And Science has just posted an interesting piece by Ann Gibbons, describing how the principal investigator, paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, advertised first for "tiny and small, specialised cavers and spelunkers with excellent archaeological, palaeontological and excavation skills" and later for "early career scientists" to come to Johannesburg and study the fossils. Gibbons reports that there was a certain amount of grumbling over Berger's approach. The approach, however, apparently paid off: Gibbons and his team have discovered a new hominin, Homo naledi.
The fossils have not yet been dated, but Science reports that they display a round skull but a small brain, a wrist that suggests toolmaking, fingers that suggest tree climbing, and a foot that suggests upright walking. The Times article here quotes Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History to the effect that it is certainly a new species, but possibly not of the genus Homo. You may find a technical article here in the open-access journal eLIFE.
Berger's team, which seems to number about 50, will now set about dating the fossils and trying to extract DNA. To these ends, Gibbons reports that Berger will attempt to recruit yet more young scientists.
Not to be outdone, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis reports that his colleague Elizabeth Mitchell is working on an article on Berger's discovery. Ham adds,
But we can say with confidence that this discovery changes nothing about our understanding of human history.
Truer words were never spoken.
68 Comments
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 September 2015
Ah ha, but how many things have IDists/creationists not found in the meantime?
Just take their perspective, and there is neither discovery nor need for it. Make up some numbers, do some calculations, and that's all the science that they ever need.
Just take their perspective, and there is neither discovery nor need for it. Make up some numbers, do some calculations, and thatâs all the science that they ever need.
It is stronger than that; there is aversion to discovery. They feel they must counter it. Makes you wonder why they call their organization the Discovery Institute.
Joe Felsenstein · 11 September 2015
The science press seems somewhat fixated on the "new species" claim. Whether or not these are a different species from other forms, they have very interesting combinations of characters, and the fact that they represent multiple individuals is important.
Paleontologists have a bias toward "splitting" and declaring new species, because it gets a lot more attention than saying that you have found multiple new specimens of an early population from a lineage of our genus.
The difficulty of estimating the age of these specimens is unfortunate.
It is also interesting that John Hawks, whose science blog gets quoted here from time to time, is one of the investigators. So far he has not talked about it at his blog, perhaps because he was waiting for a publication to appear.
Just Bob · 11 September 2015
I feel a Byers coming on. Dead bones aren't biological. Or something.
Joe Felsenstein · 11 September 2015
I should also mention that, although they are trying to get DNA sequence from these specimens, they may be too old for that. I am not sure that anyone has succeeded in getting usable DNA older than 200,000 years.
eric · 11 September 2015
What a great find. Hope they can date it; pretty much any answer would be interesting. If they get an early date, that means australopithicines were all over Africa millions of years ago (these finds were in South Africa, roughly 1800 miles from where Lucy was found). If they get a later date, that would mean that the genera (is that the right level?) was on earth for a fairly long time.
David MacMillan · 11 September 2015
Joe Felsenstein said:
Paleontologists have a bias toward "splitting" and declaring new species, because it gets a lot more attention than saying that you have found multiple new specimens of an early population from a lineage of our genus.
The difficulty of estimating the age of these specimens is unfortunate.
I think that determining age will be straightforward enough once additional research is undertaken. It's just the initial, non-rigorous age estimate that is tricky in this situation.
A friend of mine pointed out that if there had been an age estimate, AiG would have been likely to depend on it for their decision on whether to claim this is an ape or a human. Even though they deny the dates are meaningful, they'd probably knee-jerk that anything ~3myo is probably an ape and anything under 1myo is probably human.
I'm going to predict that "Doctor" Mitchell (and all those other jokers) will insist that H. naledi is fully human, but simply represents "a pygmy tribe" or some similar nonsense. They will downplay the non-human morphological features, insisting that "there is no evidence this sort of variation is not within the normal range of human adaptability" and they will claim that the similarity to the Australopithecus genus is "only there if that's what your presuppositions tell you to look for".
The cave itself doesn't fit at all with the Flood story or with a post-Flood origin, of course; the bones almost certainly took too long to accumulate in the cave, and the cave obviously had to have formed "after" their purported Deluge. But they'll handwave that.
It wouldn't surprise me if they make some suggestion about how "these humans could have been the victims of an epidemic" to explain why a bunch of them would be dumped in a cave (sans clothing) in a short period of time. I hope they do, because further examination of the remains will surely allow some sort of cause-of-death analysis.
Mitchell is one of their most prolific writers right now but she's also one of the least aware writers. She has, in the past, suggested that some A. afarensis specimens are apes while other A. afarensis specimens are human (see also this post, which I think was written by her too). There's also a precedent for this kind of case; she claimed that H. floresiensis was a modern human with microcephally likely caused by Down's Syndrome.
The AiG waffling about dates is quite amusing. On the one hand, they're continually trumpeting that dates are meaningless and are made up to fit the find...and yet when they talk about human evolution, they claim that the stratigraphic and radiometric dates drive researchers to label human remains as apes.
eric said:
If they get a later date, that would mean that the genera (is that the right level?) was on earth for a fairly long time.
Right level, but genera is plural. Genus is the singular.
Although the opening line of a related Associated Press article confidently states that scientists âdiscovered a new member of the human family tree,â2 further reading reveals wiggle-words and phrases such as âkey mysteries,â âbizarre,â âweird,â âevidently,â âsuggest,â âmay be,â âhis guess is,â âaround,â âanother mystery,â âlike a Sherlock Holmes mystery,â âmust have,â and âfeasible explanation.â
Accusing scientists of using "wiggle-words" seems to be another ID/creationist caricature of scientists that portrays them as liars.
eric · 11 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
The cave itself doesn't fit at all with the Flood story or with a post-Flood origin, of course; the bones almost certainly took too long to accumulate in the cave, and the cave obviously had to have formed "after" their purported Deluge. But they'll handwave that.
I think the cave has already been dated at about 3myo. Right now the scientists investigating the find are being cautious about attributing that same age to the bones.
Although the opening line of a related Associated Press article confidently states that scientists âdiscovered a new member of the human family tree,â2 further reading reveals wiggle-words and phrases such as âkey mysteries,â âbizarre,â âweird,â âevidently,â âsuggest,â âmay be,â âhis guess is,â âaround,â âanother mystery,â âlike a Sherlock Holmes mystery,â âmust have,â and âfeasible explanation.â
Accusing scientists of using "wiggle-words" seems to be another ID/creationist caricature of scientists that portrays them as liars.
When they are, of course, the ones lying.
"Master of Arts in Zoology" Sherwin lied:
We predict, on the basis of the creation model, Homo naledi too will become just one more dead end in the questionable human evolution parade.
No, that is not a prediction of your model; that is the central unchallengeable assumption that defines your model. I predict, based on good observation and experience, that there is no outcome which you would not classify as "one more dead end".
It also reported that researchers were "unable to determine an age for the fossils".
No shit, Sherwin. Unlike creationists, real scientists can't just slap an arbitrary date (cough, 4004 BCE and 2348 BCE, cough) onto new discoveries; they have to wait until they have a basis for doing so. These researchers didn't have any immediate basis for dating the fossils so they will have to wait for radiometric dating. Implying that this is in any way abnormal or questionable is gross dishonesty.
they "are not claiming that naledi was a direct ancestor of modern-day people"
Of course not. There is virtually no chance that any fossil we discover will ever be our direct ancestor. H. naledi is our first or second or fiftieth cousin 100,000 times removed. Stop misleading your readers.
Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo nalediâif this name stands the test of timeâwas likely just another human variety.
Right, the nude pygmy tiny-brained tree-dwelling human variety with australopithecine hips and ribs. The Adams family, right? They live in that one big tree just down the street.
Homo erectus? Iâm glad he brought that species up, since Newsweek magazine reported in 2007, "DNA makes clear that [Homo erectus] was almost certainly a dead end and not our ancestor, as some scientists had argued."
Whoa, hold up there. That's the opposite of what you want to claim. If you think H. naledi is human then you probably shouldn't be citing someone claiming it's a subspecies of H. erectus and that H. erectus wasn't part of our family tree. I really don't think you thought this one through, buddy.
Rick Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institutionâs Natural History Museum, said that without an age, "there's no way we can judge the evolutionary significance of this find."
Exactly. Which is why we should wait until they date the damn things.
And hold up -- aren't you always claiming that "secular scientists" date the rocks based on the fossils and the fossils based on the rocks? If so, why aren't they doing it here?
We wait to see what becomes of Homo naledi with further research by secular scientists. I think I know the answer!
I think you're a lying idiot!
Just Bob · 11 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
I think [Sherwin's] a lying idiot!
Gee, ya think?
TomS · 11 September 2015
I like to imagine the creationists describing how the scientists decided on the ages of things.
There was the secret meeting of the atheists to settle the disputes. There were the conservatives who argued that we only need a few million years in order to rule out the Christian belief of 6000 years. There were the radicals who wanted infinite time. So they settled on a compromise with numbers in the low billions. It isn't clear how they settled on the numbers that they did. Clearly they wanted to have some semblance of precision. Nobody would be happy with just saying "a few billion years", but how can one come up with 4.54 billion years for the Earth, rather than 987 million or 23.2 billion, when - as everybody knows - it is totally circular and arbitrary.
Joe Felsenstein · 11 September 2015
eric said:
... If they get an early date, that means australopithicines were all over Africa millions of years ago (these finds were in South Africa, roughly 1800 miles from where Lucy was found).
...
The Tuang Child fossil, the first australopithecine found, was from South Africa, and is estimated at 2.5 Mya. Other old australopithecines have been found in South Africa since. One, "Mrs. Ples", was designated 95th in a poll of 100 greatest South Africans a few years ago,
David MacMillan · 11 September 2015
TomS said:
I like to imagine the creationists describing how the scientists decided on the ages of things.
There was the secret meeting of the atheists to settle the disputes. There were the conservatives who argued that we only need a few million years in order to rule out the Christian belief of 6000 years. There were the radicals who wanted infinite time. So they settled on a compromise with numbers in the low billions. It isn't clear how they settled on the numbers that they did. Clearly they wanted to have some semblance of precision. Nobody would be happy with just saying "a few billion years", but how can one come up with 4.54 billion years for the Earth, rather than 987 million or 23.2 billion, when - as everybody knows - it is totally circular and arbitrary.
Hah, you're cracking me up!
As a YEC, I always thought that the evolutionary timeline was like a big stretchy rubber band...that they just arbitrarily stretched things out whenever they needed extra time for something slow and gradual to happen.
harold · 12 September 2015
TomS said:
I like to imagine the creationists describing how the scientists decided on the ages of things.
There was the secret meeting of the atheists to settle the disputes. There were the conservatives who argued that we only need a few million years in order to rule out the Christian belief of 6000 years. There were the radicals who wanted infinite time. So they settled on a compromise with numbers in the low billions. It isn't clear how they settled on the numbers that they did. Clearly they wanted to have some semblance of precision. Nobody would be happy with just saying "a few billion years", but how can one come up with 4.54 billion years for the Earth, rather than 987 million or 23.2 billion, when - as everybody knows - it is totally circular and arbitrary.
A couple of points that are general but may be of relevance here.
The first is that I was going to comment that the single most common form of illogical thinking is to make one's own biases or preferences an unconscious default, and argue that any imperfection in any rival system justifies adoption of the default.
We're all aware that ID/creationists don't weigh the merits of ID/creationism or make strong arguments in its favor, but rather, massively disproportionately and unfairly attack science.
That's also how politics tends to operate. It's even how some people with whom I more or less agree, politically, tend to operate. A preferred stance is chosen as the arbitrary default, and perceived rivals are attacked. Actual "what would happen if we did this versus what would happen if we did that" discussions are not terribly common.
Creationists are merely an extreme example of this human tendency. Form a perhaps unjustified conclusion, become emotionally attached to it, and defend it.
Also - Here's an interesting number. The context is the decision of Rowen County Clerk Kim Davis to defy federal law and discriminate. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2015/voters_show_little_sympathy_for_jailed_clerk_in_gay_marriage_spat
"But just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think an elected official should be able to a ignore a federal court ruling that he or she disagrees with for religious reasons."
That number is shockingly high, since anybody can obviously invent a "religious reason" for anything, any time. Thus, this number seems to identify people with pure authoritarian fantasy thought processes. They're essentially arguing that they consider their own preferences to trump scientific reality and the laws of society.
Does that number - 20-30% - look familiar? Regular readers will recognize it as a number the consistently comes up - the percentage of Americans who seem to understand and support the hard core political goals of ID/creationism (as opposed to the larger number who can be passively labeled as "creationist" based on their casual answer to as biased poll question). It's obvious that the smaller number is accurate, because we have seen the experiment done in Kansas, Dover, and a few other places - ID/creationist school board members have not only lost in court but been voted out when their schemes are revealed.
Does anyone doubt that support for Kim Davis overlaps massively with support for politically active evolution denial?
We seem to live in a society in which about 20-30% of the population adheres to an ideology that denies scientific reality, and, although they don't tend to be professional criminals, perhaps for pragmatic reasons, inherently denies that the law applies to them. I'm sometimes criticized for pointing out the high rates of past and present substance abuse, sex offender status, indulgence (often secret) in things I don't have a problem with but they claim to, like same gender sexual relationships and/or payment for sex, among this group. The commonality is "whatever I want right now takes total priority".
There seems to be a sort of overlap between authoritarian ideology and immature narcissism. A relationship between refusal to accept scientific reality and refusal to accept legal reality seems plausible.
Matt Young · 12 September 2015
AIG goes with "fully ape"Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell says it is an ape. Though the author makes some good points about Berger's extrapolating on the behavior of the creatures, the article is poorly prepared, and you will have to read at least halfway down before you come to what I take to be the bottom line:
Despite all the media articles and Bergerâs implication that Homo naledi is a glorious mosaic of incipient humanity superimposed on an australopithecine base, the data presented in the study reveals what is most likely an ape. Perhaps a glorious example of ape diversity in the world God created, but not an ape stepping up the evolutionary ladder reaching for human-ness. The fragmentary nature of most fossils, including these, can make definitive identification difficult, but the extremely small braincaseâassuming the composite reconstruction is accurateâand the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis all are consistent with an australopithecine variant.
From our "don't be too catty" department: it was amusing to see a creationist accuse a scientist of presuppositions.
Thanks to "Natural Historian" for alerting us to the Mitchell article.
Matt Young · 12 September 2015
For a review and an ongoing discussion of various creationists' reactions, see Naturalis Historia here.
Henry J · 12 September 2015
Well of course it's "fully" ape.
So are we.
