Homo Naledi

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/homo_naledi_as/

This article is based on a collection of different research and publications whose atrributions have been made throughout the article and at the bottom as references.

Homo Naledi was a Chimpanzee species. It is too young to have been a human ancestor

According to Gauger (2015), "If the fossils are younger than 2 million years, the story remains interesting but not nearly so important. Why? Because that would make them younger than the oldest known Homo fossils, Homo erectus, whose morphology was almost exactly like ours. That would make Homo naledi an interesting side branch among hominins, but definitely not the missing link between us and an ape-like ancestor, if such a thing ever existed" (Gauger, 2015b).

What do experts say ?

In this respect, Clarey, Dirks, et al, say, "Nearly all of the U-Th dates of the teeth and the carbon dates of the bones indicated an age less than 100,000 years old (Clarey 2017; Dirks et al. 2017).", (O’Micks & Clarey L., 2017)

H. naledi had a small brain compared to ours, about the size of a chimpanzee’s. To some writers that seems to indicate the probable lack of high levels of cognition. Only species with brain sizes near our own are considered intelligent. The data used to support that claim are (a) our current knowledge of chimp and gorilla brain sizes, and their lack of rational, abstract thought; and (b) the claim that a gradual progression in brain size exists from australopiths to Homo erectus to Neanderthals to us, indicating a gradual progression in intelligence, which fits the evolutionary story. (Luskin, 2015)

H. naledi has a mixture of ape-like and human-like traits. It depends on the desired outcome which traits will be emphasized, and where H. naledi will be placed on the putative fossil tree. The discoverers have placed her squarely on the human side based on her apparent behavior and her inferred ability for long distance walking

(Gauger, 2015).

[William] Jungers, is a [chair of the department of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University]: “Jungers is more dismissive of Berger’s suggestion that we may have inherited the practice of burying our dead from H. naledi, a creature with a much smaller brain than modern humans. “That’s crazy speculation — the suggestion that modern humans learned anything from these pin heads is funny.”

Some emphasize that the hands are more chimp-like in their fingers, and that the shoulders appear to be suited for climbing. Thus H. naledi spent time in trees, making her more australopith-like. Others emphasize that limbs and feet appear to be mostly like ours, indicating long distance walking ability, and thus assign her status as Homo.

In fact there is a dispute about whether the find represents one species or two. Berger and his coauthors claim the find represents one species. But others disagree. Jeffrey Schwarz, professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, says this about Homo naledi and the subject of classification and preconceived notions:

“Why do all belong to the same species? Because they were found in the same cave. but, the published images tell a different story…. Even at this stage of their being publicized, the “Homo naledi” specimens reflect even greater diversity in the human fossil record than their discoverers will admit.

"What to do? As I recently advocated in the journal Science, it’s about time paleoanthropologists acknowledged what a taxonomic and undefinable mess the genus Homo has become, and restudy the human fossil record without preconceived notions and the historical weight of overly used names." (Kontinen, 2015) and (Schwartz, 2015).

Were Bones Buried or Intentionally Placed ?

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/on_h_naledi_sep/

Many bones were found in that nearly inaccessible cave. This may be due to non-intentional natural causes, or perhaps the bones were intentionally placed there by someone (by their own species — who knows?). The latter would argue for some special care of the dead, and perhaps intelligence like ours (or not — for another point of view see an article by primatologist Frans de Waal in the New York Times). It also depends on whether there was ever another possible route into the cave, or some sort of natural disaster that collected them in one place.

Does the find represent a single species with mixed traits, or is it a mixture of two species? The authors of the paper claim that all the fossils are definitely of the same species, with any differences due to sexual dimorphism and age. (Sexual dimorphism means the sexes look different from one another. Think of how gorilla babies, full-grown male silverbacks, and adult females look compared to each other.) Other scientists doubt that claim, and say the differences indicate separate species.

What impact, if any, should this discovery have on our view of human origins? It depends on whether you are convinced common descent is true. If you already believe we came from a chimp-like ancestor, you will see this as confirmation.

If you doubt common descent, (believe that God created Humans) and/or have considered our arguments against the possibility of unguided evolution, nothing has changed. Intelligent design had to be involved. The basic mechanism of Darwinian evolution is still incapable of unguided evolution. And the question of whether we share an ancestor with chimps will not be decided one way or the other by this fossil find. Finding a fossil with intermediate traits does not mean there is a bridge from there to full humanity.

Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/on_h_naledi_sep/

Luskin ads,

Ironically, all of these claims are major hype because, as we’ll see, no one knows how old these bones are, and so it’s entirely possible they’re younger than our own species, making it, at present, a very real possibility that it’s chronologically impossible for them to be anything remotely close to our “ancestor.” Carol Ward, a scientist at the University of Missouri, stated: “Without dates, the fossils reveal almost nothing about hominin evolution, beyond supporting the growing realisation that there was much more species diversity than previously thought.”

The main claim about Homo naledi is that it is a small-brained hominin (when compared to humans) that has other features that are very humanlike — especially its hands and feet. As the news headlines suggest, there has been an immense amount of hype about this species, consistent with the hype surrounding Australopithecus sediba, which again was discovered and promoted by the same researcher, Lee Berger. However, while there are some humanlike aspects of its body plan, my overall impression is that this is a highly unique species that doesn’t fit well into previously established categories.

The hands are claimed to be humanlike but they have key unique features and, unlike human hands, are tailored for climbing. ABC News reported: “Homo naledi had human-like hands and feet, but Tattersall said it was impressive that it also had climbing features, more similar to an ape.

“Its hands are superficially humanlike, but the finger bones are locked into a curve — a trait that suggests climbing and tool-using capabilities.” And even Berger states: “It’s pretty clear from those fingers that they’re [for] climbing.”

The femur is unique: “The femur of H. naledi differs from those of all other known hominins in its possession of two well-defined, mediolaterally-running pillars in the femoral neck. The pillars run along the superoanterior and inferoposterior margins of the neck and define a distinct sulcus along its superior aspect.” As one story on the find states: “its thigh bones had ridges that were unlike any found on other hominins.”

Even Berger (the scientist who collectively found, and examined the Homo Naledi remains) admits, “It doesn’t look a lot like us.” He also states: “There may be debate over the Homo designation” since “the species is quite different from anything else we have seen.”

It wouldn’t be surprising if later analyses change our understanding of the fossil. One scientist suggests new interpretations may be forthcoming:

Carol Ward, a professor of pathology and anatomical sciences at the University of Missouri said, “There’s nothing we can use to make our own judgments about the validity of what they are saying.”

The promoters of Homo naledi are are calling it an “anatomical mosaic.” That terminology raises a red flag. In the parlance of evolutionary biology, it means the fossil is a strange organism that doesn’t fit well into the standard phylogeny.

Just four years ago Australopithecus sediba was the transitional form du jour between Australopithecus and Homo. If people now want to advocate Homo naledi as the new transition, then they have to radically change the phylogeny. As Berger confirms, the two species have very different mixtures of traits:

“Naledi is almost the mirror of sediba,” says Berger. “Almost everywhere in the sediba skeleton where you see primitive features, in naledi you see derived features. And almost everywhere that sediba is derived, naledi is primitive.”

It is evolutionary interpretations, not the data, that are guiding the proposed dates of the bones. Smithsonian paleoanthropologist Rick Potts brings the conversation back to earth:

Rick Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution’s Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the discovery, said that without an age, “there’s no way we can judge the evolutionary significance of this find.”

If the bones are about as old as the Homo group, that would argue that naledi is “a snapshot of … the evolutionary experimentation that was going on right around the origin” of Homo, he said. If they are significantly younger, it either shows the naledi retained the primitive body characteristics much longer than any other known creature, or that it re-evolved them, he said.

As for the Dinaledi finds, Schwartz and Tattersall point out that although the foreheads of some of the new skulls are gently sloped, one skull has a taller forehead with a distinct brow ridge — suggesting two species are present. “Putting these fossils in the genus Homo adds to the lack of clarity in trying to sort out human evolution,” says Schwartz.

That’s a very significant observation. There are two different types of skulls found in the cave. Normally that would suggest multiple species, but these authors want there to be a single species with a small brain and human-like hands and feet — the “transitional mosaic.”

