E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Anthropologists say they have discovered the 3.6 million-year-old partial skeleton of a creature that came from the same species as Lucy, but was 400,000 years older and at least as good at walking upright. Their analysis suggests that upright walking, the trademark trait for humans and their extinct kin, goes back further in time than some might have assumed.
This skeleton, described in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has a much longer name than Lucy: It was dubbed Kadanuumuu, which means "big man" in Ethiopia's Afar language. Like the 3.3 million-year-old Lucy skeleton, Kadanuumuu was found in the East African country's Afar region, and shares the species name Australopithecus afarensis.
Australopiths are fossil species that share some traits with chimpanzees - for instance, protruding faces and small brains - but share other traits with humans. Most importantly, their skeletons appear to have been built for upright walking. Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson, who discovered Lucy back in 1974, said the latest discovery adds to a "treasure trove" of hundreds of australopith fossils from East Africa.
"It's like the El Dorado of paleoanthropology," he told me.
Piecing together the evidence
The first bone of Kadanuumuu's skeleton was found in 2005 in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar region, about 30 miles north of where Lucy was discovered. Over the three years that followed, more than 30 additional bones were unearthed and pieced together for analysis.
CMNH / PNAS
Elements of the partial australopith skeleton known as Kadanuumuu are arranged here anatomically.
The head of the research team, Yohannes Haile-Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, told me that Kadanuumuu's skeleton was clearly made for walking, based on measurements of bones including the limbs, clavicle and shoulder blade, the rib cage and the pelvis. In fact, its arrangement was better-suited for upright walking than Lucy's, even though it came from an earlier time in evolutionary history. The key measurement indicated that Kadanuumuu's lower limbs were more elongated than Lucy's - which would make walking easier.
When Lucy was found, scientists thought her species was in the midst of a transition from tree-climbing to upright walking, but Kadanuumuu's larger skeleton suggests that the transition was already made hundreds of thousands of years earlier. (Haile-Selassie and his colleagues assume that Kadanuumuu was male, based on his size as well as the configuration of his pelvis.)
"There is good grounds that advanced humanlike walking actually evolved long before people thought," Haile-Selassie said.
So why did Lucy seem less-suited for upright walking? Haile-Selassie says it's because she was exceptionally small. Over the past 35 years, other specimens of Australopithecus afarensis have been found that suggested a body size larger than Lucy, and even larger than Kadanuumuu. "This individual is among the largest, but not the largest of all the specimens that we've found so far," Haile-Selassie said.
Kadanuumuu is thought to have stood 5 to 5½ feet tall, while Lucy stood only 3½ feet tall. That's not unusual: Anthropologists have found that A. afarensis exhibited significant size differences between the male and the female of the species, a quality known as sexual dimorphism. The diminutive stature of Lucy, which is still the most complete australopith skeleton found to date, may have initially led some scientists down the wrong path, Haile-Selassie said. "Most of the misinterpretations were largely based on the size of Lucy and her sex," he told me.
Findings fit in with ancient footprints
If the conclusions made by Haile-Selassie and his colleagues are correct, the saga of how we became human is much more ancient than some might have thought. But in fact, the conclusions are consistent with another famous find, the 1976 discovery of the Laetoli footprints in Tanzania. Those prints, which were preserved in volcanic ash 3.6 million years ago, led scientists to suggest that upright walking was mastered well before Lucy's time. "What we have now is the skeletal evidence to complement those footprints," Haile-Selassie said.
Johanson agreed. "This supports much of what we've known before" about the ability of australopiths to walk upright, he told me. He's not fully convinced, however, that Kadanuumuu was significantly better-built for walking than Lucy was. "I'm not quite sure they really have enough to say that the lower limb is elongated," he said.
All this could lead anthropologists to look further back for the origins of upright walking. Perhaps Australopithecus anamensis, which lived in East Africa between 4.2 million and 3.9 million years ago, was the species that picked up the trick. Perhaps it all started with Ardipithecus ramidus, which is thought to have split its time between the trees and the ground in Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago (though there's some controversy over that claim).
That doesn't mean Australopithecus afarensis is out of the spotlight when it comes to studying human origins. Johanson said Lucy and her kin provide an "important reference for assessing other hominid species," in large part because so many specimens have been found over such a wide span of evolutionary time. Going forward, paleoanthropologists may well turn to Lucy, Kadanuumuu and other members of the species to unravel the deeper secrets of ancient human development.
"You can begin to look at the minutiae of microevolution over time," Johanson said, "which is where we're heading."
More on the human origin story:
- Cleveland Museum of Natural History: All about Lucy's great-grandfather
- Cleveland Plain Dealer: Human ancestors walked 3.6 million years ago
- National Science Foundation: Famed hominid Lucy no longer alone
- CMNH video: Yohannes Haile-Selassie recounts the discovery
- Neanderthal DNA lives on ... in some of us
- Fossils shake up our family tree
- Science star of the year: Ardi
- Lessons from Lucy
In addition to Haile-Selassie, the authors of "An Early Australopithecus Afarensis Postcranium From Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia" include Bruce M. Latimer, Mulugeta Alene, Alan L. Deino, Luis Gilbert, Stephanie M. Melillo, Beverly Z. Saylor, Gary R. Scott and C. Owen Lovejoy.
This report was last updated at 9 p.m. ET.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
3.6 million years, then only 50,000 years ago we went to a some-what civilized societiy with written language, and 50,000 years later the moon. Some religion(s) says the the earth was created 50,000 years ago. If you inject the ALIEN influence rather that a god, to have change the planet, then the answers fall into place.
alientology.com is an available site for sale.
You know the problem with DNA is that its like lego blocks. Each piece has a certain size and use and there are only so many of them, so of course we're going to share DNA with other species. It amazes me that scientist think that because two species just happen to be using the same blocks it makes them relatives. There are plenty of humans on this planet who share DNA with me but they are not my relatives, just the same species. And I wonder if these scientist have considered the possibility that maybe Lucy is a CHILD and that's why she smaller and doesn't walk so well. What exactly makes them sure she's an adult like this new specimen.
Are you for real?! "Great-grandfather" is a reference to the fact that he is an older skeleton (ancestor) of the skeleton Lucy.
