Twin fossil find adds twist to human evolution
Homo erectus had an unexpected neighbour, and a surprising lifestyle too.
Two fossils unearthed in Kenya have added a new dimension to our view of life at the birth of our Homo genus. They show that two ancestral human species seem to have lived cheek-by-jowl in the same area, much as gorillas and chimpanzees do today.
Read the story here.
Comments
I understand that if H. habilis and H. erectus coexisted that they would have different habits so as not to compete for the same resources. I don't understand why it follows that it is unlikely that H. erectus is a decendent of H.habilis.
It seems to be a likely scenario that a group of H.habilis were geographically seperated from the rest of their species. They would have evolved to have different habits and form to fit in with the new environment. After this speciation event these H. erectus migrated back and were able to coexist with H.habilis
Posted by: Robert Harrison | August 8, 2007 08:40 PM
Now, I'm no evolutionary scholar, but I've been under the impression that small mutations create a slightly different creature, and over time, a completely new creature has no only evolved, but could live with its ancestor.
The way this article has been written, it sounds like the previous thinking was Pokemon Evolution...the group as a whole suddenly become the next stage. Am I oversimplifying things?
Posted by: Jeff | August 8, 2007 08:50 PM
I don't understand why is it so hard to believe that more than one "family" lived together at the same time. I would think that the evolution tree looks like an upside-down tree, one common distant ancester, and more and more "cousins" mutating from each branch. Homo abilis and homo erectus could be cousins and also "father" and "son", abilis having appeared first, and then some of the children kept the abilis features, while other "freaks" turned into erectus, and the children co-existed together for a while, until the better fit survived and the others faded away or maybe evolved into something else. Nature is like a melting pot, and it takes a lot of ingredients to make one good dish. Thank you for the very interesting article.
Posted by: F R | August 8, 2007 09:50 PM
Why is this this suprising, many species have not evolved in millions of years, like ants, insects and 'so called million year' old fish that we keep finding.
Posted by: parwez | August 8, 2007 10:45 PM
I agree with all the above comments.I see no reason why Erectus couldn't evovle from & then coexist with Habilis
Posted by: Paul Flynn | August 9, 2007 08:52 AM
Conjecture, speculation, hypothesising, theorising. Where is the science? Much as I love the subject it's time for the Dawkins treatment.
Posted by: John | August 9, 2007 12:38 PM
I also believe that even coming from the same ancestor, one part of the branch might have evolved diferently due to some external factors and might have lived together with the other branch together in the same surroundings. Maybe there needs to be more information for non-scientists. Unfortunate is the time difference for finding more clues
Posted by: Altug | August 9, 2007 04:17 PM
"They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females. "
And we are trusting these people for our information regarding human evolution?
Hmmm......
Posted by: wookiefingers | August 9, 2007 04:22 PM
If this particular find can radically affect the former theory it makes me wonder if the former theory was grounded on good scientific evidence or just speculation
Posted by: Philip | August 9, 2007 04:58 PM
Why is it so difficult to believe that maybe it's something completely different a completely different animal like a horse and a zebra, looks similar, but not even in the same family of animals at all, I don't have the science fact, but if theres anything I seen, is constant hypothesising, theorising and speculation by supposed science "fact". Sometimes scientist need to broaden their minds and accept the possibilities more than scientific "tradition" encompassed with the fear of being disproved.
Posted by: Jay | August 9, 2007 05:30 PM
Another of 'Lucy', Nebraska man and the Pitsdown man type of evolution hoax. I smell something fishy. Why after seven years the papers of the "fossilized bones" found in 2000 now disclosed to the public?
Posted by: John Dofart | August 9, 2007 05:41 PM
im beth.
is there a history of human like species of life, which was at one time all female self replicating, i wish i knew the word; morphidite? if so, possibly, a single male could cause a new species of sexually corisponding mated type.
i would call it X. if X, was changed, and became XY, pollinating X, to make XX, then pairing up with XX to make XYXX=XYorXX
while X, went on to become
new branches through being pollinated by latter males of the XYXX species?
Posted by: beth | August 9, 2007 05:57 PM
How exactly are the researchers getting their dates of these specimens if they are found on the surface? As I understand it, the only way to date fossils this old is to have it below an igneous layer of rock that can be dated through K-Ar radiometric analysis. If the fossils are on the surface, they have eroded out of context and could very well be from vastly different time periods.
Posted by: Andy Tremayne | August 9, 2007 06:11 PM
Let me add my bit to the confusion by asking why the two couldn't have interbred to create the real ancestor.
Posted by: J.W.E. Roberts | August 9, 2007 06:44 PM
im beth,
i thought maybe the sons of XYXX,called XY, might take wives, or fertilize the daughters of X
Posted by: beth | August 9, 2007 07:07 PM
im beth,
if at first a particular species had both male and female characteristics, i call that X. if one became an XY wouldnt it be for the purpose of gathering genetics from the other? which would most likely predominate. maybe the X species died out in some world catastrophe.
Posted by: beth | August 9, 2007 07:51 PM
According to the Theory of Human Evolution; Homo habilis is the first species of the Homo genus to appear, which lived from approximately 2.5 million to at least 1.4 million years ago. Homo habilis is believed to be the ancestor of a more sophisticated Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus, from which Homo sapiens (present day man) was evolved. This finding by Leakey (Nature, 2007; 448:688-691) that Homo habilis and erectus lived side-by-side in the same time would debase the theory that erectus had evolved form habilis, since the process of evolution takes several thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to occur. This is further evidence that the Theory of Human Evolution has many unanswered questions. May be it’s because we were CREATED in our current form and did not evolved from primates. May I dear say “Allah created us” form 2 individuals, hence we are all related – i.e. we are all bothers and sisters to each other and Science will NEVER disprove this.
Posted by: raymond | August 9, 2007 08:08 PM
im beth,
if thier were only humans that were both male and female, the only reason one would become male is to crossbredd and gather genetic DNA. the predecessors XYXX would become predominant. maybe the X species died out from some world catistrophic event.
Posted by: beth | August 9, 2007 08:38 PM
1. habilis existed on its own
2. an isolated subset of habilis formed a founder population OR was subject to a new set of selection pressures
3. the isolated subset of habilis evolved into erectus
4. the erectus population grew out, and eventually occupied the same geographical location as habilis.
A simple explanation, consistent with the body of available data.
Posted by: Michael Fraser | August 9, 2007 09:09 PM
Has it ever occurred to these folks that the paradigm with which they interpret evidence such as this may be suspect? This (and plenty of other evidence like it) does not just prune the evolutionary "tree of life," it turns it into an inverted bush. This is exactly the kind of evidence that Darwin himself claimed would destroy his theory.
http://truehorizon.org/?p=82
Posted by: Bob | August 10, 2007 03:49 AM
What if we all sleep one day only to wake up and see that forced theoretizing pulled us all down? Do we have to ignore something we frequently forget about these days this much persistently while yet another possibility of a proof of our ignorance is always standing at the door?
Posted by: Hakan | August 11, 2007 02:43 PM
im beth,
im thinking if their was one man, having male and female charactoristics, contained in a form called X. content and in need of nothing. living in a garden, with creatures that look to him as a model toward which to evolve. eventually having a form like X. but having evolved from the earth; the former having existed long, long before. I cant rule out the possibility of the first man having come from a higher form which did not evolve; at some point became male by the loss of the female charactoristic, one of the four ribs that make up X, and X becomes XY, corisponding to the missing rib called XX. thus two races lived together until the great flood. 4300 years ago. only XYXX,XY,XY,XY,and three wives of three branches of three families. i call them blue yellow and red. these survived the end of all life, 4300 years ago on ararat the mountain. is this why men have breasts and females have aform of male genitalia. these made up all races, all one species. consider please.
