Right now, my little head is puzzled with questions about human origin after reading a BBC article today.
The BBC article reads,
"Two hominid fossils discovered in Kenya are challenging a long-held view of human evolution.
The broken upper jaw-bone and intact skull from humanlike creatures, or hominids, are described in Nature.
Previously, the hominid Homo habilis was thought to have evolved into the more advanced Homo erectus, which evolved into us.
Now, habilis and erectus are now thought to be sister species that overlapped in time.
The new fossil evidence reveals an overlap of about 500,000 years during which Homo habilis and Homo erectus must have co-existed in the Turkana basin area, the region of East Africa where the fossils were unearthed.
"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis," said co-author Professor Meave Leakey, palaeontologist and co-director of the Koobi Fora Research Project. "
My question is, if the co-existense of Homo habilis and Homo erectus means that Homo erectus could not have evolved from Homo habilis, then why do people think human beings evolved from monkeys while they co-exist to date? Monkeys are still giving birth to monkeys, not human beings.
Am I just missing a clue somewhere?
The original BBC article can be found by clicking here.