The idea that early hominids shaded into one another in a straight line of descent requires substantial evidence to corroborate. Based upon what we see elsewhere in the fossil record, and even among living species, it is difficult to believe that there were no biological evolution that resulted in ancestor species and descendant species living together for a period. Because of this there is constant researching going on to get information that provides us with more insight of our ancestors. Ardipithecus fossils were a crucial find to the field of archeology, which created new suggestions concerning features that associated them with modern Homo sapiens and primitive apes. The structure of the Ardipithecus has provided information which separates
…show more content…
Ardipithecus shows a distinct characteristic that allows it to possess, to some ability, locomotion. Due to this there has been debates concerning primarily the hind limb of Ardipithecus, which was adapted to terrestrial bipedalism (Venkataraman 2013). More aspects included the formation of ligaments connecting to the ankle. Scientists speculate that these traits do resemble major shifts from primitives primate’s feet (Venkataraman 2013). Although a great majority of scientists agree on the notion that Ardipithecus afarensis did have characteristics of habitual bipeds, they do dispute on the conception of Arboreality and if it necessary applies to them. The main occurring reasons for these disagreements tend to coincide with diverse viewpoints on how we should interpret primitive species. Ardipithecus afarensis could have differed in more ways from that of humans, “there is no certainty that they would have been less capable bipeds as a consequence of their retained primitive traits… altered the primitive hominin pattern, with its apparent mechanical improvements for bipedality”(Ward 2002: 16). So there is no clear disproof that the primitive characteristic in Ardipithecus skeleton compromised their bipedal …show more content…
With the knowledge that was uncovered by Australopithecus we can decipher more about new human fossils that are uncovered. For example, recently a hominid fossil was just discovered. The researchers who have found it are calling it Homo naledi. It’s appearance is similar to Australopithecus and also has features that link it primates. From that there have been examination conducted on the anatomy of the being and what was learned was that, “…mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus.” (Berger 2015:9). This information gives researchers facts to illustrating human evolution. The original concept is one lineage branching off from one origin; in more recent illustration there is much more interweaving. All of these different hominid categorizations did originate from regions in Africa and in one period they must have evolved from a common ancestor like Australopithecus (Berger
Ardipithecus shows a distinct characteristic that allows it to possess, to some ability, locomotion. Due to this there has been debates concerning primarily the hind limb of Ardipithecus, which was adapted to terrestrial bipedalism (Venkataraman 2013). More aspects included the formation of ligaments connecting to the ankle. Scientists speculate that these traits do resemble major shifts from primitives primate’s feet (Venkataraman 2013). Although a great majority of scientists agree on the notion that Ardipithecus afarensis did have characteristics of habitual bipeds, they do dispute on the conception of Arboreality and if it necessary applies to them. The main occurring reasons for these disagreements tend to coincide with diverse viewpoints on how we should interpret primitive species. Ardipithecus afarensis could have differed in more ways from that of humans, “there is no certainty that they would have been less capable bipeds as a consequence of their retained primitive traits… altered the primitive hominin pattern, with its apparent mechanical improvements for bipedality”(Ward 2002: 16). So there is no clear disproof that the primitive characteristic in Ardipithecus skeleton compromised their bipedal …show more content…
With the knowledge that was uncovered by Australopithecus we can decipher more about new human fossils that are uncovered. For example, recently a hominid fossil was just discovered. The researchers who have found it are calling it Homo naledi. It’s appearance is similar to Australopithecus and also has features that link it primates. From that there have been examination conducted on the anatomy of the being and what was learned was that, “…mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus.” (Berger 2015:9). This information gives researchers facts to illustrating human evolution. The original concept is one lineage branching off from one origin; in more recent illustration there is much more interweaving. All of these different hominid categorizations did originate from regions in Africa and in one period they must have evolved from a common ancestor like Australopithecus (Berger