Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

[cslewislover]

I think people are missing the point here, scientists believe that it had the capability to walk upright (albeit for brief periods), whether it did or not, no one can know for sure, but certainly it is a remarkable find giving the era it is from and the fact that it had the capability to walk upright.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8286247.stm

Lol, Sean! I don't think I'm missing the point. Dogs can stand up straight too, and even walk like that some, but who would ever draw them that way as an example for the public, as representative of the species? But, I don't want you to be mad. I'm ahead of myself here, however the idea of what I'm saying I think is correct. A significant find like this gets into the public's mind, and that's it. That image above, with a totally straight back and upright stance, is what everyone will remember.

[touchingcloth]

It's interesting to see so much emphasis placed on this latest "supposed" common ancestor between humans and chimps...

The species is to modern to be a common ancestor of humans and chimps - instead it is suspected to be on the branch between humans and the most recent common ancestor.

[limerick]

I think people are missing the point here, scientists believe that it had the capability to walk upright (albeit for brief periods), whether it did or not, no one can know for sure, but certainly it is a remarkable find giving the era it is from and the fact that it had the capability to walk upright.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8286247.stm

Lol, Sean! I don't think I'm missing the point. Dogs can stand up straight too, and even walk like that some, but who would ever draw them that way as an example for the public, as representative of the species? But, I don't want you to be mad. I'm ahead of myself here, however the idea of what I'm saying I think is correct. A significant find like this gets into the public's mind, and that's it. That image above, with a totally straight back and upright stance, is what everyone will remember.

I do see your point, but it was possible for this species to do so, and I think that is what the artist was trying to convey, perhaps he/she should have drawn a picture of it upright AND on all fours, to give a better understanding of the species. Touchingcloth raises a good point as well, as the scientists are NOT saying it is a direct ancestor to Homo-Sapien. What does make me angry is when people dismiss the scientists who worked on it for 15 years.

[zoegirl]

I can see understand your ire, limerick. Many of these scientists do work hard and do painstaking research that compares and contrasts the bones.

I think CSLL and Gman brought up good points, however, about the overblown nature of the fossil. Many times the media is to blame, oversimplifying the complexities.

[touchingcloth]

I can see understand your ire, limerick. Many of these scientists do work hard and do painstaking research that compares and contrasts the bones.

I think CSLL and Gman brought up good points, however, about the overblown nature of the fossil. Many times the media is to blame, oversimplifying the complexities.

I don't think the importance of the fossil has been overblown; it's a hugely important discovery in the study of hominid evolution. It gives us an insight into how hominids developed between the divergence from the most recent common ancestor with chimps and A. afarensis.

[ageofknowledge]

"It is still not clear if Ardipithecus ramidus possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism's first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.

If A. ramidus lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view A. ramidus as the ancestral species that gave rise to A. anamensis. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."

"A team of paleontologists from the University of California, Berkeley reported the discovery of hominid remains dated between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago and described this animal's environment. The results of their work bolster the case for the supernatural appearance of bipedalism.

Paleoanthropologists making this discovery assigned the fossil remains to Ardipithecus ramidus. Analysis clearly indicates that A. ramidus walked erect. This dramatic discovery not only pushes the hominid fossil record back by nearly one million years but also places the appearance of bipedalism coincidental to the first appearance of hominids. Bipedalism, indeed, appears suddenly in the fossil record.

The paleoanthropologists also determined that A. ramidus lived exclusively in a wet woodland environment. Likewise, the A. ramidus specimen dated at 4.4 million years in age lived in a wet woodland habitat. These discoveries fully eliminate the evolutionary driving force for bipedalism's emergence. As one researcher commented, these discoveries "challenge some long-cherished ideas about the mode and timing of hominid evolution."

http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/tr ... bipedalism

[zoegirl]

Nice Age, glad you found that

[limerick]

Ageofknowledge said:

It is still not clear if Ardipithecus ramidus possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism's first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.

Bipedialism didn't just appear, it was a gradual process typical of evolution. Recent studies have shown that the 'split' probably occured over 10 million years ago.

If A. ramidus lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view A. ramidus as the ancestral species that gave rise to A. anamensis. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."

Recent studies suggest that it didn't possess all bipedial traits, and the changes between the two were not enormous, the biggest differences were dental ones. Here is a good essay on the differences: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/anamensis.html

A team of paleontologists from the University of California, Berkeley reported the discovery of hominid remains dated between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago and described this animal's environment. The results of their work bolster the case for the supernatural appearance of bipedalism.
Paleoanthropologists making this discovery assigned the fossil remains to Ardipithecus ramidus. Analysis clearly indicates that A. ramidus walked erect. This dramatic discovery not only pushes the hominid fossil record back by nearly one million years but also places the appearance of bipedalism coincidental to the first appearance of hominids. Bipedalism, indeed, appears suddenly in the fossil record.

Again see above, it had some traits of bipedialism, but not all, if you look at the BBC link I supplied in a previous post, it is believed that it could not walk or run for very far on two legs. There are missing links in hominoid evolution I acknowledge that, but that doesn't mean evidence of the supernatural, it means scientists need to keep looking and analyzing.

The paleoanthropologists also determined that A. ramidus lived exclusively in a wet woodland environment. Likewise, the A. ramidus specimen dated at 4.4 million years in age lived in a wet woodland habitat.

I'm missing something here, what is so special of they both living in a wet woodland habitat? If you look at the link above both fossils were found less than six miles apart, what's so special?

These discoveries fully eliminate the evolutionary driving force for bipedalism's emergence. As one researcher commented, these discoveries "challenge some long-cherished ideas about the mode and timing of hominid evolution.

If these discoveries are true i.e. fully eliminate the evolutionary driving force for bipedialism's emergence, then whoever researched this would have won a Nobel Peace Prize. A slightly enthusiastic statement.

[CAT]

Now its of my opinion that he really looks more like orangutan here with that red hair.

He has some transspecies, transgender issues.

Hilarious! Yeah, I'd say… He has Breasticles!

The next thing we know is that this site is soon gonna be shutdown by the feds for bestial porn.

[Gman]

The species is to modern to be a common ancestor of humans and chimps - instead it is suspected to be on the branch between humans and the most recent common ancestor.

Exactly what I said...

[Gman]

Scrap heap of bones is not an accurate way of describing the find, it was actually a fossilized remains. It could be more important than Lucy as this find is from 4.4 million years ago, whereas Lucy was from about 3.2 million years ago. The scientists involved in this project, worked on these remains for a painstaking 15 years, and had nothing to do with the 'Ida' debacle. In coming up with an impression with what the creature looked like, it takes a lot of study and comparison to other primates, previous and present. Just a question, what do ye guys actually think it is?

(no sarcam, or animosity is intended in this post )

Not exactly, it was a heap of bones... Crushed to smithereens says the report...



"One problem is that some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction. "Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew," says Walker. Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved or what she reveals about the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

(Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Excavating Ardi: A New Piece for the Puzzle of Human Evolution," Time Magazine (October 1, 2009).)

The recent news report in Science recounts the same problems with the fossil:

But the team's excitement was tempered by the skeleton's terrible condition. The bones literally crumbled when touched. White called it road kill. And parts of the skeleton had been trampled and scattered into more than 100 fragments; the skull was crushed to 4 centimeters in height.

(Ann Gibbons, "A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled," Science, Vol. 326:36-40 (Oct. 2, 2009).)

National Geographic put it thus:

After Ardi died, her remains apparently were trampled down into mud by hippos and other passing herbivores. Millions of years later, erosion brought the badly crushed and distorted bones back to the surface. They were so fragile they would turn to dust at a touch. "

“Chalky”? “Squished”? “Badly crushed and distorted”? “Needed extensive digital reconstruction”? After all the media hype and overblown claims about importance of Ida, forgive me for having an initial reaction of skepticism. How far would you trust a “Rosetta stone” that was initially “crushed to smithereens” and “would turn to dust at a touch”?

Claims of bipedalism often depend upon precise measurements of the angles of key bones such as the pelvis, femur, and knee-bones. But if these bones were discovered in such a crushed, squished, etc. form, determining the precise contours of these bones might become a highly subjective exercise. I'm sure they spent a lot of time on their reconstructions (and it certainly sounds like they did) but at the end of the day, it's difficult to make solid claims about extremely unsolid bones.

Anyone for some Irish stew?"

Source: //www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/key_bones ... fossi.html

[Gman]

If I were an evolutionist I would NOT call this a smoking gun for evolution. I would call this another embarrassment...

[ageofknowledge]

Bipedialism didn't just appear, it was a gradual process typical of evolution. Recent studies have shown that the 'split' probably occured over 10 million years ago.

Wrong. Just in evolutionary theory there are more than twelve distinct hypotheses as to how and why bipedalism evolved in humans with much debate as to when. It sounded really authoritative the way you said it though.

[limerick]

Bipedialism didn't just appear, it was a gradual process typical of evolution. Recent studies have shown that the 'split' probably occured over 10 million years ago.

Wrong. Just in evolutionary theory there are more than twelve distinct hypotheses as to how and why bipedalism evolved in humans with much debate as to when. It sounded really authoritative the way you said it though.

It WAS a gradual process, a species didn't just wake up one morning and decide to walk on two legs.

[limerick]

If I were an evolutionist I would NOT call this a smoking gun for evolution. I would call this another embarrassment...

But you're not an evolutionist, and they DON'T believe this to be an embarrassment.

One problem is that some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction.

The word 'portions' is important here, as not all of the remains were crushed. Therefore, a pretty good estimate could be made of the bones that were intact.

As for the fact that thye crunbled on touch, I'm sure in this day and age they found a way around it.

Just as a matter of interest, and I think I asked this before, but what do ye guys think it is?