The branching took place earlier than thought, that's for sure.

And humans clearly branched again - how else to explain both normal people and Glenn Beck?

Rec'd for the title because I enjoyed knowing what was coming having already read the articles.

However:

"The actual theory is that all lifeforms evolved from the lower levels to the more advanced stages."

This has always been incorrect. Most people, even some scientists, seem to think that evolution is about "the ascent of man". In fact, evolution is really a study on the adaptability of living creatures to a physical environment.

Kurt Vonnegut accurately portrayed (and parodied) this fact in his novel Galápagos.

The problem is that most people follow the 19th century view of taxonomy, which was based on anatomy and not genetics. When viewed by the more accurate genetics view -- which is more accurate because it's intimately tied into mutation -- the clearer picture of evolution becomes apparently.

Indeed, I suspect the only reason why this article is "news" is that it forces lay people to re-evaluate their understanding of what evolution means. However, I don't have any great hopes that the MSM will help that process into enlightenment as it's more of a story by saying that "evolution is being turned upside down."

Great. This will fuel the creationists with fresh evidence that the "theory" of evolution is wrong. Just what we need.

If only they can move that decimal place now. You know, from 6 million years to 6 thousand.

-- ARG

The intelligent design folks will now say that this proves that science is edging closer to their view that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. hahahaha

This is a neat story Donal. I liked this a lot. One million years after Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

Great post.

I do not know exactly why, but stories like this elate me to no end.

WHERE DID WE COME FROM?

Always a fun question and this is a fun post.

One thing that is interesting is that humans are the only ape living outside of jungles. A hypothesis to explain this is that there may have been many strains of homanid competing against homosapiens and that we exterminated all of them that didn't stay in the forests. Apes are still endangered by human predation. In that view apes that had or developed limbs well suited for staying out of reach of humans up in trees would have a survival advantage.

from the National Geo article:

'One provocative answer to that question—originally proposed by Lovejoy in the early 1980s and refined now in light of the Ardipithecus discoveries—attributes the origin of bipedality to another trademark of humankind: monogamous sex.

Virtually all apes and monkeys, especially males, have long upper canine teeth—formidable weapons in fights for mating opportunities.

But Ardipithecus appears to have already embarked on a uniquely human evolutionary path, with canines reduced in size and dramatically "feminized" to a stubby, diamond shape, according to the researchers. Males and female specimens are also close to each other in body size.

Lovejoy sees these changes as part of an epochal shift in social behavior: Instead of fighting for access to females, a male Ardipithecus would supply a "targeted female" and her offspring with gathered foods and gain her sexual loyalty in return.

To keep up his end of the deal, a male needed to have his hands free to carry home the food. Bipedalism may have been a poor way for Ardipithecus to get around, but through its contribution to the "sex for food" contract, it would have been an excellent way to bear more offspring. And in evolution, of course, more offspring is the name of the game (more: "Did Early Humans Start Walking for Sex?").'

(not so much about the savannah-grasslands?)