No matter which theory you subscribe to, Adam & Eve or evolutionary Adam and Eve we all have a common ancestor
A lot of languages have the same letters too, but we can tell by the words which ones are more closely related. Your analogy of legos is a far cry from being an accurate representation of how DNA works. Scientists can tell if an animal is an adult or not by looking at the growth plates in the bones. It is very easy to tell adults from children if you have a little bit of experience and knowledge. You obviously need a little more of both.
its so stange that we find many of the same dinosaur skeletal remains but only one,partial remains of a monkey and right away evolutionist want to claim that tha is thier granddad,well maybe its his but not mine. I have a creator,a Father in heaven who made man(me,you,us)in His image.Sounds like they are reaching for anything,get a handle on this He loves you so much He sent his son to sacrafice His life on a cross for you "so that NONE should perish" but MATT 10:34 and wide is the road to destruction and MANY will fall into the devils snare.
I hope he doesn't have your small member
Sure seems like a lot have been perishing.
Hmmm, I find it perplexing why someone so wrapped up in religious beliefs would come to a science blog to post. I wouldn't dream of going to a religious site to post that those beliefs are a bunch of nonsense. If you believe in the idea of some supernatural being no amount of logic will ever apply - and it makes more sense to spit into the wind than to argue about it. To each their own...
Stop right there. First, please stop with the monkey business (ha ha! who says atheists don't have a sense of humor), it really shows you don't understand evolutionary biology. Secondly, this is not a hard problem to solve. Dinosaurs (of various shapes and sizes) were around for 10's of millions of years, whereas humans and their ancestors have been around for less than 10 (probably closer to 5). Simple statistics will tell you that the odds of finding human ancestor remains are much smaller than finding those of dinosaurs. We have nowhere close to a complete picture of the dinosaur fossil record, so the odds of having anything resembling a complete human evolutionary track is incredibly low. What this means is that every new discovery helps to add to that picture, bringing us closer to truely understanding where we came from. The bible gives us none of this, I mean have you actually READ the thing? There are no answers in there, just a bunch of swiss cheese stories from bronze age minds. Try something other than fairy tales for a change you may actually learn something.
A) Prove it.
B) There is a spell check, use it.
C) Put down the damn bible and pick up a book on basic science. Time to join the rest of the world.
The scientists are pulling at straws?! With physical evidence? And they are the incorrect ones? Over your belief in what a book says?! A book written by a superstitious, archaic group of MEN? Human Men!
one-1378317
its so stange that we find many of the same dinosaur skeletal remains but only one,partial remains of a monkey and right away evolutionist want to claim that tha is thier granddad,well maybe its his but not mine. I have a creator,a Father in heaven who made man(me,you,us)in His image.Sounds like they are reaching for anything,get a handle on this He loves you so much He sent his son to sacrafice His life on a cross for you "so that NONE should perish" but MATT 10:34 and wide is the road to destruction and MANY will fall into the devils snare.
AMEN!
Mr. Frost,
When will you open your eyes? You cant judge the age of the rock by the bone that is in it, and then judge the age of the bone by the rock it is in. That is called "Circular Reasoning." I was at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC when a 7 year old little girl stumped a Ph.D. Scientist over the age of "lucy" with that very question. He got red faced and cut off his interview. That was actually pretty funny. Multiple surveys say YOU are in the vast minority who believe in evolution.
Here are a couple links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution.html
Chris, you have any old news articles or a link on the world being the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it... maybe something on the earth being flat? Just because people believe in something doesn't make it truth.
monkey - "Just because people believe in something doesn't make it truth." A Christian could say the same thing to a secular scientist. And yes, there are many many more Bible believing PhDs and professors (even from secular institutions) than you'd probably like to believe.
It's a shame the dumming down of America is all over the rise of the religious right and their quest to find voters who are trained to blindly follow.
Can we have a real conversation now?
There are literally hundreds of dinosaur species that we only have a smattering of bones for, less in fact than we do for hominid lineages. Where do people get the idea that we have a complete history for all dinosaurs? And how in the world do you people miss the obvious - that the dinosaurs that we do have very complete records for are HUGE. Which is going to last the longest, some tiny little hominid bones that are going to be scattered to the wind and scavenged, or a gargantuan dino skeleton that nothing can carry off and scatter? Do a little bit of thinking before you guys come up with your "evidence."
Except that the secular scientist usually has testable evidence that he can call upon to support his beliefs. There are more pages of original scientific evidence than there are original religious texts in existence. All of it is supported by hard, testable facts that anyone can go out and test for themselves to verify.
Faith is belief without knowledge.
Science is belief through knowledge.
Rock with bone in it? WTF? Um, rock doesn't have bone in it, bone TURNS to stone over millions of years, just like the mud or whatever is around it. Ever heard the term carbon dating? Didn't think so.
Multiple surveys? Show me one that isn't sponsored by a church that says the majority of the world believes that evolution is crap. Ya know what, don't try, it's a waste of time, and you know it.
Chris 1906510: "When will you open your eyes? You cant judge the age of the rock by the bone that is in it, and then judge the age of the bone by the rock it is in"
No, that is not what they do. Again, if you don't even know what scientists do, how can you be so sure they are doing it wrong? We know the answer to that of course: because either the scientists are wrong, or Genesis is wrong, and you made that decision long ago.
If it walks like a human, has a ribcage like a human, is the height of a human, and has the proportions of a human, then why isn't it homo sapien? The article prefaces that Australopiths are distinguished from humans by their protruding facial structures and smaller brain, but the picture of 'Kada' very clearly shows that these scientists have no skull to base their classification off of. They make up rules for classification and then cant even follow their own guidelines. They make conclusions and mold the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notions.
Here is a strange story:
God is perfect. God was all alone and decided to create the world. Why we don't know but some say that he was bored. He created a perfect world with Adam and Eve. But before that he introduced the devil to the world and thus the world is now no longer perfect. God's only way to fix this was to send his son to earth as human and be crucified taking on the sin the world. We don't really understand why this was necessary since God is all good and all powerful but that is because we just are too stupid to understand these kinds of things. We also don't understand why it is necessary for God's creatures to have to kill each other, suffer and die since he is all good and all powerful. But again it is because we are just too stupid to understand.
The other possibility could be that it is just nature and nature can change over time and we know this because we can see it. No way that is a preposterous idea.
Amen!
Bell,
FIrst, the gospel according to bellingham isn't really synonomous with the Biblical account. secondly - Yes, things change over time - but at what rates and with what original conditions? that is something that you Can't tell me. You can't tell me the carbon levels in the atmosphere 4000 years ago. the present is not always the key to the past. Besides - nobody can say the've 'seen' "singularity" yet - cosmologists cling to it. That's not even science.
I hope you aren't saying you believe the world is 4000 years old!!
A literal interpretation of the Bible puts the Earth somewhere around 6000 years old. This was the prevailing view until Charles Lyell decided that because an imperical study of erosion in a river bed only errodes X amount in a year - it must have taken MILLIONS of years (back when it was millions) for these things to happen. Not taking into account any super-natural processes. We've seen evidence today in Mt. St. Helens as well as Box Canyon and the Scablands in eastern Washington. Here we see huge canyons carved in a matter of days - with rock-layers that were thought to be millions of years old for many years - until more evidence proved them wrong. Long ages of the earth have only been around since the early-mid 1800's and they're all based on a couple anti-God scientists interpretation of the same evidence that can prove them wrong using a different set of presuppositions.
yes we can.
We also know the Earth is older than 6,000 yrs not only because of some erosion in a river bed, but because of the rate of deposition of the miles of sediment and the different layers in the rock. Couple that to about a dozen cross referenced and independently calibrated radioisotope techniques, along with the known rates of mineral formation, I think we have a better handle on things than the bible does thanks. Where do you get the notion that every single person who ever suggested something that wasn't accounted for in the bible must have been anti-god?! Sounds a little defensive and paranoid. If god truly is as vengeful as some suggest then why doesn't he do his defending himself?
You should try reading a second book when your all through with that bible.
Here is a list:
Just to point out if God was perfect and all knowing why couldn’t he just say hey, all you need to do from now on is pray to me for forgiveness (which is what you do now that Jesus died on the cross right?)
Yeah, that's a bummer--just going through the motions of trying to be good, only to end up burning in hell. Why bother?
"God" is in some people's minds (literally). Read about the God helmet and see how if it stimulated, a certain part of the brain produces delusion, illusions, etc.
It's sad that a person has to keep themselves in check with religion, in order to try and do the right thing.
There is another possibility. If you were to read a little and study what the bible says rather than taking some mass religions take on how to get your money. Its like this. God made adam and eve perfect. with free will. Satan was an angel who defied god wanting to be worshipped himself. Again he had free will. God did not introduce satan into the world. When Satan defied god and lied to eve, that she would be like god and would not die at all and eve fell for it, then adam fell for his wife eating the fruit that was the only thing god had said not to eat. As a test of loyalty and love to god, eve and adam failed. This brought into question gods right to rule manknd. As a perfect, all powerful being he simply could not wipe out every one who knew that he was defied by satan eve and adam. So this perfect all powerful god who also applies pefect justice and fairnes, allowed eve, adam and satan try to rule them selves. But as that loving god, he provided a ransom, a pefect man who was sinless, a perfect balanced ransom to allow those men who wanted to be ruled by god and not men a chance to live as go intended from the begining.
so instead of being sarcastic, try to research the truth about the matter before taking someone eles word for it. Not eveybody is stupid, only the ones who dont to their homework be fore shooting off thier mouth
Let me throw a theory at you. Religion was invented to ease peoples fear of dying. It made it alot easier thinking they had everlasting life and not 30,40,50, 60 etc years on this earth and that is all. What drives me craziest is when a child is raped or dies in an accident and they justify it by saying that it is gods will, or someone escapes death and it is gods will. Isnt that perfect if things go right or wrong they have the same answer.
If he only created Adam and Eve, then there was alot of incest going on?
IDIOT,
And God created us all, right! Open your eyes and brain and see around you. If there were a God he would have destroyed us centuries ago because of idiots like you.
And did he create Chastity and Billie Jean? What about Rock and Liberace?
Actually I think that's what inbreeding will do? Messes up the genetics? Whatcha think?
"Al"
Your post is filled with all kinds of assumptions. First of all - there are plenty of secular scientists that don't agree with Each Other when it comes to evolutionary biology (other than God is not involved). You then say that Dinosaurs were around for "10's of millions of years" based on the uniformiatrian assumption that only present-day rates and processes can account for the apparent age of the Earth. If there were 5 MILLION years of human ancestry we would practically stumbling over fossils and bones all the time. Look at the global population growth in just our short amount of recorded history. We're at 6.8 billion now with an estimated 9 billion by 2040. and yet, you believe there has been 5 MILLION years of human evolution?? Talk about simple statistics. You're using 'origins science' to answer a history question. Origins science can't be tested or observed. The Bible on the other hand has been proven over and over again to be historically and archeologically acurate. And, yes i HAVE read the thing - have you? =) I'd be more than happy to answer any of your 'swiss cheese' prolems with the Bible. Ask away.
By what means was the Bible proven to be archeologically accurate. Science. Of course when it is proven inaccurate through science it doesn't count. Here is a question. If the world was flooded how did the kangaroos get to Australia and not exist in Africa where the Ark ended up.
Bell,
here are a few Biblical sites that have been discovered:
The Pool of Siloam (John 9:7) excavated in 2005 in Jerusalem.
Tomb of Caiaphas - discovered in 1990 - (see Matthew 26:3,57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13,14,24,28).
The Capernaum Synagoge
These are just a few - just do a google search - you'll find all kinds of archeological discoveries - even by secular sources such as Nat. Geo.
As far as kangaroos go, why do you say kangaroos did not exist in Africa?? Let me guess, because a fossil has yet to turn up? I believe that during the flood, the Earth experienced a huge shift in plate techtonics as austrailia broke away from pangia.
Nice try, but no dice. Only a very small percentage of bones end up in the correct environment for fossilization, it's not like everyone or everything that has died ends up as fossils. An even smaller percentage of these bones remain in a state where they can be recovered. Math and science still wins, but you get an "A" for effort. It blows my mind that people have no critical thinking skills or are unwilling to do the proper research to come up with truely educated opinions. Please, put down the bible kool-aid and read some real books.
The bible archaeologically accurate...that's a joke right? Yeah, that global flood thing was a bummer wasn't it? Oh wait, there's 0 proof of that...darn. Tell me again, historically speaking, who was king during Jesus' death? If the bible is the word of god, why do several books contradict themselves about the same events? Who are these "others" that magically appeared outside of Eden and why were they older than Adam and Eve? Please, I'm much more versed in the bible than 90% of so called Christians. The bible is a terrible book full of rape and murder, and that was just what the "Christians" were doing!
Do I have to spell it out. You are using Archeology to prove that parts of the bible existed. Yet you will not accept the well understand science that proves that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion and humans evolved over millions of years. And yes the part of the bible that is inaccurate that says the stars were put up in the sky to shine upon the earth.
It's hard to know where to begin with your theory on the Kangaroos.
Ok, I'll ask: how many of your daughters have you sold into slavery? Exodus 21:7-11
Also, I hope you haven't commited adultry by marrying a divorced woman - Matthew 5:32b
As an archaeologist, I know that when archaeology's goal is to 'prove' a story, then it is flawed from the beginning. Objectivity is compromised when being interpreted by the archaeologists. Case in point - many sites in Israel, do prove the existence of buildings and events such as wars, it proves that some of the people and locations may have truly existed. It does NOT however prove that God exists, PERIOD.
The bible archaeologically accurate...that's a joke right? Yeah, that global flood thing was a bummer wasn't it? Oh wait, there's 0 proof of that...darn. Tell me again, historically speaking, who was king during Jesus' death? If the bible is the word of god, why do several books contradict themselves about the same events? Who are these "others" that magically appeared outside of Eden and why were they older than Adam and Eve? Please, I'm much more versed in the bible than 90% of so called Christians. The bible is a terrible book full of rape and murder, and that was just what the "Christians" were doing!
And God did not condone any of it! What about the fossil record in the Grand Canyon? Or the whale remains found in the Andes mountains, or the multitude of salt water fish fossils found in the great plains region, or ... should I keep going? There is a multitude of proof out there for a world wide flood. There are a LOT more things in the fossil record that are proven with a flood more easily than any evolutionary explanation.
Name the contradictions for me ... I would love to see the proof of any.
The date thing check out carbon dating. Not enough bones check out about decomposition and as far as the swiss cheese comment explain the Cain and Able thing to me.
And God did not condone any of it!
Not only did he condone it, he told his people to do it. Read about why Saul lost favor with God. It was because God told him to go kill all the living things including women and children in (Philistine?) I think and he refused.
Bell,
God shows in his word that if there are ANY shred of decency in a people - as he sent angels to save lot and his family from Soddom - and created an ark to save whoever would get on board - he will save them. but the passage you refer to were a horribly wicked people - sacraficing their babies to stone idols with burning arms that they would lay their babies into to deal with unwanted pregnancies due to rampant sexual immorality.
But let me ask you this - bell - in an evolutionary world - what do you care about this kind of behavior? it's all about survival of the fittest isnt it? what 'moral standard' do you adhere to that says killing is wrong? and why, especially if it increses survival chances?
Al - really you use a few archeological sites from the ancient world that are mentioned in the bible as a test of the bible's literal truth?! So just because they found some pool that was mentioned in some part of the bible, that alone proves that angels are among us?
I watch a lot of TV and in those shows I see real places that exist. Does that mean that all of those TV shows really happened and aren't fictional? By your logic they are all true.
With reasoning skills like that it is no wonder you found the first book you ever read as factual without ever questioning it.
You might want to give that story another read, didn't Lot give his daughters to the mob? And then didn't he get them pregnant? Talk about sexual immorality!
radagast - nope. you can give it another read though. Yes - lot offered them up - but the mob rejected them cause they wanted the angels. i'm not sure where you got your 'variation'.
I never said the mob took them. What does it matter? What kind of father offers his own flesh and blood as a trade in favor of some strangers? I'm not sure why or how you can defend those actions. If that happened today Lot would be put in jail for endangering minors.
THEN HE GOT THEM BOTH PREGNANT!
You have to say that I've got a point here. This is really indefensible, especially for someone who not just a few posts ago stated that Sodom was destroyed for sexual deviancy.
Rad - sorry i misread your post.
well, actually - the scripture goes like this:
He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
So - actually Lot was kind of out of the loop on that one. Was lot a perfect guy? far from it - but that goes to show you what was going on in soddom at the time.
Seems to me that Lot probably wrote that story. Hmm, if I was living in a cave after the destruction of all the cities in the region with no other people around -
1. where did I get the wine?
2. How could I be so drunk and be able to get it up without waking?
3. Twice?
4. If I came out of the desert with two pregnant daughters that I was willing to give to a mob, I would probably instruct them to say some pretty crazy stuff about what happened, including that my wife mysteriously died by magic. Most likely he killed her when she tried to stop him from raping their daughters. What can I say I'm a pessimist.
5. The fact that they did eventually get to civilization makes me think the girls probably wouldn't be so quick to jump the old man's bones simply to procreate. I think they could've waited a little bit.
6. If it walks like an incestuous pedaphile...I mean ask yourself if you would believe that story if it happened a few months ago outside Pheonix instead of simply being some pedaphile's own account that made its way into a holy text.
Back when the Bible was written, Rad, this is what some people did, and people then would believe this stuff. The amazing thing is that even with our enlightenment today, and the wonderous things science has learned, and the almost unbelievable things we can see now with telescopes and microscopes and slow-motion photography, and bathospheres that go to the bottom of the ocean, and rockets that go into space and to other worlds...some people refuse to open their eyes and see anything.
Someone on this forum pointed out whale bones on mountains and fish fossils in central plains, and claimed it as proof of 'the great Biblical flood'. Well that, along with accompanying water erosion over millions of years, proves to me that the scientists are right when they say it was from the beginnings of the world when it was almost entirely covered by water, and the mountains and plains were under the sea. I guess that's how they 'prove' their Bible...leave out a crucial part of the evidence and twist what's left to make their case. And then they cry when they're ridiculed and scream 'But that's what God said!' But what they think God said is actually what some scumbag old men said to scare people of that era into supporting them and doing their dirty work for them, and giving them 10% of everything they owned. Hey, kinda what the church does today!
