New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi

Sorry, I don't accept your dating methods. Lot of "adjusting" goes on to make things fit the theory.

And nor do modern humans, as you can see from the x-ray.Let's look at some more bones. On the left, a chimp, in the middle, a human, on the right, an australopithecine for good measure. Which one has the short thumb?

[citation needed]

And curiously, as I said in Message 84: " ... any denial of the ages shown is empty until you have explained the evidence in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for an old earth and the methods of dating artifacts."So until you actually show that the dating methods are actually erroneous, prone to error, or manipulated by some vast conspiracy, your comment is taken as plain denial of actual evidence to the contrary.Enjoy

So when you say they're human, you're only talking about the ones that are human. Good, good, glad we sorted that out.Now, would you please answer the frickin' question and tell us which one are in fact human. Thanks.

THE SKELETON DOES NOT HAVE A SHORT THUMB. PERIOD.

No, it doesn't. It has a long thumb. Like a modern human. H. naledi: H. sapiens: See?

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

That paper lists a number of traits that are primitive (ie more ape-like, and similar to australopiths) and traits that are derived -- modified from earlier species.This involves iirc, curved finger bones, shape inside skull, hips and feet.One of the things I find interesting is the size of the brain, and the comments regarding the conception of burial or care of the dead. There are no other animal bones in the cave (except one owl) so the best explanation is that they were deposited there by the naledi.And one of the reasons I find this interesting is (a) the reasoning ability of chimps, and (b) Homo floriensis had similar smallish brains

quote:

---

Homo floresiensis: ... Examination of the remains shows members of the species stood just 1 metre tall and had a brain no bigger than a grapefruit.

---

Doing a "google scholar" on Homo floresiensis brain size I get:

quote:

---

The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis

​

Abstract
The brain of Homo floresiensis was assessed by comparing a virtual endocast from the type specimen (LB1) with endocasts from great apes, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, a human pygmy, a human microcephalic, specimen number Sts 5 (Australopithecus africanus), and specimen number WT 17000 (Paranthropus aethiopicus). Morphometric, allometric, and shape data indicate that LB1 is not a microcephalic or pygmy. LB1's brain/body size ratio scales like that of an australopithecine, but its endocast shape resembles that of Homo erectus. LB1 has derived frontal and temporal lobes and a lunate sulcus in a derived position, which are consistent with capabilities for higher cognitive processing.

---

So we are talking the same approximate size, and what may matter more than size is whether we will see derived frontal and temporal lobes "... consistent with capabilities for higher cognitive processing."So we will need more analysis or more fossils.abeFrom the technical paper it appears that cranial volume in nalide is larger than floresiensis: This makes more information on the frontal and temporal lobe development to ascertain cognitive ability of even greater interest./abeEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : abe section

I understand all that. The hand does not have a short thumb, as clearly shown in the pictures by Dr. A despite his ridiculous attempt to pretend otherwise..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm confused by this whole spat: it seems to me that both of you are saying that the thumb of naledi is not short, as it is for chimps (by comparison, though it may be more a matter of finger metacarpal lengths than thumb bones) ...Can you cite the post where he says the thumb is short?

Have you gone completely insane? I say it has a long thumb. I have said so clearly and distinctly. I have said so in so many words. In post #97 for example, I say: "It has a long thumb." I have also produced pictures. What the fuck is the matter with you?

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.

Some kind of semantic nonsense is going on here. The skeleton shows no difference in the length of the thumb from the fingers. My own hand shows a large difference. I have a much shorter thumb relative to my fingers than the one belonging to the skeleton has. The pictures of hands Dr. A and others have been posting show various versions of thumbs that are shorter than the fingers. The skeleton does not have a thumb that is shorter than the fingers. I don't know what everybody's problem is but the skeleton does not show a human type hand because the thumb is as long as the fingers. It doesn't show any kind of hand, not ape either. But certainly not a human hand.

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.