6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?

Jamin4422 · Sep 13, 2012

When they talk about the common ancestor between Chimps and humans, they are talking about something that lived 6 million years ago. This photo shows what could be the remains we have of that very first upright human. Now, I do not know about you, but I am going to need a little bit more then this to accept that Humans and Chimps shared a common ancestor. This is why GAP people just do not get into a discussion about whatever old bones or skulls you find. Because there really is not enough there to support their theory. The fragments they produce do not contain enough evidence to support their theory. They say they got a lot of evidence, but when it comes to show and tell time, they show up pretty empty handed. Notice the nice little artistic drawing they put in there to try and show you the results they want you to accept from the fragments they are showing you here. They show you an artist painting of a very human looking chimp, to try and get you to accept their theory that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. This is all to much the product of someones imagination for it to work for me.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
When they talk about the common ancestor between Chimps and humans, they are talking about something that lived 6 million years ago. This photo shows what could be the remains we have of that very first upright human. Now, I do not know about you, but I am going to need a little bit more then this to accept that Humans and Chimps shared a common ancestor. This is why GAP people just do not get into a discussion about whatever old bones or skulls you find. Because there really is not enough there to support their theory. The fragments they produce do not contain enough evidence to support their theory. They say they got a lot of evidence, but when it comes to show and tell time, they show up pretty empty handed. Notice the nice little artistic drawing they put in there to try and show you the results they want you to accept from the fragments they are showing you here. They show you an artist painting of a very human looking chimp, to try and get you to accept their theory that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. This is all to much the product of someones imagination for it to work for me.

You know, jamin, that the scientific presentation would actually consist of more than the bones and the artists' impression - indeed, the latter wouldn't be part of the evidence at all. Why do you not link to the actual paper describing the find, which would include things like:

1. measurements of the bones and conclusions drawn therefrom, and the basis of those conclusions;
2. comparison with other finds;
3. alternative hypotheses and why they are rejected.

It's a bit disingenuous to pretend that all that the scientists "have" is some bones and a picture. Naughty.

To help everyone else, here's the Nat. Geo. article (note - not the paper, but considerably more informative than what you've presented) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080320-biped-ancestor_2.html

The paper itself is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5870/1662.long although it requires registration. The abstract is freely available.

The Engineer · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
When they talk about the common ancestor between Chimps and humans, they are talking about something that lived 6 million years ago. This photo shows what could be the remains we have of that very first upright human.

Where have you got the information from that the common ancestor of humans and chimps walked upright? That's most likely not the case, as Australopithecus didn't walk upright, either, and he lived 4 million years ago, not 6 million years.

Now, I do not know about you, but I am going to need a little bit more then this to accept that Humans and Chimps shared a common ancestor.

Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The thesis, chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, is not just founded on the fossil record, but also on genetic similarities.

This is why GAP people just do not get into a discussion about whatever old bones or skulls you find. Because there really is not enough there to support their theory.

Again, genetics. Also, the fact that, for quite some species, there's a pretty good fossil record. For example, there are over 200 fossils of homo erectus.

The fragments they produce do not contain enough evidence to support their theory.

False.

They say they got a lot of evidence, but when it comes to show and tell time, they show up pretty empty handed.

You mean, empty handed as in more than 200 fossils from homo erectus and a complete skeleton of australopithecus afarensis?
Washingtonpost.com: Full Australopithecus Fossil Found in South Africa

Notice the nice little artistic drawing they put in there to try and show you the results they want you to accept from the fragments they are showing you here.

That's an artists' representation of what the common ancestor may have looked like. It surely wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal. :doh:

By the way, the drawing looks pretty good, if you ask me.

They show you an artist painting of a very human looking chimp, to try and get you to accept their theory that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Actually, no. They do it to make it possible for you to imagine what the common ancestor may have possibly looked like.

This is all to much the product of someones imagination for it to work for me.

Again, it's a picture. Just a picture. Scientists don't use those things as evidence. They don't need to. They already have enough evidence.

RickG · Sep 14, 2012

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
You know, jamin, that the scientific presentation would actually consist of more than the bones and the artists' impression - indeed, the latter wouldn't be part of the evidence at all. Why do you not link to the actual paper describing the find, which would include things like:

1. measurements of the bones and conclusions drawn therefrom, and the basis of those conclusions;
2. comparison with other finds;
3. alternative hypotheses and why they are rejected.

It's a bit disingenuous to pretend that all that the scientists "have" is some bones and a picture. Naughty.

To help everyone else, here's the Nat. Geo. article (note - not the paper, but considerably more informative than what you've presented) 6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?

The paper itself is here: Science Magazine: Sign In although it requires registration. The abstract is freely available.

Excellent post Karl. No doubt the OP is intended to make a mockery of science when in fact it is only do so to itself.

BTW, here's a link to the full article with free access to everyone:

http://lapetus.uchile.cl/lapetus/archivos/1222871605RICHMOND2008_Orrorinbipedalism.pdf

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Now, I do not know about you, but I am going to need a little bit more then this to accept that Humans and Chimps shared a common ancestor.

The genetic evidence is irrefutable. We do share a common ancestor. Transitional fossils are just icing on the cake.

This is why GAP people just do not get into a discussion about whatever old bones or skulls you find. Because there really is not enough there to support their theory.

We have hundreds of transitional hominid fossils. Why is that not enough?

We also have irrefutable genetic evidence, so why even complain about fossils?

They say they got a lot of evidence, but when it comes to show and tell time, they show up pretty empty handed.

No, they don't. No matter how many fossils are presented we get posts just like yours. Denying the evidence does not make it go away.

They show you an artist painting of a very human looking chimp, to try and get you to accept their theory that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. This is all to much the product of someones imagination for it to work for me.

And then we get lies like this one. It isn't imagination. These bones are real. Very, very real.

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
You know, jamin, that the scientific presentation would actually consist of more than the bones and the artists' impression

The reason they are showing the hip bone is that they are trying to show that THIS was the first whatever that walked upright. If you remember Lucy there was LOTS of discussion about if Lucy really walked upright or not.

IF you can establish that whatever this was did indeed walk upright, THEN they go to the NEXT step to try and prove Darwin's common ancestor theory. All based on a hip bone of what they say is the ancestor of a human. I am glad that you have confidence and faith in the story they tell about these 6 million year old hip bones they have found. I do not have the same confidence that you have that the story they tell is true. Sounds like a Fairy Tale to me. Fairies, Goblins, Elves, Trolls, Dwarves, Giants, Mermaids, or Gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. One story is as good as another.

Remember as your looking at the PHOTO this is a COLLECTION of hip bones. I am not even sure they all came from the same species. I am not sure they are all 6 million years old. Some of them look a lot more recent then 6 million years. After all there are 6 hip bones in the photo and humans only have TWO hipbones.

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
The reason they are showing the hip bone is that they are trying to show that THIS was the first whatever that walked upright. If you remember Lucy there was LOTS of discussion about if Lucy really walked upright or not.

All of the evidence points to Lucy being functionally bipedal. Lucy has adaptations for bipedalism that other apes do not have.

IF you can establish that whatever this was did indeed walk upright, THEN they go to the NEXT step to try and prove Darwin's common ancestor theory. All based on a hip bone of what they say is the ancestor of a human.

John, it is based on genetics, not fossils. What the fossils can tell us is what evolved when. Did the brain increase in size before bipedalism, or did bipedalism come before the increase in brain size? Those are the types of questions that fossils can answer. The question of whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor is already answered by genetics.

I am glad that you have confidence and faith in the story they tell about these 6 million year old hip bones they have found.

Why do we need faith when we have evidence?

Remember as your looking at the PHOTO this is a COLLECTION of hip bones. I am not even sure they all came from the same species. I am not sure they are all 6 million years old. Some of them look a lot more recent then 6 million years. After all there are 6 hip bones in the photo and humans only have TWO hipbones.

Look who is making up stories now. That would be you.

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The genetic evidence is irrefutable. We do share a common ancestor.

Of course we share a common ancestor. Time magazine calls them Adam and Eve. Then you get into a very big problem or issue of "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock"

"Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics
procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf

Could you please tell me that part again of what do I tell my son when we go fishing and all the fish are dead on the shore and there are no live fish in the lake to catch? Do I tell him don't worry science had nothing to do with this?

110106-fish-kill-sandy-point3.grid-6x2.jpg

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The question of whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor is already answered by genetics.

The oldest genetics you have for humans is 12,000 years. So you look at the DNA of humans and you look at the DNA of Chimps and you claim you can tell us what happened 6 million years ago. All life on earth comes from DNA: Everything. Some looks more like other. Everyone agrees that Chimps look more human then Pigs do. So it only stands to reason that their DNA is going to be more like our DNA. That does not mean we share a common ancestor with the Chimps. I understand you have a theory and your looking for evidence to back up your theory. But there are a lot of people who feel you have failed to provide that evidence.

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Of course we share a common ancestor. Time magazine calls them Adam and Eve.

So you agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? If so, why are you complaining about these fossils?

"Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics
procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf

What they found is that different regions of the mtDNA genome mutate faster than others. This is taken into consideration when looking at mtDNA based molecular clocks. This is really a non-issue.

Could you please tell me that part again of what do I tell my son when we go fishing and all the fish are dead on the shore and there are no live fish in the lake to catch? Do I tell him don't worry science had nothing to do with this?

Science is a tool. It is humans who do bad things, not science. You might as well blame all of the deaths in WWII on guns while ignoring human culpability.

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
So you look at the DNA of humans and you look at the DNA of Chimps and you claim you can tell us what happened 6 million years ago.

Yes. Each genome is a direct record of the evolutionary events since those two lineages went in their own direction. Our genomes carry DNA sequence from that common ancestral population from 6 million years ago. We have that evidence NOW.

Everyone agrees that Chimps look more human then Pigs do. So it only stands to reason that their DNA is going to be more like our DNA.

That only makes sense if evolution is true. Separately created species could look similar and not even share the same genetic molecule. Mac's and PC's look similar, but they don't even share the same OS, so why would chimps and humans need to share the same DNA?

That does not mean we share a common ancestor with the Chimps.

Yes, it does. That is how it works. Individuals who share a common ancestor share DNA. Humans and chimps share DNA.

Why do you think siblings share DNA?

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Loudmouth said:
And then we get lies like this one. It isn't imagination. These bones are real. Very, very real.

You do not see the drawing behind the bones. Intead of calling me a liar then you should get your glasses fixed. When you took college debate were you allowed to call your opponent a liar or would that be a violation of the rules?

[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif][/FONT]

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
You do not see the drawing behind the bones.

You do not see the bones.

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Loudmouth said:
So you agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? If so, why are you complaining about these fossils?

ME? I don't know. For the sake of debate I have decided to argue against that. I assume you have decided to argue for that.

What they found is that different regions of the mtDNA genome mutate faster than others. This is taken into consideration when looking at mtDNA based molecular clocks. This is really a non-issue.

This is NOT a none issue at all. FIRST of all we have almost 7 billion people alive. The mutation rate for 7 million people is different than the mutation rate back when there were 100,000 people alive. You really do not know when your Adam and Eve lived, because when they lived is 100% based on the mutation rate and you do not know what the mutation rate is. That is why your numbers are all over the place.

Science is a tool. It is humans who do bad things, not science. You might as well blame all of the deaths in WWII on guns while ignoring human culpability.

You know that worked 50 years ago when I was a kid and we went fishing and all the fish were dead on the shore. You could blame it on the business man. But today they are dead because of ONE company Monsanto. They do not want to be associated with business, they want to be associated with science.

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Loudmouth said:
You do not see the bones.

Yep, I see the bones. How do you even know that the bones are 6 million years old?

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
This is NOT a none issue at all.

Since it is taken into account within our models for molecular clocks I fail to see how it is a problem.

FIRST of all we have almost 7 billion people alive. The mutation rate for 7 million people is different than the mutation rate back when there were 100,000 people alive.

How does population size change the mutation rate?

You really do not know when your Adam and Eve lived, because when they lived is 100% based on the mutation rate and you do not know what the mutation rate is. That is why your numbers are all over the place.

If we don't know what the mutation rate is, then how could you point to papers about different mutation rates? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

You know that worked 50 years ago when I was a kid and we went fishing and all the fish were dead on the shore. You could blame it on the business man. But today they are dead because of ONE company Monsanto. They do not want to be associated with business, they want to be associated with science.

Science is not responsible for what companies do. Companies are responsible for what companies do. Your understanding of morality is very frightening, to say the least. If it were up to you, you would put the handgun in prison while letting the murderer go free.

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Yep, I see the bones. How do you even know that the bones are 6 million years old?

The age reported is based on the measurement of igneous rocks associated with the fossil sediments. I tend to take these measurements at face value like I do for most reported measurements in the peer reviewed lit. Are you saying that the scientists are lying about those radiometric dates? Are you saying that they are lying about the ratio of isotopes found in those rocks?

Jamin4422 · Sep 14, 2012

Loudmouth said:
That only makes sense if evolution is true.

Structure follows design and materials. That is the problem, my formal education was in design and that is why I have a problem with evolution. IT is a theory developed by people who do not have training in design principles.

Loudmouth · Sep 14, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Structure follows design and materials. That is the problem, my formal education was in design and that is why I have a problem with evolution. IT is a theory developed by people who do not have training in design principles.

Then let's look at design principles. Let's say that two houses are identical when looking at them from the outside. Does this mean that they will both use the same material for their pipes? Does that mean that they will have the same flooring? Does it mean that if one uses incadescent bulbs that the other will have to use those same bulbs instead of fluorsecent bulbs?

At the same time, I can have two houses that look entirely different on the outside, and yet they will have the SAME carpet and pipes on the inside.

Everything we know about design CONTRADICTS what you are claiming. The ONLY reason why we would expect DNA sequence to be more similar in humans and chimps as humans and pigs is evolution. That is the ONLY reason.

Jamin4422 · Sep 15, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Why do you think siblings share DNA?

Because they usually have the same mommy and sometimes even the same daddy. Unless of course they have two daddys, then it becomes a little bit more complicated. Or as Penny says: The only way I can afford to buy those shoes is if I rent my body out to a gay couple that wants a baby.

6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?

Member

Senior Veteran

I defeated Dr Goetz

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Member

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Member

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Similar threads