Fossil skull fuels debate over human origin

CNN ^ | March 21, 2002 Posted: 10:28 AM EST (1528 GMT)

[RoughDobermann]

Most anthropologists believe that Homo erectus -- the species that is said to bear the first recognizable human characteristics -- emerged nearly 2 million years ago in Africa and spread across several continents to serve as an ancestor to modern man, or Homo sapiens.

[jurisdog]

A million-year-old skull found in Ethiopia confirms the theory

That entire phrase is so un-scientific it's pathetic. Never does one single piece of evidence confirm an entire theory.

[CaptRon]

Susan Anton, a Rutgers University anthropologist.

I'd wondered what happened to her. Guess the Vegas gig didn't pan out.

[RoughDobermann]

Other anthropologists called the Ethiopian skull an important find but said it does not resolve the debate. "This whole species question is all about what you accept as a sharp enough distinction to tell you that it is a separate species," said Susan Anton, a Rutgers University anthropologist. "This particular skull is not going to solve that problem."

This seems more reasonable...

[Publius6961]

A million-year-old skull found in Ethiopia confirms the theory ...
They said the find helps prove that Homo erectus originated in Africa and persisted there for...

Only the insane and the ignorant are ever certain of anything.
It is tedious to keep reading quotes from these "scientists" without a life who claim "proof" of the unproveable every few months.

First of all the basic question can never and will never be proven.
Events of 1 or 2 million years ago simply have not left enough evidence evenly distributed across the world and accessible uniformly. That's just the nature of the problem.
The pathological "P.C." obsession with "proving" Africa is the origin of everything (a setup for "reparations"? LOL) is getting very tired. That horse is mush already...

If we originated from a single source or several, or from Antarctica or Cucamonga... is irrelevant.
Let's just continue to gather knowledge for academics' sake and get rid of the "proves" obsession.
This "proves" nothing. It is an interesting brick in the wall of knowledge; nothing more and nothing less.

[Fithal the Wise]

confirms the theory ... scientists say ... Most anthropologists believe ... But some scientists maintain ... Then, according to this theory ... appears to be ... helps prove that ... we think is a very misleading portrayal ... it indicates ... probably were a later branch ... but may have overlapped with ... does not resolve ... This whole species question .... not going to solve that problem.

T'AINT SCIENCE

[RoughDobermann]

Agreed. However, it did get them published in Nature though, right? :-)

[VadeRetro]

Another non-existant transitional.

[longshadow]

Hmmmm, lot's of fodder here for the "they can't agree on its significance, so that proves Darwin was wrong" crowd.

[The Shootist]

This was an article written for CNN not Science. 'nuff said.

[shekkian]

How is it that a single human ancestor 2 million years ago gradually populate the Earth and yet not evolve into a dozen different species?

[PatrickHenry]

The original owner of this skull seems to have gotten off the Ark at an intermediate station, and didn't stay for the whole 40 days.

[RoughDobermann]

How is it that a single human ancestor 2 million years ago gradually populate the Earth and yet not evolve into a dozen different species?

How do you know that a dozen different species will not evolve. Who knows what will happen over the next five million years?

[RightWhale]

Clearly the school system is failing, and not just in America. Neither side, however many sides there may be in the evolution debate, is presenting their proofs in a coherent fashion. Spinoza's geometrical method might be useful, but of course his proofs also fail depending on who grades his paper.

---

Schools Don't Provide Basic Understanding Of Evolution

A new study shows that schools and many education programs are failing to provide students with a basic understanding of evolution. It is famously difficult to explain evolutionary principles without resorting to anthropomorphic or figurative language: Evolution "selects" the fittest individuals; species "adapt" to change. Both of these phrases are commonplace when explaining the very complex processes involved in evolution. However, this use of language implies that there is an agency or cognition involved in evolution. This misunderstanding is being picked up on by students in the classroom and could form part of a wider desire to fit evolutionary theory into broad social narratives. Rob Moore and colleagues (University of Cape Town, South Africa), writing in the Spring issue of the Journal of Biological Education, call for more care in the use of language in science education. "Given the centrality of evolutionary theory to a clear foundation in biology, the widely documented difficulty that many students have in coming to terms with these concepts is of enduring concern. ... Establishing a clear conceptual grasp of evolutionary theory will need to include an enhanced sensitivity to language usage."

[Junior]

Well, the theory predicted that a critter with certain characteristics lived in Ethiopia a million years ago, and researchers discovered the skull of a critter with those characteristics living in Ethiopia a million years ago -- if that isn't confirmation, I need a new dictionary.

[f.Christian]

In Vermont incarcerations for teenage males has doubled---columbine type murderers too---very sociopathic behavior!

No wonder--one kid killed his mother and said he wasn't responsible to anybody for anything--only his parents and he belonged back in free society.

Looks like trial-error...mutation---survival of the fittest!

[shekkian]

First of all, I'm a Creationist, not an Darwinist. My point is it doesn't make sense that a human ancestor dispersed around the world would not evolve into separate species over time. What animal do you think hasn't done that?

[RoughDobermann]

My point is that perhaps Homo Sapiens have not yet had "enough time" to evolve into separate species. As I said, perhaps in five million years or so, there will be separate species that branched off from Homo Sapiens. Who knows?

[RightWhale]

Then there is the deathrow inmate who claims he has a right to mail his sperm to his wife so his genetic structure may be passed on. And everyone has prescription glasses, and everyone has filled teeth. How can natural selection work its magic when nearsighted people such as myself are allowed to drive cars and eat hard food? This is devolution, and it spells disaster for the species if we ever lose our technological base.

[shekkian]

Sorry, I don't buy it.