The Ape That Took Over The World
In 2001, scientists announced an amazing discovery: the oldest skull of a human ancestor ever found. The 3½ million year old fossil was remarkably complete, and unlike any previous fossil find. Its discovery - by a team led by Meave Leakey of the famous Leakey fossil-hunting family - has revolutionized our understanding of how humans evolved.
The great mystery of our evolution is how an ape could have evolved into the extraordinary creature that is a human being. There has never been another animal like us on the planet. And yet ten million years ago there was no sign that humans would take over the world. Instead the Earth was dominated by the apes. More than 50 different species of ape roamed the world - ten million years ago Earth really was the planet of the apes. Three million years later, most had vanished. In their place came something clearly related to the apes, but also completely different: human beings!
Brainy or bipedal? For years scientists searched for the first key characteristic which had allowed us to make the huge leap from ape to amazing human. At first they thought the development of our big brains was decisive. They even found the fossil that seemed to prove it, until along came the famous three million year old fossilized skeleton Lucy. This quashed the big brain theory, because here was a human ancestor which clearly walked on two legs, just as we do, but had the tiny brain of an ape. It seemed that the development of walking on two legs (bipedalism) was the first key human characteristic, the thing that set us on the road to becoming human.
Lucy soon became even more important. She seemed to defy the laws of evolution. Normally a major evolutionary adaptation like walking on two legs is followed by what scientists call an adaptive radiation. Many related species quickly evolve from an initial evolutionary innovation. It gives a very bushy evolutionary family tree, with many different but related species. Scientists knew that the human branch of the family tree had begun about six or seven million years ago, when the planet of the apes ended. And yet there was no sign of an adaptive radiation. The family tree showed just a straight line leading from the planet of the apes through to Lucy. (Excerpt from bbc.co.uk.)
I very much don't think that is actually an ape, as it bears an uncanny resemblance to my next door neighbour, in terms of both physical appearance and intellectual capacity. I believe this to be a subhuman?
If you wonder why a sceptic of religion would rip this doc too shreds i was not brainwashed by the formatting of control-education.There are no links from this skull too humans it is conjecture.................no god so far and no missing link,just pointing the true facts..if religion proves god before the missing link is found all science is pointless hrrrm ;) but we need the missing link not conjecture and hot air like this docu.
if ur wondering y i just acted so smart, I'm in accelerated science, and we do a lot of human research.
humans are the smartest ape of all time.
i don't care if we r 'naked,' weak, or slow. brains is the most powerful weapon ever. look at jurassic park, wen the kids outsmart the raptors, or wen grant outsmarts the t rex. i no its just a movie, but think about it: a human walks into a bear's cave. now, there is no way at all a human could beat a bear without weapons. but humans no that they will make theirselves look bigger if they raise their arms. the human raises their arms and walks slowly out of the cave. human outsmarted bear. i don't care about any of the planet of the apes movies. these r good movies, but nothing will ever outsmart humans.
plus, in 'rise of the planet of the apes,' there is a virus that wipes out humanity. humans and chimps are 99% the same. i doubt theres too many viruses that chimps are immune to and we humans die from.
who agrees?
'we' are only the most intelligent animal cos 'we' set the test paper. i wouldn't fancy taking an external exam any time soon.
The Kenyanthropus fossil is oversold here; it is by no means clear that it is a unique species. There is considerable debate in the paleoanthopology community over whether it is another A. afarensis fossil like Lucy, or from another Australopithecus species.
maybe those different kinds of apes find themselves atractive and started having intercourse and here we are.
I enjoy reading the comments as much as I like watching the documentarys. Always lively and entertaining : )
It could be.. but it shure is strange that all the primates have 48 cromossoms and we have 46 - where did the go - why have we lost our strnght - we are the slowest and one of the most weak memmals... Why are we so diferent? + it still is nothing more than speculations - just a tought...
@ Randy
"....academia in this country, (USA), more than any other time in its history, has become much more conservative and much more religious… another sign of a failing Empire.
Yay for the USA!!! Keep up the good work! Hopefully we will be able to say the same thing about Canada very, very soon. Do you think there might be a reason for the increasing religiosity of society??? People have a great need for something bigger than themselves - period.
he says we are the most intelligent like we have proof. WTFE
what if lucie had a disease that made her brain smaller..... they have found a disease today that makes the brain grow smaller then usual. those people are very handicap. Could it be possible that lucie got that disease?
Gah! No forums!?
Apparantly he did get rid of them. I'll put it up on this link for an hour or so, then I'll take it down.
talkamongstyourselves. freeforums. org/post45235. html#p45235
I have a nephew who is going to college right now, and he also despises christianity. Maybe I influenced him, I don't know. I would be proud if I did!
Well, he wrote this paper for which he recieved a "C" and he asked me to review it and give him my opinion, (it was a paper on... hmmm.. classical literature and its influence on social mores... hmmm... maybe I influence him more than I think?)
Anyways, I read the paper and it was brilliant! Were I his teacher, I would have given him an "A-" and the minus, only for some run-on sentences, of which I am horribly guilty, all the time!
The paper was about the rejection of christianity throughout the classical period and he quoted Blake and Yeats, and so many other great authors and poets... it was wonderful.
I turned to him and asked, "Is your professor a christian?"
He answered, "Yes... she talks about the bible all the time as the greatest book ever written..."
Well, my seething has yet to burn out, even as it was many months ago...
My point is to you, D-K, academia in this country, (USA), more than any other time in its history, has become much more conservative and much more religious... another sign of a failing Empire.
Take that as you will...
Meanwhile, your comment about 22 and no social life concerns me... I would like to chat with you about it, but I do not want to "air" it out in public like this.
I see no forums, I think Vlatko took them down? Am I missing something?
Stop lookin at my goods man, you're married for crying out loud!
It's not that I've been rejected by my peers, I actually don't really have any peers. The only one that usually reviews my fully written thesis' and examines them for logical inconsistancies is me.
22 and not even a shred of a social life. Fantastic. hahaha.. But I digress.
I actually enjoy being burnt, BECAUSE I hate being burnt. The more I get burned, the more effort I'll put into not being burnt.. keeps me sharp. This is why peer-reviews usually feel less-than-objective to me. People of a similar mind will not fully scrutinize my words, whereas a creationist will look for any opening to destroy my hypothesis.
Opposition > peers in terms of objectivity.
I could sense that, (not in a psychic way, but just in your writing... nothing supernatural!).
I felt that you had been rejected by your peers and it burnt you a little.
You had a crispy taste to your writing, today! LOL!
Listen, I am pretty good at seeing "the goods" and I think you have "the goods".
Oh lordy... that sounded all gay again... please forgive me... again... dejevu, as it were...
Well, the best method we have to look at space is by looking at it through a giant stationary toiletpaper roll with some mirrors in and under it, I'm just saying it could-nay, should be better.
Could be me though, I'm having a bit of an off-week, intellectually that is.
I actually got schooled in logical probability of social inter-personal clustering (long story), something I usually excell in.. (at?).
Meh, maybe next week i'll be in my top-game again.
Well, I will do that, (sign up for the forum...) however, I thought Vlatko said weeks ago that he may be eliminating the forum as people were avoiding it, (I believe he called them "Siberia"), in favor of, or in aquiescense to, our "chit-chat" on his front page.
But, if he has a mind to keep the forums, then I would be happy to do that.
As far as the peer-reviewed process, I must respectfully disagree with you. It is the very best method we have of battering the hell out of whacky ideas until they either, survive and become true, or die a bloody death in the arena of science.
It is Nature, itself. We must all and our ideas, too, be tried in the fires of recrimination!
WOW, that WAS totally pompous!
Ugh, I hate lower-case.. damn inferior tiny letters! lol
Perhaps you could sign up for the forum on TDF, it allows you to send private messages to users on TDF which would a: make it possible to exchange email adresses privately and, b: would eliminate the need to exchange email adresses in the first place :)
No bitterness, no anger. I simply find the peer-review process to be .. erm.. unscientific. Objectivity is an uncommon trait, moreso when you judge on matters you have an interest in yourself.
It's human nature to question that which goes against out beliefs or thoughts and to accept that which reaffirms it. This is quite dangerous within the scientific field, albeit it to a lesser extent in theoretical science.
You know how highly I value objectivity, subjective judgement in the field of science is devastatingly counter-productive, in my view.
I just looked up the precedent for an IP address acting as signature, "Makanowitzky v. Rhodes"
Nasty case involving, what I believe, was Russian mob web-sites, (thousands of them, besides oil and gas-stations, web-sites are their main source of income), and some poor citizen that lost his house because he followed a web-scam.
The court decided that Rhodes's IP address was as good as a signature as his signature was provided by his service provider... etc...
Scary, brave new, electronic world!
Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Indeed, for a number of journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers
Not to mention that the people reviewing the process remain anonymous from anyone that matters in the process.
However, in no way am i arguing it is 100% reliable. Just more reliable in most cases.
Alternatively, trying not to clutter Vlatko's blog with off-topic "chit-chat", I would certainly give him legal, written permission, (right here, which would stand up in most courts of law...), to send you my e-mail address, if he were so inclined and found it not too inconvenient.
I know that he does not want us to share e-mails on the front page, and that is wise, but I would authorize him to share it with you, and Epicurus, and Achems Razor, erin*666.
Again, if he were so inclined and if it were not too much of an inconvenience.
Otherwise, I have no pages, or other internet presence, other than my business web-page, which I would also not disclose here as that would ASLO be a breach of Vlatko's trust.
Anyways...
@D-K (your last post had lower-case letters, what up wit dat?):
This doesn't seem like you. I sense some bitterness and anger? I have been reading some of your recent posts and there is some real angst going on?
Can I help? Or, is this not the proper forum...
(That's up to Vlatko, of course... I said I was getting out of the "social aspect" of the site, but as I am on wife-ordered bed rest right now... "Just when I thought I was OUT! They pull me back IN...")
Peer review often lacks intensity in scrutinizing an affirming/confirming/coinciding thesis.
That which affirms is usually met with acknowledgement, rather than scientific skepticism, which equals scientific integrity.
I'm not a fan of peer reviews. (in general)
@Epicurus...
Yes, indeed. (I write that alot, "Yes, indeed" and now I see how truly pompous it is...)
Um... totally, dude!
Wait... that is just wrong for my idiom... hey! I'm pompous, what can I say...