Homo naledi is primitive in some ways, with a small brain and other physical features reminiscent of our early ancestors. But it also walked upright, and had hands that may have been capable of making tools.
This perplexing combination of features raised questions about when the animal walked the Earth. But in new research published Tuesday in eLife, scientists have come to the conclusion that it lived between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago. That’s only about a tenth of the age some experts previously predicted.
It suggests that this humanlike creature may have lived alongside early humans, or Homo sapiens. “It’s a much more complex picture of human evolution that is rising,” lead author Paul Dirks of James Cook University and the University of Witwatersrand tells The Two-Way.
Wonder how they invented flashlights to go that deep into dark cave structures ?
If it was a burial site, they still needed lighting.
Possibly the progenitor of the progressive/liberal/democrat linage. Living unseen in dark, damp cells out of sight of the people who actually evolved into a truly caring individual just passed these Homo Naledi.
Looks like they weren’t even able to spell Nailed correctly.
“Homo naledi is primitive in some ways, with a small brain …”
So why not homo toronti?
So then, we are STILL looking for the “missing link” between humans and the apes ? Can we change all the textbooks to present human evolution as a scientific theory, and not fact ? The same textbooks that cheered Piltdown Man as the definitive PROOF of human evolution.
The thing is, according to the theory, evolution does not happen in giant steps, but thousands, perhaps millions, of minute steps caused completely by accident.
So, for example, the existence of amphibians is not by itself convincing that some fish eventually turned into reptiles. Even the discovery of one or two animals, or their fossils, that could fit between amphibians and reptiles is not convincing. There needs to be thousands of fossils marking each step of the way.
The same thing with different “homo” specie. Are they all supposed to have a common ancestor, or did they separately develop from apes, or whatever. And if they co-existed, were their bloods ever intermixed, and what happened to the products of those inter-species procreation? Anyway, the doctrine that all homo sapiens must have one single ancestor is more rooted in social political dogma, more akin to biblical account than to “evolutionary science.” Again, according to the theory, you don’t just go from apes to Missing Links to Homo Sapiens. There should be thousands of fossils marking each step of the way, not just a single “missing link.” The lack of even one strongly argues against evolution, but the discovery of one animal that fits between ape and homo sapiens in no way validates it.
As to “evolution” itself, the great biologist Luther Burbank tried to develop a new species of tomatoes. He found he could get tomatoes four times the size, or one-fourth the size, but no more. And ultimately after generations, they “revert to the mean.” He decided all he could impose was “adaptation” of a species, not creation of another species. And Burbank was an atheist who of course did not believe in creation.
The famous finches on the Galapagos developed thicker beaks in times of drought, and Darwin thought given another decade or two of drought, they would develop into what biologists could identify as a different species. He thought they were well on their way. What he did not publicize was on a return to the Galapagos years later, he discovered the finches had “reverted to the mean.”
There is no more evidence of “evolution” than “creationism”. The simultaneous existence of different phyla does not “prove” “evolution”, in fact quite the opposite. If indeed the fittest survive, then all the specie which did not evolve to more optimal survivability should eventually die off, that is, become extinct, in favor of those who did. The theory of “evolution” requires a lot more unproven guesses and conjectures, and by the principle of occam’s razor should not be favored over “creationism.”
Yes, Piltdown Man was a hoax….. from over a century ago! That hoax has no bearing on the modern scientific evaluation of man’s ancestry. The author of the paper was quite clear about not over-stating their findings and also that our understanding of human evolution is itself evolving. That is only common sense as they slowly unearth new discoveries of prehistoric remains.
BTW, the term “missing link” is also based on ancient theories and bigotries. It has no place in modern debate and it’s current usage is largely perpetrated by our trustworthy leftist media, I might add. Ha.
https://www.britannica.com/science/missing-link
Holy Guacamole, Batman!
You cite evidence in your post of birds evolving different beaks to adapt to a change in habitat, then you go on to cite that there is no evidence of evolution in species.
The fact they “changed back” when the environment “changed back” only doubles the evidence.
“It has no place in modern debate”
Echoes of “the science is settled”. The term “missing link” does have a place, if only to demonstrate the mindset of evolutionists.
“You cite evidence in your post of birds evolving different beaks to adapt to a change in habitat, then you go on to cite that there is no evidence of evolution in species.”
If an animal already contains the gene to develop a certain trait more fully in one direction or another *(example: speckled moth, white dominance to black) it is not evolution.
Get back to me when chickens develop lips./
*another more recent evolutionary hoax still touted as a prime evolutionary example in some school textbooks
I love that I can’t be excited about the discovery of new fossils adding to our understanding of human origins without the usual amateur evolution-vs.-creationism-shrieking shitting up the thread.
Seriously. At least get some new arguments.
Yeah … it reminds me of how the settled scientific proof of “Global Warming” … became … “Climate Change”. I thoroughly understand the current science of evolution taking place in multiple infinitesimal steps … however … there remains a giant GULF between Apes and man … an inexplicable lack of clear fossil evidence.
Yes … I am a scientific creationist. https://www.icr.org/article/168/
And I love that you’re so in love. It’s exciting. Seriously.
Yet the hatred and vitriol spews from the atheists … who pretend they “own” the debate. My scientific hypothesis is they suffer from a common form of mental illness … the kind that Dan Rather suffers from … that allows a certifiable LIAR to lecture President Trump about fake news
Considering the voting habits of homo toronti I would suggest that this species has not evolved much beyond lurching around on two legs.
if there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life it must depend on natural, repeatable processes. so far I have not that.
Evolution seems intuitively obvious. The elephant in the room asks why is the fossil record so thin for animals as well as humans? That’s all I want to know.