Its official

Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav) · #1 03-10-2009, 03:02 PM

Its official, we did not evolve from monkeys or apes and they did not evolve from us but we do have a common ancestor that we did evolve from separately, they walked upright it was not a knuckle dragger that trait in monkeys and apes developed for living in the forest
How come I see some people that look like apes complete with hair

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technol...human-origins/

matt · #2 03-10-2009, 03:20 PM

Very interesting....

And funny to read that article and see an image of a couple of NRL rugby league players not far away

astroron (Ron) · #3 03-10-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

Very interesting....

And funny to read that article and see an image of a couple of NRL rugby league players not far away

Well noticed

Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav) · #4 03-10-2009, 04:15 PM

I remember when I was back in Rome as Casers Guest at the Coliseum when the gladiators were fighting, they were a bunch of pussies compared to Foot players and just about inelegant, they had to do an IQ test any score under1 got to play football

Baddad (Marty) · #5 03-10-2009, 06:11 PM

Hi Vars 191, & All,

That's quite a find. I have an interest in the evolution of all species.

An interesting fact is that of transition species. These are in between species. ie, grassland to forest as just one example.

A tree dwelling species may at the forest edge develope foraging features over time through visiting the grass area. It developes to gain an advantage half way to living in tree and grassland.

It eventually becomes better adapted to grassland, a new species is born. The halfway one is usually small in number and dies out through lack of capability and competition. The new species is faster and can snatch up grass quickly.

The transition species still had tree climbing ability but slower on the ground.

Predators grow around the newly evolved food. Survival of the best adapted is what causes the sudden changes.

Transition species being few in number meant fewer fossils. I assume that the "Missing Link" is such a creature.

Do we have any palaeontologists on board. I'm just an amateur.

Cheers Marty

Davros (Lauren) · #6 03-10-2009, 06:31 PM

I will put my hand up as specializing in palaeoanthropolgy undergrad and postgrad. It is an exciting find but it isn't really anything new or unknown. This has been more of a reinforcement of previous suspicions. Its been a rough time for fieldwork in East Africa recently and i am keen to head over but it might not be for a few years yet. Gotta knock off this masters first. I dont think anyone has ever postulated that we evolved from apes, thats just a common media mistake. the search has always been for the common ancestor.

Baddad (Marty) · #7 03-10-2009, 06:46 PM

Hi Mick,

So if I were to assume that this missing link was a sort of transition species. Would it be far off the mark?

Cheers Marty

Davros (Lauren) · #8 03-10-2009, 06:58 PM

To use a well used reply, we need more information. A few more specimens would be nice. I havent read the paper describing the find, if it has been published yet. I would like to see the publication first though to also look at dating evidence.
Tim White is highly respected and i dont doubt what he says but he makes a point that this specimen was fully bipedal but seems to be morphologically more ancient than apes. I would have to do a lot more reading to determine exactly why he says this. He does also make the point that he does not believe this species had apes for descendants. In my mind it just pushes divergence back in time. Speciazation obviously occurs when populations of a common ancestor separate for whatever reason. It would take a lot more research to uphold a claim that apes developed knuckle walking after divergence.