[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Evolution: Missing Link found? (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 9/8/2011 10:28:35 AM EDT
|
http://news.yahoo.com/game-changer-evolution-african-bones-140125430.html
'Game-changer' in evolution from S. African bones AP By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID - AP Science Writer | AP – 2 hrs 56 mins ago WASHINGTON (AP) — An analysis of 2 million-year-old bones found in South Africa offers the most powerful case so far in identifying the transitional figure that came before modern humans — findings some are calling a potential game-changer in understanding evolution. The bones are from Australopithecus sediba. The research places that pre-human branch of the evolutionary tree as the best candidate to be the ancestor of the human line, said Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. The bones, found in 2008 in the fossil-rich cave region of Malapa near Johannesburg, show a head-to-foot combination of features of Australopithecus and the human genus, Homo. "It's as if evolution is caught in one vital moment, a stop-action snapshot of evolution in action," said Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution. He was not among the international research team, led by South African scientists. Their research was published online Thursday in the journal Science. Scientists have long considered the Australopithecus family, which includes the famous fossil Lucy, to be a primitive candidate for a human ancestor. The new research establishes a creature that combines features of both groups. The journal published five papers detailing the findings, including separate reports on the foot, hand, pelvis and brain of A. sediba. Berger said the brain, hand and foot have characteristics of both modern and early pre-human forms that show a transition under way. It represents a bona fide model that could lead to the genus Homo, Berger said. |
|
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1227970_Red_Jacket_Firearms_Expanding_Business.html Dupe. The thread is kinda strange  but a dupe none the less.
|
|
That's very chimpanzee-like. |
|
we really haven't evolved that much. 
|
In other news, Italian ancesters were breeding with humans too  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html |
I thought it was proven that Lucy or whatever they call her is just a primate that still exists today. That hand is probably a lemur hand. I also love the artist rendition, take an ape skull, draw an ape but make the eyes look "human". They must be desperate for grant money amidst this economy. Reminds me of the "respectable" climatologists and their "findings".
|
|
Quoted:
I thought it was proven that Lucy or whatever they call her is just a primate that still exists today. That hand is probably a lemur hand. I also love the artist rendition, take an ape skull, draw an ape but make the eyes look "human". They must be desperate for grant money amidst this economy. Reminds me of the "respectable" climatologists and their "findings".
Not even remotely. |
|
Quoted:
I thought it was proven that Lucy or whatever they call her is just a primate that still exists today. That hand is probably a lemur hand. I also love the artist rendition, take an ape skull, draw an ape but make the eyes look "human". They must be desperate for grant money amidst this economy. Reminds me of the "respectable" climatologists and their "findings".
Ape eyes already look human. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I thought it was proven that Lucy or whatever they call her is just a primate that still exists today. That hand is probably a lemur hand. I also love the artist rendition, take an ape skull, draw an ape but make the eyes look "human". They must be desperate for grant money amidst this economy. Reminds me of the "respectable" climatologists and their "findings". Ape eyes already look human. Reminds me more of the laughable CG apes and chimps in the last Planet of the Apes.  |
|
Quoted: Quoted: For every "missing link" that is discovered, a new link between that and previously existing fossils will be demanded by the antis. Monkey skulls and hands. I guess I am missing that "link".  Denial is the other way around it. Present an evolutionary series of extinct members of extinct equines, and they'll say "It's all a hoax," or "Those are all different kinds of animals," or "Those are all just horses." There's no point in arguing with people who will not assimilate new information. |
|
Quoted:
For every "missing link" that is discovered, a new link between that and previously existing fossils will be demanded by the antis. Here's the real problem. Random mutation and natural selection is still claimed to be the driving mechanism behind evolution. That theory predicts that there would be SHITTONS of transitional fossils. In fact, species would undergo slow steady changes as the less adapted of each generation successively died off. However, the fossil record shows nothing of the sort. There are a lot of distinct species, some closely related albeit, but except for a few "meh, maybe if I stare at it hard enough" examples there really aren't a lot of transitional organisms. Also, new species seem to arise in large clusters of new life (pre-Cambrian explosion) instead of periodically popping up throughout the geological record. Obviously life has changed a great deal since the forming of the planet but the mechanism(s) causing it is very poorly understood. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For every "missing link" that is discovered, a new link between that and previously existing fossils will be demanded by the antis. Monkey skulls and hands. I guess I am missing that "link". Denial is the other way around it. Present an evolutionary series of extinct members of extinct equines, and they'll say "It's all a hoax," or "Those are all different kinds of animals," or "Those are all just horses." There's no point in arguing with people who will not assimilate new information. If the information can actually be proven- so far it's just desperation. Why do I feel like we are talking "empirical" climate data again?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For every "missing link" that is discovered, a new link between that and previously existing fossils will be demanded by the antis. Monkey skulls and hands. I guess I am missing that "link". Denial is the other way around it. Present an evolutionary series of extinct members of extinct equines, and they'll say "It's all a hoax," or "Those are all different kinds of animals," or "Those are all just horses." There's no point in arguing with people who will not assimilate new information. If the information can actually be proven- so far it's just desperation. Why do I feel like we are talking "empirical" climate data again?
Why is it desperation? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought it was proven that Lucy or whatever they call her is just a primate that still exists today. That hand is probably a lemur hand..
What evidence do you have for any of this? I'm sorry, it was extinct ape species Anyway, From an article: According to the news reports,4 most of the characteristics (of Lucy) have more similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas than to man including: * The hyoid bone is exactly like that of a chimpanzee. The vocalization that the creature would be capable of would be like a chimpanzee’s. * The organ of balance is chimp-like and not human-like. The excellent preservation of the material makes this conclusion reliable. * The neck vertebra are short and thick like a gorilla. A slender neck as humans have helps to keep the head stable while running. * The fingers are long and curved like a chimpanzee’s. These facilitate climbing ability. While this has been seen in other australopithecine specimens, the relevance is still a matter of debate. * The shoulder blades are the same as a gorilla’s and not at all like a human’s. * The cranial capacity falls in the range of a chimpanzee’s. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/09/26/lucy-looks-like-ape |
|
Quoted: oh good... we found a hand full of bones and therefor must have found an entire race of animals we have no other evidence of... derp... You do understand that there are likely huge numbers of extinct species that we'll never know about simply because there is no fossil record of them. Fossilization is quite rare, in that the circumstances have to be exactly right for it to happen. When combined with species of low numbers, you get a distinct lack of knowledge. As such, one handful of 'new' bones can be quite a find. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: For every "missing link" that is discovered, a new link between that and previously existing fossils will be demanded by the antis. Here's the real problem. Random mutation and natural selection is still claimed to be the driving mechanism behind evolution. That theory predicts that there would be SHITTONS of transitional fossils.... There ARE shittons of transitional fossils. Here's the real deal: They're ALL transitional! The likelihood of any individual plant or animal being fossilized is very low. |
|
Quoted: That's very chimpanzee-like. Grandpa! |
|
Citing AIG as an authoritiative source for a discussion of this topic is two giant steps below citing Wikipedia. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
oh good... we found a hand full of bones and therefor must have found an entire race of animals we have no other evidence of... derp... You do understand that there are likely huge numbers of extinct species that we'll never know about simply because there is no fossil record of them. Fossilization is quite rare, in that the circumstances have to be exactly right for it to happen. When combined with species of low numbers, you get a distinct lack of knowledge. As such, one handful of 'new' bones can be quite a find. sorry, Ann Coulter said otherwise... she's hot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought it was proven that Lucy or whatever they call her is just a primate that still exists today. That hand is probably a lemur hand..
What evidence do you have for any of this? I'm sorry, it was extinct ape species Anyway, From an article: According to the news reports,4 most of the characteristics (of Lucy) have more similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas than to man including: * The hyoid bone is exactly like that of a chimpanzee. The vocalization that the creature would be capable of would be like a chimpanzee’s. * The organ of balance is chimp-like and not human-like. The excellent preservation of the material makes this conclusion reliable. * The neck vertebra are short and thick like a gorilla. A slender neck as humans have helps to keep the head stable while running. * The fingers are long and curved like a chimpanzee’s. These facilitate climbing ability. While this has been seen in other australopithecine specimens, the relevance is still a matter of debate. * The shoulder blades are the same as a gorilla’s and not at all like a human’s. * The cranial capacity falls in the range of a chimpanzee’s. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/09/26/lucy-looks-like-ape Well yeah, they were bipedal apes. Australopithecus means southern ape. There were numerous species of them. |
|
I think there will always be people who are so skeptical of the natural process of evolution that led to us that they won't believe it even if God Himself takes them by the hand and shows them a narrated movie of the entire evolutionary process as it occurred, and that movie's coverage of the process is continuous without gaps, only shown at a pace which is suitable for viewing by attention-challenged humans. I've said this before, and nobody has ever dared to challenge me on it: The conditions that have to be met in order for fossil formation to start are very rare, averaging about one day per ten thousand years, for any given spot on the planet. Those conditions require something to die, fall to its resting place, and the body must not be overly scavenged and the remains must be covered over very quickly in order for the preservation and fossilization process to start. An example would be a nearby volcano blowing up, and covering the area with ash, choking and killing the local wildlife (people included), and the covering them over with ash. Fossil formation is likely to occur. But a body that just falls on the grass under ordinary conditions will be scavenged, scattered, and the bones decayed to dust without fossil formation. Of course the fossil record is incomplete, given how rare fossil formative conditions are. CJ |
|
Quoted:
Citing AIG as an authoritiative source for a discussion of this topic is two giant steps below citing Wikipedia. Because the scientific data doesn't support your "beliefs"? Why not cross reference the findings they point out as to why Lucy is an ape versus a human and then decide for yourself. FYI- you might want to get that raft out because Al Gore told us that the ice caps are melting.
|
|
Quoted:
oh good... we found a hand full of bones and therefor must have found an entire race of animals we have no other evidence of... derp... REALLY!! Some people are so hot to find the "missing link" that they seem to forget all science in the process. One set of bones are found and some "scientists" come out talking about the "missing link"....... when it could have been a deformed human, ape, whatever...... and they have NO IDEA what it really is or means. Normally, something has to be verified with more than ONE subject, extensive testing, etc. It seems like this does not apply to the THEORY of evolution and most recently in global warming. It's what happens when "scientists" stop being scientists and become zealots for a cause....... mainly trying to PROVE there is no God and we came from apes. Nothing new here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought Ardipithecus qualified? I think Ardipithecus is pre-Australopithicus. Ardipitecus showed the beginning stages of true bi-pedal walking IIRC, that is pretty much the nail in the coffin for the creationist argument. I think what they are after here is what species of Australopithecus is a direct ancestor of humans. So far nobody knows, apparently these folks think they have found one that is more human like than the other species. It used to be contention between afarensis and africanus. It was looking like africanus was going to be ruled out due to habilus being the same age- although that didn't necessarily have to be the case. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought Ardipithecus qualified? I think Ardipithecus is pre-Australopithicus. Ardipitecus showed the beginning stages of true bi-pedal walking IIRC, that is pretty much the nail in the coffin for the creationist argument. Except we've all seen chimps walking on just their back legs for short distances, then settle back down again. Yet here they are, "millions" of years later- still chimps. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For every "missing link" that is discovered, a new link between that and previously existing fossils will be demanded by the antis. Here's the real problem. Random mutation and natural selection is still claimed to be the driving mechanism behind evolution. That theory predicts that there would be SHITTONS of transitional fossils.... There ARE shittons of transitional fossils. Here's the real deal: They're ALL transitional! The likelihood of any individual plant or animal being fossilized is very low. LOL!! Where?? Posters are not transitional fossils. Where can I go see the "transition" of ape to man depicted on the famous evolution poster?? I mean represented with REAL fossils?? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: oh good... we found a hand full of bones and therefor must have found an entire race of animals we have no other evidence of... derp... You do understand that there are likely huge numbers of extinct species that we'll never know about simply because there is no fossil record of them. Fossilization is quite rare, in that the circumstances have to be exactly right for it to happen. When combined with species of low numbers, you get a distinct lack of knowledge. As such, one handful of 'new' bones can be quite a find. sorry, Ann Coulter said otherwise... she's hot. Oh yeah, forgot about that. The debate must be over... |
|
Quoted:
I think there will always be people who are so skeptical of the natural process of evolution that led to us that they won't believe it even if God Himself takes them by the hand and shows them a narrated movie of the entire evolutionary process as it occurred, and that movie's coverage of the process is continuous without gaps, only shown at a pace which is suitable for viewing by attention-challenged humans. I've said this before, and nobody has ever dared to challenge me on it: The conditions that have to be met in order for fossil formation to start are very rare, averaging about one day per ten thousand years, for any given spot on the planet. Those conditions require something to die, fall to its resting place, and the body must not be overly scavenged and the remains must be covered over very quickly in order for the preservation and fossilization process to start. An example would be a nearby volcano blowing up, and covering the area with ash, choking and killing the local wildlife (people included), and the covering them over with ash. Fossil formation is likely to occur. But a body that just falls on the grass under ordinary conditions will be scavenged, scattered, and the bones decayed to dust without fossil formation. Of course the fossil record is incomplete, given how rare fossil formative conditions are. CJ I'll challenge you on it. ALL you are saying is " believe in evolution because the PROOF is just to hard to get." " Yeah, there isn't enough fossil evidence to support the THEORY but jeez, those fossils are hard to form and come by." " So, just be a good sport and believe in something that has not been proven will ya?? Cause, after all the PROOF is just so dern hard to come by!" "Where is your faith in MAN and in scientists??" Yeah, some challenge.......... |
|
I thought something made as scientific fact has to be repeatable yet evolution is still theory.
I don't doubt that breeding amongst various populations produces various degrees of change- dogs from wolves etc. However an entire species jump is hard to buy without actual proof. 
|
|
Quoted:
I thought something made as scientific fact has to be repeatable yet evolution is still theory. I don't doubt that breeding amongst various populations produces various degrees of change- dogs from wolves etc. However an entire species jump is hard to buy without actual proof. Still a theory. Like gravity, and the germ theory of disease. |