Mekinism;
So you just assume a steady rate of population growth with no interruption? Like the black death and other diseases. Or wars. And of course hunter-gatherers reproduced willy-nilly with no regards as to whether there was food enough to support the population. Hint: There wasn't. Let me use some real numbers: The population growth from 1000 to 1800 was aprox. 0.1227 percent per year. At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years. If you are going to try to use science to prove fairy tales you are going to lose every time.
Mekinism;
"Survival of the fittest" is a social-Darwinian phrase, not a biological evolutionary one, and was never used by Darwin.
the bible has been changed over the centuries to suit the needs of people in power also books were removed from the bible because some people didn't approve you have no idea what you are talking about
Mekinism,
Yes I am an atheist but I don't believe in killing innocent women and children as God supposedly told Saul to do. But you ask the question where I get my moral code. The question seems irrelevant to me. I was born without the desire to do such things. It seems like most people are...
You can choose to believe that nothing matters or everything matters. I choose the latter.
Chris-1906510 wrote:
“And God did not condone any of it! What about the fossil record in the Grand Canyon? Or the whale remains found in the Andes mountains, or the multitude of salt water fish fossils found in the great plains region, or ... should I keep going? There is a multitude of proof out there for a world wide flood. There are a LOT more things in the fossil record that are proven with a flood more easily than any evolutionary explanation.
Name the contradictions for me ... I would love to see the proof of any.”
You are joking right, you do know that the earth tectonic plates move right? That the plates collide and push up mountain ranges, so what was once under the ocean or under big lakes is pushed up thousands of feet? By your reasoning the earth is unchanging.
This doesn’t even take into effect erosion both wind and water which will cause soil and rock to be removed exposing fossils and other geological information.
You also do know about ice ages? The sea levels rise and fall that land is covered by oceans due to melting glacier ice, and oceans disappear by increased ice caps and glaciers.
And just to cut you off at the pass this takes hundreds if not thousands of years to happen it doesn’t happen overnight.
If you want to back up the bible you should pick up other books besides the bible.
This is such an amazing find and I am so happy that us (intellectuals) can truly appreciate this.
God/religion was invented to ease peoples fears of dying. People did not want to believe your time on earth was it, they needed everlasting life so death meant nothing. I going to be with my loved ones that went before me.My favorite is the all encompassing it was gods will for good things and bad things, If your God is all powerful and compassionate as you say then how could they allow a child to be raped and murdered. If this is your Gods will then you can have him.
Remember this a few weeks ago?
Only One Child Survived a Plane Crash in Libya
Miracle Dutch boy is the only one out of 100 people who lived.
If this was truly a miracle why was he the only survivor?
Steve, you're just inviting some Christian to come on here and psycho-babble some non-sensical point.
That's easy! Because god works in mysterious ways! lol!
As long as Science shows me proof. IE there is actual evidence then I shall follow science and evolution. Can you show me God? The Bible is not proof of this, so what else do you got?
This article was enlightening and I hope to hear more soon.
Why is it that Christians are the only religion that it's followers constantly babble about? Really, it's so old.
Your God did not write the stories in the bible...many different men did. And some say these men did so because they "heard" the word of God; well, today we have a medical term for that...schizophrenia-auditory hallucinations etc. The truth is the bible is a tool for social and mass mind control written by men to control mankind. Free yourselfs to see the science before you and try believing in that instead and the world will be a better place.
Point well taken about social and mass mind control. I believe that Jesus was probably a well intentioned person. It was Paul who made christianity popular who originally persecuted the Christians and never even met him. I think this is why Christianity became a form of controlling the masses and not a reverence to the individual and free will.
I only believe in anything that has good solid evidence to back it. I'm not an athiest or anything, but I do lean toward evolution. I mean In high school I had Mythology. Get the point?
Outstanding... Lucy has a relative to join her in this wonderful journey of expanding our mind, life and the Universe.
Bit-by-bit, we are advancing into our past and at some glorious day, we are going to find out just what we can do to hold true to ourselves and go forth on even more adventures.
I kinda like the UFO Science experiment Idea! LOL. Religion was created for one reason and one only! Control... If You prove them wrong they loose control!
You know what is funny to me is that people are trying really hard to connect the THEORY that man evolved from primate. But here is a more appropriate question in order to find the FACT on evolution..... If man evolved from primate, then why are there still primates roaming the earth?
Hope someone can shed some light to this question....LOL
It's called the missing link.... that link is GOD when he created sixth day man, out of primates.
First let me let out a big groan. UUUGGGHHHH!
Now to answer your question: We did not evolve from monkeys we share a distant common ancestor with apes. At some point in the past there existed a population of creatures that gave rise to two distinct populations - one would eventually give rise to man, the other eventually gave rise to chimps. Chimpanzees are our cousins and are just as evolved as we are. Evolution is not a directed or pre planned phenomenon. It doesn't go from one creature, neatly into some more advanced form, it simply describes the process of change. That change is not always into more complicated or more intelligent, or taller, bigger, faster creatures. That change does not rely on the elimination of the parent species. We cannot predict what forms there will be in the future. We can only understand the mechanisms of the process, which involves one part chance, one part environment, and for some one part sexual selection.
For the record and to head off your next question about fish giving birth to monkey frogs - no creature on the planet ever gave birth to a creature of a different species. I'm sure this will keep you up all night trying to figure how this can be true. Hint - look at your baby pictures and tell me if you still look the same. Now tell me if at any point in your life did you look drastically different than the day before? Not evolution, but a good analogy.
Seems to me there is a flaw in your hypothesis. Primates are primates. They were not selected to only a few to evolve and the rest not. If one species is to evolve then ALL would have evolved. Therefore, again I ask my question.
Here is an example of what I mean by ALL to have evolved. Take the giraffe. Back in pre-historic times, the giraffe had a very short neck. Over time the neck grew longer to what we see today. Mind you, ALL of the same species EVOLVED due to environmental adaptation.
That is not how evolution works however. In ancient times giraffes shared an ancestor with antelope. Some proto antelope specialized as browsers and some specialized as grazers. they occupied different niches and evolved away from each other. I think you are putting too many restrictions on what evolution is supposed to be. It isn't supposed to be anything, it is simply a process of change and that process isn't always orderly and neat and happening at similar rates in all species. There are a myriad of factors that influence evolution. Your suppositions do not jive with the reality.
As far as primates, I can assure you that 4.4 million years ago there were no gorillas and chimps. They evolved during the same time that we evolved, just down a different path. They have ancestors that predate them and further back we all have a common ancestor.
radagast,
If we all have a common ancestor, then what is it?
I understand evolution as being defined as: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Now again, Darwin's Theory is about how man (as we see him now) evolved from ape (primate). Hence Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Again, I ask my question... If man evolved from ape (primate) then WHY do they (primates) still roam the earth?
I have yet to see an answer to this question. All I see is psycho-babble.
Kitkat; I'll take your question as an honest one and not some religious bait. I'm not sure, it's just 'faith'.
Anyway, take dog breeders for example, which I am not one so I'm going to be generic here. They take Dog A and breed it with Dog B and, after lots of trial and error, end up with Dog AB. A was an extremely fast runner, B had a fabulous sense of smell. AB now had both, and became a superior hunter. Monkey A liked to search for food on the ground. Monkey B was pretty smart and had figured out how to use common objects as 'tools'. Monkey AB became real good at walking on the ground, and at figuring out how to 'solve problems' Dogs A & B didn't cease to exist, but Dog AB became a totally different breed. Same thing with Monkeys A & B. AB became us, a totally different breed. We got smarter, used tools, learned how to control fire (all other animals fear it, but we learned to use it). We learned to wear animal furs to keep us warm, therefore we lost most of our fur/hair, how to grow food, so we could settle down and live anywhere. With a few exceptions (sharks, crocodiles, etc.) all animals have changed over the millennium. Dogs have, Monkeys have, we have. As with dogs, new variations of animal species are being created every year, and I don't mean just by our intervention. We are essentially nothing more than a new species of monkey. (Yes, we're all primates, like all dogs are canines.)
People who read the Bible can't just remain ignorant and believe archaic things that we know today to be wrong or unbelievable. (The world is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the Universe, the sun does not revolve around the Earth.) I believe in God, but I also know I can't dispute the scientifically proven age of a rock or a star. I look at things this way; I don't believe man started with Adam and Eve, but however we discover that he started, I think God made it happen. There's room to accommodate both views, if some people don't go extremist over things that obviously can't be.
Thank you, Steve, for taking the time to shed some light in answering my question.
My question was a legitimate one with no religious undertones.
However, the fact still remains that there are still primates roaming the earth. Your answer was all about breeding and not a natural change like my example of the giraffe.
The giraffe changing over time is a true example of evolution. I believe Darwin was trying to use primates evolving into man. Again my question has not been completely answered.
Steve, so far you have given a good answer. :-)
Thanks for your respectful reply.
Actually, I research it after I posted because I wasn't positive about us and monkeys both being primates. Actually, technically, we are Hominidae, or hominids, which is called a 'superfamily' comprised of just us and apes. We, of course, evolved into what we are now, Homo Sapiens. The breeding aspect was just to show that we 'evolve' by breeding, but Dog A and Dog B don't always produce Dog AB. Sometimes they end up with three As, three Bs, and one little miraculous AB.
Think of the apes as As and Bs, and us as the miraculous little ABs. Then we bred with other ABs and eventually left our anscestors behind. But the very fact that we're here at all, let alone the dominate species on the planet and intelligent enough to question how we got here, I think had a greatest deal to do with God.
Hey Kitkat, I'll take a stab at it and bear with me since alittle bit more explanation is needed than what Steve provided.
First, I'd say you need to understand mutation (in the general sense). DNA as you know contains the blueprint for organism it is. It's the instruction manual for how it's created and operated. Now you don't need to know the exact mechanism on how it works, just suffice it to say that 4 different types of molecules (C, A, T, G) are strung together in such a way that it's meaningful. Think of it like our alphabet, we have 26 letters, depending on how you string them together, you can get Shakespeare, a birthday card, or what ever else.
To keep it simplistic, lets assume that in a certain gene and at a certain place in it you have 6 molecules that describe eye color (TTAGAC) and it's plain brown. When reproduction occurs, that sequence gets duplicated for the offspring and they too will have TTAGAC and brown eyes. Now, as robust as DNA is, it's not always duplicated exactly. Radiation or chemicals can get in the way of the duplication process or even change it prior to it. So one day, something happens (say gamma rays decided to join the fun) when reproduction occurs, and now the child has TTAGAA and sports some icy blue eyes. A mutation has occurred.
This is the basis for evolution. It's the change in genetic information due to continuous mutations. It can be as simple as C turning into A as in my example above, or it can be as huge as a chain of tens of thousands of molecules accidentally gets duplicated twice, instead of just once, and is now twice as long. Keep in mind not all mutations will work, but some will.
Now to your question. As I understand it, you want to know that as a species evolves, why doesn't it evolve as a whole into a single new species, instead of into several different ones. The key to the answer is that mutations happen on an individual basis and not on the species as a whole. So, if you have a species that gets separated from each other and no longer interbreed, mutations that are happening in one group may not be happening in the others. As time passes, the different mutations start to add up and one subgroup heads in one direction and another group in a totally different way.
To use Steve's dog analogy: Take the standard poodle. If all the poodles interbred with each other, then yes, the species as a whole will evolve together to whatever they end up being. But, if a breeder isolates select dogs, say the runts of the litters, and then their runts, and so on, you end up with toy or miniature poodles. (though this demonstrates gene dominance and not mutation per se, it's a decent enough analogy). Eventually the mutations become so great between different subgroups, that they are unable to interbreed anymore and become separate species.
So, at some point in the distant past, there was an apelike animal roaming around. Various subgroups formed and migrated to various areas. Each subgroup evolved in it's own way due to the mutations that it's specific members went through. Since those mutations don't have to occur across all the subgroups, each group moved in a separate direction. Eventually those groups evolved (with more separations) into the modern day animals that make up the primate group we see now.
I hope this helps out, if not, I can try to better explain it.
Mitchell
Mitchell and Steve, thanks for helping me out. Those are both very thoughtful answers with a lot of good detail and analogies, but I'm afraid the problem here is one of dogma. If Kitkat knows in her heart of hearts that evolution is:
Then she will continue to fail to grasp what we are trying to say. That's because this is in fact not what Darwin set out to prove. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection outlines how natural forces select for different traits and how that leads to speciation. His focus was not on mankind. Also this view of evolution:
Is incorrect. Evolution does not always produce more complex forms, it only produces forms that are better suited to a particular environment. It may be less complex and from our vantage point, without truly understanding its advantages we may not see it as better.
What will help you Kitkat, is to do away with everything you think you know about evolution, because it is getting in the way of what really takes place. Monkeys did not evolve into man - Darwin never said that and it is not what any biologist says either. Read On the Origin of Species and you will not find this idea in the pages. Darwin (and all of modern evolutionary theory) points to the fact that we share a common ancestor with monkeys - millions of years ago.
If you still want to know why there are still monkeys, I would first ask you why shouldn't there be? Monkeys are analogous to our cousins - not our grandparents. Think about your cousins. They have their parents (your aunt or uncle) who are kind of like their distant evolutionary ancestors. Your aunt did not give rise to you she gave rise to your cousin, therefore she is not a common ancestor that you both share. Her sister, your mom gave rise to you. Your mom is analogous to your most recent evolutionary ancestor. Your mom and your aunt share a common ancestor - their mom! This is your grandmother. Your cousin also shares this grandmother. Your grandmother is the common ancestor that you and your cousin both share. So why should your cousin not exist? In this lineage you both are alive today living side by side and it is your grandmother that you both have in common. Just like monkeys and apes live side by side with us. Your grandmother was neither you, nor your cousin, she was a completely separate person. In the same way our common ancestor with monkeys was neither human nor monkey.
Monkeys are not less complex than us, nor are they less suited or fit. They have their niche (the forest) and we have ours (towns and cities). They are superbly adapted for their lives, and perhaps better so than we are adapted for ours. They are still here because we do not compete with them in the forest. Therefore they continue to live and thrive. Of course we do hunt monkeys and destroy their habitat, so in a way we are competing with them and many may eventually go extinct as a result.
I really, really hope you have a better understanding of how evolution works and have begun to realize that what you thought you knew was completely inaccurate. Keep asking questions but please be preparred to do away with long held beliefs.
This was only briefly touched on but environment also plays a big role on evolution. If a species environment changes slightly, moderately or greatly a species ability to adapt to these changes will play a big part in what mutations in subsequent generations will take dominance.
the size of the jump is directly connected to the degree of environmental change and the species ability to adjust to those changes. Sometimes species just die off because they cannot adapt, sometimes a small section of that species has certain adaption’s that didnt really help them prior to the change but became a big advantage after the change, thus they will survive to breed and have offspring, ect.
Kit Just realize evolution isnt just one act, it consists of many, many factors, genes, random mutation of genes, environment, time, predators, learned skills, geology, ect
kitkat,
Why don't you go to the library and find an intorduction to physical/biological anthropology book. This may help answer your questions.
Modern day primates and humans (homo sapiens sapiens) came from one common ancestor that at one point broke off to evolve into the primates and humans.
KitKat: "If man evolved from primate, then why are there still primates roaming the earth?" - If you understood what evolution is, then you would not have to ask that question.
If you descended from humans, then how come there are still humans?
Heh, I'm not sure if it's about dogma. It took me a couple of times reading the question and the follow ups to really understand what Kit was getting at. Usually I just ignore debates about evolution but I understand where Kit is coming from and it was a legitimate question regardless of any motive behind it.
People leave out the isolation part needed for differentiation. If we didn't have that, then we would expect species to involve as a whole and together since all mutations will be recycled into the general genetic code.
Also KitKat, keep in mind that my answer was strictly regarding why you can have more than 1 species coming from an ancestor and that there is quite a bit more to evolution than just my explanation above.
Mitchell
Argh, plese ignore the spelling errors above, running low on sleep right now :)
involve = evolve there in the 2nd paragraph
hmmm....let me clear up another point of confusion you may have Kit.
When people say that humans evolved from apes, others get the impression that we are descended from the modern day primate family. That isn't the case. Today's orangs/gorillas/chimps etc did not exist back when we split into our own species. All primates come from a singular ancestor if you go back far enough. Which means you can be just as correct saying that all primates are evolved from the human line.
Mitchell
jock- that happens to be the most unintelligent question I have seen on this thread.
Kitkat
That was the whole point. I was showing you how unintelligent your question was by giving an analogy. There are still primates in the world because evolutionary lineages expand and split, just like human lineages.
Mitchell,
Your answer is a good one as well, but from what I am understanding from your reply is that genes mutate, however, I don't see genes mutating on their own.
I understand the DNA helix (A,T,G,C). They attach to each other in specific order to describe our overall make-up. However, a stray gene can introduce itself into the DNA to cause abnormalities. That stray gene can be handed down from generation to generation until it becomes dominate.
But still my question goes unanswered.
Steve, Mitchell
Thank you both again for your answers :-)
kitkat- why don't you indicate why you think there still being primates around is an issue. It's not.
I see many people having attempted to explain to you what you are misunderstanding, and you blowing off what they say and acting condescending. So either you want to be a troll or are genuinely uninterested in getting educated on evolution. There are countless texts out there that can aid you. If you really give a shi* about your question, why don't you pick one of tehm up and read.
Kit, genes are simply an artificial construct that scientists create for themselves to group specific DNA sequences. It's the same as using paragraphs in writing. All you really need is the words and punctuation. However we add the paragraph format to help delineate various ideas.
So, if a strand of DNA mutates, then the gene that strand belongs to has now mutated just as if you change a word, the paragraph it belongs to has now changed. And we know mutations occur because that has been studied extensively. So yes, if a mutation has occurs that is handed down generation to generation as you say, however it's only handed down to it's descendants, not to the whole population.
