Why our ancestors couldn't ape chimps
Study of climbing abilities disproves long-held belief that the earliest humans were able to scale trees as easily as primates
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Humanity's immediate predecessors may have had trouble climbing trees, research suggests – so they may not have been as ape-like as many experts believe.
Scientists have arrived at this conclusion after making a close study of the way chimpanzees scale trees – virtually vertically and with ease – and then comparing chimpanzee ankle joints with those of hominins, humans' ancestors.
The hominins lived between 1.5 and 4.1 million years ago, a relatively short time after proto-humans and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor (generally thought to have been between four and eight million years ago). Many experts have argued that this ancestor was probably quite chimpanzee-like, and as a result it has been widely assumed that the earliest humans were ape-like, too.
But the research contradicts this idea, showing that – unlike modern chimps – ancient humans were not designed to climb trees. Dr Jeremy DeSilva, from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, came to this view after carrying out the first ever study of the mechanics of chimpanzees' tree-climbing abilities, using a group of animals in the Kibale National Park of western Uganda.
Dr DeSilva closely analysed videos to see whether the animals' skeletal motion was consistent with claims of early human climbing. Focusing on the ankle joint, he determined the angle of "dorsiflexion" – the degree to which the ankle rotates to point the toes upwards.
His research showed that dorsiflexion is far more extreme in chimps than humans: chimpanzees were capable of a 45-degree bend, whereas the range in humans was between 15 and 20 degrees.
To assist dorsiflexion, he found, the bottom of the chimpanzee tibia – the larger of the two bones in the lower leg – is shaped in a certain way where it joins the ankle. But when Dr DeSilva examined 12 fossil tibias from early hominins, he found no such adaptation.
Combined with other skeletal details, the evidence indicated that early human ancestors could not have been good climbers. Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr DeSilva says: "Early hominins may have climbed trees like modern humans can and occasionally do today; however, this study suggests that vertical climbing and arboreality were not significant parts of their locomotor repertoire."
He specifies: "Modern chimpanzees safely and effectively climb trees in part because they are capable of extreme dorsiflexion and inversion at the ankle joint. Although early hominins have been hypothesised to be adept tree climbers, none of the 29 known fossil tibiae or tali from 4.12 to 1.53 million years ago possesses the combination of features functionally correlated with vertical climbing in modern chimpanzees. If early hominins were engaging in any substantial amount of arboreal climbing, then they were doing it in a manner ... distinct from modern chimpanzees."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I love this sentence....
"....ancient humans were not designed to climb trees."
"designed"....eerm, surely that should say 'did not evolve to climb trees' ha ha
Maybe a better way to put the findings would have been along the lines of 'the skeletons or rather the leg bones that we currently have indicate that these ancestors had adapted to a life which probably didn't involve running up and down trees like chimps. This would itself indicate that the loss of usefulness of running up and down trees to our particular ancestors occured before 4.1m years ago. It would seem logical that there would be some intermediary leg bone structure between this time and 6m years ago when the common ancestor of today's chimpanzee and H. sapiens sapiens diverged.'
Maybe like the intermediaries of the whale they will gradually be unearthed.
At the biochemical level, for instance, the theory stalls. It cannot account for the complexity of life at the microscopic level let alone at the gross level. It cannot account for the origin of information, and furthermore natural selection could not produce the new genetic information that macroevolution requires. Natural selection only works with already present genetic information, either re-arranging it, copying it, reversing it or losing it!
Even when considering reproduction you find a loss of genetic information. A couple have three children and those three children won't inherit the complete genetic make up of their parents between all three of them. Once the parents die, a great amount of genetic information will be lost. How can this kind of process lead from molecules to man?
Natural selection is indeed viable and observable and makes sense, at least to a point. Creatures don't really seem to knowingly adapt to their surroundings but more so creatures who are more suited to certain conditions, due to mutations, are more likely to survive. For example, a dog with long fur will survive better in a cold environment than a dog with short fur. The short furred dogs die out and the long furred dog population increases. The short fur has been "selected" against.
I also find it odd that some say evolution "explains away appearances of design." Why is there an effort to explain away what looks like design? If it looks like design, why not investigate that possibility? It seems more like these scientists choose to say "No, we don't like that idea so forget it." and pursue a course they're more comfortable with.
Hardly a search for truth. So are people 150 years later still trying to misunderstand evolution? Or are evolutionists 150 years later still trying to misunderstand design?
The article has presuppositions built in but the facts (fossils) which are present is used to connect to the past and the scientist Dr DeSilva is making a comparison of the fossils of human and ape in the past and between modern man(facts) and ape(facts). Everything after that is reasoning on top of interpretation on top of pressupositions.
Also, in the past the similarities between creatures at the fetal stage has been exaggerated and forged to give weight to a theory that said creatures go through their evolutionary stages during development. This has since been debunked.
You yourself just used the word designed. Why designed and not another word?
Gods existence can not be proven, no matter how much argument is used to state otherwise, without proof, one can not have closure. The evidence of evolution is obvious to all with eyes to see, so is it really a search for truth? not really, only so much wasted effort and time by religious die-hards who are as misguided as their forefathers, those who fashioned & used religion as a tool to control the masses down the centuries, which is what all religion was concocted and shaped for in the first place, nothing more, nothing less.
All religious argument comes over as sublime by it's very nature, simply because there is not one iota of proof to support it, based on the written down fantasies of long dead folk who had their own reasons for doing so as stated above.
As for Michaels piece above, we are still the ape we were in the first place, as different from other specie of apes of that day as a present day gorilla is from a chimpanzee.
Evolution is basically a theory of origins, progression and purpose. It seeks to tell us "why" when scientific enquiry can only really tell us "how". It seeks to answer questions of beginnings which are beyond it's scope. By definition, evolution denies anything beyond the natural yet seeks to account for something potentially supernatural, namely the beginning of time, space and matter. Their beginning would obviously be beyond our realm of existence. So I propose that rather than denying anything beyond the natural, science should embrace the notion and see where it leads.
In the mean time, will someone at least try and account for my initial challenge?
The words "potentially supernatural" also point in that direction. Why should the beginning of time seen as such? why not a perfectly natural event, if beyond our understanding at present?. I really don't see it as potentially supernatural at all, the beginning of time in this universe could just as possibly be the end of time in another, simply a continuation of events, never having a beginning in infinity but always there, and carrying on for eternity, perhaps the other side of a black hole? all perfectly natural in so far as the scheme of things are concerned.....ok, so argument in our limited understanding dictates there has to be a beginning and an end, but why so? in another universe the beginning and end may be an unheard of concept?
However, I still feel that committing our existence to some all powerful entity is pure fantasy, invented by the affluent and powerful of their day in the past, as a means of control over the masses & nothing more. as in Egypt, South America, North America, Rome, Greece, in fact, in every known civilization that has ever existed, all different in their concept of that entity, but all essentially brought into being for the same reason, control, how else could the masses of any nation have been basically controlled, for the better, ( of whom? that is the question) except by fear, fear of an all powerful entity the must exist, because they said so!!! that could wield terrible awesome and awe punishment if one didn't toe the line, a much easier and cheaper way than by using standing armies, a few representatives of the faith would have far more power, all that was needed for these was a rudimentary education to take them a step above the populace, that education then being held in awe by that populace, England, King James, in the recent past being an obvious example, him commanding the translation of the bible to English, using the explanation of wanting help his subjects to a better understanding & improve themselves, what tosh, he then used representatives of the faith the subdue those same subjects, and so it developed from those early beginnings to the present day chaotic mess we have around the world, none of it relevant, only in the mind of the religious fundamentalist who hasn't the means or the wherefore to stand alone, much like a person with a broken leg, they utilize a crutch. None of this points in any way to an all powerful entity, more toward scheming, selfish & greedy men.
It seems we have now come full circle as far as control is concerned, politics, their law enforcing minions once again, doing the rounds, fighting to control the masses.
as religion has finally lost its grip.
Why not a "perfectly natural event"? What perfectly natural event do you believe can account for the beginning of time, space and matter?
You appeal to an endless stream of repetition or multiple universes, things outside our natural realm of experience and yet you call these perfectly natural events.
Definition of supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.
The beginnings of time, space and matter don't exist within nature and are not subject to explanation according to natural laws because these natural laws are bound by time, space and matter. They are part of the same whole and therefore the natural laws would have to be in place before the beginning of time, space and matter. What natural law can account for time?
Where the universe in a continual loop of expansion and collapse, could this not be in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Is the universe more likely approaching a form of heat death? There would be the means for another big bang. Therefore it can be ascertained that the universe had a definite beginning and has a probable end. The laws of nature would seem to go against what you're implying.
You say that in another universe, the beginning and end may be an unheard of concept. This would mean this universe doesn't have the same natural laws and doesn't exist in nature as we know it. It may not even be physical or material in the sense that we know. Again, does this not fit the definition of supernatural?
If one were to argue a creator, it would make sense that beginning and end have no relevance to them as they would be outside of space and time.
Therefore, how is committing existence to a powerful entity any more fantasy then committing our existence to an eternal universe or multiverse?
All your religious examples shows it that people are naturally abusive and will use any means they can to control people. But this is not the issue being discussed here. The issue is origins and ape-hood.
Also to add, you said:
"ok, so argument in our limited understanding dictates there has to be a beginning and an end, but why so?"
You answered your own question. Our understanding dictates there has to have been a beginning. and our observations match this. To say otherwise would be more in the realm of fantasy and speculation wouldn't it?
You seek to say my arguement has no weight, being founded on the presupposition of a Creator, because you believe the notion to be a fantasy. Well, whether you believe it is fantasy or not does not invalidate or dismiss my arguement. First show me why it is and cannot be anything other than fantasy.
You say
"The issue is origins and ape-hood." I know that, but much else is encompassed in that statement and has a bearing on its analysis.
We are simply the progression of the specie of ape we originally were, I can't see any problem with that, evolution explaining the difference between then, and now...
I will at some point latter, think of the other points you make....
Evolution for me is proven simply by the story being told by the rocks, no, it isn't anywhere near an exact science, & there will be huge mistakes made as it progresses down the path of time, however, I feel because it is progressive and happening, those mistakes will eventually be corrected as more answers come to the fore, as is so already in some cases.
For me archeology lends credence to the theory of evolution simply by being there. As an example,imagine in 50,000 years time, an archaeologist finding evidence of the Dodo, what would their conclusion be, given that it seemed to be an isolated specie and a feathered creature that couldn't fly? for the sake of this argument,lets assume they had the same resources as our present day scientists have. Today, we, as laymen know the Dodo existed, we also know id don't fly and was isolated, but what would they make of their find?
You say, "Their ( Space time) beginning would obviously be beyond our realm of existence." Why so? are we not part of that beginning, a continuation of the beginning traveling through time toward the end? Of course science is to tell us the "how" but through that culminating answer will eventually come the answer to "Why"
Another thought occurred to me, what if the universe itself is that all powerful entity? is our present day evolutionary existence in this universe just a replay, perhaps with some evolutionary improvements, on another previous universe existence in another place and time, that universe having expanded as ours is purportedly doing at present, reached a zenith, and then contracted to a "single point" only to be born again as ours?
To me, this story says something other than evolution happened here because evolution can't account for all of this.
I would have thought that the Dodo would be outside the realm of archeology, but indeed archeology does say a lot. We have ancient cities and civilisations that don't make sense according to evolutionary theory, because it doesn't sit right with the theory that mankind has evolved from primitive to advanced. We can't even figure out how the pyramids were built! There are cities made from complete blocks of stone that weigh several hundred tonnes and yet have been transported by man somehow. Some people, in order to get around this problem, suggest it must have been aliens!
I have by no means suggested that fossilised creatures didn't exist, to the contrary, they undoubtedly did.
Of course it's possible reality could repeat itself forever but because of me presuppositions, I don't believe this to be so. I believe there to be a definite beginning and end, and as near as we can tell, our physical universe had a definite beginning. To assume otherwise is just speculation and maybe even fantasy.
I don't believe that through comulitative answers we will arrive at a "why things began" because it's a philosophical and metaphysical question, beyond the naturalistic boundaries scientists impose. It may tell us why things continue as they do (to an extent) but it will be hard pressed to give a reason why they began. For example, we know different elements react with each other but why? What made this possible? What made it so that a particular accumilation of subatomic particles would produce reactive matter? Do we just take it that it does because it does and leave it at that?
Indeed, what if the universe is itself the all powerful entity? I wonder if "all powerful" would apply if it is in a continual state of destruction and rebirth.
I do, however, believe that our universe could exist within such a powerful entity and that our existence is reliant upon this entity. Furthermore, by nature this entity wouldn't be bound by time and space as they are constructs.
Scientists say that according to the copernican principle, no place in the universe is any different than another. Space and time is rather like the surface of a ballon with all matter like dots painted onto it with a marker pen. As you blow into the balloon, the "universe" is stretched out. Thus it has no center and because it has no center, it has no gravitation well or focal point which would bring the universe to contract in on itself.
Of course, the copernican principle (whilst widely accepted) is a theory and there are other viable theories that state otherwise and even state that our solar system IS in a privilaged position within the universe. But even so, I believe this universe would be a closed system and as such would reach an entropic level of equilibrium where all heat is expended and the universe basically winds down and dies. So it wouldn't be an eternal universe in a state of birth and rebirth.
Erm, the arrangement of information is what makes it new, not some change in the nature of its constituent parts. Your 'argument' is the same as saying that a new text can't be produced because 'it is still using the same 26 letters of the alphabet'.
But keep trying to dismiss something you clearly don't understand.
Just because you are too intellectually challenged to understand it? No it is much more feasible that the most complex, powerful, intelligent life form SPRANG out of the nothingness that existed by the universe and created or designed all that follows. Yet the simplest of chemical bonds and interactions could not have occurred without a designer.
The biggest oversight of the evolution critics is that the number of organisms that one is starting with is infinite at every step. Either the mutation is detrimental, neutral, or advantageous for a given environment. Say you have 100 bacteria. their reproduction rate is every 20 minutes and a genetic mutation occurs every 1 week. 1/2 get a fatal mutation, 1/2 have an advantageous mutation. After 1 week when the next mutation takes place, how many bacteria are you starting with that have the fatal mutation? How many with the advantageous mutation to enter in to the next step? 2.12 x10 to the 122nd power.
If 99.9% of mutations are fatal that leaves 2.12 x 10 to the 119th power individuals to start the next cycle. Kill off half during each generation and you have 1.06 x10 to the 119th power. The numbers are unfathomable and replenishing. That is typically were intelligent design proponents fail. They make the assumption of dwindling population with each change.
But again, the most important considerations between the "theories" are 1) life is here. 2) It either came about by some natural process or was designed. 3) A natural process is limited to what may exist based on the physical and chemical laws of nature. 4) design requires the spontaneous generation of the ultimate life form out of absolutely nothing. 5) a theory must be testable and can not be taken on faith.
Which "theory" is far fetched?
And what would happen in the years between said modifications? If it takes 5 million years, wouldn't there be hundreds of thousands of lame intermediates that would most likely die out due to having a twisted ankle? They would never even reach the stage where the ankle settled into the "correct" modification.
Such as wingless beetles on a windy island. The beetles get carried off into the sea because of their wings and die off. A genetic mutation results in the loss of wings (loss of genetic information) and these beetles aren't blown off the island and are able to multiply. This wasn't in fulfillment of a need but simply due to a random occurance which happened to enable them to survive better in their environment. This isn't an improvement necessarily because the beetle is less of a beetle than it once was, and should it's environment change it may find itself being "selected" against.
On the other hand, evolution seems to explain much of what we can observe about the ways lifeforms seem to have developed on Earth. But as much of evolution is based on fossil evidence, we do not have the complete picture, and probably never will as many lifeforms have left little or no discoverable evidence of their existence.
What this discussion really seems to have been about is the "two solitudes" of creationists and evolutionists trying to prove they have the ANSWER. (42, if the white mice are correct.)
One group seems to say the answer to the "big unanswered question" is some sort of supernatural creator. The other says that it is part of natural processes which we continue to better understand through science. In the end, what difference does it make? The creationist camp has a human need for belief in some sort of creator. Whatever myth meets that need, so be it. The evolutionary camp put their trust in scientific explanations that seem to fit the knowable facts. Works for me!
But does either explanation do anything to advance the more vital need of humans learning to live together peacefully and sustainably on this planet? Perhaps indirectly. But, I'm for more pragmatic discussions of how we avoid destroying ourselves, many of the known lifeforms on the planet, and the existence of "life as we know it!"
To Celticwelshman: Please take the time to proof read your postings, and use some punctuation. Stream of consciousness writing becomes tiresome to read and follow.
Imagine time and space as a straight line. Everything that falls on that straight line has a starting point, a location and an ultimate end point. Everything beyond that line has neither an ultimate location or an origin, because location and origins are defined by being on or within that line. Now, whatever made this line would be the Creator and therefore could not be defined by "what created the creator?" because that Creator, by it's own nature, creates creation. By their nature they define creation because creation, origins, locations and time come from them.
What we observe in life and in the universe is that life comes from life, and that things have a definite beginning and end. This is irrefutable within our universe. What we also observe is that each cell in our body has far more complexity than a car factory, yet we know car factory is designed.
We don't have all the answers, and if we propose that a creator cannot be, we are presuming to be everywhere and both in and out of the universe simultaneously. That would be presuming to be some kind of god. If there is any place we cannot go or contemplate, a creator could be in that place.
And if there is a creator, it says a lot about our place in the universe and also gives us a reason to seek to better ourselves. Without such a creator and with only random processes, we have no reason to better ourselves because there's no reason for morality and ethics.
Re: "Without such a creator and with only random processes, we have no reason to better ourselves because there's no reason for morality and ethics."
You are caught in your own argument about the existence of a creator, being unable to conceive of the existence of the "something that is" without a creator outside if it that created it.
As for needing a creator to give me a reason "to seek to better ourselves" you effectively deny the possibility that humans have figured out consciously or unconsciously that it is better to have some type of morality or ethics than the obviously incorrect concept of "only random processes" you believe is the alternative. The very essence of rational thinking, and the development of codes of ethics and morality is that the world is not just a collection of random processes and unpredictable or unrepeatable events. Rather the evolution of complex lifeforms can be explained and understood, and the future behaviour of people can be predicted by observations of previous behaviours.
You have created a false alternative to the idea of a creator to support your belief that there just had to be a creator to explain what is not yet fully understood. If belief in a creator motivates you to have morality and ethics, that's fine, as they are useful aspects of humanity. For others, such as myself, a more pragmatic understanding of the need for morality and ethics works equally well.
If you believe there is a real sense of right and wrong, you have to ask yourself why we have this sense and where it came from. Goo-to-You evolution can't produce it. Goo-to-You evolution can't even produce the information and meaning that could POSSIBLY lead to such a thing.
So I am not caught in my own argument, unable to conceive of the existence of "something that is" without a creator. When you think logically about it, it makes no logical sense.
You admit yourself that the very essence of rational thinking, ethics and morality is that the world is not just a collection of random processes and unpredictable, unrepeatable events. Yet that is exactly what you are advocating with evolutionary theory. Natural selection is observable and repeatable, but doesn't lead to new life forms, or go from primordial soup to mankind. Goo-to-You evolution is reliant on unrepeatable, unobservable events and yet science is about empirical evidence and observation. Can you answer that problem?
The future behaviour of people can be predicted and understood not because of evolution, but because of what we observe and can test in the world today.
Belief in a creator doesn't just motivate me to have morality and ethics, it gives a reason FOR the very EXISTENCE of morality and ethics. They are usual aspects of humanity because we've been DESIGNED to have morality and ethics, being aware of some sense of right and wrong.
And of course, a pragmatic understanding works very well, however it's in contradiction with what you claim to believe.
So you must ask yourself something...
How and why do I have morality and ethics?
Can molecules to man evolution explain this?
Can life come from non-life?
Can something come from nothing?
Can random chance produce information and meaning?
I don't believe in a creator out of some need to have a creator, but because out of everything I observe in the universe, it's the only logical explanation.
Again you are caught in your own belief system that dictates that there must be a creator. You pose a question that clearly you have asked yourself and answered with your belief that there must be a creator. In other words, you have formed your question based on your conclusion of the answer to that question.
You then dismiss the possibility that random evolutionary events can lead to predictable outcomes. Again this is a false conclusion as evolution has clearly demonstrated when some of those random events become repeatable patterns.
The four questions you pose: "Can molecules to man evolution explain this? Can life come from non-life? Can something come from nothing? Can random chance produce information and meaning?" can all be answered with a resounding ,YES!. In fact the existence of your universe that was created by a creator from nothing indicates that something came from nothing. And recent science has begun to show that organic life can come from a "soup" of inorganic non-life, as we define life.
Your belief in a creator may not stem from some need for that belief, or so you conclude. However, your logical conclusion because of "everything I observe in the universe", that there must be a creator is yet another example of posing the idea of a creator for that which we do not fully understand. This is not a logical belief, rather it is an abandonment of logic for some sort of mystical meaning when the extent of your knowledge cannot provide an answer.
Maybe you were "DESIGNED" to have morality and ethics. I guess I was too in the sense that the evolution of humanity from an instinctual creature (our earliest hominid ancestors) to modern humans has resulted in the development of the morality and ethics that allow us to - sometimes - even find we have created some sort of workable society. When we abandon our morality and ethics, as happens in many "inhumane" conflicts, what we consider to be workable societies become failed states in contemporary parlance.
Your comment asking " what difference does it make" has been one of my arguments for years. When debating with confirmed creationists, I have put forward that particular point of view many times, if there is a creator, it might well have chosen the "evolutionary" path has the preferred way of overall advancement of all things, right from move one, the creation of the universe, in fact, thinking of the way suns are said to be born, live their lives and die, only for their matter to be used again in the creation of other suns point to evolution I would have thought...
I am watching a dahhling and incredibly precious thing called "a debate." Even a few hundred miles above this planet you'd never think there would be anything of interest on the surface. However, there seems to grow a type of social mold, and it is incredible tiny and cute. Isn't it just dahhling that things so small, so disappearingly and incredibly minute and tiny, actually talk about the beginning and end of the universe and things like that? And that they do that with their teensy-weensy eyes that peek out, and their unbelievably tiny brains? They look, and then they sit still for a while. Then they explain the universe. A plucky, cocky sort of mold down there. Mahvelous to watch.
Love,
Piindix
Jim Moss
Mission Viejo, CA
Look at the other side. You walk in the room and glance at the chart. Then you look at friend and tell him with very somber face, ?I have just seen this up and down graph. What is this today? A Little low. Man, these doctors at times make mistakes and we are in the deathbeds. Anyway all the best. The boss has asked when you are coming, as there are many applications for your post. See you when you are well.?
This second man has killed the enthusiasm of the sick man and that des it. He shortens his own life.
Similarly, we try to climb the tress then the humans started burning the tress and warmed the globe. This discouraged us and we stayed on the grounds. Our ancestors did well. We fell into the ditch hole.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla