The evidence so far is thin, said Richard Leakey, the renowned paleoanthropologist and conservationist who joined a score of scientists delivering their findings at a conference on climate change and human evolution this week, held at Columbias Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Is there evidence for a direct connection between changing climate and human evolution? Leakey asked during a keynote address Thursday. The answer so far is no. I dont see it yet.
Still, a number of scientists are on the hunt. Speakers talked about changes in plants and animals, and how fluctuations in temperature and rainfall would have altered the landscapes. Theyre studying what carbon isotopes in soil can tell us about changing plant life and temperature; what hominid teeth suggest about changes in diet; and what sediment cores from the bottom of the ocean have to say about variations in monsoon rainfall.
What did all this mean for our ancestors? If the climate affected human evolution, there should be a substantial adaptive response, Leakey said. But with a limited fossil record, We are stuck with this very, very narrow vision of human evolution, Leakey said.
Leakey has been in the middle of the search for human ancestors for decades, following in the footsteps of his famous parents, the archeologists Louis and Mary Leakey, whose work at Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania was key to the understanding of human evolution. He lives in Kenya, where he has been active in politics and conservation; he also is a professor of anthropology at Stony Brook University.
Leakey suggested the focus of research should be on trying to answer four key questions:
First, what would have prompted hominids to go bipedal standing upright with the big toe pointing straight ahead?
Standing upright on two legs is not only an odd way to be, he said, but a huge adaptation to what was going on.
Second, what prompted our ancestors to begin using one tool to make another, and when: The use of stone to make stone that can cut flesh is important. Were not empirical things, were thinkers. What was it that triggered that response?
The third point has to do with the first migration of hominids out of Africa, when homo erectus spread into Asia and Europe. At some point about 1.8 million years ago, a hominid shoes up in Europe. That implies experience with different environments, and that implies technology, Leakey said. But, he asked, why didnt that hominid continue to thrive?
Lastly, what drove the second migration of hominids this time homo sapiens out of Africa?
For more on the conference, visit the web site. Stay tuned for a video of the talks, which will be available at the site in the future. Professor Peter deMenocal, a paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty and vice chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, organized the conference, which brought in scientists from around the world to talk about their latest research.
Explore further:
Cotton thrips posed big problem for some South Plains farmers

EdMoore
1 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2012Two, two junk science ideologies rolled into one!
Doublemint deception!
plaasjaapie
1.1 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012Still trying to retail the old H. Sap. "our of Africa" notion, I see. I guess Leakey would have a hard time justifying his family's life and work otherwise.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012Wow, not even climate denialists deny global warming! But they are often creationists, two crackpotisms in one package. You are going for the hat trick.
@ plaasjaapie:
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, OOA is the reigning model. href="http://en.wikiped...n_humans : "In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, frequently dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model describing the origin and early dispersal of anatomically modern humans."
plaasjaapie
1.4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012"the climate around them got warmer, and colder, wetter and drier"
Perfect AGW! It encompasses all possibilities. Therefore it can never be wrong.
Which makes it a cult, not a science
Calenur
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012.....ummm...elephant in the room? That perfectly describes religion.
rwinners
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012PeterKinnon
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2012This has strong positive feedback potential for both biological and technological "arms race" scenarios. Greatly potentiated by tool-use and also productive of stronger intra-group social organization and bonding.
This model is outlined in my freely downloadable e-books which are to be found at the "Unusual Perspectives" website
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012The climate always changes. Naturally. It has never needed man. And man has no effect. Except for the Urban Heat Island that surrounds our towns and cities and thermometers and raises temperatures by as much as 9C in the summer. And causes the gullible to think the globe has warmed because of CO2.
LariAnn
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012Ik hoop van harte dat jij geen nederlander ben want ls dat wel zo is ga ik mij kapot schamen voor mijn volk dat iemand zo als jij bestaat.
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012Hey Kaaskop. Jy moet in Engles scruif. Ek kannie jou taal verstaan nie.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012Ik ben blij dat ik heb geen nederlanders in mij. Als je een represenative van de nederlandse dan zijn ze dom. Natuurlijk, wanneer ik in Nederland een bezoek aan een lange tijd geleden waren ze heel mooi. Uiteraard hebben ze meer manieren en hersenen dan jij. Ik mis rijsttafel.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2012