Posted on 09/15/2015 5:14:18 AM PDT by kimtom
On September 10th the media began highlighting the latest fossil find which is argued, once again, to be representative of an ancient ancestor of humans—Homo naledi. We are wary about how we respond to brand new discoveries, since always the “jury is still out” when these stories are first splashed in the media and portrayed as conclusive proof of various claims. We have documented their rashness time and again (e.g., Miller, 2015a; Miller, 2015b; Miller, 2015c), and this story is no exception. Fox News highlighted South African deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa’s statement that “history books will have to be rewritten” based on this discovery (Tilsley, 2015), a statement very reminiscent of how the media viewed the Homo floresiensis fossils when they were discovered in 2004. In 2014 a new study suggests that the fossils were merely modern humans with Down Syndrome (Miller, 2015b). In keeping with previous trends among naturalists and the media, it seems likely that this newest discovery will again, in the long run, prove not to be what the media is currently claiming it to be, .......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
Hominid of the month club.
the term human ancestor is not properly used. a better term would be human predecessor because the direct lineage is not established
The original account of man’s origin transcends time.
GENESIS 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
“Since the hundreds of bones were found disarticulated (i.e., separated from one another rather than in skeletal frame position), there is no conclusive way to know which bones go with which species—and by implication, no way to know if there are or are not multiple species”
Sounds like a convenient disposal site for scraps and bones from a primitive campsite. Primitive man’s diet was probably opportunistic and varied. I’m a little bored with the missing link thing; probably because I’m a Christian.
In all fairness, there are only about a dozen partial neanderthal skulls known, so while identifying them from their known commonalities, that distinguish them from other hominids, it is easy to assume that their unusual features *mean* something.
For example, many years ago, it was noted that in perhaps two of the skulls, the two that had at least partially intact sinus bones, that there were bony protrusions into the sinuses. It was postulated that these would restrict air flow while warming the air.
An advantage in cold climates, as cold air can harm the trachea and lungs, in warmer, more humid climates, it would mean perpetual sinusitis, and make that individual much more prone to sinus infection, which can be very debilitating.
Pretty simple theory. But it split the research community into two, bitter and argumentative halves. As someone has noted, “In academia, the arguments can be incredibly nasty, *precisely* because the stakes are so small.”
The ape-man is still here, but he’s kept in a cage at the zoo.
Then there's this one.
Homo Naledi
Is the real Slim Shady
All you other Slim Shadys
Are three million years too late-y
So can Homo Naledi
Really stand up?
Please stand up!
Please stand up!
Cause Homo Naledi
Is the real Slim Shady
All you other Slim Shadys
Are three million years too late-y
So can Homo Naledi
Really stand up?
Please stand up!
Please stand up!
Is homo maledi a proven ancestor of homo sapiens man ? Not by a long shot.
COULD homo maledi BE an ancestor of man and part of God’s creation of man ? Absolutely. I don’t presume to limit God or the techiques He uses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.