skull of Homo naledi
I’m bumping up an article authored by Rob while I was away regarding new evidence that H. naledi coexisted with modern humans in South Africa 250 kya. This is a VERY SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT discovery!
Read Rob’s original post at:
Photo of humanzee?
 | randolf on A Simple Argument for the Exis… |
 | J.R. Bentley on A Simple Argument for the Exis… |
| J.R. Bentley on Human Evolution? Sex with plan… |
 | Roberto Peron on A Simple Argument for the Exis… |
| Roberto Peron on Human Evolution? Sex with plan… |
| J.R. Bentley on World’s Largest Dinosaur… |
| J.R. Bentley on A Simple Argument for the Exis… |
| J.R. Bentley on Human Evolution? Sex with plan… |
| randolf on Human Evolution? Sex with plan… |
| Roberto Peron on Human Evolution? Sex with plan… |
| Roberto Peron on A Simple Argument for the Exis… |
| randolf on Human Evolution? Sex with plan… |
| randolf on A Simple Argument for the Exis… |
| Roberto Peron on World’s Largest Dinosaur… |
| J.R. Bentley on World’s Largest Dinosaur… |
New findings, They keep repeating Homo Sapiens but one researcher hints to predecessors of.
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/homo-sapiens-just-got-older-way-way-older
LikeLike
In 1961 the bones & skeleton were determined to be Neanderthal hunters. Neanderthals are not Homo sapiens, however. “the oldest Homo sapiens ever found in Africa or elsewhere.” Seriously? But Neanderthals are not H. sapiens! Of course after the OOA was debunked last month with the discovery of a Neanderthal ancestor in Spain I suppose they had to come up with something (anything) to place the OOA back on it throne? So I take it that now we class Neanderthals as H. sapiens? And what about that little 3% Neanderthal DNA in modern humans? Sticky little point, no? Oh yes and something had to be done to dethrone the recent find near San Diego in the Americas too 🙂
“It’s the face of people you cross in the street today…” really? You mean back in 1961 they couldn’t tell the difference between a Neanderthal face and a H. sapien face?
“….the 300,000-year-old braincases—the part of the skull that houses the brain—are elongated in shape and accommodate a larger cerebellum…” Homo erectus had an elongated skull but I notice this is not mentioned at all and some had brains as big or slightly bigger than ours!
So are we now to date modern humans at 300 kyr rather than 200 kyr? Are we to now include Neanderthals as H. sapiens? I’m willing to bet they found some sort of Neanderthal-Erectus hybrid but they aren’t about to admit that for God’s sake!!!
Thanks for the link JR 🙂
LikeLike
My pleasure Sir.
Out of town on cell phone. Let’s see if it works. Lol
LikeLike
Yep! 🙂
LikeLike
Now isn’t this funny? I just ran across the article about the find in Morocco on Science Daily and they make no mention whatsoever of Neanderthals found at the site in 1961. Click below to read the SD article about this:
Science Daily Report on the Morocco Find
LikeLike
They don’t even mention it previously being found in 61 at all. Could it be because they concentrated the article on a Foodstuff topic and didn’t find it important to this particular topic? Or could Hakai be elaborating? 🙂
LikeLike
Doubtful. That’s the way they play the “game.” Leave out some facts and skew the evidence to fit the favored theory.
LikeLike
Believe it or not… Wikipedia has a better explanation. “Archaic” Homo Sapiens or mixed with Neanderthals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLike
Frankly, the Irhoud 1 skull looks to me very much like a Neanderthal skull. Just look at that big brow ridge! It could also be a Homo erectus skull IMO. Not H. sapien!
LikeLike
I was leaning towards Erectus also because the description fits better. But you are right! That brow ridge is not Sapien… not even close. Another possible location for your Erectus map?
LikeLike
I actually already have it on there. See newest post 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: The Irhoud Skulls in Morocco | Peron Rants