untested - terra firma creationists do n’t ignore science . Instead , they reinterpret it to outfit their impression scheme . One palaeontologist was curious to find out what they instruct about human ancestry , and how they interpret early human fossils . Here ’s what he found out .
Prior to the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate , BuzzFeedinvitedcreationists to submit questions , and a couple of contributors specifically demand , “ Why is there only one Lucy ? ”
That catch the tending of paleoanthropologist blogger Adam Benton . Lucy — the fogey of a hominin species , Australopithecus afarensis , which know 3.9 to 2.9 million years ago — should be strong grounds of human evolution . But , instead , young - earth creationist literature cites Lucy as “ proof ” that there are no “ transitional anatomy ” in human evolution . Some treatise go to peachy lengths to excuse how anthropologist have misinterpreted or manipulate their finding , to “ incorrectly ” paint a picture that Lucy was able of bipedal locomotion . Other articles lay claim ( incorrectly ) that only one solidifying of bones representing Lucy ’s metal money survive — further implying that this was just a fringe monkey coinage , as oppose to a human ancestor .
Still , this made Benton wonder . Why did these creationists only mention Lucy ? There are plenty of other homin metal money in the dodo record . What were young - world creationists teach about them ?
To explore the question , he determine to examine how salient creationist site are representing the hominin fossil disc . Benton look for for mention of five other hominid species that fall a similar number of citation to Lucy , demonstrating that they are just as scientifically significant and so should be receiving a significant amount of insurance coverage .
One model is , Sahelanthropus tchadensis ( photo at top of page ) , which Benton says “ is notable for being the oldest known hominin , dating to 6–7 million days ago … .Its eld places it in brief after the chimp and human lineages diverge … . so it can provide worthful penetration into what some of the first members of the human family appear like . ”
The results of hisstudyare produced in the table below , which quantifies the issue of vane page discourse each of the fossils under consideration .
His determination :
It is unmistakable that Answers in Genesis ( AiG ) , the Institute for Creation Research ( ICR ) , and Creation Ministries International ( CMI ) are deliver a misrepresented view of human evolution , glossing over critical fossils and creating the false impression that there is little evidence for human phylogenesis . In fact , the grounds is copious .
I do not entail to argue that this distortion is intentional deception ; writers at these organisation may simply be unaware of the immense majority of paleoanthropological lit , or perhaps prefer to discuss Lucy , as it is the example with which they are most familiar .
Regardless of the ultimate cause , the oddment termination is clear : people who rely on AiG , CMI , and/ or the ICR for data on human phylogeny will wind up woefully underestimating the hominin fossil record .
anthropologycreationismEvolution
Daily Newsletter
Get the well technical school , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
word from the time to come , delivered to your nowadays .
Please select your desired newssheet and submit your email to upgrade your inbox .
You May Also Like
