Jump to content

How Humanlike Was "ardi"?


Nicholas

Recommended Posts

For such a petite creature, the 1.2-meter-tall "Ardi" (Ardipithecus ramidus) has made big waves in the paleoanthropology world. The momentous find—announced 15 years ago and formally described in Science this October—has deepened academic debates about when bipedalism evolved, what our last common ancestor with chimpanzees looked like, and how some ancient primates gave way to modern humans.

Find it: HERE!

This is a great article which brings some criticism and debate about bipedalism and where is fits in the human evolutionary linage, some research suggests that we should abandon the common held belief that paleo-species of great apes found to have bipedalism are part of the human lineage.

The way it is set up today is (in laymans terms):

Separation of Apes and Human-like Apes by branching from a species the key trait of the Human-like apes being bipedalism (Attributed to Ardipithecus Genus and Australopithecus Genus) -> Tons of variation and evolution -> Rapid brain growth (Attributed to the Homo Genus)

Now the question lies in the definition of Bipedalism, and how bipedal was Ardipithecus and does it belong in our direct branching of the linage...

Beyond interesting stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest solius symbiosus

Interesting read!

"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus..."

Note to Dr. White: Dude, that ain't science. Speculation is fun, but to draw conclusions from a lack of data???

White has been called out for his for spurious interpolation, before, e,g; the age of A. afarensis

Nick, you might find this an interesting read. The author's methodology has been challenged, and most scholars have ridiculed it as non-sense, but it is driving debate.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122680933/abstract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read!

"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus..."

Note to Dr. White: Dude, that ain't science. Speculation is fun, but to draw conclusions from a lack of data???

White has been called out for his for spurious interpolation, before, e,g; the age of A. afarensis

Nick, you might find this an interesting read. The author's methodology has been challenged, and most scholars have ridiculed it as non-sense, but it is driving debate.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122680933/abstract

Sounds interesting, I'll be sure to check it out.

As for Ardi, I'm still not quite convinced that it isn't part of the human linage. Although I haven't studied Ardi in depth, I believe trying to compare it to modern humans as much as they are is counterproductive. If this is an ancient hominid it is going to be in the midst of intermediate evolutionary changes besides bipedalism some other notable features which should be investigated is the shrinking of the jaw/teeth, and arms length. Hip position is also very important. I can't wait to see what further study brings. Perhaps it is closer to the root than we think.. hrmm..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

"There are no apparent features sufficiently unique to warrant the exclusion of Ar. ramidus as being ancestral to Australopithecus..."

Note to Dr. White: Dude, that ain't science. Speculation is fun, but to draw conclusions from a lack of data???

White has been called out for his for spurious interpolation, before, e,g; the age of A. afarensis

Nick, you might find this an interesting read. The author's methodology has been challenged, and most scholars have ridiculed it as non-sense, but it is driving debate.

Uhh... how is that not science? This is only a problematic statement to someone who accepts phylogenetic analysis as the end-all be-all analytic method. Because of the way cladistics portrays relationships, it by definition cannot address ancestor-descendant relationships. White is addressing ancestor-descendant relationships, which cladistics cannot.

Bobby

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...