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.
The base function for isotope dating is exponential, so the error function is too. For the age of the skull in question, an error of margin of +/- 100,000 years is not unreasonable with good equipment.
Much too young --- Maybe co-ed parties with chaperones?
Nah. Can't be.
Bob was too advanced for us.
I do agree with the creationists on one point. We often make wild assumptions based on small amounts of data. If scientists in 5 million years come down, find only the elephant man's remains, they will have a very strange view of what human's were like. Sometimes the guesses are very educated, other times, later discoveries prove them wrong. But, the sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the earth is 6,000 years old crowd really is getting silly. Most christian denominations have moved beyond that, including the Catholic Church. Maybe, one day, the rest of the lot will as well.
Not conclusive at all.
So because they do privide a prom defence they are liers and cheats. Well then why has that community of liers and cheats not debated Walt Brown. Or where is the refutation for the work of Dr. Robert Gentry?
Truth moves slowly while lies spread.
What would you call someone who refused to change his mind in the presence of new evidence?
HeHee
Why are you trying to insert reason on this thread?
You made the assertion that creationist didn't put man on the moon...The burden of proof lies with you!
Well, see?
They are smarter than we are.
HeHEE
Are you sure? There are two things here: H's 'law', which no-one believes, and the observations that he was trying to explain with it. The observed fact is that all vertebrate embryos are *very* similar.
IIRC, the *prediction* that fossils would be found with jaw bones intermediate between the reptilian multi-bone jaw and the mammalian single-bone-jaw plus earbones was based on observing embryonic pigs, and seeing how the bones migrated from the jaw to the ear. The prediction came true, and there is a whole series of such fossils now known. That could be considered evidence for H's law.
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.