Replies

"Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:

"Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable."

This is a classic case of quote mining in an attempt to cast a shadow over the idea that hominid fossils show the evolution of man from more primitive ancestors.

Here is the link to the article by Henry Gee. His contention is not that the fossil in question, Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumaï) does not fit the hominid group but that the idea, pushed by creationists, that a single fossil has to fit their idea of a 'missing link' is bunk. The 'missing link' suggests hominid ancestry must follow a ladder of change. What we find is that hominid ancestry is a bush.

Why is Toumaï so important? First, it is the earliest known credible vestige of a hominid - a member of the group of creatures more closely related to human beings than to any other animals. It also doubles the antiquity of the earliest known skull: the previous recordholder, from Kenya, is around 3.3m years old.
Second, it has dropped straight into the most crucial, but least known, part of the story of human evolution. It is suspected that the last common ancestor of humans and our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, lived around 7m years ago. We know this not from direct fossil evidence, but from studying the small differences in the otherwise similar genes of humans and chimps, and estimating the time needed for these differences to accrue.

Does the above quote sound like the author in any way thinks humans did not evolve from hominid ancestors?

If you, or the authors you quote, want to misrepresent what authorities say you should stick to publications more difficult to find.

The 'missing link' suggests hominid ancestry must follow a ladder of change. What we find is that hominid ancestry is a bush.

Of course he believes in evolution. He's a paleoanthropologist. It's a prerequisite for those who want to survive in the profession. Evolution must be true, and we proceed from there.

Human evolution used to be a ladder. Now it's a bush. Is there any way that the theory can be falsified? As an outsider looking in, all I see is hand-waving, deceit, and manipulation of facts to fit a pre-existing theory. Arguments from authority are the weakest of all arguments, and judging from what I've read, completely useless in this field.

I have a degree in engineering. That doesn't make me an expert in paleoanthropology, but it does help me to recognize the tailoring of evidence to fit a pre-existing theory. The more I study the hard evidence, the more obvious this becomes.