- Comparative religion (3)
- Culture & society (75)
- History (28)
- Notable Quotes (18)
- Personal story (13)
- Politics (32)
- Science and faith (114)
- Uncategorized (44)
- January 24, 2012: Evolution in Excel
- January 11, 2012: Steno's Applied Science
- January 9, 2012: "Love" in the Bible and Qur'an
- November 6, 2011: The Problem with My Spouse
- October 23, 2011: Mind Brain Controversy
- August 26, 2011: How Old Is The Earth?
- July 31, 2011: The Problem with Embracing All Religions
- July 8, 2011: Why do you call God your father?
- June 1, 2011: About Being Basically Good
- May 1, 2011: Lizards and the Law
Blogroll
Chat
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Thinking About Ardi
Have you met Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), your “newest oldest ancestor?” Friday’s Wall Street Journal has a full article and slide show online about this fossil find from Ethiopia.
I never cease to be amazed at how every few years a new fossil ancestor is found for humans. Each time it is older, and every time it is closer to our split-off from other primates. Hence, Ardi is our “newest oldest.” I would encourage any reader to carefully decide if they are being led to conclusions by “experts,” when their personal logic might conclude otherwise.
First, do the scientists have any reason to want these fossils to be our ancestors? Yes, they are more likely to get grants, publicity, promotion, and status among peers if they find our newest oldest ancestor. This of course does not in itself say the information is less than accurate, but I suggest it does make me want to review the claims less credulously. Now let’s review:
The slideshow provides excellent images of the fossils and their reconstructions. Slide 1 shows the bone structure of the foot. No, not the hand, the foot. It is obviously prehensile. Remember, the claim is that these bones represent the closest relative to both humans and monkeys. Move on to Slide 3 for a look at the hand. The caption says, “Ardi, unlike apes and chimps, had supple writs, strong thumbs, flexible fingers and power-grip palms shaped to grasp objects like sticks and stones firmly.” Note that the bones of Ardi’s fingers are curved and combine to form a major curve, as is true for all climbing monkeys. Don’t take my word for it. Compare the fingers of a human hand with those of various climbing monkeys in these pictures. Ardi’s fingers are indeed designed for grasping objects like sticks.. in particular, tree branches.
Moving along to Slide 4: “Ardi and her relatives, the researchers say, made their home in the woods, not on Africa’s open savannah grasslands long considered the main area of human development. Their distinctive pelvis suggests they walked easily enough.” Notice how easily enough Ardi is pictured walking on a tree branch, which accommodates the foot thumb more readily than flat ground. Note also that the pelvis of tree monkeys in general is designed to allow movement of the legs straight forward for climbing, yes, unlike gorillas and chimps, which are primarily ground dwellers.
Now consider Slide 7 where you will find a rendering of how these scientists picture Ardi. Notice that the most human features are the upper arms, shoulders, and torso. Slide 9 tells us how fragmented the bones of the skill and pelvis were without comment on how likely the scientists are to have gotten the assembly right; and in Slide 10 we are finally shown just how many bones were used to construct our “ancestor.” Notice which bones are present and more to the point, which are missing. Let us not forget that the most human part of Lucy was her feet, which were never found. It seems that the less data we have, the more human the parts must be.
Thinking for myself, I have not come to the same conclusions as the experts about Ardi’s place in human ancestry. What do you think? What you think really is more important than what you are told.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ~ Galileo Galilei