Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Human Evolution
Quote | Reply
Just in case anyone gives a shit.

Pretty cool news if it pans out. Seems like we may have come a lot closer to having an "intermediary" bipedal hominid around than previously thought (ignoring the "hobbits" in S.E. Asia). It would have been so interesting to see something that was behaviorally between a great ape and human.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2128834-homo-naledi-is-only-250000-years-old-heres-why-that-matters/
Last edited by: ThisIsIt: Apr 25, 17 13:14
Quote Reply
Re: Human Evolution [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
Just in case anyone gives a shit.

Pretty cool news if it pans out. Seems like we may have come a lot closer to having an "intermediary" bipedal hominid around than previously thought (ignoring the "hobbits" in S.E. Asia). It would have been so interesting to see something that was behaviorally between a great ape and human.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2128834-homo-naledi-is-only-250000-years-old-heres-why-that-matters/

Be careful with this. We actually have people in the LR that believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old and the Flintstones was a documentary.
Quote Reply
Re: Human Evolution [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i think one of the threads running through the recent work on this is that the old story of a straight line of human 'descent' is branching way off like a wonky tree.

the naledi findings are intriguing. on the other end is what we're starting to learn about homo denisova; combine that with the hobbit and the neanderthals and suddenly it looks like darwin has tried a handful of different ways of "being human." fascinating times, for sure, and as the tech gets better we're able to do more and more stuff with these remains.

-mike

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: Human Evolution [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:
i think one of the threads running through the recent work on this is that the old story of a straight line of human 'descent' is branching way off like a wonky tree.

the naledi findings are intriguing. on the other end is what we're starting to learn about homo denisova; combine that with the hobbit and the neanderthals and suddenly it looks like darwin has tried a handful of different ways of "being human." fascinating times, for sure, and as the tech gets better we're able to do more and more stuff with these remains.

-mike

Yes seems like there was a lot of divergence going on in different populations, some of which led to speciation and some of which didn't. Seems like there were a lot more bipedal hominid species around than most figured. Suggests to me that there must have been something behaviorally different going all the way back that led to an adaptive radiation.
Quote Reply
Re: Human Evolution [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sasquatch!


~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson
Quote Reply
Re: Human Evolution [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
iron_mike wrote:
i think one of the threads running through the recent work on this is that the old story of a straight line of human 'descent' is branching way off like a wonky tree.

the naledi findings are intriguing. on the other end is what we're starting to learn about homo denisova; combine that with the hobbit and the neanderthals and suddenly it looks like darwin has tried a handful of different ways of "being human." fascinating times, for sure, and as the tech gets better we're able to do more and more stuff with these remains.

-mike

Yes seems like there was a lot of divergence going on in different populations, some of which led to speciation and some of which didn't. Seems like there were a lot more bipedal hominid species around than most figured. Suggests to me that there must have been something behaviorally different going all the way back that led to an adaptive radiation.

The big question is is the science settled? Looks like either some mistakes on their guesses by to he majority or the scientists in the article screwed up on their dating. How can both be right?

"Guesses have varied from as old as 2 million years to as young as 100,000 years.

Today, news broke that Berger’s team has finally found a way to date the fossils. In an interview published by National Geographic magazine, Berger revealed that the H. naledi fossils are between 300,000 and 200,000 years old."

Damn it Bones, I need facts.


~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson
Quote Reply
Re: Human Evolution [Rodred] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rodred wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
iron_mike wrote:
i think one of the threads running through the recent work on this is that the old story of a straight line of human 'descent' is branching way off like a wonky tree.

the naledi findings are intriguing. on the other end is what we're starting to learn about homo denisova; combine that with the hobbit and the neanderthals and suddenly it looks like darwin has tried a handful of different ways of "being human." fascinating times, for sure, and as the tech gets better we're able to do more and more stuff with these remains.

-mike


Yes seems like there was a lot of divergence going on in different populations, some of which led to speciation and some of which didn't. Seems like there were a lot more bipedal hominid species around than most figured. Suggests to me that there must have been something behaviorally different going all the way back that led to an adaptive radiation.


The big question is is the science settled? Looks like either some mistakes on their guesses by to he majority or the scientists in the article screwed up on their dating. How can both be right?

"Guesses have varied from as old as 2 million years to as young as 100,000 years.

Today, news broke that Berger’s team has finally found a way to date the fossils. In an interview published by National Geographic magazine, Berger revealed that the H. naledi fossils are between 300,000 and 200,000 years old."

Damn it Bones, I need facts.

I'd say no it's not settled. There were no mistakes, it's that these bones were deposited deep in a cave (begging the question of how they got there, seems like the most likely explanation is they were put there) where none of the traditional dating techniques work. So this is the first time anyone is dating them. I'm sure whatever way the team came up with dating them, which hasn't been published yet, will surely be contested by some others, since that's pretty much how science works.
Quote Reply