It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's the difference between Homo Naledi and Homo Floresiensi ?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Beside the fact that short small headed Homo floresiensi existed as recently as 12,000 years ago in Indonesia, whereas short small headed Homo Naledi existed 2,500,000 years ago in Africa ? What's the Connection?

en.wikipedia.org...


Homo Naledi


Homo Floresiensi

edit on 10-9-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
Beside the fact that short small headed Homo floresiensi existed as recently as 12,000 years ago in Indonesia, whereas short small headed Homo Naledi existed 2,500,000 years ago in Africa ? What's the Connection?

en.wikipedia.org...


Homo Naledi


Homo Floresiensi


Interesting times indeed, I personally have no idea about the difference is between the two, but I am certain that our history we have been taught is certainly about to be rewritten.

What makes me say this? Just look at the smile on the guys face holding the Homo Naledi skull says it all..


Lets welcome more races of our human ancestors!

Man am I glad to be alive. How exciting?

Peace

edit on 10-9-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

The two skulls look completely different. Are you saying there's some kind of resemblance?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

According to the wiki for homo naledi, the fossil has not yet been dated so we really do not know how long ago they lived. It looks like this discovery is still a work in progress. I can't wait until more details come out.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Homo Floriensis was a dwarf version of Homo Erectus caused by an island habitat of limited resources.
Homo naledi is a normal sized descendant of Australopithecus Afarensis and is apparently, the first Homo ancestor from which all following Hominins are descended.

So Homo naledi is the link between Australopithecus and Homo Habilis, which up to now has been missing




posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Not sound like I am being a smart a## here but about 2.4 million and change years of adaptation and evolution... I see lots of difference between the two skulls. Homo F has a much higher cheek bone line and shorter jaw, whereas Homo N has a much more pronounce brow ridge and longer jaw, also I notice the orbital areas of the skulls show several differences, I suspect that Homo N had better eyesight given these differences. Makes one wonder what the actual living environment was like for the two at the times they were alive, that would be the real tell all.
edit on 10-9-2015 by sycomix because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Hey wait a second, i dont think we are completely sure, that Floresiensi was nothing more than the result of a genetic disorder combined with a small population and inbreeding.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Like Astyanax said, the skulls are completely different. I have zero degree in anthropology, but from what I see:

- The angle from chin to brow is much more vertical on H. Floresiensi
- The shapes of the jaws are very different
- The brow is much more pronounced on H. Naledi

There are a few other things, but I'm too unknowledgeable on the terms to want to risk looking like an idiot pointing them out



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
So Homo naledi is the link between Australopithecus and Homo Habilis, which up to now has been missing



Could be...Could be the missing link between them. No point in jumping to conclusions just yet.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Marduk
So Homo naledi is the link between Australopithecus and Homo Habilis, which up to now has been missing



Could be...Could be the missing link between them. No point in jumping to conclusions just yet.



But if I jump to a conclusion now, I get to say "I told you so later" but if I'm wrong, I can pretend I was hypothesizing.
A plan with no drawbacks.


edit on 10-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ove38

The two skulls look completely different. Are you saying there's some kind of resemblance?


Yes, the small brains and small bodies, the braincase of Homo naledi measures just 560 cubic centimeters in volume, the recent Homo floresiensis has an even smaller brain.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
Beside the fact that short small headed Homo floresiensi existed as recently as 12,000 years ago in Indonesia, whereas short small headed Homo Naledi existed 2,500,000 years ago in Africa ? What's the Connection?

en.wikipedia.org...


Homo Naledi


Homo Floresiensi



Personally, I think you're missing out on the bigger picture and larger ramifications of this find. Instead of saying to yourself "well this guy is kind of small and so was Floresiensis, what is the connection between the 2?" when the real question should be "How does this new find tie in with what we already know about hominid evolution as a whole? What similarities and differences are there over all and how exactly does this fit into the picture as well as enhance that picture?"

It seems as if you've latched onto the size and ignored everything else pertaining to these remains. There are some very interesting aspects regarding H. Naledi, particularly involving its bipedalism. The flared shape of Naledi's pelvisis consistent with Australopithecine pelvis' over all and the leg, foot and ankle bones are more similar to those of the genus Homo. Interestingly, this contrasts with evidence that Naledi was an excellent tree climber as shown by their long, curved fingers.

There are so many aspects of H. Naledi that one doesn't need to create one such as your compare and contrast exercise with Floresiensis to find something interesting here. Was that the entire basis for your comparison? The size? Because that's pretty much where the morphological similarities cease to exist. Vastly different jaw protrusions, the types of teeth are differnet, brow ridge is extremely different, occipital bun...different and on and on. Even the average cranial capacity is different and HF is actually smaller than that of H. Naledi. I'm just not seeing the similarities you are alluding to.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join