Move over, Neanderthal?
Despite being nearly perfectly preserved—with square eye sockets, thick brow ridges, and large teeth—nobody could work out exactly what it was. The skull is much bigger than that of Homo sapiens and other human species—and its brain size is similar to that of our own species. Historical events left it without a secure place of origin or date, until today.
Now a team of Chinese, Australian, and British researchers has finally solved the puzzle—the skull represents a previously unknown extinct human species. The research, published as three studies in the journal Innovation, suggests this is our closest relative in the human family tree.
Anthony Sinclair, “Is Homo longi an Extinct Human Species?” at Sapiens (August 4, 2021)
Homo longi is believed to have been fifty years old when he died 146,000 years ago.
But read on. There are problems with this interpretation:
The predicted dates for the common ancestors between human lineages do not match the dates of actual discovered fossils or those predicted by the analysis of DNA.
For example, this study proposes that Homo sapiens were in Eurasia at about 400,000 years ago. But the oldest fossil for this species known outside Africa is little more than half this age. At the same time, the split between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals predicted here at more than 1 million years old does not match the prediction of nuclear DNA analysis, which suggests it happened much later. However, it can be backed up by doing DNA analysis with genetic material taken from the cell’s engine, called the mitochondria.
The older estimates presented by this study may result from the use of new techniques, called Bayesian tip dating, which aren’t normally used in evolutionary studies.
Anthony Sinclair, “Is Homo longi an Extinct Human Species?” at Sapiens (August 4, 2021)
Sinclair adds that many of these “species” interbred.
In short, the claims may rest on a flimsy foundation.
See also: Human evolution at your fingertips
It also underscores the difficulty of trying to map our attempts at tidy species definitions to the messy realities of life, particularly when we have just a few fragments of bone to go on. Still, you just have to do the best you can.
Hey Seversky if evolution would be true that automatically means that among people there is a tree of evolution some people are closer to apes and some people are more advanced . Can you tell us which race is less evolved according evolution?
There is a funny thing about all these different supposed fossil ancestors to man. Nobody can seem to agree on which are the correct ancestors and which were not.
As this fairly recent article (May 2021) from American Museum of Natural History stated, “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess–there’s no consensus whatsoever,”,,, and “the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.”
But I thought, and/or was misled to believe, that the evidence for human evolution was suppose to be a slam dunk for Darwinists?
But alas, like everything else within Darwin’s theory, when subjected to scrutiny the fossil evidence for supposed human evolution also falls apart.
Years ago, Phillip Johnson made this astute observation about all these various, conflicting, and overinflated claims for human evolution from Darwinists when compared to other fossil evidence from the fossil record.
Lieutenant Commander Data/2
“Advanced” by what measure? “Evolved” by what measure?
Bornagain77/3
Why would it be “funny” that there are differences of opinion about the exact path of human ancestry given the very limited and fragmentary nature of the evidence?
That’s an honest individual assessment of the current situation in anthropology. You’re the one implying that science should have a clear and complete picture by now, not the actual researchers in the field,
If I thought you had actually made a good faith attempt to understand the current position in the field of human origins research I might have been concerned but since this is clearly about creating strawmen to beat up, I’m not.
So, as evidence, you cite a paper about dental morphology which concludes “that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match” to what they predict should be dental morphology they would expect to find in the common ancestor to modern humans and Neanderthals. And that undermines evolution exactly how? All it says is the fragmentary evidence we have is inconclusive. Who has suggested otherwise?
This being the same Phillip Johnson, father of the intelligent design movement, who wrote:
Clearly all about the science, then.
Seversky, as usual, makes flimsy apologies for why the evidence for evolution, human evolution in this case, is not nearly as slam dunk as Darwinists continually mislead people to believe. ,,, and all I am reminded of during his disingenuous ‘apologies for Darwin’ tour is this question from Colin Paterson, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing,,,, that is true?”
Seversky if you believe in darwinism you are a racist but you already knew that ,right?
It’s puzzling that a racist talk despiteful about “white supremacists”. Look in the mirror.
seversky, it can’t be all about the science because if it were then your side lost as it didn’t ever have any scientific support. Some unknown naturalistic processes did something unknown that we can’t repeat or test, doesn’t have the makings of a scientific concept.
“Sinclair adds that many of these “species” interbred. In short, the claims may rest on a flimsy foundation.”
No doubt!
Here is another recent quote in regards to the human ape evolutionary story:
“When you look at the narrative for hominin [bi-pedal apes including modern humans] origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology. (Quote from: Review: Studying Fossil Apes Key to Human Evolution Research. American Museum of Natural History press release. Posted on amnh.org May 6, 2021, accessed June 4, 2021.)
I think this guy has it right! It’s a story that is imposed on the data as opposed to a story that the data supports.