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.

[kitchen]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

That was a misprint. Should have been shalalanthropus, or Donna for short.

[ASA Vet]

The skull is so old that it comes from a time when

It didn't say the skull was a creature that evolved into
either branch, only that it came from that era.

[LiteKeeper]

Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years.

Often they date the fossils by the geologic formations they are found in. But if you talk to geologists, they date the strata of rocks by the fossils they find.

Can anyone spell "circular reasoning"?

[Icthus]

The statement should actually read: "We do not have the slightest idea regarding the origin of this piece of bone and where it may have came from. However, we feel confident that it must be the missing link we've heard so much about".

[Aric2000]

"it comes from a time when the creatures which some believe were to become modern humans...""

Not quite, most paleontologists agree that that is what happened. An awful lot of people, I would say a very large majority, besides of course creationists, who believe that since their bible says one thing that it absolutely has to be true, and I have yet to see the bible that says that evolution is not true.

As a matter of fact, I have seen most church councils vote in the fact that evolution does not go against christian beliefs. So how come the curch leaders have been able to come to this conclusion, yet most fundamentalists haven't figured it out yet?

Anyway, we will find out in the near future where this skull fits into the great scheme of things, namely the family tree of the species Homo Sapiens, and them be us.

[The Duke]

"After seven years of computer simulations to reconstruct the original facial features we can now unveil..."

[RobRoy]

This place is as good as any: http://www.public-action.com/kennewick.html

Google will get you lots of stuff. Basically, his 9300 year old skull proves/suggests/implies that the white man predated the indian in Washington state.

[Icthus]

OOhhhhhh....OK, then I believe the story! ;o)

[EternalVigilance]

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

I think I'll file this one under 'Pre-conceived Notions'...

[Maceman]

This guy needs a good nickname at least!

I believe the tradition (well, maybe not exactly a tradition) is to name the skull after whatever rock-n-roll song was playing on the radio when they found it. Hence, Lucy, the australopithecus baby, named after "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

[general_re]

Bitsy

[Junior]

This is a creationist canard. Rocks are dated using one or more of about a dozen radiological methods.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective {Dr. Roger C. Wiens}

[RobRoy]

OK, but since only a tiny fraction of the population could be called paleontologists, my statement is, in fact, correct.

And I respect a paleontologists opinion on this subject as much as the opinion of any doctor regarding medicine before they started saying "maybe we should wash our hands before we cut this guy open."

[Bryan24]

Sure, it's 7,000,000 years old. It said so right on the tag.

"Lucy's 7,000,000 B.C Skull Sale , Do NOT accept MasterCard or Visa"

[Moonman62]

Google will get you lots of stuff. Basically, his 9300 year old skull proves/suggests/implies that the white man predated the indian in Washington state.

Impossible, that would be politically incorrect.

[GreenEggsHam]

What are you basing your statement on re: evolutionists "placing all their hope on one bone"?

[ClearCase_guy]

I believe the tradition (well, maybe not exactly a tradition) is to name the skull after whatever rock-n-roll song was playing on the radio when they found it. Hence, Lucy, the australopithecus baby, named after "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

I'm waiting for a Monkees fan to discover the fossil "Aunty Griselda".

[RobRoy]

As a matter of fact, I have seen most church councils vote in the fact that evolution does not go against christian beliefs. So how come the curch leaders have been able to come to this conclusion, yet most fundamentalists haven't figured it out yet?

What's this got to do with the thread? I'm sure you believe very strongly that you are right about a lot of things. That doesn't make you right about anything.

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

[Gumlegs]

Hmm. Bitsy is taken. How about "Chip"?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Fossil skull in Africa may shift theories of early human evolution -AP Breaking News
MARK EVANS, Associated Press Writer
(07-10) 12:38 PDT (AP) -- In what may be the most startling fossil find in decades, scientists in central Africa say they have unearthed the oldest trace of a pre-human ancestor -- a remarkably intact skull of an apelike species tha...