Another new hominid fossil

[Mallon]

A new species of Australopithecus was named this week: A. sediba.

The press release is here:
New hominid shares traits with Homo species

As always, it's interesting to read creation scientist Todd Wood's reaction here:

"Here's what you'll get from most creationists: "It's an ape." That might even satisfy many of you. In the long run, though, I think it's unsatisfactory. The problem is its head. Au. sediba has the most human-looking head of any australopith I've seen, even though the body looks very apish, with its really long arms. This has been a hallmark of creationist interpretation of australopiths: that they are mosaics of facultative bipeds (meaning they can walk around on two legs) and tree dwellers (indicated by long forearms). If I had only the (remarkable) skeletons to judge from, I'd probably say it was obviously an ape. But then there's that skull. When I first saw it, I thought it looked a lot like Homo habilis. Apparently, I'm not alone. Donald Johanson and Susan Antón are both quoted as preferring to place sediba within Homo."

 

[lucaspa]

As always, it's interesting to read creation scientist Todd Wood's reaction here:

" But then there's that skull. When I first saw it, I thought it looked a lot like Homo habilis. Apparently, I'm not alone. Donald Johanson and Susan Antón are both quoted as preferring to place sediba within Homo."

And there in the bold you have the hallmark of a transitional species -- the argument about where it belongs. In this case sediba is transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.

If creationism were true, we couldn't have those arguments. After all, there are distinct boundaries between kinds and so we would never have doubt about whether these fossils are Australopithecus or Homo.

 

[vossler]

If I was sitting on the fence basing my decision on the science instead of the Word of God, this does little to nothing to convince me of anything one way or the other. The way I see it if you're an evolutionist this is 'evidence' in support of your views and if you're a creationist then this obviously does nothing to sway your own beliefs and just confirms the Bible.

 

[Mallon]

In what way does this find "confirm the Bible", vossler?

 

[Assyrian]

If I was sitting on the fence basing my decision on the science instead of the Word of God, this does little to nothing to convince me of anything one way or the other. The way I see it if you're an evolutionist this is 'evidence' in support of your views and if you're a creationist then this obviously does nothing to sway your own beliefs and just confirms the Bible.

Hi vossler, I haven't seen you around for a while, how have you been?

 

[LightHorseman]

Obviously unscrupulous evilutionists, or maybe even demons, planted a human skull with an ape skeleton to make people question their faith in God and the Bible!

 

[vossler]

Hi - I'm doing especially well; thanks for asking. It would appear that little has changed around here. I hope that God has blessed you as well. I haven't checked in for so long I wasn't sure if any of the old players were still around. It would appear that most are.

Mallon - Hello, I didn't respond with the thought of going round and round with anyone. To be perfectly honest I saw the 60 minutes and other press coverage of this find and was curious what kind of play it was getting here, otherwise I would have never checked in. I was actually surprised to see it wasn't getting the kind of attention I was expecting, which actually is a good thing.

 

[juvenissun]

Is there any evidence that early human was less intelligent than modern human?

I think intelligence should not be measured by the contemporary civilization of any particular human. Nor should the intelligence be correlated with the morphology of human (some people argued VERY hard that chimps are very smart). We use computer. That does not say that we are smarter than Moses.

I think this is a very critical point in having a correct understanding on any early human discovered. Archaeologists and anthropologists are only doing the easy part of the study so far.

 

[juvenissun]

And there in the bold you have the hallmark of a transitional species -- the argument about where it belongs. In this case sediba is transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.

If creationism were true, we couldn't have those arguments. After all, there are distinct boundaries between kinds and so we would never have doubt about whether these fossils are Australopithecus or Homo.

Think it this way:

Find a massive grave, then take out all the skulls and compare them. I bet you can arrange them in a sequence of transitional changes. Without the locality info, how do you know it is not a sequential change by time?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Is there any evidence that early human was less intelligent than modern human?

I think intelligence should not be measured by the contemporary civilization of any particular human. Nor should the intelligence be correlated with the morphology of human (some people argued VERY hard that chimps are very smart). We use computer. That does not say that we are smarter than Moses.

I think this is a very critical point in having a correct understanding on any early human discovered. Archaeologists and anthropologists are only doing the easy part of the study so far.

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[juvenissun]

What does this have to do with the OP?

The OP said that the skull could be a new "species". My question asked: is this new species smarter than the older ones?

 

[mark kennedy]

If it's an ape size skull, it's probably an ape. Check out the incisors, protruding eye sockets and the protuding jaw. After a while this just seems so obvious.

A new species of Australopithecus was named this week: A. sediba.

The press release is here:
New hominid shares traits with Homo species

It is an ape, thus the literal meaning of the genus, 'southern ape'. Oh and by the way, the cranial capacity is comparable with modern chimpanzees at a time that Home erectus own Turkana Boy has proportions within the range of human skulls.

Its cranial capacity is estimated at around 420–450 cm3 (26–27 cu in), about one-third that of modern humans. (Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa, Science 2010)​

Yet another suitable canadate for a chimpanzee ancestor in the vault labled Homo XXX. I guess that makes me a typical creationist, it's one third the size of a human skull, it's an ape.

The OP said that the skull could be a new "species". My question asked: is this new species smarter than the older ones?

It could probably learn to sign, use rocks to open pistacheos, sticks to eat termites and clubs to drive off intruders. It's a chimpanzee great, great, great.....grandpapy. It's got a cranial capacity of a chimpanzee, just a wild guess but I think it had the intelligence of a modern chimpanzee because it had the brain of a modern chimpanzee. Cerebral Rubicon

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

If it's an ape size skull, it's probably an ape. Check out the incisors, protruding eye sockets and the protuding jaw. After a while this just seems so obvious.

It is an ape, thus the literal meaning of the genus, 'southern ape'. Oh and by the way, the cranial capacity is comparable with modern chimpanzees at a time that Home erectus own Turkana Boy has proportions within the range of human skulls.

Its cranial capacity is estimated at around 420–450 cm3 (26–27 cu in), about one-third that of modern humans. (Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa, Science 2010)​

Yet another suitable canadate for a chimpanzee ancestor in the vault labled Homo XXX. I guess that makes me a typical creationist, it's one third the size of a human skull, it's an ape.



It could probably learn to sign, use rocks to open pistacheos, sticks to eat termites and clubs to drive off intruders. It's a chimpanzee great, great, great.....grandpapy. It's got a cranial capacity of a chimpanzee, just a wild guess but I think it had the intelligence of a modern chimpanzee because it had the brain of a modern chimpanzee. Cerebral Rubicon

Have a nice day
Mark

I am wondering about the meaning of cranial capacity. We do not have the largest brain size. And we are the smartest among all. So why does the cranial capacity (or the brain/body ratio) matter? Why should a smaller brain must mean dumber?

 

[Mallon]

Mark, I suspect if we restricted ourselves to only looking at brain volume, we might conclude that this fossil is indeed 'just an ape'. But there are also many features that suggest human affinities. The face really isn't as protruding as in modern apes. Nor is the brow as prominent. The mandibular symphysis is vertically oriented, rather than angled. The teeth are relatively small. The zygomatic arches aren't strongly flared. The hips are also more like our own than those of apes.
Indeed, taken as a whole, this new specimen has features in common with both humans and australopithecines. Why?

 

[philadiddle]

Indeed, taken as a whole, this new specimen has features in common with both humans and australopithecines. Why?

Well, we all know what the BEST explanation to this question is. Now it's up to the anti-evolutionists to make more justifications for the evidence that sides with evolution. It seems that creationism is built on justifications of this sort instead of being based on positive evidence.

 

[Smidlee]

Indeed, taken as a whole, this new specimen has features in common with both humans and australopithecines. Why?

Most believe chimps are more similar to human than any other ape (or animal) today. One possibility is there was an ape with more human characteristics than the modern day chimp which happened to died out many years ago. If the chimps died out long time ago as well we will probably state human and orangutans had a common ancestor and chimps were a dead end branch.
Thus God could have created a creature that was more similar to man (physically) than the modern day ape. One thing is obvious even in scripture, man was not the first creature God created with intelligence.

 

[Mallon]

Most believe chimps are more similar to human than any other ape (or animal) today. One possibility is there was an ape with more human characteristics than the modern day chimp which happened to died out many years ago. If the chimps died out long time ago as well we will probably state human and orangutans had a common ancestor and chimps were a dead end branch.
Thus God could have created a creature that was more similar to man (physically) than the modern day ape. One thing is obvious even in scripture, man was not the first creature God created with intelligence.

I still don't understand how this accounts for WHY Australopithecus sediba is more similar to humans than chimps. Simply saying "God created it that way" doesn't really explain anything. If you asked me why water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius and I responded "because God made it that way", I wouldn't be providing a useful answer to your question.