Jeffrey Schwartz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, thinks that the material is too varied to represent a single species. “I could show those images to my students and they would say that they’re not the same,” he says. One of the skulls looks more like it comes from an australopithecine, he says, as do certain features of the femurs.

Complicating all of this is the fact that many of the bones were jumbled up in the cave. CNN reports:

“The first thing that you would see, especially in the early stages of the investigation, was just bones. Bone debris everywhere,” says K. Lindsay Hunter, an American scientist and one of the “astronauts” on the Rising Star expeditions, which were conducted in November 2013 and March 2014.

Likewise ABC News reports:

“Everywhere that my headlamp shone, I could see that there was bone on the floor. Not full bone but fragments of material,” Marina Elliott, one of the authors of the study detailing the find, told BBC News. “It was an incredible thing to see.”

Observations like these show how it can be very difficult to determine which hands or feet were connected to what craniums and other bones in a living individual. The discoverers/promoters of the fossils claim they all belong to a single species, but do we know that’s true?

DID HOMO NALEDI really “bury their dead”

According to the The New York Times they did, and they described it this way:

“Besides introducing a new member of the prehuman family, the discovery suggests that some early hominins intentionally deposited bodies of their dead in a remote and largely inaccessible cave chamber, a behavior previously considered limited to modern humans. Some of the scientists referred to the practice as a ritualized treatment of their dead, but by “ritual” they said they meant a deliberate and repeated practice, not necessarily a kind of religious rite.”

Even if this story is true, it’s not the case that this species buried its dead in any manner like humans bury their dead. The bones weren’t buried in the ground. Rather, it seems like the bodies were just tossed into the back crevice of a cave and left there to rot, as New Scientist explains:

The cave layout seems not to have changed in thousands of years, so either bodies were dragged into the caves and “posted” down the shaft, or else people crawled down there alive and subsequently died.

The bones were found at the very back of a large cave in a small chamber that was separated from the cave through a narrow bottleneck, kind of like a stomach that’s separated by something like an esophagus. As New Scientist explains, “To reach the chamber, you have to descend through a narrow, 12-metre vertical shaft.”

The cave layout means that if this species did “bury” its dead, then it would have had to crawl very far back into a deep dark cave, dragging a body with it. Some have suggested that would require using torches. Is that likely? This species had a small brain not much larger than a chimp, and we definitely don’t see any extant evidence that species with that kind of intelligence could use fire, or bury its dead. Burial by torchlight seems highly unlikely for a species of this level of intelligence. As Scientific American explains:

The suggestion that small-brained H. naledi was systematically disposing of its dead has likewise raised eyebrows. “It would be quite radical,” says Alison Brooks of George Washington University. “There are people who think Neandertals didn’t bury their dead,” she observes. (Neandertals are our closest relatives; they had brains as large as our own and engaged in a host of sophisticated behaviors. Whether or not they buried their dead is a matter of some debate. ) “I don’t want to rule it out entirely that they’re right, but I just think it is so far out there that they really need a higher standard of proof.” Brooks adds that the team would have a better case if it could show that the remains all date to the same time period.

How easy was it to get to the “burial ground” of the cave ?

The Scientist explains what modern-day researchers had to go through to get to the chamber where the bones were found:

To reach the ancient specimen-rich chamber, researchers had to squeeze through a tiny gap just 7.5 inches wide. The remains appear to have arrived in the cave fully intact and decomposed after deposition. Researchers found no indication of predation. … Ward is also skeptical of the intentional burial explanation. “If it’s really that hard to get to the cave, how do you get to that long dark cave carrying your dead grandmother?” she asked.

So how did the Homo Naledi get down to a cave whose gap was only 7.5 inches wide ?

Indeed, even if there is deliberate disposal of the dead, that doesn’t necessarily mean that members of Homo naledi were the ones doing the burying, as the Associated Press reminds us: “Potts said a deliberate disposal of dead bodies is a feasible explanation, but he added it’s not clear who did the disposing. Maybe it was some human relative other than naledi, he said.”

An article at IFL Science frames the problem well:

So how did this collection of individuals arrive in this dark, isolated and extremely difficult to access cave? And difficult is not an understatement: one of the narrowest cracks was a mere 17.5 centimeters wide, and as far as the group can tell, there were no other entrances to the tiny chamber. So unwelcoming that no other species were found here, aside from a few rodent and bird bones.

Unless the cave has changed significantly, it would be very difficult to drag a dead body through such a small gap.

So what happened? Much more likely, the individuals who were found in the back of the cave got there alive, wriggling their way in on their own.

So what happened? Much more likely, the individuals who were found in the back of the cave got there alive, wriggling their way in on their own.

There is a good explanation of how these bones got there, an explanation that’s consistent with all the evidence: the individuals were running away from a predator and fled into the deep darkness of a cave where perhaps they got stuck or lost. Perhaps they were afraid to leave the cave. Perhaps it was too dark to find their way out. In any event, in this scenario, they died. Whatever the reason, it’s easy to imagine these apelike creatures fleeing into a deep, dark cave as the most expedient way to escape when being chased by some unfriendly African predator (pick your species). At least one person, Travis Pickering of the University of Wisconsin, seems to feel the same way, as Scientific American reports:

Pickering adds that it is impossible to say whether the H. naledi individuals were lured or pushed into the cave to be murdered, or whether they were placed there, once dead, as part of a ritual. In fact, another, contemporaneous human species might have disposed of H. naledi‘s bones in that spot.”

And even if the individuals were placed at the back of the cave by their friends after they died, does that mean they were “buried”? William Jungers says no. He explains in The Scientist:

William Jungers, chair of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University in New York who was not involved with the study, cautioned against attributing too much meaning to the notion of intentional burial. “Dumping conspecifics down a hole may just be better than letting them decay around you,” he said. Jungers added that there may once have been another, easier to access, entrance to the cave.

What appears to be the motive for the discoverers of Homo Naledi to make him or her into a subhuman species?

Evolutionary considerations, again, are what’s driving the conclusions here.

Luskin sums up the findings as: “The team that discovered Homo naledi seems to have ignored the obvious interpretation — that the individuals were trying to escape predators — in favor of the view that they were burying their dead. The species’ promoters preferred this explanation because they want a small-brained species that has human-like behavior. Evolutionary considerations, again, are what’s driving the conclusions here.”

Even Berger, the researcher who found the specimens stated: “We need to be very cautious about proclaiming everything we find as the direct ancestors of humans, it’s clear there are a lot of experiments going on out there.”

In any case, other scientists are skeptical that it belongs in Homo, as Scientific American reports:

The team’s claims have met with skepticism. “I find [the discovery] fabulous but confusing,” says Susan Antón of New York University, who studies the evolution of Homo. She notes that the remains highlight an ongoing debate among paleoanthropologists about what constitutes the genus in the first place. Early Homo fossils tend to be scrappy at best, which makes it hard to figure out which traits first distinguished our genus from Australopithecus. H. naledi has multiple body parts preserved, but “we don’t have any idea how old this stuff is or whether it’s relevant to the origin of Homo,” Antón comments.

Bernard Wood of George Washington University agrees with the authors that the remains represent a new species, but he does not think that they will force experts to revise the overarching story of human evolution.

SSchwartz himself wrote a scathing op-ed in Newsweek, “Why the Homo Naledi Discovery May Not Be Quite What it Seems.” He argued that “Homo naledi” may in fact represent multiple species, and probably doesn’t belong in Homo and said:

“Enter the newly announced species, Homo naledi, which is claimed to be our direct ancestor because it has features of australopiths and Homo. Why is it a species of Homo? Because some specimens seem to be like us. Why australopith? Because other specimens have some of their features. Why do all belong to the same species? Because they were found in the same cave. But, the published images tell a different story.

Viewed from the side, two partial skulls are long and low, with a long gently sloping forehead that flows smoothly into the brow — nothing like us, or most specimens regarded as Homo. A third partial skull is very short and rounded, with a high-rising forehead that is distinguished from a distinct, well-defined brow by a shallow gutter — not like the other skulls, and not like us or most specimens regarded as Homo. The femur has a small head (the ball end that fits in the hip socket) that is connected to the shaft of the bone by a long neck, and, below the neck, is a “bump” of bone that points backward. These features are seen in every australopith femur. In us, and all other living primates, the head of the femur is large and the neck short, and the “bump” points inward. Further, the teeth are very similar to those from a nearby fossil site that has yielded various kinds of australopith. Even at this stage of their being publicized, the “Homo naledi” specimens reflect even greater diversity in the human fossil record than their discoverers will admit.”

