New Hominid

[billliggins]

I see that the fossilised remains of a thus far undiscovered hominid have been found. It is 4.4 million years old and female. The most interesting thing is that both the feet and the pelvis are amongst the bones discovered and although the feet have an opposable hallux, the pelvis shows signs of being suitable for bipedal walking. These features seem inconsistent, so maybe David Holland or anybody else with knowledge of anthropology/hominid development can weigh in?

All the best

Bill

[seekerofwisdom]

Why not ask the resident Neanderthal about this? It could be one of his ancestors!

Mr C R O Magnon

[davidh]

Hi Bill,

This is too far back in the evolutionary timescale to draw any definite conclusions from.

My best guess (probably as good as anyone else's at this stage) is that the specimen is a very early stage of hominid development.

The specimen "Lucy" (Australopithicus Aferensis) which was dated around 3.5 million years old had, so I was informed by someone who had seen the real fossils rather than the casts which us lesser mortals are allowed to examine) curved phalanges, more suitable for trees than bi-pedal walking.

Regards,

Davidh

[wligginsvirginn]

So can we perhaps give an educated guess that the common ancestor (when it's found) was an aboreal hominid which descended for short periods and walked with an upright rolling gait? This would seem to take us back to the orangotang argument that because of the organs being hung from fascia rather then the backbone we originated in the trees and the foot developed much later to support bi-pedal stance/gait?

All the best

Bill

[davidh]

Hi Bill,

I think that's a reasonable assumption to make.

For those who don't know the background, it is generally accepted by the scientific community that we and the great apes decended from a common ancestor, one branch going one way (hominids and, eventually, homo sapiens) and one branch going the other way (great apes).

It's unlikely however that we will ever know for sure.
Said common ancestor is thought to be C10 million years old. Would fossil evidence last that long?

Cheers,

Davidh

[blinda]

it is generally accepted by the scientific community that we and the great apes decended from a common ancestor, one branch going one way (hominids and, eventually, homo sapiens) and one branch going the other way (great apes).

I`m afraid I have to disagree. Depending upon which `scientific` papers you read. Some suggest Hominidae may not have a common ancestor with each species descending from its kind.

It's unlikely however that we will ever know for sure.

There are huge gaps in both theories so this is not an unreasonable statement.

Cheers,
Bel

[davidh]

Hi Bel,

You said:
"I`m afraid I have to disagree. Depending upon which `scientific` papers you read. Some suggest Hominidae may not have a common ancestor with each species descending from its kind. "

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Cheers,

Davidh

[blinda]

Hi David,

Sorry to take so long to reply.

I`m in agreement with you that “it is unlikely however, that we will ever know for sure”. As there are too many lacunae in the fossil records to support the theory that we and the great ape descended from a common ancestor.

Scientists, both evolutionist (Dawkins, Gould, etc) and creationist (Kristol, Meyer, Buckley, etc), tend to interpret what they see in the world through their own peculiar lenses, which represent their framework, or ideology. So the `scientific community` varies greatly depending upon the belief of individual authors.

Gould ironically stated that “myths become beliefs through adulterated repetition without proper documentation.” Whilst he was referring to religious belief, it can also be applied to demonstrate how the evolutionary litany that ‘evolution is a fact’ becomes a belief: through “repetition without proper documentation” from scientific evidence. The intermediate fossils are still missing.

Just my opinion

Cheers,
Bel

[davidsmith]

Here's a good site to fuel this discussion
Here www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/early_humans/
and here www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070716191140.htm

[davidsmith]

oh yeah

and here of course www.biblegateway.com/

[davidsmith]

Copied from Bmech-L

'Ardi' Scientists Used LifeModeler's Software to Understand How Earliest Hominid Moved

Researchers who spent 15 years studying the skeletal remains of "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago, turned to a LifeModeler, Inc., to help them understand how the 110-pound, 4-foot female walked and moved.

Scientific papers about the nearly complete fossilized skeleton that were published this week have set off something of a media sensation over the ancient creature formally known as Ardipithecus ramidus. The discovery extends the fossil record of the human lineage to a point a million years before "Lucy," the Australopithecus specimen that was the previous record holder. Perhaps more importantly, scientists were surprised to find that the oldest human ancestor walked upright on the ground. Many researchers had previously believed that such an early ancestor would be a "knuckle-walker" that moved about on all fours limbs, like modern chimpanzees.

LifeModeler scientists worked with Professor Owen Lovejoy to assemble 3-D images of Ardi's bones into a functional skeleton. Muscles were then laced through the model and attached to various boney landmarks indicated by the ancient bones. The lower leg model was then actuated and provided information to the riddle: "How could a foot which could grasp a branch also walk efficiently?". The data and knowledge gained from this lower leg model was then used in conjunction with motion capture data from a test subject to generate a complete model of the hominid.

Shawn McGuan and his team can be seen on the 2-hour Discovery Channel program, "Discovering Ardi" to be aired:

Oct 11, 9:00 pm
Oct 12, 12:00 am
Oct 15, 9:00 pm
Oct 16, 12:00 am


Shawn McGuan
Founder/CEO
---------------------------------------------
LifeModeler, Inc.
Bringing Simulation to Life
http://www.lifemodeler.com<http://www.lifemodeler.com/>

[phone] Office
[phone] Mobile
[phone] Fax
2730 Camino Capistrano, Suite 7, San Clemente, CA 92672

[davidh]

Oct 13, 2009 14:33:09 GMT blinda said:

I`m in agreement with you that “it is unlikely however, that we will ever know for sure”. As there are too many lacunae in the fossil records to support the theory that we and the great ape descended from a common ancestor.

Scientists, both evolutionist (Dawkins, Gould, etc) and creationist (Kristol, Meyer, Buckley, etc), tend to interpret what they see in the world through their own peculiar lenses, which represent their framework, or ideology. So the `scientific community` varies greatly depending upon the belief of individual authors.

Gould ironically stated that “myths become beliefs through adulterated repetition without proper documentation.” Whilst he was referring to religious belief, it can also be applied to demonstrate how the evolutionary litany that ‘evolution is a fact’ becomes a belief: through “repetition without proper documentation” from scientific evidence. The intermediate fossils are still missing.

Hi Bel,

I stated accepted theory as taught academically at Uni. I think the caveat that new bones tend to throw a spanner in the works as they are dug up is also generally accepted.

In one of the labs at Durham Uni was a chimp skeleton which someone had wired to stand upright.
It looked very uncomfortable, and just plain wrong.

Anyway, it looks like we generally agree!

Off to read Dave's refs now .

Regards,

Davidh

[billliggins]

Hi Dave

Thanks for that useful info. Sadly, I can't pick up Discovery. Anybody care to record it for me....please?

All the best

Bill

[billliggins]

PS That is to say, if anybody has recorded it, can I borrow the disc?

Cheers

Bill

[lawrencebevan]

Hi everyone

Can I spill in?
Evolution or rather "natural selection" is a FACT. As much a fact as any other in science. All scientific ideas are referred to as theories out of respect to the notion that you cannot "prove" any theory to be absolutely 100% true. You can only show a very high tendency to not be untrue. Hence "theory"of relativity, "theory of heliocentricy" the only exception to this is the field of mathematics or relationships that can be proven with calculus. Natural selection is only a "theory" in this respect, in all others it is a fact.

Beyond the concept of natural selection, evolution or rather the descent and relationships of species is supported by

1 the distribution of species through the accepted eras of fossils. There has yet to be a mammal found in the earlier jurassic and no dinosaurs in the later devonian eras. If there were then this would be BIG spanner.

2 DNA. This directly shows the close relationship of many species.

The fact that we know that left to their own devices all species spontaneously mutate and these mutations can be "selected" by their environment. Coupled with the knowledge that these selected mutations are often cummulative, this is the only credible explanation of the distributon of the fossil and DNA evidence. I would say the other explanations - namely the "divine" and "aliens" are not credible and should not be thought of as the other side of the same coin.

The progressive discovery of early hominid bones changes around some the the billing in the "dramatis personae" it doesn't change the name of the play. There are always "gaps" whenever you put artificial labels on species. If our alphabet read "abcdegh..." would we say there's a "gap" between e and g ? If we fill that gap with an f what then about the gap between e and f? The "missing link" is a long-standing non-argument - a strawman I believe they would call it on PA!! :-)

off the soap box.

Anyone have any refs for the evolution of the human foot handy?