[_ Old Earth _] Alleged Homo Neladi

[brother Paul]

We have been told that with Naledi we have “discovered a new member of the human family tree” They already have a nifty name Homo naledi to make it sound semi-human. Already by selected combination of the bones of possibly 15 different individuals (some being possibly human and some being possibly ape) they claim it walked upright (mostly from two or three tiny possibly totally unrelated pieces of hip). They already have a masterfully contrived an artistic image for imprinting in presentations and texts.

We see they already have frankensteined a collection of unrelated bones and arranged them (just so) to look like an individual. In fact they have already begun posting some of the allegedly accurate “reconstructions” (see Nat Geo Oct 2015)…you know, add a little plaster here and a little there and then possibly shave off what does not fit to create a “what it really looked like” deception for further articles and texts.


Regarding Neladi, Berger says “We were facing something that was different from anything else that had been described…”.

AAAS/Science reports, “The skull was globular, like a member of our genus Homo, but the brain was small and primitive. The wrist suggested this species was an adept toolmaker, but its shoulder and fingers showed it still climbed in trees, like more primitive hominins.”

But since this is admitted at this time to be a composite it is being considered by some that the wrist is human while the shoulders and some finger bones are from a different creature, possibly ape (like the skull they attached). Berger even expressed concern that the teeth found may be from more than one type of hominem (possibly human and ape?). Most of the foot fossils are amazingly like modern humans (Sapien) but there are some variances among the trove.

In fact the team suggests “that other humans, perhaps modern humans, deposited the bodies there”! Paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean of Arizona State University, states “… if they date to the last 300,000 years, then it is plausible that early modern humans killed them and stashed them in the cave as part of a ritual.” Other researchers from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Science Daily agree when theyreport, “One of the most intriguing aspects of the discovery is that the bodies appear to have been deposited in the cave intentionally. Scientists have long believed this sort of ritualized or repeated behavior was limited to humans.” I see no reason that this find should change that opinion.

In time it is becoming apparent we keep bumping into indicators of human presence at a very early time, though we have yet to find specific skeletal remains.

Any thoughts?

 

[Barbarian]

We have many examples of human presences from very early times, but none of them are our own species. Should be interesting to see how this one shakes out. One of the cautionary facts is that remains of H. erectus showed the species to be much more variable in anatomy than H. sapiens.

What can we take from this? One thing is that fossils (like modern humans!) are quite variable. Apart from anything else, this means that there will always be debate about the names and relationships of many fossil specimens. (After all, you can't apply the standard biological species defintion to a fossil - there's no chance of them breeding!) Lieberman (2007) comments that even by modern standards there is unusually high variability within fossils attributed to Homo erectus: apart from the differences in height, cranial capacities in early specimens vary from around 600cc in the Dmanisi individuals, to nearly 1100cc in 1-million-year-old specimens from Africa, and even more in younger fossils. Some of the variation may be due to sexual dimorphism, some to evolutionary change in a species that spans a million years of human prehistory. Combined with recent evidence of a substantial temporal overlap between erectus and habilis, this suggests there's a lot we still don't know about our evolutionary family tree.
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2007/10/homo-erectus-more-variable-tha.shtml

 

[Doulos Iesou]

We have been told that with Naledi we have “discovered a new member of the human family tree” They already have a nifty name Homo naledi to make it sound semi-human. Already by selected combination of the bones of possibly 15 different individuals (some being possibly human and some being possibly ape) they claim it walked upright (mostly from two or three tiny possibly totally unrelated pieces of hip). They already have a masterfully contrived an artistic image for imprinting in presentations and texts.

We see they already have frankensteined a collection of unrelated bones and arranged them (just so) to look like an individual. In fact they have already begun posting some of the allegedly accurate “reconstructions” (see Nat Geo Oct 2015)…you know, add a little plaster here and a little there and then possibly shave off what does not fit to create a “what it really looked like” deception for further articles and texts.


Regarding Neladi, Berger says “We were facing something that was different from anything else that had been described…”.

AAAS/Science reports, “The skull was globular, like a member of our genus Homo, but the brain was small and primitive. The wrist suggested this species was an adept toolmaker, but its shoulder and fingers showed it still climbed in trees, like more primitive hominins.”

But since this is admitted at this time to be a composite it is being considered by some that the wrist is human while the shoulders and some finger bones are from a different creature, possibly ape (like the skull they attached). Berger even expressed concern that the teeth found may be from more than one type of hominem (possibly human and ape?). Most of the foot fossils are amazingly like modern humans (Sapien) but there are some variances among the trove.

In fact the team suggests “that other humans, perhaps modern humans, deposited the bodies there”! Paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean of Arizona State University, states “… if they date to the last 300,000 years, then it is plausible that early modern humans killed them and stashed them in the cave as part of a ritual.” Other researchers from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Science Daily agree when theyreport, “One of the most intriguing aspects of the discovery is that the bodies appear to have been deposited in the cave intentionally. Scientists have long believed this sort of ritualized or repeated behavior was limited to humans.” I see no reason that this find should change that opinion.

In time it is becoming apparent we keep bumping into indicators of human presence at a very early time, though we have yet to find specific skeletal remains.

Any thoughts?

It's all a conspiracy!

What we actually need to do is listen to creationists who are experts at paleontology, rather than people who have dedicated their lives to this study.

It's not skeptical it is selective doubt and mistrust of science built upon an infallible religious dogma. This discovery CANNOT be true for a creationist like brother Paul.

Which is why it's not even worth talking about facts when you're already decided on what is possible to accept.

 

[brother Paul]

We have many examples of human presences from very early times, but none of them are our own species. Should be interesting to see how this one shakes out. One of the cautionary facts is that remains of H. erectus showed the species to be much more variable in anatomy than H. sapiens.

What can we take from this? One thing is that fossils (like modern humans!) are quite variable. Apart from anything else, this means that there will always be debate about the names and relationships of many fossil specimens. (After all, you can't apply the standard biological species defintion to a fossil - there's no chance of them breeding!) Lieberman (2007) comments that even by modern standards there is unusually high variability within fossils attributed to Homo erectus: apart from the differences in height, cranial capacities in early specimens vary from around 600cc in the Dmanisi individuals, to nearly 1100cc in 1-million-year-old specimens from Africa, and even more in younger fossils. Some of the variation may be due to sexual dimorphism, some to evolutionary change in a species that spans a million years of human prehistory. Combined with recent evidence of a substantial temporal overlap between erectus and habilis, this suggests there's a lot we still don't know about our evolutionary family tree.
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2007/10/homo-erectus-more-variable-tha.shtml

this is true...some erectus are probably just apes, some are probably actually human, and of course some are frankensteins (mix and match)

 

[brother Paul]

It's all a conspiracy!

What we actually need to do is listen to creationists who are experts at paleontology, rather than people who have dedicated their lives to this study.

It's not skeptical it is selective doubt and mistrust of science built upon an infallible religious dogma. This discovery CANNOT be true for a creationist like brother Paul.

Which is why it's not even worth talking about facts when you're already decided on what is possible to accept.

a) I did not say it was not true...it is....

b) It is also true that that skeletal construct is a mix match....

c) It is also true that those researchers (non-creationists) who I quoted really said those things....

d) My questioning the "too soon" conclusions of some (they haven't even gotten dating results yet) are all within the realm of plausibility and therefore are equally possible

e) and I never mentioned "creationism" or brought the discussion into that realm...is it your intent to divert this into that same ol'banter?

f) it is also true they already have some "reconstructions" and some artistically imaginative projections

So whats your problem? If you do not agree that's fine, so state this and tell us why...

What is your conclusion regarding Neladi (if any) and why? I have no conclusion just observing the reality and speaking of possibility...she may well be an ACTUAL (for me the first) transitional sample but first let us separate what is her and what is not and then look at that....(no status quo story attached and no creative frankenstein mix match...just let the data speak for itself)

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

It's becoming increasingly clear that there were many species of human at one time. It seems clear enough that the line through H. erectus was the one that led to us, but how many others were involved is still to be resolved.

Over time, H. erectus became more and more like H. sapiens, but even the most primitive of them had a postcranial skeleton very much like modern humans. The major differences are in the skull, but this became more modern over time, as well.

 

[Barbarian]

some erectus are probably just apes

In the sense that we are "just apes." They were bipedal, had human hands, including some detailed human anatomical features in the hand and wrist not found in Australopithecines.

some are probably actually human,

They were all actually human. That's what "Homo" means.

and of course some are frankensteins (mix and match)

That claim seems to be imaginary at best.

 

[Eugene]

.
I seen em; it's got to be true, else why would they stage a whole bunch of greatly learned above all other people to march into some cave to discover dem der bones; dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones? Though by the looks of them there was not much to their nose bones to complete the picture.

 

[brother Paul]

That claim seems to be imaginary at best.[/QUOTE]

Except I just showed that was they just did....pieces of different creatures put together into one....hence mix match

In erectus we already discussed a couple of these...original Java man (ape skull with human femur)...Leaky's Heidelbergensis (originally erectus now considered its own species)...mix matched....

 

[Barbarian]

Except I just showed that was they just did....pieces of different creatures put together into one....hence mix match

It's a good story, but without evidence...

In erectus we already discussed a couple of these...original Java man (ape skull with human femur)

That story was debunked a long time ago. No one still believes that. In fact, the "human femur" is about twice as robust as H. sapiens. It's human, just not of our particular species. And the skull is of H. erectus, very much like Turkana boy, another H. erectus individual, which creationist admit was human.

Leaky's Heidelbergensis (originally erectus now considered its own species)

By most scientists. The problem is that late H. erectus is almost impossible to distinguish from transitional humans like H. heidelbergensis.

 

[brother Paul]

Except I just showed that was they just did....pieces of different creatures put together into one....hence mix match
It's a good story, but without evidence...

Have you even read the articles? Over 1500 pieces from at least 15 individuals. The skeleton is NOT all of one individual...their evidence is THE evidence...

 

[Milk-Drops]

We have been told that with Naledi we have “discovered a new member of the human family tree” They already have a nifty name Homo naledi to make it sound semi-human. Already by selected combination of the bones of possibly 15 different individuals (some being possibly human and some being possibly ape) they claim it walked upright (mostly from two or three tiny possibly totally unrelated pieces of hip). They already have a masterfully contrived an artistic image for imprinting in presentations and texts.

I'm seeing you say "they" a lot. I'm curious by who you mean. Are you talking about the people who discovered it? The Media? Or someone else?

We see they already have frankensteined a collection of unrelated bones and arranged them (just so) to look like an individual. In fact they have already begun posting some of the allegedly accurate “reconstructions” (see Nat Geo Oct 2015)…you know, add a little plaster here and a little there and then possibly shave off what does not fit to create a “what it really looked like” deception for further articles and texts.

Other than name dropping Natural Geographic, who is doing what?

Regarding Neladi, Berger says “We were facing something that was different from anything else that had been described…”.

Yeah, I watched a few interviews with Dr. Berger because him and his team found something very interesting.

AAAS/Science reports, “The skull was globular, like a member of our genus Homo, but the brain was small and primitive. The wrist suggested this species was an adept toolmaker, but its shoulder and fingers showed it still climbed in trees, like more primitive hominins.”

But since this is admitted at this time to be a composite it is being considered by some that the wrist is human while the shoulders and some finger bones are from a different creature, possibly ape (like the skull they attached). Berger even expressed concern that the teeth found may be from more than one type of hominem (possibly human and ape?). Most of the foot fossils are amazingly like modern humans (Sapien) but there are some variances among the trove.

Who are these people that are saying that the other bones are from other creatures, and what are their relation to the research?

In fact the team suggests “that other humans, perhaps modern humans, deposited the bodies there”! Paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean of Arizona State University, states “… if they date to the last 300,000 years, then it is plausible that early modern humans killed them and stashed them in the cave as part of a ritual.” Other researchers from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Science Daily agree when theyreport, “One of the most intriguing aspects of the discovery is that the bodies appear to have been deposited in the cave intentionally. Scientists have long believed this sort of ritualized or repeated behavior was limited to humans.” I see no reason that this find should change that opinion.

Someone made a remark, but I think you are grasping at straws here. There is still a lot of research going on about this find. It seems that you have a lot of snark over something that is still being researched.

In time it is becoming apparent we keep bumping into indicators of human presence at a very early time, though we have yet to find specific skeletal remains.

Any thoughts?

I'm not exactly sure what it is you are wanting to find, or your genuine interest. Your dismissive attitude and usage of vague "they" statements make me wonder how much you really looked into this before you formed your opinion on it.

 

[brother Paul]

By most scientists. The problem is that late H. erectus is almost impossible to distinguish from transitional humans like H. heidelbergensis.

Here are some dates for just the Boxgrove bones…

Racemization = 400,000 years

Thermoluminescence = 175,000-230,000 years

Electron-spin resonance = 205,000-281,000

Aminostratigraphy with marine species = 303,000-524,000 years

The uranium series differed even from these…

So also with the Heidelberg jaw which originally was dated to 700,000 years for decades, and later after much handling and exposure was re-determined to be 350,000 years old, which to me seems to be conveniently closer to the early consensus dating for the Boxgrove find

And the Steinhem skull (judged by many to be quite Sapien) dates to about 250,000 years, and though most probably Sapien it was rejected as Sapien because the pedagogue dogma at the time was no humans before 120,000 (which we have recently moved to 195,000), while the Bodo skull dates to 600,000 years (older than them all, and since Leaky has been assigned to Heidelbergensis) and was previously classified as Erectus with Sapien qualities…

SO-o… put them all together (three different samples from three different areas and times) and add a little media spin, and a bombardment of a whole slew of articles, and viola'…we have the Heidelberg Man as presented in "The First Europeans", National Geographic, July 1997, page 108…complete with artistic fictional projections…

Frankenstien…a totally contrived composite, based on the Boxgrove find, the Heidelberg jaw, and the Bodo Ethiopian skull…all pieced together, though possibly from 100s of thousands of years apart, from different sections of the world, yet being passed off as a real, probable, ancestor.

So why lie in this fashion? Why present this contrived Frankenstein as an actually possible human ancestor? Without a doubt it is totally made up? Some of the bones are early Sapien (though rejected as such because that would not fit the accepted theory) mixed with others that are clearly early ape-kind….then declare the hodge podge is an actual being, over and over, replete with contrived artistic images….

The Boxgrove Project official website tells us “Many bones exhibit cutmarks from flint tools. These tend to be concentrated around major muscle attachments indicating the expert removal of limbs and other caracass elements. Cutmarks around the ear and gums of some individuals suggest that the tongue was removed as a prized source of protein. Marrow was also routinely extracted by the hominids using flint hammers and anvils to crack open the limb bones of large mammals so as to extract the fat rich food.”

These definite indications of probable Sapiensis swept under the proverbial rug, why? Because this is possibly from 500,000 years ago….obviously these were human beings with knowledge of anatomy, tool making, who ate with utensils and chose their diets…but those remains could have been carried there from far away by some form of rapid transport….tsunami, flood…. glaciers pushing down from the North (though Asian elephant bones and African Rhinos and fauna near the site do not tell us that story at all)….

So how come wedo not also tell the public that the Boxgrove site is just as possibly a sort of drainage pit (there are many worldwide) formed by an allocthonous process and that it is composed of creatures, fauna, and other debris from vast geophysical regions? Why keep that a secret or at least not also share it?

So it is with Heidelberg…let us not let that happen with Neladi

Paul

 

[Paloma]

Here's what the "Creationists" are saying so far( people who beleive the Bible and that believe God was capable of making fully formed people and animals to reproduce after their kind.)

Simple.


https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/10/supposed-human-ancestor-found/

 

[Milk-Drops]

By most scientists. The problem is that late H. erectus is almost impossible to distinguish from transitional humans like H. heidelbergensis.

Here are some dates for just the Boxgrove bones…

Racemization = 400,000 years

Thermoluminescence = 175,000-230,000 years

Electron-spin resonance = 205,000-281,000

Aminostratigraphy with marine species = 303,000-524,000 years

The uranium series differed even from these…

Hey man, I would love to read more about this, can you give me the sources of where you got these numbers?

So also with the Heidelberg jaw which originally was dated to 700,000 years for decades, and later after much handling and exposure was re-determined to be 350,000 years old, which to me seems to be conveniently closer to the early consensus dating for the Boxgrove find

Lets not turn this into a conspiracy, can you link us to where you found this information?

And the Steinhem skull (judged by many to be quite Sapien) dates to about 250,000 years, and though most probably Sapien it was rejected as Sapien because the pedagogue dogma at the time was no humans before 120,000 (which we have recently moved to 195,000), while the Bodo skull dates to 600,000 years (older than them all, and since Leaky has been assigned to Heidelbergensis) and was previously classified as Erectus with Sapien qualities…

Do you have a point or some sources here man?

SO-o… put them all together (three different samples from three different areas and times) and add a little media spin, and a bombardment of a whole slew of articles, and viola'…we have the Heidelberg Man as presented in "The First Europeans", National Geographic, July 1997, page 108…complete with artistic fictional projections…

And Nat Geo is a pop science magazine that wants to sell issues to people. What did the journals say?

Frankenstien…a totally contrived composite, based on the Boxgrove find, the Heidelberg jaw, and the Bodo Ethiopian skull…all pieced together, though possibly from 100s of thousands of years apart, from different sections of the world, yet being passed off as a real, probable, ancestor.

Who is doing this? Like, do you have an actual name here man?

So why lie in this fashion? Why present this contrived Frankenstein as an actually possible human ancestor? Without a doubt it is totally made up? Some of the bones are early Sapien (though rejected as such because that would not fit the accepted theory) mixed with others that are clearly early ape-kind….then declare the hodge podge is an actual being, over and over, replete with contrived artistic images….

Who did this? Who spread this lie? There are a lot of questions coming out and I haven't seen you drop an actual name yet.

The Boxgrove Project official website tells us “Many bones exhibit cutmarks from flint tools. These tend to be concentrated around major muscle attachments indicating the expert removal of limbs and other caracass elements. Cutmarks around the ear and gums of some individuals suggest that the tongue was removed as a prized source of protein. Marrow was also routinely extracted by the hominids using flint hammers and anvils to crack open the limb bones of large mammals so as to extract the fat rich food.”

These definite indications of probable Sapiensis swept under the proverbial rug, why? Because this is possibly from 500,000 years ago….obviously these were human beings with knowledge of anatomy, tool making, who ate with utensils and chose their diets…but those remains could have been carried there from far away by some form of rapid transport….tsunami, flood…. glaciers pushing down from the North (though Asian elephant bones and African Rhinos and fauna near the site do not tell us that story at all)….

Do we have any evidence that suggests that any of that happened though?

So how come wedo not also tell the public that the Boxgrove site is just as possibly a sort of drainage pit (there are many worldwide) formed by an allocthonous process and that it is composed of creatures, fauna, and other debris from vast geophysical regions? Why keep that a secret or at least not also share it?

..................What are you talking about?

So it is with Heidelberg…let us not let that happen with Neladi

Paul

So why didn't you mention any of the other Heidelberg finds, like the ones in Spain, north Africa, and Southern Europe?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Here's what the "Creationists" are saying so far( people who beleive the Bible and that believe God was capable of making fully formed people and animals to reproduce after their kind.)

Simple.


https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/10/supposed-human-ancestor-found/

My biggest problem with Ken Ham is that he has taken the position that nothing can ever contradict what he already holds to be true. If a discovery is found that conflicts with how his and the AIG team's ideals or beliefs, they will spend a lot of time just trying to bury or talk around it. They'll claim that we weren't there or that since science isn't perfect then science is wrong by the fact.

I generally don't care what people believe when it comes to origins. I only care if its relevant to conversation or if the person wants to make claims about findings or criticize a theory or method. However I find AiG to be a very poisonous site that builds itself on trying to avoid asking the hard questions and recycling very bad arguments and explanations that are either outdated, flat out wrong, or only meant to fill a void in our unknown aspects.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Corn Pop]

They should add a bit of human,ape, and bird together and make a ape like human looking angel. Add some shark teeth to make it look angry and it becomes a billion year old fallen angel ape like human.

 

[Paloma]

My biggest problem with Ken Ham is that he has taken the position that nothing can ever contradict what he already holds to be true. If a discovery is found that conflicts with how his and the AIG team's ideals or beliefs, they will spend a lot of time just trying to bury or talk around it. They'll claim that we weren't there or that since science isn't perfect then science is wrong by the fact. [/QUOTE

Evolutionsts do the exact same thing. When discoveries are found that contradict evolution, you fellows spend allot of time trying to bury it and talk around or invent wild complicated (PE) theories to explain it away. When your convinced of something, you tend to see what you what to see. We all do it, even when you don't think you are doing it. Mirrors are interesting things, no?

I generally don't care what people believe when it comes to origins. I only care if its relevant to conversation or if the person wants to make claims about findings or criticize a theory or method. However I find AiG to be a very poisonous site that builds itself on trying to avoid asking the hard questions and recycling very bad arguments and explanations that are either outdated, flat out wrong, or only meant to fill a void in our unknown aspects.

Just my 2 cents.

That is a very poisonous statement to make about AIG. How many articles have you read of theirs? Have you read the technical journal ? I subscribe. I read them all. Very technical and very fair considering. These guys are seeking truth-what ever it is. Just read a great one on origins of oil, he actually bent to your camp a little. Very fair and and unbiased as one could be imo. They ask lots of hard questions. They are Christians, so it's only natural that they will look for answers that support their assumptions-just as you do. Poisonous? No. Attempting to find models that explain what we see, from a biblical perspective, yes. There is nothing wrong with that. Bad arguments and explanations according to who, you?

Meant to fill a void of knowledge? Well Ya, what else would we be doing?

~Paloma

 

[turnorburn]

It's becoming increasingly clear that there were many species of human at one time. It seems clear enough that the line through H. erectus was the one that led to us, but how many others were involved is still to be resolved.

Over time, H. erectus became more and more like H. sapiens, but even the most primitive of them had a postcranial skeleton very much like modern humans. The major differences are in the skull, but this became more modern over time, as well.

It all started with Adam nothing more nothing less, its not increasingly clear that there were other species of humans animals yes humans no..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

tob

 

[Paloma]

Agree Tob, There is humans and all the creatures. That's it. The reason we "see" macro evolution is because of presuppositions and becasue we misinterpreted the simple common blue print God used for all the creatures. It's really not complicated.

Adam was a real man who lived in real history. Even JESUS thought so.

…3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '?…Matt 19