'No scientific evidence' that ancient human relative buried dead and carved art as portrayed in Netflix documentary, researchers argue

[admin]

A new commentary blasts claims about Homo naledi featured in Netflix's "Unknown: Cave of Bones."

'No scientific evidence' that ancient human relative buried dead and carved art as portrayed in Netflix documentary, researchers argue : Read more

 

[Giovani]

A new commentary blasts claims about Homo naledi featured in Netflix's "Unknown: Cave of Bones."

'No scientific evidence' that ancient human relative buried dead and carved art as portrayed in Netflix documentary, researchers argue : Read more

I'm relieved there are those paying attention to erroneous conjectures.
More than anything, there are archeologists who thirst for the day they can pin down humankind in an evolutionary frame. They try so hard.
Ascribing human characteristics to species not having anything to do with humanity is not new by any means. Is this likened to a chess game with a checkmate eventually coming in the realization humankind did not arise from standard evolution?
The fact that for generations scientists have insisted, and even published, their "findings" as the reality, have saturated society with this readily acceptable heresy and "common sense" pseudo fact, when the verdict is far from in.
There is no closure to this conundrum, though still to this day the closing proof is elusive at best.

 

[sven]

Is this likened to a chess game with a checkmate eventually coming in the realization humankind did not arise from standard evolution?

No, it isn't. This about whether Naledi buried it's dead and produced cave art. It has nothing to do with human evolution.

 

[Giovani]

No, it isn't. This about whether Naledi buried it's dead and produced cave art. It has nothing to do with human evolution.

This is about attempting to portray the Naledi as human. They weren't.
The label of hominin has been widely built up due to erroneous conjectures from the beginning of this long debate, which is no debate.
From reconstructing Denisovan physiology by examining a fingernail, to these attempts in attributing ancient, archaic species of ape to early hominins, as if modern humans evolved from this.
Let's place the confirmed evolution of humans on the front page of every news source. Volumes of information and material espousing the validity of human evolution is theory. Still.

 

[bolide2]

You condemn "Ascribing human characteristics to species not having anything to do with humanity." Certainly you can speak of relevant characteristics that are possessed by humans. But where is the warrant for presuming these "human characteristics" are exclusively human?

 

[Giovani]

You condemn "Ascribing human characteristics to species not having anything to do with humanity." Certainly you can speak of relevant characteristics that are possessed by humans. But where is the warrant for presuming these "human characteristics" are exclusively human?

if it takes a lot of thought to reason this out, the field of archeology is perplexing in having a free association. and not enough evidence or even posits, which are not attempting to tie discoveries to humans.
I get it, apes and other species use "tools" and seemingly mimic human traits. So did these non-humans. Some very concerning news of professional "jumping ahead" in ascribing a species as early human when the data is far from complete, is multiplying.
The way I see it, the absolute necessity of proving humankind evolved as say, Neanderthal, is the holy grail of archeology. The round block hammered into a square hole is increasingly common.