Man or Gorilla? Scientist Questions Skull Theory

Reuters ^ | Fri Jul 12,10:29 AM ET | John Chalmers

[Junior]

PARIS (Reuters) - A prehistoric skull touted as the oldest human remains ever found is probably not the head of the earliest member of the human family but of an ancient female gorilla, a French scientist said on Friday.

Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris said certain aspects of the skull, whose discovery in Chad was announced on Wednesday, were actually sexual characteristics of female gorillas rather than indications of a human character.

Two other French experts cast doubt on the skull as Michel Brunet, head of the archeological team that discovered it, was due to present his findings at a news conference at Poitiers in western France.

A self-confessed heretic amid the hoop-la over the skull, which dates back six or seven million years, Senut said its short face and small canines merely pointed to a female and were not conclusive evidence that it was a hominid.

"I tend toward thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla," she told Reuters in an interview. "The characteristics taken to conclude that this new skull is a hominid are sexual characteristics.

"Moreover, other characteristics such as the occipital crest (the back of the neck where the neck muscles attach)...remind me much more of the gorilla," she said, saying older gorillas also had these characteristics.

So little is known about the distant period of history represented by the skull that one scientist who has seen it told Nature magazine the discovery would have the impact of a "small nuclear bomb" among students of human evolution.

The London-based journal broke the news on Wednesday.

SHORT FACE, SMALL TEETH

The skull, discovered last year by an international team of palaeoanthropologists, has been nicknamed "Toumai," the name usually given in the central African country to children who are born close to the dry season.

Ten million years ago the world was full of apes and it was not until five million years later that the first good records of hominids -- or members of the human family, distinct from chimpanzees and other apes -- appeared.

Senut contested the theory that Toumai represented the missing link of human evolution between the two benchmarks.

The skull's braincase is ape-like, the face is short and the teeth, especially the canines, are small and more like those of a human.

But she said these were characteristics of female gorillas and cited the case of a skull which was discovered in the 1960s and accepted for 20 years as that of a hominid before everyone agreed that it was a female.

French media have reported extensively on the skull, not least because it came to light after years of digging through the sand dunes of northern Chad by Brunet, a Frenchman from the University of Poitiers.

Despite the national pride, Senut was not the only French scientist to raise questions about the hominid theory.

Yves Coppens of the College of France told the daily Le Figaro that the skull had an ambiguous shape, with the front looking pre-human and the back like that of a large monkey.

"The exact status of this new primate is not yet certain," he said. "Michel Brunet believes it is a pre-human, other respected palaeoanthropologists...see it as one side of the big primitive monkeys. "Others suggest a shared ancestry before the divide between hominids and monkeys took hold."

His colleague at the same institution, Pascal Picq, suggested that chemical research to establish Toumai's diet or a reconstruction of the skull by computer imaging could determine whether it was man or monkey, though for him it was "pre-human."

But no one contests the significance of the discovery.

"Even if it is a big monkey, it's even more interesting," Coppens said. "Because until now, in the genealogy of monkeys, there is a big missing link stretching over millions of years."

[Junior]

Ah, of course. "When we're right, we're right. When we're wrong, we're right."

No. But at least scientists admit when they are wrong. I have yet to see a creationist concede a single point even when shown the errors of his reasoning.

[sonofron]

"Unlike your (I'm supposing here, but fairly so) childish creationism fairy tale which has yet to have a single theory tested,.."

There is alot of science that backs up what the bible says, uless you asume some things in the bible are false and some true. I think the bible has been consistently prooven to be true form a historical perspective, so why would the authors of the bible make up the story of creation?

[Gladwin]

Female gorilla skull

[Gladwin]

Toumai skull

[lews]

This just proves that much of anthropology is more art than science. The way these "scientists" determine whether something is an ape or a hominid is about like identifying shapes in the clouds.

[william clark]

Believing that an intelligent creator whose existence transcends our own, rather than man being the end-all, be-all of intelligent life, does not, as you accuse, mean abandoning science. It does, however, prompt one to require a certain degree of humility on the part of scientists. Some of us laugh to see evolutionists turning themselves into pretzels rather than acknowledge the possibility of God's existence. They'd rather indulge in a stack of massive presuppositions (a violation of scientific and philosophical principles) and do end runs around the multiple contradictions presented by macro-evolutionary theory so as to preserve their "holier"-and-smarter-than-thou egos.

[Licensed-To-Carry]

Your quote - "Unlike your (I'm supposing here, but fairly so) childish creationism fairy tale which has yet to have a single theory tested, published in a peer review journal, or subjected to questions or more testing." /unquote

Here is some published evidence and documentation for the creationism "fairy tale" side that you say does not exist.

Take a look.

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a
small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative
contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with
"polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829
have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago
would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few
thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and
Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate
deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease,
famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago)
would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a
total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such
short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in
Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our
atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell
Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins
of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19
This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of
the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp.
46-71

2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51

3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103

6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)

7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86

8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)

10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)

11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)

12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179, p. 213

13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol. 148, p. 166

14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22

15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)

16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) p. 263

17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4

18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390

19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video

20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103

[Taliesan]

But at least scientists admit when they are wrong. I have yet to see a creationist concede a single point even when shown the errors of his reasoning.

I take your point that there are creationists who are immune to argument. But surely you can see that this: "...scientists admit when they are wrong..." is circular. The "scientists" get to define the data set consisting of the times they have been wrong. "See there, we always admit it when we are wrong. On those points where we have not admitted error we are not in error."

And anyone who defines the data set differently is thereby defined as outside the mainstream, and not one of the "scientists" who always admit it when they are wrong.

I can't argue about the complex data of science with any authority, because I'm a laymen, educated in business. So I'm asked to trust the experts because they "all" agree on this and that. But presumably I'm still allowed to think. So then I observe this pattern of simple facts over and over again: some "scientists" identified a data point, touted it as further confirmation of a theory...then other "scientists" said -- no, it is not confirmation of the theory at all. It is in fact not A but B, and has nothing to say about the theory at all. And some of the "scientists" agree, amd some disagree. Yet the entire community would treat me as an ignorant peasant if I would DARE -- DARE! -- express any doubt about their previous confident utterances.

And you point to such an incident as EVIDENCE that the enterprise is sound.

I have the highest regard for the scientists who are developing medicines, building bridges, and making my car more comfortable every year. But this is not that. I'm not an anthropologist nor an engineer, but I'm not stupid enough to think they are functioning under the constraints of the same logic.

They are manifestly not.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Told ya so. :)

[That Subliminal Kid]

Exactly.

[That Subliminal Kid]

What is a "Creationist", exactly? Let's define it so I can link to your post every time someone uses the word, seeing as how it's flagrantly tossed around and tacked onto the arse of every person on this site who dares to question neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.

[Junior]

Science is not some monolithic whole. Individual scientists are constantly vying against one another. No scientist gets to define what is right or wrong, as there is always someone out there gunnin' to make a name for himself by showing the first fellow up.

[Junior]

"Creationist," as used here, indicates someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the first six or seven chapters of Genesis (at least up through the Flood) and consequently sees evolution as the Devil's attempt to draw souls away from God. There are maybe a handful of creationists on these threads.

Note, I don't lump folks like medved in with creationists even though ol' Ted is virulently anti-evolution. I consider him and others like him to be in the same category as folks who think flouridation of the water supply is a communist plot.

[gdani]

This just proves that much of anthropology is more art than science

What exactly "proves" it? It sounds like one scientist disagreeing with various others.

I can easily accept the idea that the skull may not be what group #1 thinks it is. But group #2 disagreeing with group #1 doesn't "prove" anything - group #1 might still be right, after all.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Thanks. You're the first person to answer this question. I've asked it at least 10 times in various crevo threads.

[berned]

So far every single "missing link" type of discovery, from piltdown man to nebraska man, have all been either gross mistakes made by scientists, or outright hoaxes.

The "vast array of skeletal and fossil remains of missing links" repeatedly promised to us by the Darwinists have never materialized despite almost a century of intense, well-funded archaeology.

We just get these periodic hoaxes like this one, which prompt the evos to bad-mouth Bible believing Christians in general and God's Word in particular, until it finally comes out that, "yes, this too was just another one of our li'l scientific mistakey-poos".

Nothing to see here, folks, just go on giving the Teacher's Unions pernission to brainwash our kids with "evolution" as if it too, was not the hoax that it is.

[PatrickHenry]

There is alot of science that backs up what the bible says, uless you asume some things in the bible are false and some true.

What in the world does that sentence mean?

[Junior]

So far every single "missing link" type of discovery, from piltdown man to nebraska man, have all been either gross mistakes made by scientists, or outright hoaxes.

Actually, there have only been a handful of hoaxes (you mentioned two) -- and they were caught out because they DID NOT FIT INTO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Note, it was scientists that discovered these were frauds, not creationists, not theologians, not UFOlogists.

[gdani]

Nothing to see here, folks, just go on giving the Teacher's Unions pernission to brainwash our kids with "evolution" as if it too, was not the hoax that it is.

Yeah - It's so ridiculous to think that species or populations of organisms change over time.....

[lews]

-- What exactly "proves" it? --

The method which is used to classify the skull is what makes it more art then science. The simple fact that there is no definative way to determine what that skull really belonged to allows for speculation and assumption to dominate. Ultimately the skull will end up being called whatever the current majority assumes it to be.