A Response to Creationist on: Sahelanthropus Tchadensis
May 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm by Duke Guilmon.)
Creationist website Creation.com has a post on the fossil of Sahelanthropus Tchadensis. In short Sahelanthropus was a fossil found in Djurab Desert, Chad. The fossil was found as a skull and shows many aspects of human evolution. Creation.com ;however, doesn't like science and has responded to this fossil in the best way they could, lying for Jesus. The article on there website is called New "Ape-Man" Preliminary Response is beyond old as it was written in 2002, but never the less each point in this article shall be addressed.
"The ‘date’ assigned to the creature, on the basis not of radiometric methods, but other fossils found with it, is about 6’7 million years. This is far, far older than the australopithecines, such as the famous ‘Lucy’, which were previously credited with ancestry." First of all, sahelanthropus being older then australopithecus afarensis doesn't make it any less of a transitional fossil. The fossil sahelanthropus shows a link between human-like apes and non-human like apes. Even if we found out that sahelanthropus was shown to have had been a prehistoric direct ancestor of many of the apes alive today, it still would not undermine australopithecus afarensis, as most australopithecus would be included in sahelanthropus's line of decedents because as i said it shows a link between human-like apes and non human-like apes,
"No bones were found from ‘below the neck’. The skull itself is very fragmented and incomplete."
As many fossils as there are, it being fragmented does not mean that you can not tell about what the animal would be like. Even the tooth of a fossil can give a great many information about what the animal was like.(1) Also a dinosaur known as minmi was found fragmented.(2) Even in fragments, scientist can tell much about the animal by the remains that were fossilized.
"From the back, this skull looks like a chimpanzee's. From the front, it looks like an australopithecine. It is regarded as a ‘mosaic’ of chimp and australopith features."
Defeating your own purpose it would seem useless to drag this on, but I am going to add more accurate traits. Some of the traits it shares with non human-like apes traits is that it has a long,low superior contour which is part of the neurocranium, a trait shared with chimpanzees. However its human-like ape traits is it's nuchal plane, it is rotated toward the horizontal, it is also long and flat. This is found in australopithecus but not in any of the non human-like apes.(3) If you were going to list more of these traits then you should have done what I did but then you might show your fans that your lying for Jesus.
"Australopithecines are extremely chimplike to begin with. They have flatter faces, and some of their teeth are smaller."
Seriously, this claim again. I guess that it must be pointed out how false it is anyway despite the fact that we are slightly moving away from the ape you seem to be trying to refute. The first problem is the hips. If you compare the hips of a chimpanzee and australopithecus you will notice that the hip is much shorter, and I mean much. In fact they barely reach they half way point of a chimpanzees hips. Not only that but its gait is more human like,and it had ankles more like a human as well.(4) It also had smaller teeth then a chimpanzee, and again was more akin to humans.(5) Did australopithecus share traits with chimps, sure they did, but its dishonest to look at one side just to affirm your dogma instead of trying to look at all the pieces and compare each skull.
"Detailed studies over the years on australopithecines show that these have been markedly overhyped as potential ‘ancestors’. Even the dogmatic belief that they walked upright (which would not necessarily make them human ancestors anyway) has taken a severe blow from CAT scans of the bones housing the organ of balance, from the discovery of knuckle-walking wrist anatomy, and other anatomical features of tree-dwelling primates."
The worst part about making this claim is it was made in 2002, so at time you might not have known,but recent CT scans of the fossils say differently. To days CT scans of it show that they share many traits in common with us.(6) The fact that australopithecus would walk up right kind of defeats creationism (well the young earth creationism anyway) because if an ape walks up right and its not human, what does that make it? That would mean that it would share traits of humans and apes connecting us together. Australopithecus aferensis did not walk on its knuckles, in fact its wrist are another human like trait.(7) Also you don't realize that Australopithecus aferensis is the only one that was able to climb trees.(8) The rest couldn't.
"The detailed morphometric studies of distinguished anatomist Charles Oxnard, an evolutionist, supported by other independent researchers, show that the overall anatomical ‘sum’ of known australopiths is not ‘intermediate’ between people and the great apes at all. He is convinced that they were a distinct group of primates, now extinct, and that they were not in the human line."
It wouldn't be a creationist article without at least one misrepresentation of a scientist. Charles Oxford doesn't disagree that australopithecus being a transitional fossil, but that they were not direct lineal ancestors to the genus homo. He thought of them as a parallel line of human like apes. However, independent reasearchers that looked into his work tend to disagree with him on australopithecus only showing that humans shared traits with apes, instead of us being decedents of a few of them.(9)
"The ‘revolutionary’ aspects of this skull for schemes of human evolution seem to have a lot to do with the dates given to the various specimens. On the basis of the extremely subjective nature of dating schemes, linked as they are to pre-existing paradigms of an old Earth, it is not unreasonable to ignore the dates assigned. Toumai illustrates the circularity involved: the nearby fossils would have been assigned dates based on the assumption that they were present at a particular stage in the evolutionary scheme. Even a radiometric date which contradicted that assumption by enough of a margin would be rejected as ‘unreliable’"
Dating methods have as much biases as a calculator. This is more of a lie on dating methods then the ape fossil, in fact this is barely on topic. There are a number of dating methods, and each must take its own precautions and have many people date the supposed rock and get the same date range. Dating also goes toward what type of rock it is. Metamorphic,sedimentary,and igneous rocks theme selves need to be checked about what happen to the rock. For example if lava hardens and becomes a new rock, then the scientist dating the rock must be careful about the date the lava hardened to a solid rock versus the date of the molten rock before it hardened. (10) The half-life of each element is also important factor of how dating methods work. Over a certain period of time elements start to decay. It is this that each of the dating methods measures.(11) There is also a bit of projection in this claim. Just because creationist have a statement of faith,doesn't mean science does. I may not speak for any other atheist but if any current scientific model was falsified i wouldn't accept it anymore. The date of Sahelanthropus tchadensis is also agreed upon as it has been dated around the miocene era.(12) There have yet to be a discription about other fossils around it, maybe in the same desert but i doubt around it.
"Since australopiths are not good candidates for our ancestors, why should creationists utter more than a big ‘yawn’ when something is found which combines chimp and australopith features? It is already clear from existing fossil finds that there was a great deal of variation in various primate kinds in the early post-Flood period. Toumai fits comfortably into this pattern. This variation will continue to cause confusion and drop ‘nuclear bombs’ into the evolutionist camp, as one carefully worked out evolutionary scheme collapses with a new discovery and has to be replaced by another. In one sense, this is normal in science; creationists also modify things when new evidence appears. What we need to remember, however, is that the pronouncements in newspapers are not dealing with ‘raw facts’ but with interpretations that are already seen through culturally-determined ‘glasses’ which assume that evolution is a 'fact'. Seen through the ‘glasses’ of the Bible's real history, Toumai reveals nothing which would cause even a mildly raised scientific eyebrow."
This whole claim is really boring. As I have explained about australopithecus, it would be useless to explain what I just said earlier in this. Australopithecus is a transitional fossil even by the strictest definition,this makes it a good candidate for evolutionary biology, and I would like to see a creationist find a scientific paper that says otherwise. Also the whole "kind" argument is nothing more then a excuse. I know not all creationist will say this but you said that all primates were the same kind. Well okay i'll grant you that,but just so you know primates are a order in scientific circles.(13) That would mean that all carnivora would be the same kind. That would mean cats,dogs,bears,seals,fur seals, sea lions, and many of the other extinct members of that order.(14) However if cats and dogs aren't the same kind neither are lemurs and apes. Also the flood is another excuse, you know the one that left most animals without a population bottleneck and made all extant marsupials move to Australia together without being eaten by other animals leaving the ark. I could go on about the flood but that's for another time. Knowing the unscientific problems however its no wonder that you need Ken Ham's biblical glasses. However in science you don't were glasses to show what you want real or not real, but you sure need them to be a creationist.
"The excitement over such fragmentary, trivial findings underlines again the flimsy nature of the evidence for the evolutionary story of human origins. The anthropologists apparently spent 10 years or so in the Chad desert looking for something to do with human ancestry. Then there is also the problem of the ongoing funding of a project that does not turn up something. These would be strong incentives to ‘see’ something in anything that is found."
This is another use of projection. Look in science you work as hard you can to show your prediction is right. This is in every scientific field. They will work to test there predictions and see if they are right. If they don't find it, its better to come home honest and empty handed, then come home a liar with a hoax. Creationist however make tons of hoaxes like the paluxy river tracks and the limestone boot just to name some. Your faults are ours don't try to make it look as if scientist and creationist are on the same level, because they're not.
"The wild enthusiasm the mass media have shown towards this find (front page treatment in many cases) underlines again the ‘push’ by many in positions of power to make us into ‘just evolved animals’ rather than ‘made in the image of God’. And they wonder why social problems abound!"
The mass media doesn't represent science. Scientific papers do. People are excited of this find in the first place is not because of a conspiracy, but because they want to know about what science has to say. Sorry your creationist "research" can't be known publicly in a positive light, if you want it to take some advice and go towards peer review next time. The government isn't in control of what science has to say anyway, in fact many politicians say the earth is 6000 years old. Also I'd rather be an animal then in the image of your deity Yahweh (also known as the war god). Animals have morals, their intelligent, and have a understanding of pain and empathy.(15) Your deity however endorses slavery(16),rape(17),and sexism.(18) Also evolution doesn't make you immoral either, and the world isn't getting worse either. Now lets compare The United States and Japan. More people in Japan except evolution then the United states.(19) However the United states has a higher crime rate then Japan(20). Also this is the safest time in history(21) and evolution is more accepted now then in the past, its just that the media over hypes everything.
Note: if you have any request about what creationist or religious claims you want me to look into tell me in the comments.
http://creation.com/new-ape-man-prelimin...sis-toumai
1. http://www.fossilpark.org.za/pafs/academ...h-tell.pdf
2. http:www.kronosauruskorner.com.au/en_US/the-minmi
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323204/
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818375/
5. http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4438
6. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...ne.0077687
7. http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/...r-knuckles
8. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...150353.htm
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/desperate_cg.html
10. http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/...ting2.html
11. http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/...dating.htm
12. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/...sequence=1
13. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Primate
14. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Carnivora
15. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/...ty_animals
16. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_a...avery.html
17. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html
18. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_a...ights.html
19. http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpres...%26h%3D608
20. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japa...ates/Crime
21. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_o...lence.html
"The ‘date’ assigned to the creature, on the basis not of radiometric methods, but other fossils found with it, is about 6’7 million years. This is far, far older than the australopithecines, such as the famous ‘Lucy’, which were previously credited with ancestry." First of all, sahelanthropus being older then australopithecus afarensis doesn't make it any less of a transitional fossil. The fossil sahelanthropus shows a link between human-like apes and non-human like apes. Even if we found out that sahelanthropus was shown to have had been a prehistoric direct ancestor of many of the apes alive today, it still would not undermine australopithecus afarensis, as most australopithecus would be included in sahelanthropus's line of decedents because as i said it shows a link between human-like apes and non human-like apes,
"No bones were found from ‘below the neck’. The skull itself is very fragmented and incomplete."
As many fossils as there are, it being fragmented does not mean that you can not tell about what the animal would be like. Even the tooth of a fossil can give a great many information about what the animal was like.(1) Also a dinosaur known as minmi was found fragmented.(2) Even in fragments, scientist can tell much about the animal by the remains that were fossilized.
"From the back, this skull looks like a chimpanzee's. From the front, it looks like an australopithecine. It is regarded as a ‘mosaic’ of chimp and australopith features."
Defeating your own purpose it would seem useless to drag this on, but I am going to add more accurate traits. Some of the traits it shares with non human-like apes traits is that it has a long,low superior contour which is part of the neurocranium, a trait shared with chimpanzees. However its human-like ape traits is it's nuchal plane, it is rotated toward the horizontal, it is also long and flat. This is found in australopithecus but not in any of the non human-like apes.(3) If you were going to list more of these traits then you should have done what I did but then you might show your fans that your lying for Jesus.
"Australopithecines are extremely chimplike to begin with. They have flatter faces, and some of their teeth are smaller."
Seriously, this claim again. I guess that it must be pointed out how false it is anyway despite the fact that we are slightly moving away from the ape you seem to be trying to refute. The first problem is the hips. If you compare the hips of a chimpanzee and australopithecus you will notice that the hip is much shorter, and I mean much. In fact they barely reach they half way point of a chimpanzees hips. Not only that but its gait is more human like,and it had ankles more like a human as well.(4) It also had smaller teeth then a chimpanzee, and again was more akin to humans.(5) Did australopithecus share traits with chimps, sure they did, but its dishonest to look at one side just to affirm your dogma instead of trying to look at all the pieces and compare each skull.
"Detailed studies over the years on australopithecines show that these have been markedly overhyped as potential ‘ancestors’. Even the dogmatic belief that they walked upright (which would not necessarily make them human ancestors anyway) has taken a severe blow from CAT scans of the bones housing the organ of balance, from the discovery of knuckle-walking wrist anatomy, and other anatomical features of tree-dwelling primates."
The worst part about making this claim is it was made in 2002, so at time you might not have known,but recent CT scans of the fossils say differently. To days CT scans of it show that they share many traits in common with us.(6) The fact that australopithecus would walk up right kind of defeats creationism (well the young earth creationism anyway) because if an ape walks up right and its not human, what does that make it? That would mean that it would share traits of humans and apes connecting us together. Australopithecus aferensis did not walk on its knuckles, in fact its wrist are another human like trait.(7) Also you don't realize that Australopithecus aferensis is the only one that was able to climb trees.(8) The rest couldn't.
"The detailed morphometric studies of distinguished anatomist Charles Oxnard, an evolutionist, supported by other independent researchers, show that the overall anatomical ‘sum’ of known australopiths is not ‘intermediate’ between people and the great apes at all. He is convinced that they were a distinct group of primates, now extinct, and that they were not in the human line."
It wouldn't be a creationist article without at least one misrepresentation of a scientist. Charles Oxford doesn't disagree that australopithecus being a transitional fossil, but that they were not direct lineal ancestors to the genus homo. He thought of them as a parallel line of human like apes. However, independent reasearchers that looked into his work tend to disagree with him on australopithecus only showing that humans shared traits with apes, instead of us being decedents of a few of them.(9)
"The ‘revolutionary’ aspects of this skull for schemes of human evolution seem to have a lot to do with the dates given to the various specimens. On the basis of the extremely subjective nature of dating schemes, linked as they are to pre-existing paradigms of an old Earth, it is not unreasonable to ignore the dates assigned. Toumai illustrates the circularity involved: the nearby fossils would have been assigned dates based on the assumption that they were present at a particular stage in the evolutionary scheme. Even a radiometric date which contradicted that assumption by enough of a margin would be rejected as ‘unreliable’"
Dating methods have as much biases as a calculator. This is more of a lie on dating methods then the ape fossil, in fact this is barely on topic. There are a number of dating methods, and each must take its own precautions and have many people date the supposed rock and get the same date range. Dating also goes toward what type of rock it is. Metamorphic,sedimentary,and igneous rocks theme selves need to be checked about what happen to the rock. For example if lava hardens and becomes a new rock, then the scientist dating the rock must be careful about the date the lava hardened to a solid rock versus the date of the molten rock before it hardened. (10) The half-life of each element is also important factor of how dating methods work. Over a certain period of time elements start to decay. It is this that each of the dating methods measures.(11) There is also a bit of projection in this claim. Just because creationist have a statement of faith,doesn't mean science does. I may not speak for any other atheist but if any current scientific model was falsified i wouldn't accept it anymore. The date of Sahelanthropus tchadensis is also agreed upon as it has been dated around the miocene era.(12) There have yet to be a discription about other fossils around it, maybe in the same desert but i doubt around it.
"Since australopiths are not good candidates for our ancestors, why should creationists utter more than a big ‘yawn’ when something is found which combines chimp and australopith features? It is already clear from existing fossil finds that there was a great deal of variation in various primate kinds in the early post-Flood period. Toumai fits comfortably into this pattern. This variation will continue to cause confusion and drop ‘nuclear bombs’ into the evolutionist camp, as one carefully worked out evolutionary scheme collapses with a new discovery and has to be replaced by another. In one sense, this is normal in science; creationists also modify things when new evidence appears. What we need to remember, however, is that the pronouncements in newspapers are not dealing with ‘raw facts’ but with interpretations that are already seen through culturally-determined ‘glasses’ which assume that evolution is a 'fact'. Seen through the ‘glasses’ of the Bible's real history, Toumai reveals nothing which would cause even a mildly raised scientific eyebrow."
