Ardipithecus ramidus
The theory of evolution states many things, one of the more popular theories being that humans and other primates, such as apes, monkeys, and gorillas, all have a common ancestor that walked the earth millions of years ago. The idea of the missing link is that somewhere way back when, there was a primate who almost seemed to be half monkey and half human, proving that there was at some point an evolutionary split. A recent discovery in Ethiopia disproves that theory.
The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings. [National Geographic]
Ardipithecus ramidus, or Ardi, as she is referred to by the scientists who discovered her, was a primate that supposedly lived 3.2 million years ago and has a skeletal structure that suggests she not only walked upright, but also climbed trees and travelled in them on all fours.
The bones of Ardi were actually first discovered over 15 years ago, but only recently have been assembled enough to where a firm hypothesis on her life can be made. According to scientists, Ardi's toes extended in a fashion that suggested she used it to get a better grasp of tree limbs, and her pelvis contains traits of both a upright primate and an ape, with a strong base for support while in trees.
What does this mean for a Christian who believes in the theory of Creationism? Does this discovery offer more evidence to the contrary? Do you think when this latest scientific revelation reaches its media peak that it will challenge a Christian's faith? Feel free to sound off in the comments below and let me know how you feel about Ardipithecus ramidus.
Comments
"Do you think when this latest scientific revelation...will challenge a Christian's faith?"
Great question. If a person is forced to choose BETWEEN faith and prevaling scientific thought, then the motives and belief system of that faith should be brought into question. As a believer in God, I think that a person's faith in God, should be just that, believe in God. Evolution, which is based upon scientific fact, doesn't challenge belief systems, it only reports what we observe. As we acquire more knowledge, faith in the unknown, can work around what we know to be true science. So, it presents no challenge to faith, only more evidence of our history on our planet. The challenge for people of faith, like myself, is to make our belief system fit with this new knowledge. Everytime a new discovery like this is made, I marvel at this slow, gradual process of patience by which our Creator chose to create us--by the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics. Exciting and amazing!
Ayn Rand audio from beyond challenges your assertion that Ardipithecus proves there's no missing link. See joeypanto.com
I think you totally misunderstood the quote you supplied.
This furthers the idea of a missing link, not disproves it. All the quote says is that the connections between man and chimp aren't as important as we once thought since we have found a form that is further back on the branch split from.
The fact that the animal both walked upright and still showed brachiation is closer to an intermediate form than ever. A step before a more successful form which in turn lead to the current form of man.
Christian American Creationist Retards.
Fossilized.
For a Christian nothing will shake their beliefs, as they say, ignorance is bliss.
The discovery does not disprove the theory that gorillas, chimpanzees and humans all shared a common ancestor. What it indicates is that that ancestor probably did not resemble a chmip. The article you quoted from quite clearly states this:
'Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas (interactive: Ardi's key features). As such, the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.'
'"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between.'
A.The discovery does not invalidate the idea of common descent in any way.
B.Creationism is not a theory. It is only a hypothesis, and a failed one at that, since it is not supported by any evidence.
The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) of humans and our nearest relatives, chimps, wasn't "half monkey and half human". For one thing, great apes like chimps and our ape LCA differ significantly from lesser apes and even more from monkeys. The LCA had always been assumed to show SOME features that resemble both human and chimp, other features that are its own and lost in both chimps and humans, while missing other features are newly evolved in humans after the split from chimps and will not be found in the LCA. What this research establishes is that there also features that are newly evolved in chimps after the split from humans and those features won't be found in the LCA.
Also, Ardipithecus is 4.4 million years old, while the previously-discovered australopithecus fossil "Lucy" is 3.2 million years old.
I think this disproves that Darwin nonsense that many atheists hold dear. Science however has never proved nor disproved that God exists and it never will.
Gee and Tilley are correct, Chris Esparza has misconstrued the quotation he included in this post. This find in no way challenges the scientific consensus of common descent, it merely reveals that chimpanzees have also been evolving, and that the last common ancestor between chimps and humans was different from both.
Another smaller error: The Ardipithecus fossil is 4.4 million years old. The 3.2 million year figure was for "Lucy," a very famous Australopithecus afarensis fossil.
"What does this mean for a Christian who believes in the theory of Creationism? Does this discovery offer more evidence to the contrary?"
Yes, of course it does. This new evidence is in full accord with all the rest of the multitudinous evidence for the scientific theory of evolution.
"Do you think when this latest scientific revelation reaches its media peak that it will challenge a Christian's faith?"
1) Not all Christians are Creationists. Those who are not will probably experience no effect at all on their faith.
2) Those who are Creationist have already immunized themselves thoroughly against reality. To Ray Comfort this will be just more water off a crocoduck's back.
3) There may be a few people, probably youngsters, who will finally realize that the Creationists have been lying to them all along, and this may drive them to question not only Creationism, but other elements of their faith. Many people do not enjoy being lied to.
Ayn Rand audio from beyond challenges your assertion that Ardipithecus proves there's no missing link. See joeypanto.com
"This find in no way challenges the scientific consensus of common descent, it merely reveals that chimpanzees have also been evolving, and that the last common ancestor between chimps and humans was different from both."
I offer an analogy: Both you and your cousin may resemble your grandfather, yet he is undeniably different from you both.
'I think this disproves that Darwin nonsense that many atheists hold dear.' - Brandon Johns
It has already been shown by myself and others on this thread that that is not true. Either back up your statement or retract it.
Ayn Rand audio from beyond challenges your assertion that Ardipithecus proves there's no missing link. See joeypanto.com
Sorry for the repeated redundant posts. I was inadvertently re-posting when I was just trying to refresh the screen to read the new posts.
Chris - just a factual correction to your essay: Ardipithecus ramidus specimens being discussed in research related to the current news releases come from around 4.4 million years ago, not 3.2 million years ago. (There are also older Ardipithecus specimens - A. ramidus kadabba - from more than 5-1/2 million years ago, but that's not the subject of the current news reports.) Also, you use the word "supposedly", but that's the wrong word to use because the dating is not just "supposedly" but is based on radiometric dating of geologic strata relevant to where the fossils were found.
Indeed, evolutionary theory does not actually predict the existence of a half-ape half-human specimen. Keep in mind that within the theory there is no reason to suspect that the chimp branch of primates stopped evolving. Thus we would not necessarily suspect that our earliest ancestors were more chimp like, since chimps have been evolving for just as long as humans.
Incredibly dishonest, this writer knows nothing about evolution nor read the peer-reviewed Ardi pubs.
The theory of evolution requires 0 fossils to validate its veracity (DNA and geographical disbursement do that), Ardi validates the theory. A mammal in Precambrian strata could falsify evolution (millions of fossils all found in predicted strata).
Ardi has 0 modern features that Lucy doesn't have. Ardi has several transitional forms that are more primitive than Lucy. 1 of several is that while Ardi is bipedal, her big toe is splayed to provide tree hanging ability, a transitional feature between monkeys and hominids going from a life in the trees to one on the ground.
Surprises? Yes, but they don't challenge the theory; instead they favor some competing hypotheses over others. E.g., our last common ancestor with chimps was more monkey-like. We can also be reasonably certain that chimpanzees' evolution since our last common ancestor was also dramatic like it's been for h
If one's mind is made up regarding evolution or creationism, this discovery does nothing, in my view, to alter the debate. I found a very good quote on the creation.com website regarding this issue.
"In short, the significance of Ardi can be interpreted within either an evolutionary or creationist framework, and the latest analyses of these recycled bones and claims would appear to add no weight at all to the claims of either side. As cited elsewhere, a 1995 Nature article stated that it was “possible that Australopithecus [now Ardipithecus] ramidus is neither an ancestor of humanity, nor of chimpanzees … ”. And indications are that nothing has really changed since then.
The debate will continue, until we are all taken home and God shows us how he created everything. Until then, we should spend more time loving one another and loving the Creator and less time debating over contrived "science."
John
i love when christians deleat things that make them feel uncomfterble or cant admit what they realy said or what they realy beleave in. i guess you realy want the brilliant John Charleston who dosnt get you cant combined the christian faith and evolution as their golden ending to the debate. i accept that. its fitting and a brilliant way for faith to try to reason and try to make sense of things.
"Humans are error, to fix error you must deleat."-GOD
"I came, I saw, I LULD!"-Evil Atheist
quote: "
“possible that Australopithecus [now Ardipithecus] ramidus is neither an ancestor of humanity, nor of chimpanzees … ”. And indications are that nothing has really changed since then."
Actually this has been proved false. And your article has a lot of misinformation.
First of Ardi lived 4.5 billion years ago not 3.2 and second these bones are not from Australopithecus.
Now for that quote, Ardi and Lucy and the others found ARE related to Humans, this has been scientifically proven beyond any doubt.
This is because no where else in the history of our planet has any creature walked bipedal (walked upright on two legs) since the Jurassic period.
This is a strictly Human trait.
We will eventually find the common ancestor between Humans and Apes, I wonder what you will do when that time comes (you collectively as the creationists).
Well, I already know, you'll use the same argument that has been used since Darwin proffered his theory.
I started to write a rant about this creationist stuff, but there really isn't any point - evolution cannot be stopped just because you close your eyes!
Interesting that science seems to be demonized by creationists - when science started off by a desire 'to understand more of gods creation'! Shame the world got too 'big and scary' for some people to cope with (well, that's their choice it seems)
I think it has been summed up correctly by a previous post that 'ignorance is bliss' and there are some really blissful people!
I prefer to walk through this world with my eyes and mind open. It's amazing - perhaps the writer of this article should try it sometime!
(oh, and switch that big grey organ in your head ON - there must be a switch somewhere if you look hard enough - if not, then you'd better start REALLY praying hard that god exists, otherwise you're destined to become a layer of dirt someone will dig up in 6 million years and describe as a dead-end evolutionary branch!!)
People allready trapped in the hole of ignorance, that is religion. Is allready lost to any kind of reasoning. So no they will blindly reject even the most obviouse proof.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!