Homo naledi: a newly discovered relative of ours

[suspsy]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447

Fascinating. And the 15 specimens may have been deliberately interred in that cave. Even more intriguing.

Am I the only one who would like to see more figures of early hominids?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Seeing alot of ......caution from the various scientists on this one...skepticism and saw the comment....not all discoveries can all be new species, for instance.

[suspsy]

Even if it isn't actually a new species, 15 hominid specimens is still a HUGE paleontological find.

[suspsy]

Although I'd be curious to read these skeptical comments. Got a link?

[DinoLord]

Yeah, I haven't seen much skepticism either. The large sample size is actually quite encouraging. Too bad they haven't been able to date the remains yet...

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Although I'd be curious to read these skeptical comments. Got a link?

Just go on facebook, if you have any of the paleos on your list, read some of their responses.....the people I saw commenting were known paleos.

   Apparently much of the issue that is being kicked around here centers around the lack of cladistical study done and if the authors of the paper got it right, as they do not use cladistics in paleoanthropolgy, similar to what paleontologists do for what are normally termed new discoveries.
The discussion kicked off from a comment made by Michael Everheart, of "Oceans of Kansas Fame" making the statement that..."Not all discoveries can be new species......"
   if that helps.

[suspsy]

Ah, I thought you were referring to an article or an interview you had read. Facebook comments don't really count for much. Although it is wise to be cautious with any discovery of this magnitude. The media has a bad tendency to overhype things with headlines about "missing links." But based on everything I've read so far in the last two days, it sounds like there's a pretty strong case for H. naledi. National Geographic will be doing a cover story about it next month. Looking forward to it.

[Gwangi]

Ah, I thought you were referring to an article or an interview you had read. Facebook comments don't really count for much. Although it is wise to be cautious with any discovery of this magnitude. The media has a bad tendency to overhype things with headlines about "missing links." But based on everything I've read so far in the last two days, it sounds like there's a pretty strong case for H. naledi. National Geographic will be doing a cover story about it next month. Looking forward to it.

John Gurche has already sculpted it too and will be discussing the discovery at my local museum later this month. Hopefully I can make it there!

[suspsy]

If you do manage to make it, tell him his sculptures are superb. And maybe inquire as to why he never seems to paint dinosaurs anymore.

[Gwangi]

If you do manage to make it, tell him his sculptures are superb. And maybe inquire as to why he never seems to paint dinosaurs anymore.

The last time I saw him I made sure to compliment him on his sculptures. And I did make a remake about his lack of dinosaurs as of late. Something like "I really love your hominids but please do dinosaurs again someday". He just replied with a chuckle.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Ah, I thought you were referring to an article or an interview you had read. Facebook comments don't really count for much. Although it is wise to be cautious with any discovery of this magnitude. The media has a bad tendency to overhype things with headlines about "missing links." But based on everything I've read so far in the last two days, it sounds like there's a pretty strong case for H. naledi. National Geographic will be doing a cover story about it next month. Looking forward to it.

Facebook comments from professional paleos like Thomas Holz and Michael Everheart do not count for much? While I understand they are paleontologists, and not archeologists, I would offer they do have some understanding of the discovery, publishing and understanding of any discovery or fossil. And further when they are sitting having an open ended discussion with multiple other experts in the field? I am unsure that using a blanket statement like...facebook comments do not count for much works. Of course they do, if you consider and listen to the source and what they are saying. Thomas Holz, Michael Everheart and some of the other scientists speaking there have alot of hard learned experience, ideas and knowledge to bring to the discussion and it does not really matter wether on facebook or another forum....I would not discount their opinions simply because of the format.
   And just to help with an understanding of what does and does not count for much, it might be a consideration to remember that National Geographic was just more or less bought out by Rupert Murdoch who has some pretty serious anti science agendas to advance. Of course that is just another set of Facebook comments too I guess..but alot of people are not particularly thrilled with the direction or overall avenue that magazine is now headed and view it as "problematic" Seen some pretty dire predictions stating there goes the last of the true science based magazines left .

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Incidentally and I meant to include this in my previous but those of you who do have Thomas Holz in your friends on Facebook, he has the paper regarding this discovery posted within the thread I am referring to. They are using the actual paper to discuss the discovery.

[suspsy]

No, Facebook comments really do not count for very much when it comes to refuting scientific claims, and I'm sure Holtz, Everhart, and any other paleontologist worth his or her salt would acknowledge that fact. Advocating caution instead of jumping to conclusions is fine. More than fine. I'm all for such common sense, as I stated earlier. But your previous posts seem to suggest that Holtz and Everhart and possibly other paleontologists are openly doubting the validity of H. naledi, and that is where I find fault. Holtz and Everhart have not examined those fossils personally. They are not part of the research team. They are not even in the field of paleoanthropology, as you and I both know. So yes, I will be sticking to my earlier statement that Facebook comments do not count for very much. Certainly not as much as an actual study that properly refutes the validity of H. naledi. It is possible that could happen, but it hasn't happened yet.

It would be very much appreciated if you could share a link to the Facebook threads you mentioned. I checked on the Paleontology, Paleontology!, and Prehistoric Times groups, and I didn't see any threads casting professional doubt on H. naledi. If it's not too much trouble, could you please oblige me?

