Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

New Species of Human Ancestor Is Found in a South African Cave

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by NewsBot, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Press Release:
    Scientists from CU Denver, CU Anschutz help discover new ancient ancestor
    Homo naledi raises intriguing questions about our evolutionary past
  3. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  4. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Here is the foot of one of the skeletons:

    Attached Files:

    • foot.jpg
      File size:
      109.4 KB
  5. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa
    Lee R Berger, John Hawks, Darryl J de Ruiter, Steven E Churchill, Peter Schmid, Lucas K Delezene, Tracy L Kivell, Heather M Garvin, Scott A Williams, Jeremy M DeSilva, Matthew M Skinner, Charles M Musiba, Noel Cameron, Trenton W Holliday, William Harcourt-Smith, Rebecca R Ackermann, Markus Bastir, Barry Bogin, Debra Bolter, Juliet Brophy, Zachary D Cofran, Kimberly A Congdon, Andrew S Deane, Mana Dembo, Michelle Drapeau, Marina C Elliott, Elen M Feuerriegel, Daniel Garcia-Martinez, David J Green, Alia Gurtov, Joel D Irish, Ashley Kruger, Myra F Laird, Damiano Marchi, Marc R Meyer, Shahed Nalla, Enquye W Negash, Caley M Orr, Davorka Radovcic, Lauren Schroeder, Jill E Scott, Zachary Throckmorton, Matthew W Tocheri, Caroline VanSickle, Christopher S Walker, Pianpian Wei, Bernhard Zipfel
    Elife. 2015 Sep 10;4. doi: 10.7554/eLife.09560.
    - See more at: http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560#sthash.EhgHpys5.dpuf
  6. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hmmm... preconceived notions... can colour interpretations. Something to think about :rolleyes:

    Why the Homo Naledi Discovery May Not Be Quite What it Seems:

    - Then there is the very small brain size (claimed to be the size of a "baseball" or "orange" from reports I've read) of Homo naledi to consider in relation to the stated (behavioural) claims... i.e. claimed (assumed) deliberate (ritual) behaviour of burying the dead... which I suppose raises other questions pertaining to the correlation of behaviour & intelligence as well as intelligence & brain (skull) size etc...

    - Then there seems to be a problem obtaining a (radiometric) date for the specimens... well, I suppose time will tell... it usually does ;) .
  7. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    So what you are referring to is the lumpers and splitters debate. And this is not local to palaeo - my daughter - head of mycology at SA has the same issues in speciations, or non-speciations. However, whether, or whether not, this is a new species (and do not forget that the lead author was a PhD student with me, and his end author was a PhD student of mine), none of the obstructive arguments produced do anything at all to lessen the evolutionary process. I note that when ever I write stuff like this, you come back and challenge - is that because it it (in your eyes (wrongly) Darwinian? Whenever I write, sometimes at the ask of the moderator, about epigenetics and its role in modern evolutionary theory you say nothing. Is it perhaps that one is unable to recognise it? Rob
  8. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    What's your problem now Rob... still whinging are we? Do you have a problem with my last post... if so, specifically state it! Meaning, articulate yourself clearly & formulate a constructive response - sticking to the subject matter. Was there something wrong with my queries... is critical thinking allowed on this topic? Or is the subject matter so shallow, fragile & sensitive to tolerate such objective assessment/inquiry (or are they just your acquired traits coming through)?

    The fact is Rob; nothing I said in my previous post should cause any concern within the realm of objective science... unless there are underlying emotions involved... or egos at stake (which probably explains your academic credential ramblings). Yea, I'm aware of Dr Berger... remember, we recently discussed him in our last encounter (who has more than his fair share of critics within the paleoanthropology world & who is familiar with controversy i.e. exaggerated & unfounded claims). As for the other views cited in my last post i.e. the assessment from Professor Jeffrey Schwartz... they sound quite reasonable to me... yet if you have a problem with it - clearly state so (don't just whinge because such views challenge the interpretations of your fossil buddies).

    Crikey! Speaking of "obstructive arguments" Rob (except your input aren't valid arguments)... obstructive whinging is more to the point... what's the above diatribe about? Can you please articulate yourself clearly & coherently. You just don't make any sense... & it's difficult as it is trying to get constructive/educated dialogue from you at the best of times...

    So you're referring to something pertaining to the "evolution process"... "Darwinian"? Well, whenever such dialogue has taken place & I've discussed the (bankrupt) mechanisms thereof, I get nothing valid/constructive from you... only the likes of whinges, ad hominem attacks &/or straw man arguments.

    As for the "epigenetics" reference??? Once again I'm puzzled as to your ambiguous point. As far as I know, I am the one who has brought this topic up (between us)... you then made a false claim... I explained why it was false & then discussed evidence pertaining to which best fits the empirical science/data. I believe the dialogue took place in this thread... http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=102572. Whoops, sorry... that's right; that thread was deleted wasn't it (because you shot yourself in the foot)!

    Now, if you don't have anything productive to add to the above or to the thread's subject matter i.e. Homo naledi... whinge some place else! I'm busy!
  9. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I will leave you to your non-science (AKA) known as nonsense - check out the words); I, together with my colleagues Berger and Zipfel (and others) will get on with science.

  10. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Well, nothing again Rob in the way of logic, reason, evidence & that word you misrepresent - "science". Good luck to you & your colleagues with your 'science'... the fickle & fragile field of paleoanthropology needs it! Your input/conduct Rob on such related topics on this forum also proves it via the likes of whinges, ad hominem attacks & straw man arguments... acting like a narcissistic pre-schooler who doesn't want anybody else (with a differing view/reasoning) playing in their sandpit.

    As Einstein said "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them". As stated before - preconceived notions... can colour interpretations (of the empirical science/data)... particularly detrimental when one's perception of reality is flawed/ignorant... biased towards one's personal world view...

    Ironic considering Homo naledi was found in a cave. Now back to the thread's subject matter - I believe it was... Homo naledi.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  11. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    The foot of Homo naledi
    W. E. H. Harcourt-Smith, Z. Throckmorton, K. A. Congdon, B. Zipfel, A. S. Deane, M. S. M. Drapeau, S. E. Churchill, L. R. Berger & J. M. DeSilva
    Nature Communications 6, Article number: 8432 doi:10.1038/ncomms9432
  12. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Will(iam) Harcourt Smith did his PhD at University College London - is actually from Sussex. We overlapped in London in 2001 while working on little foot. For those interested in trivia, his brother is a Pop singer and his Great Aunt was Elizabeth David!
  13. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Those interested in this topic should know that no known official date has yet (at time of this post) been ascribed to those 1550 odd bones that were discovered back in 2013 which have been named "Homo naledi" (due to the nature & environment the bones were found in). Wanting to find out on the latest on "H. naledi's" potential age assignment, I came across this page - Homo naledi: determining the age of fossils is not an exact science. (http://theconversation.com/homo-naledi-determining-the-age-of-fossils-is-not-an-exact-science-47840)

    The author is Dr John Hawks; Paleoanthropologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison... who was one of the leaders on the team extracting the "H. Naledi" bones from the Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star Cave system in South Africa.

    The article discusses how difficult assigning an age to such bones under those conditions (no testable sediment/stratigraphy & no other animal/fossil remains of "known age" around the bones)... & the fickle nature assigning ages to any fossils regardless of surrounding material (i.e. use of radiometric dating techniques)...
    That said, there has been a preferred age assigned to the H. naledi fossils, that being 2 to 2.5 million years. This date is likely preferred as it best fits the presupposition (pre-assumed) evolutionary model that H. naledi discoverers want to promote - interpretation by which they prefer H. naledi could potentially sit in relation to the primate family tree (i.e. sitting somewhere between the genus of the ape-like Australopithecine & the genus of the human-like Homo).

    This reminds me of the Donald Johanson case where he was trying to date the Australopithecine "Lucy"; having trouble finding a suitable date to match his pre-assumed (primate/hominid history) age for the fossil; another researcher picking up on the dilemma published an article title... "The Trouble With Dating Older Women".

    H. naledi's mosaic of (conflicting) traits (i.e. small brain size, rib cage, shoulder, aspects of hands i.e. long curved fingers, hip, thighbone being primitive in nature) makes it difficult for researchers to fit it onto the primate tree (which is telling in itself). Even the (unique) foot traits (one of the key aspects pointing towards its own species within genus Homo claim) have raised questions, thus not conclusive.

    Yes, it is an intriguing fossil find for many reasons (i.e. mixture of "recent" & "primitive" traits, location of bones, number of bones etc...). I read the following National Geographic article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/) a while ago where it stated that it was "clear" that "someone" had already visited the cave:

    Yet there are other aspects we should exercise more objective critique (caution) on in regard to H. naledi's assumed new species within genus Homo status... & the associated reasoning behind such claims i.e. assumed burying/isolating the dead; mosaic of traits; mirroring/conflicting traits (in relation to earlier genus Australopithecus)...

    There just isn't the evidence that H. naledi buried/isolated the dead (even the researchers admit this); it is rumoured that peer reviewers of Nature said the same thing which is why they rejected the paper(s). Also there are the issues of HOW they could get the body to that isolated chamber. Being that reports are saying that there is no direct access to the Dinaledi chamber (of the cave system) are we being directed to believe that this H. naledi creature would drag a corpse of one of its kind to that remote chamber? Today's experienced cavers find access to the chamber rather challenging let alone dragging a body with them in the dark (i.e. without torches) & without ropes. As it was, Lee Berger had to advertise on social media for "skinny individuals" with caving experience & "willing to work in cramped quarters" to help with the excavation. As it turned out, all were young women... of which in what seems to be habitual Berger hype/grandstanding he called these excavators his "underground astronauts".

    But let's take a look (diagram below) at what these "underground astronauts" & of course H. naledi (dragging a dead body mind you) had to travel through to get to the Dinaledi chamber... traversing the likes of "superman's crawl" (named because you usually have to crawl on your stomach with one arm ahead of you & one arm by your side) as well as the "Dragon's Back" to get to the chamber...


    To be honest, I personally have had no experience in dragging a dead body through a long dark cave, navigating various obstacles, small/tight passageways & steep crevasses... but despite lacking that (objective) experience I'm comfortably sceptical of such claims attributed to some ancient primate (without caving gear) achieving such a task.

    Anyway... the above scenario & various accompanying views are interesting to say the least but best not used to make scientific related claims i.e. high intelligence, human-like social behaviour patterns (despite its small orange size brain)... & thus subsequent human ancestor claims.

    In regard to the anatomical mosaic nature of the fossils & their "mirroring" characteristics, Berger makes the following statement in New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/articl...inct-human-found-in-cave-may-rewrite-history/)

    This logically makes for a strange evolutionary transitional tale i.e. A. sediba & H. naledi can't logically be ancestors because they have a mixture of traits of which some of Homo naledi's traits are in evolutionary reversal to A. sediba's traits (i.e. their pelvis morphology e.g. sediba's pelvis more Homo, whilst naledi's is more Australopithecine)... yet it is assumed that the A. sediba is the precursor to Homo naledi.

    I suppose with the above issues in mind one wouldn't be surprised to find that other prominent Paleoanthropologists have questioned whether all these bones are from the one species... & whether or not there is a new species (i.e. views of Professor Jeffrey Schwartz of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). However, Berger then brings up the issues of "sexual dimorphism" to explain some of the differences (i.e. with the differing skulls).

    Any objective assessor of the above issues & subsequent "H. naledi" claims would say that there is controversy surrounding the topic. We/all (i.e. researchers, media, lay people etc...) need to take a cautious approach (as good science should) to such finds (& peer views) & not allow bias & prejudice (world views) to sway our interpretation & understanding of such finds... & in such fields such as Paleoanthropology.

    Speaking of which, the following views relating to this issue (i.e. bias & prejudice on interpreting data) are from the famous Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson who is known for discovering the fossil of the australopithecine known as "Lucy":

    He went on to admit:

    A very valid & honest account of someone who has had long history & experience in the field & on associated topics.
  14. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    "Yawn". And your point is? From where I am sitting, I tend to listen to opinions on palaeolanthropology from those with academic qualifications in that area. Unless you can enlighten me otherwise, I understand that you do not.
  15. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    It doesn't surprise me that you don't get the point Kidd. My previous post was an objective assessment pertaining to the issues surrounding the fossil find (& the claims made). Your evident history reveals your inability to not only exercise such but to tolerate such... no doubt in part pertaining to your revealed narrow-mindedness & biasness in the above post.

    Your whinges bore me, your obstructionist tactics bore me - you bore me... so a big "yawn" from me also! :morning:
  16. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Fossil find(s) Objective? I do not think so. My evident history? I do not think so. You know perfectly well where I am coming from - science. Tell you what? I could do with a few other persons from this list saying something. If they do not, I am going to walk away.
  17. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    :wacko: You are deluded Kidd. What have I done? I wrote about a topic (of which I'm interested in), a topic posted on this Podiatry forum (not a Paleoanthropology forum)... for the interest of members of this Podiatry forum. I have provided rather detailed material pertaining to the subject matter of this thread (some of which has not been discussed)... discussing the nature of the discovery & the various claims made. That's it. You choose to take offence & have yet another gripe... of which you have no grounds to do so! The above evidence is there for all to see - what crime have I committed? This is supposed to be a science/medical forum... not a whinging forum!

    As stated previously on this thread as a result of similar conduct from you...

  18. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Rob, or Dr Kidd (or Mr Kidd if desired) but surely never 'Kidd' on PodArena, asks for comments from others. Well, I don't, much to my regret, have qualifications in palaeolanthropology but I am an interested, and hopefully intelligent observer.

    In my view Harcourt-Smith et al, Hawks etc. are true scientists admitting to 'we may possibly be inaccurate but the evidence points in such and such a direction; as we research further we can modify our findings'. This is diametrically opposed to the creationist viewpoint which is 'we are right'. It is perfectly reasonable to ask pertinent questions - the difficulty of moving bodies to the cave had occurred to me. However, with no knowledge at all I had arrived at a partial answer - Naledi was a good deal smaller (and presumably thinner) than the smallest and slimmest of the ladies who retrieved the bones. There may be more scholarly answers relating to the geology of the area etc. but I am willing to wait for those with a great deal more expertise than me to offer the answer(s). Whatever these might be, and however tenuous, I am perfectly willing to accept that they have no relation to superstition. Unless, of course, someone knows better!

    Kind regards

    Bill Liggins
  19. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Bill, Liggins or Mr Liggins. I'm not too sure what's it like in England, but in Australia it is quite common (& accepted) to call people by their surname (I'll call you Mr Liggins though). Now with that said, I'll admit that on (what should be) a professional forum such as this it is nicer & more respectful to call another member by either their first name (as I have with Mr Kidd up until a couple of days ago) or by their appropriate salutation (i.e. Mr, Dr, Prof. etc...; get's a bit more difficult with females). But that's the thing Mr Liggins (if you're happy with that salutation)... niceties & respect... both of which have evidently been lacking within Mr Kidd's replies to me (on this thread alone). I have actually asked Mr Kidd what he would prefer I call him - I got no reply (just ask if you want the link to that post). I asked him that question because I referred to one of his mentors as Dr... when he was a Professor. The fact of the matter is, many call such who hold Professorships as Dr... whether it be in person, in the media or in papers... such as in an article I cited earlier in this thread pertaining to the following: "Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz PhD, is professor of biological anthropology". Now I thought that was a picky gripe from Mr Kidd, however I accepted (& respected) that advice & have cited Prof. Charles Oxnard accordingly ever since... subsequently I asked for Mr Kidd's preferred salutation - no reply.

    You say you have an interest in Paleoanthropology... I've noticed such in other threads... I do also. However, does that mean we can't have an opinion on such topics (& associated issues) & express them when such threads are posted on this Podiatry forum by i.e. 'NewsBot' (as well as associated posts)? I have replied to such because I have a sincere interest in the area - yes, I don't have a degree in Paleoanthropology... but such lack of formal qualifications on the various topics posted on this forum shouldn't (& doesn't) stop interested individuals posting opinions on such. If it did, this forum would be a rather quiet place. The fact is there was nothing in my post at #13 (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=368627&postcount=13) that should have caused Mr kidd to respond the way he did (of which there is a history of). Every link & quote was related to the topic either via a science related article citing material from those directly involved with the H. naledi excavation &/or views of Paleoanthropologists themselves... I just expanded on such views... with objective reasoning/logic... & an element of scepticism (attributes of which science should be assessed under).

    Why did you reference your assumptions on a Creationist viewpoint Mr Liggins? Firstly, it is a generalisation... a generalisation that can also be (incorrectly) made towards those of other persuasions i.e. some have such an arrogant "we are right" mindset & some don't. Secondly, I hope you are not linking me to such... I am not a Creationist! Yes, I question evolution & Neo-Darwinism but I do not ascribe to the Creationist view/stand. This post is getting long enough (as usual) thus in short, a Creationist is one who believes that the case for 'Origins' & the subsequent development of life is in accordance to the Genesis account (from the Bible) i.e. planet, biosphere, lifeforms created in 6 days (by God/Father, Son/Jesus & Holy Spirit) with Adam & Eve being the first human parents. I am Agnostic & not sure of the ultimate causation (as do evolutionists/materialists) but seriously question the development of lifeforms from that point onwards (i.e. the origin & acquisition of required masses of information to quantify the masses of lifeforms & diversity thereof... & the likes of naturalist mechanisms such as natural selection & mutations does not do it). This following post explains my position a bit further (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=365500&postcount=19)

    I'm willing to wait also... but with the evidence at hand (as outline in post #13) it would have been a very difficult task... dragging a body in the dark (unless they carried fire with them) & with no climbing equipment (i.e. ropes)... through a long dark cave system, navigating various obstacles, small/tight passageways & steep crevasses. It is assumed that the H. naledi males stood around 150cm (about 5ft.) tall... of which fall into the range of small bodied humans... thus I would not personally describe as "a good deal smaller" than the women chosen for the excavation.

    Why cite "superstition" Mr Liggins... the thread/posts hasn't cited such, hasn't alluded to such & hasn't warranted such.

    Kind regards,
    Matt (I don't mind being called Matt).
  20. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hi Matt

    Feel free to call me Bill. In the UK it is perfectly acceptable to call a (usually male) friend by their surname, but only if you are good friends. Really good friends use first names and really, really good friends use nicknames.

    All the best

  21. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Bill... Bill it is.

    Kind regards,
  22. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    No Matt, no it is not. It is not acceptable to call one by their surname. It never has, it never will. The only time it has, was the slave era - lets not go there. Put simply, I cannot work out where you are coming from, though Bill, I can from you.
  23. Ian Reilly

    Ian Reilly Active Member

    Hi Matt

    I do kinda love your posts but perhaps tooooo much detail and quotes… so if I take a day’s annual leave I would have time to read through. ☺

    Ditto with Rob – I was known as “Reilly” at school and in the Army and hated it.

    And in this I must admit a bias: I’m a fan (and old friend) of Rob and big believer in paleo-anthropology. I couldn't be further away from creationism if you paid me. I’ve discussed Robs work with him and read around the subject. You are right, of course, to question everything. That's what’s science is. But you might get a different response from a very learned gentleman if you considered your phraseology.


  24. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Rob (is that OK?... as I have called you up till your response to my post at #13). Thank you for your subjective thoughts on the issue of referring to you by your surname. As stated (in some detail - probably a wee bit too much for some) in post #19, such practice is common... i.e. in the sporting world e.g. Coe & Ovett, Gebrselassie & Tergatt (in athletics); Slater & Medina (in surfing)... & of course in cricket, baseball & the various football codes; as well as the entertainment industry (Seinfeld, Liberace) etc... I suppose it is done because it provides more of an (individual) identity than a first name does. Anyway Rob, I gave you my reason (quite clearly in post #19) i.e. the nature of your response(s) to me, not giving me a reply to your preferred salutation when I asked. Yet... as I said...

    Ummm - no it wasn't. But yea... "let's not go there".

    In short... I cannot work out the nature of the above view. I have tried to be as clear as possibly (within this potential ambiguous medium of writing)... to the point where my posts are too long (yes, I admit)... but done so to reduce the chance of misinterpretation (which evidently doesn't work at times)... & because I have many views to express (maybe I shouldn't)... which brings us to Ian's (Mr Reilly's) post...

    Thank you Ian. Yes I know some of my posts are too long (with too much detail & quotes)... sometimes when I'm interested in something I get carried away. I do make a conscious effort to keep them short (as I am with this post)... evidently doesn't always work :eek: . On the other hand, there are times when I'm short on time I can't read other members long posts & yes, I find it frustrating at the time (then I refer back to my long contributions :rolleyes:).

    Yes, it is common practice & yes, some people hate it. I am a twin... my brother was known as "Thommo" (our surname is Thomas)... & subsequently (being twins) I wasn't called "Thommo", I was known as "Matt" (neither of us minded).

    Ian... I have stated (various times in the past) quite clearly & in some detail (too much for some) - I am not a Creationist. How many times & how much more detail do I need to put down to get through (I briefly outlined the Creationist view & my view in post #19). Maybe this is (in part) the (subconscious) reason why I post the way I do (to avoid ambiguity/misinterpretation). Yes, I question evolution/Neo-Darwinism strongly (& for good reason)... but you (& others) need to understand that all that do so are not & should not be placed within the narrow confines of the Creationist box. Now, I can continue a whole lot more on this issue but to do so would then violate the issues already discussed i.e. the tolerance & time pertaining to reading long posts (besides, I don't have the time myself).

    Now... maybe we should now get back to the subject matter of this thread i.e. H. naledi... of which I do have more (interesting) thoughts on (yet probably won't due to time constraints & a change of priorities).

    Kind regards,

    [This post (with quotes & my contribution) was probably too long... at 777 words :craig:]
  25. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    This thread is not about an anti-creationist thing. However, be quite clear, So-Called intelligent design is only Creationism by another name. This site is about science - and all posts based in science are to be lauded. Those based in non-science - well, let us leave the value judgements of those to the readers.
  26. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

  27. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Been away for a while & Pod. Arena thread notifications are being sent to junk mail (which could be a sign).

    Are you still intent on hijacking this thread with your irrational unfounded nonsense?!

    As highlighted twice before so far - this thread is on H. naledi... my contributions on this subject matter (post # 6 & 13) have discussed the issues involved. Notice once again you have not highlighted anything within the two posts (# 6 & 13) of my contributions on the subject matter of this thread... instead only whinging, diversion & straw man tactics. These traits alone should inform any objective assessor a thing or two on the strength of your reasoning... & purpose here.

    Unfortunately, what ensued from those posts has been unfounded whinging from yourself & nothing pertaining to your use of the word "science" & relevant material on the subject matter (H. naledi). It was another who (erroneously) made reference to "Creationism" (of which I disagreed with its use). However, I've attempted numerous times developing a civil dialogue with you on the merits of evolution but has never got far - you have either failed with the reasoning you gave or just refused to provide any response on the subject matter... it is here you habitually resort to the likes of ad hominem attacks of some sort in an attempt to denigrate my character (i.e. like this thread of yours: "I seriously hope that this is not "our" Ben Hurr") or come out with the obstructionist tactics like is clearly seen in this thread alone (yes for all to see... for those exercising objective assessment).

    You clearly don't like those who "question evolution" (as noted in your signature) which likely would explain your irrational, unfounded & bias responses to me... as well as purposely twisting things around despite I clearly articulating the differences between that of a Intelligent Design & Creationist perspective. I have questioned your level of comprehension in the past & your inability to note the above difference is just another example of such (no doubt mixed with wilful ignorance & biasness). Once again, Intelligent Design is primarily the study of patterns (observable evidence) in nature that bear the hallmarks of intelligent causality (i.e. information coding & structure within DNA) rather than unguided natural processors (i.e. mutations, gene duplication etc...); Creationism is primarily of a religious perspective in an attempt to interpret the world in view of a religious text such as the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2.

    Yes, this site is "about science" (as I have stated numerous times) as well as this thread... of which you have provided no value to within this context. Yet you continually make references to your own connections with academia or those you know within certain areas of academia i.e. paleoanthropology (most of which is out of context within the various threads)... of which is also seen in this thread (raising questions you may have a security complex on the issue).

    The above two points can be supported based via your signature alone (let alone the history)...
    Based on the above observations, your evident history, hijacking conduct in other threads as well as this one; your conduct is of more resembling that of a troll than any sort of academic on this (subject matter) thread.

    All the while there is evidence of underlying intelligence/design I cannot close the door on this perspective... particularly when the evolution/naturalism perspective is becoming increasingly bankrupt. This is why (in part) I will continue to be interested on topics of this nature... seek the best explanations based on the empirical data, question/critique those of unfounded (potentially bias) reasoning... & continually defend my right to do so against your ("non-science") puerile & petty responses!
  28. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Do I need this crap? Perhaps other readers would care to comment. I am about a finger nail's breadth from pulling the plug on this site. I do not practice, I am not even registered. However, since arriving in Australian in 1990, my first line manager at the time said to me - make them think. I have done my best to do exactly that. Mathew - goodbye
  29. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Well do you? You are the one digging your hole & continually shooting yourself in the foot!

    It's really quite simple - If you are going to criticize my input then do so directly pertaining to the post/material in question you have issue with i.e. use logic/reason coherently articulated based around the science relating to the material/topic (i.e. H. naledi, paleontology etc...). Don't whine & carry on with the likes of the previously mentioned traits (i.e. ad hominem attacks, diversion/obstructionist tactics etc...). In other words - just stick to the damn topic & stop hijacking it with the above rubbish.

    You have the problem, you created the above environment - you deal with it! Stop asking others to get involved in your mess. Once again it shows you are unable to defend your position... whilst you have the audacity to criticize mine (without having reason or showing reason in doing so).

    You may say (think) such... "make them think"... yet, is it only in accordance to your (world) view? I have applied objective thinking to the data/evidence pertaining to this subject matter... your subsequent conduct have contradicted the above. Along with the above Socrates related method i.e. "I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think"... there is another way of looking at this...

  30. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Well that is it - I have pulled the pin on Pod arena. I haven't been a practising podiatrist since 1979 - though a teacher of many until 1999. Bluntly, I do not need this crap in my life. I have tried - very hard - to push the barrow of science. I get a crock of **** and, put simply, do not seem to get support. Bye
  31. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    I very much regret your decision Rob - however much I might empathise. I have found your postings interesting and instructive and to the best of my knowledge you are the most advanced practitioner in the area of human foot evolution posting on this site. I hope that you will review your decision in due course.

    All the best

  32. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Ditto. You would be missed.

    As with any forum, there will always be posters that irk, we`re only human after all. Personally, I find the `ignore` facility liberating.
  33. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    hmmmm... :drinks

    Attached Files:

  34. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Posting a lame meme like that Mr Fowler only makes you look like an idiot. Putting aside the irrational content, the nature of the source should have raised a red flag ("SciencePorn")! I've heard such rubbish in the past from people who evidently can't think rationally &/or can't think for themselves. Evolution has nothing to do with the contents of that list i.e. the science required to make/engineer "computers & the internet, T.V, smart phones, medicine, aeroplanes, cars, electricity, toilets & toilet paper" etc... The type of science used to make/engineer the above (let's leave "toilet paper" out of it hey) is empirical/experimental science - laws of science (chemistry & physics). Evolution is not of that variety, it is more related to historical type science (interpreting the data based on historical assumptions). Scientists who are involved within the fields that list entails do not use evolution for innovation/guidance within those fields... most really couldn't give a @#$% about evolution!

    How ironic, you are the one dishing out the "crap" whilst at the same time not providing any justification (& reason) for doing so. I have submitted 11 posts (before this post) on this thread - 2 of which have been of legitimate interest & pertaining to the subject matter of this thread (H. naledi). These 2 posts have referenced primarily from Paleoanthropologists working directly with the H. naledi case or from those prominent within the field... where I have further discussed their views & the issues surrounding them. The other 9 posts have been rebutting your rubbish! You Mr Kidd have submitted 9 posts - all of which (except possibly post # 12 which is more a trivia view) have been off the subject matter via the nature of your petty, juvenile, irrational snipes... views of which have not addressed anything within my two posts... nothing in the form of science (a term you misrepresent & abuse)... nothing in the form of constructive criticism... nothing pertaining to the field/area you are supposedly versed in - just bias obstructionist petty conduct; evidently it would seem because you can't tolerate my input - period... as there is nothing within those two posts which would/should cause you to behave the way you have. Behaviour you chose to exhibit (so don't blame me)... decisions you have chosen to make (so don't blame me). But that's the issue here... you don't take responsibility for your behaviour & decisions (as well as not provide evidence for your position)... & subsequently have the nerve to blame me for such choices you have made... & in doing so attempt to draw upon the victim/emotion card in the hope to incite some support from others. Well that is just plain lame... conduct of which violates the very essence of science & I would think this medicine/science based forum where critical thinking, constructive criticism, objective reasoning & alternative views should be not only tolerated but encouraged... as I have noticed on other threads (i.e. biomechanics/pathology/clinical related - well maybe not always within biomechanics) - yet evidently not allowed on this thread & this subject matter... as dictated by Mr Kidd.

    Now there have been 33 responses to this thread... out of those, only 10 are on topic discussing the subject matter... 23 are off topic - as a result of dealing with the above damn rubbish! Now for the 3rd or 4th time - stick to the subject matter - that being legitimate posts pertaining to the events surrounding H. naledi.
  35. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Alternate view from Berkeley paleoanthropologist Professor Tim White (albeit, I think I have cited a view of his before). Now, it's not uncommon for palaeontologists to be at loggerheads with each other on views/interpretations & hierarchy of palaeo finds (particularly within palaeoanthropology) for various reasons... including egocentric (yes, "to err is human"). Thus (with transparency required) the following highlights Prof. White's 'camp' (so to speak)... [yet based on the history of this thread I'm sure one or two here would be agasp at the poor state of appropriate salutations present within the following quote]

    Bones of Contention: Why Cal Paleo Expert is So Skeptical That Homo Naledi Is New Species:

    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  36. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

  37. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Homo naledi did not have flat foot.
    Li R et al
    Homo. 2019 Sep 5.

Share This Page