Astonishing Skull Found in Africa

BBC ^ | 10 July, 2002 | Ivan Noble

[Mr.Clark]

It's the most important find in living memory.

It was found in the desert in Chad by an international team and is thought to be approximately seven million years old.

"I knew I would one day find it... I've been looking for 25 years," said Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers, France.

Scientists say it is the most important discovery in the search for the origins of humankind since the first Australopithecus "ape-man" remains were found in Africa in the 1920s.

The newly discovered skull finally puts to rest any idea that there might be a single "missing link" between humans and chimpanzees, they say.

Messy evolution

Analysis of the ancient find is not yet complete, but already it is clear that it has an apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features.

Henry Gee, senior editor at the scientific journal Nature, said that the fossil makes it clear how messy the process of evolution has been.

"It shows us there wasn't a nice steady progression from ancient hominids to what we are today," he told BBC News Online.

"It's the most important find in living memory, the most important since the australopithecines in the 1920s.

"It's amazing to find such a wonderful skull that's so old," he said.

What is the skull's significance?

The skull is so old that it comes from a time when the creatures which were to become modern humans had not long diverged from the line that would become chimpanzees.

There were very few of these creatures around relative to the number of people in the world today, and only a tiny percentage of them were ever fossilised.

So despite all the false starts, failed experiments and ultimate winners produced by evolution, the evidence for what went on between 10 and five million years ago is very scarce.

Grandparent, great uncle, great aunt?

There will be plenty of debate about where the Chad skull fits into the incomplete and sketchy picture researchers have drawn for the origins of the human species.

"A find like this does make us question the trees people have built up of human evolution," Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum told the BBC.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, as the find has been named, may turn out to be a direct human ancestor or it may prove to be a member of a side branch of our family tree.

The team which found the skull believes it is that of a male, but even that is not 100% clear.

"They've called it a male individual, based on the strong brow ridge, but it's equally possible it's a female," said Professor Stringer.

Future finds may make the whole picture of human evolution clearer.

"We've got to be ready for shocks and surprises to come," he said.

The Sahelanthropus has been nicknamed Toumai, a name often given to children born in the dry season in Chad.

Full details of the discovery appear in the journal Nature.

[DaveyB]

Well then, I will have no choice than to use the Bible. An eye witness wrote it!

[f.Christian]

Go live in your little evo cloud if you like where nothing is real. To deny that anything can be proven while at the same time asserting that evolution is true just shows the to what extent evolutionists will go in indulging in self-contradictory sophistry in order to deny all evidence against their stupid theory.

298 posted on 7/7/02 10:01 PM Pacific by gore3000

Good...GREAT---one

[AndrewC]

That's also true of the Iliad. So what does that say about Zeus and his thunderbolts?

Don't know. But you therefore admit the premise, evidence confirms the Bible.

[SkyRat]

Since I started lurking on Freerepublic and read through all EvC threads, this seems to become one of the best. If I remeber correctly this has been one of the best fossils so far in favour in support of evolution, especially human evolution.

It's amazing how the reactions are. I dont want to parcipate but it's sure interessting to watch. I wonder if this fossil will be named in one sentence with the neandertal. Will this change the outlook of some creationists in the years to come?

[hunyb]

what a bunch of hooey!

[EternalVigilance]

Well, Zeus never died for my sins, or revealed himself to me as my Savior and Lord...and he didn't do it for the billions of other witnesses to his power throughout the last 2000 years.

Christ did.

Hope that answers your question...

[Koblenz]

It was found in the desert in Chad

Did the skull have dimples?

[Sangamon Kid]

Carbon-14 dating is only one of a half-dozen or so radioisotopes they routinely use for dating. Different isotopes have different usable ranges. For example, the commonly used Potassium-40 dating is good from about 100,000 years to at least 4 billion years, though having a lower resolution than Carbon dating (which can be very precise). Obviously they would use something other than Carbon-14 to measure age, most likely Potassium-40.

Hey, my Fluke multimeter has a margin of error of +/- 1.5% How accurate is your meter? +/- 100,000,000 years?

[Republic]

ROFLMAO! Thanks for the giggle! Ol Al does bring to mind mutant genes.

[verity]

"I knew I would one day find it... I've been looking for 25 years," said Michel Brunet..."

He must have had a great social life.

[Junior]

But the Turks'.

[jenny65]

We know it was seven million years old because it was in a rock that old. We know the rock was that old because it contained a seven million year old skull.

I don't know which side you're on, but apparently I'm the only one who got it. LOL

[blam]

Interesting. Thanks for the ping.

[RobRoy]

I don't.

[RobRoy]

Thanks, BTW, I'm on the "there's a lot of crap on both sides and there's a lot of truth on both sides" side.

[EBUCK]

LOL. Circular indeed. But I think they determine the date by multiple, independant tests. i.e. Strata, carbon dating ect.

EBUCK

[Phaedrus]

Looks like a 10 million year old ape to me. One has to assume any transition to man. And My Goodness! All those myriad evolutionary "trees" have got to be modified once again! I just love stuff like this.

[EBUCK]

How about naming it after the archiologists nationality....

Sir Ender...say it fast

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

I will say this though (and I am right!): Fords are better than Chevy's. And Chryslers are better than both...

4 out of 5 church goers disagree! I have no facts to back that up but I'm right, you can bet on it!

EBUCK