Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

[Flangenimblick]

Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"
Jamie Shreeve
Science editor, National Geographic magazine
October 1, 2009

Move over, Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye.

Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago.

The centerpiece of a treasure trove of new fossils, the skeleton?assigned to a species called Ardipithecus ramidus?belonged to a small-brained, 110-pound (50-kilogram) female nicknamed "Ardi." (See pictures of Ardipithecus ramidus.)

The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link?resembling something between humans and today's apes?would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior?long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors?is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.

Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas (interactive: Ardi's key features). As such, the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.

Announced at joint press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the analysis of the Ardipithecus ramidus bones will be published in a collection of papers tomorrow in a special edition of the journal Science, along with an avalanche of supporting materials published online.

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." (Related: "Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say" [June 11, 2003].)

Link

[onona]

I read about it this afternoon, rather exciting stuff.

[Chevron]

Now that's interesting.

[Bonezmann]

*checks link too confirm it's not from The onion*

Cool, so we're not descendants of chimps? thank goodness.

[Chevron]

Cool, so we're not descendants of chimps? thank goodness.

Why would it matter to you? It wouldn't change who you are already.

[BlackMage]

Did primitive Ardipithecus undergo some accelerated change in the 200,000 years between it and Australopithecus—and emerge as the ancestor of all later hominids? Or was Ardipithecus a relict species, carrying its quaint mosaic of primitive and advanced traits with it into extinction?

[dammit]

Fascinating. Thanks for the link.

[dislekcia]

This doesn't disprove a missing-link at all, dunno how you got that... It simply changes the characteristics of the ancestor species for both humans and chimps. Scientific progress is about continual refinement as our understanding gets better, this is one of those refinements.

*checks link too confirm it's not from The onion*

Cool, so we're not descendants of chimps? thank goodness.

This is a common misconception: Nobody has ever postulated that human beings are descended from chimps. The assertion is that both chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, millions of years ago. So both species are descended from the same ur-species. This find (specifically Ardipithecus' teeth) point out that said ur-species was probably a lot more "human" like than chimp like. Be warned though, that doesn't mean that we'd recognise such a species today as human, we'd probably consider them an ape.

[Garson007]

This is a common misconception: Nobody has ever postulated that human beings are descended from chimps. The assertion is that both chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, millions of years ago. So both species are descended from the same ur-species. This find (specifically Ardipithecus' teeth) point out that said ur-species was probably a lot more "human" like than chimp like. Be warned though, that doesn't mean that we'd recognise such a species today as human, we'd probably consider them an ape.

This is probably the biggest misconception people have over evolution, in that they assume all other species stayed constant while a single one evolved. When this is obviously not true.

Also, thank you for pointing out that "missing link" is not disproved. When I first read this thread I thought I must have misunderstood something when nobody else pointed it out.