The Analysis of Ardipithecus ramidus -- One of the Earliest Known Hominids

[khijasmith]

i enjoyed this vid

[Cypherus21]

So they found some bones in Ethiopia which is obviously a primate. Then those bones are inserted into the theory of evolution, complete with renders of a hominid walking upright, even though no bones of the spine were found at the site. Science has now become commercialized with scientists competing with one another to find the oldest bones and make inferences, as is manifested in fancy CG renders, to subjectively create another link in the human evolutionary path.

[TheLizzifer]

@Cypherus21 Considering scientists rarely determine bipedal locomotion by the spine (moreso the pelvis and tibia to femur ratio as well as hand and foot morphology), it's perfectly legitimate to insert this into the theory of evolution. Yes, scientists are always trying to one-up each other, but that's hardly a reason to discount something like this.

[benthemiester]

This happens every few years. Just like Nebraska man, Pilt down man, Ida or Proto avis. Every time a new supposed missing link appears, it is met by Darwinist with un critical thinking & open arms, & is treated as some kind of long awaited savior who shows up to set the record straight, only to fail the critical peer review stage. Well nothing has changed. One of the first scientist to refute this notion of Ardis relation to humans, is primatologist & functional anatomist Esteban Sarmiento.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: I think you've got your information wrong. A. ramidus absolutely IS related to modern humans. It is simply by merit of being a primate. Not to mention it was a bipedal ape, placing it even closer to us. So unless you're working on a completely different definition of biological relatedness, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar "A. ramidus absolutely IS related to modern humans"

Give me a detailed explanation of how you know this is not just an extinct ape?. First it was Nebraska man.Then Piltdown man. Then everyone said we really found it this time and it was Lucy. None of them are no longer considered ancestral to man, even though they were absolutely sure. The latest to fall from Grace was IDA which was supposed to be the find of the century and turned out to be a dud. Please excuse my skepticism.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar Sorry to repeat myself, but what the hey.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar  Esteban Sarmiento refutes these claims in a published article in Science. It seems at least some are backpedaling on this.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: You cannot refute that a bipedal ape is related to modern humans unless you can show that all of it's defining features are merely analogous to ours, and that the organism is actually part of a completely different clade. Unless that is the case, saying ardi isn't related to modern humans makes absolutely no sense. It is related, in some way or another.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar CONT.... It was an ape that is thought to be in the right time period of what neo Darwinist now believe a transition should be, and thats all it is,

an assumption. Any time an unknown species of extinct ape is found, the imagination goes wild and since the gap has to be filled then it just has to be the one. This is backwards thinking.

Scientists Challenge ‘Breakthrough’ on Fossil Skeleton

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Published: May 27, 2010

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar CONT... I asked you to give me detailed reason why you think it is ancestral to man. It resembles apes not men. it was supposedly and tentatively a facultative biped, not fully biped which would have left it susceptible to predators. It would have made more sense that it was arboreal, especially if it was quadrupedal when moving in the branches. It had an arboreal grasping big toe and was prognathic. Tell me how is this homologous to humans?

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: "I asked you to give me detailed reason why you think it is ancestral to man. It resembles apes not men." 1) Human beings are apes. 2) I don't claim ardi is ancestral to humans, just related. Chimps are related, but not ancestral. If ardi falls within the hominidae, then it is related to us. Being related is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being ancestral. I haven't enough knowledge to take a position on whether it is actually ancestral to H. sapiens.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar "1) Human beings are apes. 2) I don't claim ardi is ancestral to humans, just related. Chimps are related, but not ancestral. etc

Again this is a default position. Just labeling something or saying its related is not evidence. If a neo Darwinian classification is set up by neo Darwinist, is it any wonder why we would be called apes. What makes you think we are related to apes and chimps? meaning related on an evolutionary scale? is it our genes etc.?

