Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link
091001-01-ardi-human-ancestor_big.jpg

This is a picture of Ardipithecus ramidus and not rza.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/108442/thumbs/s-ARDI-large.jpg


Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.

The centerpiece of a treasure trove of new fossils, the skeleton—assigned to a species called Ardipithecus ramidus—belonged to a small-brained, 110-pound (50-kilogram) female nicknamed "Ardi." (See pictures of Ardipithecus ramidus.)

The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.

(Interactive time line: how the Ardipithecus ramidus discovery changes human evolutionary theory.)

Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas (interactive: Ardi's key features). As such, the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.

Announced at joint press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the analysis of the Ardipithecus ramidus bones will be published in a collection of papers tomorrow in a special edition of the journal Science, along with an avalanche of supporting materials published online.

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." (Related: "Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say" [June 11, 2003].)

Read more: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...midus-ardi-oldest-human-skeleton-fossils.html
 
Last edited:
OK, I am not saying that I am sceptical of the find, I am saying that I remember the Piltdown man.
:D
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is a "missing link".
From what I understand of evolution it is minute changes over a large period of time.
So each "generation" is a transitional form of the next.
 
I don't think there is a "missing link".
From what I understand of evolution it is minute changes over a large period of time.
So each "generation" is a transitional form of the next.

Yep, it's an outdated term that some YEC decided, whilst enveloped in a brain fart, to latch onto.

There are fossils dating from either before or after a limb on the proverbial tree of life splits, though... Punctuated equilibrium vs Phyletic gradualism

The blinkered and slow-minded keep jumping up & down because we haven't found a fossilised orang-utan with a lemur-head, wearing a pair ye olde Nikes. :rolleyes:
 
Why don't they show pictures of the actual skeleton?

They were so fragile they would turn to dust at a touch. To save the precious fragments, White and colleagues removed the fossils along with their surrounding rock. Then, in a lab in Addis, the researchers carefully tweaked out the bones from the rocky matrix using a needle under a microscope, proceeding "millimeter by submillimeter," as the team puts it in Science. This process alone took several years.

I would imagine that it's kept under conditions with special lighting, to inhibit further degradation. Maybe the flash from a camera will vaporise it. :p
 
I would imagine that it's kept under conditions with special lighting, to inhibit further degradation. Maybe the flash from a camera will vaporise it. :p

Maybe. The reason why I am asking is: "Pictures or it didn't happen".

So to prevent any denials they should show us convincing pictures. Also for people like rza and similar. Otherwise they just keep on telling us it's all devil's work trying to convince us about evolution.
 
Why don't they show pictures of the actual skeleton?

To intentionally mess with peoples heads... thats the exact reason. The cultists scientists got together and decided to hide the physical pictures from this find to excite the creationists
 
I would hazard that, like some other findings, there isn't enough to constitute a skeleton... Smart people can figure out, through ratios and models tested & verified on other linked species, how the whole creature looked. Dumb people will just see more gaps & evil imagination...
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X