Greg Laden puts an interesting twist on the question of how many hominin fossils we have: the question should be, "how did they die?". We seem to have evolved from a species that was primarily a prey item on predators' grocery list, to one that succumbed most often to disease, to one where mortality was driven by violence (and now, at least in our prosperous corner of the world, where senescence exacerbated by sloth and gluttony is the common cause of death.)
He's right. The cool questions our students ought to be getting excited about have nothing to do with the nonsense the Discovery Institute wants them to discuss.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Now and again, some well-meaning but clueless person gets it into their head that teaching creationism in the schools is a good idea — that the clash of ideas is a good pedagogical technique. There are cases where that would be true, but doing it in the public school classroom and hashing over a…
Orson Scott Card has written a long essay defending Intelligent Design.
Oy, but it is depressing.
It's a graceless hash, a cluttered and confusing mish-mash of poorly organized complaints about those darned wicked "Darwinists". He lists 7 arguments. Then he repeats his list, expanding on them.…
A little more than halfway through the horror novel The Relic, a blood-spattered tale of a monster lurking in the bowels of the American Museum of Natural History, the scientist Greg Kawakita shows off his evolutionary extrapolation program to his colleague, Margo. It is a complex analysis system…
The skull of the Taung child (Australopithecus africanus); the fragmentary remains of Orrorin; the scattered bones of Homo erectus from Dragon Bone Hill; a skullcap of a young Paranthropus from Swartkrans, South Africa. What do all these hominin fossils have in common? They all bear the tell-tale…
Another important question: how did they come to be preserved? Why these individuals, why these precise points along the cladistic bush?
Ah, Martin, now that's the million dollar question, isn't it? Obviously taphonomical processes preserve individuals differentially, but what are the criteria?
Personally, all my interest in vertebrates is in this sort of taphonomic question (I'm a ceph person normally) -- I'd love to have a chance to look into this question. There have been some studies on which bones are best preserved, starting with fresh cow skeletons and sending 'em down a flume, but not much beyond the simple "pelvises last longer than ribcages" type of thing. Good place to start though.
Octopod, you might look into Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology by Anna K. Behrensmeyer and Andrew P. Hill, and Vertebrate Taphonomy by R. Lee Lyman if you want to know more about the taphonomical aspects of paleoanthropology and zooarchaeology.