From: Kevin Bluck (kevin.bluck@mail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 15 2002 - 09:59:20 MDT
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull.html
>
>Does this discovery actually make that much of a difference? I really do not
>know, thats why I ask.
>
>peace on the path,
>vanessa novaeris
I believe this discovery is pretty close to revolutionary. It overturns
several carts all at once.
1: Age. The apparent 7-millionish age pushes back yet again the date of the
split from the "common ancestor". Previously, it had been believed to be in
the 2-3 million range. The geneticists came along and claimed from their
studies the split between human and chimp branches was much earlier, 7-8
million years. Most poo-pooed them initially, but as time goes on and new
fossils are found their claim is looking less and less outrageous. This
could be one of the final nails in that coffin. Geneticists might finally
get some respect around the anthro department after this. ("Real"
anthropologists get dirty in the field. It's all very macho. They never
trusted DNA; you can't dig it up, after all.)
2. Geography. This ancient proto-human was found quite far from the "usual"
places you would expect to find such species. It therefore seems more
likely that hominids were a fairly widespread class of animal, not
restricted to as narrow a range as we thought. It definitely opens the
possibility that the reason we've only found hominid remains in the Rift
region is because that's the only place we've looked hard. Who knows where
else they might pop up if we start looking?
3. Variety. As touched on above, the prior scenario was that hominids were
a very small family of species, evolving more or less in a straight line
from common ancestor to modern human. Since so few species were known, it
was assumed that any hominid found must have been a direct ancestor, and so
great contortions were undertaken to "force fit" any new find into our
direct line. Lately, however, we've been finding lots of different,
contemporaneous species. This one is particularly important both because it
is a complete skull and because that skull displays very human-like facial
features. Poor "Lucy", with her chimp-like features, is suddenly looking to
be in danger of being dethroned from her status as "great-grandma" of
humanity. The point is, they can't *all* be direct ancestors. Some of them
are just distant cousins. Which are which is a topic that promises to
generate piles of doctoral theses in the next few years.
Following on the heels of the generally agreed demise of the "savannah
hypothesis" (the previously dominant idea that humans evolved by being
forced out of the forest onto the open savannah, now generally
discredited), the field of anthropology is in a state of considerable flux
right now. Nobody seems sure of anything anymore. Stay tuned!
--- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:28 MST