New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi

I originally initiated this thread just to post some recent news. Discussions aren't usually held in the Creation/Evolution In The News forum, but now that a discussion is taking place this thread should probably be moved to the Biological Evolution forum, even though it hasn't gone through the normal vetting process over at Proposed New Topics. If no one posts any objections over the next 24 hours then I'll go ahead and move this thread over to Biological Evolution.

Hi Faith,I'm posting this as Admin, but this is strictly informational for now.In case it helps to explain it a different way, while species can be a difficult concept if the focus is all of life, in these discussions we're usually just talking about sexual species like reptiles and mammals. For these the definition of species is pretty simple: if two populations cannot interbreed, they're different species. So when one subpopulation of a species evolves to the point where it cannot interbreed with another subpopulation of the same species, then it is *by definition* a different species.You believe that when two subpopulations can no longer interbreed that they are still the same species, but that is *by definition* a contradiction. Unless you redefine the word species. Which you can't do. Because it already has a definition.If no one objects then I will be moving this thread to the Biological Evolution forum tomorrow. I will be taking over moderator duties and will request that the Forum Guidelines be followed. The main focus of the thread will be on the topic and not on redefining words that already have time-honored definitions.

Thread copied here from the New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo nalediHomo[/i] Discovered: Homo naledi thread in the Creation/Evolution In The News forum.

As I mentioned earlier, I'll be moderating this thread.This thread did not pass through the normal vetting process in Proposed New Topics, and so no actual focus of discussion was defined, but discussion has defined a topic, which is how is Homo naledi evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists believe that Homo naledi is yet more evidence for a rich and detailed human bush of evolution. They aren't able to tell which are direct ancestors and which are cousins, but to evolutionists they are clearly related and represent change over time.Creationists believe that Homo naledi is either human or just a species of ape, but not part of any evidence of gradual change over time of species of apes that evolved into the species we see today. Creationists believe that species can experience considerable change and still remain the same species, but that a species cannot become a new species. Therefore the fossil evidence is just a catalog of species that became extinct, with the exception of those that still exist.Humans are of course a species of ape, but let us not get too picky about terminology. It is usually clear from context when people are using "ape" to refer to all apes including humans, and when to refer to all apes except humans. When it's not clear, just ask.

Hi Faith,Just to clarify further, Dr Adequate's top image in Message 97 shows a reconstruction of the bones of a H. naledi hand into the way they actually fit together in life. They are the bones from a single individual that were discovered in articulation. The image is of a single hand, front and rear.The image of all the bones on the table is just to show all the bones recovered from the cave. The bones of the skeleton in the center are not from a single individual, and they're only in the approximately correct position and are not an attempt at a reconstruction.See the original paper for the details I just related and more: Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa

You've forgotten your own words. In Message 83 you said: While Dr Adequate was trying to present images showing you they both have long thumbs, you seem to have forgotten your erroneous assertion that humans have short thumbs that Dr Adequate was trying to correct.Time to move on.

Hi Faith,You have to understand how the paleontologists conducted the dig and the subsequent research. First they collected all the bones from the cave that they could during the dig portion. They placed all the bones they'd found on a table, arranging some into their approximate correct position to form a skeleton, and took a picture, this one: You cannot imply anything about thumb length from the above image.They then spent months assembling the bones into 15 skeletons, including this articulated hand: This is the image that shows the true length of the thumb.Faith, if it takes this many posts to convince you of simple obvious facts (and who knows, maybe you're still not convinced), this discussion hasn't a chance. It's fine to question everything, but make sure your own position is solid first. Links have been provided to articles and to the original paper. Read them. Understand them.

In the past you have often declared that you're leaving a thread, which usually greatly inhibits responses to your last comments since you've led people to believe you won't be replying. And then you're back the next day.Because of this repeated behavior on your part I began responding to your threats to leave by letting you know that if you really left then I wouldn't allow you to return later. I know you feel certain today that you really want to leave, but consider how often you've changed your mind about leaving in the past. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count.So do you really want to leave? If you want to reconsider then let me know within a day, otherwise I won't be allowing you to return to this thread.This is the last clarification about threats to leave that you'll receive from me. Any future threats by you to leave a thread will be your last in that thread.

And thank you!