New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi

That's not true. The exact details of the various bones are sometimes argued over for decades. Check out some issues of American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Here is a link to the table of contents of the current issue:Just a moment...I have seen and studied casts of many of the important and some of the not-to-important finds prior to about 1980, the period when I studied fossil man in graduate school. That was an important part of our training.So, for you to claim that the actual facts about the bones don't matter--once again you are entirely wrong. (Don't you ever tire of being wrong?) You won't find those casts at Wal-Mart, as they are expensive to make because they have to be extremely accurate. There's no point in casts that aren't accurate.Here's a link to one of the better sources:pennfossilcasting.com - pennfossilcasting Resources and Information.But you complain about not seeing the actual evidence? It is there if you seek it out. You don't really expect folks to bring it to your door, do you?(Not that you would accept it they did...)

Who told you that?And how do you know just how many bones, or how many of any particular bones, are needed to make some judgements regarding the nature of the individual?Are you listening to creationists or following creationist websites?It certainly doesn't seem like you have followed the scientific literature regarding Lucy and other finds of the same general age.How about looking up a few of the real scientific studies regarding Lucy and her kin and see what they say? This will definitely involve studying scientific journals, but any good university library should have a lot of those, or maybe they'll have on-line subscriptions to most of those them. At any rate, any good university library will have enough material on hand to get you started.But you won't to that, will you? You'll just continue to make unfounded statements based on beliefs that you are afraid to examine in much detail for fear of finding them wanting.But that's OK. You help make this site entertaining. It would be a lot less interesting for a lot of us if you actually looked at and realized the validity of the evidence we keep showing you.

It is not the size that matters, it is the shape of the various bones. Shape differences are often determined by measurements and multivariate statistics. I did some of that in grad school--I was able to find similarities and differences among groups while including both males and females in my sample! That shows that size and sex-related differences can be factored out in favor of other morphological differences.And you really should stop opining on osteology and paleontology as it is very clear you don't have a clue. Why continue to make yourself look foolish, and make your cause look weak and incompetent?Edit to add: I have probably analyzed upwards of a thousand skeletons, and regularly help the local County Coroners on bone cases.Edited by Coyote, : Addition

To you, perhaps.To someone who has some training in osteology--no.Don't you think we really study these things, and really know something about what we're doing? Are you so clueless that you really think we're making this all up?Just read some scientific journals, such as American Journal of Physical Anthropology and look at the level of detail in the analyses.And perhaps learn something before you shoot off your mouth.In science credibility is very important--those who are repeatedly wrong are scorned. Apparently that's not the case with apologetics...

The posts RAZD has made show that there is a lot of very detailed information available on fossil discoveries for those who want to seek it out. And what he has posted is just the tip of the iceberg--there will be discussion of these bones in the literature and professional conferences for decades.Obviously this information is not being hidden from creationists as was claimed upthread--rather it is being ignored by them as it doesn't coincide with their a priori beliefs. And what they don't ignore they misrepresent and obfuscate.There is absolutely no reason to take seriously anything a creationist says on matters scientific. Their methods are the exact opposite of science as their focus is belief and scripture rather than evidence. Indeed, they appreciate evidence about as much as vampires are reported to appreciate garlic!We have seen living proof of the creationist approach on these very threads.Again, there is absolutely no reason to take seriously anything a creationist says on matters scientific.