Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-10-2002, 10:51 AM

I'm not sure if someone here has brought this up yet, but this a cool <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html" target="_blank">article.</a>

It describes a skull found that anthropologists believe may be an intermediate between humans and chimpanzees. The skull has both human and chimp traits.

From what I've read, creationists tend to dismiss hominid fossils as being completely human or completely ape. Amusingly, creationists often differ on classifications

-- one claims a particular fossil is human while another creationist claims the same one is just an ape.

I've recently found a different approach by creationists that attempts to accomdate the evidence. I listen occasionally to the Reason to Believe <a href="http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/Archives.asp" target="_blank">webcast</a> shows by Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana, and they claim that bipedal hominids were merely created by God to prepare the way for modern humans. Since Ross and Rana are progressive creationists, I doubt their theories would sit well with YEC's.

While it's refreshing to see that creationists are willing to accept the data, their interpretations of it are still flawed, untestable, and highly speculative.

In evolution, we can make predictions and we would expect to find fossil ape/human-like bipedal hominids. How would a creationist possibly predict these? If God is omnipotent, then it seems silly to me that he'd bother with creating early bipedal hominids to "prepare" the arrival of humans. Why doesn't God just snap his fingers and make the environment ready for humans as is? Why does God need all these intermediate forms? It seems like a pretty incompetent way of designing something if you have the ultimate power to do anything.

[edit: clarity]

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-10-2002, 11:12 AM

Arrrgh!! You beat me to it while I was writing Mageth!

Sorry for the doppleganger everyone.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

Mageth · 07-10-2002, 11:30 AM

Beat you to it by a few minues!

[Here are the comments from Mageth from the other thread:]

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html" target="_blank">Toumai</a>

Quote:

A team of researchers in central Africa say they've uncovered what appears to be the earliest evidence of the human family ever found -- a skull, jawbone and teeth between 6 million and 7 million years old.
...
Dated between 6 and 7 million years old, an intact skull found in Africa is at least 3 million years older than the next-oldest hominid skulls.
...
"It's likely that this is a human ancestor. If you ask whether it's absolutely certain that this is a human ancestor my answer would have to be no we are not (sure)," said Bernard Wood of George Washington University.

And a good one:

Quote:

Scientists describe Toumai as having characteristics of both apes and humans. Detailed study of the fossil shows a braincase that is ape-like, while the face is short, and the teeth look like those of a human. Toumai is so unlike fossils that currently exist, that it is being assigned a new genus and a new species.

Hmm...one of those nonexistent transitional fossils?

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

scigirl · 07-10-2002, 11:40 AM

Nice going Mageth and Nightshade!

I consolidated the thread at Mageth's request, and simply deleted the other one (anything to save us some bandwidth!)

Nice fossil - I can't wait to read the full story when I get time.

scigirl

Typhon · 07-10-2002, 11:49 AM

I liked the quotations in the BBC <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2118000/2118055.stm" target="_blank">article</a> about what (speculatively) this emphasized about the "messy" nature of early hominid evolution and the fossil record.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

I do not envy the poor creationists these days. Of course, they are some of the premiere imaginators and fantasists, so I'm certain they'll cope.

.T.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]

Kosh · 07-10-2002, 11:50 AM

Niteshade - this is the same type of logic they try to use to explain the [by modern standards] archaic laws of the OT. That human society "wasn't yet ready" for the NT type philosophy. Nevermind that the human society was dictated by those same OT laws...

Mageth · 07-10-2002, 12:10 PM

CNN also links to this nice image of the hominid fossil tree as it now stands:

ps418 · 07-10-2002, 12:48 PM

I haven't seen anyone mention the other recent find, the 1.75Mya ergaster skull (D2700) and mandible from Dmanisi. According to Vejua et al., the "Dmanisi specimens are the most primitive and small-brained fossils to be grouped with this species or any taxon linked unequivocally with genus Homo and also the ones most similar to the presumed habilis-like stem." The cranial capacity of this specimen is ~600cc, which is within the range of habilis/rudolfensis.

As the article points out, this find shows that SMALL brained homonids migrated out of Africa, i.e. migration did not necessarily begin with bigger-brained erectus.

This specimen is significant because some creationists have drawn the taxonomic line between "apes" and "humans" such that habilis is on the "ape" side and "ergaster" on the "human" side. This new skull from Dminisi further highlights the arbitrarity of such a taxonomic division.

"The Dmanisi homonids are among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to H. erectus or to any species that is indisputably Homo, and it can be argued that this population is closely related to Homo habilis (sensu stricto) as known from Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Koobi Fora in northern Kenya, and possibly Hadar in Ethiopia" (p. 88).

<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5578/85" target="_blank">A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia </a>

Patrick

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 02:58 PM

Fantastic news! Thanks for the tip about Dmansi, Patrick.

James Still · 07-10-2002, 03:38 PM

Quote:

From The New York Times:
West of the Rift Valley, the ancient landscape was lushly forested. Scientists have long believed that apes remained in trees there and failed to evolve into upright-walking creatures. But the Toumai discovery suggests otherwise.

Excellent AP story and my only quibble is with this last paragraph. To say that apes "failed to evolve into upright-walking creatures" begs the question for evolution as "progress" or some sort of teleology. Apes didn't fail to do anything; they just didn't adapt the way their hominid cousins did. Walking upright and being human was not a goal of nature -- it was just something that happened.

07-10-2002, 10:51 AM	#1
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Chimp/Human intermediate skull I'm not sure if someone here has brought this up yet, but this a cool <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html" target="_blank">article.</a> It describes a skull found that anthropologists believe may be an intermediate between humans and chimpanzees. The skull has both human and chimp traits. From what I've read, creationists tend to dismiss hominid fossils as being completely human or completely ape. Amusingly, creationists often differ on classifications -- one claims a particular fossil is human while another creationist claims the same one is just an ape. I've recently found a different approach by creationists that attempts to accomdate the evidence. I listen occasionally to the Reason to Believe <a href="http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/Archives.asp" target="_blank">webcast</a> shows by Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana, and they claim that bipedal hominids were merely created by God to prepare the way for modern humans. Since Ross and Rana are progressive creationists, I doubt their theories would sit well with YEC's. While it's refreshing to see that creationists are willing to accept the data, their interpretations of it are still flawed, untestable, and highly speculative. In evolution, we can make predictions and we would expect to find fossil ape/human-like bipedal hominids. How would a creationist possibly predict these? If God is omnipotent, then it seems silly to me that he'd bother with creating early bipedal hominids to "prepare" the arrival of humans. Why doesn't God just snap his fingers and make the environment ready for humans as is? Why does God need all these intermediate forms? It seems like a pretty incompetent way of designing something if you have the ultimate power to do anything. [edit: clarity] [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

07-10-2002, 11:12 AM	#2
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Arrrgh!! You beat me to it while I was writing Mageth! Sorry for the doppleganger everyone. [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

07-10-2002, 12:48 PM	#8
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	I haven't seen anyone mention the other recent find, the 1.75Mya ergaster skull (D2700) and mandible from Dmanisi. According to Vejua et al., the "Dmanisi specimens are the most primitive and small-brained fossils to be grouped with this species or any taxon linked unequivocally with genus Homo and also the ones most similar to the presumed habilis-like stem." The cranial capacity of this specimen is ~600cc, which is within the range of habilis/rudolfensis. As the article points out, this find shows that SMALL brained homonids migrated out of Africa, i.e. migration did not necessarily begin with bigger-brained erectus. This specimen is significant because some creationists have drawn the taxonomic line between "apes" and "humans" such that habilis is on the "ape" side and "ergaster" on the "human" side. This new skull from Dminisi further highlights the arbitrarity of such a taxonomic division. "The Dmanisi homonids are among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to H. erectus or to any species that is indisputably Homo, and it can be argued that this population is closely related to Homo habilis (sensu stricto) as known from Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Koobi Fora in northern Kenya, and possibly Hadar in Ethiopia" (p. 88). <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5578/85" target="_blank">A New Skull of Early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia </a> Patrick [ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2002, 11:40 AM	#4
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Nice going Mageth and Nightshade! I consolidated the thread at Mageth's request, and simply deleted the other one (anything to save us some bandwidth!) Nice fossil - I can't wait to read the full story when I get time. scigirl

07-10-2002, 11:50 AM	#6
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Niteshade - this is the same type of logic they try to use to explain the [by modern standards] archaic laws of the OT. That human society "wasn't yet ready" for the NT type philosophy. Nevermind that the human society was dictated by those same OT laws...

07-10-2002, 12:10 PM	#7
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	CNN also links to this nice image of the hominid fossil tree as it now stands:

07-10-2002, 02:58 PM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Fantastic news! Thanks for the tip about Dmansi, Patrick.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.