Skip to comments.Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate (In Kenya)
Posted on 02/06/2007 5:54:32 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics: Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human ever found.
But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and popular evangelical Christian movement. The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of mankind.
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.
Against him is one of the planet's best-known fossil hunters, Richard Leakey, whose team unearthed the bones at Nariokotome in West Turkana, in the desolate, far northern reaches of Kenya in 1984.
"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told The Associated Press. "The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he evolved."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man appearing 6,000 years later. He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years.
So! Even Bishop Adoyo compromises a little. But as I've stated before about this case in Kenya, the creationists there are going about it all wrong. They embody the evolutionary characterization of creationists looking like this:
Wrong way to go about it. Instead, meet their interpretation head-on. This evidence isn't "theirs." They're just looking at the evidence through a certain filter of beliefs and assumptions. This specific specimen, Turkana Boy, was likely just as human as you or I.
For more reading pertaining to human fossils, I recommend the following page: Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?
""I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo... " And he surely did not evolve, because he hasn't, and it shows.
I don't know much about your ancestors but
Mine didn't swing from a tree.
What tree? Mine lived in the best cave in the neighborhood.
"Mine didn't swing from a tree. "
Then why can't you make your own Vitamin C like your dog can?
The article doesn't say. How long ago did the kiddo live?
How could it be otherwise? There are so many living specimens of humans that differ vastly from the norms in various respects; this is much ado about nothing.
It's only a skeleton of an individual; let those that wish to view it do so.
Gee, that was cheap...
This is more from the camp Leakey/Dubois gang, right?
"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told The Associated Press.
Well, if Leakey said it, it absolutely has to be true. End of story. /s
...so you want everyone else to get that song in their heads for the next 30? :)
Dino makes this stuff?
Mine ate insects for about 100,000,000 years.
Thankfully the seals living in the arctic make so much vitamin C their hides are full of it, and people who hunt and eat seals get their vitamin C from those animals.
Supposedly a single reversal of a single base in one gene keeps us from producing our own vitamin C.
They can have my vitamin C when they pry my cold dead fingers off of my oranges.
I imagine that Richard Leakey know the correct way to say things, but I recall being slapped on FR for phrasing it that way. The pro-evolution people (IIRC) take offense at this sloppy wording. Humans and apes share a common ancester, or some such phrasing, is correct. But to make an assertion the way Richard Leakey did is to brand oneself as an ignorant slug who doesn't know enough about Evolution to discuss it intelligently. Which I find amusing.
This would bear striking resemblance to Helen Thomas.
What about skeletal differences makes a fossil not "modern man"? I know you do not intend this, but that kind of thinking expanded to its logical conclusion is racism.
Dave, you really should leave evolutionary science alone.
You have shown that you have neither the inclination to study science, nor the education to understand it.
But you mentioned you are studying communications. Perhaps you could follow in the footsteps of this televangelist.
The Turkana Boy remains have been dated to 1.6 millions years ago which makes him likely either homo erectus or homo ergaster. Both these hominids were significantly different from you and I (smaller brains etc). Anatomically modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens, only emerged 150,000 years ago.
--But to make an assertion the way Richard Leakey did is to brand oneself as an ignorant slug who doesn't know enough about Evolution to discuss it intelligently. Which I find amusing.--
Spout off and show your ignorance - AGAIN. Leaky said 'the apes'. Usually, the creationists are slapped down for saying we evolved from monkeys.
Actually, some bats cannot make vitamin C, some birds cannot
also, and some primates make it....
Some mammals make it in the liver, some in the kidney, some
in both organs.....
Wouldn't localization of the synthesis also be a
Are there other gaps in the biosynthesis framework of
It's not just guinea pigs, chimps, and man that
cannot make Vitamin C. By the way, why do guinea
pigs not make it, but animals supposedly higher
up on the evolutionary sequence do?
So can the lack of an effective gene to make Vitamin C be used
as a taxonomic guide....well....maybe not....
Would the discontinuity of the ability to make
Vitamin C be a death blow to microevolution or would
the taxonomic diagram be changed to accomodate it
and allow evolution to still be "true?"
If the taxonomic diagram is changed, what other changes
will occur with new data...will that disprove evolution,
or will the diagram be altered again?
How much convolution will be allowed before, like Ptolemy
theories, and phlogiston ideas, the theory is highly modified?
Why does whale insulin have one amino acid difference from
humans, pigs have one amino acid difference, and cows have
a two amino acid difference?
What taxonomic significance is indicated?
Finally, how does a loss of genetic functionality
, and a potential for disease (scurvy, poor collagen
formation, immune response, blood cell synthesis) allow
the chimps and humans to survive in the wild?
Please don't use the excuse that because plants with vitamin
C are around, chimps/g.p.'s and humans don't need to synthesize
it, cause they can get it in their diet.
That won't explain why the gene came about...cause if
Vitamin C was around before other animals evolved, why did they
need to synthesize it? they could have survived just
like guinea pigs, humans, and chimps...i.e by eating it?
Just some facts and suppositions. I hope the information is
enlightening, and the questions thought provoking.
--What about skeletal differences makes a fossil not "modern man"? I know you do not intend this, but that kind of thinking expanded to its logical conclusion is racism.--
You have an evil, sour mind, college kid. Grow up.
I think it's a deletion of a base pair, not a "reversal",,,,not adding
of information, but taking away of information...leading
to an organism that cannot survive well without outside
sources of Vitamin C....(poor blood cell development,
lousy immune response, collagen formation decreased,
evolution is just plain dumb.
>>"These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."<<
Maybe his. Not mine.
>>"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told The Associated Press. "The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he evolved."<<
Man I hate it when people state opinion as fact like this.
(Sorry, Dave; we don't see humans walking around today who look like this.)
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
Because we evolved from Guinea Pigs that can't make Vitamin C either?
Dould be a deletion or a reversal. In either case the appropriate protein doesn't get made.
Good post, DLR. Thanks.
Admins can read PM's from what I hear, and I'd just as soon avoid any more extreme cheap shots, thank you.
Answer me when you have time for substantive responses, not silly old personal attacks.
It was not even an attack - he needs to evolve, and by his own admission hasn't.
"The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he evolved." Tell that to your local Muslim imam, Leakey, and we'll see how brave you are. It's always been fun for secular humanists to bait Bible-believing Christians with their faith in evolution, but in France, the mullahs are letting the French schools know that they won't stand for having evolution taught. Let's see how brave the scientists are when faced with the Van Gogh treatment.
Mine did - and I take pride in that, rather than thinking of myself as 'fallen' from some higher state through sin.
If you're going to address me, you might try putting my name in the "to" window.
Agreed Dave- the evidences are on our side as well as the impossibilities of evolution- the Bishop should be highlighting these points. Every fossil found to date has been either fully human or fully ape- but this isn't even the fact that should be argued the hardest- Evolution simply breaks down at the very Beginning- end of story- the impossibilities of even the supposed first single cells evolving into more complex systems can't be overcome biologically- it's impossible.
I could make vitamin c, but it's cheaper to buy it in a store. I also eat half a grapefruit each morning which provides me with plenty even if I didn't take a multivitamin. I guess there are some things that are unnecessary for human bodies to do, although the animals over which we have dominion have need for those functions.
But I spose if they still want to quibble about humans and apes, then Turkana boy was fully human. "1000-1050cc, compared to later Chinese examples which were as high as 1200cc.26
According to Molnar, the modern human range runs from about 700cc to 2200cc,27 and this puts every adult erectus specimen comfortably into the range of modern humans, and this range also covers every adult example of archaic sapiens, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon Man."
Sorry, Dave; we don't see humans walking around today who look like thisHow very chronocentric of you. Again, I submit that, while you may not personally be racist, declaring that anyone who doesn't look exactly like you is not fully human is racism. It's what led to slavery, it's what led to the abuse of the Australian aborigines, and most every other mistreatment of human beings on the planet. It's the little lie that we whisper in our own ears to ease our guilty conscience:
Thanks for the ping!