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:
find the origin for the word - U N I V E R S E - what does the word mean "lety me see hmmm well lets seperate it hmmmm U N I - V E R S E hmmm uni meaning ONE or SINGLE hmm verse meaning SPOKEN SENTENCE. LETS SEE PAGE ONE,VERSE ONE "In the beginnig GOD(Yehovah;Jehovah-{self existant}created the heavens and the earth. PERIOD
You might want to read the dictionary sometime:
Main Entry: uni·verse
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn
Most Christians forget about the first couple pages of the word... I goes like this:
On the sixth day he created male and female (a couple of primates were picked from the litter).... about 3 or 4 million years went by, and he rested on the 7th day. Then he formed the first man with a soul, this is the eighth day, this man was Adam, and soon from his DNA (rib) formed first woman with a soul as well, Eve... this is the bloodline of the Jews, but Adam and Eve were cast out and the blood was mixed with the sixth day man. We are all from both these males and females.
See evolution and the word are both right, but the church doesn't interpret it correctly... I wouldn't be surprised if this last found remains weren't from that sixth day male and female, or very close.
Why does the Bible call God "he"? Because a lot men had to believe that God was male. A spirit or soul wouldn't be just male or female.
So that's another lie (using the pronoun "he.")
This tread has become much more interesting than the article!
Dear ultra-religious people, do not feel threaten by science and new discoveries just because they intercede with the teachings that you have been drilled with. Are we not created in God's image? Now, that does not mean that the superior energy we (humans/homo sapiens) have called God, Allah, Jehovah, Yaveh has a nose, two eyes and a belly button. But it rather means that we have also the gift of creation, and we can create some beautiful things. We have the gifts of assimilation, planning, comprehension (including forgiveness), and understanding, deduction, of discovery and of judgment. So please use the gifts God has given you, open your minds and study to make your own observations.
When you do, you will see that man, in every culture, in any age has looked for answers for everything they've seen around them that would fit within their minds. Every culture has a story of creation. You may also deduce that the story of Adam & Eve is not an exception. The same histories of creation and Noah's flood, you will find in the Babylonian poems of the Epic of Gilgamesh, preceding bible times by at least 1000 years. You will even find the same stories of genesis in the much older Akkadian Enuma Elish. THINK! Were not the jewish tribes taken to Babylon for circa 70 years? 4 generations? Could it not be that they've found in these stories a great piece that would fit their book to explain creation?
By all means, if you have a fossil of Adam and Even, bring it forth, any piece of bone will do... or a cave, or a petrified tree where they dwelled. May be you have a piece of pottery that Eve used? or a tool that Adam created? Yet i can point you to thousands of places in the planet where you will see hard evidence of human evolution. Does God need to create humans in one day? It is much more beautiful for me to think that evolution is the creation of nature, and nature is a beautiful manifestation of God.
So before you write another line to convince (or impose) us all of your beliefs, please use the gifts God has given you... think! deduce! discover!
I love God - Do I have to love religion?
Mercurio,
You have the right to believe whatever you want. But the idea you propose above is not Biblical from a Genesis standpoint. Sure, you can throw out the book of Genesis - but then if you do that - what's the point?
If you don't believe in an infallable Word of God - then it really is as some of the others say - "just fairy tales".
I don't worry about any so called "scientific" (because when you say 'scientific' you mean evolution) discoveries because none will contradict scripture. we all have the same evidence - its all about how it's interpreted. if you start with 'there is no God' you will come to one conclusion - if you start with God's infallable word - and believe in a global flood - the facts will verify the Biblical account of history.
Mercvrio
Are we not created in God's image? Now, that does not mean that the superior energy we (humans/homo sapiens) have called God, Allah, Jehovah, Yaveh has a nose, two eyes and a belly button.
NO GOD does not have physical markings of us, the "image" part is a copy of him to us, it is called DNA!!!!
2hip - and you're drawing this conclusion from where? I mean, i'm not saying your wrong per-se - i just don't see your response as scriptural.
I would love to teach it to you...
No Mekinism
I will not propose any biblical idea from any stand point. The scientific discoveries do not endeavor to contradict the Bible, is only those people whose beliefs are threatened by these very real discoveries that opose their process.
The conversation would be almost endless. But take heart, that anybody update their thinking towards any part of Genesis, will not imply there is no God.
Cheers
Mekinism;
Please post some of these facts you speak of so we can see for ourselves. I don't think you can. Remember facts not fantasy.
2hip -
That doesn't work. that's actually not 'how it goes' the bible says NOTHING about a million years. The Hebrew word "YOM" in the first chapter of Genesis is referring to a literal 24 hour day. EVERY other place in Scripture where the word "YOM" is used in conjuction with a number, the word evening or morning is ALWAYS a literal day.
the only reason someone would want to 'stick' millions of years into the Bible is to make it jive with MAN's word - not God's word.
Besides - there was no DEATH in the world before Sin. Millions of years flys in the face of scripture.
The word does not say anything about our time clock, but talks about his, I know that most of this world is hidden from us and it is us to use science to find GODS truth.
2hip - i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
It mean to "put childish things behind you..." that GOD didn't get into details in the first couple pages of Genesis, I think he knew we would figure the "time thing" out on our own.
the only reason someone would want to 'stick' millions of years into the Bible is to make it jive with MAN's word - not God's word.
It's not mans word it's GODS proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mekinism
Well, then you have a problem. Because there is no doubt that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old; unless you want to change the laws of physics.
we did not come from monkeys when i was a kid i was beaten in school for saying africa fit with south america, but there is no way we come from monkeys if we do than why do we have so many colors of people and treat the darker one like @!$%#, its because we know who we are dont forget it stop being stupid we will not travel space, we will not master the worm hole and we will never master what our master will not let us master end of story our people are starving and we cant do anything about it when we do figure it out our time will come and his will be done
Ok - i'll stick with the Bible as God's Word says - you can stick with whatever you're stickin with. =)
ok kids - time to make dinner - but anyone that wants to appeal to the majority, i'll leave you with Matthew 7:13 -
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
my prayer is that you guys check out the narrow path.
www.answersingenesis.org
www.alwaysbeready.com
AMEN!!!!!
Mekinism
My prayer is that you check out science. And by the way, science does not and can not say whether God exists or not -- only whether life evolved or not.
Yes all religions have that clause about how to ask questions is to burn in hell and that their will be outsiders who caste dispersions on your beliefs. They also promise unending rewards for belief. A carrot and stick mentality. These ideas are what give religion staying power in the human psyche. It amounts to a hostage taking of the logic we are all born with. Religion, like all ideas, spreads from one mind to another or else the idea disappears forever.
Most ideas get copied because they are useful or fun or interesting, like how to build bridges and plant flowers, etc. But some get copied from mind to mind because they hijack us into teaching them to our children. They do this by saying "You don't want your child to burn in hell do you?" "God commands that you spread the word, or else he will put you in hell." "Don't you want your child to go to heaven?" Of course there are some ideas that are useful in religion, but the continued existence and downright conservation (to use a genetic term) of these fear/impossible promise motifs points to the fact that without them the religion would cease to be transferred from one mind to another. Kind of like a virulence factor in a bacterium or virus. A gene that if lost breaks the infectious life cycle of the organism.
Science is an adaption that many of us in the gene pool carry. It fights off the effect of the fear and the impossible promise and does not allow our logic to be hijacked like a cell infected with a virus. As such the idea of the religion dies when it tries to enter our minds. Those who carry science in their heads are immune and do not pass religious ideas to our children, or if they do those ideas are greatly attenuated. But this is not the only benefit of science. It is not merely the antithesis of religion. Science provides us with new ideas that increase our abilities and knowledge. Science is an evolution engine for the mind allowing the development of many new and successful ideas.
radagast you forgot that most religions claim that their religion is the one true religion and any other religion is blasphemous and other religions followers are heretics and doomed to hell.
Surprising that a all loving God would cast you in a lake of fire for now joining the JC club.
So what happens to those tribes in New Guinea (I think it is) that have no exposure to the outside world and don’t know Christ? What about those of the past with no knowledge of Christ so they all get to burn?
To many holes for me,
I guess that is why they call it Blind Faith….
Sorry but I like to know whats in my Kool-aide before I drink it.
I knew there was a reason I never liked Kool-aide.
The Earth is much older than 10,000 years. Science can prove that without any speculation. If you are going by the Bible ( which I read ), you must remember that time was calculated differently in the beginning. So don't worry about the 10,000 years!! It's only a number---Faith is much older and wiser!!
Where are you getting that time was measured differently? As far as I know, it's always been the same. The Bible is clear that time is measured in 24-hour days -- the 'yom' which you can read all about in Mekinism's earlier post. Would you care to further explain this wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey idea?
If you're going by the Bible then saying that the earth is older than 10000 years, or even that the literal, 24-hour day is wrong, then you are consenting that the Bible is fallible and that God is a liar.
Wist: "that the Bible is fallible and that God is a liar" - Actually. it is only one or the other. If the Bible is fallible, then we can suppose that it was only the people who wrote it that got it wrong, not God.
So before the earth was created how many hours were in that day? How many hours are in a day for God? They cant be 24 because 24 hours is based on the earths rotation. If the earth was without form and void, how many hours was it then?
To Mr. Forst, The age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. please update your info.
He was being sarcastic sir.
They are inviting trouble with topics like this. Here come the creation idiots !
after reading all these comments,,wow,, some very small minded people,,hmmm,, human bones,,why only found in africa,
has anyone one been to the badlands in south dakota,, probably not anyone who,s comments are here,,i have,, the extermination of a species thoughout time,there have been many ,, as humans we will also,,who really cares, it,s like the old commerical,, is it live or is it memorex
Huh?!
Africa, b/c that's where human life began, then they migrated throughout the world over thousands of years.
after reading some of the views ,comments,, some very narrow minded people on here
I know a high percentage of Christians are posting. Should we questions all of the critiques of this find? How did they date it? Isn't radiocarbon dating bogus to bits many times?
But once a Christian guy brought to my attention a large hole problem in regards to evolution. We're looking for missing links between man and monkey... given the "estimated" time, there should be millions and billions of transitional forms that passed away, certainly a fair percentage of these millions and billions of these fossils would remain, but there no fully proven cases.
The guy showed me that this wasn't enough... we need millions of missing links/transitional forms between every kind of plant and animal. But there aren't any!!! When we look in the ocean at a sea horse, why is there nothing that looks remotely like it.
This Christian guy had a good point. This theory has had 150 years, how much more time does it need? Maybe "the aliens planted each kind of life form here" would make more sense than macro evolution?
Joel;
That is a lie!!!! There are transitional fossils whether you are capable of accepting the evidence or not. When someone can come up with a testable, verifiable hypothosis that explains the collected evidence better than evolution, I shall rethink my position on the validity of evolution. "God did it" does not count. After all, the Christians have had 2 thousand years, how much more time do they need? They have no proof, no evidence, and no clue.
Not monkeys... primates. there is a difference. And that is not all evolutionists are trying to uncover. And there are plenty of DNA links between humans and primates..and we are searching for that one direct link. Humans have not been around for very long, we have not had the time to uncover all the earth has to offer, so this theory needs all the time it can get. The point of these findings and research is to show that we are getting somewhere and we have gotten somewhere. No one knows the truth, and no one should expect to know it.
Joel
Fossilization is an extremely rare process - maybe one in a million things that die get fossilized. Therefore, the several transitional fossils we have for human evolution is about what we would expect from the millions of early humans that existed.
Even the supreme court found this not to be true. There are many transitional fossils that are found. It doesn't help when fanatical Christians or Intelligent Design community want to hide evolution from the schools so that they can't be seen.
Besides the facts of fossilization being a rare process. There is a limit on the amount that can be found based on the number of people that can be financed to go dig them up.
You need to understand the term "transitional fossil" a little better.
All forms are transitional. Every fossil that has ever been found is in transition between two species. Even you are a transitional species.
The way this argument is framed demonstrates a lack of understanding and a reliance on semantics.
Think about it some more. This entire argument about gaps and missing links is smoke and mirrors. If two people are standing in a field and we assume that the distance between them is a gap along some imaginary timeline, then we have a perfect analogy for our fossil record. If we now put a third person right between them in that imaginary gap in time what we now have is two gaps. A science denier would say there are even more gaps than before in an infantile attempt at logic. We could fill the gaps with dozens of individuals (assuming they are standing far enough apart) and we would always have gaps between them. A science denier would insist that none of the people in the middle of the line are missing links because all have a gap in front and behind. There are therefore still links missing all over the line.
Given the rarity of fossilization it is incredible that we have the specimens that we do have. In order to actually close all of the gaps I would have to have the fossils of every single individual creature that actually lived - an unbroken family lineage all the way back to the progenitor. Tens of millions of individuals! That is extremely unlikely and presents an even greater problem. How do we classify the different species when the mother of each daughter looks sufficiently like the individuals all around her in line no matter at what point in the line we choose to examine? We could only conclude that the entire lineage is one species even though the two extreme ends look nothing alike! Such is the reality of evolution.
i meant 4.6 billion oops =p close enough
What happens in Zoar stays in Zoar.
Oh my goodness people... An incredible discovery has been made here. Whether you believe in the work of those who support religion or anthropologists or scientists.. There has been an attempt in all aspects to uncover the truth to human origins. If you call yourself a believer in God then you are as well expected to be accepting and loving of all people, no matter their beliefs, so feel free to state your own... but by any means please do not discourage others to believe WHAT THEY FEEL is the truth.
I think that this is an amazing discovery and it brings us a step closer to knowing what life was like millions of years ago, evolution of human origins or not. I embrace our ability as humans to question and research and discover. And although I am an evolutionist, if someone does not feel the same way as me.. go ahead and say it if that will make you feel better. But no one can deny that evolution has been proven, in the environment and animals who live in those environments. The world is changing around us and if certain people don't notice (which many choose not to) then they are blinded by the life we've developed for ourselves, and that is sad.
This is an amazing find.
The "great-grandfather" gimmick is confusing to a lot of people, because it implies that the change happened very quickly. It does not adequately make clear that there are at least 20,000 generations between these two species, and they might not even be in the same exact lineage. The difference between them would have evolved very slowly - almost impersceptibly from generation to generation.
Alan,
You are an evil, evil, man. Look what you've done! Once again you have upset the cart and all the nuts have fallen out. What are we going to do with you, you naughty boy?
Excellent article, by the way. Proving once again that you can lead a human being to knowledge but you can't make him think.
Peace
Excellent question, Skip. What are we going to do with Alan? Hmmm...
A wonderful article, Alan! I hesitate to offer my opinions about this kind of discussion (after the "alien DNA" bunch tried to burn me at the stake.)
What I see over and over again (when you have this many people, all it takes is one misconstrued response and the pack runs with it. Sad...), but what the hell...
Since an article on evolution always turns into a religious debate, here's something to chew on. The other night I was watching Through the Wormhole With Morgan Freeman, which was an excellent show. The episode was "Is there a creator?" Three were three people who think they're Jesus. There was also an experiment going on with what's called the "God helmet." If a certain part of the brain is mildly stimulated, a person has the feeling of being surrounded by a "beings" or "beings" This experiment is in a very controlled environment where the participants don't know that's the electronic helmet they're wearing is the God helmet. They haven't heard about the experiment. But at least 80% of them report basically the same experience but in different words. So the point is that "God" is literally in the mind.) Some of these test subjects don't believe in God so it'd not as if they began to believe in God. That wasn't the point. Just take a look at the video from the show and read about the God helmet. It adds a new perspective on life, the brain, etc.
http://www.truveo.com/search?query=godhelmet through the wormhole&flv=1#god%20helmet%20through%20the%20wormhole%20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
I personally believe strongly in evolution as a science, and what some call God can be the universe, trees, ocean, whatever we see fit. What we believe or not believe in should be choice, a very personal choice.
I agree. Religious beliefs or the lack of them are very personal. I think of it like a persons hair style or the style of clothes they wear. Each person has to draw their own conclusions, and the conclusion each of us comes up with is niether right or wrong. Live and let live people, what works for me is only supposed to work for me, not any one else. Remember we are all part of one, which in my mind only reiterates evolution. To me, the miracle of life is a miracle, regardless of whether it took seven days or millions of years.
The article never made such a grand claim from one fossil. They did in-fact make very supportable claims about one particular fossil, The evidence gathered over a long period of time and from many fossils allow them to make informed conjecture about human evolution. It makes more sense to me than mistranslated bronze age writings as the basis of our self awareness.
Sorry for the grammatical errors. If I write a long comment, I can't keep the damn thing from constantly going back to the beginning...even if I scroll down.
Well Darrah, I plan to keep reading Alan's excellent science blog and do my best to ignore the avalanche of ignorance and intolerance the blog seems to cause. As we both know, you can't teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Peace, to all y'all
So right, Skip. I love Alan to death. I wish he could be cloned. I'd have an "Alan" at my beck and call. ;-)
Seriously, I do respect him and his articles. I kinda like that he's "throws one out there" because I love anthropology and archaeology. Both topics bring out a lot of emotion, that's for sure. Now if everyone could take a good look at the science of it all.
Great articel,
Thanks
Ahhhhh, silence, at last. Yes, I agree, COSMIC LOG is my favorite MSNBC feature. I learn so much from reading it.
Peace