If you have read one story about hot off the press new human-like species found you have read them all. Human-like this, evolution that, and, oh yeah, rewriting the human story the other. For example, I previously wrote Ardi, Our Uncommon Ancestor?.
Pallab Ghosh has written, “New human-like species discovered in S Africa,” BBC News, September 10, 2015 AD wherein he reports that skeletons have been found in South Africa which are said to represent “a new human-like species” and have been “classified in the grouping, or genus, Homo, to which modern humans belong.” They are described as “primitive human…human relatives…The Homo naledi people…primitive human” and are to provide more insight into “very early humans…how the first humans evolved…earliest humans.”
Pallab Ghosh notes that lead researcher Prof. Lee R. Berger, “is at pains to avoid the term ‘missing link.’ Prof Berger says naledi could be thought of as a ‘bridge’ between more primitive bipedal primates and humans” and is “reluctant to describe naledi as human.” Prof Chris Stringer believes that “naledi should be described as a primitive human.
Of course, no one wants to find monkey bones but something worthy of getting oneself in the history of science books as the Prof notes, “I saw something I thought I would never see in my career…We are going to have to contemplate some very deep things about what it is to be human.” Along these lines, the article notes, “The researchers claim that the discovery will change ideas about our human ancestors” and “make scientists rethink the definition of what it is to be human…current theories need to be re-evaluated.”
It is noted that researches “have not been able to find out how long ago these creatures lived” however, Prof Lee Berger “believed they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago” and that these “creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several different types of human-like creatures originating in parallel…Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us.” Of course, that is not only guessing at ages (based on strata, location, etc. which is dated by the fossils found within it which is then used to date the fossils) and Darwinism, of course, which has humanity being the result of a long series of happy accidents. The Prof also confidently stated, “We are going to know everything about this species.”
The article notes that “The skull, teeth and feet looked as if they belonged to a human…Its hand looked human-like” and includes a reconstruction of captioned thusly, “Homo naledi may have looked something like this.”
As I detailed in Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 8 of 9, “may have looked” is where a researcher’s worldview (generally an Atheistic evolutionary one) comes into play subjectively interpreting evidence and force fitting it into the template of the worldview.
Physical anthropologist, Earnest A. Hooton wrote (Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape (McMillan, New York, 1931 AD), p. 332):
“To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.”
Well, what we found with this reconstruction of Homo naledi is exactly, the lineaments (characteristic features) of a philosopher. Prof Lee Berger may claim that “We are going to know everything about this species” but the fact is that cartilage does not fossilize so we do not know what the nose looked like, eyes do not fossilize so we do not know what they looked like, skin do not fossilize so we do not know what it looked like, hair/fur do not fossilize so we do not know what it looked like, lips do not fossilize so we do not know what they looked like, etc., etc., etc. In fact, you will note that apes and monkeys do not have whites in their eyes but we do so reconstructions such as this one includes whites in their eyes, without evidence, so as to make the creature look more human. There is such a thing as the science of forensic reconstructions and yet, what I just stated are facts and forensic reconstructions is employed to reconstruct modern day humans and extended to reconstruct creatures of whose looks we are not aware.
This image is of the bones:
Note that they, especially the more complete skeleton, is laid down flat which gives it the appearance of standing upright as humans do. Yet, this does not reflect the anatomy but is just another manner whereby to make it appear as if H. naledi is more and more human-like.
Most importantly, the skulls seems to be missing a key element which is the lower back portion. This area contains that foramen magnum which is, well to put it at a layman’s level, the neck hole. Human foramen magnums are at the bottom since we stand upright while ape and monkey foramen magnums are toward the back of the head since they do not.
As seen here, these skulls appear to be missing this key point which makes is easier to claim, based on imagination, that “The Homo naledi people” were “human-like.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.