I think she could do at least 4 at a time.
Posted on 02/08/2016 9:25:11 AM PST by JimSEA
South Africa's Australopithecus sediba, discovered in 2008 at the archaeological site of Malapa in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, is again helping us to study and understand the origins of humans. Research published in 2012 garnered international attention by suggesting that a possible early human ancestor had lived on a diverse woodland diet including hard foods mixed in with tree bark, fruit, leaves and other plant products.
But new research by an international team of researchers now shows that Australopithecus sediba didn't have the jaw and tooth structure necessary to exist on a steady diet of hard foods.
"Most australopiths had amazing adaptations in their jaws, teeth and faces that allowed them to process foods that were difficult to chew or crack open. Among other things, they were able to efficiently bite down on foods with very high forces," said team leader David Strait, PhD, professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
They could, however, chew the cap off a beer bottle.
They should have eaten all the soft liberals!
I think she could do at least 4 at a time.
Since it’s a tree and not a ladder, what happened to all of those other branches?
I mean, the dead limbs are all over the ground. Maybe not lying next to the tree they supposedly fell from, but there they are.
Heresy /sarcasm
Liberals will be attacking this by claiming religious leaders have paid off these scientists in 3, 2, ...
My master’s thesis in anthropology was
that ancient humans could take a bite
out of coconut shells. The lack of
jawbones suited to the task reinforces
the theory. The snapping sound that
accompanies coconut shell rending was
so loud, it attracted predators who
ate up the human, leaving no jaws,
proving my theory.
Evolutionary theorists don't claim that. They say humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor.
She looks like Lena Dunham
We are the surviving species but, as recently as 18,000 ya there were others.
The common ancestor lived some seven million ya thus these fellows were on our branch.
Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t!
Dead wood, so to speak.
Some species survived for hundreds of thousands of years before conditions or competition (i.e., us) drove them to extinction.
This chart shows over two dozen pre-human or early-human species or sub-species before our own homo sapiens sapiens.
Here's another visualization of the data:
Let’s stretch the metaphor,
Like I said, branches lying all around, but not on the tree. Some so-called botanists tell us all of these branches fell off this particular tree, and (coincidentally) there’s only one branch left.
But they keep discovering that the limbs are maple, cedar, and whatnot, instead of the oak tree they supposedly fell off of.
And not only that, but there’s that one branch that is practically the whole tree now, with no other branches attached to the tree at all.
That one branch assuredly couldn’t have sucked all the sap from those other branches that happened to coexist, could they? And even if they could, can we pinpoint the events that killed off those 20 something branches before the branches started competing amongst each other?
Holy cow. You’re right.
Metaphors tend to be brittle, easily broken, but... OK...
angryoldfatman: "Like I said, branches lying all around, but not on the tree.
Some so-called botanists tell us all of these branches fell off this particular tree, and (coincidentally) there's only one branch left."
No, not "so-called botanists", actual trained biologists.
Of course, both tree and branches are metaphors, intended to represent the data.
So, if you imagine you can "see" branches, then you must also "see" the tree they fell from.
angryoldfatman: "But they keep discovering that the limbs are maple, cedar, and whatnot, instead of the oak tree they supposedly fell off of."
No, every branch clearly comes from the same tree, the only question is, when & where did it first branch off?
However, while a metaphorical tree seems helpful in visualizing evolution, nobody pretends all of its trunks, branches & points of connection have yet been found.
Here's one way to look at it:
And here's another way to see it:
angryoldfatman: "And not only that, but there's that one branch that is practically the whole tree now, with no other branches attached to the tree at all."
No, there are many other "branches" clearly visible, of which I've mentioned some above.
For example, on the branch of Great Apes we find Chimpanzees, Gorillas & Orangutans, of which Chimpanzees share some 98% of our own DNA.
So we are clearly on the same evolutionary "branch".
angryoldfatman: "That one branch assuredly couldn't have sucked all the sap from those other branches that happened to coexist, could they?
And even if they could, can we pinpoint the events that killed off those 20 something branches before the branches started competing amongst each other?"
Fossils representing dozens of pre-human or archaic-human species & subspecies have been found.
That these are closely related to us was demonstrated by analysis of Neanderthal DNA revealing them not just nearly-identical but also interbreeding with our own ancestors some 50,000+ years ago.
As for why all those other branches died off, of course we don't know, can only speculate on changing environment & competition from more advanced species, like our own ancestors.
Does that sound unreasonable to you?
You contradict yourself somewhat.
If these evolutionary scientists (”botanists”) can’t tell us what events caused what effect, and exactly where the evolutionary branches diverge (witness the debate between Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo gautengensis, Homo ergaster and Homo habilis, for instance), then I feel “so-called” is an accurate description.
I’ve seen academics in what we refer to as evolutionary science simply make narratives up for theses. Hell, if Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Java Man can fool generations of suckers out there, then how reliable can they be?
You posted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For example, on the branch of Great Apes we find Chimpanzees, Gorillas & Orangutans, of which Chimpanzees share some 98% of our own DNA.
So we are clearly on the same evolutionary “branch”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There’s some other things. Some say 98%, others say 96%, and some point out that we share a majority of DNA with bananas.
So we are from the same branch as bananas, too (if you pardon the pun). Who knew?
But there's nothing "so called" about it.
And it takes no great genius to ask questions for which there are not answers.
Indeed, that is more-or-less the definition of the word "sophomoric".
So, raw material scientists have to work with consists of such things as fossils, geology, comparative biology & DNA broadly speaking.
Confirmed theory puts these together in the rough shape of an evolutionary tree.
However, nobody can answer specifically, for example: what caused Neanderthals to die out?
Sure, any number of factors may have contributed, but all we can say for certain is that after a certain time period, we find no more Neanderthal bones.
But at least with Neanderthals, thanks to DNA analysis, we know for certain they were not our direct ancestors, though they did interbreed to some extent.
That's quite a bit more than we can say about most other pre-human fossils so far discovered.
angryoldfatman: "I've seen academics in what we refer to as evolutionary science simply make narratives up for theses.
Hell, if Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Java Man can fool generations of suckers out there, then how reliable can they be?"
You've just recited some famous controversies or frauds from 100+ years ago, as if they happened yesterday.
In fact, in every case, science worked just as it is supposed to: errors were reviewed, exposed & corrected eventually, by other scientists.
But they certainly do tell us that nothing in much of science is ever really "settled".
New data, or new ideas, can always overthrow older understandings.
It's what science is, it's how science works.
angryoldfatman: "There's some other things.
Some say 98%, others say 96%, and some point out that we share a majority of DNA with bananas.
So we are from the same branch as bananas, too (if you pardon the pun).
Who knew?"
All of that is true.
The percentages of similarities in human & chimpanzee DNA depend on exactly what you measure & how you compare.
So any number in the high 90s percent could be supported by selected data.
All it really means is that humans are much more recently related to chimps than to, for example, bananas.
The data suggests that ancestors of humans & chimps branched off about 8 million years ago, while those of humans & bananas roughly a billion years ago.
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.