If the whole population interbreeds with each other, then yes, that mutation will become present in every member of that species because everyone will have that member with the mutation as an ancestor at some point. But, if certain parts of the population break away (physically), that mutation cannot become part of there gene pool because no member with that mutation is there to pass it down.
Mutations start on an individual basis and then propagate throughout the species by reproduction. If reproduction doesn't occur between a couple of groups, mutations cannot be passed on between them and they become different from each other. As more mutations occur, they become less like each other because genetic information is not being shared between them through reproduction. Eventually they become different enough where we will classify them as different species.
Mitchell
the most exciting and rewarding course i took in undergrad back in the early 70s was a paleo/anthrop/archelog course on early north american sites. we had a northeastern cave shelter dig site and actually did reallife digs and found first hand an actual flint projectile point and pottery shards. i learned from this experience that anything found in the ground is never complete and therefore requires logical/analytical thinking to connect the dots in a plausable manner and dated accordingly. this is the "fun" part that we should all support whatever the finding may be! this is to my mind Real Science! God and science are fun to explore and the only difference i see is that God gives us hope and meaning to delve further with the brain he entrusted us to "go where no one else has gone before". i say go for it and put another piece in the human chain of puzzlement!
kitkat - that's a road that an evolutionist will shoot you down on. they'll tell you that apes and man are separate sets of primates - one evolved - the other didn't.
A more important question is - where is the evidence of one species changing into another?
I don't see it. Darwin's Theory is about man evolving FROM ape (primate). I want someone to explain to me WHY there are primates still roaming the earth if his theory is so correct.
Kitkat, do not listen to this person. No scientist ever said one primate evolved and the other didn't. Makinism is not informed and you would do good to not listen to people who can't accurately depict the very ideas they argue against.
Both sets of primates evolved - one eventually became humans, the other eventually became chimps. This isn't wishful thinking, but is supported by evidence.
oh boy. see? this is how rumors get started. ;) that's what i meant. i don't believe either account - so - same difference. I got the 'both sets' right - that's the main point.
and the whole 'look at your baby picture' line was ridiculous. Yes rad, we know we looked different when we were babies. but we were still people.
Tell me how a single cell - with all its complexity - far more than darwin or any of his contemporaries would have ever dreamed of - evolved. i'm sure you're familiar with irreducible complexity.
which evolved first? the heart, the lungs? blood or the veins to carry it in? each are useless without the other. go figure.
You don't believe it because you discount it without actually taking the time to understand it. And the baby picture thing was an analogy as I mentioned. It goes like this - No species has ever given birth to a creature not of the same species. Yet speciation occurs! How? First imagine an unbroken line of lineage for 100,000 generations all the mothers standing with all their daughters in front of them and their daughters in front of them all the way from present to 100,000 generations ago. If even a slight amount of genetic variation exists from generation to generation we would see that there would be an imperceptible change over the millenia so that no mother looked different than her daughter. However, the first mother would be so different from the last that she could not bear a child with the last son (I know I said daughters but you get the point). They are differnt species separated by time but linked by blood. This is the imperceptible change that I was alluding to with the baby pictures.
We know for a fact that gene pools drift. New genes come in and spread throughout the population over time. Some genes mutate and also spread, or are reduced in the gene pool. Over time the population shows signs of changes that make them different enough from the earliest generations of their species that they could rightly be called a new species themselves. But how come some species evolve from others you ask? That is because sometimes a group splits in two and one goes to live in a desert while the original stays in the jungle. The one in the jungle is pretty well adapted and new genes can't compete with the genes already in the gene pool. They stay pretty much the same over millenia. The other group in the desert finds that they are not very well suited for desert life. This gives any new genes a chance to affect the groups evolution as old genes no longer guarantee survival. In a sense there is an opening for changes in the gene pool. This group will evolve "faster" than the parent group and both will still exist.
In a post below I mention the RNA world hypothesis as the best explanation for molecules to man. There is no known law that the theory breaks and much of it has been tested. As for heart and lungs, they evolved together simultaneously and slowly over millions of years. If your making an allusion to irriducible complexity you should know that not a single instance of it has ever stood up to a real investigation. That is evidence against design.
It might be interesting to note that it is not necessarily possible to find bones in other areas of the world because of city's and infrastructure. It is also possible that floods and earthquakes covered up remains where they were not covered up in Africa.
For the same reason that we have thousands of different species of birds. Start with a single population. Some members of that populations migrate to the north. Others go south. The Northern populations encounter different environmental needs, and adapt accordingly, while Southern populations do the same. Members of those populations then also migrate, and adapt to whatever they find. Fast forward a few millions of years, and viola! A lot of different types of birds that all originated with one common ancestor.
Or at least, that's the cliff notes version. I'm sure I am making huge generalizations.
colorado - yes, you've described natural selection, which is accepted by any scientific-minded Christian.
You did not describe 'molecules to man' evolution.
RNA world hypothesis describes molecules to man as well as the origin of complex biochemistry.
RNA is both enzymatic and a data storage molecule like DNA. RNA bridges the gap between DNA genes and their protein products. In fact many virus actually still use RNA as genetic material. Self replicating RNA molecules have been shown to evolve over several "generations" in test tubes in order to be more stable with their experimental environment. Their replication became more efficient and and the molecules more stable under adverse conditions.
Lipid vesicles form spontaneously in water. These vesicles represent the basic cellular membrane. Put some of this RNA inside that vesicle and you've got a replicating proto cell. Continue to add new genetic material from the outside environment and new proteins (early proto cells almost certainly scavenged molecules and/or were infected by transposons). The cell could not yet be said to be alive as it was merely a vesicle which provides unique and safe environments for chemistry to take place, although much of this RNA-DNA-protein chemistry was capable of some levels of replication early on. Much of this has been shown in labs to be possible, however in reality millions of years would be needed for stabilized systems with recognizable biochemistry to become evolved. All signs point to the inevitability of this in experiments.
"....you've described natural selection, which is accepted by any scientific-minded Christian. You did not describe 'molecules to man' evolution."
It's the same thing, which is how the creationists are getting themselves into such a bind -- you accept one, you are accepting the other.