The plot thickens!

>>A new species of human has been discovered in a cave in the Philippines. Named Homo luzonensis after the island of Luzon where it was found, the hominin appears to have lived over 50,000 years ago, painting a more complete picture of human evolution.<<

>>Even with those scattered bones, scientists are able to start slotting Homo luzonensis into the hominin family tree. Although it is a distinct species of its own, it does share different traits with many of its relatives, including Neanderthals, modern humans, and most notably Homo floresiensis – the “Hobbit” humans discovered in an Indonesian cave in 2003. But perhaps the strangest family resemblance is to the Australopithecus, a far more ancient ancestor of ours.<<

https://newatlas.com/new-human-species-homo-luzonensis/59207/

PermeateFree said:

The plot thickens!

>>A new species of human has been discovered in a cave in the Philippines. Named Homo luzonensis after the island of Luzon where it was found, the hominin appears to have lived over 50,000 years ago, painting a more complete picture of human evolution.<<

>>Even with those scattered bones, scientists are able to start slotting Homo luzonensis into the hominin family tree. Although it is a distinct species of its own, it does share different traits with many of its relatives, including Neanderthals, modern humans, and most notably Homo floresiensis – the “Hobbit” humans discovered in an Indonesian cave in 2003. But perhaps the strangest family resemblance is to the Australopithecus, a far more ancient ancestor of ours.<<

https://newatlas.com/new-human-species-homo-luzonensis/59207/

More:

>>A new species of ancient human, thought to have been under 4ft tall and adapted to climbing trees, has been discovered in the Philippines, providing a twist in the story of human evolution.

The specimen, named Homo luzonensis, was excavated from Callao cave on Luzon island in the northern Philippines and has been dated to 50,000-67,000 years ago – when our own ancestors and the Neanderthals were spreading across Europe and into Asia.<<

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/10/new-species-of-ancient-human-homo-luzonensis-discovered-in-philippines-cave

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

The plot thickens!

>>A new species of human has been discovered in a cave in the Philippines. Named Homo luzonensis after the island of Luzon where it was found, the hominin appears to have lived over 50,000 years ago, painting a more complete picture of human evolution.<<

>>Even with those scattered bones, scientists are able to start slotting Homo luzonensis into the hominin family tree. Although it is a distinct species of its own, it does share different traits with many of its relatives, including Neanderthals, modern humans, and most notably Homo floresiensis – the “Hobbit” humans discovered in an Indonesian cave in 2003. But perhaps the strangest family resemblance is to the Australopithecus, a far more ancient ancestor of ours.<<

https://newatlas.com/new-human-species-homo-luzonensis/59207/

More:

>>A new species of ancient human, thought to have been under 4ft tall and adapted to climbing trees, has been discovered in the Philippines, providing a twist in the story of human evolution.

The specimen, named Homo luzonensis, was excavated from Callao cave on Luzon island in the northern Philippines and has been dated to 50,000-67,000 years ago – when our own ancestors and the Neanderthals were spreading across Europe and into Asia.<<

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/10/new-species-of-ancient-human-homo-luzonensis-discovered-in-philippines-cave

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/new-species-ancient-human-discovered-luzon-philippines-homo-luzonensis/

Bear in mind that many researchers regard this “new species” claim to be premature:

Did scientists discover a new species of human in a Philippines cave?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/did-scientists-discover-a-new-species-of-human-in-a-philippines-cave

Bubblecar said:

Bear in mind that many researchers regard this “new species” claim to be premature:

Did scientists discover a new species of human in a Philippines cave?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/did-scientists-discover-a-new-species-of-human-in-a-philippines-cave

Many researchers? There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings. The same sort of things and far worse were being said about the Hobbit, yet it was well received here and discussed at some length, but now because there are a few doubters you wash your hands of it and don’t even discuss it. That is VERY unscientific and I suspect other motives.

And a even quote from the newshour scientist, of whom hold in such high regard.

