Haha I didn't know where to put this really. So I figured here would be fine. Note: I'm not looking for a debate on this topic. I won't shy away if anyone else is though. I've been taking an online class on Evolution, and I was just wondering if there was anyone else around on here who I could discuss some of the topics with? Hopefully so ^.^ The last thing our class talked about was Australopithecus Sediba, they had a three part thing about it. I was looking at this particular species and I couldn't help but wonder how in the world it doesn't count as a transitional fossil. Given that it's so completely on the fence some people are arguing it should be classified as Homo instead of Australopithecus. XD
I'm always down to talk about science! Australopithecus Sediba... First discovered by a nine year old kid. That's pretty cool.
Well, as a wannabe physicist i'm always available talking about things like that, but what you write is way beyond me because im not educated about species and stuff like that You reminded me a joke in Big Bang Theory when u said Homo though :HOMO HABILIS - YouTube
Yeah that is pretty awesome. They were going over it's skeletal structure and talking about how odd it was. It has long arms like you'd expect in Australopithecus, but it has teeth that are smaller which you'd expect in Homo's ( lol ) I believe it's still a bit debatable whether to classify Sediba as Australopithecus or Homo for some people. I think it's a grand example of a transitional fossil since it shares qualities with two different kinds. ---------- Post added 10th Feb 2014 at 03:36 PM ---------- Haha! That was funny
I've been interested in paleontology since I was a young child, but now that I've learned about biochemistry and genetics, I think calling any fossil "transitional" in the ancestral sense of one group being the ancestors of another is challenging to prove. That's because fossilization is often very arbitrary in its occurrence, offering snapshots that can over- or underrepresent certain features. Since evolution works by branching radiation of related species, fossils that may appear transitional may just appear that way due to sheer coincidence. Also, note that the species ("specific") name should be lowercase, not uppercase (Australopithecus sediba).
Interesting... I didn't know that. I think there's plenty out there to suggest there are transitional fossils to be found, or maybe just verified as transitional. I mean some of the skeletal structures they've found are unmistakably human esque.