David MacMillan · 12 September 2015
This gem trumps it all:
"What to make of Bergerâs claim that the ancient Homo naledi buried their dead? There are other options that are far more reasonable. Perhaps a local flood did wash them into the cave. Perhaps these creatures wandered into a cave and were trapped there. We may never know how they got in there, but to superimpose elaborate burial rituals on what appears to be an ape with a gorilla-sized brain is far more than a stretch."
Oh, there's a stretch all right. It's the stretching noise of my brain exploding in sheer disbelief at this level of inanity.
They. Buried. Their. Dead.
There's no way around that.
Henry J · 12 September 2015
Did anybody besides him refer to their burial rituals as "elaborate"?
harold · 12 September 2015
Why don't they just say that hominids are mythical creatures mentioned in Genesis; human-like but not fully human? Call them the offspring of Lilith or something. It would be so much less stupid than calling everything "ape" or "human" (especially since even if humans were created by magic 6000 years ago, we'd still be apes, just apes created by magic 6000 years ago).
I'll answer my own question. Authoritarian thinking. They prefer to repeat mantras that originated with authoritarian leaders.
Just Bob · 12 September 2015
harold said:
It would be so much less stupid than calling everything "ape" or "human" ....
Especially when some other creationist "scientist" occasionally can clearly see that what you can see is clearly "fully human" is clearly "fully ape".
And they never get the lesson from that: why there should even be creatures that are so hard to classify that even creationist "experts" can't agree on the right "kind" to put them in.
Childermass · 12 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
This gem trumps it all:
âWhat to make of Bergerâs claim that the ancient Homo naledi buried their dead? There are other options that are far more reasonable. Perhaps a local flood did wash them into the cave. Perhaps these creatures wandered into a cave and were trapped there. We may never know how they got in there, but to superimpose elaborate burial rituals on what appears to be an ape with a gorilla-sized brain is far more than a stretch.â
Oh, there's a stretch all right. It's the stretching noise of my brain exploding in sheer disbelief at this level of inanity.
They. Buried. Their. Dead.
There's no way around that.
Buried is not technically correct. It more like hidden away in a cave. The researchers used the words "deliberate body disposal."
Sadly, it not just AiG who doubts this. The peer reviewers (as you verify by checking the decision letter of Dirks et al) made them back down a bit on the paper. In addition big names in the field as well as other scientists doubt it on grounds that the brain is too small. Richard Leakey is an example. Thus they seem desperate for an explanation, any explanation to explain what would be considered obvious if the dead something that looked more like me and you.
Maybe we should quickly make the case:
If this was some sort of accidental accumulation of bones then there would significant amount of non-hominin bones. There is not. Likewise if it was a predator. If access to the spot was, at the time, easy, then scavengers would got at the remains -- the bones were free of signs of damage caused by scavengers. Some have suggested an undetected sealed up entrance possibly from above. Such an entrance would bring in outside sediment and brings up, yet again the issue of the lack of non-hominin remains. That the old and the very young are included as well as both male and female also put limits on our explanations.
It is also no big secret that a yet unpublished second site in the Rising Star Cave system called UW 102 has generated significant hominin remains. If this is also Homo naledi then problems for denial of deliberate body disposal are compounded.
If the body disposal hypothesis stands, and I think it will, then we will have to face that a big brain is not required to be a person. This has implications far beyond creationism.
Re: Ham's imagining Berger suggesting having an elaborate ceremony.
I suspect, though I obviously can't prove it, that it might be as simple as it might have been upsetting to witness a lion (or whatever) dine on a loved one -- even if the lion (or whatever) did not kill them. If they lacked access to a shovel, which seems likely, then about the only to prevent that would be hiding.
Childermass · 12 September 2015
Joe Felsenstein said:
I should also mention that, although they are trying to get DNA sequence from these specimens, they may be too old for that. I am not sure that anyone has succeeded in getting usable DNA older than 200,000 years.
The record is 700,000 years. For hominins the record is 400K or so at Sima de los Huesos. mtDNA was published in 2013 and results of sequencing small segments of nuclear DNA was presented at a conference the same day the dinaledi fossils were unveiled. citation
David MacMillan · 12 September 2015
I feel like we need to get Dr. Brennan on the case.
Henry J · 13 September 2015
We may never know how they got in there, but to superimpose elaborate burial rituals on what appears to be an ape with a gorilla-sized brain is far more than a stretch.â
It occurs to me that if something with a parrot sized brain can learn to recognize and use a few dozen words (or was it a few hundred?), then something with a gorilla sized brain could form a habit of transporting their dead to a place that predators would be unlikely to find.
Robert Byers · 13 September 2015
Comparative anatomy is as good for origins as comparing anatomy can be. Its just comparing bones. Convergent evolution would also answer any likeness of this bones to any ape/human claims. nOt just species within the lineage. In fact I don't see how confidence can ever be gad when comvergent evolution is so easily invoked when desired. The big point I always make , to fellow creationists also, is if the female can be determined to have had pain at birthing. tHis by the shape etc. only our women have pain at birthing and this because of her shape and the childs head etc etc. If no evidence of pain by this way then its just an animal. thats the great forensic clue at least for creationists.
Yardbird · 13 September 2015
Robert Byers said:
Comparative anatomy is as good for origins as comparing anatomy can be. Its just comparing bones.
Convergent evolution would also answer any likeness of this bones to any ape/human claims. nOt just species within the lineage.
In fact I don't see how confidence can ever be gad when comvergent evolution is so easily invoked when desired.
The big point I always make , to fellow creationists also, is if the female can be determined to have had pain at birthing. tHis by the shape etc. only our women have pain at birthing and this because of her shape and the childs head etc etc.
If no evidence of pain by this way then its just an animal.
thats the great forensic clue at least for creationists.
Henry J posted about the capabilities of something with a parrot sized brain, and here's Boobie to demonstrate. He's even more incoherent than usual.
Henry J · 13 September 2015
Henry J posted about the capabilities of something with a parrot sized brain, and hereâs Boobie to demonstrate.
I doubt it's the size that matters there. More likely the amount of soap present.
Just Bob · 13 September 2015
Told ya' it was coming!
Just Bob said:
I feel a Byers coming on. Dead bones aren't biological. Or something.
Scott F · 13 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
"Master of Arts in Zoology" Sherwin lied:
We predict, on the basis of the creation model, Homo naledi too will become just one more dead end in the questionable human evolution parade.
No, that is not a prediction of your model; that is the central unchallengeable assumption that defines your model. I predict, based on good observation and experience, that there is no outcome which you would not classify as "one more dead end".
Well, in some sense that statement is correct. According to the "creation model", *all* species are "dead ends".
Scott F · 13 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
We wait to see what becomes of Homo naledi with further research by secular scientists. I think I know the answer!
I think you're a lying idiot!
Note, that he doesn't actually say what he "knows" the answer is going to be. What you want to be that, whatever the answer is, he will come back with, "Hah! I knew that all along."
Scott F · 13 September 2015
eric said:
What a great find. Hope they can date it; pretty much any answer would be interesting. If they get an early date, that means australopithicines were all over Africa millions of years ago (these finds were in South Africa, roughly 1800 miles from where Lucy was found). If they get a later date, that would mean that the genera (is that the right level?) was on earth for a fairly long time.
Would they try to date the fossils themselves directly with radiometric dating?
If they had been found in sedimentary rock, wouldn't they bracket the bones by dating the rock layers?
Would finding the bones in a cave (as opposed to buried) present some complicating factors in accurate dating?
How long does radiometric dating take to perform, anyway? I was surprised to hear they didn't have a date when they published.
TomS · 13 September 2015
Scott F said:
David MacMillan said:
"Master of Arts in Zoology" Sherwin lied:
We predict, on the basis of the creation model, Homo naledi too will become just one more dead end in the questionable human evolution parade.
No, that is not a prediction of your model; that is the central unchallengeable assumption that defines your model. I predict, based on good observation and experience, that there is no outcome which you would not classify as "one more dead end".
Well, in some sense that statement is correct. According to the "creation model", *all* species are "dead ends".
All kinds.
Childermass · 14 September 2015
Scott F said:
eric said:
What a great find. Hope they can date it; pretty much any answer would be interesting. If they get an early date, that means australopithicines were all over Africa millions of years ago (these finds were in South Africa, roughly 1800 miles from where Lucy was found). If they get a later date, that would mean that the genera (is that the right level?) was on earth for a fairly long time.
Would they try to date the fossils themselves directly with radiometric dating?
If they had been found in sedimentary rock, wouldn't they bracket the bones by dating the rock layers?
Would finding the bones in a cave (as opposed to buried) present some complicating factors in accurate dating?
How long does radiometric dating take to perform, anyway? I was surprised to hear they didn't have a date when they published.
Dating is going to be hard. If the fossils are very young they might be able to do radiocarbon dating but that would require destroying fossil material which is something which you don't do lightly. The lack of non-hominin bones means you can't use index fossils dated elsewhere. No neat layering means you simply can't date rocks above and below. They are still arguing about dating in some of the caves in this area where dating should be far easier, for example the attempts to date Little Foot.
eric · 14 September 2015
Childermass said:
Dating is going to be hard. If the fossils are very young they might be able to do radiocarbon dating but that would require destroying fossil material which is something which you don't do lightly.
AIUI the cave is something like 3 million years old and other australopithecine finds are millions of years old, so I don't think anyone expects these skeletons to be an age which would be accessible to C14 dating. The date question is more like "are they 3 million or 2 million years old," not "are they 40,000 or 50,000 years old." Though with 25 or so nearly complete skeletons, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to try just in case.
David MacMillan · 14 September 2015
eric said:
Childermass said:
Dating is going to be hard. If the fossils are very young they might be able to do radiocarbon dating but that would require destroying fossil material which is something which you don't do lightly.
AIUI the cave is something like 3 million years old and other australopithecine finds are millions of years old, so I don't think anyone expects these skeletons to be an age which would be accessible to C14 dating. The date question is more like "are they 3 million or 2 million years old," not "are they 40,000 or 50,000 years old." Though with 25 or so nearly complete skeletons, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to try just in case.
Unfortunately, as a friend of mine pointed out, they're likely to get an age just under the radiocarbon limit (40,000-45,000 years) if they do radiocarbon date, just because of the high likelihood of contamination in this setting. Which the YECs will immediately seize upon and trumpet as evidence that "secular scientists are just cherry-picking the dates they want!"
Scott F · 14 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
eric said:
Childermass said:
Dating is going to be hard. If the fossils are very young they might be able to do radiocarbon dating but that would require destroying fossil material which is something which you don't do lightly.
AIUI the cave is something like 3 million years old and other australopithecine finds are millions of years old, so I don't think anyone expects these skeletons to be an age which would be accessible to C14 dating. The date question is more like "are they 3 million or 2 million years old," not "are they 40,000 or 50,000 years old." Though with 25 or so nearly complete skeletons, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to try just in case.
Unfortunately, as a friend of mine pointed out, they're likely to get an age just under the radiocarbon limit (40,000-45,000 years) if they do radiocarbon date, just because of the high likelihood of contamination in this setting. Which the YECs will immediately seize upon and trumpet as evidence that "secular scientists are just cherry-picking the dates they want!"
True, true. But I would agree with eric that in a case like this where dating would be difficult, a "real" scientist would want to do the C14 dating, just in case. CYA. If it comes back "at the limit", then a "real" scientist would know that it is only putting a lower limit on the age of the fossils, not that's it's giving any kind of accurate date. What would be shocking is if it came back at 30,000 years, or some such. *That* would get everyone's attention really fast. :-)
harold · 15 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
eric said:
Childermass said:
Dating is going to be hard. If the fossils are very young they might be able to do radiocarbon dating but that would require destroying fossil material which is something which you don't do lightly.
AIUI the cave is something like 3 million years old and other australopithecine finds are millions of years old, so I don't think anyone expects these skeletons to be an age which would be accessible to C14 dating. The date question is more like "are they 3 million or 2 million years old," not "are they 40,000 or 50,000 years old." Though with 25 or so nearly complete skeletons, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to try just in case.
Unfortunately, as a friend of mine pointed out, they're likely to get an age just under the radiocarbon limit (40,000-45,000 years) if they do radiocarbon date, just because of the high likelihood of contamination in this setting. Which the YECs will immediately seize upon and trumpet as evidence that "secular scientists are just cherry-picking the dates they want!"
As far as creationist response, it's completely irrelevant what the scientists do, unless they say that the bones are 4000 years old and support for a global flood. If they say that, half of creationists will still attack them as rival creationists. If they say anything else, all creationists will attack them and deny their conclusions. Period.
Creationist response is unaffected by what type of dating they use, whether or not there is a real controversy among actual scientists, or anything else.
There is never any real need to care about creationist reaction to anything. It's like worrying that if your coffee machine clock is off by two minutes, that broken clock on the wall that always says that it's 12:39 PM, May 27, 2008, will "really attack you". The broken clock will never change, no matter what you do.
Note - I do think that when criticizing brainwashed creationists, we should be civil and considerate if possible, despite their behavior. That is simply an ethical stance, and also a strategic stance based on making sure that third party readers are not distracted by invective, and thus better able to perceive how wrong creationist arguments are, and how uncivil most creationists are.
However, as far as caring about what creationists themselves will do - they'll never make a testable suggestion, they'll say anything to deny science, however in accurate, and they'll use angry, sneering, attacking language, false accusations, repetitions of discredited arguments, etc, while doing it. No matter what.
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
Scott F said:
In a case like this where dating would be difficult, a "real" scientist would want to do the C14 dating, just in case. CYA. If it comes back "at the limit", then a "real" scientist would know that it is only putting a lower limit on the age of the fossils, not that's it's giving any kind of accurate date. What would be shocking is if it came back at 30,000 years, or some such. *That* would get everyone's attention really fast. :-)
Oh, absolutely. I hope they do test it. If nothing else, it would allow them to gauge the contamination and thus the history of the bones.
harold said:
David MacMillan said:
Unfortunately, as a friend of mine pointed out, they're likely to get an age just under the radiocarbon limit (40,000-45,000 years) if they do radiocarbon date, just because of the high likelihood of contamination in this setting. Which the YECs will immediately seize upon and trumpet as evidence that "secular scientists are just cherry-picking the dates they want!"
As far as creationist response, it's completely irrelevant what the scientists do, unless they say that the bones are 4000 years old and support for a global flood. If they say that, half of creationists will still attack them as rival creationists. If they say anything else, all creationists will attack them and deny their conclusions. Period.
Creationist response is unaffected by what type of dating they use, whether or not there is a real controversy among actual scientists, or anything else. There is never any real need to care about creationist reaction to anything.
Perhaps. But I do care, a little. This discovery has a lot of promise as a foil to creationism because of its obviousness and simplicity. There's no way to call it a hoax or a mistake or anything like that, not with dozens of full skeletons.
Now, I'm not so naive to think that it can convince the Career Creationists...but they're not the ones I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the rank-and-file lay creationists who continue to support the Careers because they're duped. Seeing a discovery like this and witnessing the inability of the Careers to agree on whether H. naledi should be classified as human or ape might be exactly what a lot of lay creationists need to wake up to the fact that the Careers are full of BS.
Radiocarbon dating might give the Careers something to point to in order to confuse their supporters, which is mildly unfortunate.
harold · 15 September 2015
Well, you know more about being a former creationist than I do, but...
Perhaps. But I do care, a little. This discovery has a lot of promise as a foil to creationism because of its obviousness and simplicity.
That has been true of many other discoveries.
Thereâs no way to call it a hoax or a mistake or anything like that, not with dozens of full skeletons.
Creationists and other reality deniers can call anything a hoax.
Now, Iâm not so naive to think that it can convince the Career Creationistsâ¦
We strongly agree on this.
but theyâre not the ones Iâm concerned about. Iâm concerned about the rank-and-file lay creationists who continue to support the Careers because theyâre duped.
Many of them are not exactly duped (I'm talking about the 20-30% politically active authoritarians here). They have chosen a "side" that fits with their self-serving biases. What we call "facts" don't matter to them. They will demonize the "other side" and say anything to support the ideology of "their side". Sensing that they lose in a civil, rational discussion, they will always resort to anger, false accusations, repetition of disproven claims, etc.
The proof that they aren't exactly duped is that if one of the leaders suddenly declared that he had been convinced by science and no longer denied evolution, that leader would be rejected by the followers. They don't simply do what Ken Ham tells them to do. They make Ken Ham a leader because he tells them what they want to hear, and if he stops, they'll crucify him and find a new leader.
Seeing a discovery like this and witnessing the inability of the Careers to agree on whether H. naledi should be classified as human or ape might be exactly what a lot of lay creationists need to wake up to the fact that the Careers are full of BS.
They've seen the equivalent a thousand times already.
Radiocarbon dating might give the Careers something to point to in order to confuse their supporters, which is mildly unfortunate.
There will always be something misrepresent. We can't make acceptance of science dependent on "perfect science". And if science is perfect, they'll lie about it anyway.
I'm not saying that it's hopeless to fight against science denial, obviously.
By constantly rebutting it, we assure that political creationism will gain fewer new followers. Even children raised by political creationists will frequently reject it when they become adults.
However, it is rather pointless to try to win over those who have voluntarily swallowed the Kool Aid. It would require unbelievable inhumane techniques to overcome that level of self-serving bias and ego commitment. And all you could hope to do is to make them adopt a rival rigid ideology. When it comes to committed creationists, a guy like Chairman Mao might be able to use brutal techniques to turn them into some other kind of committed ideologues. Reasoned discourse has zero impact. If that part of their brain ever existed, they found a way to turn it off.
New scientific discoveries will always generate controversy and creationist leaders will always argue that this proves that science is invalid and that creationism wins by default with no need to provide any support for its claims. That is inevitable and those who defend science must accept that.
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
harold said:
Iâm concerned about the rank-and-file lay creationists who continue to support the Careers because theyâre duped.
Many of them are not exactly duped (I'm talking about the 20-30% politically active authoritarians here). They have chosen a "side" that fits with their self-serving biases. What we call "facts" don't matter to them. They will demonize the "other side" and say anything to support the ideology of "their side". Sensing that they lose in a civil, rational discussion, they will always resort to anger, false accusations, repetition of disproven claims, etc.
I would argue that you are grossly overestimating the size of that group and missing a much larger and much more important group.
The Careers, of course, comprise the upper echelon of creationist and are able to profit substantially as a result. We know them well. They are virtually unreachable. I wasn't quite a Career, but I was heading in that direction.
The group you're describing can be referred to as the Jabberjays. These are also the ones who we're most likely to come into direct contact with. They parrot whatever the Careers tell them, they demonize dissidents, they support their favorite Careers with a cultic passion. These are also exceedingly difficult to reach, though dedicated and repeated efforts may prove successful if resistance is slowly whittled down.
However, this group is fairly small. There is a much, much bigger group, the one that actually answers poll questions in favor of creationism. They might not even identify as creationist in particular and they might not be sure about it, but they believe that there's enough uncertainty that creationism is a justifiable and reasonable stance. These are the ones to whom "teach the controversy" is marketed -- I'll call them the Followers.
Reaching the Followers is a lot easier. They just need to be shown clear and repeated examples that the rhetoric of the Careers (often as not passed down via the Jabberjays) is utterly baseless and internally contradictory.
Perhaps. But I do care, a little. This discovery has a lot of promise as a foil to creationism because of its obviousness and simplicity.
That has been true of many other discoveries.
Thereâs no way to call it a hoax or a mistake or anything like that, not with dozens of full skeletons.
Creationists and other reality deniers can call anything a hoax.
Indeed, there have been plenty of obvious discoveries, and creationists are more than willing to call even the strongest evidence a hoax. But they will face less success here.
The Careers have written a Playbook which the Jabberjays use to try and handwave evidence. When it comes to transitional forms, you often hear things like "Just an artist's impression" or "Only a couple of bone fragments" or "Circular dating methods" or "Victim of osteoporosis" "Probably another Piltdown hoax" or "Not even a complete skull" or "Nothing but assumptions". These are often very convincing to the Followers because of the nature of paleontology; quite often, we really only do have a couple of fragments of bone.
None of the usual Playbook entries are going to work here. For the first time, we are dealing with dozens of full skeletons all in the same place, with the extraordinary discovery that the skeletons were intentionally placed within a cave. At the same time, the evidence for this species clearly being too ape-like to be fully human is obvious and easy to grasp.
This leaves the Jabberjays with only two remaining Playbook entries: "Just a small ape" and "Just another fully-human individual." Unfortunately for them, the Careers can't decide which one they should use. Which means the Followers have a very real chance of seeing through all the BS.
harold · 15 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
harold said:
Iâm concerned about the rank-and-file lay creationists who continue to support the Careers because theyâre duped.
Many of them are not exactly duped (I'm talking about the 20-30% politically active authoritarians here). They have chosen a "side" that fits with their self-serving biases. What we call "facts" don't matter to them. They will demonize the "other side" and say anything to support the ideology of "their side". Sensing that they lose in a civil, rational discussion, they will always resort to anger, false accusations, repetition of disproven claims, etc.
I would argue that you are grossly overestimating the size of that group and missing a much larger and much more important group.
The Careers, of course, comprise the upper echelon of creationist and are able to profit substantially as a result. We know them well. They are virtually unreachable. I wasn't quite a Career, but I was heading in that direction.
The group you're describing can be referred to as the Jabberjays. These are also the ones who we're most likely to come into direct contact with. They parrot whatever the Careers tell them, they demonize dissidents, they support their favorite Careers with a cultic passion. These are also exceedingly difficult to reach, though dedicated and repeated efforts may prove successful if resistance is slowly whittled down.
However, this group is fairly small. There is a much, much bigger group, the one that actually answers poll questions in favor of creationism. They might not even identify as creationist in particular and they might not be sure about it, but they believe that there's enough uncertainty that creationism is a justifiable and reasonable stance. These are the ones to whom "teach the controversy" is marketed -- I'll call them the Followers.
Reaching the Followers is a lot easier. They just need to be shown clear and repeated examples that the rhetoric of the Careers (often as not passed down via the Jabberjays) is utterly baseless and internally contradictory.
Perhaps. But I do care, a little. This discovery has a lot of promise as a foil to creationism because of its obviousness and simplicity.
That has been true of many other discoveries.
Thereâs no way to call it a hoax or a mistake or anything like that, not with dozens of full skeletons.
Creationists and other reality deniers can call anything a hoax.
Indeed, there have been plenty of obvious discoveries, and creationists are more than willing to call even the strongest evidence a hoax. But they will face less success here.
The Careers have written a Playbook which the Jabberjays use to try and handwave evidence. When it comes to transitional forms, you often hear things like "Just an artist's impression" or "Only a couple of bone fragments" or "Circular dating methods" or "Victim of osteoporosis" "Probably another Piltdown hoax" or "Not even a complete skull" or "Nothing but assumptions". These are often very convincing to the Followers because of the nature of paleontology; quite often, we really only do have a couple of fragments of bone.
None of the usual Playbook entries are going to work here. For the first time, we are dealing with dozens of full skeletons all in the same place, with the extraordinary discovery that the skeletons were intentionally placed within a cave. At the same time, the evidence for this species clearly being too ape-like to be fully human is obvious and easy to grasp.
This leaves the Jabberjays with only two remaining Playbook entries: "Just a small ape" and "Just another fully-human individual." Unfortunately for them, the Careers can't decide which one they should use. Which means the Followers have a very real chance of seeing through all the BS.
1) You make a valid point about the completeness of this find.
2) The terminology "jabberjay" is appropriate.
3) There are two separate, but overlapping, and non-conflicting, goals, when it comes to supporting public understanding of science. The most ambitious is the goal of fully educating as many members of the public as possible.
However, I tend to prioritize the less ambitious goal of working against science denial when it violates my rights or is used to promote bad public policy.
I will note that science denial, denying that for which there is evidence (as opposed to mere uncritical acceptance of something for which there is no evidence), tends to be nefarious and political. HIV denial is more harmful than believing in astrology but accepting HIV as the cause of AIDS.
Having said that, I personally don't much care about creationists who leave me alone; it's the politically active ones I care about.
I suspect that they are mainly the jabberjays. I suspect that 20-30% of the population may be an accurate estimate of their number, but it could be too high. I suspect that they have a pattern of extremely irresponsible secret behavior of their own, coupled with harsh authoritarian claims that others must live by rules that they make up, rules which may well include being required to deny reality. I'll mention a couple of names not directly associated with the ID/creationist movement who illustrate what I'm talking about - Josh Duggar and Kim Davis.
Just Bob · 15 September 2015
harold said:
Josh Duggar and Kim Davis.
Kent Hovind and Jimmy Swaggart and Robert Tilton and Jim Bakker and...
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
Oh, just from personal experience, I would say the Jabberjay/Follower ratio is much, much lower.
I grew up bouncing between churches -- dozens and dozens of them -- and saw a lot of different subgroups in various denominations. Pretty consistently, the Jabberjays only composed 5-10% of the group, even though they were more vocal than the rest of the group put together. If 20% of the population consider themselves creationists, I imagine that only 1-2% of the population comprise actual Jabberjay creationists.
Note: all conspiracy-style movements have this sort of hierarchy between the Careers who create the dogma, the Jabberjays who parrot it out, and the Followers who see it as reasonable and are willing to quietly support it. However, the proportions are different in different areas. For example, the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorist population is probably at least 80% Jabberjay and less than 20% Follower.
I personally donât much care about creationists who leave me alone; itâs the politically active ones I care about.
I would argue that we SHOULD care about the creationist who "leave us alone" because their consent is what gives the Jabberjays their audience and the Careers their power.
NOT to be off thread, unless the thread is once again about creationist motives and character and be jabberjays, (cousins of bluejays) but use this new heap of bones to make your case!! What trait about them makes them not just more apes etc but on a lineage to humans? whatever trait one would bring up that makes them more humanish then ordinary ape COULD easily be seen as convergent evolution working on a ape ending in a dead end! there would never be a reason to confidently say a trait of this new skeleton is evidence of our biological heritage. indeed comparative anatomical investigation is based just on grouping/splicing bones. It would be hard even if evolution was true and these bones were truly ancestral. In the old days they got away with murder in saying some bits of bone were in this or that lineage. It shouldn't just be creationists to hold them to accurate scientific principals before great pronouncements What is the traits here to prove ancestral relationships. .
Yardbird · 15 September 2015
Robert Byers said:
PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEE!!!! I'M SMART,TOO.
Childermass · 15 September 2015
eric said:
AIUI the cave is something like 3 million years old and other australopithecine finds are millions of years old, so I don't think anyone expects these skeletons to be an age which would be accessible to C14 dating. The date question is more like "are they 3 million or 2 million years old," not "are they 40,000 or 50,000 years old." Though with 25 or so nearly complete skeletons, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to try just in case.
The current number for individuals the Dinaledi Chamber is at least 15 though I would not be surprised if it did go up to 25. If you do 1550 specimens (pieces of bones plus isolated teeth) divided by 15 individuals shows that it is no where near 15 complete skulls though they have some representation for the vast majority of the skeleton. Of course completeness might go up as they did further down into the sediments.
I would not rule out that they are in range of radiocarbon. "Primitive populations don't suddenly die if a more "advanced" population evolves. Testing for radiocarbon might very well happen.
A nice article explaining why it is hard to date this find has been published.
It is known that multiple finds have been found since Dinaledi including at least one more hominin site in the Rising Star Cave. With any luck at least will be of the same species and will be in a situation with easier dating.
ashleyhr · 16 September 2015
Young earth creationists NAILED by naledi: http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703
mattdance18 · 16 September 2015
David MacMillan said:
This leaves the Jabberjays with only two remaining Playbook entries: "Just a small ape" and "Just another fully-human individual." Unfortunately for them, the Careers can't decide which one they should use. Which means the Followers have a very real chance of seeing through all the BS.
Which is just beautiful, really. If "ape" and "hominin" were absolutely distinct, there'd be no big difficulty here; the very fact that creationists disagree about this is exactly what evolution would predict, insofar as there will be ape-like and hominin-like features. Their own disagreement just proves that there are indeed transitional fossils whose very existence they routinely deny.
mattdance18 · 16 September 2015
Robert Byers said:
NOT to be off thread, unless the thread is once again about creationist motives and character and be jabberjays, (cousins of bluejays) but use this new heap of bones to make your case!!
What trait about them makes them not just more apes etc but on a lineage to humans? whatever trait one would bring up that makes them more humanish then ordinary ape COULD easily be seen as convergent evolution working on a ape ending in a dead end! there would never be a reason to confidently say a trait of this new skeleton is evidence of our biological heritage.
indeed comparative anatomical investigation is based just on grouping/splicing bones. It would be hard even if evolution was true and these bones were truly ancestral.
In the old days they got away with murder in saying some bits of bone were in this or that lineage.
It shouldn't just be creationists to hold them to accurate scientific principals before great pronouncements
What is the traits here to prove ancestral relationships.
.
Until you use the word "an," it would be a complete waste of time to respond to you substantively.
Henry J · 16 September 2015
And if he were to become slightly more article-ate, would the content improve?
Cogito Sum · 16 September 2015
PBS is broadcasting "Dawn of Humanity" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html featuring this ...
FL · 17 September 2015
Via Reuters and also NBC News:
Critics Question Homo Naledi Fossil Find In South Africa
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/critics-question-homo-naledi-fossil-find-south-africa-n428401
****
From Phys.org :
...The fossils from Europe, Asia and Africa from around this time are physically very diverse, with some researchers thinking they represent multiple species, only one of which could be the ancestor of living humans.
Question is, which one?
This new research suggests the European branch is closest among them all and deserves much more attention in this regard.
In contrast, we don't know, and will doubtless ever know, whether Homo naledi had anything to do with the evolution of living humans, least of all whether its brain, mind or behaviour were anything like our own.
-- from the article Opinion: What about Homo naledi's geologic age?, Sept 15, 2015 by Darren Curnoe, "The Conversation", at Phys.org
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-opinion-homo-naledi-geologic-age.html
FL
Dave Luckett · 17 September 2015
Oh, ring out the bells! There are scientists who question what the data implies! This has never, never, happened before. All scientists always instantly agree on that issue, invariably. And there are some who are willing to admit that they don't know what they don't know. Good heavens! Hold the presses! Extra edition! Worse, they can't prove which of the various earlier hominin species are actually ancestral to ours - or even if any of the ones we know about are.
All the scientists have been able to show from the evidence is that there was a variety of now-extinct ground apes in Africa that were already fully bipedal four and a half million years ago; that some of these show a mosaic of features that come closer to the human norm the closer they are in time to us; and that H. naledi had such a mosaic, with enough resemblence to humans to include the species in the same genus, on judgement. This gives obvious support to fiat creationism. Clearly. Would FL lie to you?
mattdance18 · 17 September 2015
Yardbird said:
Robert Byers said:
PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEE!!!! I'M SMART,TOO.
Like Fredo Corleone. "I can handle things! I'm smart!"
mattdance18 · 17 September 2015
I love Uncle Floyd's typical creationist doubt-mongering move here. Homo naledi is not likely a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens and may not tell us much about brain evolution -- ergo, the creationist "infers," it can't tell us anything about Homo sapiens' evolution at all, ergo Homo sapiens didn't evolve.
Moronic.
tomh · 17 September 2015
FL refers to an interesting article describing DNA evidence from 400k years ago. I guess that means he accepts that evidence.
phhht · 17 September 2015
FL said:
From Phys.org :
...
In contrast, we don't know, and will doubtless ever know, whether Homo naledi had anything to do with the evolution of living humans, least of all whether its brain, mind or behaviour were anything like our own.
-- from the article Opinion: What about Homo naledi's geologic age?, Sept 15, 2015 by Darren Curnoe, "The Conversation", at Phys.org
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-opinion-homo-naledi-geologic-age.html
One of the symptoms of Flawd's religious disorder is an inability to refrain from god-of-the-gaps arguments.
The fact that we do not know says nothing whatever about the role of gods or the supernatural in the question.
Agreed, Flawd?
Cogito Sum · 17 September 2015
Apparently FL's cognitive myopia (invincible ignorance? Mr. Downard's "Tortucan" concept?) blinds him to certain fundamental precepts of evolution and scientific methodology. Nova's âDawn of Humanityâ offers much for the general audience to reflect upon, not withstanding the ineducable predilections offered by certain of society's challenged. Autoritätsdusel ist der gröÃte Feind der Wahrheit. Albert Einstein âThe stupor of authority is the greatest enemy of truth.â
ashleyhr · 19 September 2015
The fun goes on - it might NOT be an 'ape' it might be bones of MANKIND: http://creation.com/homo-naledi
Childermass · 19 September 2015
ashleyhr said:
The fun goes on - it might NOT be an 'ape' it might be bones of MANKIND:
http://creation.com/homo-naledi
And poor researched. They offered to "fund" radiocarbon test though the researchers have said at many, many places that intend to perform radiocarbon testing as well as DNA testing.
Dave Luckett said:
Oh, ring out the bells! There are scientists who question what the data implies! This has never, never, happened before. All scientists always instantly agree on that issue, invariably. And there are some who are willing to admit that they don't know what they don't know. Good heavens! Hold the presses! Extra edition! Worse, they can't prove which of the various earlier hominin species are actually ancestral to ours - or even if any of the ones we know about are.
All the scientists have been able to show from the evidence is that there was a variety of now-extinct ground apes in Africa that were already fully bipedal four and a half million years ago; that some of these show a mosaic of features that come closer to the human norm the closer they are in time to us; and that H. naledi had such a mosaic, with enough resemblence to humans to include the species in the same genus, on judgement. This gives obvious support to fiat creationism. Clearly. Would FL lie to you?
Scientists have what it takes to explore all the ramifications of new discoveries; it is a necessary part of generating the research programs needed to check hypotheses; making sure that something isn't overlooked while other "obvious" things are not taken for granted without further checking. Scientists know how to dig for answers.
On the other hand, such behavior is absolute heresy in sectarian religion. Disagreements end up in acrimonious splintering and, where not prevented by secular laws, blood wars and death. Such splintering and killing insures that there is total agreement within sectarian ranks.
The lack of disagreement is a prized feature of sectarian religion; and disagreements or alternative hypotheses in science are considered as evidence that scientists are unable to control or are unwilling to stamp out heresy because of their lack of absolute moral standards.
Thanks for the link. This is exactly what one should expect if humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. It makes no sense whatsoever in any kind of creationist scenario. And playing word games with species and genus names isn't gong to help them this time. Trying to call it an ape or a human isn't going to work. The real story is rich and complex, with lots of presumptive species and probably lots of interbreeding between presumptive species. SInce ancient DNA studies are now able to address such issues, we should have a much more detailed picture of human evolution in the near future. The last little gap will be filled in and creationists will have no place left to hide. Of course they still won't be convinced, they are immune to evidence, but no reasonable person will be fooled by their nonsense any longer.
Henry J · 20 September 2015
Course, reasonable people who have studied the subject aren't fooled by them now. It's the ones who haven't studied that are fooled.
68 Comments
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 September 2015
Ah ha, but how many things have IDists/creationists not found in the meantime?
Just take their perspective, and there is neither discovery nor need for it. Make up some numbers, do some calculations, and that's all the science that they ever need.
Glen Davidson
Karen s · 11 September 2015
Joe Felsenstein · 11 September 2015
The science press seems somewhat fixated on the "new species" claim. Whether or not these are a different species from other forms, they have very interesting combinations of characters, and the fact that they represent multiple individuals is important.
Paleontologists have a bias toward "splitting" and declaring new species, because it gets a lot more attention than saying that you have found multiple new specimens of an early population from a lineage of our genus.
The difficulty of estimating the age of these specimens is unfortunate.
It is also interesting that John Hawks, whose science blog gets quoted here from time to time, is one of the investigators. So far he has not talked about it at his blog, perhaps because he was waiting for a publication to appear.
Just Bob · 11 September 2015
I feel a Byers coming on. Dead bones aren't biological. Or something.
Joe Felsenstein · 11 September 2015
I should also mention that, although they are trying to get DNA sequence from these specimens, they may be too old for that. I am not sure that anyone has succeeded in getting usable DNA older than 200,000 years.
eric · 11 September 2015
What a great find. Hope they can date it; pretty much any answer would be interesting. If they get an early date, that means australopithicines were all over Africa millions of years ago (these finds were in South Africa, roughly 1800 miles from where Lucy was found). If they get a later date, that would mean that the genera (is that the right level?) was on earth for a fairly long time.
David MacMillan · 11 September 2015
Mike Elzinga · 11 September 2015
eric · 11 September 2015
David MacMillan · 11 September 2015
Just Bob · 11 September 2015
TomS · 11 September 2015
I like to imagine the creationists describing how the scientists decided on the ages of things.
There was the secret meeting of the atheists to settle the disputes. There were the conservatives who argued that we only need a few million years in order to rule out the Christian belief of 6000 years. There were the radicals who wanted infinite time. So they settled on a compromise with numbers in the low billions. It isn't clear how they settled on the numbers that they did. Clearly they wanted to have some semblance of precision. Nobody would be happy with just saying "a few billion years", but how can one come up with 4.54 billion years for the Earth, rather than 987 million or 23.2 billion, when - as everybody knows - it is totally circular and arbitrary.
Joe Felsenstein · 11 September 2015
David MacMillan · 11 September 2015
harold · 12 September 2015
Matt Young · 12 September 2015
Matt Young · 12 September 2015
For a review and an ongoing discussion of various creationists' reactions, see Naturalis Historia here.
Henry J · 12 September 2015
Well of course it's "fully" ape.
So are we.
David MacMillan · 12 September 2015
This gem trumps it all:
"What to make of Bergerâs claim that the ancient Homo naledi buried their dead? There are other options that are far more reasonable. Perhaps a local flood did wash them into the cave. Perhaps these creatures wandered into a cave and were trapped there. We may never know how they got in there, but to superimpose elaborate burial rituals on what appears to be an ape with a gorilla-sized brain is far more than a stretch."
Oh, there's a stretch all right. It's the stretching noise of my brain exploding in sheer disbelief at this level of inanity.
They. Buried. Their. Dead.
There's no way around that.
Henry J · 12 September 2015
Did anybody besides him refer to their burial rituals as "elaborate"?
harold · 12 September 2015
Why don't they just say that hominids are mythical creatures mentioned in Genesis; human-like but not fully human? Call them the offspring of Lilith or something. It would be so much less stupid than calling everything "ape" or "human" (especially since even if humans were created by magic 6000 years ago, we'd still be apes, just apes created by magic 6000 years ago).
I'll answer my own question. Authoritarian thinking. They prefer to repeat mantras that originated with authoritarian leaders.
Just Bob · 12 September 2015
Childermass · 12 September 2015
Childermass · 12 September 2015
David MacMillan · 12 September 2015
I feel like we need to get Dr. Brennan on the case.
Henry J · 13 September 2015
Robert Byers · 13 September 2015
Comparative anatomy is as good for origins as comparing anatomy can be. Its just comparing bones.
Convergent evolution would also answer any likeness of this bones to any ape/human claims. nOt just species within the lineage.
In fact I don't see how confidence can ever be gad when comvergent evolution is so easily invoked when desired.
The big point I always make , to fellow creationists also, is if the female can be determined to have had pain at birthing. tHis by the shape etc. only our women have pain at birthing and this because of her shape and the childs head etc etc.
If no evidence of pain by this way then its just an animal.
thats the great forensic clue at least for creationists.
Yardbird · 13 September 2015
Henry J · 13 September 2015
Just Bob · 13 September 2015
Scott F · 13 September 2015
Scott F · 13 September 2015
Scott F · 13 September 2015
TomS · 13 September 2015
Childermass · 14 September 2015
eric · 14 September 2015
David MacMillan · 14 September 2015
Scott F · 14 September 2015
harold · 15 September 2015
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
harold · 15 September 2015
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
harold · 15 September 2015
Just Bob · 15 September 2015
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
David MacMillan · 15 September 2015
A relevant point...
Robert Byers · 15 September 2015
NOT to be off thread, unless the thread is once again about creationist motives and character and be jabberjays, (cousins of bluejays) but use this new heap of bones to make your case!!
What trait about them makes them not just more apes etc but on a lineage to humans? whatever trait one would bring up that makes them more humanish then ordinary ape COULD easily be seen as convergent evolution working on a ape ending in a dead end! there would never be a reason to confidently say a trait of this new skeleton is evidence of our biological heritage.
indeed comparative anatomical investigation is based just on grouping/splicing bones. It would be hard even if evolution was true and these bones were truly ancestral.
In the old days they got away with murder in saying some bits of bone were in this or that lineage.
It shouldn't just be creationists to hold them to accurate scientific principals before great pronouncements
What is the traits here to prove ancestral relationships.
.
Yardbird · 15 September 2015
Childermass · 15 September 2015
ashleyhr · 16 September 2015
Young earth creationists NAILED by naledi:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3703
mattdance18 · 16 September 2015
mattdance18 · 16 September 2015
Henry J · 16 September 2015
And if he were to become slightly more article-ate, would the content improve?
Cogito Sum · 16 September 2015
PBS is broadcasting "Dawn of Humanity" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html featuring this ...
FL · 17 September 2015
Dave Luckett · 17 September 2015
Oh, ring out the bells! There are scientists who question what the data implies! This has never, never, happened before. All scientists always instantly agree on that issue, invariably. And there are some who are willing to admit that they don't know what they don't know. Good heavens! Hold the presses! Extra edition! Worse, they can't prove which of the various earlier hominin species are actually ancestral to ours - or even if any of the ones we know about are.
All the scientists have been able to show from the evidence is that there was a variety of now-extinct ground apes in Africa that were already fully bipedal four and a half million years ago; that some of these show a mosaic of features that come closer to the human norm the closer they are in time to us; and that H. naledi had such a mosaic, with enough resemblence to humans to include the species in the same genus, on judgement. This gives obvious support to fiat creationism. Clearly. Would FL lie to you?
mattdance18 · 17 September 2015
mattdance18 · 17 September 2015
I love Uncle Floyd's typical creationist doubt-mongering move here. Homo naledi is not likely a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens and may not tell us much about brain evolution -- ergo, the creationist "infers," it can't tell us anything about Homo sapiens' evolution at all, ergo Homo sapiens didn't evolve.
Moronic.
tomh · 17 September 2015
FL refers to an interesting article describing DNA evidence from 400k years ago. I guess that means he accepts that evidence.
phhht · 17 September 2015
Cogito Sum · 17 September 2015
Apparently FL's cognitive myopia (invincible ignorance? Mr. Downard's "Tortucan" concept?) blinds him to certain fundamental precepts of evolution and scientific methodology. Nova's âDawn of Humanityâ offers much for the general audience to reflect upon, not withstanding the ineducable predilections offered by certain of society's challenged.
Autoritätsdusel ist der gröÃte Feind der Wahrheit. Albert Einstein âThe stupor of authority is the greatest enemy of truth.â
ashleyhr · 19 September 2015
The fun goes on - it might NOT be an 'ape' it might be bones of MANKIND:
http://creation.com/homo-naledi
Childermass · 19 September 2015
Childermass · 19 September 2015
John Hawks replies very strongly against critics of the Dinaledi publications at Is Homo naledi just a primitive version of Homo erectus?
Mike Elzinga · 20 September 2015
DS · 20 September 2015
Henry J · 20 September 2015
Course, reasonable people who have studied the subject aren't fooled by them now. It's the ones who haven't studied that are fooled.
fnxtr · 20 September 2015