Sahelanthropus "toumai" tchadensis

[Yog^sothoth]

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020708/020708-12.html

Toumai is a new hominid that has been discovered in Chad. It is significant because it pushes the emergence of what can be called our ancestors a million years or so to somewhere between 6 and 7 million years ago.

If correct, a large hole in the fossil record could be filled.

The next oldest fossil archaeologists have found is Orrorin tugenensis and it is somewhere around 6 million years old. But Orrorin is just a few random teeth and bone scraps. So the next oldest is Ardipithicus Ramidus, which is somewhere between 4 and 5 million years old.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

This is an exciting time for archaeology. We've seen a plethora of finds in just a short amount of time (5 years or so) and the human evolution tree is looking more solid all the time.

Thoughts? Of course, there is always controversy. Anything related to evolution is ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL. There are scientists lining up on either side of the line trying to say which which is which.

[Revolg]

Toumai is a new hominid that has been discovered in Chad. It is significant because it pushes the emergence of what can be called our ancestors a million years or so to somewhere between 6 and 7 million years ago.

The Toumai skull was very distorted and there were no bones accompanying. Infact it is probably just another in the Australopithecines bracket. Everyone knows how the Australopithecines is being touted as being a species of 'ape'. Many scientists are now telling us through journals of science it has no bairing on primate evolution.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124750.html

If correct, a large hole in the fossil record could be filled.

Just an ape!

The next oldest fossil archaeologists have found is Orrorin tugenensis and it is somewhere around 6 million years old. But Orrorin is just a few random teeth and bone scraps. So the next oldest is Ardipithicus Ramidus, which is somewhere between 4 and 5 million years old.

The problem with Orrorin tugenensis is that it is very fragmented and therefore it shouldn't be into the evolutionary debate. It matches the Australopiths anyway so why say it in their articles? Now the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution because the leading Professor of Anatomy said:

"The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been."

Also the australopithecines do not support bipedalism! Atleast not anymore. They put the skeletial remains under CAT Scans and found out that it was just a knuckle-walker, Science 287. But it won't stop textbooks from saying this. Textbooks in science are replaced every five years.

This is an exciting time for archaeology. We've seen a plethora of finds in just a short amount of time (5 years or so) and the human evolution tree is looking more solid all the time.

This 'plethora' of fossil remains doesn't tell us much. It just leaves more questions than it answers. The evolutionary tree is still incomplete in terms of humanity evolving from a basket full of mutational defects. It does tell me, though, that the apes and humans share common features. So do cats and beetles. But let's not get into homology.

Thoughts? Of course, there is always controversy. Anything related to evolution is ALWAYS CONTROVERSIAL. There are scientists lining up on either side of the line trying to say which which is which.

My thought is that these hominids are not anyway related in the evolution of humanity. If Dr. Oxnard (one of the leading experts) does intense scientific tests on the australopithecines proves they are not in the evolutionary line, I'll listen to him. Scientists are often times at ends with each other. You have the majority of Darwinists touting for a long period evolution while you have those of Gould's ilk that are into punctuated equilibrium.

[uber_loser]

I tend to agree with Revlog. From what I've seen of these researchers is that they are so worried about proving their theories that they make the fossils they find fit the theory rather than making their theory fit the fossil evidence. Need I bring up the brontosaurus. A scientist wanting to discover a new dinosaur put mistakingly (or not) put the head of an iquanodon onto the body of a brachiosaurus.

[Socrates]

Have a gander at New 'Ape-Man' Preliminary Response (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0712apeman_prelim.asp) followed by Toumai ‘ape-man’ suffers another blow (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012toumai.asp)