Discussion for article #240315
The man kissing the skull seems strangely appropriate, considering how much “boning” went on between “Homo sapiens, … NeanderÂthals, Denisovans and other archaic relatives”.
1 Like
Well with that unChristian mouth, sinner, you’re obviously not the “champion” Pat Robertson has been looking for!! What they were really doing was undoubtedly petting affectionate dinosaurs and reading bible passages around the campfire with them Denisovans and whoever all! Somebody say “Praise Jesus!”
1 Like
The NY Times said their findings were published in the “open-access journal eLife”. Does this mean it’s not peer-reviewed?
It’s amazing to think that a third of Americans will read this article in the NY Times and think it’s all nonsense. So weird.
1 Like
6000, 6000, ad nauseum… the question is simple… how many 6000’s old is this satanic falsehood?
They say they don’t know how old it is, but maybe they just don’t want you to know.
Apparently just another species that didn’t make it on to Noah’s ark in time. 
2 Likes
No. eLife, like PLOSone is a peer-reviewed open-access journal. They still go through the same review process. There is an ongoing movement within the scientific community to make all of our results available to everyone. The current subscriber method of disseminating scientific information is outdated and excludes poorer individuals and countries from contributing to the scientific dialog. What is more, most of our work is funded by the tax-payer, but under the current model, the tax payer cannot access the results of the studies they paid for. As a consequence, they have to rely on commentary from politicos and journalists to make up their minds about science. The subscriber model is directly responsible for some of the mistrust of science.
I try to publish in open-access journals whenever I can, but only about half of mine are open access. The rest are located behind a firewall. But I always provide free copies to anyone who requests them because I believe science belongs to the masses.
2 Likes
We really need an age attached to these fossils. Without the age it will make it really difficult to figure out what these mean for the evolution of both the Homo body and the culture.
The articles say that the hands were more ape-like, locked in a curved position, implying more tree climbing, but the feet are identical to other Homo species, meaning it walked upright. So is it a primitive species that clung to the forests, or is it a more recent species that went back to the trees? What is more, the rather incredible number of individuals might represent burial. The earliest recognized human ritualistic burial is a little older than 100,000 years. If that is what we are seeing here, and this is a basal species, we need to rethink the development of human culture. Ritual is considered an important step in conscious thought and religion. With a brain the size of an orange, it seems unlikely that this species was capable of anything as abstract and complicated as religion. And yet, here we have an apparent ritual. What does that mean for them? What does that mean for our understanding of apparent ritual in the fossil record for other species?
So many questions, many of them very important, but we don’t even know how to frame the questions until we have that date. I cannot understate how important it is.
Awesome, thanks for the info
...his guess is that naledi fits within a known group of early Homo creatures from around 2 million year ago.
Jumpin’ Jehoshaphat, wait until the Kim Davis supporters find out.