T Nation

Proof For Evolution Comes From Texas?!



[i]Skeletal remains found in a South African cave may yield new clues to human development and answer key questions of the evolution of the human lineage, according to a series of papers released today in Science magazine co-written by a Texas A&M University anthropology professor. (...)

"It's a great find," he adds, "because it provides strong confirmation for Darwin's theories about evolution."[/i]

This find was in the news last year but the good professor finished his paper and published the findings.


Cool. I'll have to read the paper.


This just sets evolution back a step, because now we have to find the missing link between apes and Australopithecus sediba, and THEN find the missing link between Australopithecus sediba and man...


before this discoverie we thought that our genealogy was this one :

Australopithecus Afarensis, then homo habilis, then homo erectus, then homo sapiens

now, we think that our genealogy may very well be this one :

Australopithecus Afarensis, then Australopethicus Sediba, then homo erectus, then homo sapiens.
Habilis would be a distant and infertile great-uncle, not a direct ancestor.

another consequence is that Homo could have evolved not in eastern Africa, but in southern Africa.
not exactly the same biotope and climate, so we probably would have to rethink the origin of bidepal locomotion.


OHHHHH NOOOOOO!!!!! Now I gotta find a new faith. Maybe I'll join Chris in his exaltation of archbishop Aristotle. I thought you said nobody did this anymore Chris? I know you really don't get that that is exactly what you're doing. ?(like as in EXACTLY). We can take that up in a different thread sometime, let Ephrem have his fun here. Hey Eph, I saw this on yahoo yesterday and almost started this thread myself, but didn't get around to it.


Would love to hear your explanation for it, Tirib. Sincerely.


I have no clue what you are talking about. And Aristotle wasn't an Archbishop, stop miss using proper titles. You're being rude.


I saw that...What's kind of interesting is how hard it is to find these in-betweeners. I just wonder why the clues are so rare as you would expect to find, as the species became more adept, why weren't they likewise more populous.


One individual from a large group has a genetic variation that proves beneficial to its survival. This variation is passed-on to its offspring and because the offspring has a better chance of survival the genetic variation becomes, over time, inherent to the subsequent group of individuals.

So here you have a large group of individuals without this particular genetic variation ---> a very small subset of individuals with a new benign genetic variation ---> a large group where the genetic variation is inherent.

The odds of finding the first small subset of individuals that possess the genetic variation after millions of years is minute.


It's odd that people who claim that infinite regression isn't possible insist that intermediate species are infinite.

Anyway, I love the irony of the fact that these findings are published by a professor from a Texas university.


Uh, who believes that here? Name names, please.


If by "proof" you mean: evidence, then yes.
If you mean irrefutability, then of course not. Any body of evidence supporting a model(like evolution) can be refuted with an equally large or compelling body of evidence.
This new evidence is just an amendment to a model of human evolutionary ancestry.
Frankly, I don't think it's all that important since it changes little in the over-all model of evolution by selection. I can't see much added usefulness in this this discovery for practical applications. If the greatest implication is having to rethink the origin of bipedal motion, this discovery doesn't seem significant outside its immediate field of study.


I am not sure about that. Can you imagine, from a large amount of scientific observations, another model to explain how species are what they are and that makes sense? I don't think so.

Can you gather a large amount of observations that would lead that could refute the model of gravitation? Again I don't think so.


No one in particular Cortes.


Not only did it come from Texas, but it came from Rick Perry's alma mater -- Texas A&M. Maybe that why he's been saying there are gaps in the theory.


This isn't proof that evolution happened. All this proves is that there was another great ape.

If you want proof, check out evolutions that have happened in our lifetime. For example, the snail bradybaena reversed its shell spiralling pattern within one mutation, aka generation, and therefore those with the mutation can no longer mate with those without it, as the genitals don't line up between the two mutations. Now we have two different species of snails. Also check out bacteria evolution. If you're really impatient, try virus evolution.


You serious? The model of gravitation proposed by Newton was refuted by the concept of space-time distortion(relativity). In fact, Einstein had quite a large hurdle to overcome in the form of Newton's laws on gravitation.

There is not A theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection as Darwin proposed it was MOSTLY inaccurate compared to the model of speciation and evolution based on current evidence.The model has been amended and parsed many times since Darwin's Origin of Species.

A Theory is a MODEL based on observation. Science is the process of refining/amending/falsifying a model through testing and observation.
If you're looking for irrefutable evidence or truth in science, you're looking in the wrong place.


That's interesting. I wasn't aware of the bradybaena mutation. Can they be artificially inseminated resulting in offspring? That would be an interesting caveat as to the question of artificial(human) selection as it applies to what constitutes a separate species?
I was aware of the evidence on speciation of non-sexually reproducing species(bacteria, etc...), I wasn't aware there was evidence within our life-time for something like a snail.


Because the creation of fossils in itself is a rare occurrence.


Thank you.

I stopped debating in these evolution threads (and conversations) years ago. I can't stand those who defend scientific dogma without understanding the science behind it (or the basic language of science in general).

To be sure, I spent a large chunk of my life studying fossils and hanging out in geology labs (and still not convinced God and evolution are mutually exclusive).