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.
Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by Hollywood11
Actually, this IS a "skeptic" article: it is skeptical of a set of traditional scientific findings.
Anyway, it is interesting.
When I say "Skepticism", I'm actually referring to popular religous belief system.
You know atheists, materialists, etc. People like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and all their little fanboys and followers who hate all paranormal research and hate religions.
Published online on April 10, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0606454104
PNAS | April 17, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 16 | 6568-6572
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / ANTHROPOLOGY
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Yoel Rak*,, Avishag Ginzburg*, and Eli Geffen
*Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.
Originally posted by Hollywood11
Lucy is just another ape, not an ancestor of humans.
They should therefore, the Israeli researchers said, "be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours."
Originally posted by Horza
Hollywood ... if this is an attempt by you to "debunk" evolution it is a really, really bad attempt.
This article says is that there is a possibility that Lucy is not our direct ancestor (which, as Good Wolf says we have known for a while) and that A.afarensis EVOLVED in parallel to the branch that eventually become modern humans.
So not only are you giving us information that we know already ... this article is over 2 years old ... but also evidence that supports, again, the fact of evolution.
Thanks!
Originally posted by Good Wolf
So I'm not sure what you're trying to debunk, because no one who actually knows his stuff will be saying that lucy is an ancestor of humans.
Originally posted by Hollywood11
Originally posted by Good Wolf
So I'm not sure what you're trying to debunk, because no one who actually knows his stuff will be saying that lucy is an ancestor of humans.
I am saying there is no lineage constructed of what humans were before they were humans let alone a lineage plotting humans back to a common ancestor with apes.
Originally posted by Hollywood11
I am saying there is no lineage constructed of what humans were before they were humans let alone a lineage plotting humans back to a common ancestor with apes.
That's pretty damning to the theory that humans evolved, seeing as there is no actual lineage tracing humans back to apes or animals.
Originally posted by Hollywood11
No lineage means it is all theoretical.
Originally posted by Hollywood11
Originally posted by Horza
This article says is that there is a possibility that Lucy is not our direct ancestor (which, as Good Wolf says we have known for a while) and that A.afarensis EVOLVED in parallel to the branch that eventually become modern humans.
Uhhhhh, this so called "parallell branch" that humans evolved out that lived side by side with Lucy is called what again? what species? oh yeah, i forgot, it's never been found and is only theorized......how convenient, claiming an animal existed that has never been found.....
See the point now?
Again you are missing the point of the article and the point of the thread. You can claim that apes are related and evolve all you want, but when people take that belief to the extreme of thinking humans also evolved and are related to apes, then that is when people take their ideas too far and are applying it in an extreme way
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Hollywood, We KNOW THAT. We have know that afarensis is not our ancestor species for along time.
Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Hollywood11
Thanks Hollywood!
Yes, it's just another (in a long line of un-publicized) fallacies!
Here's a good site for you;
Tha skulls that demolish Darwin
[edit on 30-9-2008 by Clearskies]