Could Ethiopian skull be missing link?

Scientists believe find could link homo erectus and modern man

Saturday, March 25, 2006; Posted: 3:31 p.m. EST (20:31 GMT)

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) -- Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday that they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man.

The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 250,000 and 500,000 years old -- "comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human," said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.

Archaeologists found the early human cranium five weeks ago at Gawis in Ethiopia's northeastern Afar region, Sileshi said.

Sileshi, an Ethiopian paleoanthropologist based at Indiana University, said most fossil hominids are found in pieces but the near-complete skull -- a rare find -- provided a wealth of information.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing.link.ap/index.html

Ha-Ha!

which must make this just more "junk science". Everyone knows this planet is only 7,000 years old...
:sarcasm:

:evilgrin:

NOTICE THE INTELLIGENT EXPRESSION ON ITS FACE

I hate these moron journalists who simply don't understand the material they are writing about and I hate their editors more who feel like they have to make a headline like that which is scientifically nonsense.

It is a sad commentary on science education here.

They stopped thinking in those terms in the fifties. The line of succession is pretty much fully understood.

What we're discovering these days are divergent branches that eventually died out or lived in parallel with our ancestors.

Each discovered species must be categorized in
Linnean fashion, leaving room for the junk
"scientists" to postulate a "missing link"
between each species. Punctuated equilibrium is
waaay out of their league.

One of the problems with paleoanthropology is that we generally only get to see snapshots of a tiny percentage of the species that existed millions of years ago, and that the hominid family tree apparently had lots of branches that went absolutely nowhere. When you find a skull like this, is is a human ancestor, or is it a hominid relative that died out? New finds have forced us to re-evaluate or even completely reshuffle the evolutionary deck before, and recent discoveries indicate that we may have to again.

At one time, paleoanthropologists believed that we were all descended from the Australopithecines. Today, the general belief is that we might be descended from A. Afarensis, but that A. Africanus and the robust hominids probably represent a now-extinct branch of the family tree. Of course, now we have the Leakeys pushing their Kenyanthropus find as the ancestor of modern humans...and since Kenyanthropus existed at the same time as A. Afarensis, it may mean that we're not related to the Australopithecines at all!

Then we have to explain Sahelanthropus and figure out where IT fits into our family tree. Just discovered in the past several years, it's actually more hominid than its supposed descendants, and far more human than anything else seen in the fossil record until at least 3 million years later. Does Sahelanthropus represent a branch that developed early and never went anywhere, did our ancestors actually de-evolve after Sahelanthopus, or is our entire understanding of our "family tree" just plain wrong? The answer is that we have NO IDEA.

So no, it's not settled. :)

Hey - it's popular journalism capturing the public's interest. Why so touchy about what they call it if it gets the public to read about important new fossil finds, evolution, and the antiquity of human ancestry? As intended, I'm sure they just meant a new fossil form that helps track changes between Archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.

No need to be so condescending about terminology, the coverage (and the find) are good things.

It is inaccurate and has become a wedge for the moron of the "Intelligent Design" (Creationism) racket.

Implying one exists creates a fool's errand to seek one ....

for their straw man theories about evolution.

There are a number of Freepers who actually beleive in evolution and are extremely well-informed about the subject. They give their creationist/ID theory opponents fits.

that if you believe there's a missing link, you simply have not looked far
enough into the past.

"missing link" is an acceptable popular term. Another term for fossils with derived traits would be "transitional fossils" or "intermediary fossils." The creatures themselves are referred to as transitional or intermediary forms. There's a shade of difference between transitional and intermediary forms, but both could be called missing links in popular terminology.

Whatever. Objecting to a journalist referring to a transitional fossil as a missing link comes across as snobby.

Edited for clarity

It aint that hard. And as I responded above, the term "Missing Link" is often sued by the ID crowd to disparage evolution. They routinely use the so-called "missing link" as "evidence" that the theory of evolution is flawed or incomplete. By using the terms you mention that particular type of attack would be rendedred useless. But instead, the moron journalists who report on this stuff don't tkae the damned 5 minutes it would take to ask the scientists they interview if the term wuold be an accurate description and if they should use it.

I agree with you. Since creationists, whether deliberately or out of plain old ignorance, misconstrue the meaning of "missing link" and use it to their advantage, why encourage them?

Point well taken, Caution. I take back my "snobby" comment.

I once, on a bet, read a book criticising evolution. The argument that they made was that scientists had not yet found "the missing link" between apes and man. But if you think about scientific classification a "link" is impossible. Whatever fossil the scientists find they must classify it as either man or ape. So creationists set up an impossible goal (a fossil that cannot be classified because it exists in two categories at once) and then use the failure to meet that goal as an excuse to discount all evolutionary theory. It's a con game that the MSM is perpetuating.

Accuracy may be "snobby" but that's how the Republicans have been winning the culture war- by making vague inaccurate arguments and then calling people "snobs" when they are corrected.

He thinks he's the president or something.

The missing link is in the White House. And it's still missing a few links.

had happened in Africa that we didn't know aobut...like * had taken a trip there.

because of the nature of competition and because of the nature of the fossil records. Traits that convey an advantage will sweep a poplulation within a few generations, so quickly that it will appear instantaneous vis a vis the geologic record.

He gave other good reasons, but I wont bore you. But I stress: the "missing link" is a straw man.

"Traits that convey an advantage will sweep a poplulation within a few generations, so quickly that it will appear instantaneous vis a vis the geologic record."

Yes, granted, a "trait" that confers an advantage will, generally, show up fairly quickly in subsequent generations.

However, what we're talking about here is the divergence of species.

The original proto-hominid was a separate and distinct species from its simian ancestors. The process of divergence was slow, and occurred over (probably) at least a half a million years.

And, for at least 350,000 of those years, the two species probably looked, and acted, remarkably similar.

Remember, the primary guide for a species is breeding. All dogs can mate with other dogs (and wolves) because they're all basically the same species (canis).

Humans can't mate with simians, because we are different species now.

Given that the point of species divergence is essentially what the "missing link" is, you have to find that point where it was impossible for a particular human species to be unable to breed with another human species.

And that is proven genetically, which is difficult, if not impossible with fossils.

Because, fossils aren't bones. They're rocks.

So, absent any DNA, we can't prove squat, really, about any "missing link."

While its no longer debated as to whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of Modern Humans(Mitochondrial DNA disproves that), there is still a point of contention as to whether or not Neanderthal and Modern Humans have or could of interbred. The point here is how much actual DNA divergence is present, and in what form did any offspring take form as. Were they like, as you said, dog breeds, where the offspring themselves could mate, or were their offspring like Mules, sterile but otherwise healthy? Or it could be as simple as total incompatibility, like trying to breed a Dog with a Cat, impossible without high tech genetic manipulation.

Actually, this brings up another point, if it can be proved, though Nuclear DNA, that Modern Humans and Neanderthals were compatible, would it then be possible to ressurect them? Right now some scientists and geneticists think its possible to bring back the Wooly Mammoth, even though a large part of his habitat is gone nowadays. This isn't even proper cloning, they have perfectly preserved Mammoth sperm that was successfully extracted, and they believe that, through artificial insemination and cross breeding, that a Modern Pachyderm could carry a half breed Mammoth/Elephant to term, and then use DNA from several Mammoths to, over a couple of generations, come out with a full breed Mammoth. I'm not saying either one of these would be ethical, in fact I doubt it, but just saying its technically possible, at least for the Mammoth.

"I'm not saying either one of these would be ethical, in fact I doubt it, but just saying its technically possible, at least for the Mammoth."

That sounds extremely intriquing.

Think of what we could learn.

Plus, think of how much we could piss off the fundies.

Doubleplusgood on that one, mate.

This skull was merely placed on Earth by God to test our faith. :D

:evilgrin:

maybe this'll work...??

<>

is occupying the white house.

First things first, this "missing link" doesn't even predate some of the earliest Hominid fossils, namely from the genus Australopithecus(think Lucy) which date back about 3.5 million years ago, give or take a hundred thousand or two. These were fully bi-pedal animals with brains about the same size as a modern chimp's brain. At least one of the species drawn from this genus most likely evolved and branching into the Homo line, of which Modern Humans decended from.

http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2006/03/27/354367.html



Delson said the fossil found in Ethiopia "might represent a population broadly ancestral to modern humans or it might prove to be one of several side branches which died out without living descendants."

___

On the Net:

Gona Palaeoanthropological Research Project Stone Age Institute: http://www.stoneageinstitute.org