shaking "the family tree" within a scientific theory

"Two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possibly rearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral line to Homo sapiens."

A clever opening line starts off John Wilford's NY Times piece on a recent fossil find and the previously-supposed linear evolution between Homo erectus and Homo habilis. Presented in the academic journal, Nature, the evidence challenges "...the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years." This also supports the view of a "bushier" fossil record and evolutionary trail.

Researchers also found that the Homo erectus had a "surprisingly diminutive skull", implying that "this species was not as humanlike as once thought".

If the new theory is true, then one of the punchlines is that: "the early evolution of the genus Homo is left even more shrouded in mystery than before...the early transition from more apelike to more humanlike ancestors [is] still poorly understood...how poorly we understand the transition from being something much more apelike to something more humanlike."

An encouraging thought from this: it's good to see scientists working/thinking as scientists-- open to where the evidence takes them, at least within the worldviews, theories, and paradigms they hold.

All of us should be that way, relying on evidences to shape the ways in which we think about "the facts". But beyond that, one should be fundamentally aware of the worldviews, theories, and paradigms through which we think about the facts (a very difficult task). Going still further, one should also rely on evidences to shape the lenses through which we view the world. That's a tougher nut to crack-- for all of us-- and typically requires a revolution (a la Thomas Kuhn) to accomplish (if it's done at all).

As for scientists figuring out how humans supposedly evolved from something apelike: good luck with that! ;-)