Jump to content


Photo

Oldest "human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "missing Link"


30 replies to this topic

#1 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Member of the Month 12/08

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton, Canada

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 07:37 PM

Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.


Find the article HERE!

Although this dramatically changes paleoanthropology, I'm still not yet fully convinced. I feel that they are rushing the find like many others. In any case it is a significant paleoanthropological find, and I'm waiting to read more about it.

Posted Image


#2 32fordboy

32fordboy

    Nov. 2012 VFOTM; Oct. 2014 VFOTM

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lochbuie, Colorado, USA

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 07:59 PM

They do typically jump the gun, but I love reading anything having to do with hominid origins.

#3 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Member of the Month 12/08

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton, Canada

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:02 PM

They do typically jump the gun, but I love reading anything having to do with hominid origins.


I've called them on it many times. NatGeo is notorious for it actually the problem is they want to get the news as quick as possible.

Posted Image


#4 Auspex

Auspex

    Member of the Month 08/08

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alexandria, VA

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:07 PM

...I feel that they are rushing the find like many others...

Rushing? This thing was found in 1974, and has been under study ever since! The hew and cry in the community has been "PUBLISH ALREADY!" It is possibly the most over-analyzed fossil of our time.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about."
-Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant


#5 tracer

tracer

    Member of the Month 02/09

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.W. Gulf of Mexico area

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:14 PM

Rushing? This thing was found in 1974, and has been under study ever since! The hew and cry in the community has been "PUBLISH ALREADY!" It is possibly the most over-analyzed fossil of our time.


oh, i don't know about that last sentence. tj's stuff is all slept with and drooled on.
Posted Image

#6 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Member of the Month 12/08

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton, Canada

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:14 PM

Rushing? This thing was found in 1974, and has been under study ever since! The hew and cry in the community has been "PUBLISH ALREADY!" It is possibly the most over-analyzed fossil of our time.


By a specific handpicked teams and not fully peer reviewed by many specialists. Well this is the beef I'm hearing from my professors of Human Evolutionary Studies. Their issue is that it hasn't been offered to the full blunt critique of peer review and the find has been the subject of shielding.

Although I have a small bias because I tend to keep the currently accepted model of human evolution which has no place for this find, I'm quickly learning to embrace the potential of this find.

Posted Image


#7 tracer

tracer

    Member of the Month 02/09

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.W. Gulf of Mexico area

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:18 PM

when you figure out how i really got here, let me know. it's not that i'm curious - i just have other people demanding that i tell them.
Posted Image

#8 32fordboy

32fordboy

    Nov. 2012 VFOTM; Oct. 2014 VFOTM

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lochbuie, Colorado, USA

Awards

 

Posted 05 October 2009 - 08:56 PM

when you figure out how i really got here, let me know. it's not that i'm curious - i just have other people demanding that i tell them.


haha-classic

#9 Dave Bowen

Dave Bowen

    Advanced Member

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plano, Texas

Posted 07 October 2009 - 12:23 PM

Rushing? This thing was found in 1974, and has been under study ever since! The hew and cry in the community has been "PUBLISH ALREADY!" It is possibly the most over-analyzed fossil of our time.

Lucy was found in 1974. This fossil was found in 1992. Still a long time ago, but I'm sure it took a few years to prep her, and several more to compare and analyze.

Pretty interesting nonetheless. I'm not sure we will ever have the answer to this question, at least not in our lifetime.
Dave Bowen
Collin County, Texas.






Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel.

#10 Ron E.

Ron E.

    Advanced Member

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bentonville, AR

Posted 07 October 2009 - 12:31 PM

The centerpiece of a treasure trove of new fossils, the skeleton—assigned to a species called Ardipithecus ramidus—belonged to a small-brained, 110-pound (50-kilogram) female nicknamed "Ardi."

