http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm
Apologies to all if this is the wrong part of the forum for such a topic, but after 17 years of patient examination, this fella has hit the news.
Ludo
Full Version: Fossil finds extend human story
hey ludo very interesting new article.
Nice bit of Vid in today's Guardian (UK) newspaper on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct...ardi-human-race
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct...ardi-human-race
...they lived in a woodland habitat...
Two things that caught my attention were the length of the arms, and the lack of arched feet. The article says the missing arch meant they could not walk or run long distances. Could this be a simple error on the part of the author? The feet look "hand-like", but does this automatically mean they're not runners? If the creature was indeed upright (as the article and video suggest), then I'm pretty certain it could be upright for extended periods. Otherwise the article should have described them as quadrupedal with occasional bipedal traits, right?
Did anyone else have a problem with this, or am I just blowing smoke?
Two things that caught my attention were the length of the arms, and the lack of arched feet. The article says the missing arch meant they could not walk or run long distances. Could this be a simple error on the part of the author? The feet look "hand-like", but does this automatically mean they're not runners? If the creature was indeed upright (as the article and video suggest), then I'm pretty certain it could be upright for extended periods. Otherwise the article should have described them as quadrupedal with occasional bipedal traits, right?
Did anyone else have a problem with this, or am I just blowing smoke?
This is a REALLY big deal. It appears that Science is publishing 11 different manuscripts (special issue?) on the studies of these fossils that supposedly will be freely available this afternoon?
In the meantime, here's the intro from the journal.
Spazmo- I'm not much of a biomechanics person but my guess about the lack of long distance walking or running is that it has to do with the inefficiency of a flat, hand-like foot. Similar to chimps or gorillas not being able to do so long distances. Perhaps that leaves the question of how else were they moving if they weren't knuckle-walking, but I'm guessing the clue is in the the references to them being somewhat arboreal. I'm imagining a chimp-orangutan-like animal that spends lots of time in trees but gets around fine as a biped on the ground, it just can't really run that way or walk for miles. Hopefully the full papers will enlighten us on this!
In the meantime, here's the intro from the journal.
QUOTE
Ancient Skeleton May Rewrite Earliest Chapter of Human Evolution
By Ann Gibbons
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 October 2009
Researchers have unveiled the oldest known skeleton of a putative human ancestor--and it is full of surprises. Although the creature, named Ardipithecus ramidus, had a brain and body the size of a chimpanzee, it did not knuckle-walk or swing through the trees like an ape. Instead, "Ardi" walked upright, with a big, stiff foot and short, wide pelvis, researchers report in Science. "We thought Lucy was the find of the century," says paleoanthropologist Andrew Hill of Yale University, referring to the famous 3.2-million-year-old skeleton that revolutionized thinking about human origins. "But in retrospect, it was not."
Researchers have long argued about whether our early ancestors passed through a great-ape stage in which they looked like protochimpanzees, with short backs; arms adapted for swinging through the trees; and a pelvis and limbs adapted for knuckle-walking (Science, 21 November 1969, p. 953). This "troglodytian," or chimpanzee, model for early human behavior (named for the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes) suggests that our ancestors lost many of the key adaptations still found in chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, such as daggerlike canines and knuckle-walking, which those apes were thought to have inherited from a common ancestor.
Evidence has been hard to come by, however, because there are almost no fossils of early chimpanzees and gorillas. Until now, the oldest known skeleton of a human ancestor was Lucy, who proved in one stroke that our ancestors walked upright before they evolved big brains. But at 3.2 million years old, she was too recent and already too much like a human to reveal much about her primitive origins. As a result, researchers have wondered since her discovery in 1974, what came before her--what did the early members of the human family look like?
Now, that question is being answered in detail for the first time. A multinational team discovered the first parts of the Ar. ramidus skeleton in 1994 in Aramis, Ethiopia. At 4.4 million years old, Ardi is not the oldest fossil proposed as an early hominin, or member of the human family, but it is by far the most complete--including most of the skull and jaw bones, as well as the extremely rare pelvis, hands, and feet. These parts reveal that Ardi had an intermediate form of upright walking, a hallmark of hominins, according to the authors of 11 papers that describe Ardi and at least 35 other individuals of her species. But Ardi still must have spent a lot of time in the trees, the team reports, because she had an opposable big toe. That means she was probably grasping branches and climbing carefully to reach food, to sleep in nests, and to escape predators.
Most researchers, who have waited 15 years for the publication of this description and analysis, agree that Ardi is indeed an early hominin. "This is an extraordinarily impressive work of reconstruction and description, well worth waiting for," says paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam of Harvard University. But he takes issue with the idea that the common ancestor of chimps and humans didn't share many traits with the African apes. "I find it hard to believe that the numerous similarities of chimps and gorillas evolved convergently," he says. Regardless, the one thing all scientists can agree on is that the new papers provide a wealth of data for the first time to frame the issues for years. "It would have been very boring if it had looked half-chimp," says paleoanthropologist Alan Walker of Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
An in-depth version of this story, and the research papers, will be available as a free web feature this afternoon.
By Ann Gibbons
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 October 2009
Researchers have unveiled the oldest known skeleton of a putative human ancestor--and it is full of surprises. Although the creature, named Ardipithecus ramidus, had a brain and body the size of a chimpanzee, it did not knuckle-walk or swing through the trees like an ape. Instead, "Ardi" walked upright, with a big, stiff foot and short, wide pelvis, researchers report in Science. "We thought Lucy was the find of the century," says paleoanthropologist Andrew Hill of Yale University, referring to the famous 3.2-million-year-old skeleton that revolutionized thinking about human origins. "But in retrospect, it was not."
Researchers have long argued about whether our early ancestors passed through a great-ape stage in which they looked like protochimpanzees, with short backs; arms adapted for swinging through the trees; and a pelvis and limbs adapted for knuckle-walking (Science, 21 November 1969, p. 953). This "troglodytian," or chimpanzee, model for early human behavior (named for the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes) suggests that our ancestors lost many of the key adaptations still found in chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, such as daggerlike canines and knuckle-walking, which those apes were thought to have inherited from a common ancestor.
Evidence has been hard to come by, however, because there are almost no fossils of early chimpanzees and gorillas. Until now, the oldest known skeleton of a human ancestor was Lucy, who proved in one stroke that our ancestors walked upright before they evolved big brains. But at 3.2 million years old, she was too recent and already too much like a human to reveal much about her primitive origins. As a result, researchers have wondered since her discovery in 1974, what came before her--what did the early members of the human family look like?
Now, that question is being answered in detail for the first time. A multinational team discovered the first parts of the Ar. ramidus skeleton in 1994 in Aramis, Ethiopia. At 4.4 million years old, Ardi is not the oldest fossil proposed as an early hominin, or member of the human family, but it is by far the most complete--including most of the skull and jaw bones, as well as the extremely rare pelvis, hands, and feet. These parts reveal that Ardi had an intermediate form of upright walking, a hallmark of hominins, according to the authors of 11 papers that describe Ardi and at least 35 other individuals of her species. But Ardi still must have spent a lot of time in the trees, the team reports, because she had an opposable big toe. That means she was probably grasping branches and climbing carefully to reach food, to sleep in nests, and to escape predators.
Most researchers, who have waited 15 years for the publication of this description and analysis, agree that Ardi is indeed an early hominin. "This is an extraordinarily impressive work of reconstruction and description, well worth waiting for," says paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam of Harvard University. But he takes issue with the idea that the common ancestor of chimps and humans didn't share many traits with the African apes. "I find it hard to believe that the numerous similarities of chimps and gorillas evolved convergently," he says. Regardless, the one thing all scientists can agree on is that the new papers provide a wealth of data for the first time to frame the issues for years. "It would have been very boring if it had looked half-chimp," says paleoanthropologist Alan Walker of Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
An in-depth version of this story, and the research papers, will be available as a free web feature this afternoon.
Spazmo- I'm not much of a biomechanics person but my guess about the lack of long distance walking or running is that it has to do with the inefficiency of a flat, hand-like foot. Similar to chimps or gorillas not being able to do so long distances. Perhaps that leaves the question of how else were they moving if they weren't knuckle-walking, but I'm guessing the clue is in the the references to them being somewhat arboreal. I'm imagining a chimp-orangutan-like animal that spends lots of time in trees but gets around fine as a biped on the ground, it just can't really run that way or walk for miles. Hopefully the full papers will enlighten us on this!
Here's a link to a nice overview PDF article that answers some of the above and should be accessible to everyone:
Ardi overview PDF
Ardi overview PDF
Thanks for pdf Apeman.
Yes folks, this is rather huge. No, Ardi isn't bigfoot, but there are some relevant observations I've made in the past few hours:
1) Ardipithecus represents a collection of fossil evidence that will force a re-write on some long-held hypotheses of human origins, e.g., the "savanna origin of bipedality," the "chimpiness" of our common ancestor, etc. People have based careers on such notions. Given that Ardi is a significant challenge to what we've thought to be true, then you might expect that "science" would bury these data and the authors would be marginalized by the dogmatic Ivory Tower, right?
2) Given that Ardipithecus represents an amazing intermediate form between humans and chimps, you might predict that someone would suppress or discredit this information because religious people would find it very upsetting, right?
The ideas expressed in items 1 and 2 I've seen many times on the BFF, and each time I have tried to counter them with common sense and some insight into the minds of scientists.
In reality, Science (the journal) has, with great fanfare, trumpeted the discovery in a special issue of its magazine with at least 11 articles devoted to different aspects of this discovery. Ardi demonstrates that scientists are delighted to toss out old ideas when new information comes to light, and our government does not suppress information that might be a challenge to creationist ideas.
Yes folks, this is rather huge. No, Ardi isn't bigfoot, but there are some relevant observations I've made in the past few hours:
1) Ardipithecus represents a collection of fossil evidence that will force a re-write on some long-held hypotheses of human origins, e.g., the "savanna origin of bipedality," the "chimpiness" of our common ancestor, etc. People have based careers on such notions. Given that Ardi is a significant challenge to what we've thought to be true, then you might expect that "science" would bury these data and the authors would be marginalized by the dogmatic Ivory Tower, right?
2) Given that Ardipithecus represents an amazing intermediate form between humans and chimps, you might predict that someone would suppress or discredit this information because religious people would find it very upsetting, right?
The ideas expressed in items 1 and 2 I've seen many times on the BFF, and each time I have tried to counter them with common sense and some insight into the minds of scientists.
In reality, Science (the journal) has, with great fanfare, trumpeted the discovery in a special issue of its magazine with at least 11 articles devoted to different aspects of this discovery. Ardi demonstrates that scientists are delighted to toss out old ideas when new information comes to light, and our government does not suppress information that might be a challenge to creationist ideas.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_...sci_before_lucy
My apologies if this has been addressed in a thread previously.
My apologies if this has been addressed in a thread previously.
QUOTE(eldonkey @ Oct 1 2009, 02:55 PM) 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_...sci_before_lucy
My apologies if this has been addressed in a thread previously.
My apologies if this has been addressed in a thread previously.
I read that and thought it was cool. Here's a pic of Ardi!
Click to view attachment
This is a huge find !!!
so the theory of evolution is on its ear again? go figure, lol..........why did he wait 17 years before presenting evidence? if he waited 2 years before presenting this he would have been laughed out of his funding.......Im sure he wanted to put his ducks all in a row before presenting this stuff..........
we are getting closer to the truth, evolution didnt happen like we think it did, you cant put millions of years in a little box and called solved, things dont work that way.......
now , are we an ancestor of the big guy? or is he ours? that another question to ponder...
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
so the theory of evolution is on its ear again? go figure, lol..........why did he wait 17 years before presenting evidence? if he waited 2 years before presenting this he would have been laughed out of his funding.......Im sure he wanted to put his ducks all in a row before presenting this stuff..........
we are getting closer to the truth, evolution didnt happen like we think it did, you cant put millions of years in a little box and called solved, things dont work that way.......
now , are we an ancestor of the big guy? or is he ours? that another question to ponder...
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
merged posts 8 and 9 into this thread.
Yeah, incredible find!
Yeah, incredible find!
Discover magazine has a good article on this here. The Discovery Channel is also doing a big special on "Ardi" premiering on October 11th. They've got a robust website to promote the show with lots of interesting content.
Definitely looking forward to learning more about this species!
Definitely looking forward to learning more about this species!
Here's the full reconstruction of sosha's picture, drawn by J. Matternes, one of my favorite extinct animal artists by the way.
Click to view attachment
Yeah, this is a really big deal.
It suggests that the last common ancestor of the chimp-human clade may not have been a knuckle walker, among other things. As Saskeptic says, not very "chimpy" at all.
Darwin, as is usually the case, was right when he cautioned about theorizing about ancestral species of separate living lines without a sample: It's probably wrong to assume that one of the lines is completely more primitive than the other.
It'd be ironic, and not entirely unexpected, that some features of Homo are primitive compared to the Chimp-Bonobos. The chimp line hasn't just been sitting around not evolving for several million years.
Click to view attachment
Yeah, this is a really big deal.
It suggests that the last common ancestor of the chimp-human clade may not have been a knuckle walker, among other things. As Saskeptic says, not very "chimpy" at all.
Darwin, as is usually the case, was right when he cautioned about theorizing about ancestral species of separate living lines without a sample: It's probably wrong to assume that one of the lines is completely more primitive than the other.
It'd be ironic, and not entirely unexpected, that some features of Homo are primitive compared to the Chimp-Bonobos. The chimp line hasn't just been sitting around not evolving for several million years.
As mentioned before, this is a finding of huge implications. Granted, it probably has little to do with sasquatch, but it has enormous implications for how we perceive human evolution. Like Saskeptic said before, this is a good example that when the right evidence shows up, science will gladly look at things in a new light and accept that what we used to "know" was incorrect. Also, in the grand scheme of science, there isn't some great cover-up trying to suppress scientific results and make us think like lemmings. We do enough of that on our own without help from "big brother".
QUOTE(driftinmark @ Oct 1 2009, 01:13 PM)
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
Me too. It's just too hard to explain our two fused chromosomes when no other known animal displays this trait.
Now, what that "outside force" is or was, is going to be hotly debated...
And strangely enough, I've had this belief since childhood with no real evidence to base it on. Just a hunch that started looking really good after I finally started digging for answers. I see no reason not to reconcile Creation and Evolution into a single unified theory.
BUT...
This is not the forum for such a discussion, even though my beliefs are not religious. It's complicated...
QUOTE(driftinmark @ Oct 1 2009, 01:13 PM)
This is a huge find !!!
so the theory of evolution is on its ear again? go figure, lol..........
so the theory of evolution is on its ear again? go figure, lol..........
The theory of evolution isn't on it's ear, this is a piece of the puzzle of HOW it happened, not whether or not it did happen.
QUOTE
why did he wait 17 years before presenting evidence? if he waited 2 years before presenting this he would have been laughed out of his funding.......Im sure he wanted to put his ducks all in a row before presenting this stuff..........
Do you have any idea who you are talking about? This is Time White, who along with the others of his team are well known as the best in the field of paleoanthropology. Dr. White's reputation is based on his meticulous anatomical knowledge and comparison studies. This has been a long term project of gathering a huge amount of evidence to leave very little doubt about the interpretations of the anatomy of this hominid.
QUOTE
we are getting closer to the truth, evolution didnt happen like we think it did, you cant put millions of years in a little box and called solved, things dont work that way.......
Point out anything in these articles that supports what you are saying...
QUOTE
now , are we an ancestor of the big guy? or is he ours? that another question to ponder...
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
Why does this keep coming up? People keep using articles they barely understand, that show human evolution at work, and try to say this disproves evolution when the opposite is true, the evidence itslelf is growing all of the time, and then put forward their pet Sitchin theory that aliens genetically engineered humans, and never present any evidence for it?
I still think the "out of africa" model doesn't cut it. I'm leaning in the direction, that all of these variants, evolved on their own, from a common potential in a common source animal, in separate parts of the world, far before anything they've found thus far. Each expressing the common potential, in their own way, depending on location and environment at that time. Overlapping with other lines, coming from other sources with the same potential in common. I don't see a tree in any of this, unless you go back to the remaining mammals after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, where the common source animal was spread far and wide, before the breakup of the continents that led to separate expressions of the common potential. < that hurt my brain >
QUOTE(Spazmo @ Oct 1 2009, 03:30 PM)
It's just too hard to explain our two fused chromosomes when no other known animal displays this trait.
Sorry but unless I'm misunderstanding exactly what you mean, the above statement is false.
-Apeman
Seeing where this discussion went so rapidly, I now remember why I enjoyed my break from here last week.....
Think I'll try for a much longer hiatus this time.
I heard Dr. White on NPR today and he thinks Ardi spent most of it's time up in the trees. He said they definately weren't knuckle draggers when down on the ground. He also said that the reason it took so long for this announcement was that they were acquiring more bones to assemble what they now have.
And I don't think they're extinct. Judging from the illustration, I'm pretty sure I dated her back in the 70's.
And I don't think they're extinct. Judging from the illustration, I'm pretty sure I dated her back in the 70's.
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 1 2009, 11:48 AM)
Given that Ardi is a significant challenge to what we've thought to be true, then you might expect that "science" would bury these data and the authors would be marginalized by the dogmatic Ivory Tower, right?
In this circumstance? No. Why would they? It's still all in the family. It only changes academic quibbles about particulars. The Big Story remains and, in fact, I'm certain, they will agree on a strengthened case. QUOTE
Given that Ardipithecus represents an amazing intermediate form between humans and chimps, you might predict that someone would suppress or discredit this information because religious people would find it very upsetting, right?
No. Who would do that and why? Is Richard Dawkins going to not proclaim whatever he wants to proclaim about this because dead Jerry Falwell doesn't like it? Isn't it a much more certain bet that, far from any suppression, it will heralded by trumpets?
Not trying to get in trouble here, but isn't evolution already proven as fact?
I don't know if it's a PROVEN FACT, but as a theory it still stands as the evidence that keeps surfacing continues to support it.
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Oct 1 2009, 09:26 PM)
I don't know if it's a PROVEN FACT, but as a theory it still stands as the evidence that keeps surfacing continues to support it.
And this "finding" is another enormous piece of evidence as a "theory"?
The finding itself is physical evidence that these hominids existed, that they exhibit both human and apelike traits, and therefore are a transitional species. This supports the theory of evolution.
If Mr. BF is found to be closely related to man, he should get a haircut and a shave. Then, he should go out and get a job. I am tired of paying his share of the taxes!!!!!
QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Oct 1 2009, 10:10 PM)
In this circumstance? No. . . .
No. Who would do that and why? . . .
No. Who would do that and why? . . .
You are correct!
My point: I've frequently read statements here to the effect that bigfoot discovery would be/is being suppressed by (1) scientists, because they can't stand to have their pet theories challenged and/or (2) governments, because they're worried that the hyper-religious would get hyper over a discovery so obviously supportive of evolutionary theory.
The Ardi example demonstrates beautifully my counter to those statements: (1) Scientists are very open to having their pet theories overthrown (by high quality new evidence, at least), and (2) significant discoveries that lend weight to evolutionary theory - even human evolutionary history - are not being swept under the carpet by the men in black.
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 2 2009, 07:06 AM)
You are correct!
My point: I've frequently read statements here to the effect that bigfoot discovery would be/is being suppressed by (1) scientists, because they can't stand to have their pet theories challenged and/or (2) governments, because they're worried that the hyper-religious would get hyper over a discovery so obviously supportive of evolutionary theory.
The Ardi example demonstrates beautifully my counter to those statements: (1) Scientists are very open to having their pet theories overthrown (by high quality new evidence, at least), and (2) significant discoveries that lend weight to evolutionary theory - even human evolutionary history - are not being swept under the carpet by the men in black.
My point: I've frequently read statements here to the effect that bigfoot discovery would be/is being suppressed by (1) scientists, because they can't stand to have their pet theories challenged and/or (2) governments, because they're worried that the hyper-religious would get hyper over a discovery so obviously supportive of evolutionary theory.
The Ardi example demonstrates beautifully my counter to those statements: (1) Scientists are very open to having their pet theories overthrown (by high quality new evidence, at least), and (2) significant discoveries that lend weight to evolutionary theory - even human evolutionary history - are not being swept under the carpet by the men in black.
Saskeptic,
I've always enjoyed your ability to address topics like this with an air of authority without loosing your sense of humor. While I'm of a different ilk, I do appreciate your insight but it seems to me that to place all scientists in the same convenient and perfect light of always being unified and acting as a single body of fortitude and virtue is like assuming that all BF enthusiasts/researchers are equally credible and virtuous and act as a unified body, is it not? I'm sure that most scientists fit your description and the comparison may not be completely accurate but I hope you get my point?
I think the reason so many believe that the government could be hiding things is...well because they do! On a daily basis I might add, some of it should be and some of it...maybe not? But to assume that nothing is hidden, IMHO is irresponsible. I'm not saying that anything is being hidden or kept out of the public domain in this instance but, I wouldn't be too surprised if I found out that it was, however that might take place?
Cheers
...and to back up what Sully said...
Yes, the Government hides things. And yes, those things usually need to be hidden.
I used to get messages each day describing the current political unrest in the world, and believe me folks, that stuff is not for public consumption. I was in the Armed Forces at the time.
I'd like to add that in most cases we ought not to be upset by what our Government decides to keep from public view.
Yes, the Government hides things. And yes, those things usually need to be hidden.
I used to get messages each day describing the current political unrest in the world, and believe me folks, that stuff is not for public consumption. I was in the Armed Forces at the time.
I'd like to add that in most cases we ought not to be upset by what our Government decides to keep from public view.
Well sure governments bury information all the time. Here's an example: I was at an EPA administrator's house one night following a long day of integrative collaboration (sounds fun, huh?). The administrator showed us a pre-release version of one of the "state of the environment" reports that had just come back from official White House review. The WH had blacked out every single reference in the report to matters dealing with climate change. There were whole paragraphs, just gone in the swipe of a thick, black marker pen.
The question, though, is not whether information gets suppressed - it certainly does. The question is what constitutes "suppressible" information. The Bush Administration had clearly taken the position that action on climate change was politically untenable, so they made the policy decision to challenge the science - or bury it. Whether or not I agree with that position, it's obvious that this is a high stakes issue. Matters of national security, political unrest, economic insolubility - these constitute items of suppressible import.
My argument about bigfoot discovery is that such information is not suppression-worthy. It's not that I don't think a bigfoot discovery couldn't be suppressed (although I'm skeptical that it could), it's that I don't see any justification that would merit suppression. The discovery of bigfoot would not affect national security, political unrest, or economic insolubility. There'd be no reason to keep it quiet.
Ardi is a good example of this. Fossils were found that re-write human history in a way more fundamental even than Lucy's description years ago. That's cool. What if bigfoot were discovered in a similar way? We'd face a similar re-write of a lot of what we thought we knew prior to the discovery, but it wouldn't really be much different than how Ardi has come to light: Articles are published with great fanfare, blogs are written, documentaries air. It's all been above-board and part of the public record. As cool as Ardi is, the information isn't suppression-worthy. That's how bigfoot would be too.
Would an unscrupulous scientist (they exist, I admit!) bury such information to protect his pet theory? No, because the only way he'd have the opportunity to do so would be if he had been the one with the data. The unscrupulous scientist could try to kill the discovery through the peer review process (if he happened to have been selected to serve as a reviewer), i.e., reject the manuscripts for publication so that the information never sees the light of day. But this is why we use multiple reviewers (generally three, plus an associate editor and chief editor), and it's pretty obvious when one reviewer is way out of line with the others.
So I see in Ardi's discovery two of the main reasons proffered for why bigfoot discovery would be suppressed (i.e., science abhors challenge of dogma and creationists can't handle fossils of early humans) to be discredited.
The question, though, is not whether information gets suppressed - it certainly does. The question is what constitutes "suppressible" information. The Bush Administration had clearly taken the position that action on climate change was politically untenable, so they made the policy decision to challenge the science - or bury it. Whether or not I agree with that position, it's obvious that this is a high stakes issue. Matters of national security, political unrest, economic insolubility - these constitute items of suppressible import.
My argument about bigfoot discovery is that such information is not suppression-worthy. It's not that I don't think a bigfoot discovery couldn't be suppressed (although I'm skeptical that it could), it's that I don't see any justification that would merit suppression. The discovery of bigfoot would not affect national security, political unrest, or economic insolubility. There'd be no reason to keep it quiet.
Ardi is a good example of this. Fossils were found that re-write human history in a way more fundamental even than Lucy's description years ago. That's cool. What if bigfoot were discovered in a similar way? We'd face a similar re-write of a lot of what we thought we knew prior to the discovery, but it wouldn't really be much different than how Ardi has come to light: Articles are published with great fanfare, blogs are written, documentaries air. It's all been above-board and part of the public record. As cool as Ardi is, the information isn't suppression-worthy. That's how bigfoot would be too.
Would an unscrupulous scientist (they exist, I admit!) bury such information to protect his pet theory? No, because the only way he'd have the opportunity to do so would be if he had been the one with the data. The unscrupulous scientist could try to kill the discovery through the peer review process (if he happened to have been selected to serve as a reviewer), i.e., reject the manuscripts for publication so that the information never sees the light of day. But this is why we use multiple reviewers (generally three, plus an associate editor and chief editor), and it's pretty obvious when one reviewer is way out of line with the others.
So I see in Ardi's discovery two of the main reasons proffered for why bigfoot discovery would be suppressed (i.e., science abhors challenge of dogma and creationists can't handle fossils of early humans) to be discredited.
I am amazed at how some people when faced with a scientific discovery see all these boogymen manipulating things behind the scenes. I'm guessing they are the same ones who are convinced that people and dinosaurs comingled 7,000 years ago and the world is only 10,000 years old. DUH!
Humor break:
Saskeptic"I was at an EPA administrator's house one night following a long day of integrative collaboration (sounds fun, huh?). "
is that what you kids are calling it now?
now back your regularly scheduled thread
dav
Saskeptic"I was at an EPA administrator's house one night following a long day of integrative collaboration (sounds fun, huh?). "
is that what you kids are calling it now?
now back your regularly scheduled thread
dav
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 2 2009, 10:20 AM)
My argument about bigfoot discovery is that such information is not suppression-worthy. It's not that I don't think a bigfoot discovery couldn't be suppressed (although I'm skeptical that it could), it's that I don't see any justification that would merit suppression. The discovery of bigfoot would not affect national security, political unrest, or economic insolubility. There'd be no reason to keep it quiet.
So I see in Ardi's discovery two of the main reasons proffered for why bigfoot discovery would be suppressed (i.e., science abhors challenge of dogma and creationists can't handle fossils of early humans) to be discredited.
So I see in Ardi's discovery two of the main reasons proffered for why bigfoot discovery would be suppressed (i.e., science abhors challenge of dogma and creationists can't handle fossils of early humans) to be discredited.
Thanks for clarifying and I actually agree with you for the most part.
QUOTE(socaldave @ Oct 2 2009, 10:29 AM)
I am amazed at how some people when faced with a scientific discovery see all these boogymen manipulating things behind the scenes. I'm guessing they are the same ones who are convinced that people and dinosaurs comingled 7,000 years ago and the world is only 10,000 years old. DUH!
Not really sure what your gripe is there dave but congratulations on being able to be amazed so easily. If it was me that amazed you, I'm glad I could help!
Cheers
QUOTE(driftinmark @ Oct 1 2009, 02:13 PM)
This is a huge find !!!
so the theory of evolution is on its ear again? go figure, lol..........why did he wait 17 years before presenting evidence? if he waited 2 years before presenting this he would have been laughed out of his funding.......Im sure he wanted to put his ducks all in a row before presenting this stuff..........
we are getting closer to the truth, evolution didnt happen like we think it did, you cant put millions of years in a little box and called solved, things dont work that way.......
now , are we an ancestor of the big guy? or is he ours? that another question to ponder...
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
so the theory of evolution is on its ear again? go figure, lol..........why did he wait 17 years before presenting evidence? if he waited 2 years before presenting this he would have been laughed out of his funding.......Im sure he wanted to put his ducks all in a row before presenting this stuff..........
we are getting closer to the truth, evolution didnt happen like we think it did, you cant put millions of years in a little box and called solved, things dont work that way.......
now , are we an ancestor of the big guy? or is he ours? that another question to ponder...
I still hold to my own theory of our DNA being changed by an outside force somewhere along the line, while not palatable by most people, I believe ours has been altered........
I've never been a fan of the current scientific thought: if it looks like an ape but walks on two feet then it must be a human ancestor. Might be, might not. We know that there's an ape that walks on two feet. Is Lucy an ancestor of Patty's? For how many years did we think that Neandertals were human ancestors only to find out that they aren't? None of these skeletons mean anything unless we have DNA. Then and only then will we have an answer to human ancestry. Until then we'll be arguing "Is a platypus a duck or a beaver.?"
I think we're diverging from the subject of this forum. That is, how does this discovery relate to the hypothesis that BF exists, or how does it advance/regress that idea.
This is not a creationism vs evolution forum. There are plenty of those around, so please let's not get this thread closed because you want to argue about it.
I agree with Saskeptic that this discovery and public disclosure shows that there is no sinister government cover up or burial of data by scientists. Yet that is not really the relevant topic as I see it.
I think we should be focusing more along the lines of what Spazmo has pointed out:
"Two things that caught my attention were the length of the arms, and the lack of arched feet. The article says the missing arch meant they could not walk or run long distances. Could this be a simple error on the part of the author? The feet look "hand-like", but does this automatically mean they're not runners? If the creature was indeed upright (as the article and video suggest), then I'm pretty certain it could be upright for extended periods. Otherwise the article should have described them as quadrupedal with occasional bipedal traits, right?"
This is not a creationism vs evolution forum. There are plenty of those around, so please let's not get this thread closed because you want to argue about it.
I agree with Saskeptic that this discovery and public disclosure shows that there is no sinister government cover up or burial of data by scientists. Yet that is not really the relevant topic as I see it.
I think we should be focusing more along the lines of what Spazmo has pointed out:
"Two things that caught my attention were the length of the arms, and the lack of arched feet. The article says the missing arch meant they could not walk or run long distances. Could this be a simple error on the part of the author? The feet look "hand-like", but does this automatically mean they're not runners? If the creature was indeed upright (as the article and video suggest), then I'm pretty certain it could be upright for extended periods. Otherwise the article should have described them as quadrupedal with occasional bipedal traits, right?"
"Two things that caught my attention were the length of the arms, and the lack of arched feet. The article says the missing arch meant they could not walk or run long distances. Could this be a simple error on the part of the author?
This question brings me back to the extensive debate about arched feet in the thread "What is the anatomy of a Sasquatch foot..., Article by Dr. Richard Eisner"
Wolftrax and P. Beaton go at it pretty hard. I wonder what they think about this.
This question brings me back to the extensive debate about arched feet in the thread "What is the anatomy of a Sasquatch foot..., Article by Dr. Richard Eisner"
Wolftrax and P. Beaton go at it pretty hard. I wonder what they think about this.
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 2 2009, 11:20 AM)
So I see in Ardi's discovery two of the main reasons proffered for why bigfoot discovery would be suppressed (i.e., science abhors challenge of dogma and creationists can't handle fossils of early humans) to be discredited.
Hmmm. Anyone who doesn't agree with evolutionary theory is a creationist? Creationism is hocus pocus IMO. But there's too many DNA discoveries that point away from evolution as being an answer for where we are. We ignore the DNA science at our own scientific peril.
I think what we are seeing in some circles is where scientific dogma is the new religion.......cross the line and you get crucified........
most scientists are very analytical and not very creative, it is not a fault, its just the way they are wired, I myself wish i was more analytical at times........
most scientists deal with deductive reasoning, i.e. see a given set of criteria and follow the path till you get reproducible results, I like to deal with inductive reasoning.......its a different animal altogether.....
For years we have been taught in our various schools that the our linage of evolution is FROM the apes, this newly released find to me seems to differ from that in that it seems we have run a parallel course........that is what I took from the paper.......
Personally I do not prescribe to a blanket evolution statement, I feel there were many curves thrown at us in our development, making us what we are today......and we still do not have all the missing pieces, no matter who tells you we do.......
gettin back to Gigantor's statement and back to the thread , I think this find advances the idea that there could be a bigfoot type creature, the thing that strikes me the most is all these discoveries are coming from the African continent, is there no other place to look ? most of the DNA trail goes back to Africa.....but there has to be other places to search......possibly on our own continent......
as far as information and or a bigguy being supressed.......it could be done, and the justification for it would be what it usually is, greed.......
most scientists are very analytical and not very creative, it is not a fault, its just the way they are wired, I myself wish i was more analytical at times........
most scientists deal with deductive reasoning, i.e. see a given set of criteria and follow the path till you get reproducible results, I like to deal with inductive reasoning.......its a different animal altogether.....
For years we have been taught in our various schools that the our linage of evolution is FROM the apes, this newly released find to me seems to differ from that in that it seems we have run a parallel course........that is what I took from the paper.......
Personally I do not prescribe to a blanket evolution statement, I feel there were many curves thrown at us in our development, making us what we are today......and we still do not have all the missing pieces, no matter who tells you we do.......
gettin back to Gigantor's statement and back to the thread , I think this find advances the idea that there could be a bigfoot type creature, the thing that strikes me the most is all these discoveries are coming from the African continent, is there no other place to look ? most of the DNA trail goes back to Africa.....but there has to be other places to search......possibly on our own continent......
as far as information and or a bigguy being supressed.......it could be done, and the justification for it would be what it usually is, greed.......
QUOTE
Spazmo- I'm not much of a biomechanics person but my guess about the lack of long distance walking or running is that it has to do with the inefficiency of a flat, hand-like foot. Similar to chimps or gorillas not being able to do so long distances.
I think it also, like the reason for the alleged Bigfoot bipedal mechanics (knock-kneed, leg-splaying tight-rope walker), shows that ardi's pelvis/hip and knee alignment are not protohomo but more prototroglodyte or protogorilla. The tight-rope walking would be well adapted to that high limb walking I would think.
I would be very curious to know what their primary food source was. I'm trying to picture an animal who is very adept at tree climbing, but also walks upright to forage (possibly a fruit picker). This makes some sense if standing/walking makes getting the fruit easier (think Giraffe). And retreating to the trees when danger is present.
And...are we CERTAIN this animal walked upright? I don't know diddly about biomechanics, so maybe someone else can enlighten me here.
Even with the questions raised, this is still a HUGE discovery. Most impressive is that the data was kept quiet until the studies were complete. How did the folks involved manage to keep it quiet?
Anyway, I think we'll see many more discoveries like this one in the future. Our knowledge is still comprised more from "gaps" than proven facts (obviously, since we don't have fossilized remains from every individual hominid that ever lived) and as those gaps get filled in with new info our accepted understanding changes a little. Makes me wish I would be alive to see all the questions answered...
And...are we CERTAIN this animal walked upright? I don't know diddly about biomechanics, so maybe someone else can enlighten me here.
Even with the questions raised, this is still a HUGE discovery. Most impressive is that the data was kept quiet until the studies were complete. How did the folks involved manage to keep it quiet?
Anyway, I think we'll see many more discoveries like this one in the future. Our knowledge is still comprised more from "gaps" than proven facts (obviously, since we don't have fossilized remains from every individual hominid that ever lived) and as those gaps get filled in with new info our accepted understanding changes a little. Makes me wish I would be alive to see all the questions answered...
Spazmo you raise good points.
As the aptly-named bipedalist says, I imagine that having feet likes hands greatly benefits arboreal behaviour but makes bipedal walking a chore. But I'd also expect a tail to be present if an animal spends a lot of time balancing in the branches. Big prehensile tails are dead weight on walking animals but very useful on tree-swinging critters. Maybe, as with chimps and orang-utans, as you get bigger, it's one of the first things you lose.
And as far as keeping things quiet goes - surely a bunch of muddy, fragmented bones dug out of a hillside is easy to shush up until you want to tell the world what you think it means. I think that the guy who chugs erratically into Willow Creek with a dazed nine-foot ape on his windshield is going to find suppressing the news significantly tougher.
As the aptly-named bipedalist says, I imagine that having feet likes hands greatly benefits arboreal behaviour but makes bipedal walking a chore. But I'd also expect a tail to be present if an animal spends a lot of time balancing in the branches. Big prehensile tails are dead weight on walking animals but very useful on tree-swinging critters. Maybe, as with chimps and orang-utans, as you get bigger, it's one of the first things you lose.
And as far as keeping things quiet goes - surely a bunch of muddy, fragmented bones dug out of a hillside is easy to shush up until you want to tell the world what you think it means. I think that the guy who chugs erratically into Willow Creek with a dazed nine-foot ape on his windshield is going to find suppressing the news significantly tougher.
From the standpoint of paleoanthropology it sure is big news. A really good analysis and informal clearing house on this is currently up at John Hawks weblog. He asks the question, in an aside, if anyone has thought of this find and its general structure, especially the feet, in context/comparison with the oreopithecus. A pretty big seperation in time and geographic distance. Some interesting comparisons can be made though maybe not as dirrectly applicable to the question of its being directly in line to human ancestry. It's also very interesting how the ancient soil of that pretty brief period of time is captured between the two layers of what were geologically equal in age,...so they're getting a really well preserved fossil biosystem with potential for quite a bit or relevant info regarding these and other ancestral forms and lifeways.
Strangely coincidental, and not to say that it's anything other than that, but it's hard to miss the paralells with this and the current spate of orang pendek field reports..I'm not too impressed at this point with anything I've run across, but it would be marvelous if it were true.
Strangely coincidental, and not to say that it's anything other than that, but it's hard to miss the paralells with this and the current spate of orang pendek field reports..I'm not too impressed at this point with anything I've run across, but it would be marvelous if it were true.
QUOTE
I think that the guy who chugs erratically into Willow Creek with a dazed nine-foot ape on his windshield is going to find suppressing the news significantly tougher.
Though I dream frequently about the day it might happen Ludo!
I've got to do some more reading up on this before I can appreciate the full story.
QUOTE(driftinmark @ Oct 3 2009, 03:30 AM)
I think what we are seeing in some circles is where scientific dogma is the new religion.......cross the line and you get crucified........
Jump to 2:27 and/or just bang your head again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRshPCM9lhk
QUOTE(driftinmark @ Oct 3 2009, 06:30 AM)
For years we have been taught in our various schools that the our linage of evolution is FROM the apes, . . .
No, it's the media that has been force-feeding this fallacy through sloppy journalism and a poor understanding of science. What the evolutionary biologists have been saying is that we share common ancestry with apes. This means that both humans and apes are descendants of the same creature. That creature would very likely not be classified as an "ape." So you are correct in what you took from the article, i.e., humans and apes have evolved in parallel over the past several million years, but Ardi's discovery did not give birth to that notion, it's just a potentially supportive illustration.
Sorry to burst your bubble saskeptic,
I grew up with these charts from 3rd grade till about 9th grade plastered all over the school, so its not the media.........
it was a real eye-opener to finally think for myself........
im sure a lot of us have seen charts like these.....
http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolut...ncePictures.htm
I grew up with these charts from 3rd grade till about 9th grade plastered all over the school, so its not the media.........
it was a real eye-opener to finally think for myself........
im sure a lot of us have seen charts like these.....
http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolut...ncePictures.htm
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 5 2009, 08:58 AM)
That creature would very likely not be classified as an "ape."
Actually it would almost certainly be an ape, along with our common ancestors with the gorilla, orang and gibbons (at least three separate older ones there besides the chimp-human one).
Cladistically, if any of those common ancestors was not an ape (an Old World monkey, say), the descendant bifurcating lines couldn't both be considered an ape.
Maybe you're distinguishing "ape" and hominin, which technically is a type of ape, nowadays anyway. Are you thinking that the chimp line evolved from something that would be called a hominin? That would be a very interesting find; something that's been talked about before on these forums, and looking increasingly possible, if still not likely.
I know. The language gets imprecise when casually talking about these things. "Ape," and "human" mean different things to different people.
When the media says that humans (ultimately) evolved from apes (just not the ones living today) - that is a precise and true statement (unless something very weird and unexpected has happened that we don't know about).
QUOTE(tsiatkoVS @ Oct 5 2009, 01:28 PM)
Actually it would almost certainly be an ape, along with our common ancestors with the gorilla, orang and gibbons (at least three separate older ones there besides the chimp-human one).
Cladistically, if any of those common ancestors was not an ape (an Old World monkey, say), the descendant bifurcating lines couldn't both be considered an ape.
Cladistically, if any of those common ancestors was not an ape (an Old World monkey, say), the descendant bifurcating lines couldn't both be considered an ape.
OK, thanks for keeping me honest, tsiatkoVS. You're right that if we humans belong in a monophyletic group with modern apes, then we too are apes, and the common ancestor had to have been an ape.
I guess the point I so clumsily tried to make comes from this:
QUOTE(tsiatkoVS @ Oct 5 2009, 01:28 PM)
When the media says that humans (ultimately) evolved from apes (just not the ones living today) - that is a precise and true statement (unless something very weird and unexpected has happened that we don't know about).
I think the media does a poor job of distinguishing between "common ancestor" and "chimpanzee." There's a widespread interpretation out there that we're descended from something very chimplike, i.e., we've "evolved" a lot and chimps very little. But chimps are quite likely more derived (i.e., more different from the common ancestor) than we are, and that's the point to which driftinmark alluded.
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Oct 1 2009, 07:22 PM)
Why does this keep coming up? People keep using articles they barely understand, that show human evolution at work, and try to say this disproves evolution when the opposite is true, the evidence itslelf is growing all of the time, and then put forward their pet Sitchin theory that aliens genetically engineered humans, and never present any evidence for it?
Hi wolftrax,
Stichin was only one of the gentlemen to put this theory forward, there are a few others, and the evindece you are asking for is in the Sumerian texts..........
while I wish I could decipher them, I cant, so , I usually wait for other more learned people to do that task for me...........
this is known as the epic of creation, it is not written by stichin, but TRANSLATED by him and others, and their theories are from them............
since these writings were made before the writing of the bible, I would venture to say they are a little more closer to ancient history than the bible is at this point.......If I ever learn to read cuneiform, I will try to translate myself ........
here is the evidence that you are asking for, dont forget they were found among the ruins of the Palace and Library of Ashur-bani-pal (B.C. 668-626) at Ḳuyûnjiḳ (Nineveh)..........which makes them quite old
notice the sixth tablet:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm
Wait a minute - have we now drifted from a discussion of the awesomeness of Ardi to some notion recorded in cuneiform that we were planted here by aliens? Did I miss a memo? Did Aristotle?
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 5 2009, 01:09 PM)
I think the media does a poor job of distinguishing between "common ancestor" and "chimpanzee." There's a widespread interpretation out there that we're descended from something very chimplike, i.e., we've "evolved" a lot and chimps very little. But chimps are quite likely more derived (i.e., more different from the common ancestor) than we are, and that's the point to which driftinmark alluded.
Yeah, I agree. Sometimes the media get themselves into knots and say "Humans didn't evolve from apes," when they mean chimps. They're half way there to getting it right but end up confusing the issue even more. At least they're trying, I guess. Time magazine had a pretty decent take on Ardi. It helps to actually budget science journalists who know what they're talking about.
And anthropologists often used the chimp-bonobo as a working common ancestor model for a long time, which is to be expected because it was all we had, and I think the media just picked that up without too much thought.
Another source of confusion for the next few years is the use of the word "hominid." In the past, the bipedal apes including humans were placed in their own family, the Hominidae, separate from the great apes in their own family. Hominids were bipedal apes and Pongids were everything else. Pretty simple.
Today, when most lay people and the media say "hominid," they mean "bipedal ape."
Confusingly, we're now in the cladistically "pure" subtribe Hominina (bipedal apes), tribe of the Homini (us and Pan), in the subfamily Homininae (Homo-Pan with Gorilla) , in the family Hominidae (H-P-G with Pongo) so that "hominid," speaking technically, now is Homo-Pan-Gorilla-Pongo and all of their common ancestors at least.
I want my phylogenetic trees to be as accurate as possible, as any one does, and don't care whichever clade someone chooses to plant a name on. And cladistics is a great tool.
But when you mix Linnean Hierarchical divisions (genus, family, order, etc.) with "pure" cladisitcs, that has a rule that a higher division cannot evolve from a lower or equal level (e.g. Hominidae, a family, can't evolve from another family, Pongidae, say; one of the big reasons for this classification confusion, I believe) you start getting nonsense if you think about it, not to mention years of lay person confusion. But that's a rant for another day.
My point is maybe, in casual conversation, we can be intuitive and precise at the same time and just say "bipedal apes" and "non-bipedal apes." Hell, I confused "hominin" with "hominines'' or whatever our sub-tribe is called just a few posts ago.
Now, if our future fossil discoveries will just go along. . . the world would be a simple and beautiful place.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.