12 votes

New fossil skull from Africa reveals tangled roots at base of the human family tree

New fossil skull from Africa reveals tangled roots at base of the human family tree

By Brian Vastag, Wednesday, August 8, 10:39 AM

A two million-year-old flat-faced skull pulled from the sandstones of east Africa has shored up claims that at least three species of early humans once co-existed in an “evolutionary experiment” that saw an explosive increase in brain size paired with radically different faces, teeth, and jaws.

While the new partial skull and two newly found jawbones look radically different from modern humans, they match an enigmatic, nearly complete skull found 40 years ago that paleoanthropologists have long struggled to fit into the human family tree.

Together, the new finds and the puzzling skull describe a species of early humans clearly distinct from two others known from fossils from the same period, said Meave Leakey, the 70-year-old paleoanthropologist who led the team that discovered the fossils.

The “base of the human lineage was indeed diverse,” Leakey said from her longtime home at the Turkana Basin Institute in northern Kenya. Her colleagues made the finds near there.

Read more:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Part of the false argument

Part of the false argument anti-evolutionists make goes something like this... "I've never seen a snail evolve into a cat, or a bacteria evolve into a llama, so evolution must be a lie".... which is complete nonsense of course.

is this complete nonsense?


explain this (if you can) not your ordinary false argument. totally factual as it makes the theory of evolution look like the single bullet theory...full of holes!

Label Jars, Not People!


Evolutionists beleive we "evolved" from a freakin Hydrogen Atom .. that is more ridiculous than anything i have ever heard .. Well i guess if Universe is a Trillion years old it coulda happened huh??


say that hydrogen is the basic building block of the universe because it is the most abundant element. I dispute this as well. I say STUPIDITY is the basic building block of the universe because there is more stupidity than hydrogen, especially from some of these evolution worshippers! I hope none of them serve on a jury because whoever is on trial is screwed! I can prove that some creatures COULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED because they would be dead without all their components. They just don't want to hear any of it!

Label Jars, Not People!

By the application of that

By the application of that bizarre logic, you would be made of the very same "stupid particles" that you rail in the darkness against.

...well I did give 2k to Dr. Paul...is that stupid?

did you even bother to see "creatures that defy evolution?" every single bit of reading material on the subject of evolution is devoid of any refrence to the above mentioned creatures. Out of sight=out of mind. It takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than god. thats why evolution is a religion. Belittle the "designer" by believing all of earth's creatures randomly appeared- now that sounds like "railing in the darkness." -peace

Label Jars, Not People!

Your choice to give money to

Your choice to give money to support Ron's campaign had nothing to do with the reality of evolution.

Do you believe there are

Do you believe there are particles that make up all matter in the universe?


An eyeball is an eyeball. There is no variation. If you remove any of it's intricate parts, it's not an eveball. The ear is another example OR DID YOU NOT HEAR WHAT I AM SAYING? there are some beetle's that mix chemicals within their bodies to produce an explosion to fire a projectile in nature! any "variation" and they would explode! DEAD BUGS DON'T EVOLVE!


Label Jars, Not People!

There's no variations in eyeballs, ears???

You can't be this ignorant... You have to be trolling, right?


MEANS IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. yellow+blue= green! but I guess you are so much smarter and have figured out how to combine other colors to make green? yeah of course some eyes are different colors. some are bigger, smaller. Some don't see very well either. Many refuse to see the difference between random occurrences and designs.

i fail to see how complex creatures evolved from lower forms. hence, the question "how did an eyeball evolve" I guess questions are a burden and answers are a prison for oneself, oh ye of much contempt, devoid of any constructivity only capable of soft focus and narrow categorization.

please enlighten this "ignorant troll" and ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

Label Jars, Not People!

Since you want to troll

Eyes started with a variation that created light sensitivity in cells. These cells gave predator and prey advantages over the other. A shadow passing over for example would alert a predator that a prey was nearby. This in turn allowed greater survival and in turn subsequent generations incorporated this advancement. Over time greater refinements allowed greater survival which created even greater refinements. Clearer images allowed better recognition of predator or prey. Etc, etc., etc.

And thus, God CREATED the eye...

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

That's not scientific, as

as the process has never been observed or made to repeat itself.

There does seem to be a

There does seem to be a pattern that repeats itself in such discussions. One may ask how something like the vision organs of vertebrates evolved, and the evolutionist will give a "just so" story that seems plausible to them. Of course none of this really answers anything.

As for the evolutionary pathways of vision, the most interesting question to ask an evolutionist (of the blind watchmaker variety) has little to do with physical structures of eyes (which, by the way, do show variations between types and even between individuals within species). The most important question has to do with the biochemical mechanisms involved, which are pretty much uniform to all systems of vision, even in the most basic of physical structures.

