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.

 

Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

page: 1
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+12 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"


news.nationalgeog raphic.com

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago

All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
A quadruped????


"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about,"

This is very interesting, i'd love to know more about this intermediate stage. And why? Why the need for it?
Adaptation... but to what?


Lovejoy sees these changes as part of an epochal shift in social behavior: Instead of fighting for access to females, a male Ardipithecus would supply a "targeted female" and her offspring with gathered foods and gain her sexual loyalty in return.

To keep up his end of the deal, a male needed to have his hands free to carry home the food. Bipedalism may have been a poor way for Ardipithecus to get around, but through its contribution to the "sex for food" contract, it would have been an excellent way to bear more offspring. And in evolution, of course, more offspring is the name of the game

WOWOOWOOWW
Now that's interesting.

Imagine if we knew more about this social behavior.
I'm sure we'd end up learning so much about ourselves too.

news.nationalgeog raphic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Wow thats awesome! Knew that Sue, Lily or whatever that missing links name was WASNT that big of a deal. I dont even hear about it now.
Now this is very interesting. I would love to know more about this! guess we will have to wait and see. S&F!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
A question.

Does anyone know if they've done genetic testing on this creature to ensure that the bones all came from the same (formerly) living thing?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Sounds like the typical structure 20 to 30 years ago.

Male brings home $$$'s, woman eats food bought with man's $$$'s, and so on and so forth.

Good to know we're evolving past this.


+20 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
So from the bones of a female species 3.2 million years ago they have learned the behavior of the male species and have proven that he struggled to carry home food because he walked on all fours. Thats some deductive reasoning there. Sherlock Holmes would be jelious.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Star and flag!

The title is a little misleading but I know you just copied it. It doesn't really disprove missing link, it IS a missing link! right?

What I suspect they mean by that title is that it shows we are less closely related to chimpanzees than previously thought, so it indicates there may not be the links between us and chimps we thought.

Amazing find for that age with so much of the hands intact!


+27 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I'm not trollin anyone when I say this...

We were put on earth IN CURRENT HUMAN FORM.
There are no missing links, they are just "different species"


/thetruth.


+9 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


ugggh, please supply credible evidence to this "Truth"?

So Neanderthals, were a different species ? or were they also "put here in current form" How about the other 4 or 5 branches of Homo erectus where they also "put here" ?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocEmrick
Sounds like the typical structure 20 to 30 years ago.

Male brings home $$$'s, woman eats food bought with man's $$$'s, and so on and so forth.

Good to know we're evolving past this.


God I hate posts like this.

Women worked hard. Not just in the sack, as people like to imply.

I'm glad to have the freedom to work.

But I'll tell you straight up, that going to work is a freakin' picnic compared to all the other things I need to do. Coming back to work was a vacation. And I've got it easy compared to women from the past, who had to work the fields, raise children, make meals from scratch, haul water daily, etc.

[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I just finished reading the small article CNN has on their website. Very interesting! It's crazy to see how long our evolution has taken. That skeleton is a million years older then our previous oldest skeleton. Which wasd 3.2 million, I think.
It's hella lucky she got trapped in volcanic rock. Otherwise there's no way this skeleton would still exist. Great also to see that the scientists who thought we evolved straight from chimp some new food for thought. Both our species evolved from a common ancestor?
Makes alot more sense.

It also raises a few questions in my head about how self aware chimps might be, by this point in their evolution. But that's just me.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
having actually read the NatGeo article, i find the article full of sensational suppositions.... but i guess they got to draw in readers.

the OP Quote goes:
" ...All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped "

'in the trees'... was the rest of the sentence that was cut short.

in my experience, humans which tend to climb around in trees
are also quadruped, i.e. using both hands and feet equally...
although we do not have a grasping able big toe.


the Savannah model is not dead because this fossil skeleton was found,
the savannah model might only need a few tweeks for a better explaination. standing upright then walking upright does not necessarily evolve from males carrying food items to intice a female...but that idea is extremely funny

the OP on the article rates a 2
the article itself rates a -10



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
3.2 million years ago, wow. Such insanity.

Everyone knows that god created earth like 6000 years ago. So I don't even know why were discussing this, god put those fake fossils there to test our faith. And for myself, I would rather be in heaven then believe in this ludicrous NONSENSE.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I don't recall any place in my post where I said women don't work hard. I was simply pointing out, the social structure prevalent in the late 20th century, is similar to what is being described in the article.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by DocEmrick
Sounds like the typical structure 20 to 30 years ago.

Male brings home $$$'s, woman eats food bought with man's $$$'s, and so on and so forth.

Good to know we're evolving past this.


God I hate posts like this.

Women worked hard. Not just in the sack, as people like to imply.

I'm glad to have the freedom to work.

But I'll tell you straight up, that going to work is a freakin' picnic compared to all the other things I need to do. Coming back to work was a vacation. And I've got it easy compared to women from the past, who had to work the fields, raise children, make meals from scratch, haul water daily, etc.

[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]



Equality kicks ass, look at all the benefits it's given us!

- Just over 50% divorce rate
- The other 50% of the population is now taxable, where as prior only men were taxed CHA-CHING
- Breakdown of the family structure
- Large portions of generations having no parent in the house
- Children being raised terribly or left to raise themselves
- Heavy declines in population growth (thanks in part to this, but definitely not because of ONLY this)


But seriously, its worth all the great side-effects.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
makes me think that something changed these so called apes that was our ancestors maybe aliens where involved in our evolution and changed out genetics so would become what we are now



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
3.2 million years ago, wow. Such insanity.

Everyone knows that god created earth like 6000 years ago. So I don't even know why were discussing this, god put those fake fossils there to test our faith. And for myself, I would rather be in heaven then believe in this ludicrous NONSENSE.


You just won a spot on my very little friends list.

If this isn't sarcasm then I am going to cry.

"DUDE, GOD put YOU here to test my faith"

I've been getting quite nervous of late, seems like perfect timing to throw more fuel on the fire. 17 years ago they dug up the bones. It took them 17 years to come to this conclusion. I just think its odd. OK, we prove the missing link, so this proves evolution, thus, proving the bible story is a farce.

Well, hate to break it to some, but those that have searched for the truth, and listened in, already know this.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I knew we have been around longer that 6000 years. With time we figure out the whole evolution chain with more and more skeletons that we will find.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
3.2 million years ago, wow. Such insanity.

Everyone knows that god created earth like 6000 years ago. So I don't even know why were discussing this, god put those fake fossils there to test our faith. And for myself, I would rather be in heaven then believe in this ludicrous NONSENSE.


Are you actually serious about this point of view?

I mean, I know there is people in the world who think like this, I just thought they stayed away from the internet and farmed with ox all day long.

You cant be serious, can you?


As for the Topic at hand. Its amazing that the more we find out about our human nature and the farther we go back, the more accepting of the trade between male and female of sex for security (in many forms) becomes.

Im sure most of us can think back to a past relationship (or current) and find similarity's in our action, in a relative manner.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by MrSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join