Toumai: Oldest ancestor? Image: MPFT
Posted on 07/10/2002 1:00:11 PM PDT by Kermit
/media/images/38125000/jpg/_38125056_hominid300.jpg
Wednesday, 10 July, 2002, 18:00 GMT 19:00 UK
 |
|
| By Ivan Noble BBC News Online science staff |
|
 |
|
|
|
 It's the most important find in living memory  |
|
Henry Gee
Nature |
"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.
 |
"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.
 The hominid's jaw was found later
Image: MPFT |
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.
Maybe then I shouldn't get my info from the newspapers. I recall a diagram that showed the various progression of man along side a diagram of that of the ape. Man went through quite a few changes while the ape just had a straight line drawn. I believed at the time that the diagram came from a museum.
Are the changes you are talking about ones that go back to the beginning ? I recall this diagram showing the changes for man going back to about the time man started walking on two legs.
That is exactly what I find difficult. I find it hard to see that over millions of years the ape doesn't change at all while man experiences so many changes.
I got that part its just that the repeating didn't occur with apes.
I sometimes wonder that maybe it has but the scientists ignore it.
Yeah, ok, Patrick, just watch out for those dinosaurs dressed in red coats. They might be your long, lost cousins.
A little bit of paranoia is better than believing every new fad that comes down the pike.
Worth repeating. A certain materialist mindset and associated blindness is required that takes years to inculcate. Materialist science has its own version of Sunday School, apparently. All in my humble view, of course ...
I don't agree with your characterization. Human origins/hominid fossils feature antagonistic, fierce peer-review battles. Every detail is scrutinized, every inference questioned and analyzed. That's because everyone wants to find the "best" fossil, so any claims to that title are closely examined and repeatedly argued.
Guy: I'm the guy with the PhD in the subject at hand and you're the guy who is launching a pathetic attempt to lose readers-in by using flowery language to argue in favor of the ridiculous. You sound incredibly foolish.
I have a serious suggestion for you and then I am off for a lengthy family vacation. My suggestion is that you become much more comfortable with your religion. Either drop it or learn to fully believe in it so that you won't be so desperate to make enough noise so that more logical minds can't be heard. You clearly have serious doubts about that which is so important to you.
It should comfort you to know that the ape of 2002 is not the same as the ape of 6,000,000 bc. But evolution doesn't work on anyone's schedule either. There are critters on earth who have changed very little for millions of years.
One big clue is evolution doesn't have a "purpose." You can think of evolution as a result rather than a cause.
It's because mindless, rabid fanatics are so desperate to force their fanaticism upon those who chose to remain more logical. Trust me, you'd hear little to nothing from atheists if the religious could just keep their beliefs to themselves and stop trying so hard to force them upon others, as atheists do. You see, we actually believe in oour atheism so we are quite comfortable keeping it to ourselves. How about you?
Maybe I can better state my questions. Apparently in the last 4 million years man has gone through 6 or 7 major species changes while the modern ape has none. Assuming that both us and the apes are experiencing the same environment changes I wonder what factors yield a species that doesn't change much while a similar species changes at least 6 or 7 times that warrants a special name.
If there is a "stability" factor that some species have, what determines it and why doesn't man have the same ? What makes our time line so volatile ? Why didn't one of our types settle down for the long haul like the ape ?
The skeptic in me says that one of the reasons is that professors looking for funding might not be so interested in following ape species and may be more willing to see differences in human species. But skepticism aside these are my honest questions not coming from someone who is best described as an agnostic as far as evolution goes and not one who believes that the world has to be 6,000 years old. (In fact I believe the bible literally says the universe is about 5 1/2 days old but thats another thread. )
Well Doc, if Atheists are so quiet, why are we always hearing about them in regards to school prayer and the like? It is the Atheists who are trying to change the existing culture, not vice versa. If Atheists are so comfortable with their beliefs, why try to force their beliefs on others? Do they need reinforcement of their belief system? Do they need everyone else to believe the same way that they do? Madlyn Hare thought that way. She ended up dead, as I recall. I think that someone from her organization killed her. Her son is now a Christian.