And yes, I'm well aware of Rupert Murdoch acquiring NG, and I definitely share your misgivings. But NG has stated that they will retain full editorial control and it is my earnest hope that that proves to be the case. Also, while Murdoch is a climate change denier, I'm not aware of him being an evolution denier to boot. But we shall see, won't we?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

No, Facebook comments really do not count for very much when it comes to refuting scientific claims, and I'm sure Holtz, Everhart, and any other paleontologist worth his or her salt would acknowledge that fact. Advocating caution instead of jumping to conclusions is fine. More than fine. I'm all for such common sense, as I stated earlier. But your previous posts seem to suggest that Holtz and Everhart and possibly other paleontologists are openly doubting the validity of H. naledi, and that is where I find fault. Holtz and Everhart have not examined those fossils personally. They are not part of the research team. They are not even in the field of paleoanthropology, as you and I both know. So yes, I will be sticking to my earlier statement that Facebook comments do not count for very much. Certainly not as much as an actual study that properly refutes the validity of H. naledi. It is possible that could happen, but it hasn't happened yet.

It would be very much appreciated if you could share a link to the Facebook threads you mentioned. I checked on the Paleontology, Paleontology!, and Prehistoric Times groups, and I didn't see any threads casting professional doubt on H. naledi. If it's not too much trouble, could you please oblige me?

And yes, I'm well aware of Rupert Murdoch acquiring NG, and I definitely share your misgivings. But NG has stated that they will retain full editorial control and it is my earnest hope that that proves to be the case. Also, while Murdoch is a climate change denier, I'm not aware of him being an evolution denier to boot. But we shall see, won't we?

I believe my early comments were precisely that the people in question were expressing skepticism and discussing the lack of a cladistical study. I do not recall stating they had issued a refutation of any type ...I did state they were discussing the finding using the paper issued on the topic. I then quoted Michael Everheart as stating in that context...."Not all new discoveries can be new species" a comment he did make and which is correct in fact. It may or may not hold relevance to this find, but the comment is accurate and is not a refutation of the find itself. I am sure you are aware as this find was only published a day or so ago, that no study exists which would refute it. This means scientists are doing precisely what they are supposed to...examing and discussing the results based on their merits and pointing out the strong and weak points in the paper. In this context , each and every comment being made does count..and should be considered on its own merits and not due to where it is posted particularly.
  Regarding sharing a link , I have more than once mentioned that you would need to be either friends or following Thomas Holz, as the thread appears on his page. I have further stated one of the particpants, is Michael Everheart, so if you are friends with him, you might be able to find the thread through his comments regarding it......that is how I found and am reading the discussion. Thomas Holz posts on a wide range of geo-paleo-archaeo-topics and often draws out some quite educational discussion. The other particpants to my eyes seem to be people in the field of archaeo-and anthro sciences that are talking.
  I am not well versed in what Mr. Murdochs beliefs are myself, but in reading the past few days it has sounded like the tolling of the bell of doom for National Geographic...apparently a great number of people feel the magazine is doomed to slide into some form of mental abyss or something. How that might relate to hominids and ancient man I am unsure...but I have seen a few comments already suggesting he has some form of unspecified bias in this area, although the comments were fuzzy at best and not anything that was  specific enough that I could understand or derive a viewpoint .
  As for the discussion you are seeking, my advice would be friend Thomas Holz, fastest way to get to it.

[Dinoguy2]

Ah, I thought you were referring to an article or an interview you had read. Facebook comments don't really count for much. Although it is wise to be cautious with any discovery of this magnitude. The media has a bad tendency to overhype things with headlines about "missing links." But based on everything I've read so far in the last two days, it sounds like there's a pretty strong case for H. naledi. National Geographic will be doing a cover story about it next month. Looking forward to it.

Facebook comments from professional paleos like Thomas Holz

For the record, Tom Holtz has been defending the ID as a new species on Facebook. He said basically there are some anthropologists who are too happy to lump anything not australopithecine or H. sapiens into H. erectus. The authors didn't do a cladistic analysis but that hasn't become a very common type of study in anthropology yet so it's not surprising. Somebody will do one eventually. In the mean time, from everybody who I consider an expert I've seen on FB, they think the morphological characters are enough to name a new species. Of course, what "species" mean when you have one population evolving into another becomes pretty meaningless. Most species of Homo are grades, not clades, already.

If you want comments from somebody who's actually well versed in human paleontology rather than prehistoric reptiles, Mike Keesey is a good person to follow on FB and his blog 3 Pound Monkey Brain. He does a good job making sense of hominid evolution. (For what it's worth, he also agrees H. naledi is a new species despite not having a phylogeny yet, and he's a founding member of PhyloCode!).

[suspsy]

I've been friends with Tom Holtz for years now (it's his birthday today, incidentally). And as Dinoguy2 already pointed out, nothing he's said about H. naledi on his page seriously questions its validity. And as I've said a couple times now and will say again, informal Facebook comments do not count for very much when it comes to proving or disproving a theory.

[tanystropheus]

This hominid or proto-hominid looks like an orangutan.