36 replies to this topic

[Waspie_Dwarf]

www.bbc.co.uk said:

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]

reggie2011, on 29 March 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

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 by Imaginarynumber1, 29 March 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[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 by reggie2011, 30 March 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

reggie2011, on 29 March 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

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]

reggie2011, on 29 March 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

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 by FurthurBB, 30 March 2012 - 12:06 PM.

[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]

DieChecker, on 30 March 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

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.