New Human species found

  • Thread starter Thread starter bonniemar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bonniemar

Guest
I am curious as to what the Vatican’s view is on the new human species that was recently found in Africa? anyone?
 
I’ve posted a few links to help the OP out:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100325100848.htm

guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/24/new-human-species-siberia

The “new species” was found in Siberia, but it has not yet been confirmed that this is, in fact, a new species of human. It’s difficult, I think, to place a new branch on the phylogenetic tree based on the mitochondrial DNA of one individual. Even so, I do not think that the vatican would react in any surprised or outraged way. Scientists have been finding “new species” for years, including the hobbit-like homo floresiensis mentioned in the guardian article. The definition of “species” itself is also more fluffy than you would think in evolutionary biology.
 
Bonniemar, you didn’t provide a news link, so I am just guessing, but are you referring to this discovery in South Africa?
articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-09/news/20841752_1_fossil-bones-australopithecus-species-human-evolution

Despite the headline, I don’t think the new species is considered human, but pre-human. The tentative designation being given is Australopithecus sediba.

I’m not sure that a Vatican spokesman has discussed the discovery, but as pre-human fossils I am not sure that it is necessary. Australopithecus fossils have been known for decades.

As for the Siberian discovery… I think that is quite a bit more speculative.
 
Thanks, Dale! I didn’t see the South African discovery.
 
CatofAlexandria said:
Thanks, Dale! I didn’t see the South African discovery.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure thing! When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it might have been about Siberia, but when she mentioned Africa… well, I wondered. Of course, I could have guessed wrong. :o
 
When the title read new, I thought it really meant ‘new’. I was wondering which of our populations the new species mutated from.
 
One more species of extinct gorilla, and it’s supposed to be the “missing link”. Ho-hum. :rolleyes:
 
Wolseley said:
One more species of extinct gorilla, and it’s supposed to be the “missing link”. Ho-hum. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
it is an extinct Australopithecus, not a Gorilla

a “missing link” as you put it would be far older
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top