Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tree-dwelling hominin coexisted with "Lucy"

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I really wish they wouldn't call all of them 'human ancestor'...


  • Options
    #3
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    +1 G. And all this from a foot? A partial one at that. How in gods name do they know it's a hominid? Could just as likely be from a pongoid, a relative of the chimps etc. More likely in fact. This is one PITA I have with hominid palaeontology. "We've found a a single tooth, slightly larger than normal, must be a new species!!". Palaeontologists rightly decry people clamouring for the "missing link" as being overly simplistic, yet too many of them come out with this stuff.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #4
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    It had opossable big toes, like the ape-men described in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World. :)

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/03/28/discovery.foot.fossil.confirms.2.human.ancestor.species.co.existed.3.4.million.years.ago

    On a slightly unrelated note, am I the only one who thinks this is the creepiest reconstruction of Homo erectus out there?

    Dig092-06-018_Homo%20Erectus.jpg



    It actually looks very like someone I know of. :D


  • Options
    #5
    Adam Khor
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Wibbs wrote: »
    +1 G. And all this from a foot? A partial one at that. How in gods name do they know it's a hominid? Could just as likely be from a pongoid, a relative of the chimps etc. More likely in fact. This is one PITA I have with hominid palaeontology. "We've found a a single tooth, slightly larger than normal, must be a new species!!". Palaeontologists rightly decry people clamouring for the "missing link" as being overly simplistic, yet too many of them come out with this stuff.

    This :D


Advertisement