2006-09-21 08:07:24 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Yes she is a very distant relative at 3.3 million years old We must have evolved from an animal similar to this one although the lineage is still not certain yet. We can trace our development through the changes in these early hominids. I believe that this child's skeleton is in fact older than the "Lucy" one so she couldn't her daughter
2006-09-21 14:31:36 · answer #1 · answered by xpatgary 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes indeed. A very distant one, but related nonetheless. "Lucy's Baby," "Lucy" and other gracile australopithecines (africanus [Taung baby] and afarensis [Lucy and Lucy's Baby]) are linked to modern H. sapiens in many ways, but by one very important characteristic especially: true bipedalism (walking upright on two legs). Other characteristics show a slow transition from a more ape-like morphology as well, but anthropologists tend to agree that upright walking was a big "step" evolutionarily (couldn't avoid the pun).
This child had a small brain, long arms, curved fingers, ape-like dentition, an ape-like hyoid bone, pronounced prognathism (front of face sticking out), no chin, and other characteristics that are very different from modern humans. However, it has long been acknowledged that (despite the differences) members of her species, Australopithecus afarensis, are very important members of the human family tree.
2006-09-22 22:15:34 · answer #2 · answered by forbidden_planet 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, she's a distant relative of both modern humans and Lucy herself.
2006-09-22 05:25:26 · answer #3 · answered by lauriekins 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You mean Lucy's distant relative?....perhaps ours but only after a few million years.
She is the same species as Lucy...or I think that's what the article said. Found in Ethiopia...which is where many of these discoveries have come from.
If your interested in that....check out "The Seven Daughters of Eve".....excellent book IMO.
2006-09-21 15:15:13 · answer #4 · answered by lethallolita 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually at 3.3 million years of age she would be Lucy's long down the line mama because she is 100,000 years older than Lucy and from what I have learned they are both classified as Australopithecus africanus and are both linked ultimately us...so yep the genetic buck started there!
2006-09-21 23:26:35 · answer #5 · answered by tigerlily_catmom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I guess they are our relatives! (Did you see the picture oon the front page of the National Geographical magazine? She would've been so sweet!) It is pretty fascinating though isn't it, I believe in God and all, but I still like to hear about that sort of thing.
2006-09-21 15:12:21 · answer #6 · answered by floppity 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd say it is
We humans go further back than scientist first thought.
Humans are strong resilient species and wont die out without a fight.
History is revealing itself very slowly ever year we discover a new ancestor
2006-09-21 16:31:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes - a distant relative.
A great discovery.
2006-09-21 17:33:39 · answer #8 · answered by razorfish_98 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
This is really the proof that the believers in Darwin's Theory have been waiting for.
2006-09-24 06:03:04 · answer #9 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if you are related to Ricky Riccardo.
2006-09-21 15:15:56 · answer #10 · answered by Jim T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