|
|
|
|
Sven62
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2002 : 17:58:50
|
Another ancient hominid fossil was found in Chad. Estimated to be 6 - 7 million years old. Almost twice as old as "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis). And it's found in the north-central part of Africa, not in the east. I heard one anthropologist talking about it. He was saying it may be that the Australopithecines are not our direct ancestors after all. This is HUGE!!! He said that this may show that "we know nothing."
All I have to say about this new find is...
COOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!! I friggin' LOVE this!! In the face of new evidence we may have to totally drop a current understanding in favor of a better one.
Ciao!
Sven
When Ah say whoa... Ah meeeeean... WHOA!!
- Yosemite Sam as he clobbers the camel that refuses to stop galloping blindly ahead.
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2002 : 20:18:03 [Permalink]
|
Awww man, think of all the students that took their finals and unknowingly gave wrong answers!!
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2002 : 22:06:25 [Permalink]
|
YES!!I'm still hunting for more literature on it.
I love it when the scientists revise their thinking. That's the best of all proofs of evolution.
f
Evolution is such a simple idea, almost anyone can misunderstand it. -- Theodore Dobzhansky |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2002 : 05:32:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Another ancient hominid fossil was found in Chad. Estimated to be 6 - 7 million years old. Almost twice as old as "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis). And it's found in the north-central part of Africa, not in the east. I heard one anthropologist talking about it. He was saying it may be that the Australopithecines are not our direct ancestors after all. This is HUGE!!! He said that this may show that "we know nothing."[Sven62]
Sorry Sven,
In our pop science culture, unless they give the skull a "cute" name, backed by good lyrics and a rock beat, the theory will never catch on. 
(:raig |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2002 : 18:26:16 [Permalink]
|
Just watch the Creationists/IDers make a mess of this early hominid finding in Chad as described in:
*A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa* -- Michel Brunet, et al. (what follows is a long, long, long list of *et al.* names).
I just know that the true-believers are bound to misquote, misunderstand, misstate, mis-_________ (whatever -- you fill in the blank). Already, in the popular press, there is a great misunderstanding accompanied by an attempt to *spin* the information toward the Intelligent Designers' (IDers') favor. For those IDers who believe that this new hominid find is going to disprove evolution -- I have news for them...
On the AOL Welcome screen there is reference to the hominid find, but when I clicked on the choices for discussion, there were no obviously-pro-evolution choices. I can just imagine the silliness which is bound to transpire in the mass media (a kind of oxymoron).
Really, having been a skeptic for as long as I can remember (before the age of 2, for certain), I am not a real fan of skepticism. It is boring to have to wade through so much baloney. I do not expect any of the anti-scientific folk to change their ideas through understanding of science, so I prefer to let them wallow in the mud of ignorance. Of course, I realize that they will attempt to take mankind back to its primitive origins, but wading through their nonsense to challenge them is boring beyond the pale!
ljbrs :( :( :(
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2002 : 19:33:49 [Permalink]
|
Then again, SCIENCE (all kinds) is another story and is continuously fascinating and never boring. NATURE, 11 July 2002, really covered Sahelanthropus tchadensus in triplicate:
Check out the coverage there about the subject in this thread, the 6 to 7 million-year-old-skull from Chad. There is a discussion in *news and views*: *Hominid revelations from Chad,* by Bernard Wood, (pp. 133-135), and research articles: "A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa" by M. Brunet, et al., (pp. 145-151), and "Geology and paleontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla hominid locality, Chad" by P. Vignaud, et al; (pp. 152-155).
WOW!
I am certain that the CREATIONISTS will find something boring to write/say about this (if they are yet aware of it). Poor things! Before this find, they were working on a time scale of no more than 2 million years. However, the new time scale of 6 to 7 million years will really make them lose sleep!
Of course, they will believe that this is all a scientific conspiracy to contradict their deity once again. They will need to learn to spell it: Sahelanthropus tchadensus! That is quite a bit of spelling.
I guess I need to crawl back into my protective scientific shell in order to forget about the silly ideas going around in so many people's minds in Never-Never Land.
ljbrs   
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
|
Trekkie
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2002 : 21:23:00 [Permalink]
|
I'm not quite sure what possessed the writer of the Web article to use a subhead "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution." I mean, that's prime fodder for selective quote-mining.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020708/020708-12.html
To boldly go... |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