"...mindless, rabid fanatics "
Good choice of words, Doc. We really anger you, don't we? Tough. We are here, and we are staying here to throw as many "monkey" wrenches into the twisted logic of Atheists as we can. Atheists know all about monkeys since they are relatives, right?
|
Chimp
|
Old
|
Man
|
Unless in some remote area in the world, untainted by Evolution's teaching, a Human+ baby is born, producing a 'slight' change that can either overwhelm us existing Homo Sapiens (think Neanderthal) or multiply alongside us as a 'new' specie.
For any 'slight changes' in the 'civilised' world will be treated as a 'birth defect' and 'corrected'.
Since the Evos like to claim that we DIDN'T 'descend' (ascend then?) from APES, but from a 'common' ancestor, my two-fold Question is this:
Did our 'ancestors' have opposable thumbs on their FEET and we Humans DEVOLVED them, or,did our 'ancestors' NOT have opposable thumbs on their FEET and the ape line EVOLVED them?
Um... I find that hard to believe, since an "evolusionist" [sic] would have been at least passingly familiar with some of the evidence for that position. They wouldn't be able to honestly assert, as you have, that "There is no evidence, repeat again, no evidence, [...] Repeat, no evidence. Zero, zip, nada."
That's like someone claiming to have once been a student of the Bible and then asserting that there is "zero, zip, nada" historical evidence for any of the events in the Bible.
It's just entirely unbelievable.
I also like to play blackjack, you know, the odds and probability thing.
Saying "hit me" when you have a 15 against a dealer's face-up eight card doesn't quite count as the equivalent of a degree in higher mathematics...
At this point now, I belive the odds of evolution really being THE explanation for life on earth are so remote and far fetched as to be laughable.
You can believe anything you like. But if you're going to try to claim to have an *informed* belief, a *supportable* belief, a belief that is arguably a *true* belief, then you have a lot more work to do.
You have given me many links to read that you consider to be evidence of evolution.
If you "consider" them not to be, you're going to have to be more specific and state your case and counterevidence cogently.
But my main point is that whether you agree with the evidence or not, it's utterly ridiculous for you to claim that "There is no evidence, repeat again, no evidence, that any species every evolved into another species. Repeat, no evidence. Zero, zip, nada", when there very most certainly *is* a great deal of evidence available for that very proposition.
Your claim was either based on wild ignorance, or extreme dishonesty. I don't care which, I just wanted to correct your false claim before some reader accepted it as possibly true.
It would do your reputation some good if you were to admit that your claim was in error, but I'm not holding my breath.
Well go read a book called "Rare Earth" by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee and see if you still consider evolution as the be all
Since Ward and Brownlee *also* accept evolution and the notion of the spontaneous formation of life -- it's one of the "givens" in their book -- I fail to see why their book should supposedly cause me to doubt evolution.
The thrust of their book is simply that planets which are hospitable to life over the long term (billions of years) may be rarer than had been presumed, and that Earthlike planets might not be extremely common. Why do you imply that this would negatively impact the science of evolution, especially since the authors admit that Earth *is* very well suited for the spontaneous formation and subsequent evolution of life?
Are you sure *you've* read their book? And understood it?
Because school prayer is just another example of the religious community being unable to keep their weird ideas to themselves and demanding to impose them upon the children of others. You make my point well. Atheists retaliate when people like you demand to spread your peculiar thinking in a publicly funded setting in defiance of the First Amendment which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Your problem is that you live in America and not in Saudi Arabia, where religion and government are one in the same.
And I have no objection to your being here to stay. I want you out of my life as per the Bill of Rights, and out you will be. Remember, as per the First Amendment, you may practice your religion in private (not publicly funded settings) only.
Besides, your churches are coming apart at the seams anyway.
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.