>>Still, if Détroit and his team are right about Homo luzonensis, the new discovery would add to a growing picture of extinct human diversity in Southeast Asia, which we simply couldn’t have imagined a decade or two ago.<<

Bubbles has always been a shill for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens only believers.

sibeen said:

Bubbles has always been a shill for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens only believers.

Um, no.

And the researchers who are calling this call “premature” certainly don’t rule out that it’s a new species. They’re just saying there’s not yet enough evidence.

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Bubbles has always been a shill for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens only believers.

Um, no.

Can’t you let me run with that, at least for a little bit. .

>There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings

Lots of press articles parroting each other doesn’t mean “scientific consensus”. The media often report contested claims as fact.

sibeen said:

Bubbles has always been a shill for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens only believers.

Science is all about questioning, but you don’t dismiss something with nothing more than an opinion.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Bubbles has always been a shill for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens only believers.

Science is all about questioning, but you don’t dismiss something with nothing more than an opinion.

I haven’t dismissed anything at all. I’ve simply pointed out that the “new species” claim is being criticised as premature, given the meagre nature of the finds so far.

Bubblecar said:

>There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings

Lots of press articles parroting each other doesn’t mean “scientific consensus”. The media often report contested claims as fact.

I don’t call Nature or National Geographic parroting anyone.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings

Lots of press articles parroting each other doesn’t mean “scientific consensus”. The media often report contested claims as fact.

I don’t call Nature or National Geographic parroting anyone.

The National Geographic article quotes various researchers who are reluctant to embrace the “new species” claim at this stage.

And that’s all I pointed out.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Bubbles has always been a shill for the Homo Sapiens Sapiens only believers.

Science is all about questioning, but you don’t dismiss something with nothing more than an opinion.

I haven’t dismissed anything at all. I’ve simply pointed out that the “new species” claim is being criticised as premature, given the meagre nature of the finds so far.

You forget the Denisovans? There is bugger all information about that species, yet you accept that.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings

Lots of press articles parroting each other doesn’t mean “scientific consensus”. The media often report contested claims as fact.

I don’t call Nature or National Geographic parroting anyone.

Well you just have, as they published the findings of this new species.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings

Lots of press articles parroting each other doesn’t mean “scientific consensus”. The media often report contested claims as fact.

I don’t call Nature or National Geographic parroting anyone.

The National Geographic article quotes various researchers who are reluctant to embrace the “new species” claim at this stage.

And that’s all I pointed out.

And you just dismiss it as not worth discussing. What a sad excuse.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There are an awful lot of people that agree with the findings

Lots of press articles parroting each other doesn’t mean “scientific consensus”. The media often report contested claims as fact.

I don’t call Nature or National Geographic parroting anyone.

The National Geographic article quotes various researchers who are reluctant to embrace the “new species” claim at this stage.

And that’s all I pointed out.

They question it, they don’t dismiss it. I can’t be bothered with this level of stupidity and questionable reasons. One thing for sure is there are not many here with a scientific background.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t call Nature or National Geographic parroting anyone.

The National Geographic article quotes various researchers who are reluctant to embrace the “new species” claim at this stage.

And that’s all I pointed out.

And you just dismiss it as not worth discussing. What a sad excuse.

I said nothing of the kind, you’re talking gibberish again.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

The National Geographic article quotes various researchers who are reluctant to embrace the “new species” claim at this stage.

And that’s all I pointed out.

And you just dismiss it as not worth discussing. What a sad excuse.

I said nothing of the kind, you’re talking gibberish again.

Go and read what you have written and stop trying to pass your biased and nonscientific reasoning onto others.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

The National Geographic article quotes various researchers who are reluctant to embrace the “new species” claim at this stage.

And that’s all I pointed out.

And you just dismiss it as not worth discussing. What a sad excuse.

I said nothing of the kind, you’re talking gibberish again.

In fact I linked to an article that discusses the finds at length, but looks at the “new species” claim from a more detailed perspective:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/did-scientists-discover-a-new-species-of-human-in-a-philippines-cave

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hominins-weve-been-calling-denisovans-are-more-diverse-previously-thought-180971952/