Your fossil is too early. I asked for an early Homo fossil, the Ardipithecus you refer to is a long time before that. I know that our LCA with chimps was a forest dweller, so soon after the split our ancestors would probably have lived in the margins of forests, venturing out onto the plains sometimes. I repeat that all early Homo fossils have been found in plains environments.
One thing you may not know is that ALL the apemen were faked.
According to the article cited:
These scientists claim that there must be a “fundamental reassessment” about the notion that upright walking evoloved due to “adaptation of life on the treeless savanah”.
Good points.
That article was dated 2001. The standard picture today is that Ardipithecus and Australopithecus evolved in a tree savannah - plains with trees. Both are adapted for climbing as well as for upright walking. Later climate change removed the trees, driving more evolution. Hence Homo is less well adapted for climbing and better at long distance running and at outwitting predators. With trees a very simple strategy like “run to the nearest tree and climb it” avoids most predators. On treeless plains more sophisticated strategies are needed to avoid lions. In effect, the reassessment mentioned in 2001 has already taken place. Our very early ancestors, close to the split from the chimp line, lived in an environment with trees, though generally not in a forest. Our more recent ancestors lived in a treeless environment on open plains. Homo sapiens has spread to many more environments, including back into forests.
False. Whatever source you got this from is lying to you. The only known hominid fake in Piltdown Man, which has been recognised as a fake since the 1950s.
Correct, since on the definitions you are probably using “ape” and “human” are right next to each other. You will never find a piece of land between the USA and Canada because the two meet at a common border. That does not mean that it is impossible to travel between the two. Ape (non-human Hominidae) and humans meet at a common border so you will never find a species lying in between. For most practical purposes, any species with an average brain size of 500 cc or greater is assigned to genus Homo, any species with less than 500 cc is assigned to one of the other genera in the Hominidae, such as Australopithecus. There is no room in between for anything else, just as there is no land between the USA and Canada along their common border.
References please. You need to justify your claim that all were faked, not just Piltdown.
2000 years ago the supposedly primeval rainforest of central Africa was grassland. Forest, savannah and environments can change amazingly quickly. Could a monkey change into a man in a few thousand years because his trees suddenly started to disappear. Or, why does not the stone-age tribes of New Guinea, who build wonderful treehouses, and who have lived undisturbed in a jungle environment for thousands of years, probably, not evolve the very practical adaptations needed for climbing trees, like Ardipithecus and Australopithecus did.
This is from ReggieM’s site:
Some of it might have been, just as some of what is now grassland was then forest. Do you have evidence that all of what is now forest was once savannah?
A single monkey will not change, it will live, reproduce and die. A population of monkeys has a number of possibilities such as moving to an area with more trees, adapting to a treeless environment or going extinct. You also need to be aware that biologically we are apes and not monkeys: monkeys have tails, apes do not. Ignorance of the subject you are discussing is not generally helpful. I suggest you learn more about biology so you can avoid mistakes like this in future and make a better job of presenting of your case.
It is quite possible that the inhabitants of New Guinea have some adaptations for their environment, we can certainly see such adaptations in other human populations. Ardipithecus and Australopithecus did not actually evolve their tree-climbing adaptations, they inherited them from their ancestor. It is us who lost such adaptations while chimpanzees have retained them from the common ancestor.
The quote you gave explicitly said that they could not “reconstruct a whole apeman”: Dr. White said an accurate portrayal of these creatures was not yet possible because an intact skull or limb bones had not been found.
Sounds like pretty flimsy evidence to me!
It can be done. I’ve had to do it. The reason that it’s possible is that teeth in mammals are highly variable and the most useful single feature for classifying fossil mammals. Which is fortunate, because teeth are harder than anything else in a mammal, and tend to survive. Often, many fossil rodents are known only from their surviving teeth.
What did you identify?
Because they have invented tools and devices to do it for them.
Different orders of mammals. Rodents, lagomorphs, carnivores, xenarthrans, among others.
Oh, REAL animals!
All animals that leave teeth are real.