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: This comment is making me begin to wonder whether you've even as much scientific training as me, and I have little. Both the P. troglodytes and the H. sapiens genomes were successfully sequenced. The two are almost entirely identical. That should not be surprising, because studies of chimp behaviour have shown that they are extremely similar to us in behaviour and social structure, as well as anatomy. And the current system of classification come about before evolutionary

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar cont..... single nucleotide polymorphisms[19] (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome). Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[19] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[20] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[19] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome......

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: theory had it's real origins with Linnean taxonomy, which still forms the basic backbone of the classification of organisms. Evolution and phylogenetics has done relatively little to change the Linnean system. Chimps are closely related to us genetically, and we share a very recent common ancestor.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar Thats funny I asked question before I read your response "almost identical" fair enough.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar "almost identical" ????

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: Yes, almost identical, you idiot. The fact that you don't know that is preposterous. You clearly have a very broken and fragmented understanding of biology. You're hardly in a position to have a meaningful discussion about this if you don't even know that chimps and humans are almost entirely genetically identical.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar Instead of getting emotional go to Wikipedia and see for yourself it is sourced. I bloged about this before Wiki did. Every one reads the 98% comparison but they stop there and do not read the rest. So far you offer no proof. Tell me what do you think is the best evidence for this theory that you yourself are not happy with. Please tell me. In reality all your dong is telling me there is validity among genetics and fossil evidence. How do you explain the Cambrian radiation event?

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: I cannot personally explain it, why don't you ask a professional paleobiologist instead of an undergraduate student? Since you're so good at copying and pasting citations, why don't you study up yourself? I cited the fact that chimps and humans share the vast majority of their DNA, and that they are anatomically, socially, and behaviourally extremely similar, you essentially ignored that fact. And that is what I expected. Smarty-pantses like you who are dead-set against

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar If you cant explain it, then who is the one copy and pasting? Your just doing it with your mouth.

I am backing up my statements with citations. We have found that this so called Junk DNA which was once a poster child for evolution is not junk after all. Much of this non protein coding parts of our genome are actually responsible for gene regulation and expression filled with master switches and emergent functions that we are just starting to understand. Gene centrism is outdated.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar I cited papers that had abstract easy enough to understand. You can read them if you wish or ignore them.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: a fact usually do ignore facts presented to them that counter what they think is the case. But if you really were such a smarty pants, you'd understand that the entire classification of organisms creates the illusion of rigid differences, when all the differences between organisms are on a continuum. The species concept is a human invention for convenience and scientific rigor. But really, every organism is simply an adaptation to a specific set of chemical, geological, and 

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: geographic circumstances, but with the same basic set of biochemical and genetic features. All life is related, and genetics has demonstrated it. If you want specific examples, read up. You are clearly capable. I'm not going to spoon feed you by dispensing all sorts of specific instances.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar No one is arguing that all life is not made up of the same type of chemicals we all have DNA, but that doesn't mean that protozoa evolved into man. If we are going to consider common ancestry, then the alternative should be common design. The problem is that everyone repeats the same talking points but no one can provide any concrete examples. I asked the same of Francisco Ayala and Russell Doolittle when they made these kinds of claims, and they could not back it up either.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar The Changing Concept of Epigenetics

EVA JABLONKA, MARION J. LAMB

Article first published online: 24 JAN 2006

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar Epigenetics: A Challenge for Genetics, Evolution, and Development?

GERTRUDIS Van de VIJVER, LINDA Van SPEYBROECK, DANI de WAELE

Article first published online: 24 JAN 2006

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar The burden is not on me to disprove it in fact you have yet to make a case for it being ancestral. Again they say this all the time. Why aren't you a little skeptical?

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: I'm skeptical as to where ardi stands in relation to modern humans, but there is no reason to be skeptical about its relation to modern humans in way. As I said, if it is not, then its being bipedal is an analogous trait. But they clearly have good reason to believe it is homologous. If ardi's bipedal posture is homologous with ours, then ramidus and sapiens are related. It is highly unlikely that another ape came about from a completely different evolutionary line, unrelated to

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar Let me make a prediction and if it happens anytime in the near future then you can hold me to it if I'm wrong. I predict based on the evidence so far, that when Ardi's skull and inner ear are examined through advanced computer scans the way Australopithecus ears were found to be. That Ardi will aslo be found to have the equilibrium of arboreal apes rather than bipedal apes. You have not cited one thing that makes them homologous to humans. They are extinct apes.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester That's fair. But even if ardi turns out to be an extinct arboreal ape, I fail to see how that makes it the case that ardi is not related to modern humans. That would place ardi at least within the hominidae, and at least as closely related to us as the orangs. Perhaps ardi is not a hominini, but it is at least a hominidae.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar But even if ardi turns out to be an extinct arboreal ape, I fail to see how that makes it the case that ardi is not related to modern humans. etc

This is the problem, you believe in macro evolution by default. For you and many others, the physical evidence is irrelevant. It is the theory that supersedes everything, including the lack of evidence. In this way neo Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Homology in terms of cross species comparison is contradictory and not very reliable.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: Oh, I understand now, you're a quack who doesn't accept evolution, or, er, macroevolution? I'm only an undergraduate student, and my training in evolutionary biology is limited. But I've been shown the evidence in class after class for speciation by means of natural selection. I have a limited understanding of molecular phylogenetics and systematics, but I know full-well neo-Darwinian evolution is indeed a fact.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar So anyone who is critical of a theory is a quack? Did they teach you that you should not be critical of a theory if is too popular? Critical thinking is one of the foundations of modern sciences. Any theory that cannot be intelligently defended is not worth its salt.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: Oh I'm well aware of the importance of critical thinking. I earned the equivalent of a degree in philosophy before I made my way into science, so I've been conditioned to be ruthlessly critical. I am rather critical of neo-Darwinian evolution, in that I'm not so sure we ought to dismiss the Lamarckian mechanism. A gene-centered view of evolution, I think, is too simple. But at any rate, evolution has been confirmed over and over, with molecular and fossil evidence. I don't think

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar

cont..... and central dogmas of evolutionary biology. Some even criticize the Dover trial and their own colleagues for asking lay people to believe things that are simply not true as well as all the hand waiving that goes on.

If your more interested in the new proposed extended synthesis you should watch my video entitled "Will the real theory of Evolution Please Stand up" Let me ask you what do you think the differential is between human and chimp DNA?

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar cont... The amount of failed predictions is higher than most people will admit. I do not deny evolution as defined by change over time, adaptation, variation and natural selection has its place, but macro evolution prokaryote to man evolution is filled with unproven extrapolations and educated guesses. Even for those who accept the prokaryote to man narrative such as evo devos, even they are calling for an extended synthesis while challenging the limitations

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: a quack for being critical, I think you're a quack because you're denying something that is demonstrably true. denying macroevolution is as absurd as denying the inverse square law, or any other scientific FACT.

[benthemiester]

@McTaggStar cont.... but concerning molecular evidence, this seems to be the mantra, and concerning especially fossil evidence, which is an embarrassment to to neo darwinism synthesis which is considered the modern synthesis.

Cross species phylogenetic tree building is highly problematic, and yes the gene centered view is obsolete. Epigenetics is the new game in town.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: Mantra? I'm finding this more and more interesting. All you're doing here is denying the validity of genetic and fossil evidence. And no, the gene centered view is not obsolete. Epigenetics is added into the equation; it does not replace the gene-centered view. Natural selection acts on gene frequencies.

[McTaggStar]

@benthemiester: extant primates, that has all the same characteristics of primates, but whose primate-like characteristics are analogous. That's absurd.

[benthemiester]

There is no way of knowing that this was part of the human family and has to be assumed. This is called wishful thinking. A fairytale for adults.

[superhamzah85]

It was a hominid, it walks, it's just the right age. No one knows...but we do definitly, we evolved on earth. So it's a reasonable assumption.

[AtheistinFundyLand]

15 people have no clue how evolution works.

[jolsteiner]

@AtheistinFundyLand Most likely they were reised under a religious setting and under religion, knowledge(aka Science) is considered evil. Under religion, life is pretty simple. If something good happens, it was done by god. If something bad happens, it was done by the devil. That's all there is to it. Science is indeed fairly complicated and it may take many years to find the answers.

[AtheistinFundyLand]

@jolsteiner Yes, I know. I grew up in a fundamentalist home / church / school. I had to teach myself how evolution works. This video is part of my education.

[AtheistOnTheEdge]

My thoughts on what caused the human foot to change - walking. The abilty to walk great distances became a selective criteria. Look how far early hominids travelled; all the way from Africa to South America. Look how far that is!

[lubermanl]

@AtheistOnTheEdge

That is probably true, humans also have an incredibly high density of sweat glands, those of us in incredible shape would be able to do "Persistence hunting" running long distances to tire out prey. Apparently a few tribes still hunt this way, and our ancestors most likely did.

[AtheistOnTheEdge]

@lubermanl Yes, of course, "Persistence hunitng." Have you noticed this is how wolves also hunt? Most feline predators rely on surprise then a sudden attack and quick kill. But wolves and African wild dogs wear down their prey over long didstance. And humans used to hunt the same way; I wonder if we learned it from the wolves, or maybe they learned it from us.

[sweetraisin17]

cool

[DiVeronica]

awesome! got to see the faces of all the authors I've been citing for the past week!

[KJOSCOT]

What about the Sahelenthropous Tchadensis skull estimated at around 7 million years old? With a foramen magnum that is ovid in shape, surly desrves the rank of 'oldest hominid found.'

[a23457b]

@KJOSCOT I absolutely agree, but many scientists believe that there is really not enough evidence to say for sure that it was a hominid, despite the evidence from the foramen magnum. Ardipithecus Ramidus provides more fossil evidence for scientists to be sure that this creature was a bipedal primate, therefore it was for sure a hominid, and so it's 'safer' to classify Ardipithecus as the oldest human ancestor..

[OriginalYTName]

-Could someone answer this please?-

If I took a double honours course in Anthropology and Archaeology is this the kind of things I would be studying? Because it interests me so much and I would love to study this when I go to university next year.

[KJOSCOT]

@OriginalYTName Yes. Depends on the teacher and how in to it he/she may be. Worth a look.

[a23457b]

@OriginalYTName OH YEAH! it's freaking awesome! I LOOVE IT! it's my life =D

[a23457b]

@OriginalYTName OH YEAH! it's freaking awesome! I LOOVE IT! it's my life =D

Is it going to be Bio Anthro with Archaeology? If so, that's definitely it!

[NorthForkFisherman]

@a23457b Do you? Then look for BH-039 from Bone Clones. The entire skeleton is being made in to a set of casts available to the general public. It's pricy, but what the hell, if you're into paleoanthroplogy you'll like it.

[Freedomwriter24]

I'm very excited for next semester, Dr.Lovejoy, who works at the university I attend and was a main researcher for "Ardi" is allowing me to work with him in research about "Ardi" and take his class on the biology of her. I am very excited and surprised since I am only a second semester sophomore with no upper division courses. I pretty much offered myself as a slave to whatever he wants to get done.

[061369317]

OK, the last nail on the coffin of 'bipedalism derived from life in open, dry, habitat' has been hammered down.

Loved that 'many people thought that...' comment from T.White.

He was one who made 'many people' think that bipedalism and savanah went together, when Lucy was thought to be among the homo genius ancestors, back in the 70's and 80's.

What's next ?

Initial bipedalism, Ardipithecus a chimp ancestor, and Sahelanthropus (7MYA) the actual homo genius

ancestor ?

[FaaarLeft]

Do ya think we could mate w/ Ardi?

[carlrs15]

@FaaarLeft

Probably not, considering how vastly different our genetic makeup would be. It's be like trying to install Windows 7 on a 1980's Tandy.

