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.
Start with Genesis, read through to the Revelation, compare the natural world to that paradigm...repeat process until it all becomes clear to you...it's amazing how the puzzle peices all start to fall into place when you humbly follow these instructions.
EV
Let’s all look at the bright side.
Any article that begins with 100% hyperbole has to be viewed by its comedy value.
You have to remember that most of these folk were taught to use instruments that can measure parts per billion, but no training whatsoever in statistical analysis, the difference between “resolution” and “accuracy”, or the myriad things that makes the difference between science and voodoo.
Any day now I expect to see a follow-up detailing the social structure of the beast, what it had for breakfast and how it interacted with its teen-aged offspring.
In addition to its attitude about sexual harassment, diversity and social justice.
Probably also what type of shelter it built and what animals provided their diet.
Such large returns in conjecture from such small investment in fact!
No matter; I am a believer that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, and I don’t care which one is correct. Life is too short.
Insisting on a final answer is as fruitless as demanding to know what existed before the big bang.
SUGSESTS SUGGESTS SUGGESTS!
The skull appears to be the size of that of a modern common chimpanzee with a similar cranial capacity and smallish teeth. But facial details, such as a very thick bony eyebrow ridge, are like those of male hominids.
from Associated Press
some real scientific deductions going down here...
Are you familiar with the isochron method? It does not suffer from this deficiency.
You are correct that confounding factors must be taken into account and can affect the accuracy of results as can poor technique, but your examples of inaccuracies miss the mark. A built-in appearance of old age of a few hundred thousand years is not very significant when dating a specimen many millions of years old.
But you have already assumed million of years of age. You assume the age and then attempt to demonstrate it.
It suffers from it's own deficiency.
As with other isochron methods, the U-Pb isochron method has been questioned in the open literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples gives a resultant “isochron” and yields a derived “age” that has no distinct geological meaning. At Koongarra, Australia, U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of uranium ore, host rocks and soils have produced an array of false “isochrons” that yield “ages” that are geologically meaningless. Even a claimed near-concordant U-Pb “age” of 862Ma on one uraninite grain is identical to a false Pb-Pb isochron “age”, but neither can be connected to any geological event. Open system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system is clearly the norm, as is the resultant mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb, even in soils in the surrounding region. Because no geologically meaningful results can be interpreted from the U-Th-Pb data at Koongarra (three uraninite grains even yield a 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0Ma), serious questions must be asked about the validity of the fundamental/foundational basis of the U-Th-Pb “dating” method.
The whole paper can be read HERE
How would I know that the Bible is a more accurate explanation for the natural world than the creation myths of the Babylonians? or the Sumerians? or the Egyptians? or the Mayans? or the Greeks? or the Last Thursdayists?
I'm sorry to inform you that any information from that site is "worthless" to the Darwininians here. Be prepared for an onslaught of posts challenging you to defend every irrelevant item posted on that site.
Read them all and decide for yourself. If you have already thrown them out, your question is disingenuous.
There are a multitude of reasons...not the least of which is that every bit of recovered history and every bit of archeological evidence has only served to confirm the biblical record.
You misunderstand. It is not considered evidence. I have posted links from that site along with corroborating information from a non-Christian site. That did not prevent ridicule and a strong attempt at distraction from the other side. They never focused on the actual information, only that it came from ICR. They attempted to channel me into a defense of something I had not introduced. The red herring was waved back and forth to no avail.
That's also true of the Iliad. So what does that say about Zeus and his thunderbolts?
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.