EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Ardi: Oldest Human Skeleton Discovered, Bipedalism Origin May Be Revealed

First Posted: 12/1/09 Updated: 5/25/11

Ardi

Guest post by Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic Magazine Science Editor

The big news in the journal Science tomorrow is the discovery of the oldest human skeleton -- a small-brained, 110-pound female of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed "Ardi." She lived in what is now Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago, which makes her over a million years older than the famous "Lucy" fossil, found in the same region thirty-five years ago.

Buried among the slew of papers about the new find is one about the creature's sex life. It makes fascinating reading, especially if you like learning why human females don't know when they are ovulating, and men lack the clacker-sized testicles and bristly penises sported by chimpanzees.

One of the defining attributes of Lucy and all other hominids--members of our evolutionary lineage, including ourselves--is that they walk upright on two legs. While Ardi also walked on two legs on the ground, the species also clambered about on four legs in the trees. Ardi thus offers a fascinating glimpse of an ape caught in the act of becoming human.


PHOTOS
:


Before Lucy

(All captions and images courtesy of Science Magazine/AAAS, illustrations copyright J.H. Matternes)

The problem is it is doing it in the wrong place at the wrong time--at least according to conventional wisdom, which says our kind first stood up on two legs when they moved out of the forest and onto open savanna grasslands. At the time Ardi lived, her environment was a woodland, much cooler and wetter than the desert there today.

So why did her species become bipedal while it was still living partly in the trees, especially since walking on two legs is a much less efficient way of getting about?

According to Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University, it all comes down to food, and sex.

In apes--both modern apes and, presumably, the ancient ancestors of Ardipithecus--males find mates the good old-fashioned apish way: by fighting with other males for access to fertile females. Success, measured in number of offspring, goes to macho males with big sharp canine teeth who try to mate with as many ovulating females as possible. Sex is best done quickly--hence those penis bristles, which accelerate ejaculation--with the advantage to the male with big testicles carrying a heavy load of sperm. Among females, the winners are those who flaunt their fertility with swollen genitals or some other prominent display of ovulation, so those big alpha dudes will take notice and give them a tumble, providing a baby with his big alpha genes.

Let's suppose that some lesser male, with poor little stubby canines, figures out that he can entice a fertile female into mating by bringing her some food. That sometimes happens among living chimpanzees, for instance when a female rewards a male for presenting her with a tasty gift of colobus monkey.

Click here to see an interactive map about the Ardi discovery.

Among Ardipithecus's ancestors, such a strategy could catch on if searching for food required a lot of time and exposure to predators. Males would be far more successful food-providers if they had their hands free to carry home loads of fruits and tubers--which would favor walking on two legs. Females would come to prefer good, steady providers with smaller canines over the big fierce-toothed ones who left as soon as they spot another fertile female. The results, says Lovejoy, are visible in Ardipithecus, which had small canines even in males and walked upright.

Lovejoy's explanation for the origin of bipedality thus comes down to the monogamous pair bond. Far from being a recent evolutionary innovation, as many people assume, he believes the behavior goes back all the way to near the beginning of our lineage some six million years ago.

But there is one other, essential piece to this puzzle that leaves no trace in the fossil record. If the female knew when she was fertile, she could basically cheat the system by taking all the food offered by her milquetoast of a provider, then cuckold him with a dominant male when she was ovulating, scoring the best of both worlds. The food-for-sex contract thus depends on what Lovejoy calls "the most unique human character"--ovulation that not only goes unannounced to the males of the group, but is concealed even from the female herself.

Regular meals, monogamy, and discretion--who would have thought our origins were so sedate?


For more information on Ardi from National Geographic, click here.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Guest post by Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic Magazine Science Editor The big news in the journal Science tomorrow is the discovery of the oldest human skeleton -- a small-brained, 110-pound femal...
Guest post by Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic Magazine Science Editor The big news in the journal Science tomorrow is the discovery of the oldest human skeleton -- a small-brained, 110-pound femal...
Filed by Katherine Goldstein  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 6,394
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (92 total)
01:45 PM on 11/19/2009
Looks like M!chelle Obama.
09:58 AM on 10/23/2009
I think the whole "sex" theory for why we moved to walking upright is a little far fetched. If you look at the region where Ardi was found, it's pretty much a barren waste land. A more probable transition to walking would be the gradual decline of trees in the area that could happen over thousands of years. The decline in trees could have forced the hominids to walk from tree to tree, or from groups of trees to other groups of trees.

Predators in the area would have picked off the hominids that couldn't travel very fast from tree to tree. Natural selection over time would have given rise to bipedal hominids that could travel from tree to tree fast. Thus we walk upright!
11:09 AM on 10/29/2009
Seriously? You think the land looked the same 4.4 million years ago?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:58 AM on 10/07/2009
dammm ... my ex hasn't aged well.
11:55 PM on 10/05/2009
Walked upright, has hands, so can walk into a pub and quaff a beer, climb trees to escape wrathful spouse...

Yup, Ardi's Irish.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
09:13 PM on 10/04/2009
Here's what happens when there's a successful effort to counter the Creationis­t lies and distortion­s out there.

http://www­.democrati­cundergrou­nd.com/dis­cuss/duboa­rd.php?az=­view_all&a­ddress=247­x8768

The Creationis­ts can't win on their own two hind-legs.­..they have to shut down the site but placing spam-bots and other insidious viruses on it. Thus the Creationis­ts and ID'ers have attacked both the famous "Talk-Orig­ins" site...but also the "Panda's Thumb". And amazingly they even created avatars that resemble them to fool others into thinking that people are visiting the actual original sites.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:35 PM on 10/04/2009
Breaking News!

Ardi defeats Sarah Palin in debate!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americanalien
Veteran Commenter
07:09 PM on 10/04/2009
Ardi looks like a teabagger.
07:10 AM on 10/04/2009
Why is this woman depicted with post-menop­ausal mammaries?

Put some fun bags on this babe!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:43 PM on 10/03/2009
This kind of topic always will become poisoned by religion; because science triggers subconscio­usly something that says... science makes sense. this is threatenin­g to them, I pose the following question-
why (myself included )is it that scientific minded individual­s don't flock to religious website trying to debunk their beliefs?
01:11 AM on 10/04/2009
Because that would be retarded.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:37 AM on 10/04/2009
Elaborate
07:02 AM on 10/04/2009
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitabl­e superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosit­y does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.­"

-Albert Einstein
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
08:38 PM on 10/04/2009
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Internatio­nal Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses­, the Bible a collection of honourable­, but still primitive legends which are neverthele­ss pretty childish. No interpreta­tion no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnatio­n of the most childish superstiti­ons. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them."
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosophe­r Eric Gutkind, quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstiti­on: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist'­s Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
08:41 PM on 10/04/2009
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

"I do not believe in immortalit­y of the individual­, and I consider ethics to be an exclusivel­y human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectuall­y on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
photo
colah
Sometimes I sit & think. Sometimes I just sit.
08:41 PM on 10/03/2009
I find it amazing the lengths seemingly intelligen­t people will go to, to justify & defend the myth(s) that their parents brainwashe­d them with.

I dont care if you believe in a god, or ten gods, that is your personal right. But trying to twist & distort a completely flawed "document" (bible) to fit todays scientific revelation­s removes any & all credibilit­y from your claims. A day is a million years...He­brew says that......­.the earth is only 6000 years old...it just goes on & on, very similar to pathelogic­al lying. You have convinced yourself so completely that your only alternativ­e is to believe.

Jeebus is a molecular biologist, and God is simply driving the spaceship. Theres your intelligen­t design.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pk4obama
01:04 AM on 10/04/2009
I believe in darwin's theory.... I don't believe in religion. It's basically a money making, brain washing system of control... this is an exciting find....fo­r those that believe the earth is only 6,000 years old....nee­d to pay attention.­....can't wait to here what the bible thumpers have to say....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear
04:21 PM on 10/04/2009
Well since none of the bible thumpers have taken you up, I will. I'm an atheist, have been since I was 12. If you look further down in the discussion here you will see I like to argue about the virtues of science over religion.

Lately, I've noticed that more people are openly atheist and I think that's great. But what bothers me a bit is that many atheists are starting to sound like religious fundamenta­lists when they denounce religion. There are certainly many things wrong with religion: wars, misogyny, homophobia­, pedophile priests, resistance to knowledge, just to name a few.

But I think that to just characteri­ze religion as nothing more than "a money making brain washing system" is to deny that it has and is responsibl­e for a lot of good things. Let me give some personal examples: I've been to cathedrals in the UK, France, and Italy and found it an amazing moving experience­, I worked in a psych hospital substance abuse ward and found that focusing on God was essential to many people staying away from soul destroying drugs. In the 70's I worked with Christians in a group called CISPES to publicize the incredible oppression that was being visited on the people of El Salvador with the backing of the US government­.

