Posted on 10/02/2009 11:00:06 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Did apes descend from us?
Skeleton of Ardi, 1.2-metre, 50-kilogram female may hold the clue
Joseph Hall Science writer
It may well be the closest we will ever come to the missing link between chimps and humans and the most important anthropological find ever.
In a series of studies released today by the journal Science, researchers have revealed a creature that took the first upright steps toward human beings and fundamentally changes the way we look at our earliest evolutionary ancestors.
The research brings into question the belief that our most distant ancestors descended from apes.
What's closer to the truth is that our knuckle dragging cousins descended from us.
That's one of the shocking new theories being drawn from a series of field-altering anthropology papers published today in a special edition of the journal Science.
Meet Ardi, a 1.2 metre, 50-kilogram female that is going to cause a big fuss throughout the anthropology world.
In 11 papers and summaries unveiled by the journal, researchers have revealed the partial skeleton of a creature that undoubtedly walked upright like our "hominid" predecessors, yet had many of the distinctive hallmarks of climbing apes.
"It is probably the most important find we have had yet," says Owen Lovejoy, a biological anthropologist at Ohio's Kent State University.
"It's transformative. This is a lot closer to anything that you'd call the missing link than anything that's ever been found," says Lovejoy, one of the primary authors on the journal package.
Among other things, research on the 4.4 million year old creature suggests that humans are far more primitive in an evolutionary sense than the great apes -- like chimps and gorillas -- of today.
"In a way we're saying that the old idea that we evolved from a chimpanzee is totally incorrect," he says. "It's more proper to say that chimpanzees evolved from us."
(Could that line of thinking evoke howls of outrage is some creationist quarters? "Oh God yes," Lovejoy laughs.)
Lovejoy explains that the "hominid" lines of upright species that evolved, in fits and starts, into humans, have much more in common physiologically with Ardi than do modern chimpanzees.
Chimps, he says, experienced much more profound evolutionary changes in their backs, pelvises, limbs, hands and feet as they adapted themselves to life in the trees than we ground dwellers did.
"Hominids, it turns out to be, are pretty primitive," Lovejoy says
"We're pretty much unchanged, or let's say we're less changed since the last common ancestor with chimpanzees than are chimpanzees."
Lovejoy explains that the actual missing link -- or last common ancestor in scientific parlance -- may have first sprung up some six million years before Ardi - short for Ardipithecus ramidus.
But Ardi, while past the initial link stage, possesses enough ape and hominid traits to show what those true common ancestors would have looked like, he says.
"It's the first find that we have that is really informative about what that last common ancestor was like."
And we're much more like the Ardi creature than any of today's apes, meaning they've evolved from human-like creatures - not the other way around, he says.
It proves what I said at the beginning...namely, that human evolution is a SUBJECTIVE MESS. Now answer my question, Irene.
See Post # 78
Though I am not a big supporter of all things about “evolution”, I have seen enough in my lifetime with regard to the personal behavior of some “people” (particularly adults who intentionally starved, maimed, abused or killed infants and/or children, including their own) to have wondered on more than one occasion if devolution, of humans, was possible; because, the behaviors I just alluded to have always seemed, to me, to be “sub-human”.
You have yet to ever answer a direct question to you.
Avoiding the question only proves my point that you avoid difficult questions, and willfully misrepresent science to fit your narrow dogmatic religious views.
My question to you was” Could you please be so kind as to explain how these statements from the article disprove the Evolutionary theory?”
You do know that these control issues that you have are a symptom of insecurity?
Lets take it a step farther. Why is a duck still a duck? I againhave been told because it is perfectly suited for it’s environment. Why on earth would most sane creatures hang out in the shade, and yet somehow this “survival of the fittest” type change happened to make us run in the hot sun when the most sane of creatures wouldn’t? It just doesn’t make sense.
There is no evolutionary reason for humans to exist, none!
I answered your question, and then asked one of my own—which you are still dodging. It is clear that you can’t answer direct questions. You are far too delicate for the debate over origins. Maybe you should consider becoming a hair stylist, or perhaps a makeup artist.
He evolved into the duck.
Your point (if you ever had one) is?
“and the mind of man is small”
And yet you place your faith in it instead of the infallible Word of God.
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.