Posted by: bethel marie kruse | August 12, 2007 05:52 PM
After reading the groundbreaking book on science and moral philosophy, Adults Only: Trendsetting Spirituality for the 21st century (www.thebookforadults.com),I must say that I was so educated by this book that this research was no surpruise to me. I suggest everyone get a copy.
Posted by: matt | August 13, 2007 08:32 PM
Reading this I wonder if Darwin´s evolutionary theory is one of the complex falsities and sophistries of our age. I understand that one contrary fact is enough to falsify a theory.
Why not start from a new and unprejudiced paradigm?
Horst Bogatz
Posted by: Horst Bogatz | August 13, 2007 10:22 PM
I agree with most comments that, in theory, both could have lived at the same time periods yet the erectus could be the descendent of a fraction of the habilis.
However, that is merely a hypothesis. An often quoted evidence for this has been the nearly distinct time periods for the two. If current research shows that the periods were not distinct - that these two existed alongside then the evidence is no longer acceptable.
The other problem is that the time period available to habilis to evolve into the erectus has now shown to be much lesser (than previously thought), making it more improbable. It is as if the habilis started evolving as soon as they came into picture and did it quite fast too. This goes against the general nature of the theory of evolution which implies gradual and slow process.
Hence we are back to an unproved hypothesis or at best what the writer has suggested: the two had a common ancestor.
Posted by: Navaid Alam | August 14, 2007 04:40 PM
im beth.
what does habilis mean?
does it mean abel?
Posted by: beth | August 16, 2007 05:08 AM
Evolution, by defintion, effects populations, not individuals. Therefore if the two species were living in the same place at the same time, they could not have evolved from one another.
Posted by: Johnnie Collins | August 16, 2007 07:37 PM
Most commenters here seem to be overreacting to the news story, apparently unaware of the continual adjustment and editing our view of human evolution undergoes as more fossils are found, examined, dated, reexamined, debated, classified, reclassified, redated, etc.
I'm not a paleontologist. I'm just an American citizen with a reading habit. I was already familiar with indications that erectus had considerable sexual dimorphism solely on the basis of the books on human evolution that jumped into my backpack on 15-minute lunch-hour zooms through the new books section on the library over the course of the last ten years. Popular science on this subject comes out at least once a year, often collaborations between a prominent research and a profession science writer.
If you're even casually up on the field, there's nothing upsetting or unusual in the story; certainly nothing to challenge Darwin! It's science as usual. When scientists argue and contradict each other, evidence is puzzling, and interpretations are challenged, science is actively, fruitfully doing its job of eternally adjusting to new facts and asking new questions or rephrasing old ones.
This is a good thing.
Posted by: Peni Griffin | August 16, 2007 08:33 PM
Robert Harrison's comment above describes a good model of allopatric speciation. But sympatric speciation is also possible, and I suspect that the increasing intelligence and versatility of human ancestors would have preferred this mechanism. After all, they were well equipped to cross geographic obstacles and to adapt to new environments culturally, making it hard for geographic barriers to be fully effective. Alternatively, genetically distinct populations can form within a species that are best adapted to use particular environments and resources within a geographic region. But we also see assortative mating develop among subcultural cliques in our own societies, and for much more slowly evolving cultures than ours perhaps these might have had time to create genetically distinct populations? It will be very interesting to learn more about how intelligence has affected the evolutionary biology of our genus.
Posted by: Mike Serfas | August 18, 2007 09:43 PM
im beth,
in a world of humans that had both male/female charactoristics, an intelligent person would benifit from a change to male. also, two heads are better than one. male people and female people were predominant, as a team they survived. and the others were probably wiped out in a huge unbelievable catistophic circumstance.
Posted by: bethel marie kruse | August 25, 2007 04:40 AM
im beth,
did noah take naamah to wife?
Posted by: bethel marie kruse | September 29, 2007 04:30 PM