Replies

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.

EVOLUTION IS UN-AMERICAN

America's founding document, the Unanimous Declaration of the States (often wrongly called the Declaration of Independence) is very clear that America's foundation includes a belief in the Creation account of the Bible. "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT that all men are *CREATED* equal, and that they are endowed by their *CREATOR* with certain unalienable rights ...".

If you are an evolutionist, you are un-American. You have no foundation for the rights we enjoy because they were endowed on us by our Creator. If you have no Creator, you have no unalienable rights. The Creator said, "Thou shalt not kill", therefore killing is wrong and we have the right to life. The Creator said, "Thou shalt not steal", therefore stealing is wrong and we have the right to private property. Our other rights are likewise based on the word of our Creator.

If you deny creation by the Creator, you deny the basis for your rights as an American. George Washington, the "Father of our Country", knew better than that. He recognized God as the literal Creator according to the Genesis account,

"It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being."

Of course, he made it clear in other comments, exactly who that Supreme Being was, and what attributes He possessed.

Our Constitution assumes the "self-evident" truths of the Declaration concluding with, "In the year of our Lord...". A certain reference to their Christian outlook, their very calendar (and ours) is based on Jesus Christ.