Oldest known human ancestor rewrites evolution theories

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
27,091
10,008
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Source: Oldest known human ancestor rewrites evolution theories



An international team of scientists unveiled Thursday the results of 15 years of
study of one of the oldest known human ancestors, Ardipithecus ramidus, which
they say overturns much of what we know about human evolution.


And surprisingly, it's also rewriting the story of our relation to gorillas and
chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, and their development as well.


Yohannes Haile-Selassie, one of the authors involved in the research and the man
who discovered the first pieces of the most complete Ardipithecus ramidus
specimen, nicknamed Ardi by the researchers, says the findings represent a
complete rewrite about what is known about human and ape evolution, and give
new insight into how we became bipedal.


"What we are seeing . . . is something we never expected to find in the human
lineage," he says, his voice buoyant on the phone from the Cleveland Museum of
Natural History, where he is Curator/Head Physical Anthropology.


"'It's a revelation, and you can imagine how much it's going to change how we think
about the earliest parts of our evolution."


The peer-reviewed findings appear Friday in a special edition of the online journal
Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
They are also being announced Thursday morning in simultaneous news conferences
in Washington, D.C. and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.


The story of Ardi takes us back 4.4 million years to a corner of northeast Ethiopia
that today is a desert where erosion constantly exposes fossils from the dawn of
humankind.




In all, scientists have discovered fossilized bones and teeth in the area representing
three dozen individual Ardipithecus specimens, including much of Ardi's skull, pelvis,
lower arms and feet.


Until now, Haile-Selassie says, much of what we knew about our ancient past
derived from comparisons with the other apes, and especially chimps, and from
Ardi's younger 'sister' — Lucy, the 3.2-million-year-old specimen of another hominid
species, Australopithecus afarensis, discovered in 1974, also in Ethiopia.


Lucy's discovery showed that human forebears walked upright that long ago.




But Ardi, Haile-Selassie says, shows our first erect steps took place more than a
million years earlier and that is much closer to the last common ancestor (or LCA)
that the human line shares with the ape line after the two split some six million
years ago.


Until now, it has been assumed chimps and gorillas have retained many of the
supposed traits of that last common ancestor, among them knuckle-walking and
climbing ability.


Now, Haile-Selassie says, we know that isn't true.


Ardi shows that unlike modern apes, which are knuckle-walkers, her species — and
by extension all the ancestors of all apes and humans — descended from a common
ancestor that in turn was not a knuckle-walker, he says.


Through analyzing Ardi's teeth, pelvic bones, hands and feet, the researchers
determined Ardipithecus had a mixture of primitive traits, shared with its older
relatives, and traits that only later hominids — like Lucy and us — have.


However, they also found many of those traits do not appear in modern apes,
leading to the conclusion that apes have evolved significantly since the split with
the last common human-ape ancestor.


For one thing, says Haile-Selassie, chimps and gorillas developed less flexible wrists
that make knuckle-walking and swinging from branches possible only after they
split from the line that led to humans.


The researchers say the surprising findings mean chimps and gorillas
have specialized greatly since then and are poor models for a common ancestor and
for understanding human abilities such as walking.


On that last point, Haile-Selassie says Ardipithecus's woodland habitat and her
ability to walk upright — though not as well as later hominids — also "falsifies" the
long-accepted notion that bipedalism originated when our ancestors needed to see
further in open grassland — or savannah — in order to avoid predators.


Ardi's species was already walking before our first ancestors ventured onto the
savannah, he says.


Back in 1994, when he found the first fragments of Ardi — half a finger bone and
then the other half nearby — Haile-Selassie recalls he "was excited because he knew
he had some human forerunner on his hands.


"There's something that we call 'hominid fever,' " he says with a chuckle. "When
you're in the field you want to find a hominid." But he had no inkling of the
significance of his discovery.


The pieces were so fragmented and fragile that it has taken 15 years to dig out,
clean, assemble and analyze the partial skeleton of Ardi. "You just touch it, it turns
to powder," he says.


That in itself was quite a feat, says David Pilbeam, Harvard University Henry Ford II
Professor of Social Sciences and Curator of Paleoanthropology in the Peabody
Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.


"The find itself is extraordinary, as were the enormous labours that went into the
reconstruction of a skeleton shattered almost beyond repair, and particularly the
skull," says Pilbeam, who is not connected with the study team, but was given
access to the embargoed material for comment prior to publication.




Pilbeam doesn't accept all the authors' conclusions, but he says the work "is one of
the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution."


Altogether, 47 different authors, in 11 detailed papers and further summaries
contributed to the study of Ardipithecus ramidus and its environment.


The primary authors include Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley;
Berhane Asfaw of Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa; Giday WoldeGabriel
of Los Alamos National Laboratory; Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo and C.
Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.


The studies are available by logging onto www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus


Who was Ardipithecus ramidus?

-They were creatures with long arms, made for climbing, short legs and rigid feet
that enabled them to walk upright on the ground — despite having an opposable
toe. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, says
they would have probably walked only short distances, given that they had to 'toe
off' painfully on the second toe, unlike Lucy and all other hominids we know of who
pushed off on the big toe.


-The brain was small, similar to a chimp's. They stood about four feet and weighed
about 50 kilograms, with long-fingered, flexible hands and wrists and would have
moved about in the trees by walking along branches supporting their weight on
their palms.




-The pelvis had features that supported upright walking, as well, and the gluteal
muscles allowed it to walk without shifting the centre of mass from side to side,
researchers say.




-The males' canine teeth were similar in size to the females' — unlike modern apes
— and far smaller and blunter than those of the apes From that, researchers infer
the males were less aggressive than male chimps and gorillas, who use their large,
sharp canines in conflicts.




-Ardipithecus would have been as adept on the ground as in the trees that at that
time grew in the Afar Rift's then temperate climate. (The climate is inferred by
the presence of fossilized animals, wood, seeds and other plant materials from
such an environment, which also give clues to Ardipithecus's omnivorous diet.)


According to Haile-Selassie, even 150 years ago, Charles Darwin understood that
although chimps are our closest living relatives, we cannot look to them for clues
about our evolution, that there had to be a common ancestor.


Ardi isn't that ancestor but she is the closest to finding it that we have come so
far, the research shows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: In Between Man

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Yup. Thanks, Ron. I am about 3 or 4 weeks behind in reading Science. lol That's my story and I am sticking to it. :D
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I wait, on baited breath, to read what the mouth-breathers say
I don't think they're coming, unless they're off in some back room trying to find an argument in support of this discovery being less than 10,000 years old. Then they'll drop in with gigantic cut and paste posts from creationist web sites. Or maybe they'll just do a drive-by shooting kind of post with neither argument nor information, like YukonJack's "Fraud then, fraud now" dismissal of Darwin. Real science is a bit of a problem for them.
 

jambo101

Electoral Member
Sep 18, 2009
213
4
18
Montreal
I think we all originated from the survivors of a crashed spaceship, i dont see any evidence of any other of earths creatures evolving beyond the need to eat, and procreate.
Dolphins with a brain size equivalent to ours surely could have evolved into an underwater civilization instead of just chasing fish around forever.
 

FUBAR

Electoral Member
May 14, 2007
249
6
18
I don't think brain size equals brain use. One thing that makes us different from every other species is that we can inflict hurt or even kill from a distance. We are not a strong or powerful animal so we had to use tools and our brains to survive. It was our brain that evolved fastest the rest just followed.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
So the first part of these is wrong:




I'm agnostic. But for arguments sake, how does this disprove God embedding a fossil record when she created the earth? If she is powerful enough to create the universe, surely she is powerful enough to create a few crumbly bones here and there as a test of faith....
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
...how does this disprove God embedding a fossil record when she created the earth? ...
The fossil record is a lot more than a few crumbly bones, but evolution doesn't need fossil evidence anyway, it's perfectly secure with other lines of evidence. Not that the volume of fossils makes any difference to the question though. This doesn't disprove a deceptive deity created things with evidence of a long past that didn't happen, there's no way to disprove that. But consider the logical extreme of that argument: we were all created a nanosecond ago with a full set of memories and knowledge of a past that didn't happen, which would mean that evidence and logic are useless, it's all at the whim of a capricious deity.That's not a useful idea, it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable. It is, in the words of a former professor of mine, propositionally vacuous.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The fossil record is a lot more than a few crumbly bones, but evolution doesn't need fossil evidence anyway, it's perfectly secure with other lines of evidence. Not that the volume of fossils makes any difference to the question though. This doesn't disprove a deceptive deity created things with evidence of a long past that didn't happen, there's no way to disprove that. But consider the logical extreme of that argument: we were all created a nanosecond ago with a full set of memories and knowledge of a past that didn't happen, which would mean that evidence and logic are useless, it's all at the whim of a capricious deity.That's not a useful idea, it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and unverifiable. It is, in the words of a former professor of mine, propositionally vacuous.

Sure all valid points. Which proves that evidence based science will never disprove faith based belief.

But an interesting discovering. She sort of looks like a girl I knew in highschool...
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Now, that it has been proven that human life originated in Africa, all human life in North America since time immemorial is IMMIGRANTS.

That begs the questions: Aren't even the so-called First Nations immigrants? What is the legal and legitimate claim of so-called First Nations over any others? Are people who claim (and without written history they can not prove) that their ancestors were here before the Vikings? Are people whose ancestors arrived here hundred years ago better citizens than those who came yesterday, or whose ancestors came 25 years ago? Is giving so-called First Nations privilage over all the others fair?

Just wondering.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Whoever got here first can claim the land. Everyone who shows up after that has to negotiate with the people already there. If we don't obey this fundamental principle then we end up relying on the might makes right principle.

Now that we have nukes, bio and chem weapons the final outcome of might makes right is mutual assured destruction. What a waste.... Fundamentally we humans are still primitive. Technology makes us dangerous to the planet and each other.
 

FUBAR

Electoral Member
May 14, 2007
249
6
18
Whoever got here first can claim the land. Everyone who shows up after that has to negotiate with the people already there. If we don't obey this fundamental principle then we end up relying on the might makes right principle.

Now that we have nukes, bio and chem weapons the final outcome of might makes right is mutual assured destruction. What a waste.... Fundamentally we humans are still primitive. Technology makes us dangerous to the planet and each other.




Might does make right, that's why you don't live on a reservation. First come first serve only counts if you can hold on to it without someone else taking it away. All through human history might makes right every time for everything, land or resources and even water. Only the well fed and warm are altruistic everyone else would kill heir neighbor if it came to an us or them situation. America and Canada are close but if it came down to the crunch those Abrahms would cross the 49th just as fast as in Iraq......
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Apparently canine teeth were developed to bite adversaries? Amusing conclusion.
lol Didn't you know that? It has nothing to do with shredding meat into swallowable sized pieces and puncturing throat vessels in prey. lol One has to chew one's adversary to death.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I think we all originated from the survivors of a crashed spaceship, i dont see any evidence of any other of earths creatures evolving beyond the need to eat, and procreate.
Not crashed spaceships. crashed meteorites. Some apparently carry the building blocks of life. :)
Dolphins with a brain size equivalent to ours surely could have evolved into an underwater civilization instead of just chasing fish around forever.
What better life to have than swimming around having fun in the bow waves of ships, having sex, chasing seals and penguins for fun, eating fish, and chattering about stupid humans? :D