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.

 

Ancient Ape Discovered: Last Ape-Human Ancestor? Some Evolution Evidence

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I did a search and couldn't find this on ATS, so I'm posting it.
It's basically a 13 million year old fossil of an ape-human ancestor, and perhaps the latest one before the species split.

news.nationalgeographic.com... pe_human_ancestor.html

It's just that a lot of people clamor for some evidence of evolution, and I'm not sure if it's that they actually haven't seen any or simply refuse to look at it.
Here's some evidence, now whether or not you see it is a choice.




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
I did a search and couldn't find this on ATS, so I'm posting it.
It's basically a 13 million year old fossil of an ape-human ancestor, and perhaps the latest one before the species split.

A clarification, its being cited as possibly being the last common ancestor of all the great apes (which includes man), not as the last common ancestor of man and the other apes.

So if it's true, then when this species splited, it was into two different linages of great apes (lets pretend one leading to gorillas chimps and man, and the other leading to orangutans).

Whereas the last common ancestor of apes and man would be something that split, one species becoming the lineage that leads to man, the other to other apes.


Neat discovery! Lets have an ATS avatar to celebrate it:


What a great illustration by Todd Marshall, he does some reall great work and you can see more of his stuff here:
www.marshalls-art.com...


Fascinating find!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
I did a search and couldn't find this on ATS, so I'm posting it.


I found:
www.abovetopsecret.com... ("'astonishing' skull found in Africa" from July '02)





From a related story (linked in the [left] sidebar of your strory):

Source
Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Program at the National History Museum in London, told National Geographic News in July that discoveries such as this are always complex because evidence is usually incomplete and there is little agreement about what key features characterize a distinct human ancestor.


The analysis by Wolpoff and colleagues centers on the argument that the fossil, formally known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis and nicknamed Toumai, does not have a feature that they believe is essential for it to be considered a hominid: the ability to walk on two feet.
"It does not share the single unifying feature of all humans and hominids, erect posture and obligate bipedal locomotion," said Wolpoff. "It could of course be an ancestor of both humans and chimpanzees, it certainly is early enough, but there is no reason to be sure it is the ancestor of any surviving species."



It's just that a lot of people clamor for some evidence of evolution, and I'm not sure if it's that they actually haven't seen any or simply refuse to look at it.






What did you personally find most compelling wrt this find? Is it 'ape-like' or 'man-like'? What's the differance? How did/do you distinquish the two?



Here's some evidence, now whether or not you see it is a choice.


A different interpretation of the evidence does not equal a 'failure to consider it' that's faulty logic, no? Evolutionists [as evidenced by my link/'ex' quote] aren't in agreement even.


Creationists have also weighed in on this evidence with, of course, different interpretations/conclusions eg:

Fossil Finds in Africa: More Monkey Business by Bill Sardi

New Hominid Fossil Shakes the Human Family Tree (Again)

Apologetics Press article



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Isn't that other kind kenyathropus though?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Isn't that other kind kenyathropus though?


Did you mean the pic or commentary Nygdan? The commentary [from creationists] is all over the place but does specifically make mention of Brunet's find which is why I linked them.

Could this be what you're thinking of? Creationist response to that can be found here: AIG: Not another (yawn) ‘ape-man’ by Carl Wieland



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Here's the abstract from the original study in 'Science':


We describe a partial skeleton with facial cranium of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus gen. et sp. nov., a new Middle Miocene (12.5 to 13 million years ago) ape from Barranc de Can Vila 1 (Barcelona, Spain). It is the first known individual of this age that combines well-preserved cranial, dental, and postcranial material. The thorax, lumbar region, and wrist provide evidence of modern ape–like orthograde body design, and the facial morphology includes the basic derived great ape features. The new skeleton reveals that early great apes retained primitive monkeylike characters associated with a derived body structure that permits upright postures of the trunk. Pierolapithecus, hence, does not fit the theoretical model that predicts that all characters shared by extant great apes were present in their last common ancestor, but instead points to a large amount of homoplasy in ape evolution. The overall pattern suggests that Pierolapithecus is probably close to the last common ancestor of great apes and humans.

Moyà-Solà S, Köhler M, Alba DM, Casanovas-Vilar I, Galindo J (2004) Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a New Middle Miocene Great Ape from Spain. Science 306(5700):1339-1344.

Quite cool. We would hope to see similar finds in africa in time.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Did you mean the pic or commentary Nygdan?

I meant the thread, but I read it too quickly and thought it was kenyathropus (which would've bene in kenya, not chad, so DOH!).

And yes the pic, I thought it was kenyathropus, which it isn't.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Is it true?

They found him in the Oval Office at the Whitehouse?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nobodyelse
Is it true?

They found him in the Oval Office at the Whitehouse?


Please stay on topic and leave the political sniping for the political forums.

Thank you



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
FWIW this find is about six or seven years old. The reports (per original ATS thread I linked) go back about five. I'm sure that there's no need to stop the thread/discussion, as the only other one is pretty old, but it's important to know this isn't a recent find, relatively speaking of course. The article linked in the OP is from '04 also.

~Just sayin'



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
FWIW this find is about six or seven years old. The reports (per original ATS thread I linked) go back about five. I'm sure that there's no need to stop the thread/discussion, as the only other one is pretty old, but it's important to know this isn't a recent find, relatively speaking of course. The article linked in the OP is from '04 also.

~Just sayin'

I hear ya, and if a mod wants to close the thread that's cool. It's just that sometimes while I'm on the google I see something interesting. Sometimes it's something funny and it goes to a more humor related board (Opie and Anthony specifically), this time I found it more appropriate to post here. I know the discovery is old, but it was new to me, and therefore I figured it might be new to other people.

Free Baltar



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join