Today’s NZ Herald has an article called: Apeman myth exposed
We evolved from apes.
“The hominins lived 1.5 million to 4.1 million years ago, a relatively short time after proto-humans and chimps split from a common ancestor . . . Many experts have argued that this ancestor was probably quite chimpanzee-like, and as a result it has been widely assumed that the earliest humans were ape-like too.”
(Sigh)
“Humanity’s immediate predecessors may have had trouble climbing trees, research suggests – so they may not have been as ape-like as many experts believe.
Scientists concluded this after a close study of how chimpanzees scale trees – virtually vertically and with ease – and then comparing chimp ankle joints with those of hominins, humans’ ancestors.“
(ouch!)
Courage to tremble 
Why not just come straight out and say “bogey men” instead of “scientists”. You know you want to.
The yellow man did not fall on his face!!! You just rotated the picture, even if it was legit his arm is protecting his face, so he would not fall on it – although he may land on his ridiculously big nose. Now that is a myth that needs to be exposed!!!
Thanks for the comic relief, Raoul
“The article mentions research that shows that early human beings could not climb trees, which strikes at the very root of the theory”
Ah, perhaps this is the source of my confusion because surely this is wrong? I am not a biologist – but I thought that the theory of evolution held that species (and thence higher taxa) evolve by way of natural selection acting on inheritable traits. It doesn’t require any particular outcome, it just provides a framework within which evidence can be interpreted.
I thought the suggestion here was that humans and chimps may have diverged earlier than previously thought. If there is new evidence which can lead to this reinterpretation of the inferred “tree” then how does that weaken the theory? Surely it reinforces its utility?
If you are suggesting that these results are inexplicable in terms of the TOE – can you point me to some discussion of this?
I apologise for the confusion. When I spoke of the root of the theory, I did not mean the Evolution theory generally but the sub theory that man evolved from ape. My mistake entirely. And with so many trees in this story, the tree of life and the trees the early human did not climb, I should have avoided using any word from plant anatomy.
This research does not strike at the root of the evolution tree at all. I agree with you that the tree of life is just a framework, but I think that it is a conceptualised hassle-free framework, serving as an alternative to the theory of Creation, and absolving us of all moral obligations on account of our origin.
I accept the ‘natural selection’ aspect of evolution to a certain extent, but believe that new species can result inasmuch as is possible with loss of genetic information. But the theory of evolution, as it stands today requires new genetic information and genetic information arranged in sensible and new ways.
Of course I see what you are hinting at but from what I could find about this research I didn’t see how it helped your case. I admit that I have only read the summaries I could find in a quick search, not the original paper.
I have been using this yellow-man-falling-on-his-face idea in a series of little posts, which point to secular press articles that report a problem with the evolution theory, either explicitly or implicitly.
In this post, it is explicit.
The article mentions research that shows that early human beings could not climb trees, which strikes at the very root of the theory.
The main ‘evidence’ for man having evolved from apes is that it was thought that some of our early ancestors were apelike and could climb trees. Textbooks taught it, museums have models of ape-like ancestors, and pictures of the progression from ape to man, like this one, have been seared into our minds, so much so that many today think that our ape ancestry is a proven-beyond-doubt fact.
There will be research for and against evolution; one story like this does not establish much. But I am hoping that it will do its part to bring Intelligent Design back into the class room along with the Evolution theory for a more balanced study of science.
I’m struggling to understand your point here.