Ancient Jawbone Could Shake Up Fossil Record [ Australopithecus anamensis ]

National Geographic News ^ | Friday the 13th, July 2007 | Nick Wadhams

[SunkenCiv]

Jawbones from an early human ancestor, found recently in northeast Ethiopia, could shine light on a murky period of human evolution, paleontologists say. The bones were found in the fossil-rich Afar region, just 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of the spot where the famed skeleton of "Lucy" -- early human ancestor who lived 3.2 million years ago -- was unearthed in 1974... The new bones are believed to date from 3.8 million to 3.5 million years ago. Though more research needs to be done, the group says the bones could bridge the gap between two known human ancestor species. Australopithecus anamensis lived some 4.2 million to 3.9 million years ago, and Australopithecus afarensis -- the species to which Lucy belonged -- thrived from 3.6 million to 3 million years ago... Some researchers believe that Lucy and others of her species were descendants of A. anamensis -- and these new Ethiopian jawbones could end that speculation... "We have had isolated teeth and [other skeleton parts] from previous years. What we didn't have was a complete jaw, which we have now," he said... The earlier species, A. anamensis, had large canine teeth and a narrow jaw. When Lucy appeared, compared to A. anamensis, the jaw had widened, the canines had become smaller, and the molars had grown. Such changes suggest that the A. afarensis chewed, not tore, its food.

[SunkenCiv]

An ancient jawbone, above, was recently found in Africa's fossil-rich Afar region, just 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of the spot where the famed skeleton of "Lucy," an early human ancestor, was unearthed in 1974. The bone, which is at least 3.5 million years old, may spark further debate about how many types of human ancestors roamed East Africa at once. Photograph courtesy Cleveland Museum of Natural History/Handout/REUTERS

[SunkenCiv]

Ancient fossils fill gap in early human evolution
Yahoo | 4/12/06 | Patricia Reaney
Posted on 04/12/2006 3:21:23 PM EDT by Sofa King
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1613922/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Australopithecus anamensis site:freerepublic.com

Google

[SunkenCiv]

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Monkey Face]

They found Harry Reid’s jawbone? Go figger...

[LiteKeeper]

the famed skeleton of "Lucy" -- early human ancestor who lived 3.2 million years ago

Wrong! It has been clearly demonstrated that "Lucy" is not a human ancestor!

[SunkenCiv]

cool, this topic is about to become another

and

[SunkenCiv]

...who lives in glass house...

;’)

[Monkey Face]

;o]

[mtbopfuyn]

When they invent time travel, remind me that dentistry would be a good paying profession.

[mtbopfuyn]

It always amazes me how they can jump to conclusions with only one find.

[sageb1]

Ricky?

[FourtySeven]

Cool search tool; I never knew you could do that with Google.

[SunkenCiv]

You speak the tooth.

[SunkenCiv]

A FReeper pointed that out to me. :’)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1294934/posts?page=5#5

[shekkian]

I suppose they’re going to try to determine every intimate detail of this dude’s society, from music to architecture, based on this one mandible.

[ASA Vet]

It has been clearly demonstrated that "Lucy" is not a human ancestor!

Care to comment Doc?

[absolootezer0]

well paying in beads and hides?

:)

[Non-Sequitur]

Wrong! It has been clearly demonstrated that "Lucy" is not a human ancestor!

By who? That creationism museum near Cincinnati?

[Coyoteman]

It has been clearly demonstrated that "Lucy" is not a human ancestor!

Care to comment Doc?

Last I saw that is correct.

On a direct line from earlier to later critters, Lucy and her kin seem to have diverged slightly from the main line.

The following chart illustrates how this can occur.

[js1138]

Saying a specific fossil is a “direct ancestor” is a bit like saying that since someone is of Austrian descent, Mozart must be a direct ancestor.

[Non-Sequitur]

Saying a specific fossil is a “direct ancestor” is a bit like saying that since someone is of Austrian descent, Mozart must be a direct ancestor.

I think it's a little more specific than that. We're talking about species and their predecessors.

[js1138]

I think it's a little more specific than that. We're talking about species and their predecessors.

Actually, that doesn't change what I said. Lucy's tribe could be cousins and not an ancestors.

[ASA Vet]

Thank you sir, that’s why one should always check with a subject matter expert.

[oldsalt]

When they invent time travel...

If time travel is possible then it has already been invented...nicht wahr?

[DaveLoneRanger]

Interesting fossil news.

[Tribune7]

Jawbones from an early human ancestor

If it's from a Democrat it could prove the story of Samson.

[4CJ]

The following chart illustrates how this can occur.

You choose to believe that your ancestors were apes, I'll believe that God created mine in His own image ;o)

[tet68]

Pretty gnarly molars there, the canines seem to be missing though.

[editor-surveyor]

That’s a lovely picture of a monkey mouth there; certainly not in any way human, by any contortion of the imagination.

[Elsie]

Ancient Jawbone Could Shake Up Fossil Record [ Australopithecus anamensis ]

Or not....

[SunkenCiv]

That was an incisive observation...

[tet68]

Touche.

Still it seems odd that an earlier ancestor would have such large molars if they were predominantly meat eaters.

[razzle]

This will end up as it always does, some Chinese peasant gluing together some old bones to make a buck off the idiot evos.

[LiteKeeper]

Don’t forget, evolutionist (particularly, evolutionary paleontologists) are master story tellers. Words like, “appears”, “could be”, “might be”, etc, are standard in their vocabulary.

[onedoug]

Physical anthropology/Biblical bump

[Coyoteman]

That’s a lovely picture of a monkey mouth there; certainly not in any way human, by any contortion of the imagination.

Wrong, as usual.

Did you note the angle of the two rows of teeth? Were they parallel, or more parabolic?

It makes a difference, you know.

Or, I guess you don't know.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[SunkenCiv]

I agree.

[taxesareforever]

Front teeth appear to be gone. Might have been a cob of corn eater.

[SunkenCiv]

;’) Maybe, but probably the wrong hemisphere (and era) for that. ;’)

[editor-surveyor]

They were straight, and nearly parallel. Dog-like. (my son’s pit bull has jaws very similar to the picture, with almost the same angle)

[caffe]

Perhaps a Nancy Pelosi link?

[editor-surveyor]

Yes!

[Creationist]

That is a pretty picture made by speculation.

Science only deals with the hear and now. It can only speculate about the past and only make assumptions of the future.

The article is filled with assumptions.

Or was that a date on the jaw bone I saw.

Dating methods only fulfill evolutionary needs, they are all that is all speculative, assumptive, and indecisive.

[Coyoteman]

That is a pretty picture made by speculation.

Science only deals with the hear and now. It can only speculate about the past and only make assumptions of the future.

The article is filled with assumptions.

Or was that a date on the jaw bone I saw.

Dating methods only fulfill evolutionary needs, they are all that is all speculative, assumptive, and indecisive.

If you have a specific problem with my post, please state it.

Otherwise, your post is generic, unsupported anti-science nonsense.

About all I can glean from your post is that you don't like "dating methods." Please examine the links below and let me know what you would like help on.

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

[Creationist]

Coyoteman,

Your dating methods are all speculative.

Deny that you assume the sample to be pure in nature and the product you are interpreting is the product of decay.

Deny that when you find a rock in a certain strata that you expect a date based upon the fossil content of that strata.

Deny that you Coyoteman date every sample with a presupposition of older than 6000 years when it pertains to evolution or age of earth.

[RightWhale]

Science only deals with the hear and now.

Hear and now? or hear and see?

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman,

Your dating methods are all speculative.

Deny that you assume the sample to be pure in nature and the product you are interpreting is the product of decay.

Deny that when you find a rock in a certain strata that you expect a date based upon the fossil content of that strata.

Deny that you Coyoteman date every sample with a presupposition of older than 6000 years when it pertains to evolution or age of earth.

When you have learned as much about dating as I have, then you can lecture me.

Check the dating links on my FR homepage for a start.