This whole claim is really boring. As I have explained about australopithecus, it would be useless to explain what I just said earlier in this. Australopithecus is a transitional fossil even by the strictest definition,this makes it a good candidate for evolutionary biology, and I would like to see a creationist find a scientific paper that says otherwise. Also the whole "kind" argument is nothing more then a excuse. I know not all creationist will say this but you said that all primates were the same kind. Well okay i'll grant you that,but just so you know primates are a order in scientific circles.(13) That would mean that all carnivora would be the same kind. That would mean cats,dogs,bears,seals,fur seals, sea lions, and many of the other extinct members of that order.(14) However if cats and dogs aren't the same kind neither are lemurs and apes. Also the flood is another excuse, you know the one that left most animals without a population bottleneck and made all extant marsupials move to Australia together without being eaten by other animals leaving the ark. I could go on about the flood but that's for another time. Knowing the unscientific problems however its no wonder that you need Ken Ham's biblical glasses. However in science you don't were glasses to show what you want real or not real, but you sure need them to be a creationist.
"The excitement over such fragmentary, trivial findings underlines again the flimsy nature of the evidence for the evolutionary story of human origins. The anthropologists apparently spent 10 years or so in the Chad desert looking for something to do with human ancestry. Then there is also the problem of the ongoing funding of a project that does not turn up something. These would be strong incentives to ‘see’ something in anything that is found."
This is another use of projection. Look in science you work as hard you can to show your prediction is right. This is in every scientific field. They will work to test there predictions and see if they are right. If they don't find it, its better to come home honest and empty handed, then come home a liar with a hoax. Creationist however make tons of hoaxes like the paluxy river tracks and the limestone boot just to name some. Your faults are ours don't try to make it look as if scientist and creationist are on the same level, because they're not.
"The wild enthusiasm the mass media have shown towards this find (front page treatment in many cases) underlines again the ‘push’ by many in positions of power to make us into ‘just evolved animals’ rather than ‘made in the image of God’. And they wonder why social problems abound!"
The mass media doesn't represent science. Scientific papers do. People are excited of this find in the first place is not because of a conspiracy, but because they want to know about what science has to say. Sorry your creationist "research" can't be known publicly in a positive light, if you want it to take some advice and go towards peer review next time. The government isn't in control of what science has to say anyway, in fact many politicians say the earth is 6000 years old. Also I'd rather be an animal then in the image of your deity Yahweh (also known as the war god). Animals have morals, their intelligent, and have a understanding of pain and empathy.(15) Your deity however endorses slavery(16),rape(17),and sexism.(18) Also evolution doesn't make you immoral either, and the world isn't getting worse either. Now lets compare The United States and Japan. More people in Japan except evolution then the United states.(19) However the United states has a higher crime rate then Japan(20). Also this is the safest time in history(21) and evolution is more accepted now then in the past, its just that the media over hypes everything.
Note: if you have any request about what creationist or religious claims you want me to look into tell me in the comments.
http://creation.com/new-ape-man-prelimin...sis-toumai
1. http://www.fossilpark.org.za/pafs/academ...h-tell.pdf
2. http:www.kronosauruskorner.com.au/en_US/the-minmi
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323204/
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818375/
5. http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4438
6. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...ne.0077687
7. http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/...r-knuckles
8. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...150353.htm
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/desperate_cg.html
10. http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/...ting2.html
11. http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/...dating.htm
12. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/...sequence=1
13. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Primate
14. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Carnivora
15. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/...ty_animals
16. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_a...avery.html
17. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html
18. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_a...ights.html
19. http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpres...%26h%3D608
20. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japa...ates/Crime
21. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_o...lence.html
![[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=orig15.deviantart.net%2F1dbf%2Ff%2F2011%2F319%2F3%2F3%2Fguilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
