Early Humans

[UTEOTW]

It looks like another AIG "explanation" has gone out the window.

A few years ago, a new fossil ape, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, was found in Chad. As with all fossil apes that they cannot stretch the truth to make a "fully modern human" out of, they deny that it has ANY relationship to humans. Here, let them tell it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012toumai.asp

We challenge all the media organs that ‘hyped’ the Toumai skull to fairly present this challenge to the skull’s claimed human ancestry (from within the evolutionary camp itself) and give it the same publicity as the original.

Well, as it turns out, there have been aditional finds that expand the knowledge of this creature. And it turns out that these new finds reinforce the idea that this is a human ancestor more recent than the human/chimp split.

Discoveries in Chad by the Mission Paléoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne have substantially changed our understanding of early human evolution in Africa. In particular, the TM 266 locality in the Toros-Menalla fossiliferous area yielded a nearly complete cranium (TM 266-01-60-1), a mandible, and several isolated teeth assigned to Sahelanthropus tchadensis and biochronologically dated to the late Miocene epoch (about 7 million years ago). Despite the relative completeness of the TM 266 cranium, there has been some controversy about its morphology and its status in the hominid clade. Here we describe new dental and mandibular specimens from three Toros-Menalla (Chad) fossiliferous localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292) of the same age. This new material, including a lower canine consistent with a non-honing C/P3 complex, post-canine teeth with primitive root morphology and intermediate radial enamel thickness, is attributed to S. tchadensis. It expands the hypodigm of the species and provides additional anatomical characters that confirm the morphological differences between S. tchadensis and African apes. S. tchadensis presents several key derived features consistent with its position in the hominid clade close to the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.

Brunet et al, New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Nature 434, 752-755 (7 April 2005)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15815627&dopt=Citation

So now I must extend the challenge to AIG to publically display this new information on their website, publicizing these new findings with the same zeal that they publicized the disagreements when there was only a single specimen. Of course this will never happen. Not with out a distorting spin.

 

[Travelsong]

You don't believe the Bible!

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

So now I must extend the challenge to AIG to publically display this new information on their website, publicizing these new findings with the same zeal that they publicized the disagreements when there was only a single specimen. Of course this will never happen. Not with out a distorting spin.

You don't expect a creationist organization to publicize findings that support neo-Darwinist racial theories about the first African people originating from some ancestors of African apes, do you?

It's bad enough when neo-Darwinist theorists propose African Eve models, but when they try to associate her particular tribe in Africa with ancestors of apes, their peculiar form of scientific racism is obvious to all members of the human race.

 

[UTEOTW]

"You don't expect a [young earth] creationist organization to publicize findings that support neo-Darwinist racial [sic] theories about the first African people originating from some ancestors of African apes, do you?"

I expect them, at best, to keep quiet. How many people who read at AIG do you think would actually be reading about real science? If they just keep quiet, their followers will likely never stumble upon the truth by themselves.

At worst, I expect them to misrepresent and distort the truth. That's not hard to find on AIG, either.

So, no, I do not expect them to reveal real science which weakens their case.

 

[UTEOTW]

The same issue of Nature some some additional confirmation.

Previous research in Chad at the Toros-Menalla 266 fossiliferous locality (about 7 million years old) uncovered a nearly complete cranium (TM 266-01-60-1), three mandibular fragments and several isolated teeth attributed to Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Of this material, the cranium is especially important for testing hypotheses about the systematics and behavioural characteristics of this species, but is partly distorted from fracturing, displacement and plastic deformation. Here we present a detailed virtual reconstruction of the TM 266 cranium that corrects these distortions. The reconstruction confirms that S. tchadensis is a hominid and is not more closely related to the African great apes. Analysis of the basicranium further indicates that S. tchadensis might have been an upright biped, suggesting that bipedalism was present in the earliest known hominids, and probably arose soon after the divergence of the chimpanzee and human lineages.

Zollikofer et al, Virtual cranial reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Nature 434, 755-759 (7 April 2005).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15815628&dopt=Citation

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB]
"Analysis of the basicranium further indicates that S. tchadensis might have been an upright biped, suggesting that bipedalism was present in the earliest known hominids, and probably arose soon after the divergence of the chimpanzee and human lineages.[/b]

That's just more "scientific" evidence in support of neo-Darwinst racial theories about the original African people originating from the same common hominid ancestors of sub-human African apes.

What's the point of providing so-called "scientific evidence" in support of racist theories?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

It is your characterization of these scientific theories as racist, not that of anyone else. And the point of the evidence is to help decide whether or not the theories are true, regardless of the alledged racist contamination.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
How many people who read at AIG do you think would actually be reading about real science?... At worst, I expect them to misrepresent and distort the truth. That's not hard to find on AIG, either.

I can attest to this firsthand. I recently went to go see a stage play called "Creation" at a local large church. The show was done in the interpretive style (similar to the way Circque Du Soliel shows are done). I thought the show was absolutely wonderfully done. AiG posted a review which was not only inaccurate, but completely misrepresenting on the show, and in some cases, plain false (even implying that the show is darwinistic, which I can tell you, it was not). The reviewer clearly had no understanding of theater, or classic theatrical tools such as the Greek chorus or interpretive dance. Either that or the reviewer had an agenda prior to reviewing the show.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It is your characterization of these scientific theories as racist, not that of anyone else.

I am merely basing my observations of racism in neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution on Lubenow's brilliant analysis and thesis concerning the human fossil record.

And the point of the evidence is to help decide whether or not the theories are true, regardless of the alledged racist contamination.

The "evidence" is just being used in support of such racial theories because all evidence which doesn't is summarily rejected.

In order to "decide" whether neo-Darwinist racial theories are "true" or not, one has to be familiar with Lubenow's well documented thesis.