Scientists piece together Lucy’s family tree
42013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
From MSNBC Science news:

New jaw fossils might suggest a direct line of descent between two species of early humans, including the one to which "Lucy" belongs.

The 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, the earliest known hominid, was found in Ethiopia in 1974 by U.S. paleontologists Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. Lucy and her kind, Australopithecus afarensis, stood upright and walked on two feet, though they might also have been agile tree-climbers.

Anthropologists have suspected an ancestor-descendant relationship between the Lucy species and a predecessor — Australopithecus anamensis — based on their similarities but lacked fossils from an intervening period.

Now, Australopithecus fossils found in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region, Ethiopia, fill the date gap between A. anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 million years ago) — and the Lucy species (3.0 to 3.6 million years ago). The species identifications for all the bones remain uncertain, though it appears that some are A. afarensis.

Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a physical anthropologist at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, says his team's 2007 field season in the Woranso-Mille region uncovered the key evidence.

"We recovered fossil hominids that date to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago," Haile-Selassie said in a prepared statement. "These specimens sample the right time to look into the relationship between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis and will play a major role in testing the ancestor-descendant hypothesis."

The team had found teeth from this time frame at the site over the past few years, but the new material includes more complete jaws that will enable better comparisons, he said.



What do you guys think of these discoveries?

7413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / By the water
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
Cheese and crackers! I need to read the news more, I'll be back with more later...
1029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / England
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
Pretty crazy to think that humans are that old.
Makes you feel even more insignificant
24645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / 横浜市
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
Wow new fossils predating that old bat Lucy are a huge discovery. Thanks for the heads up Duster.
10588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / ninja mode
Offline
Posted 7/17/07

Dusterbayala wrote:

From MSNBC Science news:

New jaw fossils might suggest a direct line of descent between two species of early humans, including the one to which "Lucy" belongs.

The 3.2 million-year-old Lucy, the earliest known hominid, was found in Ethiopia in 1974 by U.S. paleontologists Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. Lucy and her kind, Australopithecus afarensis, stood upright and walked on two feet, though they might also have been agile tree-climbers.

Anthropologists have suspected an ancestor-descendant relationship between the Lucy species and a predecessor — Australopithecus anamensis — based on their similarities but lacked fossils from an intervening period.

Now, Australopithecus fossils found in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region, Ethiopia, fill the date gap between A. anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 million years ago) — and the Lucy species (3.0 to 3.6 million years ago). The species identifications for all the bones remain uncertain, though it appears that some are A. afarensis.

Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a physical anthropologist at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, says his team's 2007 field season in the Woranso-Mille region uncovered the key evidence.

"We recovered fossil hominids that date to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago," Haile-Selassie said in a prepared statement. "These specimens sample the right time to look into the relationship between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis and will play a major role in testing the ancestor-descendant hypothesis."

The team had found teeth from this time frame at the site over the past few years, but the new material includes more complete jaws that will enable better comparisons, he said.



What do you guys think of these discoveries?



What I read sounds interesting. Also I don't mean to spam your thread but, I also have some info, or rumors. 9-11 mysteries- steel cannot be melted by jet fire. the building imploded as if a bomb was planted inside the building. will you be my buddy?anthropology seems interesting... why don't you become one?
25 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Indianapolis
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
The problem is that the only method the have of determining how old a fossil is, is by having it sent to a lab for Carbon 14 dating. This method supposedly tracks the radioactive decay of carbon in matter. I don't want to get too wordy here, but basically the forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for Carbon 14 dating have a blank for you to write the approximated date of the item in question and then they always return it with a similar date. I've met scientists who have sent in the same fossil twice but put different dates on the "approximated date" blank of the form, and they got two entirely different results. I'm skeptical as to whether or not they actually test anything. I think that there is too much evidence against a billion-year-old earth (which I won't delve into for your sake).

