Hominids’ African Origins, 50 Years Later
Fifty years ago, Mary Leakey discovered the first known East African hominid. Image credit: Bettman/Corbis
The next time a creationist spouts some nonsense about how the lack of a fossil record undermines the theory of evolution, direct them to the hominid family tree. If you haven’t read much about human origins lately, it might come as a surprise that so many species have been identified (and more all the time).
One of the most important fossils, and one that marked an important turning point in paleoanthropology, was discovered 50 years ago this month by Mary Leakey. She (and her husband; I suppose we must mention him) spent decades looking for fossil hominids in Kenya’s Olduvai Gorge before finding their first: a skull of Australopithecus boisei, a.k.a. Paranthropus boisei, a.k.a. Zinjanthropus boisei, a.k.a. “Nutcracker Man,” which lived about 1.8 million years ago.
As the list of possible names suggests, paleonthropologists have argued quite a bit about exactly how to classify the various hominids. But this fossil clarified one important point. Before Mary Leakey’s discovery, many experts thought that hominids evolved in Asia. After her discovery, it was clear that hominids evolved in Africa. The newfound skull also showed that other poorly understood fossils, such as the Australopithecus africanus that had been discovered earlier in South Africa, were part of our own distinguished lineage rather than merely ancestors of apes.
Louis Leakey examines Australopithecus boisei. Image credit: Bettmann/Corbis
Smithsonian ran a story a few years ago about the absurdly paleoanthropologically prolific Leakey family, including son Richard who grew up digging for bones. It helps explain why it’s easier to find a photo of Louis showing off the Nutcracker skull than Mary:
Although Louis grabbed the headlines, it was his second wife, Mary, an archaeologist, who made many of the actual finds associated with the Leakey name. Until later in their relationship, when their marital ties all but snapped for both personal and professional reasons, she let her husband bask in the limelight while she conducted her beloved fieldwork….
Then, in 1959, came the now-famous discovery, in Olduvai, of a 1.75-million-year-old skull that Leakey named Zinjanthropus boisei, and which he asserted was the “connecting link between the South African near-men . . . and true man as we know him.” The skull was similar to those of the robust ape-man creatures that had been found in South Africa, but differed from them in having heavier bones and bigger teeth. Nearly three decades of work had at last been rewarded, it seemed, and the huge publicity surrounding the find propelled the Leakeys—particularly Louis, though Mary had actually discovered the skull—to still greater fame.
Here’s to the next 50 years of discoveries about human origins.
Digg
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Yep, we’re all back to being just African “accidents”- “evolution” is just a myth, as this authors monkey family tree. and like Mark Twin’s comment, “God Made Man- When He gave up on monkey’s”.
Comment by E,J. Quinn — July 30, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Note the big question mark right before Homo ergaster:
http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html
Anything prior to Homo ergaster may or may not have had anything to do with human evolution, according to the Smithsonian’s “tree”.
You’d think Laura would have caught this before going to press.
Charlie
Comment by Charlie Hatchett — July 30, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Spare us your idiotic creationist theory blabber. There are more important things that need to be done besides pointing at the bible and crossing your hands saying; “Yep, he did it, it says right here”. Growing number of people are voicing their irritation about the whole idea, and I am glad for it.
Comment by Pklater — July 30, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
While questions remain about the precise relationships and specific labels to be used among and for various fossils hominids, no reputable scientist doubts that humans evolved. Perhaps before my children die of old age, most humans will get on board with this theory and we can stop reinventing that wheel at least.
Comment by Diana Gainer — July 30, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
I love the incoherent nature of this article. It begins with a random bashing of creationists for no apparent reason and providing a pathetic link to evidence it. Then it moves into a completely unrelated blend of a Leaky biography with hominid history.
The biggest kick out of it all is, the evidence to debase those infidel creationists is a link to a hominid family tree. If you try to learn more about our “ancestors” this is the message you receive: “”We’re sorry that our site is still incomplete. We are trying to get the all of the gaps filled. Please try back here at a later date”
Sounds like there are still quite a few “small” gaps to be filled. Keep on trying to bash creationists, but at least fill in the “gaps” in your evidence before doing so.
I’m quite surprised Smithsonian published this.
Comment by Jb — July 31, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
It doesn’t matter how much evidence is collected, creationists will never accept it. Really sad that such ilk manage to muck about with scientific inquiry.
Comment by PDQ — July 31, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
What is puzzlng to me about the creationists is why they place a specific date approximately 6,000 years ago when determining the age of the earth or whatever? This seems contrary to what the Christian Bible states when it says that no one knows the mind of God. They seem to have taken God’s role away from Him on this issue because God didn’t come up with this date. They did all on their own, and now they want to shove it down all our throats by incorporating it into every sector of American society, so I’m going to call it what it is: extreme nationalism perceived as a threat to their existence, accompanied by an extra strong dose of highly refined fear. They get on my last nerve, but I try to the best of my ability to ignore them while going on about my business.
Comment by majii — August 1, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
I find it highly amusing to hear and read both sides of the creation/evolution dicussions/disputes for personally, I find separating the two concepts rather odd. Why is it impossible for there to be NO dichotomy? Why is it impossible to imagine that creation and evolution are, essentially, one and the same? I am sure theologians could spend quite a bit of time and energy and expend tons of bile, anger, pity and tut-tuts at my very unenlightened point of view. Ah, well. Whatever I am, I was created and since that creation have evolved from a small being to whatever it is I am today, some 82 years later! PS: I find nothing un-human about the remains Mary Leakey discovered. Indeed, “Lucy” (I believe one set of bones was called) appears quite human to me, even if she is early in the development of humans as we stand today. Oh, and I also do not believe Neaderthals completedly vanished! Personally, I have met several that I feel are probably fairly direct descendents of theirs! Anne
Comment by Anne Trueman — August 7, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Mary Leakey was a woman of great humanity. Not to mention the fact that she appreciated the coffee and spaghetti prepared by Maurice Taieb a discoverer of Lucy, a cousin of the Nutcracker, and the cigar Romeo and Juliet, she has always encouraged research and facilitated access to the fossils under her responsibility (I was for a time the dental examiner of these hominids) . We are all indebted, and she remains etched in our memories. Pierre Francois Puech
Comment by Puech Pierre-François — August 12, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Does evolution mean that at this very moment in time there is a human evolving from an ape?
Comment by Deborah — August 28, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
And also, if man evolved from ape, where did the ape come from?
Comment by Deborah — August 28, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Even the creationists should read “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A Coyne. He cites religious philosophers and those acknowledged by Catholic and Protestant religions alike. It is a very interesting and timely read.
Comment by Chris — September 13, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Dismissing an article on the premise that it is “incoherent” and snidely jabbing at the hominid family tree because there are slots yet to be filled does not make the evidence that it presents any less valid. The competence of the writer (which I’m not questioning because I’m not that childish) has nothing to do with the evidence in question. And, gaps or not, scientists have been and still are painfully and meticulously filling them in with the fossils they uncover. Just because there are gaps doesn’t mean they will never be filled. The idea of evolution and the discovery of the fossils of our ancestors are fairly recent developments in the scheme of things. Time and patience are required. And, as Ardi has recently shown us, along with the other fossils that populate the “pathetic” evidence tree, those gaps are being filled.
I invite creationists to support the God theory with solid, material evidence. What’s that you say? There isn’t any?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Comment by A.C. — October 6, 2009 @ 5:16 pm