Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oldest known human ancestor rewrites evolution theories
Canada.com ^ | October 1, 2009 | Ken Meaney

Posted on 10/01/2009 12:18:15 PM PDT by Pharmboy

Probable life appearance in anterior view of Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi"), ARA-VP 6/500.Photograph by: Handout, Illustrations 2009, J.H. Matternes

An international team of scientists unveiled Thursday the results of 15 years of study of one of the oldest known human ancestors, Ardipithecus ramidus, which they say overturns much of what we know about human evolution.

And surprisingly, it's also rewriting the story of our relation to gorillas and chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, and their development as well.

Yohannes Haile-Selassie, one of the authors involved in the research and the man who discovered the first pieces of the most complete Ardipithecus ramidus specimen, nicknamed Ardi by the researchers, says the findings represent a complete rewrite about what is known about human and ape evolution, and give new insight into how we became bipedal.

"What we are seeing . . . is something we never expected to find in the human lineage," he says, his voice buoyant on the phone from the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, where he is Curator/Head Physical Anthropology.

(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ardi; ardipithecus; ardipithecusramidus; chimpanzee; chimps; fossil; fossils; godsgravesglyphs; humanevolution; paleontology; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: grey_whiskers

What scientific justification for the sexual revolution is provided by downgrading humanity from the most sexual of primates to a distant second place?

And it was not a matter of some sort of conspiracy to keep this information under wraps until it was “needed”, nobody really realized there was much of a behavior difference between “pygmy” chimps and regular chimps, until someone sat down and watched them and concluded “those are some kinky freeky sex having apes!”


41 posted on 10/01/2009 1:33:12 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Leaning the wrong way on both counts.

I know I've seen TV shows ("important scientific documentary" type-shows with a bored-but-condescending voice-over) which explained that the bonobos' promiscuity showed that fidelity and chastity were merely social (and therefore discredited) concepts.

I'm not attacking science: but the misuse of science's credibility and authority as window dressing for whatever the leftist, Gramscian fad-of-the-week is (similar to Al Gore and global warming climate change.

Cheers!

42 posted on 10/01/2009 1:39:08 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

>>Who would have guessed that TToE would today be pinin’ for the fjords!

Yes, it amazes me how the creation rationalizers and their Trojan horse ID counterparts view the unfolding of the scientific method as a failure of science.<<

Beautiful furrage, tho.


43 posted on 10/01/2009 1:44:49 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

The games bagan long ago and continue with:

Getting Your (Oldest) Bones, T-Vex(What is this thing?), Full Frontal Nuttiness is Cornography, and the ever popular, PhooneyEx-The Bird That Rose From the Trashes (and should go back).


44 posted on 10/01/2009 1:44:56 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Bonobos are not more sexual than chimps because of social concepts that are different between them. Bonobos are more sexual than chimps because of biological differences between them and chimps.

Humans are not more sexual than chimps and less sexual than bonobos because of social concepts; but due to biological differences between the three populations.

I do not doubt that some sociology nut tried to make the construction you are attempting; but it is simply not backed up by logical thinking.

Downgrading humans from the most sexual primate to a distant second also doesn't support some sort of justification for rampant sexual license.

It was pointed out that bonobos tend to solve conflicts through mutual sexual gratification rather than violence; and that might be a lesson humans could learn and apply within their marriage - but it is hardly some sort of justification of “well if bonobos have sex with any and all members of their band at the drop of a hat, then i should be able to as well.”

That makes about as much sense as saying “Well lions eat the non related young of the females of the band they take over, so watch out stepchildren!”

45 posted on 10/01/2009 1:47:06 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I do not doubt that some sociology nut tried to make the construction you are attempting; but it is simply not backed up by logical thinking.

*PRECISELY* my point; and precisely why I objected.

But it gave the "imprimatur" of science to an attempt to undermine traditional morality; so those of the cognoscenti who get their news from Nova, The History Channel, The BBC, and The Discovery Channel (thereby proving themselves more, well, erudite and civilized, than those who listen to Limbaugh, would feel justified in attacking morality.

Cheers!

46 posted on 10/01/2009 1:49:51 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
"Planet of the Ardipithecus ramiduses"

(or should that Ardipithecus ramidi?)

47 posted on 10/01/2009 1:54:54 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Forward! Into The Past!

(creationistum anencephalicus)


48 posted on 10/01/2009 2:00:50 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: walkingupright
What if we changed the subject to global warming?
49 posted on 10/01/2009 2:03:43 PM PDT by In veno, veritas (Please identify my Ad Hominem attacks. I should be debating ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Texan Tory
You make an excellent point; another dynamic in play here is that every time (or almost every time) a new find is made, it is THE find that will change the way we see evolution from now on (keep those grants coming, doncha know).
50 posted on 10/01/2009 2:06:37 PM PDT by Pharmboy (The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

#91


51 posted on 10/01/2009 2:07:21 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Well, I think this depends on how things are defined. When people speak in conversation, a lot of people will talk past each other because the words ‘evolution’ and ‘creation’ carry a lot of baggage that might not reflect what people actually think.
52 posted on 10/01/2009 2:07:23 PM PDT by In veno, veritas (Please identify my Ad Hominem attacks. I should be debating ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Again I am unsure of the logical connection (not that things people believe need to be based upon logic).

The discovery of the behaviors of either a more sexually active or a less sexually active primate does nothing to tell a human being how they should live their life.

One could easily attempt to emulate the behavior of the gibbon rather than the bonobo.

Gibbons pair up, keep all other Gibbons away, and have 100% sexual fidelity to the other. Why would they be less of an example to emulate than a bonobo? And how stupid would one have to be to think these biologically determined behavior patterns are based upon “social constructs” or “culture”?

53 posted on 10/01/2009 2:10:09 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

The debate is rather a philisophical one. Believe on what you want to believe based on what you want to base it on. The evidence screams design for a purpose. Purposeless uniformatinarian naturalistic developement neglects the catastrophic history of our planet. We should take a lesson from even recent history in the destructive power of water after an earthquake. Just think what the results would be of the earth’s service after a world wide flood. It appears as it would look like it does today. Remember Mt. Saint Helens? It ressembles the grand canyon. A little less in magnitude, but similar just the same. Happens in days, not millions of years.


54 posted on 10/01/2009 2:55:04 PM PDT by walkingupright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Yes, keep those grants coming, indeed. Ha, ha.


55 posted on 10/01/2009 2:55:04 PM PDT by walkingupright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: In veno, veritas

How ‘bout global freezing like all those mammoths in Siberia? Millions of them with food still undigested in the mouths and stomachs. What killed them? I would suggest a global flood that changed the coarse of history and our tropical climate for ever.


56 posted on 10/01/2009 3:04:54 PM PDT by walkingupright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: In veno, veritas

How about global freezing?


57 posted on 10/01/2009 3:04:57 PM PDT by walkingupright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: walkingupright

Nope.. Nothing dies with food in it’s stomach.. never happens.
And They all died at once, eh?

I think not.


58 posted on 10/01/2009 3:14:47 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: walkingupright

“Remember Mt. Saint Helens? It ressembles the grand canyon. “

Only in that both are large holes in the ground. Geological analyses of more than a cursory level of thoroughness would recognize significant differences. The vastly greater age of the canyon would be inescapable.


59 posted on 10/01/2009 3:34:43 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
from the article: "Lucy and all other hominids we know of who pushed off on the big toe." Lucy has no feet, much less toes
60 posted on 10/01/2009 3:58:16 PM PDT by beefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson