Talk:Australopithecus was fully ape, closer to chimp

From EvoWiki

Australopithecus was fully ape, closer to chimp The topic alone proves man came from ape. Consider that Australopithecines were the first distinction of more Homo Sapien Sapien like qualities, and if you were to trace spieces through to Homo habilis and then to Cro-mags the linage is as obvious as Doberman to Rottwieler and man forced that one

Lucy, ape or human?

Hej!

According to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC080.html

"A. afarensis falls somewhere between human and ape, perhaps more on the side of ape." According to this article:

"Given as how anatomical similarities between Australopithecus and Homo are far greater than the anatomical similarities between Australopithecus and Pan" So is Lucy more humane than ape, or...

I'm confused ;) Could someone explain?Johan Karlsson 10:48, 9 April 2007 (BST)

I'll try (but I'm just a physicist, maybe I got it wrong).

Homo < A. africanus and robustus < A. afarensis < A. ramidus < Common ancestor of Pan and Homo > Pan ancestors > Pan

The response in EvoWiki is talking about Homo - Australopithecus - Pan. As you can see, all Australopithecines are on "our side" of the tree - closer to Homo than to Pan.

Mark Isaak is talking about Homo - A. africanus and robustus - A. afarensis - A. ramidus - Common ancestor. As Mark says, A. afarensis is closer to the common ancestor (which he calls "ape") than to us. No contradiction. Chimpanzees have also evolved since we separated. --tk 15:57, 9 April 2007 (BST)

tk, thanks for the answer!Johan Karlsson 17:37, 9 April 2007 (BST)

.

Think we should include any of the new evidence that suggests that A. afarensis was not our ancestor? --KeithJM 00:51, 25 April 2007 (BST)

Yes I think we should include new information that a afrensis was not our ancestor.--Fang 23 01:08, 25 April 2007 (BST)