Posted on 07/10/2002 11:51:16 AM PDT by 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.
I LOVED that film. Great message...
Or not.
You're joking, right? Since God made man last, all species are "pre-human." You're creating a straw man.
No. But that would stop someone from finding some DNA and determining that the fossil was closely related to a ham sandwich.
Paleontologists are still on the hunt for the remaining bits of the box. Once they find it, they will be able to prove their theory that man descended from the Babelfish, thereby proving there is no God!
Film at eleven...
Heretic! How do you know God is done creating?
I LOVED that film. Great message...
I was talking about the band T.M.B.G. Gumlegs mentioned Particles; I thought of Particle Man. I've never seen the film...
Not the whole theory, just the conclusions based on faulty assumptions. Take Mt Ngauruhoe in NEW ZEALAND where Rock known to formed from lava flows in 1949 were dated to be 300,000 years old. In Hawaii rocks from a recent lava flow was tested by various radiometric methods all with vastly different results. Even more startling was that one end of a particular rocks was a million years older than the other end of the rock according to one of the radiometric dating methods used. There have even been samples that aren't created yet according to the assumptions of the tests.
A better interpretation of the lab results might be that the ratios of parent to daughter reflect processes not age exclusively. The amount of the parent and daughter element present at formation is not known, the processes that might have influenced ratios are not known (i.e. leaching). The assumptions are dangerous and do not pass scientific muster. They are not verifiable, repeatable or observable. The assumptions must be taken on faith. But, when confronted with the fallacy of real tests the scientific community has refused to retract. Their religion is too important to give up based on real science. Besides they would hate for Christians to be right, again!
You nailed it. You brought to mind the three famous monkeys: "See No Evil", "Hear No Evil", and "Uncle Toumai's Skull is a Fraud".
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.