Discovering Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus)

Discovering Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus)Following publication in October, 2009 of multiple papers on the discovery and study of a 4.4 million-year-old female partial skeleton nicknamed Ardi in the journal Science, Discovery Channel presented a world premiere special, Discovering Ardi that documented the sustained, intensive investigation leading up to this landmark publication of the Ardipithecus Ramidus fossils.

The scientific investigation began in the Ethiopian desert 17 years ago, and now opens a new chapter on human evolution, revealing the first evolutionary steps our ancestors took after we diverged from a common ancestor we once shared with living chimpanzees.

Ardi's centerpiece skeleton, the other hominids she lived with, and the rocks, soils, plants and animals that made up her world were analyzed in laboratories around the world, and the scientists have now published their findings in the prestigious journal Science.

Ardi is now the oldest skeleton from our (hominid) branch of the primate family tree. These Ethiopian discoveries reveal an early grade of human evolution in Africa that predated the famous Australopithecus nicknamed Lucy.

Ardipithecus was a woodland creature with a small brain, long arms, and short legs. The pelvis and feet show a primitive form of two-legged walking on the ground, but Ardipithecus was also a capable tree climber, with long fingers and big toes that allowed their feet to grasp like an ape's. The discoveries answer old questions about how hominids became bipedal.

This is juts a preview. The full documentary is not available at this moment.

230
8.50
12345678910
Ratings: 8.50/10 from 4 users.
  • Carbon18

    I am amazed at the skills demonstrated by the archaeologists and their teams in this film . They are able to see the significance of fossil, while in the field, that to me, look like nothing more than some odd shaped rocks.

  • mitsyA

    Considering all of the anomalies mentioned and even emphasized there are lots of questions here imo. Could Ardipithecus Ramidus be a side development that died out? There is certainly evidence enough of this having happened many times in the evolution of other animals, why not of hominids as well?

  • mitsyA

    Did also want to mention that this was a fascinating video. Well done and beautifully presented. Thank you.

  • rogphys

    They think Arti is a she...a she what? the evidence is wanting...so she had saggy breasts and hair everywhere..again wanting...assume it was bipedal from partial pelvic bones and a foot that is like a chimp...brain size of chimp..., one cervical vertebra to ponder speech...no evidence it is human to me.

  • rogphys

    The evidence is wanting that its a she..from jaw bone, right! .. piece of pelvis says it walked upright, right!...skeleton is size of chimp and so is brain..has.toe like chimp..face in drawing is a chimp...utter skitzphrenia in the archaelogy world is my diagnosis!

  • e_pluribus_unum_USA_Motto

    Wow – “rogphys” - I was struck by the level of detail provided to show the huge amount of effort, expertise, checking, cross checking, validation, and on and on. How you can so casually dismiss what you just watches is amazing. Excellent video from beginning to end. How anyone can question the proven science of evolution and human origins lives on a flat earth and with a willfully ignorant mind. It is interesting that they say Ardi is a new branch on the tree showing a common ancestry before chimpanzees. Seems likely there would be many such branches between Chimps and Humans.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Arnold-Vinette/100000991429638 Arnold Vinette

    Thanks Vlatko for adding this new documentary, Discovering Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus).

    At first I wasn't quite sure what to expect when I began watching it and half expected it to be a little boring and another adventure into what makes us human.

    However I was quickly to be proved wrong as the information presented on the new discovery of Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) was really very interesting.

    This discovery of course is only new to the public watching this in-depth documentary as the original Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) bones were first discovered 17 years ago and then the process began to try to understand what had been found.

    Documentaries like this are very important both for young people looking to enter into the field of archeology and the public like myself who enjoy being educated on these scientific finds because it shows us the huge amount of time that goes into making these discoveries and trying to solve the puzzles.

    I was astonished by the amount of time spent in the field first to find the fossils, then to clean and prepare them, and then to analyze them and try to put them together.

    So many people collaborating from all over the world from 30 research institutions (Universities and Colleges) to try and solve the puzzles of where do the pieces go and what do they mean.

    And based on the evidence provided one can be forgiving if some mistakes can be made. Some comments suggested that it was ridiculous that so much could be ascertained from the limited bones available. Ie that Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) was a female and walked upright.

    However one has to remember that these scientists have worked in the field and their respective disciplines for years and years. There are small nuances of a bone structure that a non professional would miss. So it is easy for a non-professional to be critical.

    However when you have a large geographically dispersed professional forensic team working on the case the chances of mistakes occurring becomes less and less.

    Again an absolute decision cannot be perfect as the bones are 4 million years old. That anything was found is a miracle in and of itself.

    As the documentary went on I found myself being pulled in more and more to the story of what was Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) and what did it look like. Was it really an ancestor of modern man? Was it really bipedal? And how was this design an intermediary step?

    To see the scientists, researchers, computer technicians, software developers, and artists at work for years was really something. I think what I also enjoyed the most was the love that these people had for science and discovery and not the love for money that seems so prevalent today in other disciplines.

    In the end the Discovery team joined the project and with its resources was able to take Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) to the next level and attempt to bring her to life through modern computer animation techniques. An attempt that I personally thought was very successful.

    Is Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) the creature we see reconstructed in the animations? We will never know until a time machine has been invented that will allow us to go back in time.

    However based on all of the research done by the scientists and their years of experience in their respective fields I would like to accept their findings as a best guess for what Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) was like 4 million years ago.

    The conclusions made at the end made sense with regards to why Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) would survive and prosper to eventually become the modern human race 4 million years. In very slow steps we have evolved from one form to another. The more successful the changes and adaptations the more offspring are able to live and carry on their genes to the next generation.

    As these scientists, researchers, archeologists, and paleontologists move back into the fossil record it will be even more interesting to see what they find. Along the way changes may be required to past discoveries as new evidence becomes available.

    When dealing with such huge leaps into the past, one can never be absolutely sure. However that should never ever stop science from trying to understand.

    Prior to this program to be honest I really was not that interested about where I originated or evolved from. However after this program I am definitely more interested in my family tree.

    I look forward to more documentaries like these that showcase the years of effort by specialists in their fields to try and better understand how the human race evolved at its earliest origins.

    Special thanks to the Discovery Team who spent the time and effort to put this story together on Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) highlighting the huge time and effort spent by everyone in this very interesting research project.

    If I have learned anything in this documentary, it is those parents who are able to bring home the food on a consistent basis at the end of the day, who ultimately succeed in passing on their genes to the next generation. Adaptations in physical ability, mental ability, eating habits, and hunting habits seem to have all contributed to the evolution of modern humans. A process that continues today across the world.

    Arnold Vinette
    Ottawa, Canada

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lysa-Fisk/100000898086716 Lysa Fisk

    WoW. Someone familiar with the Aquatic Ape theory. Glad to meet you.

  • Diego_Garrido

    If you are not interested, just scroll it down, it will take you half a second. Arnold made interesting points for me at least, unlike you.
    Very good documentary, we get to see parts of the arquaeological work (ten years fiddleing with tiny pieces of rock!) that is usually taken for granted.

  • RileyRampant

    great doc. fine detail, in depth participation by sailesse, white & lovejoy, the original anthropologists.

    what i find most striking about this species, along with lucy, is that it shows how little reasoning sometimes avails us in predicting the manner by which nature has proceeded upon an evolutionary course (our course, in this instance). we know point z (modern hss and chimps). we presumed point a might be something a lot more like a chimp. wrong.

    we reasoned that a thinning of trees would be the trigger to create a habitat conducive to the evolution of bipedality. wrong.

    does this mean that reason is of no use? NO. reason is the great hypothesis-generator, the corrective, the evaluative, the technology-inducer - BUT its limitations reinforces the truth that observation is the lingua franca of science, not speculative theories.

    to the fellow speculating about hominids living in waist deep water - what about the crocodilians - they might have had something to say about that gambit. (iow, wrong)

    cheers

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4H26IX4Z4ZDGIT7IEGWCL3APGE Scott M

    I didn't know that greg kinnear was an anthropologist. Dude even sounds like him.

  • Guest

    nice

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VOZF7QVOUWUWICZE3NKFEG3LIE kelamuni

    A little slow, but quite fascinating.

  • Meera Rangarajan

    Man at the top of the pyramid is an anthropocentric view. Man has co-evolved alongwith other multicellular organisms and to think that Chimpanzee has preevolved hominid is not tenable. If we go back on the evolutionary scale we may get more and more of Ardi like creatures. Going by the evolutionary theory of Darwin only subtle changes which will be evolutionally important to advance the progeny of an animal or a living being, will be reckoned. The smaller canine, missing tail,bipedalism is sufficient proof that apes are a way different from hominid. My guess is Ardi was a tree climber, the long hands and legs must have been used regularly to grip the branches for foraging. Carrying food for the group is an activity bordering altruism,which might have not evolved during that period. Probabaly if some light could be thrown on Lucy's period we may be able to understand the bonding of groups, as cranial capacity of Lucy is more than that of Arid. If we go back many more million years before Arid, we may come across a smaller version of Arid but not of an ape. The genetical progression has taken place in the Hominid branch of the evolutionary tree only and to reach for the ultimate link between apes and man may not be visible at all. The language area in the brain of man, is the ultimate proof that the two never met, even during the eocene times. I thank Discovery channel for the wonderful presentation.

  • http://twitter.com/ChardHollis Richard Hollis

    Ye gods, this documentary is frustrating!! 20% facts, 80% rhetoric. JUST GET ON WITH IT!! I have to say I find this happens a lot with the Discovery Channel. Can't they just cut the waffle? And the background music - this isn't an episode of 24.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    This is blasphemy and against the TRUE word of God. You scientists should all be ashamed and I hope that He forgives you and lets you obtain the splendor of Heaven.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Steve,

    Right, and I hope Thor forgives YOU for believing in a different God, and lets you obtain the splendor of the hammer-wielding heaven.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    @Vlatko

    I hope that is a joke. I think we all know there is only one God...and he wasn't a monkey nor was he Nordic. This stuff about apes is very nice mental you-know-what...but we don't know for sure. We do know that all those fossils are just put there by the Devil to throw us off from following His word. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but know that the wrong one will send you to the fiery depths of you-know-where.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I'm just trying to say that there are inconstancies in the arguments conjured up by these "scientists" and the words written by the prophets as they actually experienced it. Free Speech and all that...1st amendment. Wouldn't want to censor people. But, that doesn't mean it's right to confuse everyone with this pseudo-science.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Steve:

    Brrr, heavens to murgatroyd! Am sure glad there is no more burning at the stake by you happy clappy wonders.

    Anyway, your god is impotent.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Steve,

    I'll take my chances. I'll believe in Thor, you believe in your God, some will believe in Allah, some in Buddha, some in hundreds of Hindu Gods, and on, and on... We'll see what happens at the END.

    Sagan was right:

    Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.

    The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use we feel very good. Understanding is joyous.

    However: We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

  • robertallen1

    What do you (or anyone else for that matter) know of the TRUE word of god much less the devil?

    What do you know of the "inconsistencies" of "scientists," not to mention science itself?

    What do you know about evolution?

    What do you know about anything substantial other than what you "think" you know?

    I despise people like you.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    "We do know that all those fossils are just put there by the Devil to throw us off from following His word."

    okay now we know you are a troll.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I know that the fossil records are inconsistent and that much conjecture needed to be made to connect missing pieces of the anthropological timeline. The inconstancies are chalked up to what? Unfinished science? Sure...why not. Maybe it's the Devil. You want to talk about evidence, you "scientists" have as much evidence as I do. I know that there is a severe problem with the scientist's argument for Darwin's theories when you consider the possibility that this "Ardi" was completely separate entity from humans today (i.e., that "three-pronged" branch analogy could have had another prong that was "Ardi" and humans as we know it could have extended from the moment He created us). Maybe I can break the problem down for you...Ardi is being used to further the argument that there was a common link between humans and chimps. The argument fails if you consider that Ardi was completely separate from both humans and chimps. I watched an hour and a half of a video that completely didn't examine one fatal flaw in it's own argument. You say science is impartial, I say science is self-serving. Jesus actually DOES care about all of us and it behooves human kind not to get sucked into the self-serving dogma that is science. You may despise me Robertallen1....but I will pray for you. I will pray for all of you. I will pray that you actually listen critically to things you hear and not simply accept them as true.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Steve:

    Do not pray for me from your vague authority! you have no right to invoke anything from your invisible gods on behalf of anybody's well-being. How do we know that you are not a worshiper of Satan and the legions of demons, such as.
    Ifrit...Khazafram...Arachnradnazaranad...Tagrak...Orision...One-eyed-Cyclops...The Black Sun, and numerous others, we should all then get an Exorcist!? Class action suit, Hmmm?

  • robertallen1

    Do you know enough about the fossil records to state that they are inconsistent. You obviously haven't.

    Do you know enough about the scientific evidence for evolution to state that you have more? I don't think you have any at all.

    Do you know enough about Ardi to state that it was completely separate from humans and chimps (whatever that means)? You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    Do you know enough about science to characterize it as self-serving? I don't think that you have any idea what you mean by this.

    Do you know enough about Jesus to characterize him? No one does--not even you.

    You accuse me of uncritically accepting everything I hear and read--well, what and how much have you read? What and how much have you studied? Answer, next to nothing.

    Your posts qualify as some of the most ignorant, in both content and thought, ever placed on this website.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    to your first question....I know what this video has shown. Anthropological Reconstruction is such a vague and inexact science. They necessarily make a few assumptions.
    1) the bones come from the same creature
    2) we can guess what the rest of the bones look like

    to your second question...I was talking about Anthropological Reconstruction. It's as much guesswork and conjecture as many aspects of theological interpretation.

    third....and probably the most idiotic....it's called logic. Follow the argument...we have species A that has different aspects of species B and C. Therefore, species A is more like species C and, further, there is a connection between species B and C. Besides the obvious problems with this line of reasoning...can you think of any others? How about the basic assumption that Species A is not completely distinct from B and C? This was never adequately proven.

    fourth...yes actually. I know more about science then you and obviously more about logic.

    fifth...I am Jesus.

    sixth... you can't spell "accuse." But, besides that, there you go again with the assumptions.

  • robertallen1

    Why not learn something about anthropological (archaeological) reconstruction before demeaning it to the guesswork and conjecture of theology or is yourignorance too temptingly blissful?

    If you know nothing about what you're dealing with (and you don't) and nothing about the way it functions (which again you don't), your "logical" statements are simply ill informed and idiotic.

    You're as ignorant of science as you are about Jesus (with whom you inanely identify) which makes you doubly delusional.

    P.S. The word is "inconsistencies." Perhaps it was a typo, just as mine was, but I've already corrected it. What's your problem?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    "nuh-uh" is not an argument. prove me wrong....

  • Guest

    In all the years archaeological search have been done, we are presented now and then with a "most ancient" specimen that is suppose to have been collected almost complete within an area. Why is it that there is always just one specimen? Why not 20 or more or less within the area? We know apes hang in groups as we do, so why are they finding 1? Where are all the found specimen that "may" contradict their hypothesis?
    az

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Azilda,

    Because only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized.

    If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today - that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each – will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton.

  • Guest

    AND why is it that (accepted) science does not research the possibility of aliens having altered our conception and perhaps providing a missing link? Why are educated people bringing this idea forward have to be thought as lunatics?
    I would think science especially would be very curious about that possibility knowing full well that science itself is about (or wishing) to take humans in deep space.
    az

  • Guest

    That's a big IF. So are you saying that out of a group of Ardi folks, they were successfull in finding most of one's uncle and not one bone of the rest of the family was found??????
    az

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Ok so we have a couple bones that probably go together. Now we know that they kind of look like a mixture of monkey bones and human bones and we have a bunch of scientists come and agree with each other. They probably run a bunch of tests...etc. I'm going off what I've watched in this documentary and nowhere does it show that Ardi couldn't just be a different species completely separate from humans and separate from apes and chimps. I don't need to sift through peer reviewed articles to see an underlying assumption, it's pretty in-your-face. I'm glad they found something similar to hominids as we are now...I am. But this documentary proposes that we can put Ardi on the same evolutionary branch as modern hominids (in contrast the the branch of chimps etc). My argument is that this a complete assumption. We can NOT know certainly that Ardi even belongs on the same branch and, even if it does, it's classification there is completely arbitrary and needs to be rethought (i.e., biped, specific shape of the pelvis, hand structure). This argument that Darwin was right hinges on synthesizing Ardi with modern humans and modern chimps. If we, instead, just discovered a really shotty species that lived for a few hundred years and died (and btw we only have 1 as Azilda points out), then we haven't "found a connection" at all, have we?

  • Guest

    So why do they find many trees in the petrified forest and not just one?
    az

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Azilda,

    There is no big IF. It simply illustrates that fossils are vanishingly rare.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    @Vlatko

    Right, they are vanishingly rare. So? So because they are vanishingly rare, we should make a sweeping assumption about our history because the bones of one (assuming all those bones came from the same creature) look similar?

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Petrified wood is a different kind of fossil. Google it.

    In petrified forests there are lot of animal fossils too (Late Triassic).

  • Guest

    Funny how this conversation gets very short if i don't bring GOD in the picture.
    If anthropological/archeological science was to come up with an alien looking body (which frankly these could be for what we know), people would be quick to say, he was a sick person or it was an exception or or or...
    We have an agreed, by the science community, version of evolution and until someone comes up with a better idea, the educated crowd will bow to and admire the past even though most of them have never set foot on the researched field shovel in hands.
    az

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Steve,

    Since you refuse to read the comprehensive, peer-reviewed description of the Ardipithecus fossils, authored by a diverse international team, I think that the further argumentation on this matter will be futile.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    educated on what though?

    educated has such a positive connotation.

    how educated is someone that refuses to listen to logic?
    how educated is someone that makes sweeping generalizations and then condemns an entire theory because "our evidence looks better."

    your evidence is horse.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Azilda,

    ...people would be quick to say

    No, peer-reviewed scrutiny will say, and it will not do it quickly. There is a BIG difference. And no one is bowing to the past. Science is challenged on a daily basis (i.e Neutrinos).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Please someone address that logical problem without saying I don't know enough about anthropology or referring me to studies that make the same assumption.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    you people are such scientist.

  • robertallen1

    Don't sidestep the issue. From all your posts, you simply don't know enough about anthropology or any other scientific matters such as archaeology, geology, evolution, paleontology, etc. to come up with anything of any intelligence about them and what's worse, you don't want to know--you don't want to learn!

    You take such pride in your ignorance.

  • robertallen1

    You go by the evidence.

  • Guest

    Because we don't need aliens to explain our existence.

  • robertallen1

    Before you go spouting off, why not try Dawkins, "The Ancestors' Tale?" In it he explains that fossils play only a minor part in our historical biological knowledge--that there are other more important, abundant and reliable aspects such as DNA, microbiology minerology, etc., all of which support paleontology.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    It's interesting you say that. To be honest, Epicurus had it right. This was a test my PhD friend at the sociology department told me about and I was unsure about whether people would actually defend an illogical position. I wanted to see if people really would completely ignore a valid argument because they didn't agree with the beliefs of someone else. You, robertallen1, have done just that. The fact is, there is a deep illogical assumption underlying most forensic-anthropological reconstructions regarding early hominids. Congrats, Robert, you are, in fact, the one who doesn't want to learn. You are, in fact, the blind sheep following scientific dogma. You are, in fact, the ignorant one. (btw I'm an atheist and a Darwinian and have a PhD in evolutionary biology.)

  • robertallen1

    @Vlatko

    Please don't ask Steve to Google it. This goes against his grain. He would rather remain ignorant.

    To set the record straight, we have found clusters of fossils as a number of documentaries on your website have attested.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    and others will scoff and pretend they know that the scientists are wrong even though THEY have never set foot in a research field. they have no problem disagreeing with people who do.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    what problem?

  • Guest

    Ok, I'm being a smartass here. That's why they call it a forest.

  • robertallen1

    "Shotty?" Does it mean full of shot? Perhaps you mean "shoddy."

  • robertallen1

    Because there is as much evidence for it as for the creation of the world by pixies.

  • Guest

    We need everything possible and impossible in the mind of people to explain our existence, always did always will. Your phrase reminds me of what some people would have said 200 yrs ago about flying.
    az

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    "we have species A that has different aspects of species B and C. Therefore, species A is more like species C and, further, there is a connection between species B and C. Besides the obvious problems with this line of reasoning...can you think of any others? How about the basic assumption that Species A is not completely distinct from B and C? This was never adequately proven."

  • Guest

    Including Creation by God?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    you would be the worst lawyer ever. you want to submit evidence to prove a point against one source by using the same source that we are disproving? objection.

  • Guest

    I love it! you must be good at Mastermind game.
    LOLOLOL
    az

  • Guest

    Nothing should be excluded when one wants to solve the why of i. God may be something entirely different that the accepted invisible man in the sky by religion.
    az

  • Guest

    If as you state there is a species A,B, and C, then they must be distinct since they are different species. Your words not mine.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Of course. The issue was putting Ardi on the same evolutionary branch as humans as we know them today. They could be an entirely separate branch. This is the anti-Darwininan argument.

  • robertallen1

    Don't try to snow me. You confound abstract logic and the "real" world and if that isn't a sign of ignorance, then . . . But again, from you have written about yourself, you probably know this and are simply playing a game. In other words, pretending to be something you're not. That is reprehensible and I, for one, don't like games!

  • Guest

    How would you know what evidence to look for in aliens?
    Aliens would have to be extraneous to be alien. Ardi might have been one, how would we know?
    az

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    So, for example, we can't really use this evidence to show that there is a closer relation to apes and chimps...that's what we are trying to do here. This might be a similar ancestor, but not a common one.

  • Guest

    Yet you must admit that we came about by one and only one means. This necessarily excludes all other means. We were not built by committee. Which to you is most plausible?

  • Guest

    even Scrabble?
    az

  • Guest

    Ok, gotcha.

  • Guest

    there we go again with the dictionary....lol
    Should i start looking for your typos?
    az

  • robertallen1

    Even scrabble. But perhaps I should modify my statement. I have enjoyed a few episodes of Trivial Pursuit.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Steve:

    Test from a PHD friend?? I do not believe you, you are just a cuckoo bird that does not have a degree in anything, especially a PHD.

    And Epicurus had it right, a TROLL that is trolling! We have your number, so have fun.

  • robertallen1

    How do we know that Ardi wasn't a pixie in disguise?

  • Guest

    And as i said humans were always part of what we call families.
    az

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I'm not saying that we didn't or did. However, this documentary claims exactly what I've said is problematic below. I'm not trying to say that this isn't the most pragmatic explanation or that it isn't the right explanation. I'm saying that we should be careful about our assumptions and realize they are just that....assumptions. Just because I must admit that we came, probably from the water, and probably from an ape-like creature, doesn't mean that Ardi gives us the ability to "prove Darwin right." The fact is, we will never have a complete enough timeline. Fossils are disappearing fast and we will never know if we have "enough." We will never be able to prove Darwin right through foresnic-anthropological studies. This...is why I'm a behavioralist and this is why I study evolution through the brain and not through bones, like many of my colleagues. We simply will never know. My point was to show everyone that, just because you don't believe what someone else believes, doesn't make you any more right then they are. The fact is that not enough evidence, as far as I'm concerned, equals no evidence.

  • Guest

    I am not saying they are wrong, but i am also not saying they are right, you are.
    az

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    uh-huh lol.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Also:

    "Satan and the legions of demons, such as.
    Ifrit...Khazafram...Arachnradnazaranad...Tagrak...Orision...One-eyed-Cyclops...The Black Sun, and numerous others"

    who is the cuckoo bird? lol

  • Guest

    Again at the risk of of droning on and on, we came from one and only one "source". What do you think that was?

  • robertallen1

    Again, please don't try to snow me or anybody else. You cannot draw your conclusions anent evolution, geology, biology with just thought alone, i.e., without evidence.

    In short, you have it all backwards. You deduce from the preponderance of the evidence, not the other way around.

    P.S. I see that I am not the only one who does not believe who you say you are.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Lol. Wait...

    "In short, you have it all backwards. You deduce from the preponderance of the evidence, not the other way around."

    what???

  • Guest

    He is pretty naked isn't he?
    You are being a child.
    az

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Steve,

    If you work in Emory University's Darwinian Neuroscience Lab, and you disagree with the per-reviewed document authored by a diverse international team in 2009, plus if you have some solid evidence (behavioral or not), why in the Thor's name you're not publishing your own document to AAAS for per-review.

    The community will try to shred it to pieces but if the logic and the evidence is on your side you shouldn't be afraid. After all you say you're scientist, you know how things work in the process.

    I encourage you to start working on your new thesis. Your friend can help you. Good luck.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    there are many theories. most reasonable, some more-so then others. If we are going to trace life back far enough...it probably started in the form of extremeophiles. How those got there, I'm not sure..there are several theories. Some argue there is a primordial ooze and that, at first, there were cells willing to share genetic information. eventually one asshole cell didn't want to share and then others started not wanting to share and that's how we developed speciation. I'm not 100% convinced on any of the theories but they are all reasonable.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Because the argument is moot. We will never have enough evidence. How do you tell an entire group of scientists who dedicated their lives to something that their cause is futile?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    There is a large animosity between behaviorists and the forensic anthropologists.

  • robertallen1

    LOL.

    I addition, if Steve is who he says he is, why does he refuse to read peer-reviewed articles?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I've probably seen them before.

  • Guest

    I looked up Emory's Yerkes Center. They say they house 3400 non-human primates. They don't say how many human primates they house.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Or something similar. You can post an article called "Flight patterns of the condor in Florida" and then another called "Flight patterns of the condor in Virginia." With the same evidence and observation and conclusion. It's how science works. Collaboration. I don't need to read every peer-review to know that a field of study is problematic.

  • Guest

    Now prove it. I did a little search and have found no Steve...if you are honest then you have no reason to be hiding the facts, you should actually be proud...so i am waiting.
    Because i don't side with them, doesn't mean i side with you...i like the middle position, to be thought ignorant has great benefits.
    az

  • robertallen1

    What a cop-out!

    Why don't you try. Others, though few, have bucked and changed the mainstream. So why shouldn't you?

    Are you a coward, a phoney or some combination of the two?

  • robertallen1

    That shouldn't stop you. Be a man and come out fighting.

  • robertallen1

    Cop-out number 3--and I guess more are on their way.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    did you know that in the early part of the century and last part of the last century, there were peer review articles that confirmed that african-americans who ran away from plantations were actually diseased and could be cured by chopping their foot off. Or how about the peer reviewed articles that justified slavery through an examination of the size and shape of the skull? let's face it...your argument is a weak one.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    actually...I'm too busy to convince these people to change their ENTIRE lives. Posting on a forum...way easier.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    But....I'm still right. And that's all that matters.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Steve,

    By providing more convincing, strong evidence, since your argument is moot.

    The guys at CERN did it. At the stake of ruining their reputations and careers they've decided to unofficially challenge Einstein.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    You realize you haven't made an argument this entire time?

  • Guest

    Better yet RobertAllen why don't you state your position. It does little to always demean some one else's thoughts. You step forward.

  • robertallen1

    Cop-out number four, right on cue.

    You've just illustrated one of the beauties of true science, the ability to correct itself and move on. Where are the eugenics and phrenology of yesteryear?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    lol. yet that's not what you did. you didn't correct my argument...you insulted me because my "religious" conviction. So...what are you saying because it sounds like, "I'm not a scientist."

  • Guest

    I'm not necessarily on your side.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Steve:

    See, that is what I mean, anyone believing that what I wrote about the demons et al, believing that I was not being facetious, does not have enough smarts to have any degrees in anything, and people who spout about how many degrees they have are just wannabe's.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    once again....uh-huh.

  • robertallen1

    You realize you haven't written anything of intelligent or worthy of consideration this entire day?

  • robertallen1

    If you haven't figured out my position by this time, you never will.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    haha ok so basically....your entire presence here has been a cop out.

  • robertallen1

    From what you have written today, it's obvious that you aren't.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    oh yeah. totally obvious.

  • Guest

    I can "figure out" a lot of things. What I can figure out wasn't the question. Tell us your position.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Steve,

    You're correct but that is not in favor of your argument. In the past there were lot of theories that turned out to be WRONG: The Discovery of the planet Vulcan, Spontaneous Generation, The Expanding Earth, Phlogiston Theory, The Martian Canals, Luminiferous Aether, The Blank Slate Theory, Phrenology, Einstein’s Static Universe, Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion...

    And that is the beauty of science. It corrects itself all the time. Once again don't be afraid to correct those stupid forensic anthropologists.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Steve:

    "But.... I'm still right." And that's all that matters."?? "posting on a forum is way easier"??

    By those remarks leads me to believe you are still a minor schoolboy that is having tantrums, go back and cry to your mommy and daddy, we have no room for your tantrums here on TDF, but have to grant you , nice try.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i dont think you completely understand what has been presented in this documentary, which is understandable because documentaries are not the best source of objective information, so i directed you to the paper - void of sensationalism.

    it has been said over and over that you dont understand what you are arguing against.

    saying things like the devil put fossils here to test your faith is either an obvious troll or a clear sign that you are a waste of everyones time and effort.

    im not trying to be a lawyer. i am a scientist. and i present facts as they are, not clouded in rhetoric.

    once again. take a class or two on comparative anatomy or biological anthropology (both are courses i am currently in and have been for some time) then get back to us.

    all you have said is an argument from incredulity. you dont have enough information or knowledge thus you dont accept it. that is fine, but saying it is absolutely wrong is bad form. take the time to educate yourself.

    ""we have species A that has different aspects of species B and C. Therefore, species A is more like species C and, further, there is a connection between species B and C. Besides the obvious problems with this line of reasoning...can you think of any others? How about the basic assumption that Species A is not completely distinct from B and C? This was never adequately proven.""

    and im not even going to address what you said there since it is almost incoherent, or at least out of context.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    it is clear from the constant wall of text that you guys have been baited...i called this from the start.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I completely agree. I actually kind of am. Most FA's actually know some of these logical flaws, but that wasn't the point of me posting. Similar arguments can be made about Darwinian Neuroscience (i.e., it's hard to find a frame of reference). If anyone has learned anything (besides what was learned in this, surprisingly, decent documentary), it should be that you shouldn't shoot someone's argument down because they have different beliefs.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    actually, I never said I didn't accept it. I said you shouldn't accept it. Guess what? if you don't have enough evidence....you essentially don't have evidence. Once again...crappy lawyer.

  • Achems_Razor

    Epic,

    You are right, but it did stir us up from our slumber.

  • Guest

    Just for curiosity's sake Epicuris, what is your course of study?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    so absence of evidence is evidence of absence? what if enough evidence points us in a way that allows us to induce a conclusion that MAY be wrong and is open to reinterpretation.....?

  • over the edge

    @steve
    first off i went to "Emory University's Darwinian Neuroscience Lab "
    and clicked on "people" there they list only 1 person with a Phd and that is in Anthropology. i don't believe you. now if you are who you say you are i wouldn't give any more personal details away online. next i cannot prove you are wrong about ardi being separate from humans, or that god did it or that the devil placed the fossils there,or that aliens did it or or or .... the thing is that science cannot waste the volume of time needed to disprove all these claims (nothing would ever get done). the onus is on you or whomever is making the claims to prove them not the other way around. evolution is not based on ardi alone there is museums ,research facilities and universities full of fossils that support evolution.also genetics,vestigial organs and appendages, observed evolution (long term e-coli experiment among others) and so on so even if ardi is what you claim there is a long way to go to disprove evolution. so instead of asking others to prove you wrong you have to collect evidence to prove yourself right ,perform experiments based on your hypothesis, make predictions based on your evidence,show how your hypothesis works with facts already known and then only then put it up for peer review and there will be many to try to prove you wrong so before you ask others to work on your idea you need to work on it first

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    his 10,000 year demonic slumber.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i have a Bsc in Psychology and am currently going for a specialist degree in anthropology. a specialist degree here in canada is above an honors and below a masters.

    so this semester i have sociocultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, biological anthropology and World Archaeology and Prehistory....

    next semester i have some forensic anthro courses. and some philosophy thrown in for some fun.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    no you're right. absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. I just wanted the documentary to be aware of its assumptions though...and guess what...there IS an absence of evidence.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I took some philosophy. Do you know if Canada has a more analytic program or a continental program?

  • Guest

    Damn I'm thinking that's pretty good. Keep up the work.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    but there is also lots of evidence in favour. especially when you look at in light of not just THIS line of evolution but all evolution. it would also match up with predictions the theory of evolution makes such as time and place for the find as well as different anatomical characteristics.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i would have to say they are both. first and second year are mostly continental, but if you take a course in logic or major in philosophy you will certainly be dealing with analytic philosophy.

    if it were up to me modes of reasoning or Logic would be taught in grade 9 all the way through high school.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    that is an excellent point. remember I'm only pointing out a problem with the complete affirmation of Darwin through this finding. we should be modest about our pretensions (as the great Empiricist David Hume once said). I think you are absolutely right in that there is evidence both ways.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    this is EXACTLY what I wanted... show me I'm wrong, don't just tell me I'm wrong. What evidence are you talking about. I think you are on the right track.

  • Guest

    I would add rhetoric and manners.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    In America, we need logic classes more then anything....maybe ethics too.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    well i hope Az sees this.

    I came to a peaceful mutual understanding with someone on here!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I just wanted ONE person to actually argue the substance of my contention. Thank you haha.

  • Guest

    But yet your problem with Darwin is a negative. You show no alternative.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Well yes. I believe that looking at bones alone doesn't prove Darwin right. There are other proofs that Darwinian Evolution occurs, but not necessarily in Ardi. We have seen evolution on a microcosmic scale in certain breeds of animals (elongated wings in certain insects, etc). I wasn't trying to disprove Darwin.

  • Guest

    i do i do... me think you are a smart cookie!
    Leaving for Van tomorrow YEY! A little party at La Bodega.
    az

  • Guest

    Still you provide no alternative. I'm not one to insist but I do think it is your best interest to offer alternative views.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I'm saying I did already. I said they could be 3 different specifies completely. I said perhaps Ardi was a bad mutation and didn't survive very long. It doesn't mean that Ardi was able to pass its alleles enough to create the eventual mutation that lead to modern humans. It could have evolved side-by-side. And..to anticipate an argument...that doesn't mean that humans sprang from nowhere. Remember I also said that it might not be the most pragmatic or right theory. I'm just skeptical with that small of a sample size. I believe this is a reasonable contention.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    Genetics is wonderful for evidence for evolution.

    understanding how genes mutate and how inheritance goes down, you start to see that evolution is a necessary conclusion. add into that gene drift and gene flow you have a beautiful view of evolution.

    one of the best pieces of evidence that show humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor is the fusion of chimp chromosome 13 being found in human chromosome 2.

    we have also seen evolution on a macrocosmic scale in organisms like bacteria such as E. Coli or viruses like HIV. there are also species called ring species like the ensantina salamander which is a very small view of macroevolution.

    we cant see tectonic plates form mountains due to the short spans of our life times so of course for some species we wont be able to witness macroevolution.

  • Guest

    Ok, were getting somewhere.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    this is totally true...I think genetics is the key, if there is one. I'm just open to AT LEAST the possibility that we will never get enough evidence from fossils to make an accurate scale of hominid history.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    I completely agree with being skeptical due to the sample population....1.

    but you and I both know it is a relatively new discovery and the area will soon be scoured in the same way olduvai gorge and turkana lake have been.

    only time will tell and I suppose you are correct for being cautious.

    I believe it was the religious stuff that got people going...ie.

    "This is blasphemy and against the TRUE word of God. You scientists should all be ashamed and I hope that He forgives you and lets you obtain the splendor of Heaven."

    "I think we all know there is only one God...and he wasn't a monkey nor was he Nordic."

    "We do know that all those fossils are just put there by the Devil to throw us off from following His word."

    lol come on, you knew what you were doing. purposefully baiting people into illogical arguments.

  • Guest

    Oh, there is little doubt of who we are.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Yeah it gets boring here sometimes.

    But, on a serious note, yes it is a relatively new discovery. But even if there are 50,000 more like it...where do we draw the line?

    At what point to we scale back and say, with these millions of pieces of fossil evidence, we have enough data to construct a reasonable evolution of modern man and chimps?

    I don't believe that "missing link" is a fossil....I believe it is in our genetics.

  • Guest

    Well if it is our genetics, there must be a fossil. It only is reasonable.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    But, to be fair, I was trying to bait them only to have them realize that there are other ways of attacking an argument with one of these religious fanatics. Just because they seem crazy, doesn't mean their arguments are wrong. This world could be even a little bit more civil if people tried to reason with some of these people (even though they are pretty unreasonable sometimes).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    Not necessarily...and even if that's true... it might be hard to prove because the fossils are so old it's impossible to get genetic material from them to compare (remember the problems with the aging of the fossils).

  • Guest

    So what do you say? Hard to prove? What do you say?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I'm saying it could be hard to prove from fossils. If we are to look at genetics as a means to show a connection between modern humans and chimps, we have to look at similarities and differences between the viable chromosomes of both species, as Epi pointed out correctly.

  • Guest

    So let us look at them. What do you say?

  • Guest

    Never ever ask a question.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    I responded...it was a link to an article written by guy named Stefan Lovgren...go check it out at national geo..."chimps. humans 96 percent the same"

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    There is, of course, the opposite... by John Pickrell
    "Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as we thought." But I'll let you come up with your own conclusions.

  • Guest

    I can look at anything and everything. My question is what do you think?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    What do you think? Do you think we evolved from chips or trees?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    or from Snookie?

  • Guest

    I'm asking you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZEHGEIJCJHPUTADSEL63PPN5EY Steve

    read. and don't blindly argue with religious fanatics. attack their arguments not their beliefs. also, stay classy san diego. Steve Out.

  • Guest

    That's your answer?

  • Guest

    Could be. But that is the easy way out. History tells a different story. We are what we are as humans. And it ain't butterflies and blue skies.

  • Guest

    96% the same and 100% different.

  • Guest

    We are a product of evolution.

  • Guest

    I like that. "fossils are old".

  • Jeff Mintz

    they go on about how bipedality is so weird and special in humans. Hello! birds do it all the time! But they say it's weird in all of the animal kingdom. Birds are a part of the animal kingdom! If they said bipedality is unique in just the mammal kingdom then i would understand. but these are scientist, come on... also a lot of dinosaurs walked bipedaly so its not that weird at all . PS: i know, birds are related to dinos.

  • Jane Doe

    Why is it that religious people place the burden of proof on those who do not believe? That is so illogical.
    If I said that I believed in unicorns, then I'm the one who has to prove it to you as there is no evidence for them.

    You believe in God? Prove it.

  • robertallen1

    How can one attack their arguments without attacking their beliefs?

  • ardinata

    I think not to say humans come from apes because until now apes that still exist, and scientists still can not explain it clearly, if true ape ancestor Homo sapiens, was evidenced by the ability of technology can not answer whether ardi Ardipithecus ramidus is the same and there are other opinions, our ancestors came from adam, so far the scientists focused on the discovery of human-like fossils why not prove humans came from adam and Eve, scientists from either side but the other side is less developed

  • robertallen1

    First of all, don't attempt to write in English until you have mastered the language. Second, why don't you learn something about evolution before posting this ignorant slab of nonsense?

  • Geoffrey Harris

    Actually humans and chimps have over 98% of their DNA in common.