"This suggests that our direct ancestors were neither the only, nor the first, species to come down from the trees," study researcher Katherlijne Koops, of the University of Cambridge, said in a statement. "This is intriguing as it has long been believed that coming down from the trees was a crucial evolutionary shift."
You can follow LiveScience staff writer Jennifer Welsh on Twitter, on Google+ or on Facebook. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter and on Facebook.
- 8 Humanlike Behaviors of Primates
- Sleep Tight! Snoozing Animals Gallery
- Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor
Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ]]>
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentIf the question "was coming down from the trees a crucial evolutionary shift', then how in the world is "This suggests that our direct ancestors were neither the only, nor the first, species to come down from the trees," ANY kind of an answer? We've known for over 3,000,000 years that primates sleep in trees - NOW we are definitely sure that we definitely do not know any more than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid this study cost money? Do they pay people to say things like, "This is Red, but we don't know how or why."
Can I get one of those jobs? I can obfuscate with the best of them.
Maybe the no explanation for ground or tree sleeping in spite of less insects and more warmth in the cold night, can be explained by the DNA we have in common. The ground sleepers are slobs.To lazy to make their nest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe tree sleepers are perfectionists. Incapable of relaxing enough to make their nests on the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnorance is bliss I guess...
It does not seem to me that the data support the claims. Birds make much more complex nests than what was described here and even adapt to using man-made materials when they are available, yet I do not see any claims that birds are using almost-human intelligence in their construction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTTLG,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's an excellent point. Perhaps the reason for no such claim regarding birds is that no one in the biological field is attempting to genetically link birds with humans as is the case with chimpanzees and humans.
Using the word "engineering" in this way is an abuse of language, intellectually sloppy and rhetorically misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe essence of engineering is application of consciously held, consciously elaborated, consciously communicated knowledge of fundamental physical principles to create a result that meets pre-established, consciously documented criteria. None of these chimps can communicate to another chimp what they are trying to do, how they are trying to do it, and why what they are trying to do will achieve their intended goal, or even what the intended goal is. An engineer who designs a bed creates a body of knowledge and practice that can be communicated to other people, critiqued, improved upon, adapted and refined for further use. A chimp who builds a bed does none of these things.
Bottom line: for all the talk designed to make what chimps do look like what humans do, there's a huge difference between what they do and what we do that cannot be dispelled by rhetorical smoke and mirrors. When the chimps are publishing their research on us over the Internet, we'll have a change in that situation.
As you make your bed, so must you lie in it! though We have the words to say it, our chimpish cousin clan appears to have the KNOW HOW as well!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a sore coccyx, not from the fall off the trees, but off a bike; so I am in constant search of a most comfortable resting place. I've found the most intelligent chair now: it's built on the suspension bridge/hammock principle, a clever combination of suspended slats and rocking chair frame. It comes from Vietnam and is kindly named 'V.I.P. Relax Chair'. Try it out, it can change our view of primatic intelligence, too, as this is the closest we can aspire to experience that unique feeling of suspension in the tree tops!
As to the down-to-earth bedding style of the 'Forest-Men', the Orang Utans: they are welcome to it; but nothing beats the blissful semi-suspension of our human spine that is weary from the upright positioning it was not originally designed for, oh coccyx pain!
Our bedding & tourism industry still caters for our primeval sleeping patterns , with beds still made from the wood of trees, with wooden slats as bases, and the daily change of linen, often imprinted with leafy decorative imprints, though it seems that the bedbugs have taken up residence as unwanted guests in our hotel beds now, too.
With all our intelligence and communication savvy ,
we cannot beat the system of nature: Evolution.
As to the question: "Do they pay people who ask the question:'This is Red, but we don't know How and Why':
the latest scientific answer is:'Yes, we DO';
Red is the colour of our prime survival food: fruits and berries! How so? Our Primates' eyes evolved into trichromacy because of this survival principle, thanks to flavenoids, lykopenes, and zeaxanthines from red,orange, green plantfood keeping our retina healthy!
Red also keeps the advertising industry out of the red!
Please visit 'Colour Eating', Youthevity.com
The important thing is that you don't know all the facts. Human beings, born from the last ancestor of Humans and Bonobos, may have been the first primate to nest on the ground. We must recall that Bonobos and Chimpanzees have evolved since that point also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissunnystrobe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Our Primates' eyes evolved..."
One plant physiologist would seem to have had his doubts:
"Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough
accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.".
[Prof. Frank B. Salisbury. 1971. Doubts about the modern synthetic theory of evolution.
THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, September, p. 338]