'Missing link' in human history confirmed after long debate

All I know is nothing has evolved in any way since 3000 BC so I call shenanigans .

a reply to: cooperton

Stop with the tireless rherotic. www.talkorigins.org...

Evolution has been confirmed since the 50s, dude. If you can't refute any of it, you can't keep saying it's assumed.

Australopithecus Sediba is a missing link any more than it being just another kind of ape.

Homo sapiens are just another kind of ape, so this point makes no sense. Missing link is a misnomer and I already explained it. How do you define "missing link?" What would you accept as a missing link in order to confirm something like that? What is your standard? (Don't answer, I already know you will reject any and everything that validates evolution, so you would accept literally nothing)

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
All I know is nothing has evolved in any way since 3000 BC so I call shenanigans .

You KNOW this? Have you studied genomes and mapped them with similar species? Nothing has evolved at all? That sounds a bit extreme of a claim. Are you suggesting genetic mutations and natural selection haven't happened since 3000 BC? And what exactly happened then?

a reply to: Barcs

Well the oldest written language dates back to 3000 BC and there's been no documentation of evolution since then , Natural selection isn't evolution species go extinct for many different reasons as far as genetic mutations I guess we will have to wait a few more million years to see because in recorded history there has been none .

a reply to: InTheLight

Are you referring to that specific paper or is it just a question about Bayesian analysis in General?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: InTheLight

Are you referring to that specific paper or is it just a question about Bayesian analysis in General?

Basically, how methodology/baseline dataset and study results are arrived at, and, yes, in this case using the Bayesian analytical equation when I question the true event being 'true'.

a reply to: InTheLight

I think I know what you're asking as regards that paper.

First, Bayesian analysis does not give you a true or false. It's a high score or a low score or somewhere in between. It's a probability distribution.
This is because each characteristic of the data sets is an accumulation of characteristics. For instance, previous models may have had reported on a particular characteristic. The authors of this article used a 66% rule to select which characteristics would be included in the super matrix. In other words, the previous characteristic had to have a score of at least 66%.

That makes the prior statistics used in the current study very significant. In other words, crap in/crap out. By using the scoring and a combinatorial method, they used "the best of the best" of available data to use as a baseline for their study. It's like evaluating a type of tomato from different farms. If previous data exists about the tomato like the size or yield per farm, researchers can then take the best of that data to use in their current analysis whatever that may be.

As to the details of this particular paper, I'm not a paleoanthropologist so I can't go into technical details. Peter Vlar is a professional paleoanthopologist and could provide more in depth analysis.

I hope this addresses your question.

a reply to: Phantom423

Beautifully written post explaining how to arrive at probability, not necessarily the truth.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Just like AronRa's ... argument I heard in a ReasonRally debate: "humans are apes". Nonsense isn't going to help you out here, no matter how popular or how it affects the crowd (they cheered him on as he said that, come on, is this how bad it has gotten?). Somewhere after 19 minutes in this video perhaps (it seems to be the conversation I remember but I can't find the phrase anymore and I'm tired of looking):

It's 27:11 and it's actually "we ARE apes", but "we" is obviously referring to the humans there. So the article in the OP essentially does the same thing but then in reverse, referring to apes as "early humans" (and part of "humanity's family tree"), as if it's so. While the actual evidence, including the evidence related to the key claim of A. sediba being supposedly "adapted to terrestrial bipedalism"*, points to something quite different (as discussed in the video entitled "Walk like an ape?..." after 5:19). *: upright walking like a human on 2 legs+feet; and key argument for an evolutionary or hereditary "relationship" with humans or "early humans", there is actually no other valid reason to bring up humans in relation to A. sediba, allthough that won't stop anyone from bringing up teeth or something like that.

The claim about bipedalism is from another article on page 1 linked by Krakatoa. And if you have a look at that video I just mentioned, you can see how the pattern of arguing from ignorance (or conveniently missing crucial evidence regarding the bipedalism claim) comes back into play.

As if going back to talking about "swinging from trees" is going to make them any more human. Now it's the early humans that are swinging from trees? We don't have to prove or talk about bipedalism anymore concerning A. sediba, even when they're swinging from trees they're still "a missing link" between early humans and their predecessors? Quickly switch to talking about teeth instead cause we know the bipedalism claims fall flat on their face (with the fancy term "a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species"; quoting from Phantom423's linked "Data Source"; as if that's the only subject that matters and as if that tells us anything useful or gives us any reliable information regarding evolutionary or hereditary relationships and phylogenetic trees)? Nice red herring from the real issues concerning the claims that these fossils have anything to do with the origin of humans as discussed after 5:19 in the video I mentioned and as implied by all the articles referred to in this comment.

a reply to: InTheLight

Yes that's exactly the point.

originally posted by: whereislogic

While the actual evidence, including the evidence related to the key claim of A. sediba being supposedly "adapted to terrestrial bipedalism"*, points to something quite different (as discussed in the video entitled "Walk like an ape?..." after 5:19). *: upright walking like a human on 2 legs+feet; and key argument for an evolutionary or hereditary "relationship" with humans or "early humans", there is actually no other valid reason to bring up humans in relation to A. sediba, allthough that won't stop anyone from bringing up teeth or something like that.

Cute isn't it?

No, no, let's quickly go back to talking about teeth and "early humans" "swinging from trees" (or "hands" as in the OP's news article; which seems to be the only reason given as an example why these fossils "represent a "missing link" in humanity's family tree" or can be honestly and appropiately referred to as "early humans"; nothing else is discussed why these fossils have anything to do with humans at all). Cause the bipedalism thingy is never gonna work. Or you now what, let's have a camp for all interpretations and imaginations, one for bipedalism, one for swinging from trees and one for both. Leave the truth in the middle (or vague; for the reader to pick). All is OK as long as the claim that these fossils have anything to do with human ancestry remains standing (or a possible argument for it remains to be made, if one argument like bipedalism is refuted, just switch to another one, no matter how little looking at the hands or teeth tells us regarding the crucial differences between humans and apes or if looking at these shows us it's an ape, just call it a primate, call humans a primate, and be done with it).

Without getting into too much detail about why hands are brought up in relation to tool use in the OP's news article (you'll just have to read up on that one yourselves), compare the argument made by the discoverer of these fossils (Berger) in response to the question about tool-use (including manufacturing tools) at 6:58 below with the argument made in the South Park video about the History channel that I referred to earlier. Perhaps it may ring a bell. Take note though, this is the sophisticated version, much less obvious by the method of phrasing it in such a way that it's not too obvious what he's doing there and how it relates to what is being done in South Park's depiction of the History Channel marketing some attention drawing storyline:

An interesting question was asked by the person who made the video below after he was done going through all the fossils that were put in the human family tree depicted in the Scientific American magazine in the year of Darwin (2009). Starting at 8:30. The question is at 27:30 and is as follows:

"Did you ever notice that the evolutionists never seem to find any ancient ancestors of the apes?"

I always see titles such as: "New research on Australopithecus sediba raises questions about human origins" and "New Human Ancestor Discovered: Homo naledi | National Geographic" and "'Missing link' in human history confirmed after long debate" (which turned out to be referring to the ape named A.sediba, as it's the title of the news article in the OP, as copied across numerous news media).

a reply to: whereislogic
Since Johanson and the fossil known as "Lucy" comes up in 3 of the videos I've been linking (including the last 2 and the one about "Walk like an ape?..."), some people might want to hear the rest about what's been done regarding a fossil of a knee found 2.5 km away from the "Lucy" fossil. And regarding the reconstruction of the pelvis. It's also related to the subject of A. Sediba in the manner described after 5:19 and in particular at 6:29 - 9:32 and 9:55 - 11:45 in the 'Walk like an ape?' video.

Relevant facts discussed in the video below from 19:53 - 23:16:

Crevorant #172 starting around 7:52 till about 14:25 is quite interesting as well and some of it relates to what's been going on with these pelvises or hipbones of both "Lucy" and A. Sediba (in particular the symbolic representation of what the scientist is doing to the puzzle pieces, it's quite applicable as well to the question raised in my first comment in this thread: Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory?).

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Barcs

Well the oldest written language dates back to 3000 BC and there's been no documentation of evolution since then , Natural selection isn't evolution species go extinct for many different reasons as far as genetic mutations I guess we will have to wait a few more million years to see because in recorded history there has been none .

That's completely false. Evolution has been documented numerous times in the last 100 years alone. Natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution. Genetic mutations have been documented thousands of times. Probably best not to make up arguments if you are trying to argue against testable proven science.

originally posted by: Barcs

That's completely false. Evolution has been documented numerous times in the last 100 years alone. Natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution. Genetic mutations have been documented thousands of times. Probably best not to make up arguments if you are trying to argue against testable proven science.

Genes can mutate, and populations can adapt, therefore evolution must be true? Don't be silly. You are making vast assumptions. No organism has been able to change into another organism. Dogs remain dogs, fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice... despite immense efforts throughout history to try to demonstrate evolution in a lab. There has been millions of documented fruit fly generations, and they still remain fruit flies.

It's a silly theory. We have spent billions of tax-payer dollars trying to prove the theory, yet fruit flies remain fruit flies.

originally posted by: cooperton
Genes can mutate, and populations can adapt, therefore evolution must be true? Don't be silly. You are making vast assumptions

Give up the ghost. Your arguments are downright terrible and that is a complete strawman of what I said.

Besides you still haven't addressed the evidence. Still waiting. My "vast assumptions" are backed by tons of data. Your lies are not.

originally posted by: Barcs

Besides you still haven't addressed the evidence.

There's evidence of a dog changing into something other than a dog? or a fly changing into something other than a fly? Or a bacteria changing into something other than a bacteria?

I know the answer, there is no evidence. Despite how much researchers have tried. If a fruit fly remains a fruit fly over millions of generations of selective pressure, then it is clear that evolution does not happen.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Besides you still haven't addressed the evidence.

There's evidence of a dog changing into something other than a dog? or a fly changing into something other than a fly? Or a bacteria changing into something other than a bacteria?

I know the answer, there is no evidence. Despite how much researchers have tried. If a fruit fly remains a fruit fly over millions of generations of selective pressure, then it is clear that evolution does not happen.

You really are desperate!!



BTW, don't ignore the Materials and Methods I posted from that Chinese paper. It's a real "gotcha"!

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
All I know is nothing has evolved in any way since 3000 BC so I call shenanigans .

Look at photos of average people from the turn of the last century and you'll see that we're getting much better looking all the time. Even in a little over 100 years. Some of it has to do with nutrition and soap, but a lot of it has to do with us all being "in the media" all the time now. We compare ourselves to TV and movie stars, and we're rapidly selecting out the uglies. That's proof.

originally posted by: Phantom423

BTW, don't ignore the Materials and Methods I posted from that Chinese paper. It's a real "gotcha"!

All they do is conveniently switch to comparing teeth with other ape species that have been incorrectly classified as "hominin" (or "early humans", part of the "human family tree") and put along the fossils of actual humans (those being: Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo florienses a.k.a. the Hobbit fossil, yes, they're actually talking about hobbits, how long until we have a whole cast of fantasy characters for a movie? Mermaids, walking whales, ape-men and hobbits so far, not counting all the vague claims about mythological common ancestors between entirely different kinds of organisms). And they conveniently ignore that the shape of the jawbone to which the teeth are attached (in A. sediba), is shaped like that of an ape, distinctly different from humans. That's evidence that it's an ape, not somewhere in between ape and human. Just like they ignore all the other evidence that it's an ape as they refer to them as "early humans" in the news article in the OP. They just focus on similarities alone, as they always do (they sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others; that's why they bring up teeth and not the shape of the jawbone as discussed in the video "Walk like an ape?").

Here's where they mention it in the abstract in your link:

We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species.

Let's not look at the crucial evidence regarding any differences between humans and apes, let's focus on what's most similar (and include a whole bunch of other apes in that comparison). I can see right through it, I know exactly why they want to focus on teeth (dental characters). Cause all the other facts points to A. sediba being 100% ape.

originally posted by: cooperton
There's evidence of a dog changing into something other than a dog? or a fly changing into something other than a fly? Or a bacteria changing into something other than a bacteria?

No, Kent. If that happened it would debunk evolution. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes. A dog doesn't suddenly turn into a cat. How do you not know this???? This is basic evolution 101.