Larry_Oldtimer
12-27-2004, 11:36 PM
Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/26/wspecies26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/26/ixworld.html")
Excerpts: It is one of the best-known stories in science: the evolution of mankind from ape-like creatures to modern humans via knuckle-grazing cave-dwellers. Now it has been blown apart by the first comprehensive study of all the fossils, which has revealed that they are probably all variants of Homo sapiens . . .
The number of human species claimed by fossil-hunters now stands at around 10, while the total number of human-like species exceeds 50. Such claims have long been based on supposedly significant differences in sizes and shapes of fossil bones. Now they have all been thrown into doubt by research showing that the differences lie within the range expected for just a single species.
Prof Henneberg found that the fossils show clear evidence of evolution, with substantial increases in both skull sizes and body-weight. However, he also found that the fossils show no evidence of being anything other than a single species which had grown bigger and smarter over time. According to Prof Henneberg, the much-vaunted differences in fossil size used to identify "new" species all lie within the normal range expected for one species . . .
Other authorities hailed Prof Henneberg's findings as a much-needed reality check. "Clearly there is a need to be more aware of the possibility of variation - but that is not the inclination today," said Geoffrey Harrison, emeritus professor of biological anthropology at the University of Oxford. "It has been a problem because the discoverers have usually put so much effort into finding the evidence, so they want it to be important" . . .
He added that the never-ending announcements of new species said more about those making the claims than about human evolution. "The problem is there are far more palaeontologists than fossil specimens". (more)
Of course he has to say that there was evolution . . . he would be drummed out of the "corps" if he didn't. But . . . with the paucity of specimens available, the huge differences in both age and area found . . . there is no comprehensive "chain" of evolution of humankind in any case. I guess it is a case of seeing what one either expects or wants to see. I can look around the earth and see "specimens" of humans which range from midgets and dwarfs to almost giants over 7' tall. A wide range indeed, all human and all existing at the same time. I have always thought that the arrogance of these people was great indeed . . . to think that from a few bones they could make leaping conclusions as to what the species as a whole looked like anyway. Simply not possible. Oh well, let the fights begin. ;)
Excerpts: It is one of the best-known stories in science: the evolution of mankind from ape-like creatures to modern humans via knuckle-grazing cave-dwellers. Now it has been blown apart by the first comprehensive study of all the fossils, which has revealed that they are probably all variants of Homo sapiens . . .
The number of human species claimed by fossil-hunters now stands at around 10, while the total number of human-like species exceeds 50. Such claims have long been based on supposedly significant differences in sizes and shapes of fossil bones. Now they have all been thrown into doubt by research showing that the differences lie within the range expected for just a single species.
Prof Henneberg found that the fossils show clear evidence of evolution, with substantial increases in both skull sizes and body-weight. However, he also found that the fossils show no evidence of being anything other than a single species which had grown bigger and smarter over time. According to Prof Henneberg, the much-vaunted differences in fossil size used to identify "new" species all lie within the normal range expected for one species . . .
Other authorities hailed Prof Henneberg's findings as a much-needed reality check. "Clearly there is a need to be more aware of the possibility of variation - but that is not the inclination today," said Geoffrey Harrison, emeritus professor of biological anthropology at the University of Oxford. "It has been a problem because the discoverers have usually put so much effort into finding the evidence, so they want it to be important" . . .
He added that the never-ending announcements of new species said more about those making the claims than about human evolution. "The problem is there are far more palaeontologists than fossil specimens". (more)
Of course he has to say that there was evolution . . . he would be drummed out of the "corps" if he didn't. But . . . with the paucity of specimens available, the huge differences in both age and area found . . . there is no comprehensive "chain" of evolution of humankind in any case. I guess it is a case of seeing what one either expects or wants to see. I can look around the earth and see "specimens" of humans which range from midgets and dwarfs to almost giants over 7' tall. A wide range indeed, all human and all existing at the same time. I have always thought that the arrogance of these people was great indeed . . . to think that from a few bones they could make leaping conclusions as to what the species as a whole looked like anyway. Simply not possible. Oh well, let the fights begin. ;)