|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary History of Apes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Last night, I watched the Discovery Channel special on "Ardi." It brought up some interesting things I hadn't known until about a week or so ago, namely: "Knuckle-walking" in chimps appears to be an evolved trait from after we split, hominids evolved in forrested areas, and in the just plain cool category, Ardi was bipedal, but still had grasping feet.
One of the threads throughout the special was trying to push human ancestry back to the common ancestor with chimps, but as with Lucy, finding that Ardi was bipedal means it's even farther back. That got me thinking, what is the fossil record for Chimps and/or the other great apes? We seem to be trying to push our ancestor's back to a common one with chimps, but how far back do they have for chimps? Is it possible we've found our last common ancestor, but until we can link it in time with proto-hominid remains, we just don't know yet? I'm not sure where this would go, and I've never started a new thread since the "Proposed New Topics" strategy began, so if I need to change it, let me know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Evolutionary History of Apes thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Last night, I watched the Discovery Channel special on "Ardi." How was it? I forgot to set the DVR... is it worth hunting down?
It brought up some interesting things I hadn't known until about a week or so ago, namely: "Knuckle-walking" in chimps appears to be an evolved trait from after we split, Yup, that was the "neatest" part for me. That and that chimps are probably just as diverged from the common ancestor as we are. Which simply follows but doesn't seem to "feel" right at first thought. One of the first things I thought when I saw Ardi was: "Whoa, look at them hands!"
That got me thinking, what is the fossil record for Chimps and/or the other great apes? We seem to be trying to push our ancestor's back to a common one with chimps, but how far back do they have for chimps? Is it possible we've found our last common ancestor, but until we can link it in time with proto-hominid remains, we just don't know yet? I don't have anything to offer, sorry, but I'm with you in thinking this would be interesting to look at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
How was it? I forgot to set the DVR... is it worth hunting down? I didn't think it was Earth-shatteringly excellent, but I thought it did very weill, considering it's target. It neatly bookended the show with a description of what we found before Ardi (namely Lucy) and then what we've begun to find since, another Ardipithecus that's a million years farther back than the species in the show, which is, I believe Ardipithecus rapidus? I'm not sure what the name is for the new one, but it seems interesting.
"Whoa, look at them hands!" Yeah, the thumbs are shorter than I would have thought, and as a whole, the hands seem longer than I would have thought...but then a human hand looks far different without all that skin, muscle and other tissue in the way.
I don't have anything to offer, sorry, but I'm with you in thinking this would be interesting to look at. I can understand the draw for searching for human ancestors, but it seems to me it would be just as enlightening to follow chimps back and maybe come at it the other way and meet in the middle somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Perdition,
I can understand the draw for searching for human ancestors, but it seems to me it would be just as enlightening to follow chimps back and maybe come at it the other way and meet in the middle somewhere. My understanding is that the chimps ancestors generally lived in areas that do not lend themselves to fossil formation. There was one site that had what appeared to be chimp ancestors with Australopithecus but I've lost the link.
Message 1It brought up some interesting things I hadn't known until about a week or so ago, namely: "Knuckle-walking" in chimps appears to be an evolved trait from after we split, hominids evolved in forrested areas, and in the just plain cool category, Ardi was bipedal, but still had grasping feet. I believe this view is relatively recent, and I find it interesting to think that we may already have found a common ancestor, but don't recognize it as such because it is so different (relatively) from chimps. Just my thoughts. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
My understanding is that the chimps ancestors generally lived in areas that do not lend themselves to fossil formation. This is obviously a serious misinterpretation of the observations. What is clear from the homo and antecedent fossils that we have is that we evolved. What is equally clear from the lack of chimp ancestor fossils is it is they who are the special creation of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I find it interesting to think that we may already have found a common ancestor, but don't recognize it as such because it is so different (relatively) from chimps. I was going to reply this to Perdition, but you already brought it up. Is it possible that one of these early homos is already the common ancestor between us and chimps? Or do we know that isn't the case (like through genetics or something)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Is it possible that one of these early homos is already the common ancestor between us and chimps? Or do we know that isn't the case (like through genetics or something)? According to the show, the assumption is that bipedality is an evolved trait along the hominid line and is not a trait from before the chimp/hominid split. It seems to make sense, but a lot of things that seem to make sense turn out to be wrong, so I guess it's possible. Could Ardi's descendants split to have on line become better at bipedalism and the other become knuckle walkers with better "foot dexterity"? I'm no where near educated on the topic enough to even hazard a guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Is it possible that one of these early homos is already the common ancestor between us and chimps? Or do we know that isn't the case (like through genetics or something)? Homo itself, no. No way. The earliest known homonids, well, possible but very unlikely for two reasons: 1. The dates are wrong. The consensus dates for when humans and chimps split are about 1-3 million years before these fossils. However, the methods of dating are prone to error so it's possible - if unlikely. 2. All known hominids have derived traits not found in chimps. That is, they have features they share with us and/or later hominids but not with chimps or earlier apes. It is, again, possible that the chimp line evolved these traits but later reverted to the primitive state but it's unlikely. (Note: primitive here just means in the ancestral state, it's the opposite of derived. For example, in humans, having five fingers and two eyes are primitive traits whilst bipediality and hairlessness are derived traits)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Homo itself, no. No way. The earliest known homonids, well, possible but... Holy shit. I was using "homo" as an abbreviation for homonid and not the genus Homo >.< What a stupid abbreviation!
1. The dates are wrong. The consensus dates for when humans and chimps split are about 1-3 million years before these fossils. However, the methods of dating are prone to error so it's possible - if unlikely. Okay, yeah. I figured someone who knew would chime in before got around to looking into it myself. Thank you.
2. All known hominids have derived traits not found in chimps. That is, they have features they share with us and/or later hominids but not with chimps or earlier apes. It is, again, possible that the chimp line evolved these traits but later reverted to the primitive state but it's unlikely. That makes sense. The common ancestor is probably farther back then. Thanks again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Holy shit. I was using "homo" as an abbreviation for homonid and not the genus Homo >.< What a stupid abbreviation! Yeah, I figured you were, but I thought I'd just make sure And, in general, the naming for the human containing clades is awful Hominidae, Hominid, Hominoidae, Homininae. Edited by Mr Jack, : Extra, extra!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Before I go shuffling off to do my own research, I too am curious about what the modern chimpanzee lineage looks like. I often think that it's misleading to put modern chimp skulls at the beginning of a series of hominid skulls leading chronologically up to modern humans. After all, aren't they just as evolved as we are? Do we have evidence that chimps have remained more or less stable in a single niche while we've gone off and diverged far more significantly from the common ancestor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ZenMonkey,
Before I go shuffling off to do my own research, I too am curious about what the modern chimpanzee lineage looks like. I often think that it's misleading to put modern chimp skulls at the beginning of a series of hominid skulls leading chronologically up to modern humans. I agree, and that is why I feel that the common ancestor is more likely to look like the oldest hominid than a modern chimp.
I'd like to see the intermediate species listed as well. By the way, this is the one I was thinking may be the "already seen" common ancestor: Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia
quote: While the "split" is estimated to have occurred 5 to 6 million years ago. Human evolution - Wikipedia
quote: With these fossils being so close to the time of divergence it is likely that the common ancestor was very similar to these species if they are not the common ancestors. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Ah... I see the dating of the split has been revised forward, last I saw it was estimated at 6-8 Ma. So my point 1 above was wrong. Cool
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack,
Ah... I see the dating of the split has been revised forward, last I saw it was estimated at 6-8 Ma. So my point 1 above was wrong. Cool Provided the new estimates are any more accurate than the last it's not much of a move, and I'll be happy to wait for more evidence. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024