Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[YoursTrue]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

 

[sun rise]

There's nothing of the sort outside of some questions many decades ago, Taung child | fossil

Taung child, the first discovered fossil of Australopithecus africanus.

 

[shunyadragon]

The "Taung child" fossil is Australopithecus africanus 3-4 year old child .~2,8 million years old.

There were a large number of different diverse Hominin species of Australopithecus that ranged over Africa and Eurasia between 4.4 million to 1.4 million years ago in the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs.

They represent an important link between earlier more primitive hominin species, but not direct ancestors but share common lineage with Homo Group including humans. Lucy was the dominant African Australopithecus afarensis.


See the human family tree - Google Search

. . . for the present view of the human family tree.

Based on this reference we are the dominate surviving species of the Homo Group that replaced the Australopithecus Group. and the Paranthropus Group, which share common lineages.

Basically our ancestors migrated out of Africa and replaced earlier hominins.

One important principle of the contemporary view of evolution is that evolution takes place in populations of what was called in the past related species and subspecies and not from one species to another (linear evolution).

More to follow . . .

 

[metis]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

The only real "problems" come from those who simply do not accept the science and use some twisted "creationism" to create these "problems".

In general, we know that the child is an early human child [Australopithecus africanus], and this link from the Smithsonian will at least give a brief explanation:

Taung Child | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[McBell]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

Where are you reading this?

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

Please give us the source that says there is a problem. There may be questions raised about it which is precisely what keeps science effective for achieving the best interpretation evidence but I have never read there is a "problem". The most common "problem" is misquoting or misinterpretation of what is said.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

It's good to hear that you've been reading. This may help.

 

[nPeace]

I'm reading that there were problems associated with categorizing the "Taung child" fossil in terms of its evolutionary place.

Reading this article, seems there were problems even accepting the idea that the fossil was human. They believed it deserved to be categorized as a chimp or gorilla rather than a human ancestor.
It was suggested that the Taung fossil was "essentially identical" to the skull of "the infant gorilla and chimpanzee".
Later they - well most of them, finally agreed that it was human, based on some assumptions made from a few observations
They also made the assumption that the creature was attacked and killed by an eagle. There conclude that's the only explanation for a bird's talons to gorge the eye.
That's not part of your question though, sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's nothing of the sort outside of some questions many decades ago, Taung child | fossil

Taung child, the first discovered fossil of Australopithecus africanus.

Please explain if you will, when you say "there's nothing of the sort?"

 

[YoursTrue]

Reading this article, seems there were problems even accepting the idea that the fossil was human. They believed it deserved to be categorized as a chimp or gorilla rather than a human ancestor.
It was suggested that the Taung fossil was "essentially identical" to the skull of "the infant gorilla and chimpanzee".
Later they - well most of them, finally agreed that it was human, based on some assumptions made from a few observations
They also made the assumption that the creature was attacked and killed by an eagle. There conclude that's the only explanation for a bird's talons to gorge the eye.
That's not part of your question though, sorry.

Yes, it was.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's good to hear that you've been reading. This may help.

I'll go over the article later. Yes, I've been reading and from the article, there was much controversy among... scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's good to hear that you've been reading. This may help.

I've also been reading your all's answers, and so far, no proof, no nothing other than conjecture. Viruses remain viruses, chimps remain chimps and finches remain finches. There's more but later.

 

[YoursTrue]

The only real "problems" come from those who simply do not accept the science and use some twisted "creationism" to create these "problems".

In general, we know that the child is an early human child [Australopithecus africanus], and this link from the Smithsonian will at least give a brief explanation:

Taung Child | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Do you think it looks like this? Fossil reveals clues to Taung Child's home - Cosmos Magazine

 

[Wildswanderer]

Perhaps someone could explain the strange tendency of the evolution crowd to deny there's any controversy among scientists about these types of findings?

 

[nPeace]

I've also been reading your all's answers, and so far, no proof, no nothing other than conjecture. Viruses remain viruses, chimps remain chimps and finches remain finches. There's more but later.

Seems the scientists have no problem "stretching" when it comes to ideas they (most of them) will accept, based on the article you linked.
Batley also explains that Parker and her colleagues have made a stretch by claiming that the bee species responsible for this nest is a member of the Celliforma ichnogenus.
Stretching is good at times, but it depends on what's being stretched, it seems.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seems the scientists have no problem "stretching" when it comes to ideas they (most of them) will accept, based on the article you linked.
Batley also explains that Parker and her colleagues have made a stretch by claiming that the bee species responsible for this nest is a member of the Celliforma ichnogenus.
Stretching is good at times, but it depends on what's being stretched, it seems.

There's more about recent developments of the Taung fossil, "By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies... researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans." Right. Ok. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.amp

 

[shunyadragon]

Reading this article, seems there were problems even accepting the idea that the fossil was human. They believed it deserved to be categorized as a chimp or gorilla rather than a human ancestor.
It was suggested that the Taung fossil was "essentially identical" to the skull of "the infant gorilla and chimpanzee".
Later they - well most of them, finally agreed that it was human, based on some assumptions made from a few observations
They also made the assumption that the creature was attacked and killed by an eagle. There conclude that's the only explanation for a bird's talons to gorge the eye.
That's not part of your question though, sorry.

It is accepted that the fossil is not human as far being a part of the Homo group that includes us the homo sapiens. It is the, a species Australopithecus afarensis as a species in the Australopithecus Group.
Gorillas and Chimpanzees did not exist in the time that the "Taung child fossil" was dated. You need to get up to date on the contemporary research and stop looking for rabbits in the Cambrian Period.
.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll go over the article later. Yes, I've been reading and from the article, there was much controversy among... scientists.

Nothing in the article reflects what you claim.

The article does confirm as referenced that the Australopithecus Group is separate evolutionary group in the hominin evolutionary tree. No it says noting about the skull being an immature cimp nor gorilla.

 

[nPeace]

There's more about recent developments of the Taung fossil, "By subjecting the skull of the first australopith discovered to the latest technologies... researchers are now casting doubt on theories that Australopithecus africanus shows the same cranial adaptations found in modern human infants and toddlers – in effect disproving current support for the idea that this early hominin shows infant brain development in the prefrontal region similar to that of modern humans." Right. Ok. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-08-taung-child-skull-brain-human-like.amp

"Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed..."
"The authors also debate the previously offered theoretical basis for this adaptation..."
That's very interesting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I've been reading and from the article, there was much controversy among... scientists.

OMG!

"controversy among... scientists"? ​

Please - tell me it isn't so.​