;-)
Posted on 02/15/2006 11:47:51 AM PST by truthfinder9
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.
According to the evolutionary paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
OR
According to the intelligent design paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common Creator.
Chimps and humans diverged 6 million years ago, not 500,000 years ago. Nothing in evolution requires that two groups that have already speciated can't live together. The author is apparently thinking of allopatry, the thesis that the initial divergence of two speciated populations requires genetic isolation. But by 500,000 years ago, chimps and humans were are already genetically isolated. .
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.
Not only was that a really bad, but funny joke I instantly thought of the Poser Posse on those T-Mobile commercials. That cracks me up every time.
I'm totally confused. Didn't the article say the theory was that they lived at the same time in different places? But now that they have found the teeth in the wrong place, it means they lived at the same time in the same place? But how does just finding teeth mean the chimp lived in the same place? Couldn't a human have brought the chimp to the place since they lived at the same time? Am I missing what the theory is?
We all know that as an atheist you have a special agenda on these threads. But it is entertaining to read your rants! LOL
Exactly. Humans and chimpanzees were fully separate species by 500,000 years ago, and it would raise no problem to find their fossils side-by-side.
Sometimes, reading scientific arguments by creationists is like listening to the worst contestants on American Idol trying to sing.
Maybe the chimp was on vacation. You know: get a little sunshine, do a little fishing...
Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum. I smell me an atheist.
I must be missing something. What other chimp fossils were found?
Hey, that's 2 1/2 more fossils than they usually create an entire species from.
This is it? Add a comment by a researcher (that no doubt supports evolution) that they want to do more study, and suddently EVOLUTION IS IN TROUBLE. OH MY, THE EVOLUTION SKY IS FALLING, WHAT SHALL WE EVER DO!??
This is the lamest anti-evolution article *ever* on FR.
The article had me going for a minute, but you hit the nail on the head.
bump for future reference.
Me Tarzan Him CPA
I doubt it ...
LOL - very true.
No, that's just against GOD'S LAW!!! Oh...wait...you meant...
;-)
:-)
Offer not valid in Massachusetts, or on mountains in Wyoming.
RWP can defend himself. But as for me, I'd just like the truth, and evolution appears to be it. I oppose the spread of ignorance, which anti-evolution is.
Are you an atheist, too?
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.