3.3 million old girl ?

by oldflame 28 Replies latest jw friends

  • oldflame
    oldflame


    They found the well-preserved remains of a three-year-old girl of the species Australopithecus afarensis -- which includes the fossil skeleton known as "Lucy" -- in the Dikika area of Ethiopia, 400 kms northeast of the capital Addis Ababa.

    "It represents the earliest and most complete partial skeleton of a child ever found in the history of paeleoanthropology," said Dr Zeresenay Alemseged, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

    The skull, torso and upper and lower limbs, including the hand, show both human and ape-like features. The state of the ancient bones suggest she was buried in a flood which may also have caused her death.

    The remains provide the first evidence of what babies of early human ancestors looked like. The nearly complete skeleton will also provide information about the child's height and structure.

    "This child will help us understand a lot about the species to which it belongs," said Alemseged, leader of the international team of scientists who reported the findings in the journal Nature.

    "The lower part of the body, which includes the foot, the shin bone and the thigh bone clearly shows us that this species was an upright walking creature," he told Reuters.

    But some of the features from the upper part of the body, including the shoulder blade and arms are more ape-like. The fingers are long and curved which suggest she might have been able to swing through trees.

    "The finding is the most complete hominid skeleton ever found in the world," Zeresenay Alemseged, who is head of the Paleoanthropological Research Team, told a news conference in Addis Ababa.

    He said the fossil was older than the 3.2-million-year-old remains of "Lucy" discovered in 1974 and described by scientists as one of the world's greatest archaeological finds.

    "The new bones belong to a three-year-old girl who lived 3.3 million years ago, 150,000 years before Lucy," Zeresenay said.

    The fossil has been named "Selam," which means peace in Ethiopia's official Amharic language.

    JUVENILE "LUCY"

    Dr Simon Underdown of Oxford Brookes University in England described it as a massively exciting discovery of a juvenile "Lucy." "This tremendous fossil will make us challenge many of the ideas we have about how and why we came to walk on two feet," he said.

    An analysis of the sediment in which the remains were found enabled researchers to build a picture of the type of environment in which the child lived.

    It was a lush area with flowing water, forests and grassland which was also affected by volcanic eruptions. The range of habitats was suitable for hippos, crocodiles and relatives of the wildebeest.

    "We can see from the sediment that the region was very much characterized by a mosaic of environment that ranged from forests and woodlands near the rivers, to seasonally flooded grasslands to a flood plain that would have supported more open vegetation," said Dr Jonathan Wynn of the University of South Florida who dated the sediments surrounding the remains.

    I dont know but it looks like a monkey and they even say it acted like a monkey. Now would'nt everyone say that if it looks like a monkey and acts like a monkey that it is probably a monkey and not a human child ? Then they say it is 3.3 millions years old ? I find this just a little hard to wash what about you ? Oh I hope the picture turned out if not please let me know. Thanks OLDFLAME

  • under_believer
    under_believer

    oldflame, you seem to have taken more from the report than was actually claimed: I don't see where they say the fossil is the skeleton of a human child. In fact, they say the skeleton was of the Australopithecus species.

  • oldflame
    oldflame

    the very first setence is left for us to believe that this is what it is.

    A 3.3 million-year-old skeleton of the earliest child ever found shows the ancient ancestor of modern humans walked upright but may also have climbed trees, scientists said on Wednesday.
  • oldflame
    oldflame

    And I will say this : If anyone thinks for one second that they came from a monkey they need to see a shrink.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    I dont know but it looks like a monkey and they even say it acted like a monkey.

    Actually, it says it's a "like a monkey" in some respects (e.g. long curved fingers for swinging through trees) and "like a human" in other respects (e.g. lower half of the body built for human-like bipedal gait). In other words, as an early hominid, it is transitional between earlier Miocene apes (who more closely resemble modern monkeys and apes) and the several Pleistocene Homo species (who more closely resemble modern Homo sapiens, the only H. species left).

  • oldflame
    oldflame

    So I guess God looks like a monkey, I wonder if he swings through trees too.

  • Arthur
    Arthur

    These species were not "monkeys" since they are "bidpedal" or walked on two feet. Bipedalism is clearly demonstrated in the speicimen's skeletal structures.

    By the way, no evolutionist has ever suggested that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. This is a common mistake that people make. According to Darwin, modern Homo sapiens and modern primates are seperate branches of an evolutionary tree that both evolved from one common "ape-like" ancestor which lived millions of years ago.

    We know that these species that lived millions of years ago were not just "monkey" or "apes" because there is proof that these species walked on two feet. One discovery is from some 2 million years ago. It is two sets of footprints in ash-mud that later turned to stone and was unearthed back in the 1970's. The footprints clearly are from bipedal species. They know the footprints are at least 2 million years old because the volcanic ash is from an erruption that was dated (through seperate geological data) to the same period.

  • oldflame
    oldflame

    HMMMMM, maybe a sasquatch (bigfoot) LOL

  • jayhawk1
    jayhawk1

    Wether we evolved from ape-like ancestor or not, one thing is for certain... The literal interpretation of the creation story or the 6000 year version is proved wrong by a 3.3 million old girl.

  • jstalin
    jstalin
    HMMMMM, maybe a sasquatch (bigfoot) LOL

    Or maybe a psychopathic god-being that created humans just so he could murder them if they don't worship him. LOL

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit