I'm sorry, but I just can't trust an anatomical scientist named "Fred Spoor".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scientists Discover Second Genus of Early Human

By Adrian Blomfield, Yahoo. March 21, 2001

NAIROBI, Kenya (Reuters) - Scientists said Wednesday evolutionary thinking had been turned on its head with the discovery in Kenya of a second genus of early human that walked the earth 3.6 million years ago.

Until now scientists believed that present-day homo sapiens had a single common ancestor -- Australopithecus afarensis, identified in 1974 with the discovery of the skeleton ``Lucy'' in Ethiopia.

But a team of paleontologists led by mother and daughter Meave and Louise Leakey, say the hominid they found, dubbed Kenyanthropus platyops, is totally different from Australopithecus.

``It revolutionizes the way we look at human ancestry,'' Louise Leakey told Reuters. ``We have found a very flat-faced 3.6 million-year-old hominid which represents something quite different to what we know to have existed at that time.''

The team found fossils of more than 30 individuals in 1998 and 1999. The most crucial was a skull found by research assistant Justus Erus near the Lomekwi River in northern Kenya.

After two years of exhaustive testing on the skull, Leakey said they had accumulated enough evidence to declare not only the discovery of a new species but a new genus as well.

Kenyanthropus had a much flatter face than Lucy as well as particularly small molar teeth, leading scientists to believe it fed on a mixture of fruit, berries, grubs and small mammals and birds.

Enigma

But little else is known of what one of our oldest relatives may have looked like and Leakey says the discovery has raised more questions than it has answered.

``It doesn't simplify the picture at all,'' she said. ``But it does confirm that the evolutionary tree was far more bushy earlier on than we had appreciated.''

Fred Spoor, from University College London's (UCL) department of anatomy, said the discovery meant it was now impossible to know with any certainty who our earliest ancestor was.

``If we don't have to bet on it then it is likely it is neither Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus,'' he said by telephone from London.

Spoor, who has analyzes the fossils, said there was a possibility another new species was found at the site.

``There could be another species, but we just don't know,'' he said. ``The skull is very complete but the other pieces are fragmented.''

The find will throw Louise Leakey, celebrating her 29th birthday Thursday and studying for a doctorate at UCL, into the paleontological

limelight.

She is certainly following in distinguished footsteps. Her grandparents Louis and Mary made fossil discoveries in Tanzania's Olduvai gorge that caused a drastic revision of theories about the origin of man.

Her father Richard, now head of Kenya's civil service, also made important finds with his wife Meave, who pushed Louise into a career she was initially reluctant to follow.

``I've tried to keep clear of it being the third generation,'' she said. ``But having worked very closely with my mother and she gets terribly excited about the whole thing... it's infectious.''

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001

Answers

Question, do you believe that humans evolved from apes?

Do you believe there were humans that many years ago.

Food for thought, could it be that the bones of which have been found could possibly be the remains of those during the big flood, ie. noah's ark?

Surely there is an explanation, I'm just trying to find it. I did see the pics in the morning paper. Very human looking to me.

-- justa (just@nother.person), March 21, 2001.

Do you have a link for this one, Lars? I'd like to discuss it with my evolution prof from last semester.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

justa:

[Question, do you believe that humans evolved from apes?]

No, but nobody else does either. Instead, humans, apes, and perhaps numerous other kinds of (mostly extinct) primates evolved from some common ancestor. Think of these as like branches on a tree.

[Do you believe there were humans that many years ago.]

This is a question of definition. It seems modern humans evolved more recently than 3.6 million years ago, although this find (if it stands) might change our outlook. While we are insatiably curious about our ancestry, the world hasn't seen fit to produce nearly as many fossils as we'd prefer. We learn more all the time, but slowly. [Food for thought, could it be that the bones of which have been found could possibly be the remains of those during the big flood, ie. noah's ark?]

No. In fact, there is no evidence of a big flood at all (unless you count ice age glaciation as a "flood").

[Surely there is an explanation, I'm just trying to find it. I did see the pics in the morning paper. Very human looking to me.]

An explanation for what? This is really a matter of filling in the details, which can be done indefinitely. We have the outlines of the story, we have a theory which explains them and which has made predictions that either haven't happened yet, or have happened and ratified the theory. Finding another early primate fits our theory quite nicely -- the primate bush at one time could easily have had many branches as yet undiscovered.

I encourage you to use the net and do some research. The amount of material on this and similar topics would take you years to read.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.

OTOH, I just read something that said: "At times in hominid history, several different human species coexisted. Human phylogeny is more like a multibranched bush than a ladder, our species being the tip of the only twig that stil lives." So, less than being one of OUR ancestors, this could represent another species that simply didn't survive to evolve.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

"Scientists discover a different type of early hominid."

{Lars - time's short for me to digest the article. Could you cut to the chase & tell me if it's someone we'd recognize from this forum?}

-- flora (***@__._), March 21, 2001.

Flint you are such an asshole. Do you think you could ever respond without trying to belittle another poster? I didnt think so.

Shove it up your intellectual ass and while you are at it, kiss mine.

-- (fuck@you.flint), March 21, 2001.

Australopithecus afarensis

In one sense the article is incorrect. Australopithecus yourdanecus was discovered in the Taos, NM area not that long ago. I am amazed that this find wasn't mentioned.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

fuck:

I neither intended more wrote anything that belittled anyone. You are reading what isn't there. Try reading again, pretending that *you* wrote the reponse instead. Without out your hate-colored glasses on, you'll see nothing but straight information.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.

Again to you I say fuck you. You are nothing but an intellectual jerk with no fucking common sense. It is okay most who act like you normally do not have common sense. You prove it, daily.

-- (fuck@you.flint), March 21, 2001.

Anita:

"At times in hominid history, several different human species coexisted. Human phylogeny is more like a multibranched bush than a ladder, our species being the tip of the only twig that stil lives." So, less than being one of OUR ancestors, this could represent another species that simply didn't survive to evolve.

That is pretty much the way things stand at the moment. The paucity of real remains leaves us with sequence analysis as the best determinant of heritage. It appears, at the moment, that those carrying genes from pre- Homo sapiens are clustered in north Texas *<)))

I don't really understand the criticism of Flint's post.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

Hmm, an example of Christian love? I bet it is.

-- Soap For Your Mouth (fuckity.fuck@fuck.com), March 21, 2001.

Some of you may be descended from Apes, but my ancestors were Space Aliens.

-- Starman (waiting@for.them.to.return), March 21, 2001.

Z:

I thought the first critique might have a substantive basis, despite a certain lack of sophistication in the presentation. However, it now appears to be a simple case of richly deserved envy.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2001.

Ah dear old flint. A true legend in his own mind. With no common sense.

-- (fuck@you.flint), March 21, 2001.

Here are two links--

YAHOO

MSNBC

and a question: what is the scientific definition of "species"? There was a show several nites ago (on Discovery channel? I can't remember) about Neanderthal man and how he co-existed with modern man for 30-40K years.

The show kept referring to Neanderthal as a different "species" of human. That sounds wrong to me. Aren't humans (homo sapiens) a apecies unto themselves. Wouldn't Neanderthal either be a different "breed" of the human species or a different species entirely?

My understanding was that one thing that defined a species was that they could interbreed; ie, horses and cows cannot interbreed, ergo two species. The show was vague about whether there was evidence of Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens breeding. But it was clear that they were competing.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

MSNBC

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Lars:

My understanding was that one thing that defined a species was that they could interbreed; ie, horses and cows cannot interbreed, ergo two species.

That is the old definition. Outside of microorganisms it is probably valid. There are physical limitations that you will recognize if you try to breed with an earthworm.

On the otherhand, if you are talking about limited DNA transfer, all definitions are off.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

Evolutionarily speaking, Lars, your definition is incorrect. Horses and donkeys could mate, but the mule produced is sterile. The line of those two ends there. [or was it the horses and mules who mated to produce the donkey?] Anyway, if a species cannot procreate, it doesn't matter if they can engage together in a mating ritual.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

So are homo sapiens and Neanderthal the same "species"? The TV show called them "different species of human". Sounds like incorrect usage to me. How can there be more than one species of one species?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Lars: I don't think we'll resolve this question in our lifetime. Every year we live, new fossils will be discovered, and we won't really KNOW whether these fossils were our forefathers or simply "potential" forefathers. Specie [in and of itself] doesn't involve the distinction you'd like. There are ongoing debates regarding whether some forms of dinosaur are reptilian in nature or avian in nature. I see no reason why we should assume the humanoid would involve less dissection.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 22, 2001.

Anita--

It's just that my engineering analretentive mind wants definition.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 22, 2001.

I always wondered what happened to Hawk. At least they finally found him.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), March 22, 2001.

I am the first of my kind.

-- Futureshock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2001.

-- (Keny@nthropus.platyops), March 22, 2001.