Posted on 09/20/2006 10:26:20 AM PDT by aculeus
The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region.
The female bones are from the species Australopithecus afarensis , which is popularly known from the adult skeleton nicknamed "Lucy".
Scientists are thrilled with the find, reported in the journal Nature.
They believe the near-complete remains offer a remarkable opportunity to study growth and development in an important extinct human ancestor.
The skeleton was first identified in 2000, locked inside a block of sandstone. It has taken five years of painstaking work to free the bones.
"The Dikika fossil is now revealing many secrets about Australopithecus afarensis and other early hominins, because the fossil evidence was not there," said dig leader Zeresenay Alemseged, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
Delicate bones
The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died.
Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce.
Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said.
"In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh.
"[The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from."
Climbing ability
This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet.
There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape.
This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the "Lucy" species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just "evolutionary baggage".
The Dikika girl had an estimated brain size of 330 cubic centimetres when she died, which is not very different from that of a similarly aged chimpanzee. However, when compared to the adult afarensis values, it forms 63 - 88% of the adult brain size.
This is lower than that of an adult chimp, where by the age of three, over 90% of the brain is formed. This relatively slow brain growth in the Dikika girl appears to be slightly closer to that of humans.
Slow, gradual development in an extended childhood is regarded as a very human trait - probably to enable our higher functions to develop.
Professor Fred Spoor of University College London said the find would give scientists a "detailed insight into how our distant relatives grew up and behaved... at a time of human evolution when they looked a good deal more like bipedal chimpanzees than like us."
The "Lucy" skeleton, discovered in Hadar, Ethiopia, in 1974 belongs to the same species as the Dikika girl. For more than 20 years it was the oldest human ancestor known to science.
Published: 2006/09/20 17:05:09 GMT
© BBC MMVI
We did not descend from Lucy's Baby. That's for sure.
Um, the common ancestor of apes and humans (or any creature, like "Lucy" considerably closer to that branching point than modern humans) should show a mix of human and ape-like features. IOW an "apeman" of some sort, not a "monkeyman".
But, anyway, this is interesting. You seem to be saying, based on the the quote you choose, that Australopithecus afarensis shouldn't be considered an ape like human ancestor cause it's too human, or was just a human?
Are you aware that most antievolutionists dismiss all the Australopithecines as "just apes" and not human at all?
So the creationists were saying; "Aha! This knee doesn't really belong to Lucy. Lucy was just another quadrupedal ape."
At this point, however, there is not the slightest doubt that the Australopithecines were bipedal. So the best creationists can do now is concede that some apes were bipedal, like humans.
The worst they can do, OTOH, is to ignore the fact that unequivocal additional evidence has rendered the point moot and continue to claim that "Lucy" is phony because the evolutionists lied about the knee joint (even though they never did). Sadly most creationists do their worst, and we do indeed repeatedly have them claiming in these threads that "Lucy" is a hoax or a fake or some such. Even more sadly those creationists who might know better hold their tongues and refuse to correct such errors by those on their "side".
Well, now, that's only because the Darwin CentralTM faketory in The Galapagos was closed years ago in a cost cutting frenzy. (As a senior operative you'll remember that's the same year the bourbon/beer allotment was slashed to a mere case/keg a week.) The afarensis dies have since been moved to the Kuala Lampur frauduction facilities and "new" members of "Lucy's" family can now be assembled and salted at will or need.
Outsourcing.
"In a few minutes there will be no doll. There can't be. I'm sorry."
Thanks for the ping!
you took your Ichneumon pills! well done!
If you don't have a human tongue bone, you can't use your tongue for speech, therefore no human language could exist, therefore no advanced intelligence either.
What "missing link" are you referring to?
__________________________________________
The missing link that Darwin said we will find...the link between man and ape. However, he also said if we do not find this link...and soon, then his position is not valid. Well, I think "soon" has long since passed.
There is no missing link.
But, anyway, this is interesting. You seem to be saying, based on the the quote you choose, that Australopithecus afarensis shouldn't be considered an ape like human ancestor cause it's too human, or was just a human?
Are you aware that most antievolutionists dismiss all the Australopithecines as "just apes" and not human at all?
_______________________________________________________
I'm not sure what it was. Neither do they. Science, carbon dating and many other aspects they choose to use is just that....a modern, educated, GUESS. Yet, the question they refuse to answer, which they know they cannot answer and maintain evolution at the same time....
How did it all start? If there was nothing, how did something begin? Science says you cannot get something from nothing, so they ignore this question and move along.
The missing link that Darwin said we will find...the link between man and ape. However, he also said if we do not find this link...and soon, then his position is not valid. Well, I think "soon" has long since passed.
Wow. That's an interesting interpretation of his words.
Care to post where he said that? The entire quote in context, mind you, not every third word removed to create the meaning you want.
LOL. I'll keep that quote in mind for future threads....
While that may be true. I think it goes to show the writer of the article is an idiot.
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.