Fossil foot bones hint at mystery walker

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Scientists have obtained a fascinating new insight into the evolution of humans and our ability to walk.

It comes from the fossilised bones of a foot that were discovered in Ethiopia and dated to be 3.4 million years old.

The researchers say they do not have enough remains to identify the species of hominin, or human ancestor, from which the right foot came.

But they tell Nature journal that just the shape of the bones shows the creature could walk upright at times.

The fossil haul consists of eight elements from the forefoot - bones such as metatarsals and phalanges.

Read more...

[+DieChecker]

Just read about this. Very interesting. The human past and ancestor species are turning out to be more varied all the time.

[psyche101]

As we have found hominids to be quite common in historical record, yet dwindled down to one species, would one not expect that more species existed? We are lucky to find what we have and I am sure many existed that we will never know of, but as the rise of primates flourished far more than Darwin had the information to realise I would have thought that the initial "malay" would be reasonably extensive? I think I find it stranger that it took so long to find remains like Flores and the Denisovian people but found many remains far more ancient in the meantime. I suppose that the presence in the great rift valley is better equipped.

[+OverSword]

Hmmmm, I wonder if they are being a little over zealous in order to appear to have made a new and unique discovery. I mean come on, from a very small bone from a 3.4 million year old foot, inferring an entire new undiscovered species of human ancestor???? I just love me some science boy!

[Mysterydude551]

I wonder about this a lot to be quite honest. We're hearing new information just about every year about the species that lived millions of years before us. But my question is, how did they infer some 3.4 million old bone, to be from some undiscovered species? Dah hell!

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

Maybe they should get Lance Link to have a good look at this bone.

[harleyblueswoman]

Maybe it is Bigfoot ancestors....

[reggie2011]

lucy isnt a human ancester and nether is this,they have been doing this for years claiming they have found the missing link only to find its a monkey not human,lucy was forced to be taken down in the natural history museum also as its a primate not a human

[Imaginarynumber1]

lucy isnt a human ancester and nether is this,they have been doing this for years claiming they have found the missing link only to find its a monkey not human,lucy was forced to be taken down in the natural history museum also as its a primate not a human

'Missing link' is a misnomer. Evolution is not a line.

Lucy was never claimed by scientists to be a human, just the earliest example of a Hominin until Ardipithecus was found. There is much evidence that suggests that Australopithecus afarensis is, in fact, an ancestor of Homo sapiens, but there is still some debate. It is accepted, however, that the Australopithecus genus is what lead to the Homo genus.

Also, Lucy has never been "forced to be taken down" by anyone. She is actually in the middle of a six year tour of museums in the US. So in way she was "forced to be taken down", but only so she could be put on display in another museum fr more people to see.

SCIENCE! AWAY!

Edit: I love that we keep finding new hominins. That's what, 3 in the last 12 months or so?

Edited March 29, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[reggie2011]

lucy isnt a human ancester and nether is this,they have been doing this for years claiming they have found the missing link only to find its a monkey not human,lucy was forced to be taken down in the natural history museum also as its a primate not a human

they can call it whatever they like its still not an ancester of human beings, darwinism is still just a thoery lots of sceintists are not darwinists,they have a habit of brushing under the rug what dose not fit into there model,like foot prints along dinosars under bedrock and human artifacts found 450 thousand years old the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming but is considered taboo in some scentific circles ,belive the facts not what you hear

Edited March 30, 2012 by reggie2011

[Imaginarynumber1]

lucy isnt a human ancester and nether is this,they have been doing this for years claiming they have found the missing link only to find its a monkey not human,lucy was forced to be taken down in the natural history museum also as its a primate not a human

they can call it whatever they like its still not an ancester of human beings, darwinism is still just a thoery lots of sceintists are not darwinists,they have a habit of brushing under the rug what dose not fit into there model,like foot prints along dinosars under bedrock and human artifacts found 450 thousand years old the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming but is considered taboo in some scentific circles ,belive the facts not what you hear

To quote Neil Degrasse Tyson; "The good thing about science it that it's true whether or not you believe it."

I will now withdraw from this converstation, sir, as you have no grasp at to what science is, nor how it works.

[+DieChecker]

I don't think many people actually read the article or other articles on the same bones before posting. There were 8 bones and they could tell from these that the front of the foot, the little toes, were very modern, but the big toe was opposible, like an ape. The morphology of the bones is very clear and the bones are clearly from the same ape, and they are also clearly not the same species as Lucy... Thus... dun, dun, dunnnnnn... this is a new species.

The evidence for Darwin's theory is overwhelming. The fossils would have had to be put there in Situ by God, at the moment of Creation, in order for the Theory not to be true. Which I find to be a weird idea. I'm much more in the camp that humans were created when God created animals. And it was not till God put intellegence into Adam that man became aware. Theologically speaking anyway. This theology allows for the Biblical "Days" to actually be "Spans of time" that could be millions of years (Or billions). And allows for ancenstor ape species. Also this explains were the other thousands of people came from whom Adam's decendants married into and lived with.

Plus Genesis is alagorical, and not meant to be taken literally. Ask anyone who has a Degree in Christian studies.

[FurthurBB]

lucy isnt a human ancester and nether is this,they have been doing this for years claiming they have found the missing link only to find its a monkey not human,lucy was forced to be taken down in the natural history museum also as its a primate not a human

they can call it whatever they like its still not an ancester of human beings, darwinism is still just a thoery lots of sceintists are not darwinists,they have a habit of brushing under the rug what dose not fit into there model,like foot prints along dinosars under bedrock and human artifacts found 450 thousand years old the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming but is considered taboo in some scentific circles ,belive the facts not what you hear

Yes, but believing the facts and not what you hear leads one away from your kind of thinking.

Edited March 30, 2012 by FurthurBB

[Artaxerxes]

It's possible that since our ancestors were not that far removed from the ancestors of chimpanzees they mixed from time to time and what they have here is a "hybrid" between the two. It might have been quite common actually. Just like Neandertals and Cro-Magnon mixed occasionally and produced hybrid offspring the same thing might have been true between archaic chimpanzees and various australopithecine species. I can remember how horny I was as a teenager and if the same were true of our distant ancestors I can picture them breeding with pretty much any female ape-like creature they could catch! If they stumbled upon a willing pre-chimpanzee female they might have very well inter-bred.

[+OverSword]

The morphology of the bones is very clear and the bones are clearly from the same ape, and they are also clearly not the same species as Lucy... Thus... dun, dun, dunnnnnn... this is a new species.

So must be a human ancestor??? Not buying it. attempt for funding for further digs in order to prove the hypothesis? that I will buy.

[Imaginarynumber1]

So must be a human ancestor??? Not buying it. attempt for funding for further digs in order to prove the hypothesis? that I will buy.

Any hominin is a human ancestor. It's certainly in the same family, taxonomically speaking.

It is also noted in the article that they do not have enough data to classify a new species, but the bones are clear that it is a hominin.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Swede]

So must be a human ancestor??? Not buying it. attempt for funding for further digs in order to prove the hypothesis? that I will buy.

There may be a error by the reporter in the earlier part of the report. As a matter of definition:

Hominid = Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and extinct ancestors.

Hominin = Species after the genus Homo diverged from chimpanzees.

The quotes from the authors of the report include the following:

"If you look at the lateral metatarsal head along with the proximal toe bone, the phalanx - that particular joint is really unique in hominids," explained team member Dr Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University, US.

"But obviously we cannot put it into the Ardipithecus genus or call it a ramidus species because we do not have any craniodental elements associated with this foot". [Note Genus reference].

It is a significant discovery because it demonstrates there was more than one pre-human species living in East Africa between three and four million years ago, each with its own method of moving around. [From writer of article]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17533826

.

[Cassea]

How do they know this is not just a deformed human? Seems like a real leap. I doubt it will stand up to peer review.

[Leonardo]

So must be a human ancestor??? Not buying it. attempt for funding for further digs in order to prove the hypothesis? that I will buy.

I don't believe the article quotes any of the scientists making a claim the find is "a human ancestor"? Where did you get this information from?

How do they know this is not just a deformed human? Seems like a real leap. I doubt it will stand up to peer review.

The species Homo sapiens sapiens (us) was unknown on the planet until ~ 200,000 years ago. This is the age of strata from which the earliest, archaic, form of our species has been recovered. While we cannot set an exact date for when our species evolved from it's direct ancestor (because that's not how evolution works) that date [~200,000 ybp] is, at present, the accepted date for "when our species evolved".

The fossils that were discovered and are talked about in this articles are from ~ 3.4 million years ago.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Leonardo

[Imaginarynumber1]

There may be a error by the reporter in the earlier part of the report. As a matter of definition:

Hominid = Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and extinct ancestors.

Hominin = Species after the genus Homo diverged from chimpanzees.

The quotes from the authors of the report include the following:

"If you look at the lateral metatarsal head along with the proximal toe bone, the phalanx - that particular joint is really unique in hominids," explained team member Dr Bruce Latimer of Case Western Reserve University, US.

"But obviously we cannot put it into the Ardipithecus genus or call it a ramidus species because we do not have any craniodental elements associated with this foot". [Note Genus reference].

It is a significant discovery because it demonstrates there was more than one pre-human species living in East Africa between three and four million years ago, each with its own method of moving around. [From writer of article]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-17533826

.

You are confusing your terminology.

Hominin is the replacement term for Hominid (austrolaphitecines, homo) that has began to gain favor over the past few years while Hominini refers to the genus homo, and pan.

So you have the family Hominoids(human, chimp, gorilla, orangutan) which is is divided into the sub-families of Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (humans, chimps, gorillas). Homininae is further divided into Gorillini (gorilla) and Hominini (humans, chimps, bonobos). Hominini is further split into Panini (chimps and bonobos) and Hominin (humans and ancestors) which in recent years has begun to replace Hominid (humans and ancestors) as the accepted term.

Never take a test on this model. It is not fun.

Edit: Any time I mentioned human I was referring to the genus Homo and it's ancestors.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Arbenol]

So you have the family Hominoids(human, chimp, gorilla, orangutan) which is is divided into the sub-families of Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (humans, chimps, gorillas). Homininae is further divided into Gorillini (gorilla) and Hominini (humans, chimps, bonobos). Hominini is further split into Panini (chimps and bonobos) and Hominin (humans and ancestors) which in recent years has begun to replace Hominid (humans and ancestors) as the accepted term.

If you know all that without looking it up, then I'm mightily impressed, sir.

[Leonardo]

You are confusing your terminology.

Hominin is the replacement term for Hominid (austrolaphitecines, homo) that has began to gain favor over the past few years while Hominini refers to the genus homo, and pan.

So you have the family Hominoids(human, chimp, gorilla, orangutan) which is is divided into the sub-families of Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (humans, chimps, gorillas). Homininae is further divided into Gorillini (gorilla) and Hominini (humans, chimps, bonobos). Hominini is further split into Panini (chimps and bonobos) and Hominin (humans and ancestors) which in recent years has begun to replace Hominid (humans and ancestors) as the accepted term.

Never take a test on this model. It is not fun.

Edit: Any time I mentioned human I was referring to the genus Homo and it's ancestors.

Swede isn't wrong.

Here is an explanation of the current classification system.

[Imaginarynumber1]

If you know all that without looking it up, then I'm mightily impressed, sir.

Study study study. If i'm not a work or school on, it's pretty much all I do. Even while on UM.

Learning Latin helped a lot because you have the root homin and you just add certain endings. If I can memorize all those damn declensions and all, I can get this.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Swede isn't wrong.

Here is an explanation of the current classification system.

Your link is an 11 year old article. I'm going by what I learned last year and study 3 days a week.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Leonardo]

Your link is an 11 year old article. I'm going by what I learned last year and study 3 days a week.

Hominin is the term used to refer to members of the genii Homo, Ardapithecis, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Kenyanthropus.

Do you agree with the above?

If so, how was Swede's comment...

Hominin = Species after the genus Homo diverged from chimpanzees.

...contrary to that definition?

Hominid is the term used to refer to all the above, plus the Great Apes and all their ancestors.

Again, do you agree with that definition?

If so, how is Swede's comment...

Hominid = Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and extinct ancestors.

...contrary, except that he left out the Orang's and Bonobo's?

Edited March 31, 2012 by Leonardo