Vol. 220. No.2. August 2011
Part Ape Part Human
Author: Josh Fischman
Fischman introduced one possible theory about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens. In 2010, Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of theWitwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues excavated a human-like species in a limestone cave Malapa in South Africa. They determined the species is Australopithecus sediba (in short A. sediba). Their fossils are well preserved and retain 40% of entire body, which is amazingly rare to preserve most of the body parts for fossils that are under the ground for more than two million years.
Berger believes that A. sediba might be the direct ancestor of Homo sepiens due to its intermediate physical characteristics between the primitive australopiths and more advanced Homo. This theory is the newest as oppose to an alternate theory of the origin of Homo sapiens. In the latter case, Hadar jaw, in Homo species, is thought as the origin and gave rise to Homo habilis, which in turn gave rise to Homo erectus, giving then rise to Homo sapians (see the diagram below from this article).
Fischman describes several evidences why A. sediba could be our direct ancestor but also points out some problems about this theory developed by Berger. The problem is that if A. sediba is the true ancestor of Homo, it cannot give rise to older species, Hadar jaw, which lived before A. sediba and is already assigned as Homo. One possible answer for this is that the Hadar jaw might not be Homo at first place. This is because Hadar jaw retains only an upper jaw and it is hard to fully determine whether it is Homo from just one part of the body. Another possible answer is that dating of Hadar jaw might be wrong if it is actually Homo. In this case, Hadar jaw might live later than A. sediba.
Fischman explained well about theories of our ancestor with lots of pictures and diagrams. It is easy to read and understand even if there is little knowledge about archaeology and tree of human evolution. To me, it is the most interesting part of this article to explore the origin of our spices, Homo sapiens. However, a description of the comparison between two contradict theories, A. sediba and Hadar jaw, is clumped into only the last page. For the rest of pages, Fischman focuses more on anatomical characteristics of the A. sediba and a uniqueness of Malapa cave that meets criteria to preserve fossils in a good condition. It would satisfy my curiosity if there is at least one more page about the comparison of the two theories. If so, I would be able to collect enough information to judge which theory might be more reasonable or believable to me at least.
The following is the edited version:
National Geographic
Fischman introduced one possible theory about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens. In 2010, Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of theWitwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues excavated a human-like species in a limestone cave Malapa in South Africa. They determined the species is Australopithecus sediba (in short A. sediba). Their fossils are well preserved and retain 40% of entire body, which is amazingly rare to preserve most of the body parts for fossils that are under the ground for more than two million years.
Berger believes that A. sediba might be the direct ancestor of Homo sepiens due to its intermediate physical characteristics between the primitive australopiths and more advanced Homo. This theory is the newest as oppose to an alternate theory of the origin of Homo sapiens. In the latter case, Hadar jaw, in Homo species, is thought as the origin and gave rise to Homo habilis, which in turn gave rise to Homo erectus, giving then rise to Homo sapians (see the diagram below from this article).
Fischman describes several evidences why A. sediba could be our direct ancestor but also points out some problems about this theory developed by Berger. The problem is that if A. sediba is the true ancestor of Homo, it cannot give rise to older species, Hadar jaw, which lived before A. sediba and is already assigned as Homo. One possible answer for this is that the Hadar jaw might not be Homo at first place. This is because Hadar jaw retains only an upper jaw and it is hard to fully determine whether it is Homo from just one part of the body. Another possible answer is that dating of Hadar jaw might be wrong if it is actually Homo. In this case, Hadar jaw might live later than A. sediba.
Fischman explained well about theories of our ancestor with lots of pictures and diagrams. It is easy to read and understand even if there is little knowledge about archaeology and tree of human evolution. To me, it is the most interesting part of this article to explore the origin of our spices, Homo sapiens. However, a description of the comparison between two contradict theories, A. sediba and Hadar jaw, is clumped into only the last page. For the rest of pages, Fischman focuses more on anatomical characteristics of the A. sediba and a uniqueness of Malapa cave that meets criteria to preserve fossils in a good condition. It would satisfy my curiosity if there is at least one more page about the comparison of the two theories. If so, I would be able to collect enough information to judge which theory might be more reasonable or believable to me at least.
The following is the edited version:
Vol. 220. No.2. August 2011
Part Ape Part Human
Author: Josh Fischman
Fischman introduced one possible theory about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens. In 2010, Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues excavated a human-like species in a limestone cave Malapa in South Africa. They determined the species is Australopithecus sediba (in short A. sediba). Their fossils are well preserved and retain 40% of entire body, a retention rate that is rare for fossils that are under the ground for more than two million years.
Berger believes that A. sediba might be the direct ancestor of Homo sepiens due to its intermediate physical characteristics between the primitive australopiths and more advanced Homo. This theory is the newest as oppose to an alternate theory of the origin of Homo sapiens. In the latter case, Hadar jaw, in Homo species, is thought as the origin and gave rise to Homo habilis. Homo habilis, in turn gave rise to Homo erectus, which then gave rise to Homo sapians (see the diagram below from this article).
Fischman describes ample evidence why A. sediba could be our direct ancestor but also points out some problems about this theory developed by Berger. If this is true, Hadar jaw, which is Homo, must have evolved from A. sediba. However, the problem is that Hadar jaw lived before A. sediba. One possible answer for this is that the Hadar jaw might not be Homo at first place. This is because Hadar jaw retains only an upper jaw and it is hard to fully determine whether it is Homo from just one part of the body. Another possible answer is that the dating of Hadar jaw might be wrong if it is actually Homo. In this case, Hadar jaw might have lived later than A. sediba.
Fischman explained in detail the theories of our ancestor with lots of pictures and diagrams. It is easy to read and understand even if one has little knowledge about archaeology and the tree of human evolution. To me, the most interesting part of this article is the exploration of the origin of our spices, Homo sapiens. However, a description of the comparison between the two contradict theories, A. sediba and Hadar jaw, is all clumped together on the last page. For the rest of pages, Fischman focuses more on anatomical characteristics of the A. sediba and a uniqueness of Malapa cave that meets criteria to preserve fossils in a good condition. It would satisfy my curiosity if there were at least one more page about the comparison of the two theories. If so, I would be able to collect enough information to judge which theory might be more reasonable or believable to me at least.
Fischman introduced one possible theory about the origin of our species, Homo sapiens. In 2010, Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, and his colleagues excavated a human-like species in a limestone cave Malapa in South Africa. They determined the species is Australopithecus sediba (in short A. sediba). Their fossils are well preserved and retain 40% of entire body, a retention rate that is rare for fossils that are under the ground for more than two million years.
Berger believes that A. sediba might be the direct ancestor of Homo sepiens due to its intermediate physical characteristics between the primitive australopiths and more advanced Homo. This theory is the newest as oppose to an alternate theory of the origin of Homo sapiens. In the latter case, Hadar jaw, in Homo species, is thought as the origin and gave rise to Homo habilis. Homo habilis, in turn gave rise to Homo erectus, which then gave rise to Homo sapians (see the diagram below from this article).
Fischman describes ample evidence why A. sediba could be our direct ancestor but also points out some problems about this theory developed by Berger. If this is true, Hadar jaw, which is Homo, must have evolved from A. sediba. However, the problem is that Hadar jaw lived before A. sediba. One possible answer for this is that the Hadar jaw might not be Homo at first place. This is because Hadar jaw retains only an upper jaw and it is hard to fully determine whether it is Homo from just one part of the body. Another possible answer is that the dating of Hadar jaw might be wrong if it is actually Homo. In this case, Hadar jaw might have lived later than A. sediba.
Fischman explained in detail the theories of our ancestor with lots of pictures and diagrams. It is easy to read and understand even if one has little knowledge about archaeology and the tree of human evolution. To me, the most interesting part of this article is the exploration of the origin of our spices, Homo sapiens. However, a description of the comparison between the two contradict theories, A. sediba and Hadar jaw, is all clumped together on the last page. For the rest of pages, Fischman focuses more on anatomical characteristics of the A. sediba and a uniqueness of Malapa cave that meets criteria to preserve fossils in a good condition. It would satisfy my curiosity if there were at least one more page about the comparison of the two theories. If so, I would be able to collect enough information to judge which theory might be more reasonable or believable to me at least.
