hell, in 1862 Lord Kelvin (absolute zero guy) deducedthe world was only 400 million years old, so evolution couldn't possibly happen [his math was valid, but was based on assumptions that were later discovered to be wrong].

    Anyhow, the dawn of humans/humanoids has consistently been pushed back and assumptions proven wrong as more artifacts are discovered.

    • > Hell, in 1862 Lord Kelvin (absolute zero guy) deducedthe world was only 400 million years old, so evolution couldn't possibly happen [his math was valid, but was based on assumptions that were later discovered to be wrong].

      I don't think it's fair to call it "assumptions". The fact is, radioactive decay hadn't been discovered yet, so he can hardly be faulted for leaving its effects out of his equations. (Lurkers: he calculated the earth's age based on how long it would take to radiate off the heat of gravitational collapse, down to how hot the earth was at that time. Unaware that the core is still generating heat, he vastly undercalculated how long the earth could have been around and still be so hot.)

      > Anyhow, the dawn of humans/humanoids has consistently been pushed back and assumptions proven wrong as more artifacts are discovered.

      Yes, creationists like to crow whenever new evidence requires scientists to revise their models. What they neglect is that the consistent trend of those required revisions over the last several hundred years has been to relocate the beginnings of {humanity, the earth, the universe} to vastly earlier epochs, i.e. further from what you can squeeze out of the biblical story. I.e., the more evidence we get, the more egregiously wrong creationism is shown to be.

  • There should be far more Creationist trolls attached to this article. I've only seen two or three. Are all the Slashdot trolls lazy>

  • I think that you should set this story a little higher. While the ethno-palentologist(s) who found the skull (and jaw fragments) won't say that its the missing link (quite correctly, we don't know that such a thing exits yet), it does fit right into the middle of a five million year gap in our knowledge (between 10 and 5 million years ago we had nada).

    --

  • We know they've do so in the past but...

    "On this new story, "ANCIENT HUMAN SKULL FOUND" the original headline was "NEW FOSSIL DISCOVERY CHALLENGES EVOLUTION THEORY.""

    http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=5071513

    Anyone save a copy of the original? I suppose it doesn't matter anymore.. most of this crowd knows how sleazy big media is, but just FYI.
  • Nature have made access to the original research paper [nature.com] behind this story free. There's also a nice collection of older stuff about hominid evolution...goes back to 1925 and the discovery of the first "ape-man" of Africa [nature.com].
  • The article stated:
    "...but already it is clear that it has an apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features."

    Sort of like that hoax however many years ago where they just slapped an ape jaw on a human skull?
    In the article it even said "The jaw was found later"
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    ThereIsNoSporkNeo... The Paranoid

  • The article states:
    Estimates of when this common ancestor might have existed have been based on DNA comparisons between humans and chimps, and put at between five and seven million years ago.

    Can anyone out there explain to a laymen how this particular ageing process works? I just don't get it. Since they don't explain the method here, I can't really say anything, but it sounds pretty shaky to me. I imagine that trying to get an age based on any DNA comparison would have a honkin' big margin of error.
  • Says Dr Brigitte Senut in a BBC article [bbc.co.uk] today. She and others on her team think the skull is that of a female gorilla and the facial features only indicate its gender, not that it is hominid.

    Perhaps they really did find the missing link - or perhaps not. Either way, it's an interesting find given its age.

  • Note that this skull was found in sand, not in volcanic rock. It clearly fossilized in a different area (sand is not high enough in calcium carbonate to cause petrification) and got relocated into the sand. The dating was done by comparison with other fossils found in the area, but if they were all relocated there somehow, why assume they're from the same layer of rock somewhere else? There were no skeletal bones which would indicate whether this skull belonged to a bipedal species, nor were there any gender identifying bones found. So that means we have a skull with the size of a chimp skull, the brain capacity of a chimp skull, less striking canines than modern chimps(male) but about the same as modern chimps(female). Hmmm, wonder if this is just a female chimp. Apply Occam's razor, folks! Look at this without the hype, and it's pretty clear it's not what many claim it to be.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close