By Greg Stewart
image by National Geographic.
It is big news when the senior editor of National Geographic takes the time to write an article—and a 3.3 million year old baby is just an occasion. The discovery of the Dikika baby is quite incredible. To look in the hominid record so far in the past is quite incredible (link here). A bit of history, if you will, that may have been part of us.
The amazing part is the fact the discovery is so complete. The Dikika baby has even brought more questions regarding the life of Australopithecus afarensis. The discovery of course is found in the Awash River from Hadar, near the site of Ethiopia Rift Valley, the most abundant site for hominins discoveries.
The article was very informative in regards to the current culture of the country. Meaning that, the discovery of such find is remarkable with malaria, lions, and ethnic violence at the door of the researcher back make the discovery quite compelling a story of how they found it. But the one question that kept running through my mind was, “Is this find a fraud, a fake discovery, a clever ruse to bolster evolution?”
The science and technology seemed sound enough. The area where the discovery was made was interesting. Nevertheless, although the verification process must have been rigorous, my mind contemplated the possibility that this might be a false find. The trouble I had with article was the assumption of how baby hominins and their parents lived. There seem to be a lot of guessing.
As for the physical evidence, it made me wonder to what extent the brain deduction and tooth patterns of the skull warranted such conclusions. Too much subjectivism seemed to play on the whole of the article. Sloan reporting is worth investigating, and the material to be further researched. From the lessons in class, the scientific method was used for the most part. The supposition of how the A. afarensis inter-acted on a daily basis was a bit too subjective.
The conclusions of the adaptations, or lack thereof, were fascinating, but too open to conjecture. The overall appeal of the article for a layperson was quite informative, while being a bit understated for those with superior knowledge. In fact, this reporting is more about the discovery than the science of how the 3.3 million year old baby girl who fits into the evolution scale than documenting of the actual science.
Author's Note: To be clearI am certain of the validity of the discovery. To find such a prize, and in its completeness seems too fantastic. In addition, the "culture" assumption by the article's authors is to problematic for me. At anyrate, there is a need for more evidence to validate this 3.3 million year-old child.
By Greg Stewart
Comments