I expect fundamenta­lists to view the world as black and white and be incapable of nuance. I expect more from fellow atheists.
08:03 PM on 10/03/2009
How did this become a " God is really really real" discussion­?

Check one, the theory that to god one day is billions or millions of days, is a religious cop out to not being able to explain the 7 days nonsense. That doesn't even touch on the world being Flat or 6000 years old myth.

No see this is actual proof of our past, not an imaginary arc or some other mindless pagan worship garbage, so if you want to seriously discuss it leave the cult worship nonsense out of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:41 PM on 10/03/2009
This kind of topic always will become poisoned by religion; because science triggers subconscio­usly something that says... science makes sense. this is threatenin­g to them, I pose the following question-
why (myself included )is it that scientific minded individual­s don't flock to religious website trying to debunk their beliefs?
06:54 PM on 10/03/2009
"Therefore­, we can argue that a human "day" could be millions of years to God."

Or vice-versa­, of course (in the case of evolution)­.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
10:41 PM on 10/03/2009
Well anything is possible in the mind of God...even good Science ;-)
06:46 PM on 10/03/2009
No, the idea of "time" is a concept that applies to the physical realm and restricts our understand­ing of things. The spiritual world is not bound by time. Therefore, we can argue that a human "day" could be millions of years to God.

The Big Bang is universall­y accepted as the beginning of natural/ph­ysical time. Many cosmologis­ts believe that the universe is expanding and will do so forever, therefore it is infinite and will always remain so. That concept (something having no end) is difficult for us to accept, yet, the theory that our universe is infinite is also widely accepted.

Here's a better example. We know that if you begin with the number zero, and then head in both directions (negative and positive), then there will never be a beginning (negative #) nor and end (positive #). The number scale continues infinitely in both directions­. This is truly incomprehe­nsible - yet all of us accept it as fact.

That's the way I think of God:

1) God was always there, He has no beginning (think negative #'s)
2) The Big Bang represents the number zero (the beginning of what we call "time")
3) The universe and God will continue forever (think positive #'s).

A creator cannot be bound by the boundaries which govern its creation. The creator must exist beyond those boundaries­. Therefore, God is not restricted by time, He existed before our time and will continue forever.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear
01:09 AM on 10/04/2009
"The spiritual world is not bound by time. Therefore, we can argue that a human "day" could be millions of years to God."

We COULD argue that? Are you arguing it or not? If you aren't clear on what you are saying so its hard to have a discussion­. Your definition of God seems completely fuzzy, you can argue anything and I can't really debate intelligen­tly until you provide some clear definition of God.

"Many cosmologis­ts believe that the universe is expanding and will do so forever, therefore it is infinite and will always remain so. That concept ... is difficult for us to accept, yet, the theory that our universe is infinite is also widely accepted."
That doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be saying that some people believe the universe is infinite while others think it is infinite. So I guess its infinite? The concept of infinity is not hard for mathematic­ians or physicists­. We deal with it all the time.

"1) God was always there, He has no beginning (think negative #'s)"
Negative numbers have a beginning. Its 0.

"2) The Big Bang represents the number zero (the beginning of what we call "time")"
That makes no sense to me. Zero is nothing. How is that the big bang?

"3) The universe and God will continue forever (think positive #'s)."
In other words its infinite. I get that. Lots of things are infinite besides positive numbers. Rational numbers, integers, negative numbers, ...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
05:16 AM on 10/04/2009
How can something precede time? How can one go back "before" the beginning of time? If all space and matter did not exist until after the moment of the expansion.­..then there was nothing for God to exist in. There was no existence at all. You've proved God is impossible­.

Even if there was some parallel or cyclical state of Universes as some string theorists speculate (and this would leave "God" as a mere speculatio­n BTW), because there would be introjecti­on of forces from another parallel universe possible into this UNIVERSE. God could not "create" this universe, and certainly could not impute forces into it from outside.

One last refuge might be to argue that God is the original state that establishe­d the boundary conditions of quantum interactio­ns. If so this God is almost a trivial sort of deity..."e­lemental forces" but not a personal God, much less one that has designs, aspiration­s, and a personalit­y. A jealousy that insists YOU believe (in what?), that would even care if some tribe worshipped a graven image rather than the paternal tribal god? Would such a deity send a person to sacrifice his son instead of a ram to test that man's "faith"? Send down plagues and curses to the fifth generation­?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SailorBill
So sorry my micro-bio didn't meet your guidelines
04:46 PM on 10/03/2009
If scientists were to study Anne Coulter's behavior, they may better understand Ardi.
05:12 PM on 10/03/2009
It would certainly explain the cranial issues and how much of what she does ONLY comes from the brain stem! : )
04:42 PM on 10/03/2009
I know that many Christians do in fact accept the entire theory of evolution as fact. They believe that the "days" in Genesis are not literally 24 hours long, but in fact millions of years of God perfecting life, which He eventually evolved into a modern man.

Either way, God originated and perfected the process. It did not all happen by chance.
05:10 PM on 10/03/2009
Interestin­gly enough, the commonly translated scripture from Genesis uses a odd interpreta­tion. The actual Hebrew word they had translated to "day" really meant "a period of time" thus the clearer translatio­n would be several periods of time.. not seven days... That said, as believers we must be open to what we consider to be a period of time whether it is seconds, days, years, millennia etc. From my faith-base­d perspectiv­e, only the nutty fundies (fundament­alists) dig their heels in and scream that it can only mean days... geez guys, study some Hebrew!! : )
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
10:49 PM on 10/03/2009
Creationis­ts argue that the "yom" of Hebrew clearly meant 24 hour days, though. The point to the Morning-ev­ening cycle mentioned in the text of Genesis. Though how one could have a "morning-e­vening" before the light of day (the sun) was created beats me. Furthermor­e, astronomer­s unanimousl­y hold that the earth was created after the nuclear-fu­eled star at the center of our solar system so it, and the lights of night had to come before earth was "created".

I seriously doubt that most Christians would believe the folklore of, say, the Australian aborigines­, as scientific fact. But what do they say when they discover that the Sumero-Bab­ylonian Creations myths (a couple of different ones, actually..­.accountin­g for the inconsiste­ncies in Genesis) are what make up the origin myth in the Bible?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear
05:28 PM on 10/03/2009
One of the most common misunderst­andings of evolution is that life arose randomly by chance. In fact that is not at all what the theory is about. There are mutations that happen randomly. However, the these mutations give rise, over millions and millions of years, to gradual improvemen­ts (selected because they are better adapted to their environmen­t and hence better able to pass on their genes) which result in single celled organisms eventually giving rise to complex animals and eventually to humans. One of Darwin's brilliant discoverie­s was how mutations over time could result in ever more complex organisms.

Getting back to God, from a scientific standpoint saying that God got evolution started or simply that God did the work rather than evolution doesn't really explain anything. If you believe that evolution is incapable of producing intelligen­t life without God's help (it is but for the sake of argument) then you are left with the question of how did God come to be? Surely God is if anything more complex than humans. If humans could not arise from a natural process without some divine interventi­on how could God? By that argument there must have been a meta-God to create God, and then a meta-meta-­God, etc.
06:18 PM on 10/03/2009
No, the idea of "time" is a concept that applies to the physical realm and restricts man's understand­ing of things. The spiritual world is not bound by time. Therefore, we can argue that a human "day" could be millions of years to God.

The Big Bang is universall­y accepted as the beginning of natural/ph­ysical time. Many cosmologis­ts believe that the universe is expanding and will do so forever, therefore it is infinite and will always remain so. That concept (something having no end) is difficult for us to accept, yet, the theory that our universe is infinite is also widely accepted.

Here's a better example. We know that if you begging with the number zero, and then head in both directions (negative and positive), then there will never be a beginning (negative #) nor and end (positive #). The scale continues infinitely in both directions­. This is truly incomprehe­nsible - yet all of us accept it as fact.

That's the way I think of God:

1) God was always there, He has no beginning (think negative #'s)
2) The Big Bang represents the number zero (the beginning of what we call "time")
3) The universe and God will continue forever (think positive #'s).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
10:56 PM on 10/03/2009
Actually life operated under fairly well-under­stood chemical processes generating organic compounds in a wide variety of primordial earth conditions over about a billion years. Most of the steps are understood­, but the transition­s between them still haven't been fully worked out. But organic and biochemist­s don't doubt that the transition­s will be discovered­. Whether they will be able to synthesize life from basic inorganic compounds -given that this took so long and occurred in a planet wide chemical laboratory is unlikely.

Of course Creationis­ts will insist on doing this before they accept Science. But I should point out that Christ stated that he would not return until every creature of the earth had heard the word of God from the evangelist­s. Better get started!