A Few Teeth and a Big Story
Based on “one canine tooth and eight molars”, some researches have determined it is “a 10 million-year-old ape” and that it “suggests that humans and African great apes may have split much earlier than thought.”So based on only 9 teeth of a missing skeleton, “The Ethiopian and Japanese team named the species Chororapithecus abyssinicus and said it represents the earliest recognized primate directly related to modern-day gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos.”
Although they do seem claim that humans evolved from apes, they admit, “we know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes”. Doesn’t this merely prove there is no FACT of evolution from apes to man, but a suggestion, hope, desire, etc. that man evolved from apes, but we have no idea as of how or when. Hmmm…
Of course, there are still those which have doubts, but have no problem telling us what it MUST be anyway. As Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo says, “If it’s not a gorilla relative, then it’s something very similar to what an early gorilla must have looked like”. Tell us, Mr. Suwa, how would you or anyone else know that, since this was supposedly 4 million years before humans? [According to the article, 10 million year old ape verses humans 6 to 7 million years old.]
Another wake up call to the idea that evolution of humans is FACTUAL is the lack of evidence again noted by, “Peter Andrews, a paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and expert on human origins, called the discovery exciting because the fossil evidence from great apes, the closest living relatives to humans, is almost nonexistent.” Claiming great apes are human relatives with “almost nonexistent” evidence seems mighty interesting to me.
Of course there is still debate over where humans originated from. Interestingly, research suggest, “Past studies based on skull morphology have been weak and have supported both of the human-origin views.” Yet, ““You can’t find the origin of people by measuring the variability of their skulls,” Hawks told LiveScience.” You know what Hawks says is the main problem? “Assumptions”. [““The main problem with the paper is that it takes some assumptions from genetics papers of 10 to 15 years ago that we now know are wrong,” Hawks said.”] Hmmm…
Now consider “assumptions” has the ability to cause problems in theory, and consider the above article based on 9 teeth.
5 comments:
Tim:
Do you not know that a few drops of blood can give forensic scientists clues to who exactly is the murderer?
That aside, the findings are preliminary. More fossils will be dug up in time, but as it is the only assumption that the scientists have made is that it is an ape. They haven't exactly cooked up stories of monkey gods or monkeys dancing on a pole.
Beast,
I realize “that a few drops of blood can give forensic scientists clues to who exactly is the murderer”, but I doubt if we have dental records or a family tree record of a 10 million year old ape (if that is indeed where the teeth came from). :)
Assumptions:
1. The teeth belong to an ape.
2. The ape is 10 million years old.
3. 10 million years old means humans and apes split sooner than thought.
See how 1 assumption, based on mere fragments not fully understood, snowballs into more and more theory based simply on a less than adequate logical foundation.
Tim:
From what I have read, this is just a preliminary diagnosis.
A few things that are more or less certain:
1. The shape of the teeth matches more or less agreeably with apes.
2. The ten million year is more or less accurate (within acceptable tolerance) by scientific radio dating.
3. Too early to determine whether the ape is an early humanoid or ape ancestor.
I won't call this "snowballing". Rather, its more like an initial prognosis by a doctor with regards to a sick patient, and outpatient diagnosis can have higher chances of making mistakes than a inpatient diagnosis.
I will suggest making a opiniated decision when the full scientific report is out for peer review.
So have you accepted that the world is older than 6000 years, Tim?
What would give you that idea? I am simply using the data given by the source I am referencing. Doesn't mean I agree about the millions of years, I am simply pointing out the problems I see with their current assumptions concerning it.
Post a Comment