Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When scientists make the claims about species, and they don't have the fossils for the entire body of the organism, then they would have usually found various peices of fossils and then been able to put them together to compare them to other species to see if they have distinct or similar characteristics. Like when part of the skull of habilis was found, they found the cranium of the same species in another part of Africa and found some more fossil fragments which peiced together the brain.
Just to clarify...I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Did you say that they found pieces of a skull in different geographic locations and pieced them together to form one skull?
Just to clarify...I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Did you say that they found pieces of a skull in different geographic locations and pieced them together to form one skull?
The main geographic region of Africa that the fossils of habilis was found in was Olduvai Gorge which is in northern Tanzania.
Homo habilis is a very complicated species to describe. No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus. Hopefully, future discoveries and future cladistic analyses of the specimens involved may clear up these issues, or at least better define what belongs in the species.
Is this the most recent conclusion? Is this a skewed website to source? I don't take this to be proof of transitional species.
This is an interesting excerpt on homo habilis from Dr. Johanson's book From Lucy to Language in which he discusses the findings of several different h. habilis finds. On the skull of OH 24 he cites this:
All the cranial bones are thin and lack the robusticity that tends to characterize australopithecine crania. Relative to australopithecines, the braincase has expanded from side to side, so that OH 24 approaches the striking parietal breadth of OH 7 (see page 182), but these bones of the braincase are shorter vertically than those of the habilis type specimen. The cranial capacity of OH 24 falls just under 600 cc, the minimum value for Homo, but the low estimate is probably due to the cranium's distortion. - From Lucy to Language, Simon & Schuster, 2006, p.184
Ok, here is what he is getting at. OH 24 is one of the specimens of h. habilis found. It was, coincidentally, found more or less crushed under a piece of limestone. While most of the skull was retrievable, the top of the cranial cavity was somewhat flatted from the limestone rock. However, looking at the intact facial features such as the thin cranial bones that tends to characterize australopithecine crania, we can certainly see characteristics difficult to attribute to an australopithecine specimen. However, as he goes on further to explain, there are other similarities to australopithecines such as the expanded side to side braincase. He then goes on to talk about the cranial capacity of h. habilis being just under 600cc which is just shy of what we consider a Homo species but slightly above what we consider an australopithecine although that may be due to the flattened cranial cavity.
What this means is that OH 24 shares common features of both the h. habilis species and the australopithecines and may very well be hard to classify. Somehow or another, this seems strikingly similar to this transitional creature that so many keep bugging about.
The main geographic region of Africa that the fossils of habilis was found in was Olduvai Gorge which is in northern Tanzania.
That's about a 30 mile area...still, if I died here in my yard, and then my bone fragments were pieced together with bone fragments in a town 30 miles away, what would I look like?
This is an interesting excerpt on homo habilis from Dr. Johanson's book From Lucy to Language in which he discusses the findings of several different h. habilis finds. On the skull of OH 24 he cites this:
All the cranial bones are thin and lack the robusticity that tends to characterize australopithecine crania. Relative to australopithecines, the braincase has expanded from side to side, so that OH 24 approaches the striking parietal breadth of OH 7 (see page 182), but these bones of the braincase are shorter vertically than those of the habilis type specimen. The cranial capacity of OH 24 falls just under 600 cc, the minimum value for Homo, but the low estimate is probably due to the cranium's distortion. - From Lucy to Language, Simon & Schuster, 2006, p.184
Ok, here is what he is getting at. OH 24 is one of the specimens of h. habilis found. It was, coincidentally, found more or less crushed under a piece of limestone. While most of the skull was retrievable, the top of the cranial cavity was somewhat flatted from the limestone rock. However, looking at the intact facial features such as the thin cranial bones that tends to characterize australopithecine crania, we can certainly see characteristics difficult to attribute to an australopithecine specimen. However, as he goes on further to explain, there are other similarities to australopithecines such as the expanded side to side braincase. He then goes on to talk about the cranial capacity of h. habilis being just under 600cc which is just shy of what we consider a Homo species but slightly above what we consider an australopithecine although that may be due to the flattened cranial cavity.
What this means is that OH 24 shares common features of both the h. habilis species and the australopithecines and may very well be hard to classify. Somehow or another, this seems strikingly similar to this transitional creature that so many keep bugging about.
How've ya been GCS? Fancy meeting you in a post about evolution. The fact that the cranial cavity was damaged...how can that be a reliable specimen?
How've ya been GCS? Fancy meeting you in a post about evolution. The fact that the cranial cavity was damaged...how can that be a reliable specimen?
As I said, the top of the cranial cavity was flattened but not crushed into little pieces. The rest of the skull was mostly intact save for a few fragmentary pieces. Much of the examination was done on this part of the skull but the cranial cavity to examine brain capacity is loosely conjectured (as evidenced by Dr. Johanson's writing) to be around 600cc. Where there is an unsurety it is well documented such as what he mentions about the cranial capacity. Furthermore, other h. habilis fossil finds that have the same exact features and similarities make this analysis possible - I believe they call it corroborating evidence.
What this means is that OH 24 shares common features of both the h. habilis species and the australopithecines and may very well be hard to classify. Somehow or another, this seems strikingly similar to this transitional creature that so many keep bugging about.
Yes, H. habilis may be an australopithecine or a Homind. My opinion is that either way it is probably the most direct ancestor of H. sapien and can probably be considered "early H. sapien" (but they did have small brains so that's a big no-no. Actually I think most of the classification of all species' is too strict)
Of course, there are no "transitional forms" -- only forms that exist in a certain time.
That's about a 30 mile area...still, if I died here in my yard, and then my bone fragments were pieced together with bone fragments in a town 30 miles away, what would I look like?
That is if the other bone fragments were human. I haven't stripped any heads of the flesh or inspected any skulls, but it does seem that even among humans we have different features to our skull and head structures. My jawline, teeth, and forehead are different than some of my own relatives. There are also differences between the races.
Whether the fragments are human or not is the first thing that will be identified. That's easy. I know this won't make the process any more credible to you - but a good scientist would make up the missing bones of a skull before they added animal bones. It's just too simple to spot.
Quote:
I haven't stripped any heads of the flesh or inspected any skulls, but it does seem that even among humans we have different features to our skull and head structures.
I don't mean to be gross - but I have seen that done, and I have inspected human remains. You are correct about the different features.
Quote:
My jawline, teeth, and forehead are different than some of my own relatives.
It's so interesting that you would bring that up! Yes, it's true that as Homo sapiens we have a keen ability to notice the differences among us. However, those differences that you can see in your family are not at all big enough that they would cause your skulls to be classified as different species' by qualified people.
Quote:
There are also differences between the races.
That's actually a controversial statement - but yes, again, you are correct. Some people want to label the distinctions among modern human races as a racist and get rid of them, but they do exist. This is also a great point that you bring up: It is the job of forensic anthropologists to identify dead bodies that are often decomposed. Based on certain skeletal clues, they will make a decision on race. They are proven to be correct extremely often.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The fact that the cranial cavity was damaged...how can that be a reliable specimen?
