Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

First Chimpanzee Fossils Cause Problems for Evolution
http://www.reasons.org/resources/connections/200601_connections_q1/index.shtml#how_humans_differ_from_animals ^

Posted on 02/15/2006 11:47:51 AM PST by truthfinder9

First Chimpanzee Fossils Cause Problems for Evolution

by Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Where were you on September 1, 2005? Perhaps you missed the announcement of a scientific breakthrough: the influential journal Nature published the completed sequence of the chimpanzee genome.1

This remarkable achievement received abundant publicity because it paved the way for biologists to conduct detailed genetic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees.2

Unfortunately, the fanfare surrounding the chimpanzee genome overshadowed a more significant discovery. In the same issue, Nature published a report describing the first-ever chimpanzee fossils. This long-awaited scientific advance barely received notice because of the fascination with the chimpanzee genome. News of the two discoveries produced different reactions among scientists. Evolutionary biologists declared the chimpanzee genome as evidence for human evolution, but some paleoanthropologists were left wondering how humans and chimps could have evolved, based on where the chimpanzee fossils were found.

According to the evolutionary paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. About 5 million years ago, this ancestral primate spawned two evolutionary lineages that led to humans and chimpanzees. Anthropologists consider the physical, geographical separation of hominids and proto-chimpanzees to be the "driving force" for the evolution of humans and chimpanzees. They postulate that the formation of the Rift Valley isolated the hominids in East Africa (a hot, dry savannah) from chimpanzees in Central and West Africa (with warm, wet jungles). The geographical isolation of hominids and chimps, presumably, sent these two lineages along different evolutionary trajectories.

Evolutionary biologists think that fossil hominids like "Lucy," Homo erectus, and Neanderthals document the emergence of humans.4 Yet, until recently paleoanthropologists had no corresponding fossils for the chimpanzee lineage.

Surprisingly, the first chimpanzee fossils were discovered not in West or Central Africa, but in East Africa, near Lake Baringo, Kenya. These fossils, consisting of three teeth, dated to 500,000 years in age--meaning that chimpanzees coexisted alongside hominids. The Rift Valley provided no geographical rift for separate evolutionary histories, and therefore foils a key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm.

Sally McBrearty, one of the paleoanthropologists who uncovered the chimpanzee fossils, noted, "This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungles seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to the savannah that led to humans walking upright."5

If the discovery blows apart a "simplistic idea," maybe it's time for a simple (and testable) idea--the RTB creation model for human origins.

References

  1. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, "Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome," Nature 437 (2005): 69-87.
  2. See Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005) for a discussion of human-chimpanzee genetic comparisons from a creation perspective.
  3. Sally McBrearty and Nina G. Jablonski, "First Fossil Chimpanzee," Nature 437 (2005): 105-08.
  4. See Who Was Adam? for a treatment on how the hominid fossil record creates problems for human evolution.
  5. Michael Hopkin, "First Chimp Fossil Unearthed," news@nature.com (August 31, 2005), http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/pf/050829-10_pf.html, accessed November 30, 2005.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: brokebackmonkey; chimps; evolution; evolvingchipbrain; fossils; godsgravesglyphs; humans; livinamonkeyslife; mindyourmonkey; monkeyboggling; monkeyfaith; monkeymania; monkeymenunite; monkeysuncle; monkeywatch; origins; science; unclemonkey; yourmonkeybreath
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: Jeff Chandler

What is even less well-known, is that, in his later years, Cheetah was nicknamed "Snaggletooth" and followed Tarzan at a considerable distance on their journeys back to the jungle.


101 posted on 02/15/2006 1:48:47 PM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
Yeah, that silly science of Chemistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with biology.

Look up this person's publications on the web; the ones I found all dealt with creationism.

It looks like the author's religion is overriding the scientific training.

You can see this right here on FR. People who have a specific religions belief (such as young earth or a global flood) will ignore completely any evidence which contradicts their belief.

(Before you reply that evolutionists do the same, think of all the times creationists complain that we are "tweaking" the theory to fit new facts. That's because it is a science, not a belief system.)

102 posted on 02/15/2006 1:48:56 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm thinking of rating creationist articles in 'Hams', with 5 Hams being an average stupid creationist article, 0 Hams being not at all stupid (of course, no zero Ham creationist article has ever been observed), and 10 Hams being dumber than a Liberty University brick. This is about 8 Hams.

LOL! I'd use a scale of 0-5 Hams, though. Better for the graphics potential, like 5-stars.

103 posted on 02/15/2006 1:59:56 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

"The mind *boggles* at the ability of the anti-creationists to MISS THE POINT so badly."

Yes, indeed. Mindboggling.


104 posted on 02/15/2006 2:07:28 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Heh heh. Yeah, the 5 Hams would make a kewl visual. I'll get to work on a 256 pixel Ham icon right away.


105 posted on 02/15/2006 2:18:37 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin
Has anyone ever found a fossil human that was 900 years old at death, or a body in a cemetary or an ancient ruin? These would be dated by wear of teeth among other possibilities.

Teeth wear more because of the Fall. Before Noah, even cheap cuts of meat had the texture of filet mignon. Besides, of course, Adam ate dinosaurs, which were peace-loving vegetarians and were, like Shmoos, only too happy to be made into sandwiches and burgers.

106 posted on 02/15/2006 2:23:41 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; Antoninus

"Well I'll be a monkey's uncle."

LOLOL!

Are you the one who said the idiots are feeling useful today, or was it Antoninus? I get you mixed up sometimes.


107 posted on 02/15/2006 2:40:17 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS

I think that's Crick's theory. At least the alien part.


108 posted on 02/15/2006 2:41:51 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
The Creationist Rated Articles Panel (CRAP) hereby awards this creationist article 4 Hams

The Ham rating scale, created in honor of famous creationist Ken Ham , rates creationist articles on how stupid, mendacious, nonsensical, irrational, and just generally bad they are, ranging from one ham - only slightly silly - up to five hams - utterly mind-numbing.

109 posted on 02/15/2006 2:48:43 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack
If this article showed that humans and chimps were always in contact during the last 5 million years or so, it would weaken the speciation argument.

Not necessarily.

110 posted on 02/15/2006 2:53:51 PM PST by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Re 900 age tooth wear.

I love it. Can you send me a recipe.


111 posted on 02/15/2006 3:01:13 PM PST by gleeaikin (Question Authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I don't know about scientific but rana is the Spanish word for frog.


112 posted on 02/15/2006 3:04:53 PM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them OVER THERE than over here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: narby
I'd just like the truth, and evolution appears to be it...

That is as strong a statement of faith as any I have seen from any believer.

113 posted on 02/15/2006 3:19:21 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Besides they had filet mignon, ate dinasaurs, etc.

I just remembered. According to the Bible "expert's" posting, Adam and Eve were so long-lived because they were vegetarians. You need a better explanation. Maybe they had blenders. Oh, no electricity, darn.


114 posted on 02/15/2006 3:21:59 PM PST by gleeaikin (Question Authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

lol that is too funny.

I wish I had an opportunity to take one of your classes!


115 posted on 02/15/2006 3:26:36 PM PST by somniferum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: somniferum
Thanks :-)

But tell that to the poor slobs who had to endure Third Law Entropy and the Partition Function this morning.

116 posted on 02/15/2006 3:30:14 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The Ham rating scale, created in honor of famous creationist Ken Ham ,

Oh! I thought perhaps they were named after one of the survivors of the Noahic Flood.

You said that this article was worth eight Hams; I was prepared to award it a full Shem.

117 posted on 02/15/2006 4:05:10 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
That is as strong a statement of faith as any I have seen from any believer.

The comparisons of evolution to a faith are just endless in these threads. But no one has deigned to tell me whether they're trying to raise faith to the level of science, or lower science to the level of faith.

118 posted on 02/15/2006 4:37:09 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: narby
The faith in evolution is required to jump over the huge gaps, such as those who are talking about 5 million years ago and then taking up with 500,000 years ago.

I know, -- just a blink of the eye to the Church of Darwin.

119 posted on 02/15/2006 5:03:12 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
You said that this article was worth eight Hams; I was prepared to award it a full Shem.

Nah, make it a Full Shemp.

120 posted on 02/15/2006 5:48:41 PM PST by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson