New Skeleton Finds May Revamp History of Human Evolution 131
brindafella links to a series of articles published yesterday in the journal Science "on Australopithecus sediba, explaining that skeletons found in the Malapa cave in the World Heritage listed 'Cradle of Civilisation' push back to 1.97 million years the oldest known tool-using, ape-like pre-humans." As is typical, the full Science articles are paywalled, but the abstracts are interesting. (If you're a university student — or, in some cases, an alumni club member — you may have full journal access and not even realize it.) NPR has a nice article on the find as well.
Take it with a grain of salt... (Score:2, Informative)
Evolution of full of evolutionary useful adaptations reinventing themselves. Doesn't mean it's direct ancestry.
It has happened before and it will happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
It is one of several candidates to be a critical transition find.
Right now it,s it looks like it might be, but more study needed. It wouldn't be for first one that turned out to be from a species that ended up being an evolutionary dead end.
It's pretty interesting find, and the NPR article is a nice review of what it means and whats going on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
He has no idea. He's spouting crap. If he's seriously asserting that these transitional features were later reinvented by a later hominid, he's pretty damned ignorant of hominid evolution. He may be referring, I think, to, say, whales re-evolving morphological features present in ancient aquatic chordate ancestors, but the very fact that the distance between a whale and its fish ancestor is hundreds of millions of years and the distance between this hominid and modern humans is a few million tells you ju
Re: (Score:2)
There are indeed numerous examples of independent parallel evolution of very similar things in both close and very distant species, so I don't understand the heat directed at GP.
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking here about bipedalism, hands much closer to humans than the other apes, in other words a suite of morphological features. It's absurd to think that this some early dead end and the same large-scale features evolved again in another hominid line a few million years later.
I'm not saying these two specimens or even their particular lineage were ancestral to us, but clearly those adaptations are precisely what one would look for in pushing back in time.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you have reference to numerous examples of species with a 20yr generation and an equivalent population to early hominids which exhibit convergent evolution?
Re: (Score:1)
So say we all!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
A loop where time becomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take it down a salt mine... (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, time loops YOU!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take it with a grain of salt... (Score:5, Informative)
The Science Friday [sciencefriday.com] story (audio on the left side of the page) is definitely worth listening to. Quick version: sediba has some features, in the hands and elsewhere, that are associated with the genus Homo and our direct ancestors. But it also has very ape-like qualities that make it less likely to be a direct ancestor. It's also notable in that it was discovered as two very complete skeletons rather than fragments, as many transitional species are.
Cool story all around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a hominid, that much is clear. It may not be an ancestor in the way your grandfather is an ancestor, but it is most certain that there's no wheel invention here, these are features peculiar to our lineage.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's enough to say that it's a cousin, as every single other creature on this planet is.
But unlike chimps, this is a kissing cousin, we could have interbred with them and may have. Not necessarily our direct ancestor, but lived in the same world as our direct ancestors, and didn't win the evolutionary lottery.
Re: (Score:1)
That quote is 125,000 yrs old so we are the happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually the whole "out-of-Africa" theory is standing on a weak foundation. [in-other-news.com]
Basically anthropologists made a lot of assumptions when formulating that theory and the whole thing falls apart with new DNA-tests.
Re: (Score:3)
The death of the Out-of-Africa theory
New finds and research results prove the theory that said that human evolution happened exclusively in Africa.
So is the title wrong or the first sentence? It doesn't really improve from there unless you are a grammar nazi in search of a target rich environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I missing something? Isn't this cave in Africa...?
Re: (Score:1)
Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm, let's see. There's more genetic variation IN Africa than out of it. Almost ALL major human ancestor fossils have been found IN Africa. Almost ALL major human cultural innovations have been found EARLIEST in Africa. The Out of Africa theory implied that the last African exodus would have moved through populations which were more primitive than us (e.g. Neanderthals) and we found 4% Neanderthal DNA in all non-Africans.
Sorry, WHICH weak foundation are you referring to?
A "purist" Out of Africa theory
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general, it's highly unlikely we'll find any fossils of great great great great etc grandpa Homo Sapiens. There is just too much time and too little likelihood of a given specimen being fossilized. But, we will find a lot of great great great etc cousin Homo Sapiens. That's what this fossil sounds like, and just because it's not quite in the direct line doesn't mean that it can't teach us a lot about ourselves and how we evolved.
Again? (Score:1)
Don't they do this every couple of years?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Again? (Score:4, Informative)
You're seriously trying to support the assertion "they" do this "every couple of years" because of "Nebraska man"? "Nebraska man" hit the papers in 1922. Once a century != "every couple of years".
Basic math fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Basic history fail too. What is it about evolution, and human evolution in particular, that brings out the retarded fuckwits?
Re: (Score:3)
For most subject topics in peer review they do (Score:2)
Even if you are an AC I'm still commenting.
I would say articles are submitted on main line tracts of every topic every week. Just to get it published means it's worth paying attention to. On the other hand it also means you'll see another revolutionary evolution/refinement every couple years. As far as the subject matter I think it's very apropos.
P.S. And yes I transposed a word in my previous post.
wait a second (Score:2)
I thought civilization had to do with agriculture and an end to being total nomads, so one could build a city.
Tool use is great and all, but not civilation I would think.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought civilization had to do with agriculture and an end to being total nomads, so one could build a city.
Civilization is defined by the use of monetary instruments. The more advanced the civilization, the closer they are to using Bitcoins.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If they didn't have agriculture there would be a fair point I think.
Though you called them cities, and I said "allowing cities" so I think you're hypothetical counter is at best only half counter.
My point was tools aren't civiliztion, and I would argue that complex communication isn't either (but there is a case for that), it's cities that make civilization.
Thus nomadic barbarians being called uncivilized.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Proof of Intelligent Design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please keep the forum family-friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I find it baffling that modern-day creationists, given the vast amount of information available to them, can still be more wrong than someone living thousands of years ago.
This biblical literalism appears to be a more modern fad. Some of the great thinkers of church history would be appalled at the way in which creationists discredit their religion by clinging to literal interpretations of scripture in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Augustine is a good example of a notable Christian two-
Re: (Score:1)
I should point out that there is a silent sizable chunk of religious folk that embrace science and evolution as the how. Starting with the big bang (maybe) a little (or maybe a lot) of influence to eventually create humans (but not necessarily just home sapien). What we have in scripture as to how it all happened is (at least in my opinion) the way who ever wrote it understood what was being said, or written. If God created the universe, it would be foolish to limit how he did it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because creationist Christianity (usually evangelical) is a cult. It's not recognised as such by most because it's become so main stream; but any religious sect that preaches absolutes (e.g. the bible is inerrant) and is blind to any other way of thinking is a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
--Darwin, concisely summarizing his Natural Selection theory, and the personal and social challenges accepting our pre-existing forms is likely to be, circa 1800
--Jesus, saying the same thing, a couple thousand years earlier
Seems pretty consistent over that time to me.
By the way, you m
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't even used the term "ID" in your demonstration of what "ID" supposedly is.
Typical.
Let me put it to you succinctly. "Creationism", as you use it, and imply it -must- be used, is an erroneously-constructed concept that includes two totally disparate concepts--the notion that the world was created thousands of years ago, and the notion there is a God. There is no necessary relationship between those two premises. "Creationism", as it is used typically, is simply presented so that this fallacious
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, continue to claim this. It will likewise continue to be directly false. If -nothing else-, Darwin's Black Box contributed significantly to my knowledge of the several-hundred-item causal chains of immune response on a sp
Re: (Score:2)
And, I assume you aren't saying this is relevant to whether or not what he says is -true-, because that'd be textbook Genetic Fallacy.
he goes a step further and claims not just that science hasn't explained all the mechanisms of evolution
The cases haven't even been exhaustively enumerated--how would one do anything else than accurately note science hasn't explained them all? If you say it will before
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you're confident they have "demolished" it, and you wouldn't be taking such a claim on "mere faith", why not simply present your refutation, and be informative to Slashdot--if you think you can, and this isn't mere poseur bluff?
I get quite a lot of that, actually. Show me otherwise.
My motives? I'm a theist, and I don't like a priori suppression of hypotheses that are uncontroversially accepted as within the domain of "science", based upon criteria that virtually every other scientific principle woul
Re: (Score:2)
So, handwaving and links.
But, glad to hear you take your definitive determinations of scientific questions from lawyers--as long as they wear one of those cool black robes and sit on an elevated platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The former argument I attribute to a lack of imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely the fault of the Journal Science (Score:5, Insightful)
As is typical, the full Science articles are paywalled
Indeed, the articles in question are behind the Science paywall. But it is like that because we've liked it that way for some time. This is changing as time goes on; now all NIH-funded (read: US government-funded) research must be published in a way that allows for free access. Science, Nature, and other high-impact journals have ways to comply with that when needed.
However, the journals do need to be able to make money to pay their staff and meet their business expenses. Maybe the model doesn't fit modern times, but it is what it is.
And we are talking about the journal Science, one of the most widely subscribed journals anywhere. You might not even need to go to your closest university to read it; there is a good chance your local public library has a subscription to it as well. You may even be able to get to it online if you're creative.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is like that because we've liked it that way for some time. This is changing as time goes on;
Not changing very quickly, though. At the end of the Science Friday segment about this Ira Flatow asked the scientists about the high resolution scans they made of the skulls and made an offhand comment about 3D printers and releasing the data to the public. The scientist made a big deal about how they had made the data available for months now, if you were a scientist and showed up at the Smithsonian.
So close, and yet so far away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do this.
Go to a place where they have CAT scan, a hospital or a private company.
Get a scan
Call up a company with a Dimension printer or other 3D printer. There are 3D printers that also do powdered metallurgy sintering with lasers. (and nowadays there is more 3D printing technology than you can shake a stick at. Can you say "powdered metal ceramic"? I knew you could).
Send them the data.
Have them print it.
Pay for all this.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:1)
You know that would almost be worth it. It would be pretty damn cool to have a model of your own skull.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even better to play Shakespeare while holding your own skull in your hand.
Alas, poor me! I knew myself, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; I hath borne me on my back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination I am!
Who knew it would only take a 3d printer to hack a Shakespeare play?
Re: (Score:2)
But it is like that because we've liked it that way for some time. This is changing as time goes on;
Not changing very quickly, though
For work sponsored by the US government, it is changing very quickly. I've seen numerous papers in both Nature and Science that were released at no cost because they were the product of federally sponsored work, and even far more papers are going straight into journals that release all their published papers to the public.
Of course, other countries will set the regulations they see fit for the work they pay for. And non-government-funded research has its own regulations behind it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
However, the journals do need to be able to make money to pay their staff and meet their business expenses. Maybe the model doesn't fit modern times, but it is what it is.
Some journals don't even pay their staff or even need to meet many of their business expenses. A comment [guardian.co.uk] by "MrBendy" here [guardian.co.uk] gives this interesting perspective (emphasis mine):
I was a journal editor for several years and, like George Monbiot, was left astonished by the shamelessness with which this racket operates.
In particular, I did all, and I mean ALL, the donkeywork personally, from licking envelopes to commissioning reviews to copy-editing all contributions. Yet not a cent did I receive from the publisher, a well-known British academic publisher. In effect the considerable operating costs of every part of the journal's work up to setting, printing and distribution were carried by me personally, using my spare time, and to a limited degree by my employer (a university) in so far as I was able to use a little normal work-time on occasion and pass the journal's (substantial) postal costs through my departmental office. ... ...
The final indignity for me was, on inquiring of the trustees about succession planning, being told that it was essentially up to me to persuade someone else to become editor. In short, it was my problem and mine alone and I was expected to continue working for free to generate large profits for the publisher and a small rake-off for the trust until or unless I could find a mug to replace me.
For the publisher, of course, this extraordinary combination of unpaid and unresourced amateur production, which reduces costs to a bare minimum, and the opportunity then to maximise revenues through the lucrative exercise of legal and financial power, is immensely attractive as a business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Some journals don't even pay their staff or even need to meet many of their business expenses. A comment by "MrBendy" here gives this interesting perspective (emphasis mine):
That isn't a huge surprise that someone was not getting paid to review articles; I know academics who do that at essentially their own cost as well.
There are indeed many problems with the system as it is. Unfortunately it is what it is because we allowed it to get this way. Which is a sad explanation for it, but it isn't going to change dramatically overnight. Personally I would have preferred to see this paper in PNAS or PLoS One (both of which are free and high impact) but the prestige is still wi
Re: (Score:1)
Not just not getting paid to review articles; he was the editor of the journal, and did it for free while the publisher charged a fortune for access to the content.
I'm astonished that people have put up with this for so long. It's time for people to vote with their wallets - if university libraries (journals' biggest customers) refused to buy journal subscriptions then the journals would face a huge shortfall in income and be forced to change their business models.
What's great about science (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to politics and religion, new evidence = character assassinate those who presented the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point.
The point is the scientists look at the evidence and come up with new theories.
The religious and political groups look at the exact same evidence, in the exact same scenario, and lie. Its not an attack against the religious: its that the religious react to the exact same evidence with attacks on the scientists character and spouting grand conspiracy theories, and arguing their point with grand handwaving and nothing else.
Religion isn't incompatible with science; but where re
Re: (Score:3)
This happens in science too. New "evidence" = new criticism and testing those new findings. That's one of the great things about science: it's possible to test everything like this.
Politics, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. You don't know how well something will work for certain until you try it and even then there are so many other variables that you don't even know if anything you changed did any good or bad, and then everybody praises/criticizes you for it either way.
And Religion is WAY differen
Re: (Score:2)
+ Politics is about being seen to have the answers, and "mastering" all opposition, so of course politicians nay-say each other continuous. Political epistemology has nothing to do with whether you try something, but whether it will make you powerful.
+ Religion can have very sophisticated epistemologies, but always works from a set of givens. For example, we
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, no, completely false. Did you even think to propose that a test to differentiate this finding from a one-off birth defect was necessary, as a hypothesis? I'm betting no, because this was presented as "science"--the general appearance of being so is generally immediately sufficient for most as long as the thing proposed being something they already want to agree with.
The reality is, the majority of proposition
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't read all that much history of science, have you? Yes, scientists are just as prone to character assassination of people who disagree with them as anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, forgot I wasn't logged in - above post is from me. replies welcome. not trying to argue religion - leave the religion out - I just want answers to my questions...and I cant promise there are not more questions to follow. I just find it hard to follow...surely I'm not alone.
I'm already an expert (Score:1)
I read it in National Geographic at the dentist's office.
She compared my teeth to the ones in the photos, not very favorabley.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Rick Perry (Score:5, Funny)
What's his take on this? Seriously..
I'm guessing he hasn't received his copy of Science yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Officially, he'll have none. It's a losing proposition. He's made it clear to the people who want to hear it that he doesn't need facts from any experts. Once that's clear enough, he doesn't need to talk about it anymore. The fundies know he's one of them, and bringing it up just makes him look nutso to more moderate voters.
Re: (Score:1)
The evolutionists have changed their minds again..
This isn't a flaw... this is a feature.
FINALLY (Score:1)
Missing link? (Score:2)
It' behind a paywall, sadly. We'll never get to it now...
Re: (Score:3)
They found the missing link - it said "404 - File Not Found"
Re: (Score:2)
# Tooraleye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye ay
Tooraleye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye ooralye USA... /#