'Earliest human skull' found in rock

Great one! I bet my niece the paleontologist would appreciate this one too. Who knows what they'll discover next! Thanks for posting this.

The nose appears to be flat indicating the nostrils pointed up. That would make it a really old skull, probably before the more to walking on two legs.

If that's a human skull, I'm a monkeys uncle ; )

Wrong! you're a monkey's NEPHEW!

Not to worry, JK - Nobody's claiming that's a "human" skull. It's the skull of a human precursor. One of YOUR precursors.

And you thought Ancestry dot com was impressive.

Chuck,

"Not to worry, JK - Nobody's claiming that's a "human" skull."

Title of article; ''Earliest human skull' found in rock


"It's the skull of a human precursor. One of YOUR precursors."

It is not known that this critter was a precursor of humans, there's no definite ancestral connection even among the zealous Evolutionists. They do however have a distinct habit of insinuating that all sorts of remains are known to be of our ancestors. Even if one assumes the Evolution origin there is no way to know the particular species that skull represents actually is ancestral to ours, and not one that had previously split from the branch that would eventually "become" us. Phrases like "most complete early human ancestor skeleton", are almost religiously used, but it's really just the skull of something they think might be an actual ancestor species, that it's a plausible candidate.

(Evolution fanatics tend to yammer up all sorts of "knowns" ; )

What a great find. A near-perfect fossilized skull of such great age is fantastic.

Statistically, of course, any hominid find is much more likely to be a "dead end" branch than our direct ancestor. It's not impossible that a direct ancestor could be found, though. Here are some articles in Science Daily about why Australopithecus sediba may in fact be the origin of the Homo genus (article from Sept. 2011 and related ones under "more coverage").

Aniko,

"May . . be" is the operative phrase there, I say. You rightly (in my opinion) noted that any given early hominid remains found, are more likely than not, even if Evolution en toto is assumed, not actually of a species literally ancestral to us, and the article you link to just plays a shell game to my mind. It basically says Australopithecus sediba is in their opinion more likely to be an actual ancestral species than another candidate; Homo habilis.

"The hand found is more complete than that of the Homo habilis, and therefore allows for more conclusions to be drawn. It is more modern, although Homo habilis is 200,000 to 300,000 years younger. The researchers are therefore of the opinion that Australopithecus sediba is an earlier toolmaker than Homo habilis, and therefore also better suited to be the morphotype of a basal hand."

This neither removes the logic/reasoning underlying your earlier statement, nor does it demonstrate that any early hominid remains (found or not) are actually of species ancestral to ours. It is only within the assumption that there had to be a species line that evolved to become us, that such pseudo logics have any validity, I say.

Any and all characteristics which make humans good at thriving and adapting to various circumstances, could also be good for other creatures to have (especially in combination, like large brain/hands that are good for making and using tools/bipedal locomotion). If God is actually the "designer" of living things, then it makes perfect sense that we would see similarities between various creatures (and so there genetic coding as well), even if no or virtually no general types of creatures actually evolved from one another.

Which is not to say that one would not expect to see such similarities if Evolution is the actual valid explanation for all the variety of living things we can observe, with or without direct intervention at any or all points of gradual change in the coding. But, in all eventualities, there is no way to determine with any assurance that a given find (from the distant past) is the remains of a true ancestor of you and I. Can't be done.

There is no way to demonstrate with certainty that a given find is our direct ancestor, but comparisons of likelihood between candidates can be made. Scientists don't generally make claims of certainty in their published work - it's the media that likes to phrase things in that way.

I also expecting this to be a "dead end". Further evidence will show this.

On this, I agree with John. There are too many inconsistencies and the conclusions are being drawn from extremely flimsy evidences.