Comments

"So another discovery gets forced into the evolutionary model. Damn the anomolies, full speed ahead. I'm not suggesting Intelligent Design ( don't want to be branded a heretic!), but there may still be a case for different theories." ford2go, I am disheartened by a few of the statements you have made. I think first off I am bothered by your apparent lack of understanding for how the 'evolutionary model' works. While this is a common problem in the USA today, the lack of understanding for the position of which one criticizes (especially evolutionary biology), it is no excuse to assume a new discovery causes a problem for the current model. In fact, the anomaly caused by finding this fossil, a 1.2 million year old fossil (it should be recognized just how old this fossil is after all), is actually beneficial to the evolutionary model. As it states in the article itself, "Previously, researchers postulated H. erectus females had narrower hips, consequently making it harder for them to give birth to larger-brained babies." There was originally a hypothesis from which scientists postulated possibilities to help explain another unknown period in human evolution; "Scientists believed this explained how humans evolved to have long childhoods since smaller-brain children would be more dependent on their mother." As you read on in the article you will see that the scientists based this hypothesis and subsequent possibility on another fossil, "Turkana Boy led scientists to theorize that early humans were taller and narrower-hipped to help them maintain a constant body temperature while running long distances in hot climates." This theory came about due to this particular individual fossil. Assuming for moment that our ancestors were remotely similar to us in their general populations ability to differ at least minimally in size and build, one could argue that the particular fossil they found may have in fact not represented the population as a whole, but rather just some of the general features of the species. Also you may notice the difference in today's male and female bone structures. The scientists were basing their hypothesis off of a [MALE] fossil, not off of the newly discovered [FEMALE] fossil. Using the new fossil they can now postulate, as the article states, "The woman's hips were even proportionally wider than those of modern humans, suggesting that the larger brain size of a H. erectus child made him less dependent on his mother than a modern day baby." And as the article goes on to state, "This adaptation would have been useful for survival in the African savannah where the H. erectus lived." Though the discovery may have raised more questions (why is that a bad thing in the first place?) it has helped scientists come up with a more accurate model for human ancestry, and when particular physical and genetic traits began or dropped off. We now have a fossil where we once did not have one, and this fossil helps to explain why and when the modern day humans difference in birth canal size came about. The second thing that bothers me about your statement is that you would not want to take up a position for fear of being accused of something you are not. If you have evidence for your position, then you should take up the position even if you are going to be "branded a heretic!" I am not sure who is going to be branding you as a heretic from the scientific community, but if you have strong enough evidence for your position you should not be afraid to stand with it. However, if your position does not hold true or at least hold up with the other theories of the time, then you should possibly accept that it is either outdated or just flat out incorrect. There may still be a case for different theories, there always is in science, that is the most beautiful characteristic of science (if you want an example read about static universe theories and big bang theory). But to think that evolution is on its way out is just naive at best, moronic at worst. It is a fairly young model, especially when you get into genetics, that is going to continually change for as long as we are studying biology. To assume that in just over 100 years we can know everything that has happened throughout life over the course of a few billion years is just asinine. There is much more to the rigors of science than just saying, "I do not know what happened here, so I will just say [blank] happened. The end!"