The article I found is on the discovery of Homo naledi. Happened upon only by chance, the struggle to find Homo naledi was as hard as placing it with either Australopithecus or Homo. I found this article interesting because the discovery of a potentially new species could give us a clearer picture of our ancestors. We may never know the complete story, but as long as we keep on researching and exploring new ideas, our understanding will grow. In addition to adding to our understanding of human origins, the article has a dash of mystery and highlights the importance of women in the field. It is not known how Homo naledi found its resting place inside a nearly inaccessible cave, but it is certain that its recovery would not have been possible
…show more content…
All throughout the article it is reiterated that we still don 't know where Homo naledi fits in the human evolutionary tree (Hawks 2016, 198). Homo naledi is rather difficult to place because the species shows both traits found in other hominids and more primitive traits. Hawks states this is known as an anatomical mosaic (Hawks 2016, 198). One of the most significant differences between Homo naledi and other hominids is that Homo naledi has a much smaller brain in comparison to its body size, bringing Hawks to come to the conclusion that Homo naledi was adapted like a human, but lacked a human brain (Hawks 2016, 199). In addition to making Homo naledi hard to place, Hawks also credits the anatomical mosaic for making determining the age more difficult (Hawks 2016, …show more content…
While there is still uncertainty surrounding it, as seen in all three articles, we have only begun our learning about this new species. We didn 't know Homo naledi existed until by chance two cavers found it, and it may be that it will take another chance discovery to answer our remaining questions. I remain certain that Homo naledi deserves its place as a new species and until we have evidence to say otherwise, I think that is is a very good possibility that Homo naledi intentionally placed their dead in the cave. As Randolph-Quinney said, when such evidence arises as to disprove the theory they intentionally disposed of their dead, then we can “re-evaluate, rethink and raise new hypotheses,” (Randolph-Quinney 2015, 8). Until then, we should not get hung up on what we don 't know yet and apply what we do know to our current understanding of human origins. And when the time comes that we do have plausible answer, we need to approach them with a critical and open mind. As Shreeve concluded, “we really don 't have a clue what else might be out there,” (Shreeve 2015). We may find something that completely changes everything we think we know about human origins, and if that happens, we need to be more like Randolph-Quinney’s “good scrutiny” critics and less like the “bad scrutiny” critics. After all, we knew the world was flat until somebody dared to say it was
All throughout the article it is reiterated that we still don 't know where Homo naledi fits in the human evolutionary tree (Hawks 2016, 198). Homo naledi is rather difficult to place because the species shows both traits found in other hominids and more primitive traits. Hawks states this is known as an anatomical mosaic (Hawks 2016, 198). One of the most significant differences between Homo naledi and other hominids is that Homo naledi has a much smaller brain in comparison to its body size, bringing Hawks to come to the conclusion that Homo naledi was adapted like a human, but lacked a human brain (Hawks 2016, 199). In addition to making Homo naledi hard to place, Hawks also credits the anatomical mosaic for making determining the age more difficult (Hawks 2016, …show more content…
While there is still uncertainty surrounding it, as seen in all three articles, we have only begun our learning about this new species. We didn 't know Homo naledi existed until by chance two cavers found it, and it may be that it will take another chance discovery to answer our remaining questions. I remain certain that Homo naledi deserves its place as a new species and until we have evidence to say otherwise, I think that is is a very good possibility that Homo naledi intentionally placed their dead in the cave. As Randolph-Quinney said, when such evidence arises as to disprove the theory they intentionally disposed of their dead, then we can “re-evaluate, rethink and raise new hypotheses,” (Randolph-Quinney 2015, 8). Until then, we should not get hung up on what we don 't know yet and apply what we do know to our current understanding of human origins. And when the time comes that we do have plausible answer, we need to approach them with a critical and open mind. As Shreeve concluded, “we really don 't have a clue what else might be out there,” (Shreeve 2015). We may find something that completely changes everything we think we know about human origins, and if that happens, we need to be more like Randolph-Quinney’s “good scrutiny” critics and less like the “bad scrutiny” critics. After all, we knew the world was flat until somebody dared to say it was