It is about Australopithecus the well, old approx 2 millions of years, discovered in 2008. The respective species has approx 2 millions of years old, and represents, as Science shows, taken from Nature, a mix of human and simian characters. Although he had simian arms, hands and wrists were human. The pelvis was human, which suggests bipedal walking, but the thorax was like other australopithecines, i.e. similar to that of a monkey. It seems that it moves bipedally, but his walk was swaying because he walked not on his heels, like modern people, but on the outside of the plant, what was the payment. He was probably climbing trees, and moved bipedally from one wooded area to another through the savannah.
The dentition has many human characters, common with early humans, but also many common with other australopithecines which suggests that there is a connection between this species and ours, that is, these "human" characters would not have appeared independently at A. the well. The shape of the rib cage shows that it did not have enough chest capacity to run and move long distances.
The question remains whether or not it was the ancestor of modern man. Here opinions are divided. Debbie Guatelli-Steinberg, from Ohio State University in Columbus believed it was related to early humans, but also with other australopithecines. Donald Johanson, co-discoverer with Tom Grey, to him Lucy, SKELETON 40% complete of A. afarensis, discovered in 1974, and old of 3,2 millions of years, he thinks it's a collateral branch of evolution, a dead end.
I am unable to interpret the anatomy data, but if I were to make a prediction according to the hypothesis in "Civilization", the species that were part of the human genealogy would be the least adapted to the environment in which they lived through specialized characters. Man would have evolved from "lost" species. This would have led to heterochronism (neoteny), associated with reduced predation pressure. What was actually needed was the lack of predation stress and the "missing out" of developing specialized characters with less profound effects on development. This idea could impact not only how we view evolution in general, but also on evolutionary psychology and philosophy in general.
http://www.nature.com/news/ape-like-fossils-show-hints-of-human-ancestry-1.12788
