back to article Boffins find Earth's earliest Homo in Ethiopian hilltop

It looks like mankind's earliest ancestors go back a lot further than first thought. After 13 years digging in the Rift Valley region of Ethiopia, team of researchers have found a 2.8-million-year-old jawbone from our genus. Creatures of the genus Homo were thought to have evolved around two million years ago, producing …

  1. Florida1920
    Pint

    Let them chew on this

    A favorite argument of the Young Earth Creationists is that "there are no transitional fossils." Well, here's another one. Never know what you'll find when out for a walk.

    1. Mark 85
      Angel

      Re: Let them chew on this

      But don't you know that $(Deity) put them there because he/she is so smart and wanted to give us a puzzle to work on in our spare time? And that our dating methods are all wrong since nothing is older than 6,000 years.

      Icon because the joke is on either us or them... probably them ------------------->

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let them chew on this

        No kidding! Mind you, I never hear scientists that go around beheading people that don't agree with them, the other side, that's another story ....

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: Let them chew on this

          Except if they are Nazi scientists.

          "One of the persistent questions that people have, and not just specialists, but everyone wonders about where did we come from?"

          Software archeology is as interesting, unfortunately not many old artifacts are left. Time to read Julian Jaynes one more time.

          1. jake Silver badge

            @ Destroy All Monsters (was:Re:Let them chew on this)

            "Software archeology is as interesting, unfortunately not many old artifacts are left."

            Eh? I have hardware, OS, and code in situ from the mid 1950s to date.

            "Julian Jaynes"? Oh, yes. "Popular Science". See: religion.

          2. Rampant Spaniel

            Re: Let them chew on this

            True, I forgot about them. Although (not that it makes it any better) the scientists weren't beheading people that didn't agree with them (as scientists, the vast majority of them would have disagreed with their political ideology. I guess they probably would have disagreed with the master race ideas).

            My point was contradict a scientist, publish a paper that disagrees with their work and the strongest you can expect is a snarky dissent and some stink eye at a conference. Many allegedly religious folks are a bit more serious in their response. Science doesn't warmly accept is fundamentals being challenged, but it does recognize that it is based on an evolution of ideas and if you can prove one idea over another it does succeed it. Can you say the same for most religions? Say you found a drawing of God by Moses in a cave somewhere depicting God as female, how do you think that would be taken?

            1. Dan Paul

              Re: Let them chew on this @Rampant Spaniel

              You haven't met any rabid AGW proponents here then, have you? Responses from some may as well have been as severe as figurative beheadings.

              BTW, theories such as that of Eugenics were developed by so called "scientists". And there are many scientists that have religious views, strangely enough.

      2. Jedit Silver badge

        "our dating methods are all wrong since nothing is older than 6,000 years."

        I wish Young Earth Creationists used dating methods that were all wrong. If we could stop them dating they'd all die out.

    2. Brangdon

      Re: Let them chew on this

      There used to be a gap in the fossil record. Now there are two gaps.

    3. Anonymous Blowhard

      Re: Let them chew on this

      Reminds me of the Futurama episode where Professor Farnsworth is challenged about missing links; as Dawkins points out, evolution doesn't happen in big steps, like from a short necked herbivore to a giraffe, its a continuous spectrum of changes. It just looks like bigger jumps because the fossil record is so incomplete, a small fraction really, due to many factors (original population spread versus proximity to environments where fossilisation can occur).

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boffins find Earth's earliest Homo

    LGBT advocacy groups take note!

    1. oldfoxbob

      Oh My GAWD!!!

      A HOMO in Africa? Who would have thunk it? Why Gawd would not allow such a thing, and Brother Billy Bob says that its a sin and an abomination an we is suposed ta gives him all our munny so he can get that new cement pond in his back yard. Yes Lawd.

  3. jake Silver badge

    Cool!

    One more nail in the fundy coffin.

    Hopefully Humanity will shed "superstition as a means of government" before we manage to kill all of us off in the name of the Sky Fairy who supposedly asks us to love one another ... The entire concept of religion makes me wonder if all of humanity is b0rken at a genetic level.

    1. hplasm
      Coat

      Re: Cool!

      Amen to that!

    2. BrownishMonstr

      Re: Cool!

      So, you're saying that we were definitely not created by a God(ess) or some other deity?

      I don't think our Great boffins know that much of the universe to say 'we definitely arrived by chance'. As for religion, many who make fun of those who blindly follow religion are just as much nutters. They blindly believe in science theories, barely knowing the minimum, just because the rest of the folks follow it.

      Religion or not, we're broken at the genetic level.

      Now let's all wait for our true saviour, The Black Monolith.

      1. User McUser

        Quis creat ipsos Creator?

        So, you're saying that we were definitely not created by a God(ess) or some other deity?

        I don't think our Great boffins know that much of the universe to say 'we definitely arrived by chance'.

        Why does the universe need a creator but the creator doesn't?

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Cool!

        I don't think our Great boffins know that much of the universe to say 'we definitely arrived by chance'.

        You can't refute untestable hypotheses.1 Atheism is just as much a matter of faith as theism, though by some lines of argument it has the advantage of Occam's Razor. (By not introducing an unnecessary entity, obviously; but the counter to this is that a supernatural entity, acting as the solution to any difficult problem, is itself a simplification.) By definition, the supernatural is outside the realm of scientific epistemology. If science can test it, it's a priori natural, not supernatural.

        Personally, I don't bother committing to untestable hypotheses,2 or wasting much mental energy on them, except as intellectual exercise. Getting worked up about them doesn't seem to do most people any good.

        Of course, those committments in others may have quite severe consequences in practice, and those consequences are worthy of attention. But the beliefs themselves? Emotional masturbation - feeding a cathexis to soothe a perceived need.

        1A Bayesian (i.e. rational) reasoner would say you can't refute any hypothesis - you can use contradictory evidence to reduce its probability asymptotically toward zero, but complete refutation is impossible because you always depend on an untestable axiomatic framework. See Descartes' Evil Genius argument &c.

        2Except for a few regarding intimate personal relationships, which I do consciously as a concession to their importance.

  4. Andy E
    Pint

    And another data point...

    I read a story once where they uncovered the remains of a dinosaur. What made it special was the dinosaur was holding a placard with “Ban the Bomb” written on it.

    Anyway, hats off to Chalachew Seyoum for finding the fossil. It can’t be easy working in those conditions and he deserves recognition for the find. As the article says its another data point in our evolutionary story. I'd like to think I'm another data point much, much higher up the scale in terms of evolutionary progress but the wife says no.

    Andy

    1. Jedit Silver badge

      "the dinosaur was holding a placard with “Ban the Bomb” written on it"

      That's Terry Pratchett's early sci-fi novel Strata, if anyone's wondering.

      1. Alien8n

        Re: "the dinosaur was holding a placard with “Ban the Bomb” written on it"

        A most excellent book and actually gives an alternative scientific view of how the Discworld works. Shame he never revisited the Strata universe. Or maybe he has, with each Discworld book...

        I've often wondered how much Douglas Adams influenced that book, very Magrathean in many respects.

        1. Grikath

          Re: "the dinosaur was holding a placard with “Ban the Bomb” written on it" @alien8n

          Given that Sir Terry, especially in his early work, borrowed a lot from the old Masters (ladies included), while applying his unique twist to the concept/characters/archetypes he borrowed, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

          The real art there is actually in spotting what he used where, and how well it's integrated in the stories.

        2. Sarah Balfour

          Re: "the dinosaur was holding a placard with “Ban the Bomb” written on it"

          I really MUST attempt it again (if I can find it). Perhaps if I'd read it prior to reading any Discworld, I might have found it a tad more engaging, but it honestly did nowt fer me. Drier and staler than a month old loaf.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cue Bruce Forsyth joke?

  6. Christoph

    "Mouthy ancestor sets human history back 400,000 years"

    I thought for a minute there you were talking about Republicans

  7. cortland

    Homo? Don't tell

    Dave Agema!

    http://avstop.com/december_2013/former_american_airlines_pilot_makes_outrageous_anti_gay_claims.htm

  8. Alien8n
    Joke

    Homo Erectus

    So we've found another link from early humanity to Homo Erectus. When do we find fossils of Homo Limpus?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Homo Erectus

      By definition, that line was an evolutionary dead end

    2. Fungus Bob
      Coat

      Re: When do we find fossils of Homo Limpus?

      We should start looking in Greece - that's where Home-Olympus is...

  9. Alien8n

    Have an up vote for that :)

  10. earl grey
    Pint

    well done bone boffin!

    have one...you need it after a day in the hot sun

  11. TomG
    Devil

    trickery

    Has anyone considered that the fossil was planted by Lucifer?

    1. oldfoxbob

      Re: trickery

      Who??? No such person in any book.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I do find this crowing rather amusing, highlighting as it does the deliberate or ignorant ignoring of the gigantic elephant that keeps clumping ever further into the evolutionary fairytale room.

    It seems that despite the blatant spin every new find makes the supposed human evolution story even more contradictory and persistently shoves the "first" dates for all sorts of features back by huge jumps until there's ridiculously little time left for gigantic amounts of evolution to have happened.

    Remind me - we evolved relatively recently from "simple" ape like creatures with massively rugged features, which gradually evolved into the more refined and delicate human form? Only... this supposedly incredibly early find seems to show very refined features compared to much later finds, and this kind of juxtaposition is completely the norm. Or did these more refined features keep magically re-evolving lots of times like so many other features supposedly did? Each new find makes a mockery of the neat (but almost entirely baseless) tree diagrams found in biology textbooks; they're not just in need of adjustment, they're just plain nonsense.

    Anyone who seriously believes this kind of stupidity in the face of the actual evidence is exercising something much more than faith - it's full on self-delusion. It wouldn't be quite so galling if it wasn't for the arrogant dogmatic bile that is spewed on anyone who dares to apply common sense and question any of it...

    1. Eddy Ito

      Remind me - we evolved relatively recently from "simple" ape like creatures with massively rugged features, which gradually evolved into the more refined and delicate human form?...Each new find makes a mockery of the neat (but almost entirely baseless) tree diagrams found in biology textbooks; they're not just in need of adjustment, they're just plain nonsense.

      If you're willing to concede 2 to 3 million years as being relatively recently, sure that's the gist. Perhaps you missed a bit of information on that tree diagram. While it kind of looks like a family tree the difference is that we know with a high degree of accuracy where our individual family trees branch off because we have fairly exact records of when crazy uncle Willy was born. With an evolutionary tree, we have estimates on where the branches start and more data helps to inform us of that branching point.

      There is also no magic in features re-evolving as it happens all the time and features that lend an advantage to survival tend to start sticking around after a while in the same way that features which don't often tend to disappear. If you need examples how about color vision as species transition from nocturnal to diurnal or cetaceans vestigial hind limbs. Essentially, it's playing dice and every genetic "deformity" is just another roll, perhaps it confers an advantage, perhaps it doesn't. Given our current genetic code most of us are pretty close to a 7 but in a million years perhaps the most common dice throw will be 9 (which may well imply the dice will have 8 sides) and if we wind up colonizing space all bets are off; 15, 4, -3pi?

      Anyone who seriously believes this kind of stupidity in the face of the actual evidence is exercising something much more than faith - it's full on self-delusion. It wouldn't be quite so galling if it wasn't for the arrogant dogmatic bile that is spewed on anyone who dares to apply common sense and question any of it...

      So the newly found fossil isn't evidence? I suppose we're only allowed to consider written "evidence" from the last 2000 years or so which "proves" the planet is only 6000 years old. The thing you miss is that we all question it but still accept it as evidence. I admit that some of us are so arrogant that we are unable to question scripture "common sense" and are unable to see this new evidence for what it is.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I'm not missing anything in those tree diagrams - perhaps you're missing the fact that it and its branches are entirely _postulated_ , based mostly on morphology and in the case of extant creatures genetic similarity (which in itself is no proof whatsoever of common descent, any more than a similarity between, say, statues by Michelangelo.)

        And this fossil certainly IS evidence - it's just yet more evidence that doesn't fit the flat-out wrong evolutionary narrative, despite the interminable twists and turns in that narrative. It wouldn't really matter what this fossil was like, the fairytale would have been twisted to suit - this is a sure sign that the standard evolutionary story is not scientific and has zero value as a scientific tool.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "And this fossil certainly IS evidence - it's just yet more evidence that doesn't fit the flat-out wrong evolutionary narrative, despite the interminable twists and turns in that narrative."

          But that is the point. Twists and turns. Remember, it's a "tree". There are multiple branches. And that's what the evidence most strongly suggests. You seem to be implying that it's a purely linear event.

    2. Sarah Balfour

      FFS!

      We didn't evolve FROM apes, we share a common ancestor, the line diverged several million years ago (can't be arsed to look up dates).

      Had we evolved from apes, as the fundies would say "Why's there still monkeys…?"

      1. Fungus Bob

        Re: FFS!

        Don't need to be a fundie to ask that - monkeys fling crap, we fling more evolved crap so why's there still monkeys?

        Hey, El Reg, how 'bout a flying crap icon?

        1. Swarthy
          Pint

          Re: FFS!

          Flying Crap Icon? I thought that was what the AC mask was for..or is that a Spewing Crap icon?

  13. damworker

    Why do creationists...

    I don't get creationists (this may not be the best forum for debate, I accept).

    Turn the argument around. God didn't write "here I am" in letters 300 foot high at the poles, nor on the dark side of the moon, nor on the moons of Jupiter (as far as we know). No 6,500 year old pocket watches have been found (the Antikythera mechanism not being a watch or old enough).

    Why would a creationist think he wrote "here I am" on the flagellum? If god exists, it does not wish to be found. Any intelligence capable of so much isn't about to slip up (omni-something) - unless we are supposed to "discover god", at this point in time, and I think a simple "Hello. What the hell have you done to the place?" would suffice. You would also have to conclude that god does not want to be found to encourage humans to take up science and other free thought.

    And to get my other religious bug bear off my chest: why do they not teach this in religious education: If a complex world requires a (complex) creator, who created the complex creator?

    1. Eddy Ito

      Re: Why do creationists...

      "who created the complex creator?"

      I believe it comes down to a transcription error in the book of genesis. It was supposed to read "man created God in his own image" not the other way around.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Why do creationists...

        "I believe it comes down to a transcription error in the book of genesis. It was supposed to read "man created God in his own image" not the other way around."

        IIRC from a discussion many years ago with someone who very thoroughly researched "the bible", learning to read the oldest available texts, Genesis refers to Yahweh and his brothers. There might even have a been a reference to their father too. Yahweh was just some minor desert war god who managed to grab "hearts and minds" and build a bigger business empire than many of his competitors. When the fire and brimstone brand started to look a bit tired, he re-branded as nicey nicey, peace, love and forgiveness. No plucking out of eyes or dashing babies on the rocks any more.

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: Why do creationists...

        "a transcription error in the book of genesis".

        Genesis is full of errors. Which version of Creation do you believe in? The one described beginning at Genesis 1:1, or the one beginning at Genesis 2:4?

        They are clearly different.

        WOW! Nixed in under 30 seconds? Really?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why do creationists...

      You're making the mistake of limiting your thinking to simple material things which you can touch, taste, measure and not accepting that anything else can exist. Think - our unimaginably huge and unimaginably complex universe exists, our own planet stuffed full of truly astounding depths of complexity which we will clearly never fully understand despite millennia of painstaking study exists... and yet we know from science that nothing can come from nothing (hence what you imagine to be a problem with religion.)

      The ONLY logical answer is that something exists outside of or transcending the dimensions which limit our own existence (including time) which has the ability, intelligence and power to create anything at all from nothing at all. There is simply no other explanation which makes any kind of sense - the very best alternative suggestion is that everything we can measure is simply self extant and has always been here, but real science shows that this is not the case no matter how "big" a name says otherwise.

      Science is a great and incredibly powerful tool to describe and methodically investigate our universe - but it cannot begin to deal with anything outside of those dimensions. You would perhaps be surprised at the list of truly great scientists who fully understood/understand that and believe/d in God as creator and sustainer of everything - not as some kind of cop-out, but as a consequence of studying the evidence and properly understanding the problem.

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: Why do creationists...

        not as some kind of cop-out, but as a consequence of studying the evidence and properly understanding the problem.

        You keep mentioning evidence yet don't produce any. The fact is that the evidence of which you speak could equally point to the flying spaghetti monster, Nüwa or a whole host of other deities and the reason is that your evidence isn't evidence it's hearsay and anecdote.

        1. Fungus Bob

          Re: Why do creationists...

          @Eddy Ito

          A few problems with your argument:

          1. You do not produce any evidence either. Naughty, naughty.

          2. AC's entire post seemed to be more about a different way of thinking about all the scientific discoveries we have made over the years than about any particular bits of "evidence". AC may be right, or wrong, or completely looney but you may have to consider that you might have misread the whole thing.

          3. As AC made no mention of any specific deity, pointing this out does not weaken AC's argument or strengthen yours. It's almost as though you're reading something into AC's post.

          4. Your parting shot about hearsay and anecdote actually is congruent with AC's final paragraph regarding the limitations of science.

          I suppose I'll get downvoted but I was not impressed with the low caliber of your argument.

          1. Eddy Ito

            Re: Why do creationists...

            @Fungus Bob,

            1. I'm not the one claiming "studying the evidence" points to "God as creator".

            2. Sorry, I didn't see the need to arguing that a statement which begins with "the ONLY logical answer" might not be the best example of "a different way of thinking".

            3. Perhaps, I can see where you might think "God as creator" could be ambiguous.

            4. So directly observable facts are somehow hearsay and anecdote in your book?

            I don't see much need to downvote since if I disagree with what you're saying I'll just say so. If you do get downvoted it will probably for being so naive as to think that any of us cares that you're not impressed.

            1. Fungus Bob

              Re: Why do creationists...

              @Eddy Ito #2

              I will have to concede your second point. As for points 1 and 3, the AC only asserted that *something* is "out there". That "something" (if it exists) could be very different than anything anyone has ever called "god".

              Point 4. The AC was pointing out that science, useful as it is for expanding human knowledge, has limits. Therefore, something that scientifically would be considered hearsay or anecdote, might be quite acceptable as proof in other fields of endeavor - the scientific method is not terribly useful in the field of history as history does not lend itself to experimentation, for example. It is also not nearly as useful as elbow pads and helmets in the field of roller derby, but that _is_ a different subject...

              1. Eddy Ito

                Re: Why do creationists...

                @Fungus Bob

                On points 1 & 3, AC clearly stated that "great scientists who fully understood/understand that [science doesn't deal with things outside our universe] and believe/d in God as creator... as a consequence of studying the evidence". This was after his first accusatory paragraph about "limiting your thinking to simple material things... and not accepting that anything else can exist". The thing is evidence is a tactile thing, an actual object. No actual objective evidence of which I am aware points to "God as creator". The only evidence for that is scripture and while the book is an actual object the story is not, it is a recollection at best from a third party - hearsay and anecdote. In any case starting out saying we need to think beyond the tangible world and saying "great scientists" studied, presumably tangible, evidence (for what else is there) and believe in "God as creator" presents sort of a problem for AC's theme.

                For point 4, I don't think anyone has ever said science didn't have limits however it would be foolish to say current limits are permanent. Science is all about not limiting one's thinking to simple material things which can be measured or touched. Consider atoms as discrete building blocks of matter. It was a pretty bold idea when born in the 5th century BCE and couldn't be measured until relatively recent times. Sure the original theory wasn't exact and most new theories are largely dismissed because they don't fit with common knowledge but that doesn't stop the inquiry. Science has never been about limits it's always been about pushing beyond the limits we already know.

                I would also say that the scientific method works just fine with the subject of history and that history itself is a continuous experiment but we have to rely on evidence that already exists and work backward. Roller derby pads and helmets are just simple physics. After all, we wouldn't want to limit our way thinking.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why do creationists...

        I accept the laws of physics transcend our full understanding.

        I accept your "nothing can come from nothing" although I think you probably meant "something (the universe) can come from nothing (which can't actually be nothing, just something outside our understanding).

        Einstein sometimes referred to the laws of physics as "God".

        I have no problem with God being the laws of physics but I'm sure there is no point in praying to them.

  14. DugEBug

    Transitional

    Why is this a transitional object? Wouldn't something that is transitional be a pig who had toes?

    1. Fungus Bob

      Re: Transitional

      I think that would be a dummy package in the debian repositories...

  15. jrwc

    Pardon me, but what dating technique is used. There is reason for an honest distrust of all scientists since we have found at how human they are (prone to error) especially exampled by their global warming stats. Scientists and lay alike are treating evolution (both cosmic and biologic) as a law when it is only a THEORY.

    1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      I think you missed the fact that some climate scientists did not apply the scientific method rigorously. Don't know about anthropologists, but they aren't asking us to spend trillions on something that may or may not exist nor be amenable, or not, to human mitigation.

  16. Uffish

    Random Monkeys

    @Ian Thomson Nice article - shame about the comments.

    By the way, anyone here that can put fossil dating methods into a paragraphe or two, I'm off to search engine the subject but I only want a paragraph's worth of knowledge.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon