• Laetoli site A footprints: hominin, not bear

    From Pandora@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 1 19:12:56 2021
    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    Abstract

    Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
    dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
    unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
    Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
    partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
    affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
    fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
    site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
    and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
    narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small, cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
    proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
    A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
    minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
    Laetoli.

    Open access:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to Pandora on Wed Dec 1 22:06:50 2021
    Pandora wrote:
    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    Abstract

    Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
    dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
    unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
    Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
    partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
    affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
    fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
    site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
    and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
    narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small, cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
    proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
    A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
    minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at Laetoli.

    Open access:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7


    As reported by Ohio University:

    <https://www.ohio.edu/news/2021/12/ohio-university-researcher-footprints-site-laetoli-tanzania-are-early-humans-not-bears>

    Some good background bits.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Pandora on Thu Dec 2 08:03:43 2021
    On 1.12.2021. 19:12, Pandora wrote:
    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    Abstract

    Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
    dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
    unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
    Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
    partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
    affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
    fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
    site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
    and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
    narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small, cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
    proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
    A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
    minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at Laetoli.

    Open access:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints? What does "unequivocally"
    means in paleoanthropology? Or in science? Does it mean that everything
    that isn't firmly established can be neglected? Some idiot says that I
    don't like this evidence, because it doesn't have the right smell, and
    this is the "reason" for you to neglect *any* evidence? How can somebody
    write what is written in this abstract, while Trachilos footprints are
    around? Is the guy who wrote this an idiot. If he is an idiot, why
    aren't his papers neglected? If he is an idiot, why doesn't somebody
    tell him so? Are the rest of them any smarter? What doesn't the "Nature"
    think about this? Do they even think?

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Dec 2 08:09:49 2021
    On 2.12.2021. 8:03, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 1.12.2021. 19:12, Pandora wrote:
    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    Abstract

    Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and
    dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest
    unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage.
    Another trackway discovered two years earlier at nearby site A was
    partially excavated and attributed to a hominin, but curious
    affinities with bears (ursids) marginalized its importance to the
    paleoanthropological community, and the location of these footprints
    fell into obscurity. In 2019, we located, excavated and cleaned the
    site A trackway, producing a digital archive using 3D photogrammetry
    and laser scanning. Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids. In fact, the
    narrow step width corroborates the original interpretation of a small,
    cross-stepping bipedal hominin. However, the inferred foot
    proportions, gait parameters and 3D morphologies of footprints at site
    A are readily distinguished from those at site G, indicating that a
    minimum of two hominin taxa with different feet and gaits coexisted at
    Laetoli.

    Open access:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

            Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints? What does "unequivocally" means in paleoanthropology? Or in science? Does it mean
    that everything that isn't firmly established can be neglected? Some
    idiot says that I don't like this evidence, because it doesn't have the
    right smell, and this is the "reason" for you to neglect *any* evidence?
    How can somebody write what is written in this abstract, while Trachilos footprints are around? Is the guy who wrote this an idiot. If he is an
    idiot, why aren't his papers neglected? If he is an idiot, why doesn't somebody tell him so? Are the rest of them any smarter? What doesn't the "Nature" think about this? Do they even think?

    Gee, this post has more than the usual amount of mistakes. I apologize. It must be something in the air, :) :
    https://youtu.be/q9tMSfC7E38

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 2 07:26:26 2021
    Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 08:03:44 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Thu Dec 2 22:51:45 2021
    On 2.12.2021. 16:26, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 08:03:44 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for noticing me, :).
    Anyway, isn't it strange? I mean, this was the news from 4 years ago,
    everybody should know about it. Controversies? Well, I would really like
    to see the guy who puts this in question. It doesn't fit old paradigm?
    Well, does this means that we should stay with the old paradigm
    infinitely, no matter what new evidence emerges? Why? Because it is established, and all the scientists, actually, want is to be
    established? Who's crazy here? Me? Because I am not established? Jesus, thankfully, I am dealing with smart humans, what would be if I would
    deal with not so smart humans?

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 3 08:22:38 2021
    Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:51:47 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
    noticing me, :).

    Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
    in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
    "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
    The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
    e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sat Dec 4 00:02:37 2021
    On 3.12.2021. 17:22, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:51:47 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
    noticing me, :).

    Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
    in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
    "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
    The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
    e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

    Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
    mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
    I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
    with me.
    Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
    In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
    space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
    imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
    And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
    that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
    mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names. Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
    names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
    nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
    And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 4 01:36:50 2021
    Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
    noticing me, :).

    Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
    in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
    "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
    The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
    e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

    Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
    mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
    I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
    with me.

    I'm sure of that... :-)

    Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
    In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
    space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
    And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
    that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
    mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names. Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
    nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
    And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.

    :-) No problem, Mario, such mistakes (ea instead of ae) are common.
    BTW, Dutch has 13 plain vowels (+ a number of diphtongs).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 4 02:01:42 2021
    Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
    noticing me, :).

    Trachilos & Oreopithecus show that there were Miocene hominoids (probably hominids) on Mediterranean islands.
    Non-human hominoids today live only in SE.Asia & C.Africa, but hominoid fossils are found at different places in Europe, Med.islands, Turkey, Africa, India etc.
    How did Miocene hominoids spread?
    No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
    Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
    IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.

    Carloton Coon in 1954 (The Story of Man) already knew
    - fetal chimps have humanlike feet with adducted big toes,
    - but human fetuses never have apelike feet.

    IOW, only complete idiots still believe we evolved flat feet to run after antelopes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Pandora on Sat Dec 4 12:46:10 2021
    Pandora wrote:

    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

    Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary
    to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
    to a hominin.

    Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
    that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...









    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669255436558581760

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sun Dec 5 01:18:47 2021
    On 4.12.2021. 10:36, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
    noticing me, :).

    Hm, it's Verhaegen, Mario, not Verheagen:
    in 16th-cent.Dutch, "vowel + e" indicated vowel lengthening:
    "Verhaegen" < van der haegen (cf. Vanderbilt) means "from the hedge".
    The name Verhaegen is common here (google),
    e.g. the man who founded the university of Brussels.

    Jesus Christ, I cannot believe this. I know that I am doing this
    mistake, and I stared in your name in the address, while typing it, and
    I still made the same mistake. There must be something terribly wrong
    with me.

    I'm sure of that... :-)

    Thanks for telling me, and sorry about that.
    In Croatian we only have five vowels, a, e, i, o, u. Anything else is
    space technology to me, which I don't understand at all. I even cannot
    imagine the difference. So, "ae", or "ea", to me is just the same mess.
    And I really don't know how to evade this. I mean, you cannot do better
    that staring onto the name, and typing it. What else can I do? Jesus. I
    mean, from when I was just a little, I always had problems with names.
    Everything else functioned well, especially mathematics and physics. But
    names I couldn't grasp at all. And still I cannot. I always use
    nicknames in everyday life, with nicknames I am alright. Sorry, again.
    And if I mess up again, please, just shoot, if you feel like.

    :-) No problem, Mario, such mistakes (ea instead of ae) are common.
    BTW, Dutch has 13 plain vowels (+ a number of diphtongs).

    Gee, this would send me directly to a sanatorium, lol.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sun Dec 5 01:25:58 2021
    On 4.12.2021. 11:01, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:02:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

    Why everybody neglects Trachilos footprints?

    Neglect Trachilos?? On the contrary, google
    "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

    Hm, I said "everybody", not Marc Verheagen, ;). But, thanks for
    noticing me, :).

    Trachilos & Oreopithecus show that there were Miocene hominoids (probably hominids) on Mediterranean islands.
    Non-human hominoids today live only in SE.Asia & C.Africa, but hominoid fossils are found at different places in Europe, Med.islands, Turkey, Africa, India etc.
    How did Miocene hominoids spread?
    No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
    Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
    IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.

    Carloton Coon in 1954 (The Story of Man) already knew
    - fetal chimps have humanlike feet with adducted big toes,
    - but human fetuses never have apelike feet.

    IOW, only complete idiots still believe we evolved flat feet to run after antelopes.

    As far as I know, apes were the predominant type of life in Miocene
    (in the Old World). The whole planet was forest, all the life was in
    canopy, and there apes were the strongest. So, it was logical that apes
    spread all over. But then came fire, and all those apes (except the ones
    that we know today) went extinct. Apes survived only where fire cannot
    reach, because of great precipitation.
    And, of course, us, the ones that are bipedal, and who are, actually,
    using fire habitually.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sun Dec 5 01:42:00 2021
    On 4.12.2021. 11:01, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
    How did Miocene hominoids spread?
    No doubt at least partly in warm coastal forests: frequently wading bipedally & climbing arms overhead, as still seen sometimes in orangs, bonobos & lowland gorillas.
    Hylobatids are still predom.vertical: brachiating/arm-hanging & often walking/running bipedally over branches.
    IOW, some sort of bipedality is as old as the hominoids.

    BTW, orangs never go down to the ground (and gibbons, too), but African apes are mostly living on the ground. They can climb trees
    quickly by the way of having short legs and long arms: https://youtu.be/YZauU9Bnm0U

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Sun Dec 5 01:48:24 2021
    On 4.12.2021. 21:46, I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Pandora wrote:
    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

    Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance to a hominin.

    Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
    "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    Lol, here we go again.
    Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
    at photographs? "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
    NLO."

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sat Dec 4 21:20:01 2021
    Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

    Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
    to a hominin.

    Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
    "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
    the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    Lol, here we go again.

    If by "again" you mean that the consensus has long been "Bear," yes. Again.

    Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
    at photographs?

    Were you not aware that this is a BRAND NEW proposal far from widely
    accepted much less a fact?

    "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
    NLO."

    So you never actually read what I said. You're just "Disagreeing" with whatever is in your head because... because... I dunno.






    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669683901835460608

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Sun Dec 5 08:56:55 2021
    On 5.12.2021. 6:20, I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

    Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary >>> to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance
    to a hominin.

    Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they >>> needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything >>> that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
    "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so
    the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    Lol, here we go again.

    If by "again" you mean that the consensus has long been "Bear," yes. Again.

    Do you really think that scientists get their conclusions by looking
    at photographs?

    Were you not aware that this is a BRAND NEW proposal far from widely
    accepted much less a fact?

    "This lamp looks like flying saucer, so it is, actually,
    NLO."

    So you never actually read what I said. You're just "Disagreeing" with whatever
    is in your head because... because... I dunno.

    You said that those footprints look like bear footprints and that
    photo. Or something like that.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sun Dec 5 23:13:04 2021
    Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    You said that those footprints look like bear footprints

    No, they DO look like bear footprints. I didn't invent bears, footprints
    nor any similarities to bears in this case. They are all external to me.

    If you read for comprehension, the cite is claiming to have made a determination, which means prior to this work there was no
    determination.

    Get it?

    If something "Proves" hominin footprints now that means before now
    there was no proof, that nobody saw unambiguous hominin prints.

    So once you get this far, grasp this much, you've got to ask yourself
    pertinent questions such as, "Are North American black bears really
    the best model for comparison?"

    If you want something a great deal more nuanced:

    The claim here is that they see more similarities with [A] than they
    do with [B], AFTER THEY EMPLOY THEIR HOCUS POCUS.

    So test the hocus pocus. And we can start with the bears:

    The North American black bear is not only a different species than
    anything that might've lived there at the time, it is classified as a
    different Genus!

    So what you need to do is test bear prints from the same time period, associated with the same Genus at least, and compare THAT to
    hominin prints which are it's contemporary.

    THAT is a test. What they do here is NOT a test. It a a pile of assumptions.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669795532019990528

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Mon Dec 6 09:50:01 2021
    On 6.12.2021. 8:13, I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    You said that those footprints look like bear footprints

    No, they DO look like bear footprints. I didn't invent bears, footprints
    nor any similarities to bears in this case. They are all external to me.

    If you read for comprehension, the cite is claiming to have made a determination, which means prior to this work there was no
    determination.

    Get it?

    If something "Proves" hominin footprints now that means before now
    there was no proof, that nobody saw unambiguous hominin prints.

    So once you get this far, grasp this much, you've got to ask yourself pertinent questions such as, "Are North American black bears really
    the best model for comparison?"

    If you want something a great deal more nuanced:

    The claim here is that they see more similarities with [A] than they
    do with [B], AFTER THEY EMPLOY THEIR HOCUS POCUS.

    So test the hocus pocus. And we can start with the bears:

    The North American black bear is not only a different species than
    anything that might've lived there at the time, it is classified as a different Genus!

    So what you need to do is test bear prints from the same time period, associated with the same Genus at least, and compare THAT to
    hominin prints which are it's contemporary.

    THAT is a test. What they do here is NOT a test. It a a pile of assumptions.

    Ok, I didn't read the paper, I have no idea what is going on. And, I
    am not interested.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Mon Dec 6 23:16:30 2021
    Mario Petrinovic wrote:

    Ok, I didn't read the paper, I have no idea what is going on. And, I
    am not interested.

    My only interest is in examining the claims -- what passes for "Science"
    in this post democracy world.

    I really don't give a shit what the true answer is. There's nothing interesting here. It looks like a bear print. Add some hocus pocus and it may look
    closer to a chimp. Well Ardi was around back then, bears were around back
    then, probably some flavor of Australopithecus was around back then...

    There's nothing exciting here. In fact, the dating is about when the Pan line split off from the Homo line... according to the laughing stock that is paleo anthropology to two OR MORE millions of years after the split...

    No, this seems like another POLITICAL story. And the fact that it has absolutely devoured search engines kind says that it is. A political story.

    It's like all the fake "History" or "Archaeology" stories that find a Roman knife or villa "Dating to the time of Christ." The story is confirming the bible. That is it's purpose.

    "Thience thays BIBLE REAL!"

    And this idiotic footprint babble is just propping up out of Africa purity.






    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669795532019990528

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Sun Dec 12 23:47:38 2021
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Pandora wrote:

    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

    Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was necessary to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any resemblance to a hominin.

    To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

    Honestly. That's the story here: They so NOT look like a hominin that they needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE: Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to say into
    "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan Africa, so the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    But no bear prints...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Mon Dec 13 11:29:48 2021
    On 13.12.2021. 7:47, Primum Sapienti wrote:
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Pandora wrote:

    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

      Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was
    necessary
    to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any
    resemblance
    to a hominin.

    To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

    Honestly. That's the story here:  They so NOT look like a hominin that
    they
    needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything
    that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE:  Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to
    say into
    "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan
    Africa, so
    the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    But no bear prints...

    You are wrong here, they have all kinds of prints, in all possible
    qualities. Just take a stroll through woods and you'll find prints
    whichever you like.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-evolution@googlegroups.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Mon Dec 13 11:13:42 2021
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

    To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed
    god who run it.

    Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed out.If you can.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    But no bear prints...

    Are you sure? How do you know? Or are you just being a dogmatic twat again?





    -- --

    https://rumble.com/vqo5n4-a-padded-envelope-from-madrid.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Wed Dec 22 13:09:41 2021
    Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 13.12.2021. 7:47, Primum Sapienti wrote:
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Pandora wrote:

    Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli,
    Tanzania.

    The funny thing is, it really doesn't look like a hominin and would
    any of us choose a North American black bear for comparison?

    Bears frequently step into their own footprints, so it can look like
    a bipedal animal left the tracks. With millions of years to sort
    through, it's hard to believe that bears could be unique.

      Here we compare the footprints at this site with
    those of American black bears, chimpanzees and humans, and we show
    that they resemble those of hominins more than ursids.

    Actually they do look a lot like bear tracks, which is why it was
    necessary
    to subject them to all kinds of hocus pocus in order to find any
    resemblance
    to a hominin.

    To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

    Honestly. That's the story here:  They so NOT look like a hominin that
    they
    needed to resort to some pretty funky equipment in order glimpse anything >>> that might look like a hominin.

    NOTE:  Bears are extinct in Africa but they did exist. I was going to
    say into
    "Roman Times" but a quick Google thing says the last one died in 1870.

    That was north Africa.

    But bears doo go back millions of years, including in sub saharan
    Africa, so
    the "Bear Track" idea is not as crazy as it might sound.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    But no bear prints...

             You are wrong here, they have all kinds of prints, in all possible qualities. Just take a stroll through woods and you'll find
    prints whichever you like.


    No bear prints at the site we're talking about...not the woods somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Wed Dec 22 13:10:36 2021
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    To the ill educated it probably would be seen as "hocus pocus"

    To the religiously devout it's their High Priests in the media revealing the Truth as passed down by paleo anthropology, or at least the self proclaimed god who run it.

    Now take your fingers out of your mouth as try to respond to what I pointed out.If you can.

    They have actual bear fossils...

    But no bear prints...

    Are you sure? How do you know? Or are you just being a dogmatic twat again?

    No bear prints reported at the site.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Wed Dec 22 14:20:22 2021
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    No bear prints

    In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?

    "Thience Thays"



    -- --

    https://rumble.com/register/JTEM/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Wed Dec 22 14:19:11 2021
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    No bear prints at the site

    Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus
    of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out bears
    by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.

    Another "Ah, science" moment...




    -- --

    https://rumble.com/register/JTEM/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Fri Dec 31 22:17:55 2021
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    No bear prints

    In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?

    "Thience Thays"

    https://insideecology.com/2017/09/21/why-are-there-barely-any-bears-in-africa/

    "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
    Sub-Saharan Africa,
    South Africa and Ethiopia. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Fri Dec 31 22:18:22 2021
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    No bear prints at the site

    Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out bears by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.

    Another "Ah, science" moment...



    https://insideecology.com/2017/09/21/why-are-there-barely-any-bears-in-africa/

    "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
    Sub-Saharan Africa,
    South Africa and Ethiopia. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Wed Jan 12 02:16:54 2022
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    I Envy JTEM wrote:

    In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?

    "Thience Thays"

    "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
    Sub-Saharan Africa,
    South Africa and Ethiopia. "

    Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673133387413913600

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Primum Sapienti@21:1/5 to I Envy JTEM on Thu Jan 13 19:15:00 2022
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    I Envy JTEM wrote:

    In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear >>> which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?

    "Thience Thays"

    "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
    Sub-Saharan Africa,
    South Africa and Ethiopia. "

    Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?

    Here is the full previous post which the above is from:

    * * *
    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    No bear prints at the site

    Certainly no black bears. In fact black bears aren't even in the same Genus of any bears that lived in Africa. But, they pretend to have ruled out
    bears
    by a ridiculous comparison to black bears.

    Another "Ah, science" moment...


    https://insideecology.com/2017/09/21/why-are-there-barely-any-bears-in-africa/

    "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
    Sub-Saharan Africa,
    South Africa and Ethiopia. "

    * * *

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Primum Sapienti on Thu Jan 13 19:44:51 2022
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    I Envy JTEM wrote:
    Primum Sapienti wrote:

    I Envy JTEM wrote:

    In Africa? Is that why they compared things to a NORTH AMERICAN black bear
    which is from a different species, a different Genus altogether?

    "Thience Thays"

    "Fossilised bear remains have been discovered in two locations in
    Sub-Saharan Africa,
    South Africa and Ethiopia. "

    Okay. And you mistakenly believe that to address WHAT, specifically?

    Here is the full previous post which the above is from:

    Cool, or it would be cool if anyone challenged you to re-post what never went away in
    the first place. No, sorry, instead you were asked what YOU believe that YOU were
    addressing with you "Cite."





    -- --

    https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)