Human Ancestor Reconstructed, Halfway Between Chimp And Human

Edit: I realize I was humoring the comments of upset Christians on page one but please, this is a science forum. Take off your religious shoes and leave them on the doormat, or stay outside.

Looks like there's still quite a lot of speculation surrounding this ancient relative of ours, which is understandable considering the remains of this particular species were discovered only 5 years ago. The skeleton is one of the most complete homonid skeletons to date and has traits similar to both modern man's and chimpanzees! What a triumph for science and humanity!

Left: Human. Center: Australopithecus Sediba. Right: Chimpanzee. Lee Berger/ Uni of Witwatersrand

The most complete view yet of a possible human ancestor uncovered in South Africa has revealed an intriguing mix of human and ape traits. The two-million-year-old remains of several partial skeletons belonging to a previously unknown humanlike species were found in 2008 near Johannesburg. The new analysis shows this species - Australopithecus sediba - had a human-like pelvis, hands and teeth, and a chimpanzee-like foot.

They varied in form; some were more chimp-like, some more human like.

The findings appear in Science journal.

The evidence is piling up fast, and majorly important discoveries related to homonid evolution such as this one are becoming more prominent and common on an almost daily basis. Having a full evolutionary tree of man within my lifetime no longer seems like just a pipe-dream.

Enjoy.

BBC Link
Popsci Link

S&F

Fascinating... Wonder how pensative or manipulative of its environment it was.. and could it talk?

Originally posted by tropic
S&F

Fascinating... Wonder how pensative or manipulative of its environment it was.. and could it talk?

The remains are so well preserved that the team working on this discovery thinks they may have found preserved skin. That said, I think there may be a chance of finding some primitive tools in the area.

Wow, all they had to do was completely fabricate a rib cage, half a pelvis, an entire arm... how do we know these bones belong to the same creature?

Originally posted by DaTroof
Wow, all they had to do was completely fabricate a rib cage, half a pelvis, an entire arm...

how do we know these bones belong to the same creature?

Well, one could ascertain that the mold version of the rib cage, pelvis, and arm were constructed based upon the very large sections of rib cage, pelvis, and the entire arm which is fully intact.



I guess the fact that it's 2 - 4 million years old doesn't excuse the skeleton of it's poor (actually for it's age, immaculate - pun intended) condition. I guess you'll only accept it as evidence if it's encased in amber or if there's a vague image of a deity burnt into it?

How do we know it's all from the same creature...? Peer reviews in Science Journal would be a good start.

Edit: Hey, that Chimpanzee skeleton is a mold, too! Maybe Chimpanzees are made up. It's probably all a government plot to make us more complacent so we forget about the bible, man. It's so obvious.

reply to post by DaTroof


Fossilized bones are often found together unless the bones are scattered prior to fossilization. And yes, we do have to take educated guesses when large chunks of bone are missing.

reply to post by HairlessApe


All the existing bones look human, especially the feet, which were touted as being like chimpanzee feet. There's a total of 2 foot bones, the rest is fabricated. This is junk science with absolutely no proof.

What's intriguing about this find is that it is one of the very few Australopithecines found outside of the Rift Valley. Only other one I can think of off of the top of my head is Australopithecus Bahrelgazali.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

All the existing bones look human, especially the feet, which were touted as being like chimpanzee feet. There's a total of 2 foot bones, the rest is fabricated. This is junk science with absolutely no proof.

Incorrect.

From the PopSci link:

The researchers took three incomplete skeletons and combined them to create the full single skeleton.

This is just like every other missing link scam.

reply to post by DaTroof


No, this is anthropology, and you'd be surprised how much you can tell about a species from just 2 foot bones.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
What's intriguing about this find is that it is one of the very few Australopithecines found outside of the Rift Valley. Only other one I can think of off of the top of my head is Australopithecus Bahrelgazali.

Can you provide any useful links? I'd like to look into this a little more myself. Perhaps this new branch of Australopithecus is pretty far removed from the others?

I'll put forward the usual arguments...


1. Its just a human, but a diseased one.

2. Its just a chimpanzee, but a big one.

3. Its all an anti-god conspiracy, and the thing is faked.

4. Its just a few bones and you cant tell anything from that at all.


I think that about covers it, from the creationist point of view.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by HairlessApe


U mad cuz your science men made a fake fossil, bro?

Don't insult me.

Originally posted by alfa1

I'll put forward the usual arguments...


1. Its just a human, but a diseased one.

2. Its just a chimpanzee, but a big one.

3. Its all an anti-god conspiracy, and the thing is faked.

4. Its just a few bones and you cant tell anything from that at all.


I think that about covers it, from the creationist point of view.

That may actually be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

U mad cuz your science men made a fake fossil, bro?

Don't insult me.

U mad bro comments.. How relevant.
This conversation has reached it's conclusion.

reply to post by DaTroof


My thoughts exactly........I'm really starting to wonder if these scientists are starting to lose the plot.

Right now, on Planet Earth, I can walk down any major cities main street, and pick 10 ENTIRELY different looking people, from tall 6' 10" giants, to little old asian ladies 4'10" tall, to tall amazon buxon women to petite little almost boyish women, all with different shaped skulls etc etc.

I do believe a lot of what these people find, are just versions of the Same creature, who really hasnt changed much to get to where we are today.

Every 6 months they find another skull or fragment, so therefore it is another human creature etc etc.

The reality may be, that humans really havent changed much in millions of years, and they are just finding, ape skulls near human skeletons etc.

This was discussed by a 'Dinosaur" expert who thinks that many of the different species of dinosaurs proposed by modern science, are in fact the same species, but in different stages of growth, like an infant, juvenile and adult, then old adult. Look at us and how much we change over 100 years.......some people change much more than others of course.

Unfortunately, like the continuous circle it is, these researchers and scientists, need to continually find "Work" for themselves, to keep the money train grants and wages etc going.

That skull of the "Rendered" skeleton seems way too small for the body, and are chimps hands really that big?

I want them to tell me how Orangutans got to SE Asia along with Gigantopithicus? Who are their ancestors?
Did they really walk all the way from Africa??......

reply to post by HairlessApe



S+F.

Nonetheless, I'm a bit leary about these missing links in which the evidence is shoe horned to fit existing theory.

A classic example of that was Nebraska man in which a whole missing link was reconstructed from a tooth. The only problem was the tooth was from a pig.

A 1922 issue of Illustrated London News featured a picture of Nebraska man drawn by Amedee Forestier.

In a 1922 issue of Illustrated London News, an article was published featuring a picture of Nebraska man drawn by Amedee Forestier saying the, “reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius.”
Imaginative was correct because this man and his mate were concocted from a single tooth. It turns out that the tooth was that of a pig.

Nebraska Man: the Pig-tooth Man

I suspect that, as in many fields of human study, the evidence is often selected to fit the theory.

reply to post by HairlessApe


Link
It's rare for fossils to show up outside of the rift valley because most of North Africa was covered in rainforests millions of years ago, and the climate did not allow for preservation of bones. With that being said, its assumed a sign of intelligence for A. Bahrelghazali to have been able to migrate and survive away from other Australopithecines.