[asa] Earliest hominid: Not a hominid at all?

In case some missed it. First a comment:

This is pretty important. The time period roughly
6-10 million years ago has few fossils because
apes and the rest were all living in forests,
which are very poor at creating fossils. The
correct placement of this specimen as a common
ancestor of humans and living chimps is an
important reinterpretation. Wolpoff is one of
the most experienced old fossil guys out there.
He's been at this for years, so its good to have
somebody with his experience and knowledge taking
a close look at this fossil
specimen.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178/posts?page=9#9>9
posted on 06/19/2006 10:26:08 PM EDT by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178//~coyoteman/>Coyoteman

~ Janice

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178/posts>Earliest
hominid: Not a hominid at all?
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178//^http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2006/Jun06/r061906>University
of Michigan News Service ^ | June 19, 2006 | Laura Bailey
Posted on 06/19/2006 10:08:06 PM EDT by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178//~marius3188/>Marius3188
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178/posts

ANN ARBOR, Mich.­The earliest known hominid
fossil, which dates to about 7 million years ago,
is actually some kind of ape, according to an
international team of researchers led by the
University of Michigan. The finding, they say,
suggests scientists should rethink whether we
actually descended from apes resembling
chimpanzees, which are considered our closest relatives.

U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and colleagues
examined images and the original paper published
on the discovery of the Toumaï cranium (TM 266)
or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, as well as a
computer reconstruction of the skull. Two other
colleagues were actually able to examine the
skull, Wolpoff said, in addition to the images
and the computer reconstruction.

The research team concluded that the cranium did
not sit atop the spine but in front of it,
indicating the creature walked on all fours like
an ape. Hominids, he said, are distinguished from
all other primates by walking upright. Hominids
are everything on the line leading to humans
after divergence with chimpanzees. Upright
bipedalism is the single best way of identifying which fossils are hominids.

Researchers also examined the canine teeth and
found that they were not clearly human or
ape-like, but rather like most other canine fossils from the Miocene era.

"Whether or not it's a human ancestor is probably
unimportant as far as the skull is concerned,"
Wolpoff said. "But it's very important in trying
to understand where humans come from. It's the
first relative we've had of the earliest hominid,
or something related to it, but it's not a hominid at all."

Nor does the skull resemble a living
chimpanzee­no fossil records of chimpanzees exist
so it's impossible to compare to earlier
descendents, Wolpff said. Genetic data puts the
divergence of chimpanzees and humans at anywhere
from 4 to 6 million years ago. Even though it's
not a definite date, it makes it difficult to
show a 7-million-year-old fossil is a hominid
without overwhelming evidence, he said.

"The big message it sends us is our ancestors
never looked like a chimpanzee," Wolpoff said.
"This thing is clearly saying that chimpanzees
are just as different from this ancestor as we
are. They are just different in a different way."

Wolpoff said the skull could be a common ancestor of humans and living chimps.

"Now we have insight into what an early ape
looked like, but we have no fossils of apes after
it, so you can't tell clearly," he said.

Colleagues include John Hawks, Department of
Anthropology of the University of Wisconsin,
Madison; Brigitte Senut, Department Histoire de
la Terre, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paleontology; Martin Pickford, chair of
Paleoanthropologie et de Prehistoire, College de
France; and James Ahern, Department of
Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

"Two people have seen it. We've all have seen
pictures and read publications,"Wolpoff said. "It
took us a long time to put this together because
we wanted to make sure we were absolutely accurate."

Wolpoff expects that the paper, entitled "Ape or
the Ape: Is the Toumai Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?"
will be controversial. It was published Friday in
a new online journal by the Paleoanthropology
Society, http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/contents.htm.

"I think some people are going to like it, and
some people are going to hate it, but it will
stimulate more discussion, which is important," Wolpoff said.

For information on Wolpoff, visit: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/.

For more on the Department of Anthropology at
U-M, visit: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/anthro/.

*

Overview from Wikipedia:

The fossils found indicate a relatively small
cranium, five pieces of jaw, and some teeth,
making up a head that has a mixture of derived
(archaic human) and primitive (Miocene ape-like)
features. These were discovered in the desert of
Chad by a team of four people. The team, made up
of three Chadians, Mahamat Adoum and Ahounta
Djimdoumalbaye (who found the skull on July 19,
2001), Fanone Gongdibe, and the French Alain
Beauvilain, leader of this team, found all the
fossils of Sahelanthropus from July 2001 to March 2002.

The other nickname for Sahelanthropus tchadensis
is Toumaë, which means "hope of life" in the
local language. Sahelanthropus tchadensis was, as AiG points out,
"labeled in the media as ‘the most significant
find in living memory’, being ‘the oldest human ancestor’."

TalkOrigins calls it "a find of major significance."

National Geographic's article on the subject says:
Various aspects of the new fossils could force
scientists to rethink some basic theories about
human origins, according to several scientists
who were not part of the research team.

As usual, they're rethinking their ideas again.
Looks like they'll have to rethink their rethinking.

It also quotes anthropology professor Daniel
Lieberman of Harvard University as saying
Sahelanthropus tchadensis "will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."

Turns out the old gal has her own website:
<http://www.sahelanthropus.com/>www.Sahelanthropus.com/.
This website claims the specimen:
rocks the foundation of the human family tree as
we know it. The fossil skull found, nicknamed
Toumai is as old as any hominid fossil found to
date, yet its features appear much more
human-like than those of other contenders for title of human ancestor.

However, Wikipedia is honest enough to note that
the proported age is interesting, since
evolutionists believe humans and chimps diverged
1–2 million years after S. tchadensis. The BBC
also concurs that Sahelanthropus tchadensis is
"an apparently puzzling combination of modern and ancient features."

The BBC article further says Sahelanthropus tchadensis is:
the most important discovery in the search for
the origins of humankind since the first
Australopithecus "ape-man" remains were found in Africa in the 1920s.

They also note:
The newly discovered skull finally puts to rest
any idea that there might be a single "missing
link" between humans and chimpanzees, they say.

One wonders if these researchers have brought
back to lie any idea that there might be a single
"missing link" between humans and chimpanzees?

In summary, this specimen (head, and some jaw
parts and some teeth) supposedly rocked the
evolutionary world, but it only muddled things
further, because it had advanced hominid features
and alleged ape features, even though hominids
allegedly diverged from chimps one to two million
years later. According to Creation-Evolution
Headlines, the skull "badly disfigured and needed
reconstructive surgery, leading to criticisms
that any interpretations were subjective."

Of further note:

AiG's preliminary response from 2002:
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0712apeman_prelim.asp>New
'Ape-Man' Preliminary Response

<http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm#earlyman42>New
Hominid Fossil Shakes the Human Family Tree (Again)

A note on the controversy involved:
<http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1002.htm#earlyman50>Toumaï
Skull Fires Controversy

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178/posts?page=17#17>17
posted on 06/19/2006 11:35:42 PM EDT by
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178//~daveloneranger/>DaveLoneRanger

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 20 01:05:16 2006