From
JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to
Pandora on Thu Dec 22 17:43:12 2022
Pandora wrote:
Well, that's what you get when a fake "anthropologist" misinterprets
the data
Hmm. So you're not bright, this much is well established, but you're
rubbing your crotch on some dude who says he can date things by
looking at teeth... which in turn are dated... how?
I mean, you have to date these molars in order to determine which
came first -- which is the oldest, which is the youngest -- AND THEN
use the molars which had to be dated by some other means to date
things... like the molars.
Yeah. "Science."
Now you're rubbing yourself on this guy and his molars while attacking
a dating system that is more scientific. I'm not saying it doesn't have
it's own issues, but it's a lot more direct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_nuclide
So using this method for dating, you don't need something else to date
it FIRST in order to use it to date something else. And you think that's
wrong. Clearly.
Pick your battle. Seriously. Cherry pick your battles. As is, you look emotionally needy -- like you HAVE! TO! object for some mentally
unhealthy reason, rather than you can find any actual fault.
Merry Christmas.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704349243109949440
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
From
littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to
All on Fri Dec 23 03:21:27 2022
"Fake anthropologists" find 100s of fossil "hominins":
they call all their hominid fossils "hominin", meaning "more related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla".
Chimps, bonobos, high- & lowland gorillas live in Africa today,
but these 4 spp have no fossils, "fake anthropologists" anthropocentrically believe:
they believe all these 100s of Afr.hominid fossils are closer relatives of Homo (first found in Java!) than of P or G...
Don't they see how impossible & ridiculous that is??
The facts - without anthropocentric prejudices - are clear:
- S.Afr.apiths (Taung...) were no "hominins" on the way to Hs, but were hominids evolving into bonobo/chimp direction,
- E.Afr.apiths (Lucy...) were no "hominins" on the way to humans, but fossil hominids becoming more gorilla-like.
No fake anthropologists (= without anthropocentric prejudices) knew better:
Quotations on chimp-like features in S.African australopith crania:
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”.
Leakey 1981
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that
of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in
design’”. Falk 1987
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”.
Bromage & Dean 1985
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones
among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941
Quotations on ape-like features in australopith crania:
• “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among
pongids evolved separately [?? MV] in the australopithecines parallel [?? MV] with the great apes. The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look. The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid
ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”. Ferguson 1989
• “Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to... modern great apes”. Bromage & Dean 1985
• “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not
therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985
• In the S.African fossils incl.Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk
1985
• In the type specimen of A.afarensis, “the lower third premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987
• “A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann 1989
• “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.
afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984
• “Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization
shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel cs 1984
• “... the fact that two presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and
indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman 1954
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and extant
apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also alike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the second year...”. Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
• “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked
contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H. sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
Quotations on gorilla-like features in large E.African australopith crania: • “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981
• “Other primitive [=advanced gorilla-like! MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar
suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986
From:
AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES?
Human Evolution 9:121-139, 1994
Since australopiths display humanlike traits (short ilia, rel.small front teeth, thick molar enamel etc.), they are usu.assumed to be related to Homo rather than to Pan or Gorilla. However, this assumption is not supported by many other of their
features.
This paper briefly surveys the literature concerning cranio-dental comparisons of australopith spp with bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature. It will be argued... that the large australopiths of E.Africa were in many instances
anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo, and the S.African australopiths nearer to Pan & Homo than to Gorilla.
An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided. It is suggested that the evidence concerning the relation of the different australopiths with humans, chimpanzees & gorillas should be re-evaluated.
Yes, see my book "De evolutie van de mens" p.299-300:
- Miocene hominids lived in coastal forests along the Red Sea,
- fossil Gorilla (Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Praeanthropus...) entered E.Africa along the incipient Rift (EARS) c 8 or 7 Ma -> afarensis, anamensis, boisei etc.,
- 5.3 Ma the Red Sea opened into the Gulf:
--- Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests, they entered S.Africa via the incipient southern EARS -> Australopithecus s.s.,
--- Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.H.erectus etc.
Simple, no? :-)
But no, "fake anthropologists" believe they descend from australopith savanna runners... :-DDDDD
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)