Above: Two papers published in the journal Science challenge
Ardi’s status as the oldest known fossil of human ancestor.
Tadias Magazine
By Tadias Staff
Published: Friday, May 28, 2010
New York (Tadias) – You may remember our feature article last year on the widespread news coverage of an anthropological discovery in Ethiopia. The journal Science had published a collection of eleven papers explaining the findings of an international group of scientists regarding the bones of a human-like species named Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, who roamed the Earth 4.4 million years ago. The researchers had concluded then that Ardi is now the oldest known fossil of human ancestor; effectively unseating the famous 3.2 million years old Lucy (Dinqnesh) — whose skeletal remains are currently touring the United States.
There is new development regrading the discovery. “Another scientist has stepped forward to challenge Ardi’s classification as a member of the human lineage after the divergence from African apes. Its primitive anatomy, he contends, suggests a species predating the common ancestor of the human and chimpanzee family trees,” The New York Times reports.
“Two critiques are being published Friday in the journal Science, along with responses from the research team that reported last October the first detailed description and interpretation of the 4.4-million-year-old skeleton of Ardipithecus ramidus, or Ardi. The specimen, an adult female, probably stood four feet tall and was more than a million years older than Lucy, the famous skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis.”
Last November we had interviewed Dr. Zeresenay (Zeray) Alemseged, the paleoanthropologist who discovered ‘Lucy’s Baby’, “Selam,” a three-year-old girl who lived and died in Ethiopia 3.3 million years ago. Dr. Alemseged, who was born in the ancient city of Axum, is currently serving as the Director and Curator of the Department of Anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences.
Click here to read our earlier interview with Dr. Zeresenay Alemseged.
Watch Video: New revelations about humanity’s roots
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
This is not good for the science at all. It raises all sorts of questions about the validity of other earlier findings as well. This is a hotly debated academic zone.
Dagmawi
Who is gonna take this darwinist decption seriously? The evolutionary nonsense is a phylosophy rather than a science. 20th century science has confirmed evolution is a theory in crisis. It was formulated by the an mateur zoologist, Darwin, and propagated by certain anti-religious circles by massive propaganda. It never explains human consciousness, beginning of life, intermediate link, DNA…The theory has been refuted by Quntum physics, thermodynamics, chaos theory….
Dagmawi(Respectfully)
I am pious Orthodox Christian believer in the creator God. For me ignoring science & knowledge is sounding like st. Augustine. In my view, God the creator of the Universe can never be/never has been against learning the law of what he created. Thanks.
Dagmawi,
I don’t think you have got any clue as to what you’re talking about.
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:
1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that “pre-men” (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.
As a subscriber to the Vedic description of a Divinely guided process of cosmic manifestation, I’ve witnessed various creation theories that have been developed by materialistic science come and go. There seems to be a need amongst such scientists to develop a version of universal creation that leaves no room or no reason for a Supreme Creator, and thus many materialistic and even atheistic forms of the creation story are presented. The basis of this theory, as explained scientifically, is that we owe the creation of the universe to the breaking away of the absolute symmetry of the absolute emptiness that existed before the creation began. There is a theory called vacuum genesis, which suggests that the universe began from a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum. A particle so powerful that it gave raise to the cosmic creation. Of course, a particle from nothing is admittedly not very likely. But it is a theory that they still work with, possibly for a lack of anything else.
In the movie 2010,Dr Haywood Floyd said: we don’t know what the hell it is, except that it’s very large and it has a purpose. I am wondering since I saw that movie, how the Universe would survive for its intended calibrated purpose to support life, if science is able to push up a bit the force of Gravity or if the relative masses of Protons & Neutrons were changed by a hair. Ummmm
The unending debate will continue!!!!!!!!!–Thanks.
I think the time of Ardie era was better than the time and populations that we have now. (We have too many Monkey-heads – yewushet arada – like me with access to the internet).
Nut Job Ethio- your access to keyboard makes you armed and dangerous
