Skip to comments.First Chimpanzee Fossils Cause Problems for Evolution
Posted on 04/08/2010 8:00:01 PM PDT by truthfinder9
by Dr. Fazale ("Fuz") Rana
Where were you on September 1, 2005? Perhaps you missed the announcement of a scientific breakthrough: the influential journal Nature published the completed sequence of the chimpanzee genome.1
This remarkable achievement received abundant publicity because it paved the way for biologists to conduct detailed genetic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees.2
Unfortunately, the fanfare surrounding the chimpanzee genome overshadowed a more significant discovery. In the same issue, Nature published a report describing the first-ever chimpanzee fossils. This long-awaited scientific advance barely received notice because of the fascination with the chimpanzee genome. News of the two discoveries produced different reactions among scientists. Evolutionary biologists declared the chimpanzee genome as evidence for human evolution, but some paleoanthropologists were left wondering how humans and chimps could have evolved, based on where the chimpanzee fossils were found.
According to the evolutionary paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. About 5 million years ago, this ancestral primate spawned two evolutionary lineages that led to humans and chimpanzees. Anthropologists consider the physical, geographical separation of hominids and proto-chimpanzees to be the "driving force" for the evolution of humans and chimpanzees. They postulate that the formation of the Rift Valley isolated the hominids in East Africa (a hot, dry savannah) from chimpanzees in Central and West Africa (with warm, wet jungles). The geographical isolation of hominids and chimps, presumably, sent these two lineages along different evolutionary trajectories.
Evolutionary biologists think that fossil hominids like "Lucy," Homo erectus, and Neanderthals document the emergence of humans.4 Yet, until recently paleoanthropologists had no corresponding fossils for the chimpanzee lineage.
Surprisingly, the first chimpanzee fossils were discovered not in West or Central Africa, but in East Africa, near Lake Baringo, Kenya. These fossils, consisting of three teeth, dated to 500,000 years in age--meaning that chimpanzees coexisted alongside hominids. The Rift Valley provided no geographical rift for separate evolutionary histories, and therefore foils a key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm.
Sally McBrearty, one of the paleoanthropologists who uncovered the chimpanzee fossils, noted, "This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungles seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to the savannah that led to humans walking upright."5
If the discovery blows apart a "simplistic idea," maybe it's time for a simple (and testable) idea--the RTB creation model for human origins.
1. of course it is yet another nail in the coffin of the religion of evolution, hence the lack of publicity.
2. this will/would be spun to say it actually supports evolutionism...
what a surprise </sarcasm>
Three teeth . . . ?
Dr. Zaius was right. Keep digging and you’ll find the master of this house - an ape.
I'm the type that would be highly reluctant to pound the table promoting a theory based on three teeth.
Finally, proof evolution did not occur.
Evo Fundies are so desperate that this is the kind of “Evidence” they use.
I don't see your reasoning. We used to thing that Neanderthals pre-dated Cro-magnon. Now we think differently. So what? How does that say anything about the validity of evolution?
Naw. this is the kind of thing Cretins use to make up their straw man arguments against evolution.
These teeth are proof that darwinian evolution is a FACT — just like global warming.
“Enter into your own evolution if you think you are man enough.”
They still do.
“The Rift Valley provided no geographical rift for separate evolutionary histories, and therefore foils a key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm.”
—I looked up the Nature article being cited. Heres what it said about the Rift Valley:
“Some even suspected that this physical separation was what set the earliest chimp and human ancestors on contrasting evolutionary voyages.”
So the “suspicion” of “some” is suddenly turned into a “key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm” when it turns out that it may be wrong.
what a surprise </sarcasm>
It appears the the "Evidence" is being submitted as proof that evolution did not occur.
the validity of evolutionism is fine if you want to leave it a s observable, verifiable, testable minor changes that never lead to a completely different speices, i.e. some sort of ape becomeing fully human.....
the problem is, the adherents to that religion insist that has occured....
sorry, doesnt work that way....
there is a lot of that, in fact, that sort of ‘thinking’ is actually the mainstay of evolutionism.
Straw man argument; false statement.
If the chimp-human split occurred 5 million years ago, what difference does it make where a half million year old chimp fossil is found? There's 4 and half million years between them.
And if chimps and their descendants have been there for 5 million years, where are their fossils? They should occur with the same frequency as human fossils.
What is observable, verifiable and testable over timespans of human history is that significant changes can occur in genetic instructions.
Where these changes effect an individual's survival chances, nature will select those who are better adapted for current conditions.
So as condition change -- i.e., ice age, warming, wet & dry -- species must either change, move or perish. Those are simple, observable facts.
The question is whether these minor changes can eventually add up to "a new spcies" over many millions of years?
The obvious answer is: well, how do you define "a new species"?
Consider some examples.
The bones of wolves have been found near those of humans going back around 100,000 years. Those are still obviously wolves. But they begin to appear more dog-like around 15,000 years ago. Today dogs are considered a "sub-species" of wolves.
The fossil record and DNA analysis shows that horses, donkeys & zebras split apart many millions of years ago. They are not only separate scientific Species, each has its own Genus within the Family of Equis.
Any yet, despite being separate species, they can at least partially interbreed, with hybrids called Zonkey's, Zorses and, of course, mules. Separate species of Zebras easily interbrede.
Virtually every species today belongs to a genus and family which can be traced back in the fossil records, and through DNA analysis, many millions of years. But when these changes can be observed over spans of just a few thousands of years, they are typically very small indeed.
no it is ASSUMED to be large genetic changes over time and more ASSUMPTIONS that one being transformed into another, with nothing more than the ideology that demands that change...thus evolutionism is considered true.
not a science, but a religion.
Large genetic changes have been observed, not just assumed.
Consider and compare: any number of domesticated plant and animal species -- even before the current age of direct genetic modifications -- to their wild cousins.
DNA analyses easily show how different domesticated animals are from their wild cousins.
Yes, most can still interbreed, but we are only talking about a few thousand years of, shall we call it, "un-natural selection," meaning humans doing the work that was previously done by nature.
Or, as I prefer to think of it, by God.
Consider: observed fossil records and DNA analyses show different species in the Family of Zebras, Horses and Donkey's were first separated about 4 million years ago -- and yet they can still at least partially interbreed. Indeed, three separate Species of Zebras easily interbreed.
Consider: another example which has been observed in nature, not just assumed, is a hybrid of Polar Bear and Grisly Bear.
These are certainly different species, but closely related enough to still produce offspring.
By contrast, no offspring has ever been observed of Polar Bear and, say, Black Bear.
So, those species split apart too long ago.
Is there any example of a species separated by more than 4 million years from another, and yet still able to successfully interbreed?
Not that I know of.
So we might conclude that it can take some millions of years of separation before two different species have definitely become different "kinds."
But "kinds" is a religious classification, not a scientific classification.
In science we speak of terms like Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
These are defined scientifically, and not one, to my knowledge, corresponds with the biblical term "kind."
raygunfan: "not a science, but a religion."
Finally, you assert that science is just a "religion."
Well, anyone can play the definition-of-terms game.
But if science is "just a religion," then so is everything else we think we know, which would have to mean: those terms have no real definitions.
So, the truth of the matter is: there's a vast difference between science and religion, and to call one the other is simply inaccurate.
i never said sciene is a religion, i said the ‘science’ of evolutionism is a religion...based on philosophy, not hard evidence.
those of us who believe creationism, base it on the SAME evidence that those who believe in evolutionism do...we just dont have to twist or shoehorn the evidence to make it fit like they do....
and everything piece of evidence that comes up that clearly speaks against your religion of evolutionism, somehow thru the handy dandy evolutionism taffy pull machine, is stretched to somehow confirm evolutionism...and that is not science....you know it and so does everyone else.
Your religion, not science, tells you that God makes living things in "kinds."
Well, there is no scientific definition of "kinds," indeed no definition at all of "kinds."
That word "kinds" just sort of means whatever YOU want it to mean, right?
Science does not speak of "kinds," science speaks of categories -- broad and narrow -- such as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, sub-species, and breed or "race."
These categories of science tie directly to the science of evolution's time-scales, meaning the more narrow the category, the more recent the evolutionary split.
And yes, the "hard evidence" for evolution is literally "hard" -- fossils -- and also minutely detailed, as in DNA analyses.
To claim, as you do, that there is no evidence is just not accurate.
raygunfan: "those of us who believe creationism, base it on the SAME evidence that those who believe in evolutionism do...we just dont have to twist or shoehorn the evidence to make it fit like they do...."
I believe in "creationism" in this sense: I believe that God created everything, and none of it by "accident," but all according to His plans.
But ALL of the physical evidence clearly shows His methods are scientific -- descent with modifications and "natural selection."
And that's the definition of the word "evolution."
Let me put it another way: in God's Universe, God's Plan unfolds "naturally."
That's what the hard physical evidence tells us.
What exactly you "creationists" believe is difficult or impossible to pin down, because there are so many different types of "creationists."
Young earth or older earth, some natural modifications or no natural modifications, some "natural selection," or no natural selection -- and it all depends on how you interpret your Bibles, not on any scientific reasoning.
raygunfan: "and everything piece of evidence that comes up that clearly speaks against your religion of evolutionism, somehow thru the handy dandy evolutionism taffy pull machine, is stretched to somehow confirm evolutionism...and that is not science....you know it and so does everyone else."
I'm not a young man, and over many years have read a good number of books on both evolution theory and controversies.
Of course, that doesn't make me an expert, but it does mean something when I say: I've never seen a single piece of "hard evidence" which contradicts the basic idea of evolution: descent with modifications and "natural selection."
I suppose you can cite some?