This is causing a of of buzz in social media:
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
New Species of Human Ancestor Is Found in a South African Cave (NY Times)
New Species of Human Relative Discovered in South African Cave (National Geographic)
Tags:
-
-
Press Release:
Scientists from CU Denver, CU Anschutz help discover new ancient ancestor
Homo naledi raises intriguing questions about our evolutionary past
-
Related Topics:
Foot Pathology in the Olduvai Hominin 8 Foot
The Foot and Ankle of Australopithecus sediba
Calcaneal spurs: Examining etiology using prehistoric skeletal remains to understand present day heel pain
Big toe's big foot holds evolutionary key
A midtarsal break in the human foot?
How important was the windlass mechanism in our evolutionary development?
Metatarsal torsion in monkeys, apes, humans and australopiths
Hominin Footprints from Early Pleistocene Deposits at Happisburgh, UK
The evolution of compliance in the human lateral mid-foot
What evolved first -- a dexterous hand or an agile foot?
Human foot not as unique as originally thought
Measurements of the Foot of Modern Humans: A Test of Morton's Foot Types
Fossil Indicates Lucy May Have Been The First Walker
Evidence for pedal arches or obligate bipedality in Hadar hominins
New foot remains from the Gran Dolina-TD6 Early Pleistocene site
Tarsal coalitions in homind fossils -
Here is the foot of one of the skeletons:
Attached Files:
-
-
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.
-
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 seems to be a problem obtaining a (radiometric) date for the specimens... well, I suppose time will tell... it usually does ;) . -
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
-
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).
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! -
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.
Rob -
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 -
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
-
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!
-
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)...
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:
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/)
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":
-
"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.
-
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: -
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.
-
: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...
-
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 -
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).
Kind regards,
Matt (I don't mind being called Matt). -
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
Bill -
Thanks Bill... Bill it is.
Kind regards,
Matt. -
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.
-
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.
Respectfully
Ian -
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,
Matt.
[This post (with quotes & my contribution) was probably too long... at 777 words :craig:] -
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.
-
-
Been away for a while & Pod. Arena thread notifications are being sent to junk mail (which could be a sign).
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)...
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! -
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
Bill -
As with any forum, there will always be posters that irk, we`re only human after all. Personally, I find the `ignore` facility liberating. -
hmmmm... :drinks
Attached Files:
-
-
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!
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. -
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]
Last edited: Nov 26, 2015 -
-
Homo naledi did not have flat foot.
Li R et al
Homo. 2019 Sep 5.
Loading...
- Similar Threads - Species Human Ancestor
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 5,550
-
- Replies:
- 6
- Views:
- 5,204
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 4,873
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 5,152
-
- Replies:
- 2
- Views:
- 6,072
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 215
-
- Replies:
- 11
- Views:
- 2,108