Danuvius Guggenmosi: A New Look At Human Bipedalism

4
1061
The 21 bones of the most complete partial skeleton of a male Danuvius guggenmosi. (Christoph Jäckle)

Health Editor’s Note: Bones have been found that show that the ape that eventually led to man did not necessarily walk using four limbs. Examining the structure of the bone fragments found for four individual apes, showed that D. guggenmosi  used two limbs to walk.  This never before discovered species has put a cog in the idea that the evolution of man involved knuckle walking of the top limbs.   Perhaps we are on the correct trail of human evolution?…..Carol

New Ancient Ape Species Rewrites the Story of Bipedalism
by Andrea Michelson/Smithsonian.com

The picture is on T-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers: the ubiquitous but misinformed image of the evolution of humankind. A knuckle-walking ape rouses himself to stand on two feet, and over a 25-million-year “March of Progress,” he becomes a modern man.

Most paleoanthropologists will tell you that this version of evolution is oversimplified, misleading or just plain wrong. The theory that the last common ancestor of humans and apes walked on its knuckles like a chimpanzee is not supported by the fossil record, although it has seen popularity in scientific discourse. David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto, used to be an outspoken proponent of the knuckle-walking hypothesis, until he was asked to consult on a newly discovered fossil that would challenge his assumptions about early hominid locomotion.

When Madelaine Böhme, a researcher at the University of Tübingen in Germany, unearthed the partial skeleton of an ancient ape at the Hammerschmiede clay pit in Bavaria, she knew she was looking at something special. Compared to fragments, an intact partial skeleton can tell paleoanthropologists about a creature’s body proportions and how its anatomy might have functioned…..

Read more:


Loading...

EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

4 COMMENTS

  1. These bones together with the bones of so called “pre-humans” found so far are simply the bones of upright walking apes of the Miocene era and are not related to us humans. Period! Any rational person can see that. The structures and strength of these bones simply tell you of a strongly built walking apes, with nocturnal vision. If so called evolution did its work, the heck, we, human should have still these strong bones to allow a strong musculature and certainly we would still keep that night vision. Well it is not the case, is it? Biologists in the 1980s have confirmed with mtDNA that we humans are only around 250 000 years old and anthropologists, after smearing the biologists, came up with the crackpot theory (by the way not observable and testable) of genetic bottleneck of fame, just to keep evolution going on while it is crumbling in their feet. Other aspect of us is we have 4 000+ genetic defects. For a 250 000 years species, we should have known. A lot of these defect would kill a single person before reaching its teens. Higher primates do not have these high number of genetic defects. How did these came up?….

    • There is only one way for these to have come up up to our genes, while we should have none. That is simple and pure genetic engineering/manipulation and with the mistake occurring during these manipulations. The ancient Sumerians touch on these in their clay tables, if we are to accept the translation of the linguistic scholar and author Zecharia Stichin. In Ms Carol’s previous article entitled: NIH Statement on Status of Chimpanzees-I have interjected some genetic elements taken from the late Lloyd Pye website for VT readers and anyone interested. Other factor I would like to re-emphasise, that while micro-evolution is observable in the fossil records, the species remain the same while having other features for adaptation. Hhowever, it does not show any species mutating into another, the so called gradual macro-evolution. in other words, the mutants species or missing links in all species who have “evolved”. No problem for the anthropologists, they will explain it away with their fantasy and unverifiable theory of punctuated equilibrium which in turn contradicts the gradual macro evolution postulate. If you VT readers accepts that we have evolved from a common ancestor with higher primates and that the dinosaurs evolved into birds to cite a few, then you can be fooled to accept Elvis Presley and Osama Bin Laden are still alive.

    • Zecharia Stichin is well known for being full of shit. There are so little remains and the current knowledge of biology is so limited there’s no way to know what really happened (this applies to religious idiots too).

    • Thank for interjecting whoever is behind targetedindividual. What you stated about Mr Stichin is what the MSM scientists, anthropologists and astrophysicists and archeolgists smeared about him, that is nonsense. I tell you something, the guy was a genius because he could read ancient Semitic languages and could read Akkadian, the language of Sumer. He got the guts to spend a great deal of his life translating the Sumerian tables- While archeologists dismissed some of these away as myths simply these do not fit their crumbling models- to the best of his abilities and trying to keep in line with the words and meaning of Ancient times. France’s Anton Parks is following his steps by doing too a great job and is reviewing Mr Stichin works. Name calling and smearing a scholar without offering a valuable alternative would not do me or any rational person! If you can offer a better translation, by all means present me what you have for consideration. If you have none, then I can advise you to carry out serious homework. Otherwise, regarding the bones, I maintain what I said above. This is obvious. Period! Regarding the genes, again refer to Ms Carol ‘s article I referred above. Personally I concur with the late Lloyd Pye, because the genes speak the truth.