Word: homo
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...while the new discovery brings paleontologists closer to solving the mystery of Homo's origin, it still falls frustratingly short. Although the scientists found a nearly complete upper jaw, 10 teeth and a number of tooth fragments, they can't say for certain which species the fossil belongs to. By 1.9 million years ago, the Homo line had spawned at least two branches: Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis. The new fossil resembles both species in some ways, but without a more nearly complete skull it's impossible to say more. "What we have now is a hypothetical human lineage with...
...fact, as the researchers explain in a report that will appear in the December Journal of Human Evolution, the jaw belonged to the genus Homo, the line that includes modern Homo sapiens. The fossil has been dated at 2.33 million years old--arguably the oldest Homo fossil ever found, and right in the middle of the mystery zone. What's more, the bones were found near stone tools of the same age--the oldest combination of bones and artifacts ever discovered...
...find, made in 1994 but announced only last week, is important for a couple of reasons. First, the manufacture of stone tools is considered a key characteristic of the Homo line--something, along with brain size, skull shape and other anatomical features, that separates humans from less-than-humans. That has never been proved, though: the oldest known stone tools date back perhaps 2.5 million years, but they were found without any fossils around and could have belonged to anyone. And the oldest Homo fossils with universally accepted dates--until now, that is--date back only 1.9 million years...
...began about 2.7 million years ago and transformed much of Africa's moist woodlands into dryer, more open savannah. Was the development of tools and a more upright stance an evolutionary strategy to cope with the rigors of the new environment? Perhaps. But until now nobody had found a Homo fossil that dated back anywhere near 2.7 million years...
...these impulses did not give this boost to genetic proliferation mainly by furthering the overall "welfare of society"--and certainly not by furthering the "welfare of the species." As a result, humans don't naturally deploy our "moral" impulses diffusely--showering love and compassion on any needy Homo sapiens in the vicinity. We tend to reserve major doses of kindness either for close kin (the result of an evolutionary dynamic known as "kin selection") or for non-kin who show signs of someday returning the favor (a result of the evolution of "reciprocal altruism"). This finickiness gives our "moral" sentiments...