Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 8, 2002
1,763
0
0
#1
We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time’
By Seth Borenstein

Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON - The latest fossil unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows scientists to link together the most complete chain of human evolution so far.

The 4.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in northeastern Ethiopia helps scientists fill in the gaps of how human ancestors made the giant leap from one species to another. That’s because the newest fossil, the species Australopithecus anamensis, was found in the region of the Middle Awash — where seven other human-like species spanning nearly 6 million years and three major phases of human development were previously discovered.

“We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time,” study co-author and Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw said in a phone interview from Addis Ababa. “One form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.”
The findings were reported Thursday in the scientific journal Nature.

The species anamensis is not new, but its location is what helps explain the shift from one early phase of human-like development to the next, scientists say. All eight species were within an easy day’s walk of each other.

Until now, what scientists had were snapshots of human evolution scattered around the world. Finding everything all in one general area makes those snapshots more of a mini home movie of evolution.

“It’s like 12 frames of a home movie, but a home movie covering 6 million years,” said study lead author Tim White, co-director of Human Evolution Research Center at University of California at Berkeley.

“The key here is the sequences,” White said. “It’s about a mile thickness of rocks in the Middle Awash and in it we can see all three phases of human evolution.”

Modern man belongs to the genus Homo, which is a subgroup in the family of hominids. What evolved into Homo was likely the genus Australopithecus (once called “man-ape”), which includes the famed 3.2 million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found three decades ago. A key candidate for the genus that evolved into Australopithecus is called Ardipithecus. And Thursday’s finding is important in bridging — but not completely — the gap between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus.
In 1994, a 4.4 million-year-old partial skeleton of the species Ardipithecus ramidus — the most recent Ardipithecus species — was found about six miles from the latest discovery.

“This appears to be the link between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus as two different species,” White said. The major noticeable difference between the phases of man can be seen in Australopithecus’ bigger chewing teeth to eat harder food, he said.

While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus, he said. The finding does not completely rule out Ardipithecus dying off as a genus and Australopithecus developing independently.

The connections between Ardipithecus and Australopithecus have been theorized since an anamensis fossil was first found in Kenya 11 years ago. This draws the lines better, said Alan Walker of Penn State University, who found the first anamensis and is not part of White’s team.

Rick Potts, director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, agreed: “For those people who are tied up in doing the whole human family tree, being able to connect the branches is a very important thing to do.”
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
40
www.myspace.com
#2
"The species anamensis is not new, but its location is what helps explain the shift from one early phase of human-like development to the next, scientists say. All eight species were within an easy day’s walk of each other."

Nope....sorry :( Although, I love the way they use "fills gap" and "chain of evolution", as some kind of deception to trick people into believing they really mean "missing link".

The fossil you're looking for is around 200K-1M years old. Anything over 2 million or so is useless.
 

ReKz

Sicc OG
May 26, 2002
1,338
1
0
#4
cartoon said:
Modern man belongs to the genus Homo, which is a subgroup in the family of hominids. What evolved into Homo was likely the genus Australopithecus (once called “man-ape”), which includes the famed 3.2 million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found three decades ago. A key candidate for the genus that evolved into Australopithecus is called Ardipithecus. And Thursday’s finding is important in bridging — but not completely — the gap between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus.
In 1994, a 4.4 million-year-old partial skeleton of the species Ardipithecus ramidus — the most recent Ardipithecus species — was found about six miles from the latest discovery.

This appears to be the link between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus as two different species,” White said. The major noticeable difference between the phases of man can be seen in Australopithecus’ bigger chewing teeth to eat harder food, he said.

While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus, he said. The finding does not completely rule out Ardipithecus dying off as a genus and Australopithecus developing independently.
Here is the most accepted "family tree" of the Hominidae family:



We can see that they are not sure if the genus Homo did evolve from Australopithecus and that all the other possible evolutionary connections up until Homo sapiens are just that, possibilities....

Now, we can also see that Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis are classified as two different Genera and are thought to have evolved from a still unknown ancestor.....
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#5
Nah, Dirty Shoez is clearly right - the fact that we haven't got a fossil thats only 200,000 years old linking humans to apes clearly means that God created us uniquely and that the proposed evolutionary transition did not infact occur at all.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#8
lmao, religiously-inclined individuals certainly don't want to believe in that possibility! They'd rather believe in evolution! You have a point though, what's to say that we weren't all formed in the fires of "hell"? Infact, based on the scientific theory that one of the first life-forms on Earth were those bacteria which are to be found around ultra-hot hydrothermal vents in the ocean supports your argument Troll...
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#13
That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever read in my life.

So you don't believe anything white people say?

And did you forget that all colors enslave people?
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
40
www.myspace.com
#14
RedStorm said:
That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever read in my life.

So you don't believe anything white people say?

And did you forget that all colors enslave people?
"All Colors" NEVER enslaved people on the same level that the White Man did.

To deny this.....pure contempt for history.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#20
PressPlay Prod. said:
our these the same people who work for the government who were all for slavery, i did not come from no ape
1). No these are not the same people who work for the government who were all for slavery. Check your history comrade, it was Charles Darwin around 1860 that released a book called, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.” He was British and did not work for any government and was not an advocate for slavery. Additionally, evolution is accepted by the scientific community of the world, it is not some isolated belief controlled or supported by one country. You will find scientists from every country and every nationality that support evolution.

2). Evolution does not state that you come from an Ape; rather it states that you, and all other primates, have common ancestors or in other words, we have evolved from the same species thousands and thousands of years ago. So it is not correct to say we come from apes. It is correct to say mankind and apes are related. (This should not even be an issue since the discovery of DNA and RNA).

PressPlay Prod. said:
what i ment was im not going to believe anybody who legalized slavery,i.e white people
Slavery was abolished in the United States in what year? 1865? The theory of evolution was not widely accepted until years after Charles Darwin’s death (1882) so it would be impossible for your above statement to be true.

Now if you do not want to believe white people, ok, that’s fine with me. I suggest you investigate for yourself and make educated decisions based on your own personal research rather than simply dismissing something based on the color of another mans skin. Or if you’re not willing to conduct your own research there are thousands of non-white scientists that have contributed to the theory of evolution. Perhaps you will listen to them?