Important Fossil Discovery at the Cradle of Humankind

I don't know how to upload pics, nothing is happening.

Image of Cave System

Prof Lee Berger says the group will try to extract DNA. Watch this space, he says.



for cloning?

originally posted by: kykweer
Prof Lee Berger says the group will try to extract DNA. Watch this space, he says.

for cloning?

Unlikely for cloning,more likely for polymerase replication so that they can generate a map of the genome to see how it relates to other primates (ourselves included) and to locate its commonalities and divergences from human.

This is far easier to achieve than cloning an extinct species and is not as ethically abhorrent, either.

a reply to: chr0naut

I agree the huge problem will be the ethics of it, but the mad scientist within me would find it interesting nonetheless to see how they acts, though confining them to a cage for scientific studies would be wrong, we do it to other species every day.

a reply to: kykweer

Any time I see a thread like this I just want to cringe. The cradle of mankind? Really? Nice effort, but I suspect the real cradle of mankind will never be proven or found by anyone in this lifetime. Not sure exactly what the percentage of water on this planet it is right now, probably 75% of Earth is covered by water, and the percentage of that water that has actually been investigated? Maybe 10%.

So it stands to reason that if humankind did originate on this planet, the only place you will find it is in the water.

Archeology is great and I love it when they find new things to share with us, but please, stop trying to place ages on what they find and stop trying to offer these things as proof of anything other than what they are, artifacts from another civilization that resided here at one point.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I agree with you that this might not and probably will not be the answer we are looking for, there will no doubt be questions that remain... but take heed that we should never stop searching and making new discoveries.

You can see new discoveries and changes in our existing models, but in the end, the more discoveries we make, the less we consider them to change our current understanding, but only serves to refine it.

PS. you had be worried there it is indeed Cradle of Humankind

"The name Cradle of Humankind reflects the fact that the site has produced a large number of, as well as some of the oldest, hominin fossils ever found, some dating back as far as 3.5 million years ago.[2] Sterkfontein alone has produced more than a third of early hominid fossils ever found prior to 2010.[3]"

They don't claim it to be the birthplace of humankind, but it sounds catchy doesn't it?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: kykweer

Archeology is great and I love it when they find new things to share with us, but please, stop trying to place ages on what they find and stop trying to offer these things as proof of anything other than what they are, artifacts from another civilization that resided here at one point.

What?
Can you provide some peer reviewed papers supporting that? Even one will suffice.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
www.bbc.co.uk...

Lots more info here.

This bit is very interesting.

The Homo naledi people appear to have carried individuals deep into the cave system and deposited them in the chamber - possibly over generations.

So many fossils in one cave it is exciting but a lot more research needs to be done before anything can be determined about age and its status in Homo genus. I'll wait for it to come out over time.

originally posted by: kykweer
What I find suspicious, is why would they announce this fossil discovery if they have not even dated them yet? Wouldn't that make it more impressive?

"Due to the fact that the fossils were found in isolation, it has also been difficult to determine the actual age of the fossils, because no accompanying plant or animal fossils could be measured for dating."

"The team of scientists is still working towards measuring an accurate date after three different methods of dating failed."

So in other words it could be from a few millennia ago or a few centuries. Could be a grave of monkey bones that the natives found tasty.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Since then the claim is 2.5-3 million years old.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: kykweer
Prof Lee Berger says the group will try to extract DNA. Watch this space, he says.

for cloning?

Unlikely for cloning,more likely for polymerase replication so that they can generate a map of the genome to see how it relates to other primates (ourselves included) and to locate its commonalities and divergences from human.

This is far easier to achieve than cloning an extinct species and is not as ethically abhorrent, either.

They never found the common ancestor of origin so it is all bunk.
They spend all those funds creating their own story it has become a monster that needs to feed itself. All the publishing and modeling on monkey skulls and the need for more grant money to support it all.

originally posted by: kykweer
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Since then the claim is 2.5-3 million years old.

How?
They stated they have not dated a thing and gave reasons why, there is nothing found with them that is possible to date.

So they just pulled a number out of their collective rear ends, one calculated to draw the most public funds perhaps?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Just imagine at one point we would have been walking on the same planet as other Homo's.
I find that fascinating.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Just imagine at one point we would have been walking on the same planet as other Homo's.
I find that fascinating.

Wow man I read that out of context

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Just imagine at one point we would have been walking on the same planet as other Homo's.
I find that fascinating.

Imagine walking on the planet and having to run into a cave to escape a forest fire only to suffocate with all them monkeys.

Just as likely.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: kykweer
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Since then the claim is 2.5-3 million years old.

How?
They stated they have not dated a thing and gave reasons why, there is nothing found with them that is possible to date.

So they just pulled a number out of their collective rear ends, one calculated to draw the most public funds perhaps?

I guess their best indication at this stage is to look at other fossils in the area.

the Sediba species was found less than 2 million years ago and the Little Foot discovery about 3 million years ago.

I am not an expert on the subject though, rather read the links from the OP.

I've heard about this on NPR this morning on the way to work, and later saw articles on google news. Indeed it is interesting find, and not being able to age fossils yet opens a windows for a lot of speculation, including one about burial vs. hideout. In this case it is best to wait for more research and more info before making any conclusions.

Either humanoids berried their dead much earlier then previously believed, or there was another branch of living humanoid at the same time humans walked on the earth. In both cases, it is very important and incredible find.

It was interesting to hear how he discovered the cave, and actually has sent his son to verify location.

You can listen to the story in morning edition on NPR: www.npr.org...

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Imagine walking on the planet and having to run into a cave to escape a forest fire only to suffocate with all them monkeys.

Just as likely.

Not very likely if you check diagram of caves and trouble to get in there. It is bit too far away, and no other bones in between...

a reply to: kykweer

Can't wait to see the gene sequence compared to other known hominids, how close or how far removed are they???