- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I am using this article about the recent reinterpretation of the evidence by David Lordkipanidze and his team that may restructure the hominid tree that claim is related to humanity.
The article mentions a number of points but first I am addressing is the changing definition of hominid as more data is acquired.
Quote hominid
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)Any member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. Formerly, only humans (with their extinct forebears) were categorized as hominids, and the great apes were categorized as pongids—that is, members of the primate family Pongidae. However, morphological and molecular studies now indicate that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas are more distant and orangutans more distant still. As a result, it has become more common among zoologists to consider humans and great apes to be hominids. See also hominin.
So according to this new definition this hominid could in fact be a great ape that has certain characteristics in common with a human. I am not sure the article even claims that much.
Note: My definition of hominid is from Merriam-Websters online dictionary.
I found a second article about this discovery that frankly should not have not have been a surprise to anyone as it would be a safe assumption a that any kind has at least comparative variation within it as human kind has within it.
David Lordkipanidze and his team analyzed scull and jaws and stated.
Quote if you will put separately all these five skulls and five jaws in different places, maybe people will call it as a different species, In other words they would interpret the data to be from different individuals.
Of one of the scull and jaw samples it is written:
Quote Skull 5, excavated in 2005, was matched to a jaw discovered in 2000. The first example of a hominid fossil at Dmanisi was discovered in 1991. So someone has interpreted the data points as being associated even they were discovered five years and who knows how far apart.
I have a third article about this same discovery that covers other issues. The issue I am pointing out is the sectarian splits within the scientific comunity over doctrine based on their interpetations of the data.
David Lordkipanidze and his team seem to belong to one of these denomination while those belonging to another object to their conclusions.
Quote The analysis drew immediate criticism from scientists who said other members of the hominid family — Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo rudolfensis — were identified using more than just their skulls. Lordkipanidze said the Dmanisi artifacts offer the earliest known representation outside of Africa of human development after the migration. Quote “They look at this overall cranial shape and say, 'If you look at Homo habilis and erectus, there isn't much more difference,” Wood said by telephone. “You can't infer the latter from the former.” The reason why Homo habilis and Homo erectus are viewed as distinct isn't just the cranial shape, Wood said. Changes in the wrists and ankles, as well as in leg bones, took place at that time. Merging the classes doesn't make sense even if they share cranial shapes, he said.
Quote he finding likely won’t change expert's views on species diversity, where two groups are heavily entrenched said William Harcourt-Smith, an assistant professor at Lehman College and a research associate in the American Museum of Natural History's Division of Paleontology. Some, nicknamed “splitters”, see the tree of evolution as having many species. Others, called “lumpers”, see wider species categories and fewer limbs on the tree.
“To be honest it just adds some important fuel to the debate,” Harcourt-Smith wrote in an email. “The lumpers, of course, will love this new paper, but I can see splitters saying that there is too much variation in both the African early Homo and Dmanisi sample for them to all be Homo erectus.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
