Pliocene Homo lived in Africa: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
"The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,
given the abundance of grazing species and lack of arboreal taxa,
although the presence of Deinotherium bozasi and tragelphins probably indicates a gallery forest": https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415
Sigh... some kudu runner is making a complete fool of himself:
the poor boy
(1) doesn't understand that Pan & Homo & Gorilla ancestors 3 Ma still resembled each other,
(2) doesn't know that hippos & crocs live in water,
(3) hasn't even read the comments: "Hawks cs argue that ... LD 350-1 cannot be distinguished from ... Australopithecus."
IOW, LD-350-1 is called "early Homo"(anthropocentrism), but was simply an australopith (i.c. a fossil Gorilla relative IMO) that lived near water + hippos & crocs!
Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
"The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,
given the abundance of grazing species and lack of arboreal taxa,
although the presence of Deinotherium bozasi and tragelphins probably
indicates a gallery forest":
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415
Pliocene Homo lived in Africa: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
"The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,
Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.
Next oldest Homo (A.L. 666-1), securely dated at 2.33 Ma, would still
be from inland Africa, not S.Asian coast:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216209873
Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.
kudu runner:
Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.
:-DDD
Do kudu runners really believe Lucy was their grandmother???
3 Ma, Homo was not even in Africa (2 Ma H.erectus in Java),
Pandora wrote:
Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ethiopia
Ethiopia is precisely where a species migrating into Africa,
from Asia, would cross into. It is NOT inconsistent with an
Asian origins.
Wherever A.afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.
kudu runner:suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas. Walker cs 1986.
Wherever A.afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer
related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.
:-D Yes, yes, yes, my little little boy, it's time you grow up!
What the kudu runners anthropocentrically believe is "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
don't you read the literature, my boy??
e.g.
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 1981:351.
Other primitive [or 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
As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & 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.
IOW, only incredible imbeciles believe they descend from Lucy.
:-DDD
The kudu runners still believe apes are primitive... sigh...
don't they know apes live today??
suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.“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 1981:351.
“Other primitive [or 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
As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & 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.
That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be phylogenetically informative.
It's not a systematic, methodical
examination and comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic
context.
What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas. Walker cs 1986.
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 1981:351.
Other primitive [or 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
As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & 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 Hum.Evol.9:121-139, 1994 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?).
Kudu runner:
That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
phylogenetically informative.
:-DDD
Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??
It's not a systematic, methodical
examination and comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic
context.
Don't you realize how ridiculous you are??
Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
"Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
a very systematic, methodical examination & comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic context:
"This comparison of 37 craniodental characters of fossil and living apes and humans yields no indication that any of the australopithecine species has evolved in the human direction.
South African australopithecine skulls are morphologically closest to the chimpanzee among the living hominoids,
and A. boisei is closest to the gorilla among the living hominoids. ..."
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.What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
“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 1981:351.
“Other primitive [or 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
As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & 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.
That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
phylogenetically informative.
:-DDD Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??
I worry about your misinterpretation of what they say.
suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas. Walker cs 1986.What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
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 1981:351.
Other primitive [or 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
As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & 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.
Quotes before 1994!
Confirmed byall discoveries after that time.
Kudu runner:
That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
phylogenetically informative.
:-DDD Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??
I worry about your misinterpretation of what they say.
????
Please don't become more ridiculous than you already are:
quotes, little boy, quotes!!!!
"the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context
All migration in and out of Africa had to pass through the Levant or Bab-el-Mandeb, wherever the origin of the migrating taxon. As such it
is also consistent with an Antarctic origin.
But origins can only be tested with the hard evidence of securely
dated FAD's (first appearance datum). With regard to the FAD of Homo
Africa wins.
Wherever A. afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8
3 Ma, Homo was not even in Africa (2 Ma H.erectus in Java),2 Ma H. erectus in South-Africa, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
What the kudu runners anthropocentrically believe is "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
don't you read the literature, my boy??
Pandora wrote:
All migration in and out of Africa had to pass through the Levant or
Bab-el-Mandeb, wherever the origin of the migrating taxon. As such it
is also consistent with an Antarctic origin.
So you're "Arguing" that your cite is no less indicative of an Antarctic >origins than an African... and you believe this is an effective defense
of savanna idiocy. Wow. You really are ruled by your emotions.
But origins can only be tested with the hard evidence of securely
dated FAD's (first appearance datum). With regard to the FAD of Homo
Africa wins.
No it doesn't. You interpret highly fragmentary "Evidence" always within
the context of your conclusions, and thus they always fit your pre
conceived conclusions.
The question is whether or not a fragment preserves enough diagnostic features to assign it to one or another taxon with any confidence.
If your assessment is different than
I'm waiting...
Pandora wrote:
The question is whether or not a fragment preserves enough diagnostic
features to assign it to one or another taxon with any confidence.
That's not the question.
You never get that far, because your "fragment" wasn't collected in any >scientifically valid way. You go where it's easiest to find fossils and then >merely "Decide" that anything you dig up has significance here.
Go dig up the old river deltas.
therefore identify a hominid. Martin 1985.I'm waiting...
Yes, here it is:
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. Ferguson 1989
Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem 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
In the S.African fossils including Taung, sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like. Falk 1987afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids. Kimbel cs 1984
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.
Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatizationshared 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 - andindeed 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
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 markedcontrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
That's not the question.
It is, but you are evading the question because you don't have the
knowledge and the skills to make a different assessment of the
specimen.
And then you start rambling about:
You never get that far, because your "fragment" wasn't collected in any >scientifically valid way.
You go where sediments of the right age are exposed and then you do a systematic survey.
Go dig up the old river deltas.They already do, most hominid fossils derive from waterlaid
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:37:36 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,413 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
