Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Scientists on Thursday unveiled a fossil human ancestor dating back 4.4 million years — a creature more ancient than the famous fossil "Lucy." And, the scientists say, even more important than Lucy.
The team that discovered the fossil, called Ardipithicus ramidus, say it's the closest thing yet found to the common ancestor of both chimps and humans. That common ancestor is thought to have lived about 6 million years ago. From that animal, chimps and other apes evolved in one direction, while our own ancestors, the hominids, evolved through several forms into what we are now.
The anthropologists found the bones in Ethiopia, in a desert region called Aramis. Scientists have previously discovered a few teeth and bones of Ardipithicus, dating from 5 to 6 million years ago. But in this case, they have more than 100 bones from 36 individuals, including a partial skeleton of a female whom they've dubbed "Ardi."
The area excavated "was a time capsule with contents that nobody had ever seen before," says anthropologist Tim White, of the University of California, Berkeley, and the team co-leader.
The skull had been crushed into scores of pieces, says White. But after years of reconstruction work, White says, "what we have is a very small-brained cranium of an early female hominid that is very different from a chimpanzee."
That's critical, White says. "People have sort of assumed ... that the last common ancestor was more or less like a chimpanzee." Ardi suggests otherwise — that in fact the earliest known hominid was a "mosaic," with some features like chimps but others like monkeys, such as the feet.
Other features are more like the more recent hominid, Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), such as the teeth. For example, the canine teeth near the front of the mouth in both male and female Ardipithicus are much smaller than a chimp's canines.
"It's just a treasure trove of surprises," says C. Owen Lovejoy, one of the leaders of the team and an anthropologist at Kent State University. Take the small canines, he says. A chimp's big, protruding canines — especially the males' — are for fighting or intimidating other males to get access to females, Lovejoy says. Small canines on Ardipithicus suggest a different social strategy.
"So females are picking males that are using some other technique to obtain reproductive success, and that technique is probably exchanging food for copulation," Lovejoy says.
White and Lovejoy say that the hand and arm bones, as well as bones from the feet and pelvis, suggest that Ardi was able to walk on two legs. But it was probably more comfortable in the trees, though it maneuvered on its palms in a way different from chimps.
The team spent almost two decades collecting everything from animal bones to pollen in the region. They conclude that Ardi lived in a lush, wooded environment, not the grassy savanna usually thought to be the habitat of the earliest human ancestors.
"This is more important than Lucy," says anthropologist Alan Walker of Penn State University. The number of bones and its greater antiquity give scientists a wealth of new information on this earliest part of human evolution. At the same time, he says, the team's conclusions will draw a lot of skepticism from other scientists.
Among the skeptics is Bernard Wood, professor of anatomy at George Washington University. Wood says it could well be that these bones belonged to a creature that evolved outside the line that led to humans — that it was in fact a separate branch of primate evolution that disappeared into a dead end, like so many other forms of ancient life.
The scientific community will now get a chance to test the team's conclusions, which are outlined in 11 papers — with 47 authors — in the journal Science.
Well we just had a farce a few months ago with Ida the missing link Lemur, which has been discovered to be a farce even by evolutionary scientists...source Kay, Richard (2009), “Much Hype and Many Errors,” Science, 325[5944]:1074-1075, August 28.
The swedish natural history museum paid $750,000.00 for the Ida fossil, and had to recoup that investment somehow. Lets make up a story and say the lemur was a missing link!
Now this, another extint ape that we can pass off as a human ancestor.
Make no mistake this isn't science, this is big business.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yep. I was just talking with a guy at church last night about how we are kinda tools for anything with Jesus or an ixthus. Christian culture is a almost a parody of itself. But hey, we gotta pay for the big screens in churches somehow.
First of all the MOD requested we keep religion out of the thread, but since people keep piling on, I may as well add my 2 cents, and respond. You may be surprised that I agree with some of the sentiments about the modern Church and especially some Churches as being "big business". The only thing I take exception to, is the notion that Christianity is "Big Business". There are people in any religion, indeed in any human group of people, (see Unions, military, 19th century enfettered capitalism, etc.)that can abuse it's members. The thing you have to remember is that religions do require money to run the organizational aspect, such as turning the lights on, buying buildings, purchasing equipment, parsoniges(spelling?), etc. Unfortuneatly some church leaders have gone to far, and turned their "version" of Christianity into a form of Christian capitalism. They are perfectly fine with having huge mansions, rolls royces X4, private jets etc.. So for those people I would say that yes they have perverted the gospel to their own ends.
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/02 14:42:58
generalgrog wrote:First of all the MOD requested we keep religion out of the thread, but since people keep piling on, I may as well add my 2 cents, and respond. You may be surprised that I agree with some of the sentiments about the modern Church and especially some Churches as being "big business". The only thing I take exception to, is the notion that Christianity is "Big Business". There are people in any religion, indeed in any human group of people, (see Unions, military, 19th century enfettered capitalism, etc.)that can abuse it's members. The thing you have to remember is that religions do require money to run the organizational aspect, such as turning the lights on, buying buildings, purchasing equipment, parsoniges(spelling?), etc. Unfortuneatly some church leaders have gone to far, and turned their "version" of Christianity into a form of Christian capitalism. They are perfectly fine with having huge mansions, rolls royces X4, private jets etc.. So for those people I would say that yes they have perverted the gospel to their own ends.
GG
..what's best here is you can pretty much swap in the words science/scientists here and exactly the same can be said. Sure is lucky no one barged into the thread with an ill thought out little rant about how SCIENCE IS WRONG AND EVUL 11 eh ? Oh..hang on...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/02 15:05:20
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It's 99% of what you say in every other thread so we generally just read between the lines of whatever you choose to spout.
Make no mistake this isn't science
No, it clearly is.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
And Warpcrafter wins the interwebs. Stop by the sacrificial circle to receive your prize, sir.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It is interesting how the find does force us to rethink the origins of homo sapiens. I wonder what the "common ancestor" between chimps and men looked like? How far back, precisely, do we need to go?
It is nice to be able to go further back, now, to see the evolution of our own species. It really makes it interesting to think about how far we've developed just in the 20th century alone. By the 22nd century we might, MIGHT, be able to actually get off this rock and start founding viable colonies off-world. Now that they've discovered water on both the moon and Mars, colonization of both locations just became that much closer to being truly possible as successful ventures.
But it took millennia for nature to develop the species that is capable of thinking realistically about offworld colonization 7,500 years since civilization first developed in Sumer, 28,000 years since humans first started recording history. I find that fascinating.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/10/02 18:21:56
"Success is moving from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Cliff Bleszinski
I believe that evolution is science, that's one of the ways we had the whole lemur story shown to be an exaggeration.
I fail to see how one misplaced claim, later disproven by scientists who do believe in evolution, relegates this entirely separate story about another finding to
Make no mistake this isn't science
when it quite clearly is. In fact : claim, analysis conclusion is pretty much the definition of scientific practise is it not ? If they had announced it as X/Y/Z and then it had been just accepted without further thought or review-- like most of the BS "Young earth" science that is put forward-- then it wouldn't be.
capiche ?
Of course you have to rush in and attack what you see as some perceived slight in a thread that no one had posted in for quite some time and wheel out your standard SCIENCE IS WRONG line... like you do in pretty much every thread we have. Hell even a throw away comment about the feth head leader of the BNP forced you to decry the "myth" of evolution as if "we" were coming to.. I dunno.. burn your bibles or something.
That's not until next year after we drag you away to the re education camps.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/02 18:28:51
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Agreed. Evolution is science. The question is though, how good of science? Look at the "Big Bang Theory" which has been revised time and time again. Shoot, look at the last 100 years of cosmology, it has come a long way and I'm sure it has a long way to go. These are all detours on the way to truth.
reds8n wrote:I believe that evolution is science, that's one of the ways we had the whole lemur story shown to be an exaggeration.
I fail to see how one misplaced claim, later disproven by scientists who do believe in evolution, relegates this entirely separate story about another finding to
Make no mistake this isn't science
when it quite clearly is. In fact : claim, analysis conclusion is pretty much the definition of scientific practise is it not ? If they had announced it as X/Y/Z and then it had been just accepted without further thought or review-- like most of the BS "Young earth" science that is put forward-- then it wouldn't be.
capiche ?
Of course you have to rush in and attack what you see as some perceived slight in a thread that no one had posted in for quite some time and wheel out your standard SCIENCE IS WRONG line... like you do in pretty much every thread we have. Hell even a throw away comment about the feth head leader of the BNP forced you to decry the "myth" of evolution as if "we" were coming to.. I dunno.. burn your bibles or something.
That's not until next year after we drag you away to the re education camps.
Look it's obvious that you have an axe to grind with me becuase you don't like to hear the other side of the story. Believe what you want, but don't get upset when someone on an internet forum challenges you. I get challenged all the time, and as long the challenge is respectfull, I don't get upset, and quite frankly you are distorting my post record by insuinating that "every other thread" I claim "science is wrong". Sounds to me like you are personally invested in evolution theory, when you have to resort to lies and distortions against my character instead of sticking to the issue.
It looks like the bone of contention here is that you believe that macro evolutionary theory is science, I happen to disagree. Becuase I disagree that doens't make me a liar. You however are one, since you falsely accused me of "ranting about science being wrong and evil".
I am on topic by the way... this wasn't some post about sponge bob square pants and I jumped in and started on creation vs evolution.
Way to distort and lie there.
Also, there have been many misplaced claims, later proven to be hoaxes. Macro evolutionary history is full of this kind of stuff, because they are desperate to prove that what they preach, is science.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youngblood wrote:Agreed. Evolution is science. The question is though, how good of science? Look at the "Big Bang Theory" which has been revised time and time again. Shoot, look at the last 100 years of cosmology, it has come a long way and I'm sure it has a long way to go. These are all detours on the way to truth.
Don't get me started on big bang theory...:-)
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/02 19:49:44
The problem GG, is that you dismissed this new evidence without any possible reason to. What you're saying isn't "Based on the available evidence, macro-evolution doesn't hold up as a viable theory." You're saying "Because this is evidence that supports macro evolution, it obviously must not be scientific."
You've made up your mind, and judge all possible evidence based on that theory.
It's good to read that post, because you had always tried to present yourself as having a reasonable problem with macro evolution, based on the evidence and not on belief, and I never really bought it. It's good to see that you are, in fact, simply an entrenched ideologue on the issue and can basically be ignored.
Polonius wrote: It's good to see that you are, in fact, simply an entrenched ideologue on the issue and can basically be ignored.
Very cute....the difference betwen myself and you polonius is that I happen to be informed. I'm sorry that you felt you had to insult me.
GG
I didn't insult you. I made the kindest possible assessment of your position. Are you denying that you attacked evidence that could hurt your position without any possible reason to? That you simply assume that any evidence that supports evolution is bunk? How are those actions in any way scientific? How are they anything other than the actions of a person with a deeply entrenched view that's based not on the evidence, but on something else?
If your problem with Macro-evolution is truley based on the evidence, than you would be skeptical, but not immediately dismissive of any new evidence. I'm not a big believer in Keynesian economics, but I give all the evidence the benefit of the doubt.
Additionally, I am rather informed. I'm reasonably well educated in modern evolutionary theory, including a semester seminar specifically in mammalian cladistics. I'm not sure what information you have that I don't, I've read some ID stuff and while at their best they do a good job of showing the sloppiness in science, they never come close to challenging the core of evolutionary theory or presenting a valid theory to replace it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/10/02 20:20:05
Polonius wrote:The problem GG, is that you dismissed this new evidence without any possible reason to. What you're saying isn't "Based on the available evidence, macro-evolution doesn't hold up as a viable theory." You're saying "Because this is evidence that supports macro evolution, it obviously must not be scientific."
I can't believe I missed this. I'm predicting that this evidence much like the Lucy stuff will turn out to be based on the same set of false assumptions that the lucy stuff is. Your taking it from the angle that "it this is evidence that supports macro evolution, it obviously must be scientific"
How is that not an entrenched ideolog that you accuse me of being.
Pretty hypocritical to me. ;-)
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/02 20:24:14
generalgrog wrote:
And now the back patting begins.
GG
You can assume a posture of victimization, but you're not going to get any sympathy. Here's why: this wasn't a thread on discussing your views on evolution. It was a thread about a new find. You immediatly dismissed it based on your position, and not overly politely. You knew that that would provoke a response, and yet did so anyway. that's what the old folks call a troll post.
Look it's obvious that you have an axe to grind with me becuase you don't like to hear the other side of the story.
Not true at all. You appear to be confusing yourself with me.
But, what the hell.. see to me it's you who doesn't like to see the "other side" presented, which leads you down this same old path of leaping into every "science" thread and preaching away.... any minute now we'll get a snide remark about how the Big bang theory is wrong.. ohh... look..... la plus ca change.
Believe what you want, but don't get upset when someone on an internet forum challenges you.
ha..irony. You're the one name calling and getting upset. It's not my fault you don't actually have an argument here.
I get challenged all the time, and as long the challenge is respectfull, I don't get upset, and quite frankly you are distorting my post record by insuinating that "every other thread" I claim "science is wrong". Sounds to me like you are personally invested in evolution theory, when you have to resort to lies and distortions against my character instead of sticking to the issue.
err... well I don't have stocks and shares in it.. ?
But I am-- just like you-- a successful product of it.. does that count ?
I've said no lies about you : you said
Make no mistake this isn't science
and it quite clearly is. You've offered no support or actual proof for this statement.. but, seemingly, that's fine.
And, as usual, have failed to counter any of the arguments brougt to you when your... "statements"...... are proven to be false. But what do facsts matter eh ? You've got your opinion... and... errr..... seemingly no one else is allowed to differ from it.
Hmm.. alright.
It looks like the bone of contention here is that you believe that macro evolutionary theory is science, I happen to disagree. Becuase I disagree that doens't make me a liar. You however are one, since you falsely accused me of "ranting about science being wrong and evil".
Sorry... are you now saying you've never refered to the evolution of man from a monkey as a myth ? Really ? Because that is a lie.
I am on topic by the way... this wasn't some post about sponge bob square pants and I jumped in and started on creation vs evolution.
Way to distort and lie there.
Yes, you are. The post was about evolution versus religion....?... don't think so. Thread title is nothing to do with that. Is that chip heavy, it must hurt your back.
All it was : a single post containing a news story. You started us down this tired old path, same as you, as usual, are resortingt o tired anc cliched attacks because you haven't actually got a point or a defense here.
Way to distort and lie there
Indeed. But we're used to your posting style now.
Also, there have been many misplaced claims, later proven to be hoaxes. Macro evolutionary history is full of this kind of stuff, because they are desperate to prove that what they preach, is science.
So..just like religion then ? Except of course science doesn't rely upon dubious and entirely unprovable claims of " I know God's real... I have a personal connection with him through Jesus/ Allah/ Talking dog that tells me to kill" as "evidence".
The difference being of course that the scientific community constantly tests and researches their claims-- even proving their prior beliefs to be wrong.. just like in the Lemur case you so helpfully aided my argument with-- and then adapts to the new information.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I was just talking with a guy at church last night about how we are kinda tools for anything with Jesus or an ixthus. Christian culture is a almost a parody of itself. But hey, we gotta pay for the big screens in churches somehow. 
Kerry King 