Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:42 am

It's interesting to see so much emphasis placed on this latest "supposed" common ancestor between humans and chimps and then label it even more important in the history of human evolution than Lucy? Apparently after the Ida debacle some scientists had to redeem themselves and come up with this one. Even though it was first discovered in the early 1990s, apparently now it holds some validity?

As reconstructed from this scrap heap of bones.. And a little imagination..

From this...

To this..

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... midus.html

jlay · Post by **jlay** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:29 am

You just have to love art.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:54 am

jlay wrote:You just have to love art.

Rembrandt would have been proud...

CAT · Post by **CAT** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:48 am

I think they could have made the face a little more human like, you know especially for younger school age students when the indoctrination starts.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:48 am

CAT wrote:I think they could have made the face a little more human like, you know especially for younger school age students when the indoctrination starts.

You mean like this??

Anything is possible in fantasy land... Who knows. It could be a possibility..

limerick · Post by **limerick** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:03 pm

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

)

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:15 pm

I need to read up on it, but it's hard to believe that it would be standing that straight up . . . (I didn't think there was any sarcasm or animosity

).

touchingcloth · Post by **touchingcloth** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:29 pm

cslewislover wrote:I need to read up on it, but it's hard to believe that it would be standing that straight up . . . (I didn't think there was any sarcasm or animosity ).

It's fairly common to have anatomical drawings done in this way - makes it easier to see the proportion of limbs and what not compared to if it was drawn, say, sat down.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:33 pm

touchingcloth wrote:
cslewislover wrote:I need to read up on it, but it's hard to believe that it would be standing that straight up . . . (I didn't think there was any sarcasm or animosity ).
It's fairly common to have anatomical drawings done in this way - makes it easier to see the proportion of limbs and what not compared to if it was drawn, say, sat down.

??? Is said "that" straight up. The creature is standing completely straight like we do. I find that hard to believe. It should be an accurate representation of the data, especially given the skeletal renderings. So, I want to review that.

touchingcloth · Post by **touchingcloth** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:45 pm

cslewislover wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:
cslewislover wrote:I need to read up on it, but it's hard to believe that it would be standing that straight up . . . (I didn't think there was any sarcasm or animosity ).
It's fairly common to have anatomical drawings done in this way - makes it easier to see the proportion of limbs and what not compared to if it was drawn, say, sat down.

??? Is said "that" straight up. The creature is standing completely straight like we do. I find that hard to believe. It should be an accurate representation of the data, especially given the skeletal renderings. So, I want to review that.

I meant it's common to have animals drawn in this manner...regardless of their actual stature (e.g spiders with legs splayed wide, butterflies with wings completely outstretched etc. etc.) as it makes aspects such a limb lengths much more apparent.

As to whether A. ramidus was bipedal to any degree will probably be hard to determine seeing as there is debate as to whether or not A. aferensis (a more modern find) was exclusively bipedal.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:52 pm

touchingcloth wrote:
cslewislover wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:
cslewislover wrote:I need to read up on it, but it's hard to believe that it would be standing that straight up . . . (I didn't think there was any sarcasm or animosity ).
It's fairly common to have anatomical drawings done in this way - makes it easier to see the proportion of limbs and what not compared to if it was drawn, say, sat down.

??? Is said "that" straight up. The creature is standing completely straight like we do. I find that hard to believe. It should be an accurate representation of the data, especially given the skeletal renderings. So, I want to review that.
I meant it's common to have animals drawn in this manner...regardless of their actual stature (e.g spiders with legs splayed wide, butterflies with wings completely outstretched etc. etc.) as it makes aspects such a limb lengths much more apparent.

As to whether A. ramidus was bipedal to any degree will probably be hard to determine seeing as there is debate as to whether or not A. aferensis (a more modern find) was exclusively bipedal.

I don't think so. Any species involved with possible evolutionary connections to humans is going to be drawn the way scientists believe it actually looked (especially its skeleton), particularly when it comes to its gait. Anything else would be deceptive.

ageofknowledge · Post by **ageofknowledge** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:57 pm

CAT wrote:I think they could have made the face a little more human like, you know especially for younger school age students when the indoctrination starts.

limerick · Post by **limerick** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:00 pm

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

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:01 pm

ageofknowledge wrote:
CAT wrote:I think they could have made the face a little more human like, you know especially for younger school age students when the indoctrination starts.

He has some transspecies, transgender issues.

touchingcloth · Post by **touchingcloth** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:04 pm

cslewislover wrote: I don't think so. Any species involved with possible evolutionary connections to humans is going to be drawn the way scientists believe it actually looked (especially its skeleton), particularly when it comes to its gait. Anything else would be deceptive.

One of the 11 research articles on A. ramidus in the latest edition of science is about the emergence of upright walking.
I've not got round to reading this one yet...leave some thoughts here if you get a chance to read it.

Evidence for God from Science

Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus

Re: Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus