Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fossil Ape May Be Ancestor of All Apes - Report
Science - Reuters ^ | Thu Nov 18, 2004 | Maggie Fox

Posted on 11/18/2004 7:00:02 PM PST by Pharmboy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An ape that lived 13 million years ago in what is now Spain may have been the last common ancestor of all apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans, researchers said on Thursday.

The fossil provides a missing link, not directly between humans and an apelike ancestor, but between great apes and lesser apes such as gibbons, the researchers said.

The creature, named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, had a stiff lower spine and flexible wrists that would have made it a tree-climbing specialist, the researchers write in this week's issue of the journal Science.

"This probably is very close to the last common ancestor of great apes and humans," said Salvador Moya-Sola of the Miguel Crusafont Institute of Paleontology in Barcelona, Spain, who led the study.


Remains of an ape, named 'Pierolapithecus
catalaunicus' are presented near Barcelona, Spain
on November 18, 2004. The creature that lived 13
million years ago in what is now Spain may have
been the last common ancestor of all apes,
including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and
humans researchers said. (Albert Gea/Reuters)

It would have looked something like a modern chimpanzee and probably ate fruit, said his colleague Meike Kohler.

"It may have looked a little bit in the face comparable to that of a chimp but with some differences," she said in a telephone briefing.

"I would call it a missing link, because it really fills a gap," she added.

About 25 million years ago, old world monkeys, which now live in Africa and Asia, split off from the line that eventually led to apes.

The great apes -- orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans -- are believed to have branched off from the lesser apes such as gibbons and siamangs about 11 million to 16 million years ago.

Humans branched off from chimpanzees an estimated 7 million years ago.

The researchers had just begun digging at the site near Barcelona when a bulldozer turned up the first bits of the fossilized skeleton. They immediately knew they had something unique.

The animal's rib cage, spine and wrist all looked like a great ape's, specialized for climbing. Monkeys, in contrast, while excellent climbers, have more general movement abilities and are not so specialized.

But the new find has small hands, unlike modern great apes.

"This newly discovered fossil, a new ape species from Spain called Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, or its close relative, may have been the last common ancestor of all living great apes, or close to that ancestor," said Brooks Hanson, deputy editor for physical sciences at Science magazine.

"Although this group includes humans, it's important to remember that we've had millions of years of evolution since then, she added."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anthropology; apes; archaeology; crevolist; evolution; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; greatapes; history; humans; spain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-266 next last
To: Pharmboy
That is one of the biggest misconceptions about evolution. Parent species don't have to disappear just because they give off other species...

Yes, they do have to dissapear, if they don't then they didn't evolve.The biggest misconcepion about evolution is that there are missing links of any kind. There are no transitional species and everytime they claim they have found one, it turns out to be something else. The horse line that used to be found in books, is all fake, among other things, has been proven to be so and the little creature that is supposed to be the earliest horse isn't really a horse and never "evolved into one". Evolution will be one of the greatest stains on science some day, when the people trying to perpetuate this myth finally come to their senses and start once again to be scientific. If you doubt my word read about the Cambrian explosion and answer the questons posed by that phenomonon, questions no evolutionists has been able to answer, and you will solve some riddles. Thanks...

41 posted on 11/18/2004 8:14:46 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates
You've got it all wrong.

All primates descend from a common ancestor. Populations of the ancestor species moved into different environments and adapted to them, forming new, more specialized species. These descendants are what we see today. Lack of spceialization is what did in the ancestor species.

42 posted on 11/18/2004 8:17:12 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Here's what I find interesting. We've had recorded history for what ... a few thouasand years. And in that time span, not a single mammal has split or branched a new species. Even if the Earth is a billion years old and even if takes millions of years to evolve, assuming evolution is an ongoing process you would expect for some animal to naturally reach its critical mass in last few thousand years. Even the animals we 'create' -- for lack of a better word -- (ie. mule = horse + donkey) can't produce offspring. Every "missing link" throughout history has proven to be a hoax; I won't hold my breath waiting for this one to be validated. I'm not flaming anyone for their belief or disbelief in this stuff -- I do find it interesting myself -- but I'm a pretty rational thinker and the whole billions of years of evolution line is getting pretty tired in light of the evidence.


43 posted on 11/18/2004 8:21:14 PM PST by so_real (It's all about sharing the Weather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Ancestor of all apes? Man, did he get around!


44 posted on 11/18/2004 9:06:17 PM PST by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
the ancestor species moved into different environments and adapted to them, forming new, more specialized species.

At LAST!

An explanation of Rap music (?) !

45 posted on 11/19/2004 3:21:55 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: so_real

This is what you could call the reenactment of the "enlightenment" period. Remember some evolutions are more equal to the rest.


46 posted on 11/19/2004 3:27:54 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Earlier thread on this: Ancient Animal Could Be Human-Ape Ancestor . But that's okay. It's an important fossil.
47 posted on 11/19/2004 3:38:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The all-new List-O-Links for evolution threads is now in my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; Doctor Stochastic; ..
Evolution Ping! This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and maybe other science topics like cosmology.
See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail me to be added or dropped.
48 posted on 11/19/2004 3:39:32 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The all-new List-O-Links for evolution threads is now in my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates; All
If it is the "missing link" then why are the lesser primates still here? Why are any primates sill here at all if they evolved into humans?

How wonderful! We have a winner.

49 posted on 11/19/2004 3:59:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The all-new List-O-Links for evolution threads is now in my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Here's what I find interesting. We've had recorded history for what ... a few thouasand years. And in that time span, not a single mammal has split or branched a new species.