It is these biochemical systems that are irreducible in their complexity... which simply means that if any part is missing, the system does not function (at least for vision). It is not just that the vision will be poor, less detailed or color blind. Without all the cascading processes involved at the molecular level, one would be 100% blind. Thus, for vision to be vision, even using what we might call primitive eyes, there must be this biochemical system fully operational from the very beginning. And make no mistake, the biochemical system involved in vision is astoundingly complex, consisting of a multitude of interacting molecular parts in a specific step by step chain reaction. Other biochemical systems show equally astounding specified complexity. One such example would be the blood clotting system in vertebrates. This particular system is amazingly complex, with an incredible number of what we might call 'control' or 'safe guard' steps within the cascade of multiple molecular machines involved.

There have been rebuttals to the irreducible complexity argument offered over the years, and of course zillions of "just so" stories offered for the biochemical mechanisms. I have not found any of them very convincing. Most come across as grabbing at straws... but perhaps I just don't understand. I am no scientist, only a fairly well read layman.

Really? The skin is photosensitive

Really? The skin is photosensitive and requires sunlight to create Vitamin D. That's not in the Bible yet we believe it to be true through observation. The differentiation between eyes and skin occurred at an early stage and as a result of their specialization, i.e., the eyes connection to the brain for processing, it is unlikely to repeat itself. Besides, at a certain stage of evolution/creation, species become specialized to the extreme that further advantages cease to exist.

And on the seventh day God rested...

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

Eh, I personally don't care what he believes

My concern is that he, and others like him, prevent other people from seeking truth. Such a shame...

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

...is this how you seek truth?

"my mind is made up don't concern me with the facts"

sounds like Romney-vision

there is much truth that renders evolution laughable and problematic. You can choose to ignore some facts for your opinions. when you do that you are no longer actively seeking truth.

Label Jars, Not People!

You've not read I word I've said have you?

'Nuff said.

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

watch this and you might learn something


Label Jars, Not People!

You expect me to uncritically

You expect me to uncritically accept the anti-science analysis of a fundamentalist Baptist minister? Holy............!

What is it in the human mind that rejects any rational thought?

I am a Christian and I have no conflict with the theory of evolution, why is any scientific discovery rejected as a denial of God? Like Copernicus who theorized and Galileo who proved the earth revolved around the sun, both were condemned by the church of the day as being heretical. Reading some of the comments here I am a little taken back by the arrogance of those who use science to deny the existence of God and the arrogance of those who use religion to deny the scientific method. The closer you look at science from the wonder of the billions of galaxies in the known universe to the incredible complexity of the DNA molecule, there you see God. How dare the evolutionists deny his existence or the religious deny and reject his incredible work?

Oh ye of little faith.

Oh ye of little faith says it all.

If you are taking something on faith rather than evidence then you have no proof. If someone had put forth the hypothesis that the universe was created by invisible butterflies, they would have an a claim equal as questionable as the theory that God created the universe.

We probably will never know the mechanism of the creation of the universe, if in fact it had a beginning instead of having existed for an infinite time. Something has to exist before we can find evidence of it, and before it existed it could not have left evidence, behind just like before you existed as a person there was no evidence of you for someone to observe.

When people accept things on faith it makes possible all sorts of imagined gods which is why people over the ages have worshiped all sorts of deities, and why today there are multiple religions around the world, all with their own sets of beliefs they accept on faith.

At least the current attempts to explain the origin of the universe are based on observations and reason. If they turn out to be incorrect, it will be because someone has a better, more supportable theory based on better evidence and reason, not because the myths passed down from primitive men prove them wrong.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

My father would say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

That may be what we are dealing with here. Our earth is in an unimaginable huge universe loaded with the most complex life forms that science is only getting a very basic understanding of. Every race and culture on earth through out time has recognized the existence of God. Its intuitive in the human mind because from the most intelligent scientist to the most basic primitive tribesman, we can recognize creation. When an archeologist finds a flint arrow head, he can tell that it was created, but he may not know who created it. The evidence of creation is all around us. Some choose to call the creator God. Those who believe some random collection of atoms somehow organized itself into a strand of DNA that then developed itself into the earths complex life forms? Really? Now that takes some real faith.

In logic there is something called begging the question.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

The question asked is, "How did the universe get here?" Your answer is it got here because a god created it and the proof is the universe got here. You begged the question. You ignore other possibilities, each of which could be proved by your method of reasoning. One could say the universe was created by little waves, invisible spirits, or invisible butterflies and the proof is that we got here.

You site as proof that most people who had no evidence other than their own existence, reached the conclusion that some super father or mother created it all. They created this thought with their minds lacking evidence. They just knew they were here and didn't have a clue why, so invented something that was acceptable to their minds and its limited understanding of the world. The fact that man's mind has the capability to ponder this question, and the comfort brought by having an answer, any answer, for most people is why they invent or accept an answer. Do you think that dogs, with the limited capacity to think, have invented a god that created them in his image?

As far as you scoffing at the ability of complex structures to have evolved over time, I point out that the time for such complexity to have evolved has been immense. Life itself is self replication. Its electrical and chemical. At a very primitive level it is simply random chemical compounds with the ability to attract additional chemicals until the structure becomes large enough for it to break apart with the pieces then attracting additional chemicals ad infinitum. Just one small accident in replication and something slightly different is formed; some with advantage in replicating, some with disadvantage in replicating. Branching out becomes possible and environmental changes select new winners and losers. Life moves from the simple to the more complex along with the successful less complex arrangements continuing to exist.

There is no need, except to justify one's faith based belief system, to attribute any plan or design by some mythical creature. The evolution of the simple chemicals of the early universe into the more complex forms produced by the succeeding generations of stars and the aggregation of some of these chemicals into simple life forms to my mind is a much more beautiful, more understandable story than to think that some sometimes condemning, sometimes forgiving, thinking, planning creature decided to wave his magic wand and create everything.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

As seen on TV

Probably as good a reason as any for the current christian mindset, but I prefer to subscribe to something I said below-

...we've all had 2000 years of conditioning. I think that the "fear of God" makes us reluctant to question our belief system..

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

We seem to agree, our comments hit at about the same time

I read a quote a few years ago, not sure who wrote it, but it's fitting here:
God gave man the word, and the word of God was with man, then the devil said, "let me organize it and I will call it Religion"

That's what I've been trying to say here.

And I am either ignored or my comments get down voted. It's not "little faith". It's downright stubborness on BOTH sides.

Let me get this straight

God created the laws by which the universe is governed and then used them to build, as the scripture says, "precept upon precept, line upon line" starting first with the creation of the universe, then the forming of the planets, then a brilliant piece of terraforming of the planet called earth. Terraforming the earth necessitated starting with plant life for food and oxygen, then lower life forms, followed by higher life forms, and then finally man. This is the record given in Genesis. Unfortunately for many christian believers it is also the record given by evolution theory. Huh. Both say the same thing. Apparently, truth is truth no matter what the source. The only difference is that in the Genesis account, God used these laws of creation to create the universe and evolution theory leaves God out of the process. I can understand science leaving God out of the mix since science can only postulate the observable. I can not fathom why christians reject the evidence before them other than that they stubbornly refuse knowledge that contradicts not the Bible but their interpretation of the Bible.

500 years ago, Galileo was nearly executed as a heretic for saying that the earth revolved around the sun, in more recent times, my own grandfather was a flatlander (regardless that the Bible refers to the "circle of the earth"). When will christians realize that the Bible is right and their interpretations are wrong? Will their foolish pride continue to rule them?

God help us all!

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

Christian arrogance

For some reason we gentiles (myself included) believe we are the chosen ones and our INTERPRETATION of God's Word is the only one possible. News Flash- We are stepchildren. We have wrongly taken the high seat and as scripture says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Your interpretation of the creation account is just that- Your interpretation. If you were truly wise you would note that the creation account follows the same course as the evolutionary course. If you were truly wise you would understand, "...For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..."

Christians get over yourselves and "rightly divide the Word", stop this arrogance and open your minds before it's too late.

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

every FALSE religion...

...teaches their "followers" that they are the CHOSEN; that is HOW they DIVIDE people and make war!!!

Jews? Catholics? Muslims? name 'em off for yourself - and all the denominations too? Who heard of Sikh's before the murders in Wisconsin?

Our founders had it RIGHT; as Noah Webster said "She [America] admits ALL religions into her bosom - she secures the sacred rights of every individual; and(astonsihing absurdity to Europeans!) she sees a thousand discordant opinions live in the strictest harmony of friendship; the privilege of unprecedented toleration"

Simply put: MOST human beings believe they were CREATED by ONE Divine Supreme Being - and we can all disagree on His character/attributes/name; BUT, let it be KNOWN, He is HIGHER than Caesar, and only seeks the BEST for His creation - which is NOT war/fighting/lying/stealing/murder - ESPECIALLY by the government, an institution He authored because man is inherently sinful; that exists for the punishment of evil doers and national defense at the Federal level in this nation's case!

Government's infiltrate/marry/exploit/bribe/bankroll/ORGANIZE man's religious institutions for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of controlling their subjects ... PERIOD!

A PURE faith, the faith of our founders, was a simple belief in a GOOD Supreme Being - and - out of REVERENCE for our Creator, we VOLUNTARILY promote/teach His moral laws for the benefit of our FREE society - and - unto the perpetuation of FREEDOM and prosperity, in GRATITUDE for the GIFT of Liberty!

This is EACH man's decision personally; better than 95% of the planet believes in a Creator - and in AGREEMENT of this, and His loving attributes, we MUST NOT tolerate tyranny under EVIL MEN who serve themselves rather that Him!

BEWARE of FALSE religions!

We are NOT arrogant - Christians in bed with Jews who say it is OK to kill Muslims are arrogant, duped, LIARS following after a FALSE Christ!