We don't know if australopithicine are our ancestors or not, the real question is whether they are hominids. We are certainly related to them, it is just by how much which is the problem.
Australopithecus is absolutely *NOT* the most likely candidate for an ancestor. Heidelbergensis is a far more likely candidate, and ergaster we are absolutely sure is an ancestor. At best you can say: Australopithecus is more likely than not and ancestor.
It has a big toe instead of a thumb in its foot. Therefore it is a sub-optimal tree-climber. And no its wrists are *NOT* consistent with knuckle walking.
The conclusion is *NOT* that lucy is not an ancestor. Only that its not *HUMAN*.
We don't know if australopithicine are our ancestors or not, the real question is whether they are hominids. We are certainly related to them, it is just by how much which is the problem.
jacksawild 7 months ago
Australopithecus is absolutely *NOT* the most likely candidate for an ancestor. Heidelbergensis is a far more likely candidate, and ergaster we are absolutely sure is an ancestor. At best you can say: Australopithecus is more likely than not and ancestor.
It has a big toe instead of a thumb in its foot. Therefore it is a sub-optimal tree-climber. And no its wrists are *NOT* consistent with knuckle walking.
The conclusion is *NOT* that lucy is not an ancestor. Only that its not *HUMAN*.
websnarf 2 years ago
This video labors under the delusion that Lucy is considered something other than an ape.
The only thing unique about Australopithecus among other apes was its' upright gait.
That's all that has ever been claimed about Lucy.
qabala 3 years ago
Lucy = NOT a common ancestor to humans.
jazzyhap 3 years ago
"Australopithecus is not an undisputed missing link contrary to popular belief."
No scientist says it was.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.
griffgriff78 3 years ago