It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
news.yahoo.com...
It remains debated what kind of australopithecine Little Foot was. Many scientists think Little Foot was a member of Australopithecus africanus, which had a rounder skull housing a larger brain and smaller teeth than did Lucy and the rest of Australopithecus afarensis. However, Clarke and others suggest Little Foot belonged to another australopithecine known as Australopithecus prometheus, which had a longer, flatter face and larger cheek teeth than Australopithecus africanus.
It was impossible to fit Little Foot into the human family tree with any certainty because "ever since its discovery, the age of Little Foot has been debated," said lead study author Darryl Granger, a geochronologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. If researchers can figure out when Little Foot arose, they might be able to better pinpoint which Australopithecus species and which part of Africa ultimately gave rise to Homo.
Now, Granger and his colleagues have found evidence that Little Foot lived at about the same time as Lucy. Even so, the fossil doesn't give a definitive answer on Little Foot's species.
"The most important implication from dating Little Foot is that we now know that australopithecines were in South Africa early in their evolution," Granger told Live Science. "This implies an evolutionary connection between South Africa and East Africa prior to the age of Little Foot, and with enough time for the australopithecine species to diverge."
This in turn suggests that other australopithecines — and, later, humans — "did not all have to have derived from Australopithecus afarensis," Clarke told Live Science. "There could well have been many species of Australopithecus extending over a much wider area of Africa."
This is interesting, ATS. this could possibly explain why we have so many varieties of people; ie-RACE. I know that the popular notion is that race is merely a variant of one's climate in which they live but what if there's more to it than just that? What if race is dependent upon which Australopithecus species you came from? I'm intrigued...What says ATS?
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: lostbook
Umm when was it ever implied "Lucy" was alone? Its been known for decades that there were a lot of hominids roaming about. Hell until about 12000 years ago we had another species of Homo lurking on some islands (viz Homo floresiensis).
So we scientists are not "touting" anything new neighbor
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: lostbook
"Lucy" and her species have never been portrayed that way by scientists. Media? Well media screw up and distort science each and every day. But no we have no way of determining where "Lucy" Australopithecus afarensis falls in our family tree. to begin with she is a different genus (Australopithecus as opposed to Homo.
The point about the original post is we know and have known for decades that other hominids were walking around with overlapping time periods. As I said until around 12000 years ago there were other ones still. The little Homo floresiensis aka "hobbits", then up until 30000(ish) years ago Neanderthals and perhaps Denisovians were around too. Its not unusual.
So yes "new" hominid is exciting and interesting, but not earth shattering
Again we can't show where any of them were in relation to us on the family tree. There is no DNA to sequence and compare. Remember we are about 98% similar to Chimps too
originally posted by: lostbook
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: lostbook
Umm when was it ever implied "Lucy" was alone? Its been known for decades that there were a lot of hominids roaming about. Hell until about 12000 years ago we had another species of Homo lurking on some islands (viz Homo floresiensis).
So we scientists are not "touting" anything new neighbor
I assumed by the way that Lucy was presented as modern day man's ancestor that she had to be alone. I didn't know for sure otherwise.
The new discovery of Little Foot some 20 yrs ago opens the door to another potential ancestor whom while the same species as Lucy, they may be a different breed.
I find it interesting cause it may better explain variation in modern humans.
originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: Noinden
Well said.
(a) The reason they classify "Australopithecine" is that they have established that these creatures were bipedal, and walked upright, apparently a trait of early Homos. Had they dragged their knuckles, I assume they would be classified as lesser Primates.
(b) Yes monkeys and apes are cousins, as we are, hence the reason for my post...they dont ALL automatically evolve into Humans.
(c) Yes Homo Erectus is THOUGHT???? to have spread from Africa...in Theory. There are still amazing things to find....that recent 900,000 year old (supposedly) jaw bone in Great Britain, certainly stirs up the juices.....so are white people 900,000 years old?
and why not???
Who can determine absolutely?? Noone!!
Do you honestly think Orangutans and Gigantopithicus's ancestors swam or walked 10,000s of miles?
or that early Homo carried them on their backs?
Perhaps they Devolved from greater Homos?
As you can see, things are not simply black and white (pun intended), as some seem to think.
And yes, we Neanderthals Still hate the bloody heat!!!! .
originally posted by: Lazzzarus22
While we are down here trying to understand our own history, the aliens are up there in the sky laughing.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Imagine if the only preserved specimen they find a million years from now are fragments of the elephant man.
They will create whole charts and hypotheses out of the discovery. Then they find a midget wrestler and have to redo their whole charts.