close


在早餐店看報紙看到一則令人驚訝的新聞標題..看完內容後覺得標題似乎跟內容沒啥關係、悚動的「人類失落的環節?」「顛覆演化論 」「發現原始人、現代人混種 」...標題三段句子每個拿出來都很嚇人...
雖然是爛又惡質的做法...不過確實達到吸引我注意的目的...所以進辦公室去找消息來源....看完後..整個囧到...好吧1可能是另外個外電抄來的....



人類失落的環節?顛覆演化論 發現原始人、現代人混種
〔編譯張沛元/綜合十九日外電報導〕十九日發表的一份最新研究顯示,一九九○年代初在喬治亞共和國德瑪尼斯考古遺址出土的一批一百七十七萬年前的人類遺骸化石,竟同時擁有類似原始與後期人類的特性;由於此一情況並不符合任何既有的人類演進觀點,此一發現勢必引爆科學家之間的辯論。

距今177萬年前化石

這些化石揭開目前所知有限、但卻是一個重要的人類演化階段──從很像人猿的「南猿屬」(如非洲所發現的「露西」),變成當今人類所屬的「人屬」──的神秘面紗。

此一發現是由喬治亞國家博物館的研究團隊所提出,研究報告已刊載於英國「自然」期刊。從許多方面來看,這批包括三名成人與一名少年的德瑪尼斯人類遺骸化石,具有與「直立人」相當類似的特徵。直立人為人屬的一種,最早約在兩百萬年前出現於非洲,稍後迅速擴散到歐洲與亞洲大部分地區。

德瑪尼斯出土的人類化石,乃是非洲之外所發現的最古老人類,擁有與人類極為相似的脊髓、適合長途跋涉的下肢,以及發育完整的腳弓;此外,這些新出土的人類化石男女體型之間的些微差距,使之能被列入直立人與「智人」範疇。

但在此同時,德瑪尼斯出土的人類化石,又與較早期的「巧人」,以及甚至是四百萬年前首度出現於非洲的南猿屬,擁有許多相同的特性;德瑪尼斯人類化石的腦很小,體型也沒比黑猩猩大多少。此外,德瑪尼斯人類化石無法被列入現代人的另一項衡量標準,在於他們無法旋轉前臂。

美國哈佛大學科學家李柏曼在同樣刊載於自然期刊上的一篇評論文中指出,較之日前在肯亞出土的相同年代人類化石,德瑪尼斯化石混雜現代人與原始人特性這點顯示,遍及非洲與歐亞大陸的人屬,有時並未比原本設想來得現代以及有更多變異性;倘若兩者源於相同人種,則「早期直立人不僅分布廣泛,其體型與腦容量也有極大差異」。

消息來源

Scientists: Hobbit wasn't a modern human

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
Thu Sep 20, 5:17 PM ET
 


WASHINGTON - Scientists, wringing their hands over the identity of the famed "hobbit" fossil, have found a new clue in the wrist. Since the discovery of the bones in Indonesia in 2003, researchers have wrangled over whether the find was an ancient human ancestor or simply a modern human suffering from a genetic disorder.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
Now, a study of the bones in the creature's left wrist lends weight to the human ancestor theory, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The wrist bones of the 3-foot-tall creature, technically known as Homo floresiensis, are basically indistinguishable from an African ape or early hominin-like wrist and nothing at all like that seen in modern humans and Neanderthals, according to the research team led by Matthew W. Tocheri of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

That indicates that it is an early hominin and not a modern human with a physical disorder, they contend.

"It seals the deal," Tocheri said in a telephone interview.

The specimen he studied lived on the Indonesian island of Flores about 18,000 years ago, a time when early modern humans populated Australia and other nearby areas.

Scientists had thought humans had the planet to ourselves since Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago, and the discovery of Hobbits indicates another evolutionary cousin who coexisted longer, Tocheri said.

It isn't known whether humans and Hobbits coexisted on that island, he said, but it is clear we shared the planet for some time.

"Basically, the wrist evidence tells us that modern humans and Neanderthals share an evolutionary grandparent that the hobbits do not, but all three share an evolutionary great-grandparent. If you think of modern humans and Neanderthals as being first cousins, then the hobbit is more like a second cousin to both," Tocheri said.

When the bones were first discovered some scientists declared them the remains of a new, dwarf species of human ancestors. Because of its tiny stature it was quickly dubbed the "Hobbit," from the creature in the books by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Dean Falk of Florida State University said the new report helps confirm that conclusion.

"This is exciting and should help settle things," she said. "The authors are to be congratulated, not only for describing important new details about 'Hobbit,' but for shedding light on the evolution of the wrist and how it might have related to tool production."

But others have questioned whether it was really a new species. Robert D. Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago and co-authors challenged the original classification, arguing that it appears to be a modern human suffering from microencephaly, a genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects.

There are things that can go wrong in the development of the wrist, Tocheri said, but they don't result in a complete change of design from modern human to chimpanzee or gorilla wrist.

Nonetheless, Martin said he is standing by his position.

"My take is that the brain size of (that specimen) is simply too small. That problem remains unanswered," he said in a telephone interview.

"People ask me whether this new evidence changes anything, well it doesn't," he said. "I think the evidence they've presented is fine, it's the interpretation that is problematic."

___

On the Net:

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

National Museum of Natural History: http://www.mnh.si.edu

 


arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    hiokchong 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()