"Ida" fossil not missing link after all

[jinxmchue]

AP story, so I can't copy even the tiniest bit of it, but experts have now completely rejected Ardipithecus ramidus Darwinius masillae - aka "Ida" - as an evolutionary ancestor of humans.  This news vindicates Ken Ham, the American Family Association, Rush Limbaugh and many other skeptical Creationists.

‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all

And to Charles Johnson, all I can say after all this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33706_Going_Ape

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33701_Rush_Limbaugh_Creationist

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34821_The_Unveiling_of_Ardipithecus

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33719_Who_Cares_About_a_Dead_Lemur

...is "Chuck U. Farlie.  Chuck U."

Edit: fixed name.

[Chris_]

There have been quite a few shows on TV lately about dinosaurs.  Apparently from a handful of fragmented bones, the "scientists" can now tell us all about dinosaur skin color, eating habits, mating rituals, and how they raised their young.  They even know what the animals sounded like.
 

[Chris_]

There have been quite a few shows on TV lately about dinosaurs.  Apparently from a handful of fragmented bones, the "scientists" can now tell us all about dinosaur skin color, eating habits, mating rituals, and how they raised their young.  They even know what the animals sounded like.
 

If you saw it on the Discovery Channel, it MUST be true.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

There have been quite a few shows on TV lately about dinosaurs.  Apparently from a handful of fragmented bones, the "scientists" can now tell us all about dinosaur skin color, eating habits, mating rituals, and how they raised their young.  They even know what the animals sounded like.
 

I saw one of those shows and it struck me curious that the scientists kept saying that this attribute of the creature was "designed" for one function and that attribute was "engineered" for another function.

Weirder still, they were discussing a sea-going beast with massive paddle-oar shaped appendages. For all their scientificalism the scientificalists admitted they could not imagine how the beast propelled itself through the water. It wasn't until the CGI artists were seeking guidance on how to animate the creature that they admitted they had no idea...so the artists looked at the animal's form and filled in the blanks on its functions.

It struck me as incredibly curious that the thing should be a mystery until such time as minds of both logic and beauty should consider the issue. I should think any creative persona would be similarly inclined.

[djones520]

AP story, so I can't copy even the tiniest bit of it, but experts have now completely rejected Ardipithecus ramidus - aka "Ida" - as an evolutionary ancestor of humans.  This news vindicates Ken Ham, the American Family Association, Rush Limbaugh and many other skeptical Creationists.

‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all

And to Charles Johnson, all I can say after all this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33706_Going_Ape

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33701_Rush_Limbaugh_Creationist

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34821_The_Unveiling_of_Ardipithecus

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33719_Who_Cares_About_a_Dead_Lemur

...is "Chuck U. Farlie.  Chuck U."

I think your getting a bit ahead of yourself Jinxy.  Ida was not an Ardipithecus Ramidus.  You're probably thinking of "Ardi".

Ardipithecus Ramidus is still firmly believed to be in the human evolutionary chain.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

[djones520]

There have been quite a few shows on TV lately about dinosaurs.  Apparently from a handful of fragmented bones, the "scientists" can now tell us all about dinosaur skin color, eating habits, mating rituals, and how they raised their young.  They even know what the animals sounded like.
 

It's amazing the things you can figure out when you find intact skulls, and neck fragments.  Like being able to do MRI's and rebuild their brains, vocal chords, etc...

Isn't technology great?

[jinxmchue]

I think your getting a bit ahead of yourself Jinxy.  Ida was not an Ardipithecus Ramidus.  You're probably thinking of "Ardi".

Ardipithecus Ramidus is still firmly believed to be in the human evolutionary chain.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

Oops.  Yeah.  I c-n-p'd the wrong name.

[djones520]

Darwinius Masillae is what you were looking for.

[Chris_]

It's amazing the things you can figure out when you find intact skulls, and neck fragments.  Like being able to do MRI's and rebuild their brains, vocal chords, etc...

Isn't technology great?

That would at least make some sense, but how do you tell what the critter ate and how it raised its young when all you have is <50% of a leg bone?

[djones520]

That would at least make some sense, but how do you tell what the critter ate and how it raised its young when all you have is <50% of a leg bone?

Reconstruction can be done very easily by a leg bone.  How it's shaped can help to determine whether it was a carnivore, or herbivore.  Whether it was a biped or quadriped.  Mammal, Bird, or Reptile.  If you have a leg, you can determine it's hip structure, and so on from there.

Teeth are also some of the most abundant fossiles found, given that their some of the most "surivable" parts of the body.  Using teeth make it very easy to figure out what it ate.  How it's jaw and head where built can easily be reconstructed from that as well, and then you go from there.  Once you get a general idea of the type of creature that it was, you can begin to piece it's social life together by compairing it to other species (living or dead) it shares similiarities to, or other clues that future fossile finds may divulge.

It's anything but an exact science, but it is based on solid guess work.  Sometimes new finds come along that will disprove the original theory, and it has to be reworked, but that in my opinion is the greatest part of anthropology.  Constant learning.

[JohnnyReb]

It's the skeletal remains of the earliest known democrat politician. Notice the sneaky crouch of the figure, the grubby shape of the hand bones, the long tail, the small brain area and the sly smirk on the facial bones.

Should be named "Democratus Politicus" or Al Sharpton for us common folk.

[bkg]

Always wondered...

We know that species go extinct every day.

Why is it when we find a "species" we don't recognize, it HAS to be proof of evolution and is not just another species that existed a long time ago?

curious.

[thundley4]

Always wondered...

We know that species go extinct every day.

Why is it when we find a "species" we don't recognize, it HAS to be proof of evolution and is not just another species that existed a long time ago?

curious.

OTOH, when we find a "living fossil" like the coelacanth , it isn't proof of no evolution happening?

[djones520]

Always wondered...

We know that species go extinct every day.

Why is it when we find a "species" we don't recognize, it HAS to be proof of evolution and is not just another species that existed a long time ago?

curious.

Millions of species populate this planet right now.  Do you know how many differant extinct species we have found?  How many we have yet to find?  Do you believe that more then 10 differant species of Humans have lived on the planet at the same time, just with all but ours going extinct in a certain order?  Can you explain why we can find no fossils of certain animals alive today in the same geological strata with those animals that existed a long time ago?

[Chris_]

Reconstruction can be done very easily by a leg bone.  How it's shaped can help to determine whether it was a carnivore, or herbivore.  Whether it was a biped or quadriped.  Mammal, Bird, or Reptile.  If you have a leg, you can determine it's hip structure, and so on from there.

Teeth are also some of the most abundant fossiles found, given that their some of the most "surivable" parts of the body.  Using teeth make it very easy to figure out what it ate.  How it's jaw and head where built can easily be reconstructed from that as well, and then you go from there.  Once you get a general idea of the type of creature that it was, you can begin to piece it's social life together by compairing it to other species (living or dead) it shares similiarities to, or other clues that future fossile finds may divulge.

It's anything but an exact science, but it is based on solid guess work.  Sometimes new finds come along that will disprove the original theory, and it has to be reworked, but that in my opinion is the greatest part of anthropology.  Constant learning.

To me, it's guesses based on guesses, based on guesses, but very often presented as fact rather than conclusions based on guesses.  "Here's what happened" instead of "Here's what might have happened".

[jinxmchue]

It's amazing the things you can figure out when you find intact skulls, and neck fragments.  Like being able to do MRI's and rebuild their brains, vocal chords, etc...

Isn't technology great?

Yep.  I forget exactly what animal it was, but all they had of it was this small skull fragment.  From that, they not only reconstructed the entire skull, but also the body and tail.  I'd really like to know how a little skull fragment can tell you what an animals body and tail looked like (and that it even had a tail!).

[jinxmchue]

I used LGF's contact form to send that link to Charles.  Unsurprisingly, he has not posted it on his blog.  I'm surprised he didn't IP block me again, though.

[bkg]

Millions of species populate this planet right now.  Do you know how many differant extinct species we have found?  How many we have yet to find?  Do you believe that more then 10 differant species of Humans have lived on the planet at the same time, just with all but ours going extinct in a certain order?  Can you explain why we can find no fossils of certain animals alive today in the same geological strata with those animals that existed a long time ago?

WTF?

[vesta111]

 So funny all this, I watched a program about the scientists finding a complete skeleton of some Dino that was a bit scattered.  They had no idea what went where.

A few years later some one in South America found a pottery vessel with a painting of this weird creature on it.

By luck the scientists saw the painting and recognised that they could use the picture to assemble the bones they had to look exactly like the painting with nothing left over.

Now the question arose, were Dino's around when men kind were in mid-stride of civilisations?

Why do diverse cultures talk about dragons and strange creatures.?
 If the Dino's died out thousands of years before humans, why did different cultures even think about them or put them into their cultures oral history.?

Lots to wonder about in this interesting home planet. 

Where did the dragon come from for St. George to slay.?

[jinxmchue]

1. Religious people make a claim.
2. Claim is proven wrong.
3. Therefore, religious people are morons and religion is bad.

1. Scientists make a claim.
2. Claim is proven wrong.
3. "That's the scientific process!"
4. Therefore, scientists are so smart and science is great.

Huh?