Question for those who are of religious faith....

Post Reply New Topic

Researchers from the Institut Catala de Paleontologia describe a new hominid

Light on the phylogenetic and geographic origin of our family, the Hominidae

Public release date: 2-Jun-2009

Researchers from the Institut Català de Paleontologia (ICP), from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, directed by professor Salvador Moyà-Solà, publish this week in the prestigious scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA (PNAS) the results of their research regarding the find of a new genus of hominoid primate at els Hostalets de Pierola, l'Anoia. This fossil remains displays very interesting particularities, such as an extraordinarily flat face, and further combines primitive with derived traits, characteristic of great apes. This find significantly enables to take a step forward in the understanding of the origin of our own family, the Hominidae. It demonstrates that kenyapithecines are the sister taxon of extant hominids and shows that the Mediterranean region was the source area of our family.

2004 was an important year regarding the finds of fossil hominids in the area of the Abocador de Can Mata (ACM, els Hostalets de Pierola, l'Anoia, Barcelona). Besides being the year that Pierolapithecus catalaunicus (familiarly known as Pau) was published in Science magazine, this coincided with the find of the first maxillary remains of Dryopithecus fontani thus far known, as well as with the find of the extraordinary remains that we present today: the find in the site C3-Aj from ACM of a face with mandible from the same fossil great ape individual, thus far unknown for science, and which provides us an extraordinary information for clarifying the issue of the phylogenetic and geographic origin of our family, the Hominidae, which is made up by orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans.

The study based on this Middle Miocene genus (11.9 Ma, or million years before present) is reported on a publication by Moyà-Solà and co-authors in the next issue of the renowned scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA (PNAS). The team of researchers that have been involved in this publication, coordinated by Salvador Moyà-Solà, director of the Institut Català de Paleontologia (ICP), which has the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the Generalitat de Catalunya as patrons, further includes: David M. Alba, collaborator of the ICP; Sergio Almécija, predoctoral researcher of the ICP; Isaac Casanovas, postdoctoral researcher of the ICP; Meike Köhler, researcher and chief of a research group of the ICP; Soledad De Esteban, postdoctoral researcher of the ICP; Josep M. Robles, collaborator of the ICP; Jordi Galindo, curator of the ICP; and Josep Fortuny, predoctoral researcher of the ICP.

The new hominid has been given the scientific name of Anoiapithecus brevirostris, in reference to the region where the town of els Hostalets is situated (l'Anoia) and also to the fact that the new taxon has a very modern facial morphology, characterized by a very reduced facial prognathism, i.e. by a very short face. Colloquially we have named it as Lluc (since it is a male individual). This name stems from the fact that Lluc in Latin means "the one who illuminates", and certainly, the information provided by this new fossil is so important that it permits to solve some key questions on the origin of the family Hominidae, which the previous find of Pierolapithecus had left unanswered. At the same time, in a time of crisis, such as the one into we are immersed, it is very welcome that somebody illuminates the path to follow; and the find of Lluc is, perhaps, a good augury.

The new genus and species, Anoiapithecus brevirostris, has been described on the basis of a partial cranium that preserves most of the face and the associated mandible. This cranium was recovered during the works of paleontological control that are customarily carried out at ACM, due to the fossiliferous richness of the area of els Hostalets de Pierola. The process of preparation was long-lasting and complicated, due to the fragility of the remains, but once the material were available for analysis, the surprise was enormous. The specimen (IPS43000) combined a set of features that until now had never been found from the fossil record.

On the one hand, Anoiapithecus displays a very modern facial morphology, with a muzzle prognathism so reduced that, within the family Hominidae, we can only find comparable values within the genus Homo, whereas the remaining great apes are notoriously more prognathic. This extraordinary fact does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo, but it might be a case of convergence. Probably, the evolutionary meaning of this finding is a different one, but not for this reason it is less interesting.

The second surprise provided by Lluc is that it enabled to solve two key questions regarding the origin of our family: what group it is derived from, and which is the geographic area where the family Hominidae originated.

Until now, we merely suspected that a group of primitive hominoids known as kenyapithecines (recorded from the Middle Miocene of Africa and Eurasia) might be the ancestral group that hominids would have derived from. This hypothesis could never be verified, because the adequate paleontological material required to do so was unavailable.

The detailed morphological study of the cranial remains of Lluc showed that, together with the modern anatomical features that characterized the family Hominidae (among others, nasal aperture wide at the base, high zygomatic rood, deep palate), and which permit to consider it a member of this family, it displays a set of primitive features, such as thick dental enamel, teeth with globulous cusps, very robust mandible and very procumbent premaxilla, which are primitive features that characterize a group of primitive hominoids from the African Middle Miocene, known as afropithecids. However, the most interesting fact is that, together with this mixture of hominid and primitive afropithecid features, it displays other characteristics, such as a very anterior position of the zygomatic, a very strong mandibular torus and, especially, a very reduced maxillary sinus, which are derived features that it uniquely shares with the only kenyapithecines that ever dispersed outside the African continent and colonized the Mediterranean region, by about 15 million years ago, the genera Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus. As such, even though in the past kenyapithecines had been already proposed as the likely sister group of hominids (i.e., the group most closely related to them), the fragmentary nature of the previously available material had thus far precluded testing this hypothesis. Now, we have data that support it.

And that is the key of the issue: this discovery enables to identify two probable candidates to be the ancestral form to our family (Kenyapithecus and Griphopithecus); and taking into account that these two genera cannot be considered members of the family Hominidae yet, because they lack its basic diagnostic features, it is obvious that the origin of our family is a phenomenon that took place on the Mediterranean region during the time span comprised between their arrival from Africa by about 15 Ma, and about 13 Ma, when we began to find in els Hostalets the first members of our family. As such, the team of Salvador Moyà and his collaborators consider that hominids might have originally radiated in Eurasia from kenyapithecine ancestors of African origin. The several taxa represented at ACM, the dryopithecins, would testimony this initial great-ape radiation, as shown by the combination of a modern facial pattern with primitive features such as thick enamel. Later on, the ancestors of African great apes and humans would have dispersed again into Africa. This notwithstanding, the authors do not completely rule out the possibility that pongines (orangutans and related forms) and hominines (African apes and humans) separately evolved in Eurasia and Africa, respectively, from different kenyapithecine ancestors. The project at els Hostalets de Pierola goes on and, surely, more fossil remains will be found in the future (at ACM or elsewhere in the world), which will provide new key information that will enable to test the latter hypothesis.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 060209.php

As I said before, you defeat these people by forcing them to answer why they refuse to publish their findings in peer-reviewed biology journals. Then you watch 'em squirm!!

http://creation.com/do-creationists-pub ... d-journals

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/topic ... topic=6588

http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/topic ... topic=6193

They can point to a few notable exceptions or publish in unrelated areas. More commonly, they can just allege discrimination on the part of a biased scientific community that is accused of being intent on preserving the paradigm of materialism/methodological naturalism. So you really haven't given a question that a well-prepared creationist can't either answer or brush aside. There is no reason why this particular question would "make them squirm." If you're going to refute creationists, do it with the evidence, not with this arrogant posturing and name-calling.

HA! just as I thought! No creationist article has been published, in a legitimate science journal, that refutes evolution or an ancient earth.

The "notable exceptions" invariable evaporate when you place them under oath (cough, Michael Behe in the Dover Trial cough)
and publishing in an unrelated area doesn't count. That's a weasel argument i.e. "squirming".



Yes they can, but you should know that that's a B.S. argument. More squirming on their part.



If you get rid of methodological naturalism, you destroy science. Supernaturalism renders science untestable!! Yet another weasel argument.



Just because they have answers, doesn't mean they have good answers. Every answer they give is just an excuse for not providing evidence for their claims. Just more weaseling



The only arrogant posturing comes from the creationists who refuse to provide evidence for a young earth and special creation that can be tested by the world wide scientific community.

It is not neccessary for me to refute creationists with evidence because evolution has established itsself as the existing paradigm. If creationists want to overturn that paradigm, it is THEY who must provide overwhelming evidence for THEIR case. But they never provide evidence, they just try to weasel their way out of it.

So far, their best argument was that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex. That argument was laughed out of court in Dover.

Hitchens, the fact that you are technically correct (the answers creationists would give are unsatisfactory on closer examination) this doesn't mean you would automatically win a debate against them.

And yes, you are correct that it is largely unnecessary to refute creationism. Evolution has already established itself as being (by far) the best explanation for the evidence we have, and there is no significant need for evolutionists to continue challenging a thoroughly debunked idea like creation. However, the name-calling on your part is not productive.

They will respond, saying that the peer reviewed scientific journals are run by a cabal of atheists who have a Godless Agenda and they do not represent True Science (which, perforce, must agree with Scripture).

After all, would you publish a pro capitalist article in a Marxist journal?

ruveyn

I see I'd have to join Facebook. No thanks. Why don't you invite him to join this thread?

Your links only give Sarfati's CV, not his arguments. Do you have a link to either a short summary or your favourite example of Sarfati's reasoning? Something a little shorter than whole books?

In a different thread, SquishypuffDave already linked to creation.com. I had a look, and was not impressed (http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2423245.html&highlight=#2423245). Is creation.com all Dr Sarfati's work, or is he just one of many contributors?

I also once joined the Q&A session of a public debate with a professional creationist debater and asked as much as I was allowed. I was impressed by how practiced he was at steering attention away from holes in his argument. I was not impressed by the argument itself. If you can persuade Dr Sarfati to join us, perhaps in late December when I hope to have enough time for an in depth debate, I would like to give it a try.

I don't know whether you read through this thread from the beginning. SquishypuffDave seems to have abandoned the thread, so you seem to be the only creationist still taking part, and perhaps you could answer a question I posed earlier in the thread. I'll paste it in here again, so you don't have to go back.

Many carnivores can't live on a vegetarian diet. Neither their teeth nor their digestive systems are made for it. The problem is worse if you think of obligate parasites, whether macroscopic like tape worms or microscopic. If there was no death or disease in paradise, species that now are obligate parasites would have had to be remodeled after the fall so much that even a creationist would be hard pressed to claim they are still the same kind. That means there would have had to be a second creation. Is that mentioned in the Bible? Does the Bible say all life was created in the first six days? Then you could not have obligate parasites being created as part of the fall. If those parasites existed in paradise, then there must have been diseases. What is the YEC position on this?

What is the YEC position on the existence of immune systems? Did God create them before they were needed? Were they created after the fall? Did they evolve? If they evolved, would that mean anything that came into existence as a consequence of the fall is not irreducibly complex?

That has lead me to believe that many Y.E.C. are knowingly lying. Creationism in the 21st century is primarily a financial scam.

Tell me something. Are you guy known as Ben in those Facebook threads? Anyway it doesn't matter. A few of the arguments given in those threads by Dr Sarfati are nonsense arguments. For instance, I've already responded to that argument about starlight to another creationist in this forum (the one that Sarfati linked to in the one thread). If observation suggests that an object is millions of light years away and hence that it took millions years to reach us. Then by Occam's Razer, the best explanation is that it really did take that light millions of years to reach us. The explanation that God created the light in transit is a nonsense argument. Using that same argument, can you disprove the statement that the universe did not exist 2 seconds ago and was created instantaneously along with all your memories intact?

I find it amusing that you assume that to be a materialist, you must necessarily be an atheist.

ruveyn[/quote]

That's a relief. You at least showed my point quite adequately - for there to be computers there must be no God and/or the people who thought up the ideas for computing must have been atheists hence their superior clarity of reason, thus if we had no atheists we'd have no computers.

I'd invite you to add to that if I were given to temptation but on second thought...please don't.[/quote]


Thats seems faulty logic

Although neither the supernatural nor evolution is testable in either a laboratory or in daily life, modern science was created by people who believed in the supernatural; and, therefore, believing in the supernatural does not violate any of the laws of science.

It was the belief in the supernatural (God) that lead the early scientists to believe that the scientific intelligibility of the universe could be logically understood because the God who made the universe was also the God who made the human mind.

And I believe it was this understanding of God by the founders of science, all of whom were Christian creationists, that made it possible for mankind to be able to uncover and to comprehend the mathematical explanation of the laws and wonders of nature.

Some of the early creationist pioneers of modern science were Isaac Newton, calculus; Louis Pasteur, bacteriology; Nicolaus Steno, geology and stratigraphy; Robert Boyle, chemistry; Michael Faraday, electromagnetics and also field theory; Gregor Mendel, genetics; and Charles Babbage, computer science.

Evolution has most certainly been tested in the laboratory. We have watched it occur in labs on a number of occasions.


Referring to them as Christian Creationists is somewhat disingenuous though, as that demographic, strictly speaking, included basically 100% of the European population at the time. Creationists weren't a separate group opposed to evolutionists, these people did not believe in a young earth creationism because of examining the evidence and determining that that was the most likely explanation.


Most of whom were before Darwin and in unrelated fields. And Newton was a heretic anyways.

Scienceology