What does the new find about homo habillis mean for science and human evolution?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution;_ylt=AlGN0cJeHsDDzxMmeHN.7uOzvtEF

Answer 1

It means that human evolution was a lot more interesting than we were taught in school.  It wasn't an orderly progression at all, which is cool.  There are going to have to be a lot of textbooks rewritten now, though.

For science, it doesn't mean much, except that the scientific method is working just fine.  These corrections to previously-held theories are _good_ for science, and an integral part of what it's all about.  There is no secret cabal of scientists trying to keep the status quo relevant; if there were, things like this would never come to light.  So, hooray for science working properly and for learning new things!

Answer 2

Long ago an antropologist said, "this field is like putting together a puzzle with 3/4 the pieces missing & it wouldn't be so hard if I could figure out which pieces in the pile belonged to the 50 other puzzles."  As a previous poster said, "this has long been a hypotheisis of biologists" & others engaged in the genetics field.  Finding a new piece of the puzzle is always helpful  & will help to draw the differing scientific fields closer together.  Perhaps this will cause Anthropologists to pay more attention to hard sciences... but some have always suspected this find was there.

I am amazed that so many look so hard for any little piece of the puzzle that we've not yet put in place, in their quest to scrap evolution & insert creationism.

Answer 3

The find is immensely interesting and its implications even more so.  We (anthropologists) know there are parts of the puzzle that did not fit quite right but we do the best with what we have and hope that more evidence will turn up in the future.  There are some people who are inflexible in their thinking and will stand by the old view of the human tree, there are others that will now accept this redefinition and stick to it unwaveringly, then there are those of us who see this as a work in progress and hope that this theory too will be proven incorrect as more information is gathered (as long as there is more data to be gathered there will be rearrangements of the theories).  We used to think Homo neandethalensis was an ancestor, we now believe it to be a cousin.  H. habilis used to be the ancestor of H. erectus now this is being questioned.  There is so much information that was not preserved in the fossil record and much of the record was never fossilized.  It is like trying to determine the picture on a 5000 piece puzzle when you are only given 239 pieces and only one corner.  You can guess all you want, and you can do your best from the pieces you have but you can never be absolutely sure.  This new discovery does not mean they were wrong before.  There were thing that Newton didn't understand, there were things that Einstein didn't know about, who calls these guys fools?  Not I, they were ahead of everyone else at that time and they did the best with what they were given.

Answer 4

It makes the puzzle more complex.  As H. habilis lasted roughly one million years, it may well turn out that an early division in the species led to H. erectus and later forms still classified as H. habilis.  This was not a shock to the scientific community.  This possibility was considered at least 15 years ago, and has been confirmed.  Two more pieces have been added to the puzzle.  Scientists will integrate the new information in.  We have a richer knowledge of the past.

Answer 5

It means more research.

Answer 6

I have known this for years.  They portray it as news but in reality it is not.  I read a book a few years ago by Ian Tattersol, Becoming Human, I think where he described the theory of human evolution as being more like a bush than a tree.  There have always been those stuck in the mud paleoanthropologists that stick to the old beliefs that there was one line in the evolution of humans and there are still parts of that theory that seem to be hard to shake free.  IMO, paleoanthropology is a science with too many theories and too few facts.  The fossil record is incomplete but that doesn't stop those who find a new fossil and find some way to sensationalize the importance of the find and old theories are very slow to change even with new evidence that shows the fallacies.   Instead of using new evidence and weighing it with the old, what happens is that tired old theories are given more weight and new theorists are forced to disprove the old theories.  Anyway, I digress.

Answer 7

First, it means nothing for science, as we already suspected the anthropologists may have been mistaken. Genetic and and other evidence did not match many of their assertions. Look at the needless argument over the " out of Africa theory " we biologist have been convinced of the evidence there for some time.

Secondly, human evolution was always thought to be more branching, than the cartoon linear version seen in news papers. As adjustment to the evolutionary progression of men is just that; an adjustment.

Answer 8

I think it just means we know a little more about our evolution.  We know the Habillis and Erectus lived at the same time....

I'm not sure (and the article didn't explain) why they now felt that Habillis could not have evolved from erectus just because at a later point in history they both lived @ the same time.  Erectus, aparantly is much older.

If haballis had evolved from a group erectus, it doesn't mean that all homo erectus have to disappear...  Bonobos evolved from Chimps, but there are still chimps around...