It’s amazing how scientists can build whole theories on assumptions and then contradict their own statements. Scientists have found bones of humans and come to the conclusion that they were just like humans. I’m not sure that’s an important discovery.
The article says that the scientists found fossils, but it sounds a lot more that they just found human bones. You usually don’t find fossils in a cave. That’s the place where you find bones. But I suppose fossils sounds more like you have something important to say.
“The new research offers fresh insight into a creature that is providing valuable clues about human evolution.” Here you have a big red flag. The scientists obviously have already decided that evolution is a fact, they have built their theories and now they look for things that prove their theories. It’s usually not hard to find things that match your theory. That’s doesn’t mean your theory is correct.
“Its wrist bones and thumb showed features shared with modern people and Neanderthals, and indicated powerful grasping and the ability to employ stone tools.” Could you show me some proof that Neanderthals were anything else than humans? Without that comparing other bones won’t get you anywhere.
“Its strongly curved fingers, rather than the straight ones of people and Neanderthals, suggested it also regularly used its hands for climbing.” Well, our Neanderthal friends lived in Germany and these bones were found in South Africa. It’s quite well possible that these people had a different lifestyle and over many generations had developed traits that helped them survive in the area where they lived. That doesn’t mean that one was older or younger than the other.
“Homo naledi walked a lot like us.” It looks like a human, it walked like a human, it had hands and feet like a human, so what are the chances that this was just a human being? It’s really not so hard to see it, but basic logic is generally absent with scientists.
“Our science has known for decades that upright walking, bipedalism, preceded brain enlargement over the course of human evolution,” If they have *known* that I assume they won’t mind showing me the proof? I would love to see it. But usually when scientists say that they know something they actually mean that they have very firm beliefs and just accept these beliefs as facts. When you ask them to show the proof they usually get really annoyed, because they don’t have it.
But then the last sentence of the article: “The fossils’ age has not been determined.” Huh?????? First we get all these theories and comparisons and then they say that they have no idea what they are talking about. Those bones could very well be 300 years old. Or 3000. Or something else. The only thing they know for sure is where and when these bones have been found. Everything is fantasy, assumptions and wild theories. And that puts this firmly into the category of fiction.