First chimp fossil unearthed

Nature Magazine ^ | 31 August 2005 | Michael Hopkin

[Vaquero]

Yes in a companion piece I read in Scientific American, it was reported that the stains on the teeth were consistent with those of modern cigarette smoking chimps...and it was extrapolated from the smoking hypothesis, that these paleo-chimps roller skated, and wore diapers.....(snicker).

All in all an interesting article PH....I just couldn't help myself

[PatrickHenry]

Why was this thread moved to chat? It's science news, from a highly reputable source. If it was moved in error (or somehow posted to the wrong forum), could you please move it back to the News/Activism forum?

[PatrickHenry]

Thank you.

[elbucko]

The original ping seems not to have worked.

Maybe it mutated and evolved into another species of ping. Perhaps by a virus or spyware.

......;^) (/pro-evo satire)

[lilylangtree]

Cheeta the Chimp says "Ooga, Ooga!"

[VadeRetro]

I'm still going to make occasional use of my personal punk-eek example even though a chimp fossil has turned up East of the Rift. Could have been planted by Carl Baugh to discredit us.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm still going to make occasional use of my personal punk-eek example even though a chimp fossil has turned up East of the Rift.

Sure. Your example is good. This chimp could have been brought from far away as somebody's pet for all we know.

[Stark_GOP]

By what method were the teeth dated?
Article doesn't say.

I presume, they were dated by the surrounding strata.
Not enough material for lab testing?

[shuckmaster]

The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungle seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to savannah that led to humans walking upright. The teeth are around 500,000 years old,

Bipedalism occured at least 4 million years ago. It's a simplistic idea to suggest that a chimp passing through 3 1/2 million years later somehow blows away the "shift to savannah" hypothesis!

[Names Ash Housewares]

"The chimps were actually the masters of humans back then. Oh wait, that was the future not the past. Yikes!"

Ceasar was supposed to overthrow the humans in 1991. Were over due!!

[Doctor Stochastic]

First chimp fossil, of course, not first chimp fossil, which would be the more important find.

[evets]

[PatrickHenry]

If you're going to be picky, it's the difference between:

1. Fossil of first chimp, or
2. First fossil of chimp.

Gotta get that adjective first positioned next to its noun, with no room for misinterpretation.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I bet you burned out your PhotoShop with this one, LOL!

[Dimensio]

Can't be right, they became humans not todays chimps.

Huh? What is this supposed to mean?

Don't they understand evolution.

Probably far better than you.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for adding to my browser's "block images from" list.

[Gumlegs]

Helen hasn't looked that good in 500,000 years.

[general_re]

I spit on and otherwise deride your nit-picking abilities.

1. Fossil of first chimp, or
2. First fossil of chimp.

Neither. It is unlikely that this specimen was the first chimp, or the first chimp to be fossilized, but it is the first fossilized chimp to be found. Door number 3, Monty:

3. First discovery of a fossilized chimp.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, it's only an adverb.
Only, well, it's an adverb.
It's only a well adverb.
It's only an adverb well.
Only, it's an adverb well.
Only, it's a well adverb.

[PatrickHenry]

What a difference a hyphen can make:

Man-eating shark killed.
Man eating shark killed.