Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learning

Remembering the “First Family”

Question: What is the scientific legacy of the “First Family” discovery? 

Donald Johanson:  It’s interesting that you bring up the question of the First Family because First Family was found in 1975 and it’s my belief that if we had found those fossils first they might have become even more famous than the Lucy skeleton.  Lucy is sort of the benchmark by which people judge the field of paleoanthropology and the study of human origins.  It’s like when you pick up the “New York Times” and on the front John Noble Wilford has got an article about a new fossil and you’re at dinner and someone says, “Well I don’t know very much about that.”  “And you say well you know it’s older than Lucy.”  And they go, “Oh, older than Lucy.”  You know it’s a reference point, but the First Family site, which was found the following year by a medical doctor who was on the expedition.  He was out surveying, walking, spotted a block of rock with a couple of teeth in it and here we have the remains of somewhere between 13 and 17 individuals from one geological horizon.  A little bit older than Lucy, maybe you know tens of thousands of years older, but they weren’t complete fossils.  They weren’t complete individuals I should say, but they were adults.  They were infants.  They were males and females.  This was a group of afarensis, a group of Lucy’s species that had been living together.  There were two infants that looked like they could almost be twins when you look at the teeth for example.  There were large males and there were small adults.  The small adults were females.  So what was important about the First Family is it gave us an idea of biological variation.  If we look at people today for example, just walk a city block in New York, you see there is a variation in stature.  There is a variation in physiognomy.  There is a variation in if you could look into their mouths and into the shape of teeth and so on.  Well here was a population and nothing like that has ever been found before or ever found since.  This is a unique snapshot.  This is a moment when a group of creatures at about 3.2 million years ago, a little bit older than Lucy suffered some extraordinary catastrophic event.  We don’t know what that was.  We thought it was a flash flood, but the geology isn’t right for that.  We don’t know why they all died, but it’s a mass death and it allows us to solidify the hypothesis that Lucy’s species was typified by having large males and small females.  They’re not two different species.  They’re just variations on a species, large one males, small ones females.  This is a discovery that I think today in 2010 really deserves revisiting and going back and doing a detailed analysis of the specimens.  It is a unique snapshot.  It is one of the things that is for us biologically more important than the discovery of a single skeleton for example.

Question: If the discovery were to be revisited, what questions could it answer?

Donald Johanson:  Well I think there are a number of questions.  One of them would be to see if there is any detailed work that can be done on surface damage that might tell us something about how long they were out on the surface after they died, perhaps how they died.  So far we have not seen carnivore damage on it, so we don’t see the typical hyena chewing that you see on some of these, but is there anything on the surfaces of the bone that might help us understand how those bones came to be where we found them?  The other thing I think that would be interesting is to use new technology that is available in the scanning area where you can use micro scans and scan these bones almost micron by micron that would give us some ideas about growth rate and this would be particularly true of the teeth.  There is a three-quarters of a baby skull that is distorted and broken.  That really needs to be reconstructed to give us an idea of what we think a three year-old really looked like.  There has been a discovery at another site very close to where Lucy was found of a nearly complete baby skull by my colleague at the California Academy of Sciences, an extraordinary Ethiopian skull, a wonderful man by the name of Zeresenay Alemseged, who has found a 3.3 million year-old baby, so I think there are going to be a lot of things that would come out of this, and it’s almost a project in itself.

Recorded on March 19, 2010
Interviewed by Austin Allen

\r\n

The group of fossils Don Johanson found in 1975 marked a watershed in the study of human origins—and deserves to be revisited today.

Remote learning vs. online instruction: How COVID-19 woke America up to the difference

Educators and administrators must build new supports for faculty and student success in a world where the classroom might become virtual in the blink of an eye.

Credit: Shutterstock
Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • If you or someone you know is attending school remotely, you are more than likely learning through emergency remote instruction, which is not the same as online learning, write Rich DeMillo and Steve Harmon.
  • Education institutions must properly define and understand the difference between a course that is designed from inception to be taught in an online format and a course that has been rapidly converted to be offered to remote students.
  • In a future involving more online instruction than any of us ever imagined, it will be crucial to meticulously design factors like learner navigation, interactive recordings, feedback loops, exams and office hours in order to maximize learning potential within the virtual environment.
Keep reading Show less

Has science made religion useless?

Placing science and religion at opposite ends of the belief spectrum is to ignore their unique purposes.

Videos
  • Science and religion (fact versus faith) are often seen as two incongruous groups. When you consider the purpose of each and the questions that they seek to answer, the comparison becomes less black and white.
  • This video features religious scholars, a primatologist, a neuroendocrinologist, a comedian, and other brilliant minds considering, among other things, the evolutionary function that religion serves, the power of symbols, and the human need to learn, explore, and know the world around us so that it becomes a less scary place.
  • "I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it's not the whole story and there's a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy," says Francis Collins, American geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "But that harmony perspective doesn't get as much attention. Nobody is as interested in harmony as they are in conflict."

Signs of Covid-19 may be hidden in speech signals

Studying voice recordings of infected but asymptomatic people reveals potential indicators of Covid-19.

Ezra Acayan/Getty Images
Coronavirus
It's often easy to tell when colleagues are struggling with a cold — they sound sick.
Keep reading Show less

Octopus-like creatures inhabit Jupiter’s moon, claims space scientist

A leading British space scientist thinks there is life under the ice sheets of Europa.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SETI Institute
Surprising Science
  • A British scientist named Professor Monica Grady recently came out in support of extraterrestrial life on Europa.
  • Europa, the sixth largest moon in the solar system, may have favorable conditions for life under its miles of ice.
  • The moon is one of Jupiter's 79.
Keep reading Show less

Supporting climate science increases skepticism of out-groups

A study finds people are more influenced by what the other party says than their own. What gives?

Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new study has found evidence suggesting that conservative climate skepticism is driven by reactions to liberal support for science.
  • This was determined both by comparing polling data to records of cues given by leaders, and through a survey.
  • The findings could lead to new methods of influencing public opinion.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast