Human's "Missing Link" found

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Despite my dislike of the term 'missing link' in the article, this is a monumental find...puts the find of "Lucy" in the dust :)

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.

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." (See pictures of Ardipithecus ramidus.)

The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.

Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas (interactive: Ardi's key features). As such, the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.

Announced at joint press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the analysis of the Ardipithecus ramidus bones will be published in a collection of papers tomorrow in a special edition of the journal Science, along with an avalanche of supporting materials published online.

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." (Related: "Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say" [June 11, 2003].)
Click to expand...
National Geographic
091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus_170.jpg
 
What is surprising about the discovery is that the remains were found in what would have been a forested area 4.4 million years ago. It had been thought that early human evolution was driven, if only in part, by the disappearance of trees - encouraging our ancestors to walk on the ground.

"These creatures were living and dying in a woodland habitat, not an open savannah," said Professor White.
Click to expand...

Gee, once again, science proves itself fallible ... and noone complains

source
 
Professur said:
Gee, once again, science proves itself fallible ... and noone complains

source
Click to expand...

Of course...that's what science is all about....not it's fallibility but its acceptance to challenge by itself and others, the ability to accept new evidence which may or may not disprove a particular hypothesis or theory and the basic concept that we do not know everything, and that's more than all right..it's the driving force.

Now..how about that fossil(s) and what it says about human evolution?
 
actually, true science starts with the acceptance that you 'don't know'. Then you apply Schrodinger and Heisenberg ... the concepts that observation changes the natural state, and that you can never be 100% sure of anything. Too many of today's 'scientists' have forgotten that, as did their predecessors.

As for this fossil ... it's interesting, but again, they're trying to paint it into their preconceived picture instead of letting it find it's own place. They're saying today that Neandrathal man was never a direct relation to homo-superior, more of a third cousin on another tree, and that both lived in competition to one another.

They're finding what they want to find, instead of letting the evidence tell it's own tale. Personally, I blame money and media.
 
Professur said:
As for this fossil ... it's interesting, but again, they're trying to paint it into their preconceived picture instead of letting it find it's own place. They're saying today that Neandrathal man was never a direct relation to homo-superior, more of a third cousin on another tree, and that both lived in competition to one another.

They're finding what they want to find, instead of letting the evidence tell it's own tale. Personally, I blame money and media.
Click to expand...

After 17 years of study...they're hardly rushing it, eh.
 
Once again, Bish, my point eludes you, and once again, I find that I really don't care enough anymore to try to change that.
 
Yeah, I used to tell that joke often, but i was referring to the post right above mine.
 
catocom said:
The thread title presented as definitive

...
then this admission of fallibility
Click to expand...

I used the term in Quotes specifically. Look for the invisible 'so called' before Missing Link. Frankly, there's is no missing link. There are thousands of remains showing intermediary stages of human evolution. Occasionally we find something older and begin testing...check age, recovery of pieces, triage, reconstruction etc etc..and then there's often decades of additional testing that goes with it.

Everything from 'what is this?' which could be answered with a range of things like spear head, striker, cutter, bone of a mammal, firewood, dinosaur poop, random rock, etc etc. Once you can figure out what it might be, you work on specifying what it is.

Prof makes it sound like they find something interesting and shout "Eureka!!" Claim that it's the 'missing link' and do everything to prove that their statement is the right one. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
maybe just my perception then.

I just have a slight peeve, periodically, about anything
seemingly presented as fact, when it's not 100%.
 
MrBishop said:
I used the term in Quotes specifically. Look for the invisible 'so called' before Missing Link. Frankly, there's is no missing link. There are thousands of remains showing intermediary stages of human evolution. Occasionally we find something older and begin testing...check age, recovery of pieces, triage, reconstruction etc etc..and then there's often decades of additional testing that goes with it.

Everything from 'what is this?' which could be answered with a range of things like spear head, striker, cutter, bone of a mammal, firewood, dinosaur poop, random rock, etc etc. Once you can figure out what it might be, you work on specifying what it is.

Prof makes it sound like they find something interesting and shout "Eureka!!" Claim that it's the 'missing link' and do everything to prove that their statement is the right one. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...


Then they need to stop publishing papers written in such a way. Read my post ... Who did I blame?
 
They don't publish papers written in that way...what you red in the media is media's interpretation of what they caught wind of.

ou blamed media and money...and? Those affect how the message gets to the mainstream, where it sits on teh front page and the font-size of the headline.

I couldn't care less...I am more interested in the affect on anthropology, archaeology and human evolutionary path theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top