Taung child
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) probably spends more of their time basing evolution than actually researching creationism. Which is quite odd, given they apparently doesn’t understand the subject. In the past they’ve argued human evolution is false because people 13,000 years ago were just as smart as modern humans; apparently ignorant of the fact that all palaeoanthropologists agree that the people 13,000 years ago were actually modern humans.
And now they’ve mucked up their timeline again.
Thislatest article is about the Taung child fossil, a 3 year old ape-like human ancestor who died over 3 million years ago. It has a special place in my heart as being the first Australopithecus ever discovered; finally showing we did evolve from ape-like ancestors in Africa. Except, according to the ICR:
Now the famous Taung child, a supposed example exhibiting early transitional developmental skull features has been debunked
Arguably the most important fossil ever has been debunked! Where did we all go wrong? The answer is sutures. The human skull is not made of a single bone, instead several bones gradually knit themselves together. In humans one of the sutures towards the front of the skull is finished between the age of 9 – 14 months (although in some people it doesn’t finish until adulthood); but in chimps it’s done before they’re born. Some authors had argued that Taung (at age 3) had open sutures, like a minority of modern people.
However, as the ICR explains, new research (freely available) shows Taung didn’t have the open sutures after all. Instead, they argue that it would seem there’s…
no evidence of a distinct superiorly protruding ridge on the Taung natural endocast indicating a possible open (or partially fused) metopic suture … [suggesting] that this young Australopithecus skull comes from an ape—just like the rest of its genus. Once again, when scrutinized by advanced imaging technology, the highly subjective field of anthropology vindicates the scientifically accurate biblical claim that mankind is created uniquely in the image of God.
Now, I’ve already given you the reason why this argument falls apart. Were you paying attention?
As I said, in most people the frontal suture is closed by their first birthday so even if Taung was fully human (since they were ~3 years old) we’d expect them to have a closed suture. Either that, or the ICR thinks that the majority of humans whose sutures have closed by this age are actually apes.
This is something that the new research actually points out, commenting that
In modern humans, the metopic suture normally closes 3–9 mo postpartum … [so] with an estimated age between 3.73 and 3.93 y at death, Taung is well beyond the age for normal closure of the metopic suture exemplified by modern humans or chimpanzees and other primates
So it would seem that the ICR didn’t actually read the paper that they’re basing their conclusion on (or they’re going with the most humans are apes hypothesis). Except they clearly did, given that some parts of their article are almost lifted right out of the new research. For example, compare this paragraph from the new research.
The endocast is distinguished by numerous calcite deposits on its surface. Indeed, the midline region is marked by numerous calcite deposits, indicating that the true surface of the endocranium lies below these deposits. In addition, there are remnants of the endocranial table adhering to the surface of the natural endocast, obscuring many of its morphological features, including portions of its left frontal lobe. Finally, Dart’s exuberant use of his wife’s knitting needles to extricate the fossil from the surrounding breccia may have scarred the surfaces, forever obliterating some of the original features of the natural endocast.
With this one from the ICR article
1) The endocast had numerous calcite [mineral] deposits on it that obscured the real contours of the surface. 2) The remnants of the inside of the cranium that adhered to the endocast also obscured the true surface. 3) The discoverer of the fossil skull damaged it by the “exuberant use of his wife’s knitting needles to extricate the fossil from the surrounding breccia [rock material] may have scarred the surfaces, forever obliterating some of the original features of the natural endocast.”
So they clearly read the research, presumably including the rather lengthy description of why this discovery doesn’t disprove Taung as a human ancestor. And then they promptly ignored it? You can go read the ICR piece yourself (here’s the link again), they make no mention of the fact that the research they’re citing contradicts their conclusion in multiple places. To me that goes a bit beyond simple ignorance, instead suggesting deliberate deception.
Or, of course, there’s still the aforementioned possibility that they’re subtly hinting most people are apes. Which could be their sneaky way of admitting evolution is right.
Humans, after all, are technically apes
