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.

 

Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
This is an article release today by livescience.com and details the finsings in South Africa about an early hominid/hominin hybrid that has both traits of primates and humans:


A startling mix of human and primitive traits found in the brains, hips, feet and hands of an extinct species identified last year make a strong case for it being the immediate ancestor to the human lineage, scientists have announced.


A rather fascinating discovery as it was unearthed by the archeologists 9 year old son in a South African cave. The article explains that they used several types of dating to arrive at the nearly 2,000,000 year old date for the fossils. There is a caveat at the end of the article explaiing that more research would need to be done to make this definitive:


The researchers do caution that although they suggest that Au. sediba was ancestral to the human lineage, all these apparent resemblances between it and us could just be coincidences, with this extinct species evolving similar traits to our lineages due, perhaps, to similar circumstances. [Top 10 Missing Links]

In fact, it might be just as interesting to imagine that Au. sediba was not directly ancestral to Homo, because it opens up the possibility "of independent evolution of the same sorts of features," Carlson said. "Whether or not it's on the same lineage as leading to Homo, I think there are interesting questions and implications."



Full text is located here.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I just want to make a slight clarification, they are not claiming that this is the closest Human ancestor. They are claiming it is the closest ancestor to the genus Homo. It is supposed to be the link between Australopithecus africanus and Homo habilis.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


just reading on this, i used our search engine and found some threads from 05 and 07, but nothing more recent... anyways, bbc reported on this earlier today... good find!


www.bbc.co.uk...


The 1.9-million-year-old fossils were first described in 2010, and given the species name Australopithecus sediba. But the team behind the discovery has now come back with a deeper analysis. It tells Science magazine that features seen in the brain, feet, hands and pelvis of A. sediba all suggest this species was on the direct evolutionary line to us - Homo sapiens.



Theory holds that modern humans can trace a line back to a creature known as Homo erectus which lived more than a million years ago. This animal, according to many palaeoanthropologists, may in turn have had its origins in more primitive hominins, as they are known, such as Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis.
The contention now made for A. sediba is that, although older than its "rivals", some of its anatomy and capabilities were more advanced than these younger forms. Put simply, it is a more credible ancestor for H. erectus, Berger's team claims.


very interesting and i am always happy to hear a new theory on evolution
edit on 8-9-2011 by schitzoandro because: syntax



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I just want to make a slight clarification, they are not claiming that this is the closest Human ancestor. They are claiming it is the closest ancestor to the genus Homo. It is supposed to be the link between Australopithecus africanus and Homo habilis.


I just wanted to inlcude the title as it appeared for accuracy purposes.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

This just goes to show you.
The theory of evolution is flawed.
Pretty soon they will find a fossil that links us to rats.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
thought provoking absolutely, after taking a 3rd look at this story, it makes me wonder...

bear with me... i have a miniature shepherd, she is half german and half australian... i have had 3 vets state they believe that she has also traits of a fox, that her bone structure and such are more common to fox than dog... so my question would be..

why are there no similar human species? by that i mean, if i can say it right, is that there are many different breeds of canine, but there is only one breed of human? i know, we have different ethnicity, race, etc. but what about like my dog? she is according to 3 veterinarians who specialize in animal anatomy, medicine, etc to state my dog is a cross breed, quite like a hybrid wolf... so there is domestic dog, wolf, fox, coyote, etc, but there is only one homo sapiens? intriguing if i do say so myself...

anyways, S&F for making me think even harder than i had planned today!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 
It does no such thing....
2nd line



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
so they say.. but i dont blieve it at all evolution is bs... science cant prove its a fact either..



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadowreborn89
so they say.. but i dont blieve it at all evolution is bs... science cant prove its a fact either..

The ignorant creationists strike again!

1. Only in mathematics can you prove anything.
2. The scientific THEORY of evolution explains the scientific FACTS that support and demonstrate evolution.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by schitzoandro

very interesting and i am always happy to hear a new theory on evolution
edit on 8-9-2011 by schitzoandro because: syntax

Not exactly a new theory. The basic theory that we evolved from apes still holds. What we have is an expanding, changing and more complex path between apes and ourselves. This is extra detail to support the basic theory.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

This just goes to show you.
The theory of evolution is flawed.
Pretty soon they will find a fossil that links us to rats.


The only thing that is flawed is your understanding of evolution.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by schitzoandro
 


Partly because the evolutionary history of dogs aren't that old (so to speak) but more importantly because our common ancestors aren't around any more to make a comparison.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

No, my understanding isn't flawed.
Just because I don't think like you, doesn't mean I'm wrong.
If evolution was based on facts it wouldn't be a theory.
I can already tell, this is going to turn into a heated debate.
Which will give rise to ZERO winners.
Argue with yourself, I'm out.

edit on 8-9-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by john_bmth
 

No, my understand isn't flawed.

Yes it is, as is your understanding of scientific method.


Just because I don't think like you, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

You are wrong. Very wrong.


If evolution was based on facts it wouldn't be a theory.

See? You just demonstrated how very wrong you are. The scientific THEORY of evolution explains the scientific FACTS that support and demonstrate evolution.


I can already tell, this is going to turn into a heated debate.

It's only a debate if both sides are informed. Clearly one side isn't.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Lol, you are funny.
You try way too hard to be correct.
You don't know anything about evolution, besides what you read on the internet.
And this makes you an expert?
Please.
Take your childish antics somewhere else.
I'm entitled to my own opinion, get over it.

PS, have fun picking through my post for a witty reply. Who cares what you have to say?


edit on 8-9-2011 by GmoS719 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 


John is correct. Just because it is the THEORY of evolution, does not mean it is based on something other than evidence. In the scientific community, the initial idea is called a HYPOTHESIS, when the HYPOTHESIS gathers enough evidence to support it, it is classified as a THEORY.

It seems as if you are thinking that just because the word THEORY is attached to evolution, that somehow takes away from the evidence that supports it, which it does not. If anything the word THEORY being attached to it, strengthens the proof FOR it.

Edit: May I also direct to you: The theory of gravity? The Germ Theory of Disease? Plate Tectonic Theory?
edit on 8-9-2011 by Daemonicon because: Added to end.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 


Is that all you can come back with? Petty insults? Probably best you did leave the "debate", then!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Did you not insult me first? Saying that I am not informed?
I am very well informed of the "evidence" of evolution.
Like I said, It is my opinion that evolution isn't real.
Get over it.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by john_bmth
 

Did you not insult me first?

No.

Saying that I am not informed?

You are uninformed.

I am very well informed of the "evidence" of evolution.

Evidently not when you make statements such as "if evolution was fact it wouldn't be called a theory".

Like I said, It is my opinion that evolution isn't real.

You're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make you any less wrong.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

How is my statement about evolution not being fact, false?
It isn't a fact.
It does have evidence to back it up, but so did hundred of theories which were later proven to be wrong.
Evolution hasn't been proven to be wrong yet, but I think eventually it will be.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join