Luskin ends his discussion with the following statement:

“This brings us back, in a full circle, to Australopithecus sediba. As I mentioned at the beginning, exactly four years ago the media were eagerly promoting that species as the latest “human ancestor” or “transitional form.” And what happened? What always happens happened: cooler heads prevailed and it was found that sediba was from the wrong time period and had the wrong set of traits to be a link between humanlike members of the genus Homo and the apelike members of Australopithecus. “

“Its pathway reminds me of other hominin fossils whose “transitional” or “ancestral” status ultimately went belly up. A strong dose of healthy skepticism is warranted.”

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/hominid_hype_an/

“Berger describes in detail the discovery process and the difficulties involved in excavation of H. naledi from a near inaccessible cave, dubbed the Dinaledi Chamber. His initial reactions to seeing the first bones from the site are most telling, describing in several passages how similar the anatomy of the fossils was to an australopith, and unlike a human. “(O’Micks & Clarey L., 2017)

“And yet, he eventually concludes that these fossils represented a hominin that was “almost human,” classifying it as a member of the genus Homo.”

The “final analysis is that H. naledi was most likely not a member of the human kind, was not deliberately disposed of, and was merely an extinct ape. (O’Micks & Clarey L., 2017)

In his book, Berger "Nearly all of the U-Th dates of the teeth and the carbon dates of the bones indicated an age less than 100,000 years old (Clarey 2017; Dirks et al. 2017). Why Berger and his team chose the older dates is not explained in his book or even adequately explained in their paper (Dirks et al. 2017)."

Summary: Homo Naledi was a Chimpanzee species. It is too young to have been a human ancestor

According to an Ecuador newspaper https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/1102151926/el-misterioso-eslabon-del-homo-naledi, this species lived only 300,000 years ago (by evolutionary dating methods). This means that Homo-Sapiens had already developed to a full grown version of human species, thus making the homo naledi nothing more than an interesting species of chimps that co existed with humans.

“La sorpresa fue mayúscula cuando las pruebas de datación revelaron que el naledi vivió hace tan sólo 300.000 años, cuando el Homo rhodesiensis -una de las especies humanas más próximas al hombre contemporáneo- ya campaba a sus anchas por la sabana surafricana.”

English translations says:

“The surprise was huge when the evidence of dating revealed that the naledi lived only 300,000 years ago, when the Homo rhodesiensis - one of the human species closest to contemporary man - and campaigned at ease by the South African savannah.”

This, obviously shows that homo naledi is NOT the human ancestor the evolutionists so much hoped for.

https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/1102151926/el-misterioso-eslabon-del-homo-naledi

What is the meaning of this ?

"Fortunately, God has provided us with the history book of the ages. God clearly explains that there was no evolution linking His created kinds, and therefore no evolution from H. naledi or A. sediba to mankind. God answers all of Berger’s questions by telling us how He created each land animal to reproduce after their kind on Day 6 of Creation Week in the book of Genesis. How much more plain can He make it?

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/almost-human-homo-naledi/

References

Gauger, A. (2015). Homo naledi as Spin Detector. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/homo_naledi_as/

Gauger, A. (2015b). On H. naledi, Separating Fact from Interpretation. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/on_h_naledi_sep/

Luskin, C. (2015). Hominid Hype and Homo naledi: A Unique “Species” of Unclear Evolutionary Importance. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/hominid_hype_an/

O’Micks, J., & Clarey L., T., Ph. . (2017). Book Review of Almost Human, the Astonishing Tale of Homo naledi and the Discovery that Changed our Human Story, by Lee Berger and John Hawks. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/almost-human-homo-naledi/

Book Review of Almost Human, the Astonishing Tale of Homo naledi and the Discovery that Changed our Human Story, by Lee Berger and John Hawks. https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/almost-human-homo-naledi/

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. 2015. Why the Homo Naledi Discovery May Not Be Quite What it Seems. Newsweek (10 September).