AP/ March 28, 2012, 6:26 PM

"Lucy" had prehuman company, fossil shows

The first element of the Burtele partial foot, fourth metatarsal, as it was found on the ground in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar region of Ethiopia.

The first element of the Burtele partial foot, fourth metatarsal, as it was found on the ground in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar region of Ethiopia. / Yohannes Haile-Selassie/The Cleveland Museum of Natural History

(AP) LOS ANGELES - Lucy, it turns out, had company - another prehuman that also walked but spent more of its time in trees.

Until now, there was no proof of another human relative living around the same time as the species made famous by the Lucy skeleton. But a fossil discovery reveals there was another creature around 3 million years ago and it gives new insight into the evolution of a key human trait - walking on two legs.

The creature came to light when an international team of researchers unearthed a partial foot in eastern Africa. Like Lucy, it walked upright, but had a grasping foot that it used to climb tree branches. Scientists said it's now clear that various human relatives experimented with upright walking.

"This is just another window into solving the problem of how we got from a primitive foot to the modern human foot," said Bruce Latimer of Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University, who helped discover the fossil remains.

Various hominin species have co-existed throughout human evolutionary history, but this is the first sign of another during Lucy's time.

So what was this tree-climbing and ground-dwelling creature?

Scientists don't yet know because no skull or teeth have been recovered to make a determination. But it's clear the foot did not come from Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis.

It's rare to find prehuman feet because bones are fragile and don't preserve well. So American and Ethiopian scientists led by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History were excited when they excavated eight foot and toe bones in 2009 in the remote Afar region of Ethiopia, 30 miles north of where Lucy was discovered in 1974.

By analyzing the bone structure and dating the surrounding dirt, the team concluded the fragments came from the right forefoot of a human relative that lived 3.4 million years ago. While Lucy had humanlike feet, this creature was less advanced.

The discovery was detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. The authors did not name the new species because they know so little about it.

"This find is the first good evidence that there was a second, different species lineage" at that time, said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley, who had no role in the discovery.

The ability to walk upright is a key feature that separates humans from other great apes. That a different human relative ambled around the same period as Lucy suggests upright walking evolved more than once, scientists said.

Bipedalism "was a complicated affair and not just a 'one-off' occurrence," William Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was not part of the study, said in an email.

Over the past millions of years, the human foot has changed to give us a springy step. We have a stout big toe that lines up with the other toes. We also have a stable heel and an arch that distributes our weight when we walk, run or jump.

The new specimen's foot resembled that of Ardi, short for Ardipithecus ramidus, a species that lived a million years earlier than Lucy in what is now Ethiopia. But scientists don't know whether it is a descendant or close relative. Like Ardi, its big toe is set apart from the rest of its foot, allowing it to grip tree branches, and it had no arch. There are signs in the bones and joints that it walked on two legs - at least some of the time.

Instead of pushing off from the big toe like modern human, it took off from the outside of its feet.

Scientists said it's hard to glean what its stride was like without knowing the shape of its ankles, knees and hips. But it likely was not very efficient and moved around awkwardly. Without a foot arch, it also could not travel as far as Lucy.

While the 3-foot-6-inch Lucy spent some time in the forest, her vastly different feet meant that she was better adapted and more comfortable wandering around open fields than the newly discovered creature was.

Lucy discoverer Donald Johanson called the new find "one of those fascinating evolutionary experiments" that tried walking but never fully committed.

It "didn't seem to want to make up its mind whether it wants to live in the trees or on the ground," said Johanson, founding director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University.

What are the chances the two interacted? If they met, scientists said they probably did not socialize, given their different lifestyles.

"They went on with their own lives," Johanson said.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
18 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
enlightenu says:
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian


10 - You vigorously deny the existence of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
reply
bileven replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Man, it must really suck to believe that life is just a result of random choice and essential you're nothing but a cosmic accident.

BTW, Evolutionists claim we evolved from apes that evolved from slime that evolved from dirt... so both are the same, difference is.. purpose and intent.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
w_roos says:
Lucy had company -- Vivian?
reply
howbizarre replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Like!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
aviatrixx says:
Myoleman, are you serious? Do you have any idea how many factors come into play in creating fossils? It is surprising that we have as many fossils as we do. There is abundant evidence of evolution, absolutely zero evidence of creation, yet you think scientists are just making this up. How can any thinking person discount evolution? How can you believe a book that contradicts itself at nearly every turn instead of the careful studies undertaken by hundreds of scientists over many years? Those who deny evolution do not understand it, nor are they willing to keep an open mind to learn.
reply
AnnieDanny replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You sound as intelligent as Lucy. Abundant evidence of evolution? Zero evidence of creation? It shows that people believe what they want to believe. And it shows that your mind allows zero probability of God. I believe in creation and I think God might have done it through evolution but I doubt it. Frankly, I've never seen anything that proves evolution even a little bit. The evolutions invent this "story" and fit their pieces into it, and the "story" is just as important to them as the pieces are: maybe more so. I would be more interested in these fossils if scientists would leave off the explanations. The fossils are fascinating. The story they invent is annoying, to put it mildly. Actually, this news article is better than most and is fairly mild about the evolution bit. I really get annoyed when the headlines announce they've found what MAYBE, could be, PROBABLY is but not quite the MISSING LINK!!!! barf.
enlightenu replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
there is zero probability of god
linkicon reporticon emailicon
b4uigo says:
What if God created the Big Bang and we're all right?
reply
bileven replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
trout.. Big bang.. Science.. nothing exploded and created everything.

Bible, God spoke... and it happened. Who's to say His words were not BOOMing.... Just as the Bible says.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
SHA00001 says:
Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures (pardon the pun). Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this "cast[s] doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor."

This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis "Lucy," conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.2
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ebear11 says:
are you kidding National Geographic!!! Lucy has long been dismissed by scholars. Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the university of Southern California Medical School, did a computer anaylysis of the Ausstralopithecus skeleton and concluded that it is "now irrevocably removed" from a place in the evolution of man's ability to walk on two feet and from any direct human lineage....cited in Perloff, p.3
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
myoleman says:
These are not predecessors of humankind, but independent species that are now extinct. 90% or more of all species that have lived on planet Earth are now totally extinct. Humankind appears suddenly on the planet, as the Bible states. If evolution was true, there would be millions of fossils to document its slow progress. As it is, there is absolutely nothing. The Word of God stands, as always. Praise His Name!
reply
MIO42 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The Bible is a lot of things
The first thing it is " Is LITERATURE"
USMCveteran replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Bible=Fiction
See all 4 Replies
linkicon reporticon emailicon
marine1957 says:
Gee...
These guys (scientists?) sure know how to make up stories.
I'm glad they are not prosecutors in court and in front of a jury!
reply
See all 18 Comments