Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Questions re recent human evolution find


Further to the recent Homo naledi find in South Africa, just some stuff to think about:

Some people wrote to ask, why Berger and his colleagues published their Homo
neledi findings in an open access journal (eLIFE) rather than a staider one like Nature or Science. Well, we are not mind readers, so … one problem noted might be undated fossils.

Anyway, their story is getting air via National Geographic (“Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair”). And the concern is no surprise as Lee Berger is an NG explorer in residence. And he is no stranger to controversy with colleagues:

Paleoanthropologists often take years, sometimes decades, to publish their work. Ron Clarke has famously spent the last 18 years excavating and describing a fossil known as Little Foot, which was found in the same area of South Africa as A. sediba and H. naledi.

In contrast, it took Berger just three years to excavate the A. sediba bones and publish 13 papers in the journal Science. For many of Berger’s peers like Carol Ward, director of anatomical sciences at the University of Missouri, that breakneck pace resulted in sloppy work. “I’m working on a fossil from Kenya, and I wanted to compare it to sediba,” she says. “In one set of papers, they have one set of measurements, and in another set of papers it might be different.” Ward adds. “There were inconsistencies. It was hastily done, and I think the quality suffered.” More.

Again, we dunno.

But we should note these things when we hear the blonde bimbo on Airhead-TV spouting about how it “changes everything we know” about human evolution. Until next week’s news lineup.

See also: Human ancestor claims driven by politics? This stuff recalls Dmanisi, which of course got silted over. That’s the thing; it always gets silted over. The whole field would otherwise largely collapse.


Why we should hire fewer bimbos to address this stuff.

Meanwhile, some more good links here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Why the Homo Naledi Discovery May Not Be Quite What it Seems - Professor Jeffrey H. Schwartz -9/10/15 Excerpt: Enter the newly announced species, Homo naledi, which is claimed to be our direct ancestor because it has features of australopiths and Homo.,,, but, the published images tell a different story. Viewed from the side, two partial skulls are long and low, with a long gently sloping forehead that flows smoothly into the brow – nothing like us, or most specimens regarded as Homo. A third partial skull is very short and rounded, with a high-rising forehead that is distinguished from a distinct, well-defined brow by a shallow gutter – not like the other skulls, and not like us or most specimens regarded as Homo. The femur has a small head (the ball end that fits in the hip socket) that is connected to the shaft of the bone by a long neck, and, below the neck, is a "bump" of bone that points backward. These features are seen in every australopith femur. In us, and all other living primates, the head of the femur is large and the neck short, and the "bump" points inward. Further, the teeth are very similar to those from a nearby fossil site that has yielded various kinds of australopith. Even at this stage of their being publicized,,, - Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz PhD is professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. http://europe.newsweek.com/why-homo-naledi-discovery-may-not-be-quite-what-it-seems-332804

Leave a Reply