|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2011 : 12:56:38 [Permalink]
|
| What video? And forget about monkeys. Monkeys are not what this is about. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2011 : 13:18:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Sorry again Kil, there is a fully video on the discovery and its implications. The main position that we to consider is Ardi(4 million years) was pidedal. So theories of evolution which links human evolution to ape/monkey like ancestors which used their arms and knuckles to essentially move on all four limbs is no longer valid.
There are other aspects like the dental structure and behaviours which was previously used to show a migration path from ape like beginnings. Here again Ardi challenges all those earlier explanations.
We are not going to see a huge rush to accept the new apes descended from humans. But I am not here to convince the world.
|
What Ardi does is blow away the idea that our common ancestor to chimps was particularly chimp like, as we once assumed. Ardi suggests that it was far more of a mix of features, some more hominid like at a time when SOME hominid features were also assumed to not exist yet, and the coarse that the lines that became african apes was more specialized and less conducive to bipedalism and other more hominid traits. In other words, the view that primitive african apes and modern african apes were essentially the same may not hold up. But what does hold up is that they were not bipedal and they were not "human." But there were hominid characteristics (less specialized) that were lost in the evolution of MODERN apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi#Anatomy
Ardi lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans, but still provides some evidence for what that ancestor was like. Specifically, the skeleton suggests the common ancestor was not as chimp-like as some had supposed,[2] but rather was "probably a plantigrade quadrupedal arboreal climber/clamberer that lacked specializations for suspension, vertical climbing, or knuckle-walking"[13] (i.e. the common ancestor lacked certain important specializations of chimps).
The canine teeth of A. ramidus are smaller, and equal in size between males and females. This suggests reduced male-to-male conflict, pair-bonding, and increased parental investment.[4] "Thus, fundamental reproductive and social behavioral changes probably occurred in hominids long before they had enlarged brains and began to use stone tools."[5]
Researchers infer from the form of Ardi's pelvis and limbs and the presence of her opposable big toe that she was a facultative biped: bipedal when moving on the ground, but quadrupedal when moving about in tree branches.[6][13][14] Ardi had a more primitive walking ability than later hominids, and could not walk or run for long distances.[11] The teeth suggest omnivory, and are more generalized than those of modern apes.[13] |
So, justintime. Can you glean from this what Lovejoy was saying? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2011 : 13:59:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
We are not going to see a huge rush to accept the new apes descended from humans. |
So you do accept common descent after all (why didn't you just answer the question?). It's just a bizarro-world common descent in which modern humans have existed for 12 million years and the lemurs, lorises, orangutans, gorillas and chimps have branched off of the human line. I shouldn't have to remind you, but your claim was that scientists now think that apes and monkeys are descended from humans. Monkeys. From humans.
Since Ardi wasn't human, and lived long after the split between monkeys and apes, quotes from Lovejoy do nothing to support your bizarre assertion.
Let's see the evidence, justintime: let's see a scientist who claims that apes and monkeys evolved from humans.| But I am not here to convince the world. |
You're not going to convince anyone by compounding your earlier stupidity by adding another layer of fabrication to it.
Edited: don't forget to answer this question, justintime. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 06:32:11 [Permalink]
|
You guys just don't get it.
Theory 1. Humans are monkeys.
Theory 2. Ape and Humans shared a common ancestor.
Theory 3. Apes and monkeys descended from humans as in Hominids.
Old theory1. Earliest primates were monkeys basal Catarrhini. Our common ancestor were more monkey like therefore we are monkeys.
Old Theory2. Humans are apes because our common ancestor with apes were more apelike than monnkeys. Walked on all four, large dental structure, stiff pelvic. etc. etc.
New Theory 3. After discovering Ardi. Theory 1 and 2 are questionable because here we have a hominid that was bipedal, dental structure closer to modern humans and pelvic structure quite different from apes or chimpanzees. Ardi dated 4.4 million years.
Where is the fabrication? Ardi is real, the new theory is a result of Ardi's discovery. I am just a better informed person than you guys.
What is hard for you guys to understand is when hominids were defined in the group Hominidae. They were seen as the great apes. But after Ardi's discovery. Those close associations to apelike qualities don't stand up because we see early bipedalism and more human like form in Ardi than earlier suggested.
Here is the chart.
BTW the video I was talking about was the one Discovery Channel showed as a multi-part series on Ardi. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 07:51:53 [Permalink]
|
Justintime,
What is your source for that chart? |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 08:15:52 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
I am just a better informed person than you guys. |
The Dunning Kruger effect strikes again. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 08:16:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
You guys just don't get it.
Theory 1. Humans are monkeys.
Theory 2. Ape and Humans shared a common ancestor. |
Those aren't two different theories.Theory 3. Apes and monkeys descended from humans as in Hominids.
Old theory1. Earliest primates were monkeys basal Catarrhini. Our common ancestor were more monkey like therefore we are monkeys.
Old Theory2. Humans are apes because our common ancestor with apes were more apelike than monnkeys. Walked on all four, large dental structure, stiff pelvic. etc. etc.
New Theory 3. After discovering Ardi. Theory 1 and 2 are questionable because here we have a hominid that was bipedal, dental structure closer to modern humans and pelvic structure quite different from apes or chimpanzees. Ardi dated 4.4 million years. |
Monkeys date how many millions of years before Ardi?
Seriously, we "get it." You're trying to turn primate evolution upside-down so that humans become the basal group and all other primates are derived from them. It's a dumb theory based on no evidence whatsoever.| Where is the fabrication? Ardi is real, the new theory is a result of Ardi's discovery. I am just a better informed person than you guys. |
No, your "new theory" is fabricated from nothing. There is no evidence at all that monkeys are descendants of humans, or that humans have existed for more than 200,000 years.| What is hard for you guys to understand is when hominids were defined in the group Hominidae. They were seen as the great apes. But after Ardi's discovery. Those close associations to apelike qualities don't stand up because we see early bipedalism and more human like form in Ardi than earlier suggested. |
That doesn't mean that monkeys descended from humans. Your whole "theory" is based on a misreading of the charts, thinking that the directions the lines go has some sort of deep meaning. It doesn't. Never has.| BTW the video I was talking about was the one Discovery Channel showed as a multi-part series on Ardi. |
You mean the same broadcasting company that brings us ghost and bigfoot stories on a daily basis? Why should we consider anything they do to be good science? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 08:33:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
New Theory 3. After discovering Ardi. Theory 1 and 2 are questionable because here we have a hominid that was bipedal, dental structure closer to modern humans and pelvic structure quite different from apes or chimpanzees. Ardi dated 4.4 million years.
Where is the fabrication? Ardi is real, the new theory is a result of Ardi's discovery. I am just a better informed person than you guys.
What is hard for you guys to understand is when hominids were defined in the group Hominidae. They were seen as the great apes. But after Ardi's discovery. Those close associations to apelike qualities don't stand up because we see early bipedalism and more human like form in Ardi than earlier suggested. |
I think you're drawing a few incorrect conclusions about the "Ardi" discovery.
From the journal Science, the authors of the article "The Great Divides: Ardipithecus ramidus Reveals the Postcrania of Our Last Common Ancestors with African Apes", talk about this, but certainly don't say anything that this discovery shows that chimps descended from humans.
Here's their diagram:
As you can see, their reconstruction is nothing like what you're saying. It seems clear that far from being "better informed" you're in fact quite ill-informed. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/20/2011 08:34:42 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 09:16:25 [Permalink]
|
I couldn't access my AAAS account. They are sending me a new password. In the meantime, nice chart Cuniformist. It should be mentioned that Lovejoy and White published in AAAS Journal Science.
Anyhow...
justintime:
Theory 3. Apes and monkeys descended from humans as in Hominids. |
That’s absurd. No one is saying that but you.
| Theory 1 and 2 are questionable because here we have a hominid that was bipedal… |
For short distances. Ardi was mostly arboreal. She wasn’t the biped you think she was. That came later. She was a quadruped in the trees. She’s mix of features that are interesting in the sense that she was much less chimp like than expected. So we can’t model our last common ancestor after MODERN chimps.
justtintime:
dental structure closer to modern humans and pelvic structure quite different from apes or chimpanzees. |
Mostly true. The dental structure is surprisingly gracile in that the teeth were smaller and there was less dimorphism between the sexes than we expected. The shape of her jaw was still very much what we see in modern apes. Running more paralel than the human arch shape. The pelvic structure is not what we see in MODERN apes, nor is it what we see in humans. It is indicative of an arboreal creature which would show features of both human and modern apes. I must press this point. She was only a biped for short distances. She was not fully bipedal like A. Afarensis who came a million years or so later. It suggests that our last common ancestor was almost exclusively arboreal.
justintime:
What is hard for you guys to understand is when hominids were defined in the group Hominidae. They were seen as the great apes. But after Ardi's discovery. Those close associations to apelike qualities don't stand up because we see early bipedalism and more human like form in Ardi than earlier suggested. |
That’s all true, accept the part that we don’t understand. It’s what you don’t understand. What it means is that our common ancestor to apes was a more generalized creator, not exhibiting some of the more ape like features we have come to expect looking at MODERN apes.
You are suggesting conclusions that Lovejoy, White and really no one is suggesting. And the monkey from hominid thing is just bizarre.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 09:40:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I couldn't access my AAAS account. They are sending me a new password. In the meantime, nice chart Cuniformist. It should be mentioned that Lovejoy and White published in AAAS Journal Science.
Anyhow...
justintime:
Theory 3. Apes and monkeys descended from humans as in Hominids. |
That’s absurd. No one is saying that but you.
| Theory 1 and 2 are questionable because here we have a hominid that was bipedal… |
For short distances. Ardi was mostly arboreal. She wasn’t the biped you think she was. That came later. She was a quadruped in the trees. She’s mix of features that are interesting in the sense that she was much less chimp like than expected. So we can’t model our last common ancestor after MODERN chimps.
justtintime:
dental structure closer to modern humans and pelvic structure quite different from apes or chimpanzees. |
Mostly true. The dental structure is surprisingly gracile in that the teeth were smaller and there was less dimorphism between the sexes than we expected. The shape of her jaw was still very much what we see in modern apes. Running more paralel than the human arch shape. The pelvic structure is not what we see in MODERN apes, nor is it what we see in humans. It is indicative of an arboreal creature which would show features of both human and modern apes. I must press this point. She was only a biped for short distances. She was not fully bipedal like A. Afarensis who came a million years or so later. It suggests that our last common ancestor was almost exclusively arboreal.
justintime:
What is hard for you guys to understand is when hominids were defined in the group Hominidae. They were seen as the great apes. But after Ardi's discovery. Those close associations to apelike qualities don't stand up because we see early bipedalism and more human like form in Ardi than earlier suggested. |
That’s all true, accept the part that we don’t understand. It’s what you don’t understand. What it means is that our common ancestor to apes was a more generalized creator, not exhibiting some of the more ape like features we have come to expect looking at MODERN apes.
You are suggesting conclusions that Lovejoy, White and really no one is suggesting. And the monkey from hominid thing is just bizarre.
|
Why don't you listen to the video and hear Dr Lovejoy in his own words making reference to chimpanzees and apes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su71DLLKuQ4 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 09:45:59 [Permalink]
|
Okay. I'm in. This is from a paper by Lovejoy, White and others:
...The Ar. ramidus fossils and information on its habitat now reveal that many of these earlier hypotheses about our last common ancestor with chimpanzees are incorrect. The picture emerging from Ar. ramidus is that this last common ancestor had limb proportions more like those of monkeys than apes. Its feet functioned only partly like those of apes and much more like those of living monkeys and early apes such as Proconsul (which lived more than 15 million years ago). Its lower back was mobile and probably had six lumbar vertebrae rather than the three to four seen in the stiff backs of African apes. Its hand was unpredictably unique: Not only was its thumb musculature robust, unlike that of an ape, but its midcarpal joint (in the wrist) allowed the wrist to bend backward to a great degree, enhancing its ability to move along tree branches on its palms. None of the changes that apes have evolved to stiffen their hands for suspension and vertical climbing were present, so its locomotion did not resemble that of any living ape.
The hominid descendant of the last common ancestor we shared with chimpanzees (the CLCA), Ardipithecus, became a biped by modifying its upper pelvis without abandoning its grasping big toe. It was therefore an unpredicted and odd mosaic. It appears, unlike Au. afarensis, to have occupied the basal adaptive plateau of hominid natural history. It is so rife with anatomical surprises that no one could have imagined it without direct fossil evidence.
Abstract:
Genomic comparisons have established the chimpanzee and bonobo as our closest living relatives. However, the intricacies of gene regulation and expression caution against the use of these extant apes in deducing the anatomical structure of the last common ancestor that we shared with them. Evidence for this structure must therefore be sought from the fossil record. Until now, that record has provided few relevant data because available fossils were too recent or too incomplete. Evidence from Ardipithecus ramidus now suggests that the last common ancestor lacked the hand, foot, pelvic, vertebral, and limb structures and proportions specialized for suspension, vertical climbing, and knuckle-walking among extant African apes. If this hypothesis is correct, each extant African ape genus must have independently acquired these specializations from more generalized ancestors who still practiced careful arboreal climbing and bridging. African apes and hominids acquired advanced orthogrady in parallel. Hominoid spinal invagination is an embryogenetic mechanism that reoriented the shoulder girdle more laterally. It was unaccompanied by substantial lumbar spine abbreviation, an adaptation restricted to vertical climbing and/or suspension. The specialized locomotor anatomies and behaviors of chimpanzees and gorillas therefore constitute poor models for the origin and evolution of human bipedality. |
Nothing here supports your conclusions, justintime.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 09:48:55 [Permalink]
|
You still aren't understanding what he's saying. And I just posted from the actual study.
