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

reply to post by highlyoriginal


news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Centurionx
Well this is cool, does this mean we did'nt come from chimps? I'd like to think so, because that never did make much sense to me. If we evolved from chimps would'nt the chimps uh..not be here anymore? Also the bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old, some bishop came up with this calculation centuries ago.

we have never evolved from chimps,humans and chimps branched of separately from a common ancestor,

Yeah, we have to remember...

God created the Earth 374,000 BC. October 27th, on a Sunday (according to the Vatican) The skeletons are selectively inserted in to random locations, by God, to trick mankind and to deceive us (He is like that, you know)

Evolution is wrong, not in the Bible (so, it cannot be a correct theory). A long with dinosaurs, hydro-centric universe, other planets and Females have one extra rib (created from our ribs)

If you disagree with the above, you are a: Socialist, gun control, immigrant support, gay lover, free healthcare, communist, liberal, godless, sodomite and French

Well this is cool, does this mean we did'nt come from chimps? I'd like to think so, because that never did make much sense to me. If we evolved from chimps would'nt the chimps uh..not be here anymore

Definitions of common on the Web:

belonging to or participated in by a community as a whole; public; "for the common good"; "common lands are set aside for use by all members of a ...
common to or shared by two or more parties; "a common friend"; "the mutual interests of management and labor"
being or characteristic of or appropriate to everyday language; "common parlance"; "a vernacular term"; "vernacular speakers"; "the vulgar tongue of the masses"; "the technical and vulgar names for an animal species"
of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses"

Definitions of ancestor on the Web:

One from whom a person is descended, whether on the father's or mother's side, at any distance of time; a progenitor; a fore father; An earlier type; a progenitor; One from whom an estate has descended;—the correlative of heir

"Common ancestor" - an ancestor that two or more descendants have in common

See, not difficult.

Originally posted by infinite
Yeah, we have to remember...

God created the Earth 374,000 BC. October 27th, on a Sunday (according to the Vatican)

The skeletons are selectively inserted in to random locations, by God, to trick mankind and to deceive us (He is like that, you know)

Evolution is wrong, not in the Bible (so, it cannot be a correct theory). A long with dinosaurs, hydro-centric universe, other planets and Females have one extra rib (created from our ribs)

If you disagree with the above, you are a: Socialist, gun control, immigrant support, gay lover, free healthcare, communist, liberal, godless, sodomite and French

Oh My God. For a moment there I thought you were serious, and I was about to ask, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

And then, I realized, thankfully, before posting a rather animated response, that you were being satirical (thanks to ur smiley face).

Originally posted by KarlGNext. Sex. Which is important for PROCREATION. Humanoids procreate just like ANY other animals do. Why do dogs f***? Why do turtles do it? There is no deep emotional connection to it - humans back then procreated for the same reason all other animals do.

Originally posted by OpenMindCuriousMind
I had questions like where did our strength go, and why do chimps still live as chimps, why didn't they all evolve?

I was given false information.

I've always been told when it comes to evolution, that we came from monkeys. Okay, maybe it's not false, but it's misleading.

Did early humans start walking for sex?

In apes—both modern apes and, presumably, the ancient ancestors of Ardipithecus—males find mates the good old-fashioned apish way: by fighting with other males for access to fertile females. Success, measured in number of offspring, goes to macho males with big sharp canine teeth who try to mate with as many ovulating females as possible. Sex is best done quickly—hence those penis bristles, which accelerate ejaculation—with the advantage to the male with big testicles carrying a heavy load of sperm. Among females, the winners are those who flaunt their fertility with swollen genitals or some other prominent display of ovulation, so those big alpha dudes will take notice and give them a tumble, providing a baby with his big alpha genes.

Let's suppose that some lesser male, with poor little stubby canines, figures out that he can entice a fertile female into mating by bringing her some food. That sometimes happens among living chimpanzees, for instance when a female rewards a male for presenting her with a tasty gift of colobus monkey.

Among Ardipithecus's ancestors, such a strategy could catch on if searching for food required a lot of time and exposure to predators. Males would be far more successful food-providers if they had their hands free to carry home loads of fruits and tubers—which would favor walking on two legs. Females would come to prefer good, steady providers with smaller canines over the big fierce-toothed ones who left as soon as they spot another fertile female. The results, says Lovejoy, are visible in Ardipithecus, which had small canines even in males and walked upright.

I'm in agreement with the basis of this theory, would it not also explain why our species' mind evolved more so than the body? Imagine those males who outwitted the burly, strong, alpha males - sure, the natural attraction to the physically strong types is still there - but as our breeding was based more upon those of a sharper mind would that not have an effect on later generations? So here we are today, sharing a lot of similar aspects with our primate cousins and yet different too - the biggest being the mind. The whole of our civilisation is the evidence for it.

Might it also explain why our sex organs are much more developed than those of our biologically closest relations? I can't find much information on it (so if any biologists could shed some more light I'd be grateful) but as far as I know such a highly developed clitoris is exclusive to female humans, could this have been a product of our species' predisposition to being sexual in nature?

Sex and it's symbolism are still prevalent throughout our lives today, our oldest religions placed a lot of weight in it (or were even arguably based on it) - I see no reason why this should be discounted so easily by those who prefer to see evolution as "survival of the physically tough".

Originally posted by KarlG
P.S. Did you know dolphins are the only creatures other than Man to have sex purely for pleasure and not for procreation? Interesting, no?

You didn't watch the videos I posted back on page 2? Here's a repost of one of them:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Chatting with chimps: How close are wild animals to humans? - BBC wildlife (Warning, contains some animal behavior-don't watch if this offends you). Chimps being taught to communicate with humans through a special graphical language. Sometimes they act almost human, but sometimes they act like horny bonobos.

Why do they need to have a threesome to procreate? Looks like Dolphins are NOT the only other species!

Originally posted by squiz

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.

Sounds like a stab in the dark guess to me, couldn't help but laugh though.

Watch this video of a monkey walking upright like a human.



Seems like maybe about half the time in the video it's carrying food around, so that might be one reason, however it seems unlikely to be the only reason, I'm sure there are others and they are reaching a little too much with their theories.

Here they have a live specimen walking upright to evaluate, and they aren't even sure exactly why this primate is walking erect! So how can they determine the reasons creatures millions of years old walked upright?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by sisgood
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?

Hi sisgood/

I'm sure in twenty years or so they will eventually tell us that it was not as they thought and that they now have ANOTHER theory, based on the 'missing link'....
As for their new 'findings', I guess it gives them something to talk about till the next 'missing link' comes to be found!

ICXC NIKA
helen

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
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.

I am trolling when I say this, glad to see you can keep your head firmly in the sand while walking to church.

That's talent.

/thetruthyouwouldignoreifitbityouontherear.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Sed Non Credo]

Originally posted by Mr.Hyde
I've always wondered why only our species have evolved to it's current state of superior intelligence. 3.2 billion years to develop our advanced way of life and all our technologies.

Remember, there is no "end goal" in evolution. It just happens. A slug, for example, is as evolved as it "needs" to be. A slug is as evolved as a human being.

Human intelligence has evolved dramatically over the last 1 million years. We generally regard our own intelligence as 'higher order' than other animals. This is really a matter of perspective, however.

Intelligence takes many forms. There is physical intelligence which comes from the ability to coordinate complex movements, there's practical intelligence which comes from collective experience, there's traditional logical intelligence which handles games and strategy, there's intuitive intelligence which allows for insights from left field, and there's linguistic intelligence which allows for the manipulation of language.

Each of these forms of intelligence are present in most animals to some degree, and many animals have evolved significantly more efficient forms of intelligence than we as humans possess.

Your dog for example is very highly socially adapted and is able to deal with you intuitively on a peer level even though he/she can't actually speak English. That's really, really smart.

Basically, intelligence is a biological adaptation to adverse circumstances in the environment. In our case, a series of fortunate events combined with a series of unfortunate ones to result in the human variety of intelligence.

Sharks and crocodiles are so well adapted and efficient at killing, they don't need to be too smart. Big brains are very expensive from a biological point of view. They cause our heads to be so big, that it practically kills the mother to give birth.

The brain takes up as much as 30 per cent of our energy. This is a great price to pay for our brains. It is important that in every step of evolution the price for having a big brain is paid for by some evolutionary advantage presumably from being able to cope better in the society or being able to outcompete others by developing technology or learning various strategies, such as hunting and fishing, better than others. A croc will probably not gain sufficient advantage in gaining brain size. It sits and ambushes prey. It is optimal where it is at. If it gained brain size, its head would be modified. It would need to eat more and would not be able to survive the periods where food was short as well as its dumber croc relatives. Humans on the other hand, lived in a complex environment where learning obviously provided many advantages to those who got smarter.

Also, big brains are harder to train and take much longer to become useful and independant. In our case, about eight years, which is loads longer than any other animal in nature.

I would suggest you read a bit about evolutionary theory, and the principles of adaption to understand more about why some animals seem 'dumb' and others seem 'smart.' In fact, all animals in the modern day are much smarter on average than most of the animals were just a few tens of millions of years ago.

Intelligence is an adaptation to global extinction events that have happened periodically ever since the 'beginning.'

Originally posted by helen670

Originally posted by sisgood
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?

Hi sisgood/

I'm sure in twenty years or so they will eventually tell us that it was not as they thought and that they now have ANOTHER theory, based on the 'missing link'....
As for their new 'findings', I guess it gives them something to talk about till the next 'missing link' comes to be found!

ICXC NIKA
helen

Science is always evolving (pun intended) and striving to figure out our origins and our place in the universe. Religion is still clinging to some bronze age mythology and tries to construct "theories" around a 2000 year old book.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. ~Carl Sagan, 1987"

One of the major differences between science and religion is that religion claims to know all the answers without any substantial evidence behind it and without ever changing their minds.

I see alot of people are still defending the notion that they learned to walk up right so they could carry food home. Where is the proof of such a claim. They could have as easily been the first to tame wild animals and had saber tooth tigers as pets and rode them like horses and fought off other predators and used saber tooth tigers as pack mules for hauling there food home. And by rideing saber tooth tigers there hip bones changed and they began to walk huched over like a cowboy who has riden horses all day. Theres just as much proof in that statement.

The clever monkey rides again! pdf

The clever monkey rides again Video

Monkey rides bull picture.

Monkey rides bicycle video

Monkey rides motor cycle video

Monkey rides segway video

Im starting to see evolution in these videos Rides bicycle sitting rides motor cycle sitting rides segway standing.



[edit on 2-10-2009 by JBA2848]

something seems off. How come this thread has not been hijacked by those who claim evolution is pure lies and sensationalist nonsense and that there does not exist one shred of evidence for it?

By now this would have turned into an evolution versus creationist debate, did they leave ATS

Originally posted by newworld
How come this thread has not been hijacked by those who claim evolution is pure lies and sensationalist nonsense and that there does not exist one shred of evidence for it?

Good question. I suspect it's because that topic was just heavily debated for 39 pages already in the Darwin thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I guess people were getting tired of posting the same arguments over and over there and may not be eager to repeat the process here.

Besides, the debate was more on topic there anyway in a thread about evolution's "father", here we are just talking about a fossil.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
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" ?

what he told you is the truth.

If scientist dug up a Chinese man and a African..and a white dude.

At this point science would not say..HEY there all different race's...
They would push for the missing link...see how it grew in size...small size..to large ...we EVOLVED....

Yes He is right ...

We was put here or made here as human's....diffrent race's...or breed's.
the weaker breeds die off.
Look at history happen's alot more than you think.

yea i read it in today's newspaper that scientist are coming across new theories that, apes are descended from human- not human.

What if this news is just a "spin" thrown into the media? Maybe the TPTB want people to think, "There was no Adam and Eve, we all came from apes, so stop believing in a higher power." Maybe this is an attempt to turn people away from religion.

reply to post by newworld


Well it's simply because creationism and evolution are both wrong. The truth is, we came from aliens. So really, all this talk about Lucy, 'missing links' and The Bible are all a load of rubbish - including this thread story. It's all a diversion from knowing our TRUE origins.

Originally posted by RiotComing
reply to post by newworld

 

Well it's simply because creationism and evolution are both wrong. The truth is, we came from aliens. So really, all this talk about Lucy, 'missing links' and The Bible are all a load of rubbish - including this thread story. It's all a diversion from knowing our TRUE origins.

And the evidence for this is where exactly?

I await with baited breath.

Originally posted by KarlG

P.S. Did you know dolphins are the only creatures other than Man to have sex purely for pleasure and not for procreation? Interesting, no?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by KarlG]

I'll try to remember that the next time my uncle's dog tries to hump my leg.