Meet another of our ancestors

[River Jordan]

Meet Homo naledi - your newly discovered ancient human relative

An international team of researchers identified the new species of ancient human from more than 1,500 fossils discovered in a remote cave location in South Africa's Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site.

It's the largest such find ever made on the African continent, and scientists say it could shake-up our understanding of the origins and diversity of our human lineage.

A fossil mosaic
The new species, Homo naledi, presents the scientific community with a conundrum, says Museum human origins expert Professor Chris Stringer:

'Homo naledi shares some traits with modern humans, including the shape of its hands, wrists and feet. But its small brain and the shape of its upper body are more reminiscent of the pre-human australopithecines and the very early human species Homo habilis.'

Isn't this exactly what we expect to find under evolutionary theory? Fossil specimens that exhibit a mosaic of traits between primitive primates and modern humans?

If you read the story of how these specimens were discovered and extracted, it's amazing. They actually had to put out a call for scientists that could fit through the crack in the cave! More to come on this, I'm sure.

 

[IBeMe]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/10/new-species-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists

Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species. “The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they may represent individual variation, or variation at the population level,” he said.Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, goes further. “From what is presented here, they belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.”

...

The conclusion is not widely accepted by others. “Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It's a prank; a hoax financed with the taxes and money STOLEN from the so-called 'advantaged' of this country.

Do you have ANY idea of the corruption and fraud going on in South Africa?

Obviously not. Listen, intentional disposal of selected skeleton bones by later pinheads never makes the headlines, but is no stretch.

 

[River Jordan]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/10/new-species-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists

Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species. “The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they may represent individual variation, or variation at the population level,” he said.Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, goes further. “From what is presented here, they belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.”

...

The conclusion is not widely accepted by others. “Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said.

I've seen some good thoughts on that question from other scientists too. They also feel it's a bit early to designate these specimens as a new species. Most seem to think these may be more variations on H. erectus.

However, if that's the case, then there are some pretty important questions that need answered. H. erectus cranial capacity ranges from 750-1200 cc, whereas these new specimens cranial capacities range from 465-560 cc, which is more similar to very early H. habilis specimens (the ones that are intermediate between Australopithecines and H. habilis). Yet these new finds also have fairly modern hands and feet, some characteristics of which show traits similar to H. sapiens! But their teeth are somewhat primitive.

So the point is, how these finds are named and classified isn't as important as the characteristics they show. As I noted in the OP, this mix of primitive and modern traits is exactly what we expect to find under evolutionary theory.

 

[River Jordan]

It's a prank; a hoax financed with the taxes and money STOLEN from the so-called 'advantaged' of this country.

Do you have ANY idea of the corruption and fraud going on in South Africa?

Obviously not. Listen, intentional disposal of selected skeleton bones by later pinheads never makes the headlines, but is no stretch.

 

[Angelina]

Isn't this exactly what we expect to find under evolutionary theory? Fossil specimens that exhibit a mosaic of traits between primitive primates and modern humans?
If you read the story of how these specimens were discovered and extracted, it's amazing. They actually had to put out a call for scientists that could fit through the crack in the cave! More to come on this, I'm sure.

Your ancestors perhaps but nothing to do with mine

 

[River Jordan]

So what are these things then? If you look at their characteristics, it doesn't make any sense to just wave them away as a population of H. sapiens. So what are they?

 

[Angelina]

"After 700 hours of interpretive forensic labor, the photo above emerged. The rendering does look great, but without a double blind skill evaluation where one can actually compare multiple reconstructions with their real doppelgängers, a lot of those fleshy protuberances will invariably need to be taken on faith."
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/213954-new-species-of-human-lineage-discovered-not-so-fast

 

[River Jordan]

Not sure what the point there is. No doubt the artist renderings of what these organisms looked like in terms of their hair, skin tone, and such are subject to "artistic license", but what that has to do with my question or the fact that these specimens are exactly the sort of "transitional fossils" evolutionary theory says we should find....well, I'm at a bit of a loss. :huh: