Posted on 03/20/2008 2:54:39 PM PDT by blam
Upright Walking Began 6 Million Years Ago
Newswise A shape comparison of the most complete fossil femur (thigh bone) of one of the earliest known pre-humans, or hominins, with the femora of living apes, modern humans and other fossils, indicates the earliest form of bipedalism occurred at least six million years ago and persisted for at least four million years. William Jungers, Ph.D., of Stony Brook University, and Brian Richmond, Ph.D., of George Washington University, say their finding indicates that the fossil belongs to very early human ancestors, and that upright walking is one of the first human characteristics to appear in our lineage, right after the split between human and chimpanzee lineages. Their findings are published in the March 21 issue of the journal Science.
The research is the first thorough quantitative analysis of the Orrorin tugenensis fossil a fragmentary piece of femur which was discovered in Kenya in 2000 by a French research team. Dr. Jungers, Chair of Anatomical Sciences at SBU School of Medicine, and Dr. Richmond, Associate Professor of Anthropology at GWU and a member of GWUs Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, completed a multivariate analysis of the proximal femora shape of a young adult O. tugenensis that enabled them to pinpoint the pattern of bipedal gait for this controversial hominin. Their analysis included a large and diverse sample of apes, other early hominins, including Australopithecus, and modern humans of all body sizes.
This research solidifies the evidence that the human lineage split off as far back as six million years ago, that we share ancestry with Orrorin, and that our ancestors were walking upright at the time, says Dr. Richmond. These answers were not clear before this analysis.
Our study confirms that as early as six million years ago, basal hominins in Africa were already similar to later australopithecines in their anatomy and inferred locomotor biomechanics, adds Dr. Jungers. At the same time, by way of the analysis, we see no special phylogenetic connection between Orrorin and our own genus, Homo.
In Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism, the authors articulate that the analysis and morphological comparisons among femora from the fossils showed that O. tugenensis is distinct from those of modern humans and the great apes in having a long, anteroposteriorly narrow neck and wide proximal shaft. Early Homo femora have larger heads and broader necks compared to early hominins. In addition to these features, modern human femora have short necks and mediolaterally narrow shafts.
The challenge ahead, explains Dr. Jungers, is to identify what precipitated the change from this ancient and successful adaptation of upright walking, and climbing, to our own obligate form of bipedalism.
The Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University School of Medicine is known internationally for the scope and significance of its research into evolutionary morphology, including paleoanthropology, field-based vertebrate paelontology and experimental functional anatomy. The department interacts with other departments in the School of Medicine, as well as those in Biological Sciences and the Department of Anthropology, through which the Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences (IDPAS) is administered. The Stony Brook IDPAS faculty brings world-renowned strengths in functional morphology and human evolution.
*sigh* IN A CLOSED SYSTEM!!!!
Locally, entropy can decrease, at the expense of other parts of the system.
Simply put when a tree grows the increase in the order of the atoms that make the tree comes at the energy cost of the decrease in order of the atoms of the sun.
The whole system did lose order.
Kewl! Thanks!
Looks like something to be found in the Lower Levels of the Undead Thread!
I’m not sure all what my brother believes in. Fairies, gnomes, and all kinds of weird stuff.
It’s not reassuring to me that he’s a California public school teacher.
I can hardly have a converstation with him anymore. He’s somewhere to the left of Ralph Nader. Maybe like Noam Chomsky.
Science has always had a tension with religion, and religion has eventually come around. We no longer think the universe revolves around the earth, for example, but that was not the case 600 years ago.
Religion and science are not incompatible, and I don’t know why so many people think they are.
Ah.
*drool*
(Disregard last transmission)
*sigh*
*drool*
Ok. See, I’m not bothered that it was pointed out I used the wrong terminology. Actually it just encouraged me to do some reviewing. Obviously some of yall are more “evolved”, regarding Evolution. I’m willing to listen to others thoughts and ideas but my concern was, and still is that the rest of us, daily, are being told this is fact. If creation was presented this way, people would be screaming from the roof tops. We are seeing the same with GW. People just need to ask questions. When did “why” or “how” become bad words?
I do agree though that faith is not a science. (on both sides)
‘finding indicates’
‘This research solidifies the evidence’
‘by way of the analysis, we see no special phylogenetic connection’
All of the above were taken from the article. This is not presenting it as settled fact, merely what the evidence (so far) indicates, acording to the authors.
In what way? Please explain further.
THE WALK
(Jimmy McCracklin, 1958)
Well I know you heard of Suzy-Q;
And I know you heard of the chicken, too;
I know you heard of the cha-cha, too,
But the walk is a dance that you can do.
You just walk, you just walk,
Oh, you walk, yes you walk,
Yeah you walk, that’s the walk.
Well I know you heard of the Texas hop;
I know you heard of the old fox trot;
But when you do the Walk,
But when you do the walk, youre do it in style
You just shake your hips and close your eyes,
And then you walk, yeah you walk,
Then you walk, oh you walk, ah you walk,
Oh yes you walk, do the walk.
Well I know you heard of the old mambo
And I know you heard of the old congo
But when you do the walk, you stand in close
And dont step on your partner’s toes.
You just walk, yeah you walk, then you walk,
Yes you walk, oh you walk, that’s the walk.
Now if you dont know what its all about,
Come to me and Ill show you how.
Well do it fast, well do it slow,
Then you’ll know the walk everywhere you go .
You can walk, and you walk, now you walk
You gonna walk, you gotta walk it,
that’s the walk.
So, when they grow, and it’s the next generation - however that happens, they keep their new mutated form, or go back to the original form?
Democrats just began walking upright in the early 1900s.
I was certainly educated as young earth creationist. I went to private church-sponsored schools through college.
I’ve since come to the conclusion that what I had been taught was a belief, a faith, a matter of perceived doctrine, but not really true or supported by the facts that we could really examine.
I guess at that point you have to make a choice. I go with the facts.
And modify my beliefs. It’s not an either/or thing between science and religion. It’s just not.
Yes, I don’t believe the world is 6,000 years old anymore. That’s absurd, in my opinion.
Even if it’s 4.65 billion years old and man evolved over time, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a God, and this wasn’t his plan.
The concepts are not in conflict except by those who insist they are for some other reason.
I’m stuck in the Truth of God’s Word, and that crosses all centuries.
so, when do you consider it a new species, and point me to an example of this.
That's fine, and if it works for you, it doesn't really matter.
You don't have to subscribe to evolution to be a good person, nor does one who does automatically become a bad person.
God's Word is subject to interpretation. I assume you'll agree with that.
And I'll assume you agree that what He said is filtered through humans. He didn't fax the Bible to us.
It was humans who decided what texts were biblical. Presumably they were inspired to make the right decisions, but it wasn't without dispute.
So we have what we have. And we can believe what we believe. I don't believe that God expects us to disavow facts in order to believe in Him.
Other people's mileage will vary. But that's just how I see it.
That’s just it though, the facts of evolution are not facts. It too is subject to ones belief.
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.