Print 87 comment(s) - last by DarthKaos.. on Jun 24 at 4:24 PM

An artist's scupting of A. afarensis, based on the earlier Lucy skeleton.  (Source: Educa Madrid)

The bones of "Big Man"  (Source: Y. Haile Selassie et al./PNAS 2010)
"Whatever we’ve been saying about afarensis based on Lucy was mostly wrong."

Much like the revolution of modern astronomy in the late 1400s and early 1500s dissolved the notion that the Sun revolved around the Earth, a renaissance in paleontology is dissolving virtually any doubt that remained about man's origins.  Another new discovery has just been completed, the latest of several high profile publications over only the last year.

The new skeleton is a male Australopithecus afarensis, which has been discovered in Ethiopia’s Afar region.  The skeleton joins the celebrated "Lucy" skeleton, unearthed by paleoanthropologists in 1974, and a child skeleton unearthed last year.

The ancient male, an ancestor of modern man, lived approximately 3.6 million years ago in the plains of Eastern Africa, according to several dating techniques.  Yohannes Haile-Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, who led the team, says the skeleton offers some major new insights into the species.

The skeleton has been nicknamed "Big Man" as it towers at 5 to 5½ feet tall over the much shorter 3½-foot-tall Lucy, who lived 3.2 million years ago.  That large height deviation raises questions over which of the specimen is the norm in terms of height.  The new skeleton was unearthed between 2005 and 2008 at a dig site only 48 km from where Lucy was found.

The skeleton also reveals new insights into the bone structure of the species.  Big Man's 32 discovered bones reveal long legs, a narrow chest, and a inwardly curving back.  All of these indicate that he walked much like a human and enjoyed a ground-based lifestyle.  This is very different from the awkward gait that Lucy was thought to have.  Lucy also had been thought to climb trees a great deal.

The shoulder blade of Big Man is quite different from chimpanzees or gorillas.  And the ribs also appear human-like.  All of these factors indicate a far different chest shape than the chimplike, funnel-shaped chest that reconstructions of the Lucy skeleton indicated.

While confusing perhaps in context with Lucy, the conclusion that ancient hominids were not chimplike is consistent with the analysis of the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus hominid that was conducted last year. 

Professor Haile-Selassie states, "Whatever we’ve been saying about afarensis based on Lucy was mostly wrong.  The skeletal framework to enable efficient two-legged walking was established by the time her species had evolved."

Carol Ward of the University of Missouri in Columbia seems to agree with these conclusions, stating, "This beautiful afarensis specimen confirms the unique skeletal shape of this species at a larger size than Lucy, in what appears to be a male."

While the discovery may have cleared up debate about whether Lucy was more chimplike or humanlike, the debate about gait is sure to continue.  Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman states, "There’s nothing special I can see on this new find that will change anyone’s opinion."

Anthropologist Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University, however, believes that the discovery shows Big Man to be a good runner, which could have made the 3.6-million-year-old footprints found more than 30 years ago at Laetoli, Tanzania.  Among the evidence supporting this hypothesis are Big Man's pelvis supported humanlike hamstring muscles and human-like arched feet.

The full study on the Big Man discovery is published here in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A separate 3.3 million year old skeleton of a 3-year-old baby female A. afarensis was presented four years ago.  Nicknamed "Selam" (the word for "peace" in several African languages), the near-complete skeleton was found in 2000 south of the Awash river by a team led by Zeresenay Alemseged of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The paper on that discovery was published in a 2006 edition of Nature and can be found here.

These discoveries add to the aforementioned recent discovery of "Ardi", the discovery of Australopithecus sediba, and the completion of an early draft of the Neanderthal genome.  All of these wonderful discoveries have helped to blow away the fog of uncertainty surrounding human evolution and offered a much clearer picture of how man arrived at its current form after a slow process of evolution that took millions of years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: how's your egocentrism now?
By MrBlastman on 6/22/2010 12:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't all evil, no, not at all, but, I argue you'd see far more than you do now if people knew they could get away with it.

There are many humans who peacefully want to co-exist, have lots of sex, eat fruit and make babies. They want to live in blissful harmony. Yes, there are plenty of those. There are also those who want to do more.

What I'm getting at is Religion and Law cloud our vision of what people really are. They curb peoples attitudes and actions and to fully think that everyone is good inside and would continue to be so if either were removed is very shortsighted.

RE: how's your egocentrism now?
By sgw2n5 on 6/22/2010 1:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with that.

Animals are animals afterall. I suppose if push really came to shove, some of people will act like what we really are... animals.

I DO, however, believe that this is a small percentage of people.

RE: how's your egocentrism now?
By MrBlastman on 6/22/2010 1:12:59 PM , Rating: 1
I don't also quite see why I'm being downrated here.

My post definitely did not offend the religious because they know what I'm saying is true based on flawed human nature.

It also did not tout religion either because it included the rule of law.

My only thought is it offended the Atheists because it notioned that Religion could have an effect on anyone. I don't get it at all.

I dare say that some Atheists are as shortsighted as the Religious Fundamentalists--and are as easily offended. I challenge you to enter the fray rather than hide on the sidelines.

Oh wait, I see it now, I included religion in a post and didn't take a giant dump all over it. That's my problem. How silly of me to try and be logical.

RE: how's your egocentrism now?
By HighWing on 6/22/2010 4:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
From reading all the arguments one thing has been completely overlooked by both sides here.

It's not so much fear of punishment and/or lack of that fear, but rather how the person "feels/thinks" about committing an illegal/immoral action and taking the responsibility for said action! And THAT comes from several contributing factors, other than just religion and laws of the land, such as how the person was raised, their surroundings, family/home life, education, and much much more. And to this end, we have only just begun to understand just how far reaching little things in the early stages of youth & development can effect how a person will act when grown up.

You can argue night and day that religion and law are the main factor, but facts show that even a deeply religious and lawful person can and will still commit crimes of all nature. How else do you explain church officials committing sexual acts with young boys? MY point here is that there are many other contributing factors that will cause and or prevent a person from committing any kind of crime. Religion & laws are just ONE of many and it really depends on the person and situation on which factors will influence their actions.

As to the animal nature of humans I have this to say; Animals act the way they do not just out of instinct, but out of the sheer nature of the fact that it is ALL they do know and what they have been "taught" all their lives. Domestication and Zoo's are proof of that! Many animals can be taught not to attack animals they might have once hunted as prey among many other things that would normally go against what they would do in the wild. While you may argue it's not always 100%, that is irrelevant as the by the very fact that they can be taught to do it and act differently is proof of concept!

In closing, both sides are right, as YES religion & law can be the driving force for some people to not commit crimes, it is however NOT the reason for why ALL people do not commit crimes.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki