New transitional hominin species

[lucaspa]

Fossils Raise Questions about Human Ancestry: Scientific American
Australopithecus sediba. There are 220 bones from 5 individuals. It is mixture of traits of A. afarensis and H. erectus. This is how you know it is transitional:

"The speciess' small brain and limb proportions matched those seen in the genus Australopithecus, whose most famous representative is the 3-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton known as Lucy. Other palaeoanthropologists argue that A. sediba should have been placed in the genus Homo because of its modern features, including its hand and pelvis."

"That is exactly what you'd expect when you find a very transitional form: 50% of the field saying they're right, it's an Australopithecine, the other half saying, put this in the genus Homo," said Berger during a conference call announcing the new A. sediba papers."​

 

[philadiddle]

Not another one...this "evidence" thing you guys have going on is getting out of hand.

 

[Incariol]

In before the "Your 'new evidence' shows that you were wrong before so this completely disproves evolution and proves Young Earth Creationism and all scientists are fraudulent quacks" post.

 

[Jig]

Fossils Raise Questions about Human Ancestry: Scientific American
Australopithecus sediba. There are 220 bones from 5 individuals. It is mixture of traits of A. afarensis and H. erectus. This is how you know it is transitional:

"The speciess' small brain and limb proportions matched those seen in the genus Australopithecus, whose most famous representative is the 3-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton known as Lucy. Other palaeoanthropologists argue that A. sediba should have been placed in the genus Homo because of its modern features, including its hand and pelvis."

"That is exactly what you'd expect when you find a very transitional form: 50% of the field saying they're right, it's an Australopithecine, the other half saying, put this in the genus Homo," said Berger during a conference call announcing the new A. sediba papers."​

So they found an ape?

 

[KerrMetric]

So they found an ape?

So? We are apes.

 

[lucaspa]

So they found an ape?

Kerr Metric is right. "Ape" is a Family name. You have species - genus -- family. The Family name is "Hominidae". Within that Family are 4 living genera: Pongo (chimps), Homo (us), Gorilla, and Pongo (orangutuans). A. sediba would also be in the Family "Hominidae". Australopithecus is an extinct genus within Hominidae.

What has been found is another transitional between our ultimate ape-like ancestor and human. Humans are H. sapiens. We are in genus "homo". This is a transitional connecting us to a previous genus -- Australopithecus.

 

[Jig]

So? We are apes.

I disagree. The Bible says God created an ape kind and a human kind, they both share a common designer. Classic secular taxonomic classifications rely on the assumption of common decent.

The fossils found are either fully human or fully ape. Not a combination.

 

[KerrMetric]

The Bible says God created an ape kind

Passage please.

 

[philadiddle]

I disagree. The Bible says God created an ape kind and a human kind, they both share a common designer. Classic secular taxonomic classifications rely on the assumption of common decent.

The fossils found are either fully human or fully ape. Not a combination.

I assume this is a poe?

 

[troodon]

I disagree. The Bible says God created an ape kind and a human kind, they both share a common designer. Classic secular taxonomic classifications rely on the assumption of common decent.

Linnaeus classified humans as apes despite being a creationist (as ~everyone was in the 18th century)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Linnaeus_-_Regnum_Animale_%281735%29.png

Cladistics, on the other hand, does rely on the assumption of common decent. That's why it's a superior classification method to Linnaeus' hierarchical approach. Superficial similarity has no meaning, evolutionary relationships do have meaning

The fossils found are either fully human or fully ape. Not a combination.

All humans are fully apes. What's special about these "transitional" fossils is that they contain a mosaic of features seen either in modern humans or in modern apes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Fossils Raise Questions about Human Ancestry: Scientific American

"That is exactly what you'd expect when you find a very transitional form: 50% of the field saying they're right, it's an Australopithecine, the other half saying, put this in the genus Homo," said Berger during a conference call announcing the new A. sediba papers."​

At around 420 cubic centimeters, A. sediba's puny brain compares to those of other Australopithecus specimens and chimpanzees.​

It was found near the site where the Taung Child was found, both of them have chimpanzee size brains....Ok don't laugh....this is going to sound crazy....Has anyone considered the possibility that they are chimpanzee ancestors....

Ok, stop laughing, I'm being serious right now darn it!

 

[shernren]

Oh my goodness, anything with a chimpanzee-sized skull must automatically be considered for chimpanzeehood or you can blame those eeeeeevil evolutionists for distorting the evidence in favor of their made-up theories.

I mean, this right here is yet another vertebrate skull with volume about 400cc! Of course it's a chimpanzee ancestor, but of course dem "trained" evolutionists are just scrambling to cover up the evidence.

They actually call this a cow skull! Can you believe it?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Has anyone considered the possibility that they are chimpanzee ancestors....

Yes. Neither modern chimpanzees nor ancient chimpanzees could walk upright, hence they were not chimpanzee ancestors.

-----------------------------------------

The papers reveal a curious mix of traits, some found in apes and earlier Australopithecus fossils, and others thought to be unique to Homo erectus--the tall, thin-boned hominin that emerged around 2 million years ago in eastern Africa and colonized Europe and Asia--and its descendants, including modern humans.

...
Donald Johanson​, a palaeoanthropologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, would also like to see A. sediba thoroughly compared to other ancient human fossils, in particular those of earlier Homo species, such as Homo habilis.​

H. Habilis also has a mixture of Australopithecus and Homo traits. Until we see what makes A. Sediba unique, I'm don't think we should it consider a new hominin just yet. It could just be a variation of Habilis.

 

[troodon]

I'm don't think we should it consider a new hominin just yet. It could just be a variation of Habilis.

Oh come on, we can't be cautious with these new hominin fossils! We have to be bold! We have to pretend that every find is the most earth-shattering fossil in history that totally rewrites the history of human evolution.

How else are they going to get news stories about their find?

 

[Jazer]

"That is exactly what you'd expect when you find a very transitional form: 50% of the field saying they're right, it's an Australopithecine, the other half saying, put this in the genus Homo," said Berger during a conference call announcing the new A. sediba papers."​

So this is not a common ancestor, one evolved into the other?

 

[Jazer]

Oh come on, we can't be cautious with these new hominin fossils! We have to be bold! We have to pretend that every find is the most earth-shattering fossil in history that totally rewrites the history of human evolution.

How else are they going to get news stories about their find?

If you found a fossil you may be excited about it also.

 

[troodon]

If you found a fossil you may be excited about it also.

Certainly, but I also like to think that I'd show some amount of restraint when telling the university PR guy about the implications of the discovery.

 

[DamonWV]

Im trying to remember where I read the article. I think it was Answers in genesis website, but if i remember , this was nothing more then a type of ape.

 

[philadiddle]

Im trying to remember where I read the article. I think it was Answers in genesis website, but if i remember , this was nothing more then a type of ape.

Well humans are a type of ape too, so that's pretty vague. Since chimpanzees and humans are both a type of ape, then obviously a transitional form from our past will also be an ape.

 

[Jig]

Linnaeus classified humans as apes despite being a creationist (as ~everyone was in the 18th century)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Linnaeus_-_Regnum_Animale_%281735%29.png

Why does this matter to me? I'm I supposed to align myself with the definitions of other creationists? Even when such definitions aren't universal even among biologists?

Traditionally, the term "ape" has several different senses. It was quite common for this term to mean members of the superfamily Hominoidea except humans. However, in recent times there has been a large push to have this term include humans. This is also briefly mentioned in this wiki on apes (also check out the graphs):

Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a quote:
"...whereas biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" for all nonhuman hominoids..."

Even though what I was saying was clear, I'll make it clearer yet: God created "great ape" kinds and a human kind.

Superficial similarity has no meaning, evolutionary relationships do have meaning

I agree...if we look at this through a purely natural worldview where a supernatural mature creation did not take place. However, if God supernaturally created different kinds of animals, then superficial similarity gains profound meaning in that each kind has a common designer.