That's quite a coincidence. I went to school with a small-brained, 110 pound female named "Tina." :P

#11 Auspex

Auspex

    Member of the Month 08/08

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alexandria, VA

Awards

 

Posted 07 October 2009 - 12:34 PM

Lucy was found in 1974. This fossil was found in 1992....

Oops! Thanks Dave; I hate when that happens :blush:

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about."
-Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant


#12 Dave Bowen

Dave Bowen

    Advanced Member

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plano, Texas

Posted 07 October 2009 - 09:24 PM

:)
I just saw an ad on TV. There is a program coming on Sunday Oct 11 at 9pm on the discovery channel. I think it's called "Discovering Ardi"
Dave Bowen
Collin County, Texas.






Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel.

#13 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Member of the Month 12/08

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton, Canada

Awards

 

Posted 07 October 2009 - 09:25 PM

:)
I just saw an ad on TV. There is a program coming on Sunday Oct 11 at 9pm on the discovery channel. I think it's called "Discovering Ardi"


Sounds good to me. Thanks for the warning I'll try to catch it.

This is definitely a find which deserves more lime light than the Ida find, in my opinion. I hope it gets AT LEAST equal treatment.

Posted Image


#14 MarkGelbart

MarkGelbart

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 October 2009 - 07:30 AM

I don't really understand how this find changes anything. Scientists knew all along that there were other "missing links."

#15 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Member of the Month 12/08

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton, Canada

Awards

 

Posted 08 October 2009 - 05:43 PM

I don't really understand how this find changes anything. Scientists knew all along that there were other "missing links."



It doesn't really, I did some research from my University and found out this find was published a few times already across the 2000's. It isn't new, its significant because the specimen is much more complete than others found. This find is being over hyped to draw attention to the field. Science writers do this a lot.

I was mistaken before when I noted that this find does not reinforce my opinions on human evolution. In fact I realized today that I had completely missed this and other similar hominoids when I did my initial research. I fumbled majorly on this particular portion of the literature and stage in evolution now that I'm more read on the subject I'm not going to say that this even changes human evolution in fact the time line etc has been already altered previously some years ago to accommodate the find. I learned a lesson on this one, don't skip ANYTHING...

Posted Image


#16 Dave Bowen

Dave Bowen

    Advanced Member

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plano, Texas

Posted 11 October 2009 - 09:13 PM

Anyone else watching the program? It's pretty interesting.
Dave Bowen
Collin County, Texas.






Paleontology: The next best thing to time travel.

#17 grampa dino

grampa dino

    Advanced Member

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Cananda

Posted 11 October 2009 - 10:08 PM

I just watch the program and it was very interesting

#18 32fordboy

32fordboy

    Nov. 2012 VFOTM; Oct. 2014 VFOTM

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lochbuie, Colorado, USA

Awards

 

Posted 11 October 2009 - 10:56 PM

The program was interesting. Something that caught my attention was how they said bipedal movement is unique to hominids because it's such an inefficient way to travel. If that's the case, why were numerous dinos bipeds, not to mention some birds, like ostriches? Just an "out-loud" thought.

#19 Auspex

Auspex

    Member of the Month 08/08

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alexandria, VA

Awards

 

Posted 12 October 2009 - 07:27 AM

...why were numerous dinos bipeds, not to mention some birds, like ostriches?...

Small clarification: all birds are bipedal; it is one defining characteristic of class Aves.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about."
-Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant


#20 Frank Menser

Frank Menser

    Advanced Member

  • Regular Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,572 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ayden, North Carolina USA

Posted 12 October 2009 - 07:36 AM

The program was interesting. Something that caught my attention was how they said bipedal movement is unique to hominids because it's such an inefficient way to travel. If that's the case, why were numerous dinos bipeds, not to mention some birds, like ostriches? Just an "out-loud" thought.


I think what they meant (and weren't to clear on it) was both our movement is bipedal and upright which is unique to Hominids (though Merecats stand with better posture than most of us ;) )
Be true to the reality you create.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users