And I could go into tons of more detail, but basically, I don't trust the dates. If you do I'm not telling you that you are ignorant or anything, but I would do some more research before believing everything you read. And I mean that, don't even believe what I am writing until you have found it out for yourself.
42013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/17/07

jakeasaurousrex wrote:

The problem is that the only method the have of determining how old a fossil is, is by having it sent to a lab for Carbon 14 dating. This method supposedly tracks the radioactive decay of carbon in matter. I don't want to get too wordy here, but basically the forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for Carbon 14 dating have a blank for you to write the approximated date of the item in question and then they always return it with a similar date. I've met scientists who have sent in the same fossil twice but put different dates on the "approximated date" blank of the form, and they got two entirely different results. I'm skeptical as to whether or not they actually test anything. I think that there is too much evidence against a billion-year-old earth (which I won't delve into for your sake).

And I could go into tons of more detail, but basically, I don't trust the dates. If you do I'm not telling you that you are ignorant or anything, but I would do some more research before believing everything you read. And I mean that, don't even believe what I am writing until you have found it out for yourself.


I've also heard that as well, so don't worry, you're not rocking the foundation of my scientific knowledge. But i posted the article because i found it very interesting, and wondered basically what everyone else thought about it. I love watching the shows on the evolutionof man and cave men and what not... so i just thought everyone would find this as interesting as i did.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 7/17/07

Dusterbayala wrote:


jakeasaurousrex wrote:

The problem is that the only method the have of determining how old a fossil is, is by having it sent to a lab for Carbon 14 dating. This method supposedly tracks the radioactive decay of carbon in matter. I don't want to get too wordy here, but basically the forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for Carbon 14 dating have a blank for you to write the approximated date of the item in question and then they always return it with a similar date. I've met scientists who have sent in the same fossil twice but put different dates on the "approximated date" blank of the form, and they got two entirely different results. I'm skeptical as to whether or not they actually test anything. I think that there is too much evidence against a billion-year-old earth (which I won't delve into for your sake).

And I could go into tons of more detail, but basically, I don't trust the dates. If you do I'm not telling you that you are ignorant or anything, but I would do some more research before believing everything you read. And I mean that, don't even believe what I am writing until you have found it out for yourself.


I've also heard that as well, so don't worry, you're not rocking the foundation of my scientific knowledge. But i posted the article because i found it very interesting, and wondered basically what everyone else thought about it. I love watching the shows on the evolutionof man and cave men and what not... so i just thought everyone would find this as interesting as i did.


... and here i thought you were just throwing rocks at a hornet's nest
42013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/17/07

azrael910 wrote:


Dusterbayala wrote:


jakeasaurousrex wrote:

The problem is that the only method the have of determining how old a fossil is, is by having it sent to a lab for Carbon 14 dating. This method supposedly tracks the radioactive decay of carbon in matter. I don't want to get too wordy here, but basically the forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for Carbon 14 dating have a blank for you to write the approximated date of the item in question and then they always return it with a similar date. I've met scientists who have sent in the same fossil twice but put different dates on the "approximated date" blank of the form, and they got two entirely different results. I'm skeptical as to whether or not they actually test anything. I think that there is too much evidence against a billion-year-old earth (which I won't delve into for your sake).

And I could go into tons of more detail, but basically, I don't trust the dates. If you do I'm not telling you that you are ignorant or anything, but I would do some more research before believing everything you read. And I mean that, don't even believe what I am writing until you have found it out for yourself.


I've also heard that as well, so don't worry, you're not rocking the foundation of my scientific knowledge. But i posted the article because i found it very interesting, and wondered basically what everyone else thought about it. I love watching the shows on the evolutionof man and cave men and what not... so i just thought everyone would find this as interesting as i did.


... and here i thought you were just throwing rocks at a hornet's nest



LOL i had to do something other than that damned physics thread! I'm lost when it comes to physics... SOOO.. Archeology! Watch out, I might even go crazy and put up a SPACE ::::trembles::: thread!
2104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / F / Savannah,GA
Offline
Posted 3/3/10
Hmmm. Carbon dating is not it's cracked up to be. We still rely on it though.
3405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/10
what the?
4295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Youtube!
Offline
Posted 3/20/10
Aww =D
Awesome. When I was younger I was totally into archaeology. Mainly because Lara Croft was like, my idol...

But that's really cool. And weird. Showing we're descended from monkeys.
You must be logged in to post.