Answer:
It’s hard to assume so much based on the little evidence we have. Maybe some of the fossils we find are different because they were malformed individuals, not because they are a totally different species. 2.This question may be completed independently or as a group exercise. The Australopithecus sedibafinds demonstrate that evolution is mosaic, meaning that species often have a combination of ancestral and new traits. How would this fossil material be interpreted if only the arm bones were found? How would this fossil material be interpreted if only the pelvis were found? Based on this example, what problems do paleoanthropologists face when trying to interpret the fragmentary fossil record? a.A lot of problems can occur when we find only certain body parts and make assumptions on them rather than having more of a collection of parts to build a solid picture. In the case of Au. sedibawe can show how problematic this could be. If we only found the arm we might assume they were brachiators because of how long it is without realizing that their phalanges weren’t curved meaning they probably did very little in the trees. If we found just their pelvis we might assume they were much closer to Homo than they are because we didn’t have the other body parts to show the differences they had from Homo. The problem with a fragmentary fossil record is that it’s extremely difficult to really be sure of anything without having more of the picture. This also shows how important it is to find
fossils of other animals and plants from the same time period to get an idea of the environment that the species lived it. 3.This question may be completed independently or as a group exercise. During a period of almost a million years, Australopithecus boiseiand Homo habilislived in the same region of East Africa. If these species shared a habitat, how did they not outcompete one another? (Hint: Think about their possible ecologies and adaptations.) a.Although Au. boiseiand H. habilislived during the same time, they wouldn’t need to compete because of how different their diets were. They both had a diet that consisted mostly of plants, but the key difference is in H. habilis’stool use. Since H. habilishad more of a capacity to use tools, it increased the possibility of food that they could eat. This increase in diet possibility makes competition for food much less likely. 4.This question may be completed independently or as a group exercise. In this lab we discussed the earliest known stone tools. Do you think this was the first time our extinct relatives used tools? Why might older tools not be preserved in the fossil record? For comparison, describe three tools from your own life (a cell phone, a pencil, a plastic fork, etc.). Do you think these tools will be preserved 2.5 million years from today? a.Although we don’t have the fossil record of earlier tool use it’s very possible that earlier ancestors were using tools. If we assume that they were using tools from the environment, such as stone or wood, the normal weathering processes in the natural environment would likely destroy the tools over time, at least beyond recognition. Another problem is us recognizing what is a tool or not. As in the question, even if a phone survived 2.5 million years without being destroyed by the elements, would future species even recognize what it is? Parts of it might work or not.?
Explanation:
Well During a period of almost a million years, Australopithecus boisei and Homo habilis lived in the same region of East Africa. If these species shared a habitat, how did they not outcompete one another? Be sure to provide a detailed answer that includes information from the fossil record, such as specific physical traits and behaviors in these species.