Nice try, but within human observation the mammal species on the left has split/branched to spin off the mammal species on the right:

Sure, they're both still canids, but the point is that the domestic dog is *not* a gray wolf any longer, they're a new species.

Even if the Earth is a billion years old and even if takes millions of years to evolve, assuming evolution is an ongoing process you would expect for some animal to naturally reach its critical mass in last few thousand years.

But in a gradual process like speciation, there's no point of "critical mass" as you put it -- what do you envision, that after a million years there's some sort of loud *pop* noise, and suddenly a new species arises overnight, leaving the crowd oohing and aahing? That's not how it happens. Instead, one subpopulation just drifts further apart, genetically, from another subpopulation, and the line between "different variety" and "new species" is a broad one with many thousands of years of gray area during the transition when it could be called either way. There's no sudden "line" that can be "observed" to be crossed at 4pm on Tuesday, as you seem to believe.

Even the animals we 'create' -- for lack of a better word -- (ie. mule = horse + donkey) can't produce offspring.

Dogs. Domestic crop plants. Etc. They seem to reproduce just fine.

Every "missing link" throughout history has proven to be a hoax;

Wow, who's been filling *your* head full of nonsense? In the entire history of paleontology, there has been one (1) actual "hoax" ("Piltdown man"), one bone-headed mistake ("Nebraska man"), and one comedy of errors (National Geographic's recent debacle, quickly corrected). That's a far cry from your false accusation of "every" one "throughout history" proven to be a "hoax". You are, quite simply, either lying or parroting the lies of someone else. Either way, shame on you.

I won't hold my breath waiting for this one to be validated.

Why not, all the others have been. And while we're correcting your huge ignorance on this subject, here are a quite a few hundred other transitional fossils for you.. And there are thousands more where those came from.

I'm not flaming anyone for their belief or disbelief in this stuff -- I do find it interesting myself -- but I'm a pretty rational thinker and the whole billions of years of evolution line is getting pretty tired in light of the evidence.

Actually, it appears that you've been grossly misinformed by someone about what the evidence *actually* is. Who has lied to you so badly?

Check out this link to find out how many lines of evidence for evolution your sources "forgot" to tell you about: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent .

50 posted on 11/19/2004 4:20:57 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates
Then where are the half-ape half-humans?

That's like asking, "where are the half-cats half-tigers?" The question is nonsensical.

Tigers are still part of the cat family, and humans are still part of the ape family (just as we're also still part of the primate group, and still mammals, and still vertebrates, etc.). You're mixing your classification levels.

Where are the current evolving species?

All around us -- including us.

Where are the proto-humans and super-humans?

The proto-humans are extinct (but many of their fossils have been found), the "super-humans" are in comic books.

A few million years is NOT window enough for vast, out and out interspecies evolution across the globe.

...and your evidence for this assertion is...?

Sorry, it's bunk.

Sorry, you're obviously quite unfamiliar with the field, and with the vast amounts of evidence for it.

And before anyone presumes, this is not coming from a "fundamentalist."

That's not the noun I had in mind...

Look at the numerous "missing links" - most discredited, the rest tenuous at best.

Say what? You may not be a "fundamentalist", but you've clearly been reading their pamphlets. Your statement is quite simply untrue.

51 posted on 11/19/2004 4:31:24 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
Because they don't want to have to face the consequences when they find out (read - come to their senses) that there IS NO MISSING LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES

Oh... Then what are these? And how do you explain shared ERVs across species, if not by common descent?

52 posted on 11/19/2004 4:55:22 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I searched, but since the headlines were different, I missed it.


53 posted on 11/19/2004 5:08:25 AM PST by Pharmboy (Listen...you can still hear the old media sobbing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: searchandrecovery

I emailed the story to my boss and he emailed back that he thinks it looks like his grandfather...


54 posted on 11/19/2004 5:09:30 AM PST by Pharmboy (Listen...you can still hear the old media sobbing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

your understanding of evolution is bunk


55 posted on 11/19/2004 6:24:16 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

what massive amount of mutation? Human and chimp DNA are over 99% identical.


56 posted on 11/19/2004 6:29:28 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
An ape that lived 13 million years ago in what is now Spain may have been the last common ancestor of all apes

Or just another extinct species.

57 posted on 11/19/2004 6:32:00 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I searched, but since the headlines were different, I missed it.

Quite understandable. Not a problem. Next time, if you think of it, you might also search on the keyword "crevolist," which is how we tag these threads -- if we spot them. Usually, one of us will have done it in time for a search to turn it up.

58 posted on 11/19/2004 6:50:23 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The all-new List-O-Links for evolution threads is now in my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
This is probably one of those people who had a major physical deformity

This old fabrication?

This argument goes back to the first Neanderthal skeleton which was of an old Neanderthal who did have arthritis. Creationists took this to mean that Neanderthal skeletons were nothing more than regular humans with arthritis.

Of course, they choose to ignore the fact that we've since found a good number of Neanderthal skeletons without evidence of arthritis.

But "facts" and "evidence" are not things creationists like to deal with.

59 posted on 11/19/2004 7:09:11 AM PST by Modernman (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates
If it is the "missing link" then why are the lesser primates still here? Why are any primates sill here at all if they evolved into humans?

Since the US "evolved" from England, why is England still around?

60 posted on 11/19/2004 7:10:15 AM PST by Modernman (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-266 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson