Pseuds Sperg at the Smithsonian
Other urls found in this thread:
the skull to the left is clearly that of an ape
Certainly unlike any ape alive today.
an ape nonetheless
I wouldn't call that an early human!
Well, considering australopithecines are ancestral to humans, and the robusts are an extinct offshoot, it's understandable why they'd call them that. Just a bad oversimplification.
you as may well refer to an ox cart as an early automobile
and even that would have more sense
More apt to use old construction equipment as an example, an ox cart is much to ancient. Remember, this creature was contomporary with other early hominins.
>to
*too
>early human
If it isn't Homo sapien sapiens, then it isn't human.
All members of the Homo genus are humans.
get out
Well I mean that's the correct definition, but you're the boss.
You're a member of the homo genus
Then that would by default exclude Australopithecus.
I don't think they were humans, but I could be wrong about that.
Also I said all members of Homo are humans, I didn't say only members of Homo are humans.
Full disclosure, all creatures listed here are hominins:
†Sahelanthropus
†Orrorin
Pan
†Australopithecus
†Paranthropus
†Kenyanthropus
Homo
When people say "hominin," they most likely are talking about creatures that were ancestral, or related to, man.
I enjoyed this far more than I expected.
...
>this ape skull is unlike any extant apes
>it must be human
That's not how science works, lad
Read
>Like the permanent exhibit, the traveling version calls species like Australopithecus africanus or Paranthropus boisei “early humans,” even though these species were not human-like at all and in the latter case, are thought to be far removed from the human line. These grossly misleading statements are, of course, designed to make people think that we’re related to very non-human-like forms.
>The traveling exhibit states that Australopithecus sediba could be a human “ancestor” even though the consensus view is that it lived after the appearance of Homo, and thus cannot be our ancestor. It also had the wrong anatomy to be our ancestor. Yes, the exhibit qualifies its statement with a question mark, asking, “A new ancestor for us all?” But it never explains that the answer to the question is clearly no.
>species like Australopithecus africanus or Paranthropus boisei “early humans,” even though these species were not human-like at all and in the latter case, are thought to be far removed from the human line
>not human-like at all
>far removed
Actually, africanus is somewhat close to the split between ancestral homo and paranthropines. Ancestor was most likely A. Afarensis, the same species from which ancestral homo most likely developed (Ledi Jaw). Not going to argue against Boisei, except that it was a biped. I have a distinct feeling that they consider australopithecines no different than extant apes.
>not human-like at all
What's their standard comparison, modern humans?
...
>arguing over semantics
>playing the conspiracy card
Very professional.
This is like criticizing a book from the early 2000s for not including information gathered after its publication (but considering their background, they'd do that too). It's meant to give people a glimpse into our past, not drown them in details.
>It's meant to give people a glimpse into our past, not drown them in details.
So its cool to tell people they were apes, and not tell them any information contrary to that statement.
An honest scientist wouldn't present such weighted suggestive questions. Like "Is this ape we are showing and telling you are our ancestors, our ancestors, even though they clearly aren't?
nice catch.
ITT autistic basement dwellers pretend to be able to draw conclusions from different skulls of different things.
Okay, let's take that analogy into another situation. Say quantum physics. Now, you know it's a rather complicated subject to comprehend, and so you try to simplify it for the people. But, you end up simplifying something in a way that might be misinterpreted. Then someone comes along saying, "you say this but where's the differing viewpoints. A good scientist always studies the viewpoints." To which one could reply, "this is meant to give people a rudimentary understanding of the subject, so they can continue to learn about said subject."
You see what I'm getting at?
Also
>any information contrary to that statement.
Like what, pray tell?
>different skulls of different things
Rather vague statement. Care to elaborate?
Das raciss
...
If all these hominid species had survived, the Olympics would be far more interesting.
Ok, from this chart, I can take a guess that by "early human," they most likely meant "hominin," but didn't want to confuse people.
No conspiracy.
No agenda.
Just a bad decision on the vernacular used in the exhibit; nothing more.