https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh5DKyhvYFc
me:
Sigh... the usual outdated anthropocentrically biased interpretations... >> Naledi was no Homo, of course, it was an ape: Pan or Australopithecus naledi,
google e.g. "verhaegen naledi".
JTEM:
I've been disagreeing with EVERYTHING Naledi since it first hit the media.
Yes, but some imbecile:
Is that what they teach you in film school?
??
There's 0 "mysterious" about naledi:
simply a fossil Pan: naledi’s human-like traits were primitive-hominid, not human-derived:
- Fore-feet were indeed somewhat human-like, but this is also seen in prenatal Pan.
- Hands +-humanlike, but hand-bones longer & curved for vertical climbing.
- Thicker enamel than Pan: wetland vegetation, cf. gorillas wading for seges, bonobos wading for waterlilies...
- Small canine teeth: adapted to / worn down by wetland vegetation...
-- Small hominid, generally bonobo-like Pan paniscus, e.g. narrow heel.
-- Much too recent (~250 ka?) & too ape-like to be Homo.
-- Ape-sized brain.
-- Last molars largest (M3) cf apes/apiths, unlike Homo.
-- Thorax & scapula very ape- & apith-like, unlike Homo.
-- Pelvis wide & femoral neck long (for leg abduction), apith-like.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)