Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Humans Left Trees 4.2 Million Years Ago

9 posts in this topic

Early human ancestors stopped swinging in trees and started walking on the ground sometime between 4.2 and 3.5 million years ago, according to a new study.

This key moment, when our ancestors became anatomically and behaviorally less ape-like, coincides with increased cooling, more defined seasonality, and a grassland growth spurt.All transformed former forest habitats into more varied ones, forcing our very early relatives to change their ways.

"With the trees being farther apart, it became energetically advantageous for hominids to cross the gaps bipedally," said Gabriele Macho, lead author of the study that was published in the latest issue of Folia Primatologica..

Macho, a paleoanthropologist at the Catalan Institute of Paleontology in Barcelona, and his colleagues made the determinations after analyzing wrist bones from two early hominid relatives: Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis (also known as the "Lucy" fossil). The former species is 600,000 years older than the latter and is believed to be its ancestor.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh i think they are guessing here considering .....

The former species is 600,000 years older than the latter and is believed to be its ancestor
"believed" does not make for a solid conclusion ....

TiP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh i think they are guessing here considering ..... "believed" does not make for a solid conclusion ....

TiP

Very true. With Darwin's theory of evolution, if we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. With Darwin's theory of evolution, if we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species.

One, we didn't evolve from apes and chimps, but we probably have a common ancestor. Two, I doubt there will ever be a fossil discovered that turns out to be the "missing link" that everyone is wanting. I may sound pessimistic, but even if something was found that could satisfy the requirements of being a "missing link" many people would argue that it isn't. Why do I think this? Because of how many times people have claimed of discovering the "missing link." Just Google "missing link between apes and humans" to see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. With Darwin's theory of evolution, if we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species.

Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Orrorin tugenensis

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensis

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus sediba

Australopithecus aethiopicus

Homo habilis

Homo georgicus

Homo erectus

Homo ergaster

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapiens

Edited by Odin11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Orrorin tugenensis

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensis

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus sediba

Australopithecus aethiopicus

Homo habilis

Homo georgicus

Homo erectus

Homo ergaster

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapiens

problem is until you hit homo erectus, these so called ancesters could have human traits one time and the next time of chimp traits or a mixture of both. ie big brain, little brain, big brain. upright walking, all four walking, up right walking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if man screws the world up completely, we should just climb back up into the trees and be done with it. If there's any left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Orrorin tugenensis

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensis

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus sediba

Australopithecus aethiopicus

Homo habilis

Homo georgicus

Homo erectus

Homo ergaster

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapiens

Precisely, missing link is a term that needs to be thrown out. Anything that gets discovered and starts being called a "missing link" creates two more "missing links," one before it and one after it. That chain will never end and unfortunately we don't seem able to get away from this term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One, we didn't evolve from apes and chimps, but we probably have a common ancestor. Two, I doubt there will ever be a fossil discovered that turns out to be the "missing link" that everyone is wanting. I may sound pessimistic, but even if something was found that could satisfy the requirements of being a "missing link" many people would argue that it isn't. Why do I think this? Because of how many times people have claimed of discovering the "missing link." Just Google "missing link between apes and humans" to see what I mean.

Like Andami pretty much said, there is no such thing as a "missing link". But there are transitional fossils. In the way that people use "missing link" the following can almost all be called that.

I respect your opinions on the subject but I never said that I believed we evolved from apes, or the missing link exists, or Darwin's theory is correct.

With Darwin's theory of evolution, *IF* we did evolve from apes or chimps, then the missing link will be found eventually. We dig out new fossils every day along with variants of existing species.

I'm open-minded on this topic, definitely. However, I never said I believe this to be true or accurate. Don't read between the lines when there's none to be read. Thanks.

Edited by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.