Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Missing link between sea and land
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
So they've found a true transitional animal between fish and animals. Not that it's the first, but it's the best proof of a movement between water and land cerca 375million BC. It had working wrists, a movable neck, and limbs with the ability to move clumsily over land, mostly to escape less evolved predators. It would have been capable of doing a "push up" with it's transitional limbs, because of it's shoulders and elbows. Needless to say, fish do not have shoulders, elbows, wrists, the ability to breathe using LUNGS, gills akin to ears shape-wise, eyes on top of their heads rather than at the side. It also had a snout which also seems to predate crocodiles'. In all likelihood, the proto-limbs were used to crawl along shallow streams, venturing onto land or into deep waters the need arised.

Sources: wikipedia, NY Times, Nature, BBC News.
Lord Steve0
Pretty cool isn't it?

Kinda shows that the evidence is out there. When will the fundamentalist christians stop talking rubbish and look at the REAL proof of what has happened in Earth's history?!?!

They also found a rat type animal this week that they thought went extinct millions of years ago and is pretty much a living fossil. Apparently more common than you might think as well.
Fido 14
That's great. Now they can try and find the missing link between primates and humans.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Wow, that's a strong and non-egocentric point.
OptimumPx
QUOTE(Fido 14 @ Apr 7 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]1129268[/snapback]

That's great. Now they can try and find the missing link between primates and humans.

Don't need to look for one, we already have it. sleep.gif

Chimpanzee and Human DVD are 95% the same. smile.gif
Fido 14
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Apr 7 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]1129302[/snapback]

QUOTE(Fido 14 @ Apr 7 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]1129268[/snapback]

That's great. Now they can try and find the missing link between primates and humans.

Don't need to look for one, we already have it. sleep.gif

Chimpanzee and Human DVD are 95% the same. smile.gif


And you need the missing link between primates and humans to prove it 100%. So there ya go.
Verruckt
QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Apr 7 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]1129210[/snapback]

Pretty cool isn't it?

Kinda shows that the evidence is out there. When will the fundamentalist christians stop talking rubbish and look at the REAL proof of what has happened in Earth's history?!?!

They also found a rat type animal this week that they thought went extinct millions of years ago and is pretty much a living fossil. Apparently more common than you might think as well.

Maybe because there's no actual proof that this thing evolved? Animals are born certain ways without evolving from a different animal. And if evolution is true what was the first animal and what did it evolve from?
gingergenius
im up for another scrap with fido about evolution.

@ verruckt- according to my source below the building blocks for DNA were made 4.1 billion years ago, after the planet was cool enough for water to condense. animals are thought to have evolved 0.7 billion years ago from colonies of single celled organisms. between then and 4.1 bya bacteria evolved. then photosynthesis was used by these bacteria, which made more oxygen. so they evolved respiration. after this the first organisms to have a nucleus evolved. plants evolved way after life in the sea had evolved into fish.

history of earth

DeKo
QUOTE(Fido 14 @ Apr 8 2006, 05:46 AM) [snapback]1129316[/snapback]

QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Apr 7 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]1129302[/snapback]

QUOTE(Fido 14 @ Apr 7 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]1129268[/snapback]

That's great. Now they can try and find the missing link between primates and humans.

Don't need to look for one, we already have it. sleep.gif

Chimpanzee and Human DVD are 95% the same. smile.gif


And you need the missing link between primates and humans to prove it 100%. So there ya go.


dont they already have primitive human skeletons that are not the same as us, but not the same as apes. ... pretty much a missing link i think...
Caliguy
QUOTE(verruckt @ Apr 8 2006, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1129605[/snapback]

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Apr 7 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]1129210[/snapback]

Pretty cool isn't it?

Kinda shows that the evidence is out there. When will the fundamentalist christians stop talking rubbish and look at the REAL proof of what has happened in Earth's history?!?!

They also found a rat type animal this week that they thought went extinct millions of years ago and is pretty much a living fossil. Apparently more common than you might think as well.

Maybe because there's no actual proof that this thing evolved? Animals are born certain ways without evolving from a different animal. And if evolution is true what was the first animal and what did it evolve from?

Exactly. That's the question they stay away from.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 8 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1129729[/snapback]

QUOTE(verruckt @ Apr 8 2006, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1129605[/snapback]

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Apr 7 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]1129210[/snapback]

Pretty cool isn't it?

Kinda shows that the evidence is out there. When will the fundamentalist christians stop talking rubbish and look at the REAL proof of what has happened in Earth's history?!?!

They also found a rat type animal this week that they thought went extinct millions of years ago and is pretty much a living fossil. Apparently more common than you might think as well.

Maybe because there's no actual proof that this thing evolved? Animals are born certain ways without evolving from a different animal. And if evolution is true what was the first animal and what did it evolve from?

Exactly. That's the question they stay away from.

I can't bring myself to believe this, but they claim they evolved from bacteria O.o...click gingergenius' link to the history of the world, and you'll get evolution's theoretical path, complete with spectacular holes and lack of explanations for things that don't make much sense...
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(verruckt @ Apr 8 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]1129605[/snapback]

Maybe because there's no actual proof that this thing evolved? Animals are born certain ways without evolving from a different animal. And if evolution is true what was the first animal and what did it evolve from?
From Wikipedia's article on Abiogenesis (The non-biological origins (of biota))

"Or so, on theoretical principles, it would seem. [that it is impossible to create complexity out of entropy, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics] But both biological theory and experimental evidence soon suggested otherwise. First the theory: In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", demonstrated that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then "grow" by fusion with other droplets, "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, and those that don't become extinct. Around the same time J.B.S Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. The second law [of thermodynamics] had been breached."

Invariably, when left in sunlight, amino acids eventually form into Ribonucleic Acid, or RNA. In the young earth, RNA floated over and under the sea, and often joined. More often than not they broke apart, but certain combinations had catalytic effects. The more they joined the better they survived instead of breaking down into amino acids again. This made for a kind of primitive natural selection. Water can break down RNA into Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) and more complex proteins. These attract Carbohydrates and lipids, over time. Obviously, the ones that don't complexify. DNA, proteins and carbohydrates are the molecular makeup of all living things on earth.

Can't wait for you guys to ignore this or call RNA origin "stupid".
QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 8 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]1129729[/snapback]

QUOTE(verruckt @ Apr 8 2006, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1129605[/snapback]

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Apr 7 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]1129210[/snapback]

Pretty cool isn't it?

Kinda shows that the evidence is out there. When will the fundamentalist christians stop talking rubbish and look at the REAL proof of what has happened in Earth's history?!?!

They also found a rat type animal this week that they thought went extinct millions of years ago and is pretty much a living fossil. Apparently more common than you might think as well.

Maybe because there's no actual proof that this thing evolved? Animals are born certain ways without evolving from a different animal. And if evolution is true what was the first animal and what did it evolve from?

Exactly. That's the question they stay away from.
So you just skipped gingergenius' post? Oh well, mine's better.

-------------------------------


For anyone who's not too stubborn, and just doesn't believe in evolution because they don't see how it can happen, try here.

For the sake of mankind, tell me you all believe in microevolution - ie small scale evolution, often a carried mutation over a dominant gene. If not, anyone with an interest in science might as well leave the topic, seeing as there's not going to be any in here.

-------------------------------


If you want living monkey men fido, it's not happening. That's not how things work. But Homo erectus and it's as yet unnamed Ethiopian transitional form are closer to us than chimpanzees.

And I think it's 97.2% OPx v_v
Fido 14
QUOTE
If you want living monkey men fido, it's not happening. That's not how things work. But Homo erectus and it's as yet unnamed Ethiopian transitional form are closer to us than chimpanzees.

And I think it's 97.2% OPx v_v


But you need to find the remains of the missing link between primates and humans in order to prove we evolved from primates. I didn't even attack anything in this thread. All I said is that it was great news and now all they have to do is find the missing link between primates and humans. After all, it is what's needed to prove the evolution between primates and humans 100%.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Read up on homo erectus and see if that does anthing for you.

Homo heidelbergensis is a transition between homo erectus and chimpanzees.

The unnamed Ethiopian Homo-genus is a transition between homo erectus and homo sapiens.

So there are 3 transitions between chimps and humands.

Chimpanzee ---> Homo Heidelbergensis ----> Homo erectus ---> Ethiopian specimen ---> Homo Sapiens.
Fido 14
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 8 2006, 09:02 PM) [snapback]1129881[/snapback]

Read up on homo erectus and see if that does anthing for you.

Homo heidelbergensis is a transition between homo erectus and chimpanzees.

The unnamed Ethiopian Homo-genus is a transition between homo erectus and homo sapiens.

So there are 3 transitions between chimps and humands.

Chimpanzee ---> Homo Heidelbergensis ----> Homo erectus ---> Ethiopian specimen ---> Homo Sapiens.


You do realize that you need to find the remains of the missing link between primates and humans so you can prove our evolution to be correct. Its still called a THEORY for a reason, you know? Its not a fact or a law. Once they find the remains of the missing link between primates and humans, then they can call it fact or law.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
No they can't, that's a tiny missing link. Miniscule, pointless in the grander scale of things. There are more important ones.

I still don't see why those three transitional forms don't count in your book, though.
Fido 14
Hey listen, what's your problem? I'm sure if they can find the missing link between sea and land then they can find the missing link between primates and humans? Is that so much to ask for? Do you not have enough faith in your scientists?
OptimumPx
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 8 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]1129854[/snapback]

And I think it's 97.2% OPx v_v

Thats what I thought too, but I looked it up, and a recent science article had dropped it down to 95% are a full review of the DNA
QUOTE(Fido 14 @ Apr 8 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]1129887[/snapback]

Hey listen, what's your problem? I'm sure if they can find the missing link between sea and land then they can find the missing link between primates and humans? Is that so much to ask for? Do you not have enough faith in your scientists?

They have to hunt it down, and dig it up. You can't just snap your fingers and have all the answers. sleep.gif
Fido 14
QUOTE
They have to hunt it down, and dig it up. You can't just snap your fingers and have all the answers.


Well of course. But the way mello yello is reacting is as if they could never find the missing link between primates and humans.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Or I'm repeating over and over that they've found 3 transitional forms. What are they looking for if not that?
Fido 14
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 8 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]1129893[/snapback]

Or I'm repeating over and over that they've found 3 transitional forms. What are they looking for if not that?


What are you talking about? All I said from the beginning is good for them and that they should try harder to find the missing link between primates and humans now. What's so wrong about my statement? I'll believe that we evolved from primates when they find the missing link between primates and humans. Just as I now believe the evolution between sea animals and land animals.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
...Am I speaking French or something?

Homo sapiens = MANKIND.
Chimpanzee = MONKEY

Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo erectus and the Ethiopian specimen = transitional forms between man and monkey.
Fido 14
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 8 2006, 10:57 PM) [snapback]1129912[/snapback]

...Am I speaking French or something?

Homo sapiens = MANKIND.
Chimpanzee = MONKEY

Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo erectus and the Ethiopian specimen = transitional forms between man and monkey.


Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens were totally different. There's a difference in cranial size and facial angle if you look at pictures on their skulls. You still need the missing link to prove that we evolved from primates. How hard is that to understand?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
That's what the unnamed Ethiopian specimen is about, it's a transitional form between H. erectus and H. sapiens.
Fido 14
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 8 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]1129923[/snapback]

That's what the unnamed Ethiopian specimen is about, it's a transitional form between H. erectus and H. sapiens.


And you need the missing link between primates and humans to prove it. So what exactly is your point if you don't have the solid evidence that proves the evolution between humans and primates sufficient? Are you trying to say that you have the missing link lying on your desk? If so, please take pictures of it so the whole world can be amazed.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Nah, I'm saying a group of Japanese and American scientists digging in Ethiopia have the skeleton of your beloved missing link =/
Fido 14
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 9 2006, 12:19 AM) [snapback]1129939[/snapback]

Nah, I'm saying a group of Japanese and American scientists digging in Ethiopia have the skeleton of your beloved missing link =/


The missing link between humans and primates hasn't been found yet. Thus, you are wrong.
Lord Steve0
Fido nobody knows what the missing link will look like.

It could well have the exact cranial size as both errectus and sapien, there is no way of knowing.
So to say that what skeletons we have already found don't prove anything is ignoring the evidence.

We have current humans, and we have older homo skeletons. Both are extremely similar, therefore it's sensible to assuem that we are pretty closely linked in the evolutionary scale of things.

Likewise, we have the older homo skeletons and those of older apes, both are similar. So you could easily draw the conclusion that we are closely related to these apes too. Actual 100% proof has not been found yet, yes. But looking at the evidence it is sensible to assume we are very closely related to apes.

If we are not related to apes, then where exactly did humans come from? We didn't just spring up from thin air or holes in the ground.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
All powerful creator rolleyes.gif

It's stupid to say that, considering all but the most stubborn creationist scientists accept evolution now, although some disagree with the hypothesis that it could have happened unguided.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 8 2006, 05:54 PM) [snapback]1129854[/snapback]

For anyone who's not too stubborn, and just doesn't believe in evolution because they don't see how it can happen, try here.

For the sake of mankind, tell me you all believe in microevolution - ie small scale evolution, often a carried mutation over a dominant gene. If not, anyone with an interest in science might as well leave the topic, seeing as there's not going to be any in here.

-------------------------------


If you want living monkey men fido, it's not happening. That's not how things work. But Homo erectus and it's as yet unnamed Ethiopian transitional form are closer to us than chimpanzees.

And I think it's 97.2% OPx v_v

Micro and macroevolution are pretty much a given, so indeed, one has to believe at least that...
NCP
Missing link:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/06..._unertanfrm.htm
gingergenius
@ fido

look in any prehistory book and you'll see a diagram of a monkey. emerging from the monkey, slowly going onto two feet are less and less hairy species all the way till you get to homo sapiens sapiens - us. these species are the "missing link". scientists didnt just invent them, they were found in the same way archaeologists fount bones of t-rex and called it t-rex, and were able to determine what it looked like.

below is a family tree showing where humans evolved from. google their names to find out more about them but a. ramidus was the first primate to walk on 2 legs (of our ancestors it was a. anamensis). homo habilis was the first to use tools and had a primitive form of speech. homo erectus was the first primate to move into europe, and began to use fire as well as more complex tools. h. heidelbergensis could control fire. although we are not directly related, the neanderthals were able to use complex speech, developed clothes and culture including faith, and used fire for heat and cooking. homo sapiens also evolved from heidelburgensis, and had similar levels of technology. h. sapiens sapiens is what we are and we evolved about 120 000 years ago. by 30 000 years ago, we were the last 'homo' species. while neanderthals lived long enough to see modern man evolve, it is thought that we were the more adaptable and therefore survived.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
May I point out that evolution can't actually "go backwards" because there's no intended end result.

In other news: Orang-Utans in Sumatra, Indonesia are having communal lessons: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1749987,00.html
NCP
No, but that Turkish family probably misses the gen to stand up straight, so this could be the chance to find the gen.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Yeah I suppose. Or it could just be that they don't learn. People still have to be taught to walk.
NCP
True, but researchers think it's a kind of syndrome. They're still researching it, so if they'll find something interesting, we'll hear about it.
Fido 14
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 10 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]1130878[/snapback]

@ fido

look in any prehistory book and you'll see a diagram of a monkey. emerging from the monkey, slowly going onto two feet are less and less hairy species all the way till you get to homo sapiens sapiens - us. these species are the "missing link". scientists didnt just invent them, they were found in the same way archaeologists fount bones of t-rex and called it t-rex, and were able to determine what it looked like.

below is a family tree showing where humans evolved from. google their names to find out more about them but a. ramidus was the first primate to walk on 2 legs (of our ancestors it was a. anamensis). homo habilis was the first to use tools and had a primitive form of speech. homo erectus was the first primate to move into europe, and began to use fire as well as more complex tools. h. heidelbergensis could control fire. although we are not directly related, the neanderthals were able to use complex speech, developed clothes and culture including faith, and used fire for heat and cooking. homo sapiens also evolved from heidelburgensis, and had similar levels of technology. h. sapiens sapiens is what we are and we evolved about 120 000 years ago. by 30 000 years ago, we were the last 'homo' species. while neanderthals lived long enough to see modern man evolve, it is thought that we were the more adaptable and therefore survived.


You need the missing link to prove it 100% and even evolutionists won't deny that.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Fido, I don't think you get it: Finding a definate "missing link" between primates and humans would NOT prove evolution 100%. It'd just make the theory even more solid. But, considering they found a perfect link tomorrow, there'd still be no proof (because macroevolution can't be seen to happen) and there'd still be gaps in the fossil record.
DeKo
right, so let me get straight what fido is saying, evolution on earth evolved right up to this ethiopian skeleton, then stopped and died off, and god made us.

evolution is the only logical explanation. theres a lot more proof and a lot more believable that a magical guy up in the sky just making a couple of humans one day... im not saying i dont believe in god, i believe that theres some sort of god, that just isnt as powerful as somebody makes out... but come on, evolution is a lot more logical.

if you would stop looking at everything with such a 1 sided view of things, you cant see anything that doesnt agree with what you believe, e.g. all this topic mello has been giving you your "missing link" and you just deny it and say you need one.. wtf?

i seriously still think fido is just having a laugh with us all.. he must be
Fido 14
QUOTE
all this topic mello has been giving you your "missing link" and you just deny it and say you need one.. wtf?


They found the missing link? Sorry, but it would be universal news by now and evolution would be taught as a definite fact everywhere. Ethiopian skeletons don't mean anything. It certainly doesn't prove that we came out of Africa. I'll use the evolution logic with you now. According to evolution, it is possible for a group of people to migrate to another nation that is tremendously far away. According to evolution, this is possible because that group of people can do this by a slow process. By moving to one region and to another and by surviving through the food in those regions. Then when those group of people die off due to old age, then their children can accomplish their journey to the tremendously far nation, and it goes on that way until they settle down for good. By this evolution logic, it means that people could have migrated to Africa. So we will never know which continent these first people came from.
gingergenius
wtf?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Fido, if the link between humans and primates was found, that wouldn't make evolution law.

And I agree with gingergenius o.O
Fido 14
QUOTE
Fido, if the link between humans and primates was found, that wouldn't make evolution law.


Yes it would because it would prove evolution happened.

QUOTE
wtf?


What do you mean? I just used evolution logic with you.
OptimumPx
QUOTE(CNN.com)
Fossil connects human evolution dots

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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."
Source
Fido 14
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Apr 12 2006, 08:40 PM) [snapback]1132404[/snapback]

QUOTE(CNN.com)
Fossil connects human evolution dots

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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."
Source


I can simply refute that with your own evolution logic as I explained last page about the migration process.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
...No, you just spoke bullshit and claimed that's what we're saying.
Fido 14
QUOTE(mello_yello @ Apr 12 2006, 09:24 PM) [snapback]1132441[/snapback]

...No, you just spoke bullshit and claimed that's what we're saying.


Never said you said it. I said that its part of the evolution logic. If you don't know about this migration process then you obviously don't know anything in what you believe in. But if you really do insist that the migration process is bullshit then I guess you believe that evolution is bullshit.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(Fido 14 @ Apr 12 2006, 10:55 AM) [snapback]1132147[/snapback]

QUOTE
all this topic mello has been giving you your "missing link" and you just deny it and say you need one.. wtf?


They found the missing link? Sorry, but it would be universal news by now and evolution would be taught as a definite fact everywhere. Ethiopian skeletons don't mean anything. It certainly doesn't prove that we came out of Africa. I'll use the evolution logic with you now. According to evolution, it is possible for a group of people to migrate to another nation that is tremendously far away. According to evolution, this is possible because that group of people can do this by a slow process. By moving to one region and to another and by surviving through the food in those regions. Then when those group of people die off due to old age, then their children can accomplish their journey to the tremendously far nation, and it goes on that way until they settle down for good. By this evolution logic, it means that people could have migrated to Africa. So we will never know which continent these first people came from.

For beginners, a fact in science is defined as "a widely accepted observation; something believed to be true or real". In that sense, then evolution is technically a fact...

Next, you're "evolution logic" forgot the ages of specimens. The oldest remains have all been found in Africa (Australopithicus like afarensus and early Homos like habilis), the newer in the surrounding areas (Homos like erectus and neandertalensis). If you really are studying anthropology, you cannot argue that common sense says that they therefore came out of Africa rather than in. If they migrated into it, the oldest remains would have been found in Europe and Asia and the newest in Africa.
Fido 14
QUOTE
Next, you're "evolution logic" forgot the ages of specimens. The oldest remains have all been found in Africa (Australopithicus like afarensus and early Homos like habilis), the newer in the surrounding areas (Homos like erectus and neandertalensis). If you really are studying anthropology, you cannot argue that common sense says that they therefore came out of Africa rather than in. If they migrated into it, the oldest remains would have been found in Europe and Asia and the newest in Africa.


It was you whom I got this migration stuff from since you said before that its part of the evolution theory. Which explains how people traveled all the way from Africa to other continents and surviving. What I'm saying is that you don't know that Africa was the first continent that people migrated from. How do you not know that people might of migrated from some other continent and then came to Africa. Just because they found the oldest skeletons there doesn't mean nothing since the evolution logic says that migration to great lengths of the world is possible. For all we know, the oldest skeletons might be in Antarctica or some other continent. That's why it is false to say that we came out of Africa. The evolution logic supports me as well.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Evidence points to early humans emerging from Africa, but it's irrelevant to the overall argument.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.