[Con X-Poser]

All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan.

<< You have yet to show that you have any sort of evidence beyond your refusal to see or (Shudder!) make any sort of inference at all. >>

Thank you for admitting that the evolutionary story is "inference" and not science.

<< I'll jump in again when you say something particularly amusing, >>

(Yawn!) I've heard that from you before.

<< but don't expect me to keep pointing out the extreme intellectual poverty of your argument. >>

You haven't pointed out any intellectual poverty in anything except to verify that evolution isn't science.

[Con X-Poser]

Human evolution going the WRONG WAY!

7 MY old creature more man-like than many *younger* alleged ape-men

A NEW APE IN THE TREE?

Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology - July 16, 2002

The discovery of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from the desert country of Chad threatens to “fundamentally change the way we reconstruct the tree of life” according to anthropologist Bernard Wood. Commenting about the find, which consists of cranium, a lower jaw fragment, and several teeth, Dr. Wood summarizes, “from the back it looks like a chimpanzee, whereas from the front it could pass for a 1.75 million year old advanced australopith”. This is not a flattering appraisal. Nevertheless, an australopithecine resemblance, however slight, is sufficient to convince most anthropologists that the creature was a habitual upright walker, and thus, a relative to humans. Without so much as a single bone from the neck down, however, one might be forgiven for being skeptical. The claim that the specimen came from strata of 6-7 million years in age only serves to heighten the fervor to embrace this as the “oldest member of the human family” (surpassing the oldest yet `hominid' by a million years).

Let's look at these claims more closely. First, the most noteworthy features of “Toumai” (the nickname given to S. tchadensis) include a relatively flat face, lacking in a pronounced prognathus, or forward jaw jut, and moderately sized canine teeth with wear only at the tip of the crown. Such features contribute to an australopithecine-like resemblance, which most anthropologists automatically equate with an upright posture. But how rock-solid is the case that australopithecines walked upright? Of the dozens of australopithecines recovered so far, only one has ever been claimed to offer confirming evidence for this (Lucy, the A. afarensis). Furthermore, a great number of experts are convinced that Lucy's skeleton did not lend itself to habitual upright walking but was far better equipped for swinging in trees. Among these doubters are leading anatomists. If there is any validity to their work, then the significance of Toumai as a human ancestor quickly fades to zero.

As for the new view of the `family tree' that emerges, Dr. Wood uses terms like “complex”, “difficult”, “bushy”, “untidy”, “mosaic”, “clade” and “homoplasy”. This is not good news for all evolutionists. He even goes so far as to compare the `new picture' for human evolution with the intractable problem of how the major animal phyla of the `Cambrian explosion' emerged from the enigmatic Burgess Shale fauna! The “tidy” straight-line evolution from ape to human is being discarded. In its place is the new, “untidy” view, in which it is necessary to first assume biological evolution to be true, in order to rightly discern the complex evolutionary pattern in the fossils. If this sounds circular or confusing, there is another conclusion that can be drawn: We are seeing an acknowledgement that no independent proof exists in the fossil record for human evolution.

As for the age-date, the strata in which the skull was found correlate with strata from other parts of Africa, where interbedded ash beds have yielded two `absolute dates' of “about 6 million” and “between 5.3-7.4 million”. Such imprecise dating has long troubled paleoanthropologists, and newer methods always seem to offer great promise for better precision, yet never seem to deliver. Some qualified scientists question whether or not such dates are even in the right ballpark. There is probably no good reason to believe the fossil to be any older than several thousand years in age.

In summary S. tchadensis is rightly regarded as “australopithecine-like”. This is not the same as saying it is “human like,” however. Toumai adds to our appreciation of the diversity of apes that once lived in the not so distant past but are now extinct. To go any further than this, and especially, to claim Toumai as a human ancestor, seems entirely unwarranted at this time.