The first video attempts to suggest something that Lovejoy isn't saying. And the name of the video suggests an agenda. Darwin didn't have much to say on this subject so how can Ardi prove Darwin wrong? Creationist claptrap.
Others have gone with a stupid headline and the AAAS article you aren't understanding. You think you get it but you don't. Please read what I posted. When Lovejoy says "Human" he does not mean what you think he means. He's talking about features found in arboreal primates and humans. In other words, we came from tree dwelling primates and more specifically, our common ancestor to chimps was arboreal.
The problem with scientists is sometimes they say things that are accurate, but they don't consider how it will be taken by those who are scientifically illiterate. That's what's going on here. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 09:58:27 [Permalink]
|
You seem to be confusing "human-like" with "human" in these videos. They're not the same thing-- certainly not in this context. Moreover, the quote "apes in many ways evolved from humans" isn't Dr Lovejoy, it's the narrator of the piece-- a journalist obviously phrasing things in a provocative way (and one that some with a more creationist bent immediately salivate over).
I mean, look at this image:
This is an artist's reconstruction of Ardi. It's hard to imagine anyone mistaking this for "human" (notice the feet, for instance, or the length of the arms and hands)-- and this is after chimps split from the branch that leads to homo sapiens.
To argue that chimps evolved from humans-- using any acceptable definition of the word human-- is simply false.
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2011 : 10:11:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Okay. I'm in. This is from a paper by Lovejoy, White and others:
...The Ar. ramidus fossils and information on its habitat now reveal that many of these earlier hypotheses about our last common ancestor with chimpanzees are incorrect. The picture emerging from Ar. ramidus is that this last common ancestor had limb proportions more like those of monkeys than apes. Its feet functioned only partly like those of apes and much more like those of living monkeys and early apes such as Proconsul (which lived more than 15 million years ago). Its lower back was mobile and probably had six lumbar vertebrae rather than the three to four seen in the stiff backs of African apes. Its hand was unpredictably unique: Not only was its thumb musculature robust, unlike that of an ape, but its midcarpal joint (in the wrist) allowed the wrist to bend backward to a great degree, enhancing its ability to move along tree branches on its palms. None of the changes that apes have evolved to stiffen their hands for suspension and vertical climbing were present, so its locomotion did not resemble that of any living ape.
The hominid descendant of the last common ancestor we shared with chimpanzees (the CLCA), Ardipithecus, became a biped by modifying its upper pelvis without abandoning its grasping big toe. It was therefore an unpredicted and odd mosaic. It appears, unlike Au. afarensis, to have occupied the basal adaptive plateau of hominid natural history. It is so rife with anatomical surprises that no one could have imagined it without direct fossil evidence.
Abstract:
Genomic comparisons have established the chimpanzee and bonobo as our closest living relatives. However, the intricacies of gene regulation and expression caution against the use of these extant apes in deducing the anatomical structure of the last common ancestor that we shared with them. Evidence for this structure must therefore be sought from the fossil record. Until now, that record has provided few relevant data because available fossils were too recent or too incomplete. Evidence from Ardipithecus ramidus now suggests that the last common ancestor lacked the hand, foot, pelvic, vertebral, and limb structures and proportions specialized for suspension, vertical climbing, and knuckle-walking among extant African apes. If this hypothesis is correct, each extant African ape genus must have independently acquired these specializations from more generalized ancestors who still practiced careful arboreal climbing and bridging. African apes and hominids acquired advanced orthogrady in parallel. Hominoid spinal invagination is an embryogenetic mechanism that reoriented the shoulder girdle more laterally. It was unaccompanied by substantial lumbar spine abbreviation, an adaptation restricted to vertical climbing and/or suspension. The specialized locomotor anatomies and behaviors of chimpanzees and gorillas therefore constitute poor models for the origin and evolution of human bipedality. |
Nothing here supports your conclusions, justintime.
|
I don't know what you are reading here Kil. Everything in the article supports my position which is actually Dr. Lovejoys position. Humans could not have evolved from a ape like ancestor.
The last sentence even emphatically stated human bipediality could not have been modeled around locomotive anomalies of chimpanzees and apes for the evolution of human bipdeality.
So our closest ancestor was not very ape like. You did not view Dr. Lovejoys video. He has made the claim apes in many ways evolved from humans. Then check discovery channel for the details of the Ardi discovery.
I should not have added monkeys to the list because Dr. Lovejoy mentions chimpanzees and apes. You can fault me for that. I was just trying to be inclusive. To bring along all those monkey believers into the discussion. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution Questions