 

[mark kennedy]

The origins of the genus Homo remain as murky as ever," commented Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, professor of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard.(Scientists, Creationists Agree: 'Sediba' is No 'Missing Link')​

I am wondering about the meaning of cranial capacity. We do not have the largest brain size. And we are the smartest among all. So why does the cranial capacity (or the brain/body ratio) matter? Why should a smaller brain must mean dumber?

It's a chimpanzee size brain, the cranial capacity measures in terms of volumn. The EQ is not really a measurement that interests me unless it is making comparisons acoss broad taxonomic boundrys, it's useful just not in this context.

Mark, I suspect if we restricted ourselves to only looking at brain volume, we might conclude that this fossil is indeed 'just an ape'.

The literal name of the genus is 'southern ape', there is a reason for that. It's 'just an ape' as opposed to being human simply because of anatomical features that are unique to African Apes.

But there are also many features that suggest human affinities. The face really isn't as protruding as in modern apes. Nor is the brow as prominent. The mandibular symphysis is vertically oriented, rather than angled. The teeth are relatively small. The zygomatic arches aren't strongly flared. The hips are also more like our own than those of apes.

May I remind you that the fossil is dated 1.95 million and 1.78 million years in age. This means that Turkana Boy with a cranial capacity twice that size had already achieved completely human features with a slightly smaller skull. This fossil, while one of the most complete discovered to date, indicates nothing more then Chimpanzee ancestors were bipedal with more gracial features then modern ones. Notice the incisors, the pronounced brow and the other uniquely African Ape features including the chimpanzee size skull.

Indeed, taken as a whole, this new specimen has features in common with both humans and australopithecines. Why?

Yea well, so do old world monkeys. It's an ape just like Lucy and the long list of other, falsely so called, 'missing links'. This is yet another instance where a chimpanzee ancestor is mistaken for one of our ancestors in the zeal to evangelize to Darwinism.

Most believe chimps are more similar to human than any other ape (or animal) today. One possibility is there was an ape with more human characteristics than the modern day chimp which happened to died out many years ago. If the chimps died out long time ago as well we will probably state human and orangutans had a common ancestor and chimps were a dead end branch.

Where are the chimpanzee/orangutan ancestors? We have so many hominids, why don't these lineages. Do you realize that if they had become extinct there would be no record that they even existed, or at least next to none.

Thus God could have created a creature that was more similar to man (physically) than the modern day ape. One thing is obvious even in scripture, man was not the first creature God created with intelligence.

Man was not the first creature created, that's about as far as the Scriptures are going to take you with this. Adam was to only creature on an earthly plane said to be created in the image of God. By the way, the Scriptures indicate in no uncertain terms that Adam was created and not evolved from apes. If you want to appeal to the Scriptures you might try taking them in context without misrepresenting the actual content.

I still don't understand how this accounts for WHY Australopithecus sediba is more similar to humans than chimps. Simply saying "God created it that way" doesn't really explain anything. If you asked me why water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius and I responded "because God made it that way", I wouldn't be providing a useful answer to your question.

I still don't understand how you can ignore the fact that Australopithecus sediba had a chimpanzee skull millions of years after the mythical split. BTW, people don't ask or answer that strawman question in that way. Some shallow reasoning my go something to the order of why God let the water freeze, the answer would be that water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius and the measurement starts there for that reason. The mocking of imaginary arguments is as fallacious as it is common among evolutionists.

Have a nice day

 

[The Lady Kate]

The OP said that the skull could be a new "species". My question asked: is this new species smarter than the older ones?

My question asked: what difference would it make?

 

[Smidlee]

Where are the chimpanzee/orangutan ancestors? We have so many hominids, why don't these lineages. Do you realize that if they had become extinct there would be no record that they even existed, or at least next to none.

Good question. People don't really care about as much about chimp/orangutan ancestors so every new find has to be linked to man somehow. Others have commented that there seems to be a lack of ape ancestor links as if chimps and orangutans just pop into existence.

Man was not the first creature created, that's about as far as the Scriptures are going to take you with this. Adam was to only creature on an earthly plane said to be created in the image of God. By the way, the Scriptures indicate in no uncertain terms that Adam was created and not evolved from apes. If you want to appeal to the Scriptures you might try taking them in context without misrepresenting the actual content.

Wouldn't you agree angels including satan is intelligent? (even animals has some level of intelligence)
I agree with you 100% that the scripture clearly claims man was a special creation. Even if Genesis 1/2 wasn't meant to be taken literally (as some claims) doesn't dismiss the idea that man was created special. (first God created the body then breath into man and he became "a living soul".)
So I believe even if an ape walk upright and had a big head it still wouldn't make it human. I also don't believe our DNA is what makes us human either.