"Challenge" to Evolution...?

[j. d. worthington]

Fossils challenge old evoluton theory - Yahoo! News

Title: "Fossils challenge old evoluton theory", from AP, by Seth Borenstein, datelined Wed., Aug. 8, 2007.

Now, perhaps I'm misremembering, but... hasn't it been long thought that different species of humans periodically lived in the same region at times? Even though the reporter notes that one of the sources says "'This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution'" (though I think that should be "of evolution at all") he keeps harping on what one might call the "comic book" version of it... the straight-line idea of a steady progression rather than a meandering path with odd branchings, which I'd understood was long the accepted model. Am I wrong on that? Or is this just an attempt to brew a controversy that no longer exists?....

[Delvo]

Ya, the general model isn't really an issue here, so the article misspeaks on that. It also screws up by referring to two contemporary species as both being our ancestors, when only one of them can be if they were contemporary. However, there is a real point hidden under the bad writing.

The "bushiness" of our family tree only applies if you include dead ends that went extinct. If you only pay attention to the ones that did lead to us, then it is indeed linear. One modern species's ancestry can't possibly split, because if you show a split, then you're including something that wasn't the modern thing's ancestor; a list of its ancestors and its ancestors alone must be sequential: first its most recent one, then the last one before that, then the last one before that...

And what this discovery shows is that one species that we had thought was in our ancestral line was actually just another dead end, and thus doesn't belong in the line.

So if the old theory was that our lineage was like this:
A-B-C-D-E-F

Then this discovery means it was actually more like this:
A-B-C-E-F

Where did "D" go? It still existed, of course, but it's not shown anymore because it wasn't one or our ancestors; it was another dead end, a cousin of our ancestors.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, that was my understanding of the idea; though there are still questions as to whether some of the earlier hominids might have interbred. On that one, though, I expect things to go back and forth for quite a while before a definitive (or as near as can be) answer is reached.....

[littlemissattitude]

Oh, good grief. How is any of this new?

It has been commonly known for a good number of years that the idea that only one "human" species (including pre-humans) existed at a time is a huge oversimplification of the reality of human evolution.

As far as I'm concerned, the "bush" analogy is completely appropriate because even the pre-human forms that did not end up being our direct ancestors are still cousins and part of the whole picture.

I really wish they would get someone who has at least taken an anthropology class or two and keeps up on the literature to write these stories.

[Spartan27]

There is always going to be new facts to counter the theory of evolution. That was exactly what i was saying about 3-4 months ago on a different thread. As we begin to find more "stuff", the "stuff" we find will go counter to the general theory....It's only a matter of time.

[mosaix]

The page isn't found now but those of us that read it and other related articles at the time, can assure you, Spartan that in no way did that article challenge or counter the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you.

Welcome back by the way.

[Nik]

Big problem, IMHO, is that there can be precious few fossils from that period. The hominid population was not 'herd' numerous, the circumstances for successful fossilisation and discovery are so rare etc etc.

IIRC, usual analogy is trying to make sense of a jigsaw puzzle based on a few damaged pieces rescued from the compost bin...

One factor, though, will be 'Founder Effect', where any isolated group may concentrate distinctive traits. Another is 'genetic drift', which means separated groups tend to diverge by happenstance...

I don't know enough about bone morphology and DNA findings to even guess how many varieties of cousins co-existed. We may never know for certain. The distinctions between types of cousins may blur, be impossible to determine. Like the range of star & planet types, there's a veritable zoo, and some categories are necessarily arbitrary. Whatever: If they're not our ancestors' cousins, they're their second-cousins, once or twice removed...

[Spartan27]

Originally Posted by mosaix

The page isn't found now but those of us that read it and other related articles at the time, can assure you, Spartan that in no way did that article challenge or counter the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you.

Welcome back by the way.

Thanks Mosaix, nice to be back cause this is a good place to discuss thing. I know, I know, but I just can't agree with this theory.

There are way to many intangibles, way to many.

Like I said good to be back.