Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Leakey vs Johanson
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 8 of 17 (48405)
08-02-2003 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by The General
07-30-2003 3:25 AM


quote:
Perhaps I can shed some light on the issue
With misinformation?
quote:
First, it is important to remember that there are two Leakey's. The first was Louis Leakey who believed that the Australopithecus was an ansestor to modern humans. He believed this because tools were found beside the Ausralopithecus as he assumed that "Australo" was the toolmaker. That Austalo possessed mainly ape-like features did not become an issue for Louis Leakey. Approximately thirteen years later, Louis' son Richard Leakey discover fossils of a creature virtually identical to modern humans, underneath the fossils of Australo.
First off there are more than just two Leaky's significant to the field. You left out Mary, Meave, and I think atleast one more. I used to read alot of paleoanthropology, so this is to the best of my recollection. The Australopithecines Louis found were the 'robust' Australopithecines (boise, robustus, aethopicus) and were not considered human ancestors for some time. The youngest fossils found were, if i remember, 1.1 million years old. So they would be contemporaries of several Homo lineages.
[EDIT] Also, Louis never thought that the robust australopithecines were the tool makers. In fact, he was adamantly opposed to the idea. Probably because of his bias towards the "Homo the toolmaker" idea.
So which fossils are you referring to that are virtually identical to modern humans, Homo rudolfensis, habilis, ergaster, or erectus? Are you referring to the Turkana (Narioktome) boy? If so, it is not virtually identical to modern humans as you claim, and if you are referring to habilis or rudolfensis then you are horribly mistaken.
quote:
This is significant because it showed them to be older than Ausralo, and it was this new discovery who likely was responisble for the tools. Richard later wrote that this discovery shattered his belief in evolution.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Richard Leakey does not accept evolution? Have you ever read any of his books? Origins Reconsidered would be a good start.
quote:
From the fact that he discovered old human fossils, much older than the Ausralopithecus who was thought to be evidence for an ape to man transition.
Interestingly the name Austalopichecus, I read, mean southern ape, and that is likely what it was.
The General
Remember Australopithecus refers to alot of species. The robust Australopithecines (Paranthropus as they are sometimes called) were not thought of as human ancestors for some time. The gracile and robust Australopithecines,though, are still evidence for human evolution since they show organisms which share modern ape and modern human characteristics. Do you think its one big coincidence that we are the only apes (not sure the dichotomy is warranted between human and ape)today that are bipedal, and then we find fossil bipedal apes in the record? Were these made 6000 years ago to purposely mislead us?
And as for your last point, it probably was a southern ape. I'd say we are apes. How would you define ape?
JustinC
[This message has been edited by JustinCy, 08-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by The General, posted 07-30-2003 3:25 AM The General has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 10 of 17 (48671)
08-04-2003 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DC85
08-03-2003 1:00 PM


quote:
I don't see how you can say either... to me it says this is the ancestor or a relative to the ancestor. I don't know how you can say for sure it is or isn't
What are you referring to here? I think the robust australopitecines are clearly not are ancestors, albeit a relative, due to their huge saggital crest and all around facial structure. As for some other cases, it is hard to tell and as of right now there is no absolute way to know. When we get a more accurate fossil record for the period, I do think it will be able to say this species or that species is an ancestor with a good degree of certainty.
JustinC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DC85, posted 08-03-2003 1:00 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024