Fossils may turn 'evolution on its head'

[n2doc]

Analysis of a near-complete skeleton of a human ancestor found in Ethiopia radically changes scientists' thinking about the appearance and behavior of our earliest forebears.

By Thomas H. Maugh II
October 1, 2009 | 7:30 a.m.

A treasure trove of 4.4-million-year-old fossils from the Ethiopian desert is dramatically overturning widely held ideas about the early evolution of humans and how they came to walk upright, even as it paints a remarkably detailed picture of early life in Africa, researchers reported today.

The centerpiece of the diverse collection of primate, animal and plant fossils is the near-complete skeleton of a human ancestor that demonstrates our earliest forebears looked nothing like a chimpanzee or other large primate, as is now commonly believed. Instead, the findings suggest that the last common ancestor of humans and primates, which existed nearly 2 million years earlier, was a primitive creature that shared few traits with modern-day members of either group.

The findings, analyzed in a large group of studies published today in the journal Science, also indicate that our ancestors began walking upright in woodlands, not on grassy savannas as prior generations of researchers had speculated.

The discovery of the specimen called Ardipithecus ramidus "is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution," said paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam of Harvard University, who was not involved in the research. "The find itself is extraordinary, as were the enormous labors that went into the reconstruction of a skeleton shattered almost beyond repair," he said in an e-mailed statement.

more:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-fossils2-2009oct02,0,3420742.story

[MineralMan]

1. Why would this find do that?

It just expands the evolutionary history of hominids. It doesn't turn evolutionary theory on its head in any way. More info; better understanding.

[Ian David]

2. Misleading headline from LA Times. n/t

[greyl]

5. It's a direct quote from Lovejoy, so not exactly.

Some say Lovejoy's interpretation is "patent nonsense".

[hobbit709]

3. And still more evolved than the average teabagger.

[Richard D]

4. it doesn't "turn evolution on it's head"

Just possibility of rethinking some aspects of human evolution.

What would turn evolution on it's head would be the sky opening up and the booming voice of the FSM saying that we were all created by his pastaness out of a vast sea of primavera sauce.

[tabatha]

8. its not it's

[Richard D]

13. oopsie

Sorry. I do, of coarse no that.

[Warpy]

6. Many researchers had speculated on an arboreal origin

a long time ago, as arboreal primates all tend to walk upright when they drop to the ground for short periods. It didn't make sense that upright walking had evolved on the savanna, where keeping a low profile is essential if you don't want to be eaten quickly.

That a common ancestor doesn't look like any of us is no surprise, either.

The headline, of course, is as silly as we've come to expect of anything dealing with evolution in the popular press.

[nashville_brook]

12. hell, i have blood relatives that look nothing like any of us... :)

[tabatha]

7. Same post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6671601

[FiveGoodMen]

9. I will also cast my vote for, "What a bullshit headline!"

[itsrobert]

10. Well, they found the fossils in volcanic ash

If a volcano was coming down on me, not only would I be walking upright, I would be running upright too.

[Downtown Hound]

11. One million fundamentalist morons got really excited by that headline

only to be disappointed once again.

[lyonn]

14. The headline is misleading but the article quite interesting

The online site of Science magazine's article and video was informative. Hopefully and most likely we will hear more interpretations of the finds at this dig site.

[kestrel91316]

15. Sorry, fundies, the article does NOT refute Darwin.

[Orrex]

16. I think that what we need are more threads about this find

Three just aren't enough.

[ki83760]

17. Not bloody likely