You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me
Posted on 10/03/2006 7:23:31 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Pitt's Jeffrey Schwartz, who with colleague Ian Tattersall compiled the entire human fossil record, says specimen is not from Ethiopia and classification is premature
According to University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor Jeffrey Schwartz, author of the four-volume The Human Fossil Record (Wiley-Liss, 2002-05), "the discovery of any largely complete skeleton of an ancient human relative would be unique. The fact that it is a child makes it even more exciting because of what its bones and teeth might reveal that an adult's cannot."
However, Schwartz said, there are questions about the species this specimen represents. He explained that the problem is that "Lucy" and this child specimen from Dikika have been placed in Australopithecus afarensis, which is not from Ethiopia but from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania thousands of kilometers to the south. But while other specimens from Laetoli are similar to this specimen, defined as A. afarensis, a recent study of virtually all the fossils from Lucy's region of Hadar by Schwartz and Ian Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, has revealed that none is similar in detail to the fossils from Laetoli.
"This means, of course, that no Hadar specimen is A. afarensis," said Schwartz, a fellow of the prestigious World Academy of Arts and Science.
Just as Donald Johanson, discoverer of the 3.2 million-year old Lucy, initially suggested, Schwartz and Tattersall found there is more than one kind of hominid represented in the Hadar material.
"Since the chewing surfaces of the Dikika child's teeth have not yet been exposed, one cannot compare it with any of the Hadar specimens or with the type specimen of A. afarensis from Laetoli," Schwarz explained. "Until this can be done, one cannot tell whether the Dikika child really is the first specimen of Ethiopian A. afarensis or, if not, whether it compares favorably with one of the hominids from Hadar or it represents a different taxon altogether."
Some other links regarding "Lucy's Baby":
Media Goes Ga-Ga Over Baby Australopithecine Fossil
Lucy (and her “child”)—look like extinct apes after all
A Fresh Look at the Australopithecines and Homo habilis
My favorite quote was this one:
We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens [H. erectus and H. ergaster] was significantly and dramatically different from … australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.(J. Hawks et. al, "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution," Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(1):2-22 (2000).)
Sounds like 3-4 million years ago there were multiple early human species all competing for survival. It is tragic that after all that only two remain: conservatives and liberals.
You sure know how to ruin a guy's breakfast.
I know. I should be ashamed of myself.
That's how it works. We improve our knowledge, hopefully, as we go along, unlike those whose gullibility comes prepackaged and eternal.
--EvoDude
No, it's more like "Let's see the evidence". This is how science works. Scientists disagree with each other all the time; they just use evidence to resolve such disagreements.
We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.