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.
You are right, of course. I was just trying to be "diplomatic."
Funny, I thought it was a joke. 8^>
Carbon-14 dating is only one of a half-dozen or so radioisotopes they routinely use for dating. Different isotopes have different usable ranges. For example, the commonly used Potassium-40 dating is good from about 100,000 years to at least 4 billion years, though having a lower resolution than Carbon dating (which can be very precise). Obviously they would use something other than Carbon-14 to measure age, most likely Potassium-40.
Exactly my point. Radiometric dating is used as the third point in the circular argument. But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong. If radiometric dating gives outrageously bad dates for objects of known age, then how can it be used reliable for objects of unknown age. So the “scientific” community has based their religion on the following reasoning – “you know the age of the fossils by the age of the rocks and the age of the rocks is known by the age of the fossils and if you don’t believe them then the radiometric dating can verify the age of rocks and we know that that’s correct because radiometric dating is usually wrong except when it is verified by the age of the fossils.”
Of course there are over a dozen. They have to able to pick which one that gives them the date they want.
Can you say sand?
It was found in the desert in Chad by an international team and is thought to be approximately seven million years old
It seems to not have been dated yet.
It isn't part of your "circle." The theory behind and techniques of radiometric dating are independent of fossil finds.
But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong.
You have some evidence that the theory of radioactive decay is wrong?
I think I'll file this one under 'Pre-conceived Notions'...
Imaging you are putting together a jigsaw puzzle. You don't have all the pieces, and you don't know quite what the puzzle is supposed to look like, but you have a general idea that it's a landscape of some sort. There is a hole in the sky portion of the puzzle, right on the edge, that you want to fill in.
Might you reasonably hypothesize that there is a blue puzzle piece with a straight edge, maybe behind a baseboard somewhere in your house? And say you're in your attic one day, and lift a box of old magazines and find a blue puzzle piece with the straight edge underneath, might you reasonably conclude that it fits the puzzle near the hole in the sky, probably somewhere along the edge?
From the article: "I knew I would one day find it... I've been looking for 25 years," said Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers, France.
OK then, I'll file this under 'Mythology'...
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.