Harun Yahya & Sahelanthropus

Harun Yahya the Muslim creationist is one of the first commenting the discovery of Sahelanthropus.http://www.harunyahya.com/70New_Fossil_Discovery_sci32.php...and I wrote a rebuttal.
http://liquid2k.com/traduza/yahya_sah.htmPlease, feel free to review. Anybody know how to get the rebuttal into Talk.origins?

[shameless self-promotion]
bump

AndyaAnthropology is one of my weakest areas. I read your article with interest and it seems to make sense. As you may know, I however believe that man was separately created.I have a favour to ask of you. Are you able to email me your skull outlines! I would love to be able to play with those for my own eduction. Line objects in word would be nice (then they can overlay each other).BTW, if you have time:Q1. What is your opinion of the creationist statment that primate/hominid findings as a whole can be considered to be either ape or man? The Homo genera seem to be significantly different to the others.
Q2. To what extent are the character states from ape to Homo progressive and/or reversing?
Q3. What of the famous quote by some evolutionist (Dawkins/Gould?? probably someone else) who said something along the lines of "There is no traceable amount of science in this (apeman stuff)".
Q4. Becasue of the mosaic nature of the appearence of some features does this lend any credence to a recent creationist claim by someone that maybe Homo and apes have been procreating sometime in the past?

Thanks for the interest TB. The raw material for cranial outlines are in gif format; I made the superimpositions using Adobe Photoshop. I'll send them to your mailbox.Q1. In particular, I have seen many of such statements, and they contradict each other. Ken Miller reviewed some of their opinions and point that creationists differ in saying which is ape and which is human:
File Not Found (404) | American Association for the Advancement of ScienceHarun Yahya, my principal target (because he's Muslim) considers australopithecines apes and Homo erectus humans.About the genus Homo, there are some authorities who assert their uniqueness (such as Richard Leakey). However the earliest Homo members did retain some primitive characters, such as a pronounced brow ridge (supraorbital torus) and a pronounced face (prognathism).Q2. Some derived human characters opposed to primitive ape characters IMHO are: (ape state--modern human state)
*Brain size (small--big)
*brow ridge (more prononuced--less pronounced)
*canine size (big--small)
*prognathism (protruding face--flat face)
*locomotion (arboreal quadrupedality--habitual bipedality (australopithecines)--obligate bipedality)
*foramen magnum position (posterior--anterior)
*pelvis shape (elongate--box-like)
*vertical semicircular canal (small--large) (Fred Spoor's research)
*big toe (detached--attached)Q3. Never heard of it. And I think that Dawkins & Gould couldn't have said that (if you may, I want to see where you find it)Q4. You might be referring to Lee Spencer's article. However, I find that claim rather implausible, because given the dates of known transitional human fossils (dating back to 7 M.y.a.), then to say that the transitionals were born from human-ape matings would require that this behavior lasted for millions of years, and the supposed hybrids were getting more humanlike than apelike as time goes. There is a proposed theory (I guess it was by Mayr) that the existence of species is life's way of maintaining adaptation and fitness.Anyway, if you believe that man is separately created, was he created as Homo sapiens? Or maybe you would include erectus and Neanderthals as well?

^ As a biased non-expert I would generally suspect that all of the Homo species diverged from the created human kind via basic genetics/microevolutionary phenomena.In our flood scenario of course we interperate radiodecay dates very differnetly as you may know so the animals of the fossil record were contemporaneous (up until a point for which normal processes deposited fossils). From our POV we might be able to see the non-Homo apemen as genuinely that but due to hybridisation not common descent. Although a 'gross' (unasthetic) concept, the Bible contains hints that man was acting grossly. It's a 'just so' story that makes us happy but also, to me, seems to be consistent with the data with the proviso of flood geology.Thanks for the gif files - so I need to find a program which will allow white to be transparent - is that how you do it from gifs? Alternatively I could trace lines from your templates to get a line object that will be otherwise transparent. Thanks.

This is an extremely interesting article. I don't see how it totally debunks human evolution, more like throws a real big wrench in the wheels. I'm not particularly fond of macro-evolution, but this evidence doesn't really destroy theories against the evolution of man. It basically just pushed the timeframe further back, which is where people will have to start looking now.[This message has been edited by Big B, 08-05-2002]

umm, which article are you referring to? mine or Harun Yahya's or Spencer's?

Yahya's article didn't seem to match my memory of news reports I have read. I did like your article and will follow your link to Spencer next. This link seems more in line with my memory :Redrawing Humanity's Family Tree - The New York TimesClear Skies !Frank

Andya,I liked the Miller article but the link to Spencer Does not work. Sorry.Clear Skies !Frank

Just wanted to point out (although I'm sure most people saw it) that Harun Yahya is using quotes to his advantage. The quote "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution" by John Whitfield especially caught my eye. Whitfield was actually emphasizing on the fact that our evolutionary tree is becoming ever more complex and unorganized and that our current theory of a steady, clear evolution is being proven otherwise with new finds.
Yahya is trying to suggest that anthropologists are starting to realize that there was in fact a creation. His site is absurd.Just my thoughts...

quote:

---

Originally posted by SalmonHunter:
Just wanted to point out (although I'm sure most people saw it) that Harun Yahya is using quotes to his advantage. The quote "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution" by John Whitfield especially caught my eye. Whitfield was actually emphasizing on the fact that our evolutionary tree is becoming ever more complex and unorganized and that our current theory of a steady, clear evolution is being proven otherwise with new finds.
Yahya is trying to suggest that anthropologists are starting to realize that there was in fact a creation. His site is absurd.

​

Just my thoughts...

---

Thanks for your comment. Actually, while Christian creationists have tons of opponents, Harun Yahya is virtually unchallenged by fellow Muslims. He is even considered as some hero against evolutionists Zionists and Materialists by most Muslim websites. That is why I am active here. I want to offer a decent scientific challenge to him.

Are you a Muslim, Andya Primanda? Just curious. I don't know anything about Muslim opposition to evolution, that's why I'm asking. It would be interesting to learn more about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SalmonHunter:
Are you a Muslim, Andya Primanda? Just curious. I don't know anything about Muslim opposition to evolution, that's why I'm asking. It would be interesting to learn more about it.

---

Yes, I am a Muslim. Traditionally Islam is not opposed to evolution. The Islamic creation story is rather vague and cannot be organized into dogma like Genesis. Some of us even claimed that all 'Western' scientific findings were stolen from earlier findings by Muslim scientists. Including evolution. However, this assertion needs to be re-examined.However, as most people do, Muslims also find it hard to accept that they are also derived from other living things (i.e. apes). Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar) is a fundamentalist Muslim living in Turkey, the most secular Islamic country. He and his allies (presumably former Turkish PM, Erbakan)tried to attract masses and power by appealing to religious fundamentalism and attacking the materialistic ideology of the government. Apparently Harun Yahya assumed that Darwinism is the ideological base of the secularism and materialism of the government, so he used creationist arguments to attack them.Muslim activism is a multinational enterprise; as soon as Harun Yahya began his creationist campaign in Turkey, other Muslim activists follow. His books were translated into other languages and distributed to Muslims worldwide. He made great impact in Indonesia and Pakistan, I think. And he can be considered as the strongest creationist outside USA.

Very interesting. Thanks for the information. I should look more into this guy -- he seems like an interesting character.

Indeed he is. Anyway, it seems unfair to us. Christian creationists with local intentions have had more than their fair share of opponents. While Harun Yahya and his network are left unscathed. Can you see the impact? He gave away his books for free, his website is in 7+ languages. You can see Harun Yahya misquoting Robin Crompton, Fred Spoor, etc. in Turkish, English, French, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, Malay, German, and Urdu! How's that for propaganda?