[grimysoldja]

@FaaarLeft i think we could mate with ardi, just like different breeds of dogs breed together.

[gingerkid963]

@grimysoldja no... animals of a species can only produce offspring with other members of its species.i think dogs are an exception to the rule

[ChaddlePaddle]

@gingerkid963 all dogs are the same species canis fimiliarus they are all the same just adaptation just like skin color in humans

[gingerkid963]

@ChaddlePaddle ok. i didnt know that. also one month ago i didnt realize how one gene could control size. so even though one dog could be twice the size of the other, they would only have a genetic difference of a few genes. however. the genetic differences between us and ardi are way different than that.

[abyssquick]

It's also quite possible that Ardi was a small branch, too, just a species, not a direct ancestor. They don't mention this much. Most people envision a straight line of ancestry.

[Christisms]

Yes. That happened with the Neanderthal man. At first scientists thought they were our direct ancestor until they found human and Neanderthal man skulls from the same time period. It become clear that both came from a common ancestor, but Neanderthals could no longer be considered a direct ancestor to humans.

[benfree100]

yes..it seems most unlikely that ardy is a direct ancestor...the probability that we would discover any direct ancestral line is quite low indeed considering how few and sparse fossils are...so we can call Ardy a great great cousin!

[abyssquick]

Yeah, nearly impossible to tell without looking at the DNA. I think the important thing is that these fossils show us an evolutionary snapshot- what direction evolution was headed, in a general sense. I suppose that's the only sense we need. Until we can explore ancestral DNA more thoroughly, fossils may be the best glimpses we get.

[puncheex]

Yes, but consider as well how many species of Homo there may have been then. There was one to start with after separating from Pan; how many would there be 2 million years afterward? Perhaps not very many. There is only one today

The claim is not that he is a direct ancestor, but rather his species is carrying the line that eventually lead to H. sapiens (as well as Neandertal and almost all other Homo, Australopithecus and Paranthropus species).

[puncheex]

Mainly because at this point there's really no way of telling. Perhaps, when some further fossils older, younger and contemporaneous are found, it will fill a niche instead of an age. 'Til then, it does no harm to consider it on the line, and helps keep the interest of non-paleos alive.

[magick205]

@abyssquick: This is true. It's human nature to look for patterns, but these patterns are based on the evidence as found. and I think the other thing that gets in the way of understanding is the concept that there has to be a goal to evolution. It just is what it is. Id like to see more of the bottom of the braincase as well a wider selection of other hominds being dug up. Orroin tugensis is only known from a few pieces. Lets keep digging.

[abyssquick]

Yes that is a common misunderstanding - there isn't a "goal" or any way of measuring organisms in the present as being "more" or "less evolved" that another. But people presume this sort of thing constantly, in a lack of systemic understanding.

[Votkinsk123]

the drawing of ardi freaks me out

[clonescaller]

This is really helping me in studying for my test :D

BIO!

[326742]

Great video. And thanks to Science magazine for making the 11 Ardipithecus research papers freely available. I just finished reading them - really magnificent work.

[truedisbelief]

:O My bad! Boy do I feel dumb. I'll just crawl back under that rock now.

[ofosusam]

No. All lies. Not a shred of evidence. And how was the dating established? carbon dating is a work of the devil. God created the heavens and the earth and he made man in his own image. There is no evidence whatsoever for evolution. It is a lie.

[Morkindie]

Go to the museum and learn something. The evidence is there and more is found all of the time. Go to the laboratories where evolution is being observed in real time.

[magick205]

@ofosusam: Roscoe, you're 37 years old. If you haven't figured out that "cause I said so" isn't much of an argument, then I have great pity for that "god' you're made in the image of. /sarcasm Provide some real data or bugger off.

[artisthespoonman]

Better yet, get off your ass and read the papers published in the jounral "Science". That will answer all your questions.

[2degucitas]

Awesome! Very thorough explanation, and paints the picture of how life was for Ardi.

[EricMS007]

Great video!