Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sunpar

New Human-Like Species Discovered in South Africa

12 posts in this topic

Scientists tout newly-discovered human relative http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homo-naledi-fossils-south-africa-new-almost-human-relative-species/

JOHANNESBURG - Scientists announced Thursday the discovery of a new branch on the collective family tree of humanity; an "almost human" creature dubbed Homo naledi.

The article goes onto say, "Homo Naledi is not human, but Berger argues the creatures appear to have been practicing something that is uniquely human."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC:

Scientists have discovered a new human-like species in a burial chamber deep in a cave system in South Africa.

The discovery of 15 partial skeletons is the largest single discovery of its type in Africa.

The researchers claim that the discovery will change ideas about our human ancestors.

The studies which have been published in the journal Elife also indicate that these individuals were capable of ritual behaviour.

The species, which has been named naledi, has been classified in the grouping, or genus, Homo, to which modern humans belong.

The researchers who made the find have not been able to find out how long ago these creatures lived – but the scientist who led the team, Prof Lee Berger, told BBC News that he believed they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists tout newly-discovered human relative http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homo-naledi-fossils-south-africa-new-almost-human-relative-species/

JOHANNESBURG - Scientists announced Thursday the discovery of a new branch on the collective family tree of humanity; an "almost human" creature dubbed Homo naledi.

The article goes onto say, "Homo Naledi is not human, but Berger argues the creatures appear to have been practicing something that is uniquely human."

 

Fakest shit I have ever seen. This coming from someone with an education in anatomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else see the resemblance to people belonging to a group of religious lunatics? Especially the hairless upper lip and throat beard? WEG - Mo,is that You?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I find it interesting I just don't want them coming out to say "here's the missing link." Why do you think is fake? Just wondering bc I'm still on the fence on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm extremely skeptical here.
Anthropology is full of fraud.
The "Missing link Lucy" is an admitted fake and the Out of Africa Theory has been debunked.
I have no doubt that other human-like species were (possibly still are) on this planet but it's hidden.

Lucy Dethroned

You might well be asking yourself why this charade has been allowed to go on this long. The answer—woven around power, fame, and money—can be found in Johanson’s own words.

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where 

Homo

 did start. You begin straining your eyes to find

Homo

 traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. 

I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain

 (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.
Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html


I think there is an intentional and on going cover up of our true history.
They perpetuate these hoaxes to convince us of evolution and discredit creationism. 
It's garbage. So if this come out of the mouths of "respected academics" I don't trust it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm extremely skeptical here.
Anthropology is full of fraud.
The "Missing link Lucy" is an admitted fake and the Out of Africa Theory has been debunked.
I have no doubt that other human-like species were (possibly still are) on this planet but it's hidden.

 

He went on to admit: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

I think we could all learn a lot from that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I find it interesting I just don't want them coming out to say "here's the missing link." Why do you think is fake? Just wondering bc I'm still on the fence on this one. 

  1. They had to fill in 30% o the skull  due to lacking" bone fragments.
  2. There is no missing link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.