New fossil moves story of mankind back one million years

[doglady]

Meet Ardi, our oldest known ancestor, who sheds new light on the link between chimps and humans.
 
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
01 Oct 2009

 Ardi lived a million years before the previous oldest discovered fossil.

The seven stone, four-foot tall female roamed forests 4.4 million years ago – a million years before the previous oldest discovered fossil.

Her skeleton promises to fill in gaps about how we became human and evolved from apes. It has already reversed some common assumptions of evolution.

Rather than humans evolving from chimps, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved together from another common more ancient ancestor.

Each has evolved and changed separately along the way, it is believed.

Formally known as Ardipithecus ramidus — which means root of the ground ape — the find is detailed in 11 research papers published in the journal Science.

“This is not that common ancestor, but it’s the closest we have ever been able to come,” said Dr Tim White, an anthropologist and one of the researchers at the University of California.

The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor six million to seven million years ago, the research suggests.

Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since they shared that last common ancestor with humans.

A study of Ardi, under way since the first bones were discovered in 1994 in the Afar region of Ethiopia, indicates her species lived in the woodlands and could climb on all fours along tree branches.

But the development of arms and legs indicates she did not spend much time in the trees, the study claims.

Her pelvis suggests she walked upright and her teeth are closer to humans than primates. While she would have had a muzzle, it did not project out as much as modern apes.

Dr White described her as a “mosaic” that was neither human or chimpanzee.

“The only way we’re really going to know what this last common ancestor looked like is to go and find it,” he said. “Well, at 4.4 million years ago we found something pretty close to it.”

Dr David Pilbeam, palaeoanthropology at Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, said: “This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution.

“It is relatively complete in that it preserves head, hands, feet, and some critical parts in between.”

Until the discovery of Ardi, the earliest well-known stage of human evolution was Australopithecus, the small-brained, fully bipedal “ape man” that lived between four million and one million years ago.

The most famous Australopithecus fossil is the 3.2-million-year-old “Lucy,” found in 1974 about 45 miles north of where Ardi would later be discovered.

Lucy was described as the “mother of man” and the missing link between humans and chimps. Before Ardi, she was thought to be the oldest fossil of a human ancestor that walked on two legs.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6251024/New-fossil-moves-story-of-mankind-back-one-million-years.html

[Ratsnake]

 What we have here is another piece in the evolutionary puzzle that creationists will dismiss.

[Titties 'n Beer]

Now, now, that's not completely true. I believe in both, and I'm sure as fuck not dismissing this.

Of course, at the same time, the extreme religious fucks (who make people like me look bad....) will completely dismiss it.

[Ratsnake]

Now, now, that's not completely true. I believe in both, and I'm sure as fuck not dismissing this.

Of course, at the same time, the extreme religious fucks (who make people like me look bad....) will completely dismiss it.

 That's who I mean- hardcore young Earth creationists. I know that some people believe that evolution happened, but the G-man set it all in motion and stepped back.

[Titties 'n Beer]

Now, now, that's not completely true. I believe in both, and I'm sure as fuck not dismissing this.

Of course, at the same time, the extreme religious fucks (who make people like me look bad....) will completely dismiss it.

 That's who I mean- hardcore young Earth creationists. I know that some people believe that evolution happened, but the G-man set it all in motion and stepped back.

I really don't get how anyone could believe that-then again, I still can't believe that there are people who think veganism is some kind of advanced evolution thingy....

[Ratsnake]

 I don't get how you can combine evolution and God either. Prof Ken Miller, a biologist and one of evolutions best defenders, is a Roman Catholic.
 I just don't understand how a scientist who bases what he accepts on evidence can accept that some all powerfull being that we have no evidence for, set it all in motion. Maybe some day there will be some. Untill then, I remain unconvinced.

[Titties 'n Beer]

It's called faith for a reason.

Personally, for me, I just stepped back, looked at both, figured out there was no reason they couldn't co-exist (I mean, if God is omnipotent, I'm sure he could create evolution, and if he can't, the wtf is he doing?), and said fuck it. Both exist. Everybody wins.

[megski]

When you sit down and look at all aspects of biology, it really is amazing.  I'm always wondering how or what started such a phenomena.  Life is such a miraculous thing, it just seems like there has to be some unseen force driving its creation. 

[megski]

or chaos

I'm just talking about life on a cellular level, whatever happens after cells divdide enough to create a person or an animal is a different story. 

[doglady]

When you sit down and look at all aspects of biology, it really is amazing.  I'm always wondering how or what started such a phenomena.  Life is such a miraculous thing, it just seems like there has to be some unseen force driving its creation. 

I totally agree.
I believe in evolution, not creationism, but I also believe in an all powerful being, and yes, science does create doubts in me, but they are not strong enough to dismiss my belief in God.

[megski]

When you sit down and look at all aspects of biology, it really is amazing.  I'm always wondering how or what started such a phenomena.  Life is such a miraculous thing, it just seems like there has to be some unseen force driving its creation. 

I totally agree.
I believe in evolution, not creationism, but I also believe in an all powerful being, and yes, science does create doubts in me, but they are not strong enough to dismiss my belief in God.

When you look at creationism and evolution as two neutral theories, they can't be proven or disproven.  I hate to see a debate where the evolution side just pommels religion with 'no proof'.  Sure there isn't a lot, if any, depending on your belief, but science is a constantly changing entity.  A discovery could pop up tomorrow and blow evolution out of the water as a theory.  Its just that though, a theory, a good theory, but not a law. 

One thing I always thought was an interesting argument for creationism is dna testing.  I bet if you tested ardi's dna we would all have bits and pieces of his in our own. 

[Oatmeal]

Evolution cannot be proven for the same reason mythbusters does tests that don't directly relate to the myth at hand, same concept, some, "myths," cannot be directly tested, for they are multileveled and require prerequisite facts to see what they're looking for. Evolution can be disproven by finding a pitbull in the cambrian or a bunny in the cretacious.

[megman13]

Nothing in science can be "proven", that's just in the nature of empricism. It can only be disproven, or shown to be consistent with a theory and/or previous experiments.

Evolution, just like every other major scientific theory, has undergone rigorous testing, repeated observations, and has withstood the test of time.

Creationism cannot be considered science because it is not based on empirical evidence/is not testable.

As for the "just a theory, not a law" statement: Scientific theories do not "graduate" to become laws- they're seperate things. The idea that atoms are made of a nucleus orbited by electrons is "just a theory". Scientific laws are descriptions, whereas theories provide explanations. That is, the theory attempts to explain the mechanisms, whereas laws merely describe observations.

[megski]

The thing with empericism is that is that there really aren't any guidelines that go along with it. Its all based on personal opinion being that its philosophical in nature.  In my opinion, it covers such a broad spectrum of thinking, how are there any rules to say who's wrong and who's right based on what their experience with a phenomenon? 

I realize this about evolution.  Did you ever read "The Origin of Species?"  I tried but I had such a hard time trying to understand the older style language. 

I agree that creationism cannot be categorized as conventional science, but as far as the philisophical side of science, I don't see why it couldn't. 

I never said theories graduate into laws, and by putting "just" in front of theory, I was only trying to explain that theories can constantly change and are not concrete. 

[megman13]

The thing with empericism is that is that there really aren't any guidelines that go along with it. Its all based on personal opinion being that its philosophical in nature.  In my opinion, it covers such a broad spectrum of thinking, how are there any rules to say who's wrong and who's right based on what their experience with a phenomenon?   

-There are very strict guidelines for the scientific process.

I realize this about evolution.  Did you ever read "The Origin of Species?"  I tried but I had such a hard time trying to understand the older style language. 

-I'm reading it right now. I actually re-started it because I wanted to take notes on it, as opposed to merely reading.

To be honest, I was surprised how easy it is to read- better than some of the biology textbooks I've dealt with.

I agree that creationism cannot be categorized as conventional science, but as far as the philisophical side of science, I don't see why it couldn't.

-What philosophical side of science?  Science is empirical. You could say that as a purely philosophical idea, creationism might work, but not in any scientific sense.

I never said theories graduate into laws, and by putting "just" in front of theory, I was only trying to explain that theories can constantly change and are not concrete.

-You said it was "just... a theory, ...but not a law". Theories and laws are totally different, and one is not "superior" to the other. The fact that evolution is not a law is not a shortcoming or flaw on its part, it's just the nature of what a theory is. Scientific laws are just as susceptible to invalidation or modification as theories.