On Exploring the Origins of Man and logical loopholes

Came across an article exploring the origins of man. According to a Georgian palaeontologist, David Lordkipanidze, an early toothless human skull (supposedly 1.75 million years ago) indicated an early example of human compassion.

To quote Dr Lordkipanidze (Dr LK):

"The skull shows that an individual survived for a long time without consuming
solid foold that required heavy chewing...It is clear that he or she may not
have been able to do so without help from other individuals. It is conceivable
that we have recorded one of the earliest traces of compassion in human history"

Statements like the above ones are the reason why the naturalistic-Darwinian evolution concept continue to gain popular mileage among the masses - even though it has been philosophically and academically attacked.

To be fair to Dr LK, no where in the article does Dr LK claims that his explanation is the truth. In fact, the palaeontologist only "thinks" his explanation is plausible. Furthermore, it is possible that the report omits the necessary context upon which Dr LK statements could be construed as overly simplified. Nevertheless, I shall make do with what I know.

Now I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of such a finding and whether any meaningful inspection can be done on a skull that supposedly exist 1.75 million years ago. But even if we give Dr LK the benefit of the doubt, such an explanation nevertheless defies common sense and human logic.

Firstly, there is absolutely no way one can make the conclusion that humans are compassionate from the data of a toothless skull. Dr LK makes a logical fallacy in three aspects;

1. Equating a finding of a toothless skull with the conclusion that the skull never had teeth

2. That the diet of the individual then consists of meat-tearing activities like we do

3. That help from other individuals is an indication of compassion.

Now I have to say I don't have any problems agreeing that human beings (or individuals, as Dr LK wants to call it) have the ability to be compassionate. The fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God means that we are called to be compassionate, which etymologically speaking, is "to suffer with".

"Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous" (1 Peter 3:8, KJV)

What I do have a problem with (in addition to the fact that naturalists would use his arguments as a defensive shield, without actually taking into account that values like compassion are in fact, contradictory with the basic principle of survival of the fittest) is that the above statement by Dr LK simply smacks of poor scholarship.

Point one is obvious. Haven't heard of old age or a saccharine-filled diet before? Just because a skull is found without teeth does not mean it never had teeth. It could also mean that the person had lost their teeth.

But maybe I am wrong somewhere and this individual had no teeth to start of with - which is what I think Dr LK is trying to assert (at least implicitly) in order to back his claims.

Which brings me to point two. A major problem in the field of such studies is that researchers often extrapolate their cultural worldview backwards while in the course of their work. As such, the assumption that the skull could not eat because it had no teeth is clearly false. Furthermore, the assumption that the individual was living on a chew-heavy diet is without any proper basis (or at least it was not reported). I am sure we all have relatives (because of old age) who could swallow food. While I am no dentist, I also do think that it is possible to "chew" food with the inner muscles of the mouth.

Last but not least is Dr LK's third point, that help from other individuals is a sign of compassion. This depends on how one defines the meaning of the word help. Here is why semantic confusion reigns; and linguistic ambiguity is often covered through the popular use of word. It is probably Dr LK's intention to use to word "help" in the way it is often understood and socially perceived. Interestingly Webster's Online Dictionary, in its helpful definition on "help", does not mention anything about compassion at all...as such, simply offering assistance in a mechanical, instinctive sense (i.e. ants helping fellow ants to carry food) cannot be equated to the presence of compassion, which goes further than just offering physical assistance. You don't call someone who helps the teacher to carry books a compassionate person...