Surprised no one posted this yet...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19184370

 

What does this mean for current human evolutionary models? They mention "the research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans". Explain please.

Edited August 10, 201213 yr by The Peon

They mention "the research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans". Explain please.

 

I guess they mean that from the earliest primates, multiple lines have branched off, and only one of those branches became us (humans). There may have been other humanoid species in the past that didn't make it. They've died out. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.

Surprised no one posted this yet...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19184370

 

What does this mean for current human evolutionary models? They mention "the research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans". Explain please.

 

I believe you have it spot on. It's not that surprising, given extant species are a product of both diversification and extinction - while phlyogenetic trees are a great way to visualize species, in reality through time they by rights should look more like this - red being the "linear" evolution of extant taxa and the black lines representing lineages which have since become extinct: