An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on
re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus
sediba.

Abstract

The discovery and description of Australopithecus sediba has reignited
the debate over the evolutionary history of the australopiths and the
genus Homo. It has been suggested that A. sediba may be an ancestor of
Homo because it possesses a mosaic of derived Homo-like and primitive australopith-like traits. However, an alternative hypothesis proposes
that the majority of the purported Homo-like craniodental characters
can be attributed to the juvenile status of the type specimen, MH1. We conducted an independent character assessment of the craniodental
morphology of A. sediba, with particular emphasis on evaluating
whether the ontogenetic status of MH1 may have affected its purported
Homo-like characteristics. In doing so, we have also expanded fossil
hypodigms to incorporate the new Australopithecus anamensis cranium
from Woranso-Mille (MRD-VP-1/1), as well as recently described
Paranthropus robustus cranial remains from Drimolen (DNH 7, DNH 155). Morphological character data were analyzed using both standard
parsimony and Bayesian techniques. In addition, we conducted a series
of Bayesian analyses constrained to evaluate the hypothesis that Australopithecus africanus and A. sediba are sister taxa. Based on the
results of the parsimony and Bayesian analyses, we could not reject
the hypothesis that A. sediba shares its closest phylogenetic
affinities with the genus Homo. Therefore, based on currently
available craniodental evidence, we conclude that A. sediba is
plausibly the terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor
with the earliest representatives of Homo. We caution, however, that
the discovery of new A. sediba fossils preserving adult cranial
morphology or the inclusion of postcranial characters may ultimately necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

And apiths still not the ancestors of African apes.

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

Pandora wrote:

Morphological character data were analyzed using both standard
parsimony and Bayesian techniques. In addition, we conducted a series
of Bayesian analyses constrained to evaluate the hypothesis that Australopithecus africanus and A. sediba are sister taxa.

Yeah, they used the same "Techniques" to group & date Naledi. Turns out
it's only a little over 900,000 years old, much younger than the 2+ million year age they originally offered.

Stuff like this you use because you have nothing else. The same is true
for a lot of evidence -- it's not good, but it is the best available.

it's not gospel. If it were, no one would ever throw around phrases such
as "Re-writes the book on human evolution," because these techniques
would have already written that book for us.

Based on the
results of the parsimony and Bayesian analyses, we could not reject
the hypothesis that A. sediba shares its closest phylogenetic
affinities with the genus Homo.

Given its diet, it sounds more like a goddamn chimp. And it's brain is
too small, but I understand they can fix that by just announcing an
anomalous find in a different cavern...

Therefore, based on currently
available craniodental evidence, we conclude that A. sediba is
plausibly the terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor
with the earliest representatives of Homo.

Why? With more than 1.5 million years separating them and both found
in a cave, it looks like the ancestor to Naledi, on its surface.

I mean, compare you and me to ancestors living 1.5 million years earlier. They're a far closer match.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707533657216319488

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

Kudu runner believes:

And apiths still not the ancestors of African apes.

Yes, probably not the direct ancestors, but close relatives:
-E.Afr.apiths of Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths of Pan:

• “Alan has analysed a nr of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, 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... 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, 1989a.
• 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 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: (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of
chimpanzees, (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 & hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & 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 & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941
• “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 [also] in the australopithecines ... 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 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
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 spm of afarensis, “the lower 3rd 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 & 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
• “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] 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 & 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 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
• boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986
Etc.etc.

Only incredible idiots believe they descend from Lucy.

And all these apiths lived in swamp forests:

-Lukeino KNM-LU 335 “pre-australopithecine”: ‘The red beds seems to contain marginal lacustrine deposits as indicated by the presence of algal mats and lacustrine bivalves (including complete specimens with valves in the closed position)’
Pickford 1975
-Tabarin KNM-TH 13150 “pre-australopithecine”: ‘The fauna includes aquatic animals such as molluscs, fish, turtles, crocodiles, and hippotami, along with others that might be found in the vicinity of a lake of river’ Ward & Hill 1987
-Kanapoi KNM-KP 29281 Au.anamensis: Fish, aquatic reptiles, kudus and monkeys are prevalent. ‘A wide gallery forest would have almost certainly been present on the large river that brought in the sediments’ Leakey cs 1995
-Chad KT 12 A.cf.afarensis: ‘The non-hominid fauna contains aquatic taxa (such as Siluridae, Trionyx, cf.Tomistoma), taxa adapted to wooded habitats (such as Loxodonta, Kobus, Kolpochoerus) and to more open areas (such as Ceratotherium, Hipparion) […]
compatible with a lakeside environment’ Brunet cs 1995
-Garusi-Laetoli L.H. A.anamensis or afarensis: Teeth & mandible fragments, the hardest skeletal parts which are frequently left over by carnivores (Morden 1988), come from wind-blown & air-fall tuffs. Leakey cs 1976
-Hadar, Afar Locality: ‘Generally, the sediments represent lacustrine, lake margin, and associated fluvial deposits related to an extensive lake that periodically filled the entire basin’ Johanson cs 1982
-Hadar AL.333 afarensis: ‘The bones were found in swale-like features […] it is very likely that they died and partially rotted at or very near this site […] this group of hominids was buried in streamside gallery woodland’ Radosevich cs 1992
-Hadar AL.288 gracile A.afarensis Lucy lay in a small, slow moving stream. ‘Fossil preservation at this locality is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws being found’ Johanson & Taieb 1976
-Makapan A. africanus: ‘[…] very different conditions from those prevailing today. Higher rainfall, fertile, alkaline soils and moderate relief supported significant patches of sub-tropical forest and thick bush, rather than savannah. Taphonomic
considerations […] suggest that sub-tropical forest was the hominins’ preferred habitat rather than grassland or bushveld, and the adaptations of these animals was therefore fitted to a forest habitat’ Rayner cs 1993
-Taung australopithecine: ‘the clayey matrix from which the Taung cranium was extracted, and the frequent occurrence of calcite veins and void fillings within it (Butzer, 1974, 1980) do suggest a more humid environment during its accumulation’
Partridge 1985
-StF A.africanus and Swartkrans A.robustus: Many S.African australopithecines are discovered in riverside caves, presumably often filled with the remainders of the consumption process of large felids. Brain 1981
-Kromdraai: A.robustus was found near grassveld & streamside or marsh vegetation, in the vicinity of quail, pipits, starlings, swallows & parrots, lovebirds & similar psittacine birds. TN Pocock in Brain 1981
-Turkana KNM-ER 17000 & 16005: A.aethiopicus was discovered near the boundary between overbank deposits of large perennial river & alluvial fan deposits, amid water- & reedbucks. Walker cs 1986
-Lake Turkana: ‘The lake margins were generally swampy, with extensive areas of mudflats […] Au.boisei was more abundant in fluvial environments, whereas Homo habilis was rare in such environments […] Australopithecus fossils are more common than
Homo both in channel and floodplain deposits. The gracile hominids […] seem to be more restricted ecologically to the lake margin than are the robust forms’ Conroy 1990
-Ileret A.boisei: ‘the fossil sample reflects climatic and ecological environmental conditions differing significantly from those of the present day. At Ilerat, 1.5 Myr ago, climatic conditions must have been cooler and more humid than today, and more
favourable to extensive forests […] The prominence of montane forest is particularly striking […] dominated by Gramineae and Chenopodiaceae appropriate to the margins of a slightly saline or alkaline lake’ Bonnefille 1976
-Konso A.boisei: ‘The highly fossiliferous sands at the mid-section of KGA10 are interpreted to be the middle to distal portions of an alluvial fan, deposited adjacent to, and extending into, a lake. Fossils and artefacts deriving from horizons of
sands and silts are not abraded and show evidence of minimal transport. A large mammalian assemblage has been collected from the deposits, showing a striking dominance of Alcelaphini […] to indicate the presence of extensive dry grasslands at KGA10’
Suwa cs 1997
-Chesowanja A.boisei: ‘The fossiliferous sediments were deposited in a lagoon […] Abundant root casts […] suggest that the embayment was flanked by reeds and the presence of calcareous algae indicates that the lagoon was warm and shallow. Bellamya
and catfish are animals tolerant of relatively stagnant water, and such situation would also be suitable for turtles and crocodiles’ Carney cs 1971
-Olduvai middle Bed I: boisei O.H.5 as well as habilis O.H.7 & O.H.62 were found in the most densely vegetated, wettest condition, with the highest lake levels. Walter cs 1991, near ostracods, freshwater snails, fish, and aquatic birds. Conroy 1990
-‘[…] the middle Bed-I faunas indicate a very rich closed woodland environment, richer than any part of the present-day savanna biome in Africa […]’ Fernández-Jalvo cs 1998
-‘Fossilized leaves and pollen are rare in the sediments of Beds I and II, but swamp vegetation is indicated by abundant vertical roots channels and casts possibly made by some kind of reed. Fossil rhizomes of papyrus also suggest the presence of
marshland and/or shallow water’ Conroy 1990
-‘[…] Cyperaceae fruits were common in H. habilis habitat (Bonnefille, 1984). Ancient Egyptians ate Cyperus papyrus root which was also present at Olduvai in swamp-margins and river banks’ Puech 1992

:-DDD
Already caught your kudu, my boy?

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

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:57:33 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

And apiths still not the ancestors of African apes.

Yes, probably not the direct ancestors, but close relatives:

Agreed, just like Homo is a close relative of African apes, but closer
to Pan than to Gorilla.

-E.Afr.apiths of Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths of Pan:

Mongle et al. (2023) again recover a clade (Paranthropus) of S.Afr.
and E.Afr. robust apiths that is closer to Homo than to African apes.
Other apiths (e.g. anamensis, afarensis) are successive stem taxa
closer to Homo than to African apes.
Thus, your hypothesis is thoroughly demolished.

Only incredible idiots believe they descend from Lucy.

Then what did we descend from?

And all these apiths lived in swamp forests:

-Garusi-Laetoli L.H. A.anamensis or afarensis: Teeth & mandible fragments, the hardest
skeletal parts which are frequently left over by carnivores (Morden 1988), come from
wind-blown & air-fall tuffs. Leakey cs 1976

O yeah, that one.
Where does it say swamp forest?

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

Pandora wrote:

Mongle et al. (2023) again recover a clade (Paranthropus) of S.Afr.
and E.Afr. robust apiths that is closer to Homo than to African apes.
Other apiths (e.g. anamensis, afarensis) are successive stem taxa
closer to Homo than to African apes.
Thus, your hypothesis is thoroughly demolished.

If that's HALF an argument then it's the smaller half.

What the hell do you think your argument is?

For starters, you're comparing these "apiths" to which of their
contemporary apes?

HINT: CAN YOU SEE THE GODDAMN PROBLEM NOW?!?!?

Chimps do not look like the LCA. If you're looking for the ancestor
of Chimps, you're looking for something that appears a shit ton
closer to Homo... upright walker... a more human hand... very
possible it had a larger brain...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707302974280581120

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

Kudu runner:

And apiths still not the ancestors of African apes.

Yes, probably not the direct ancestors, but close relatives:

Agreed, just like Homo is a close relative of African apes, but closer
to Pan than to Gorilla.

-E.Afr.apiths of Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths of Pan:

Mongle et al. (2023) again recover a clade (Paranthropus) of S.Afr.
and E.Afr. robust apiths that is closer to Homo than to African apes.
Other apiths (e.g. anamensis, afarensis) are successive stem taxa
closer to Homo than to African apes.

No, my little boy: boisei // robustus.
Never heard of parallel evolution??

Thus, your hypothesis is thoroughly demolished.

:-D
Not at all, my little boy, can't your even *read*??
1) Don't you understand the word "plausibly"??
2) "necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis"??
3) Homo is indeed closer to Pan than to Gorilla, didn't you even know this???

Then what did we descend from?

I descend from early-Pleist.Homo at the Ind.Ocean, but you???
Only incredible idiots believe they descend from Lucy, but even Lucy Hadar AL.288 gracile A.afarensis lay in a small, slow moving stream: "Fossil preservation at this locality is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile & turtle eggs &
crab claws being found" (Johanson & Taieb 1976).

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

I descend from early-Pleist.Homo at the Ind.Ocean, but you???

Kudu runner:

Sure, we all descend from Pleistocene Homo, but what is the Pliocene
ancestor of Homo?

Our little boy doesn't even understand "Ind.Ocean"...
Sigh.

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

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:25:54 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

And apiths still not the ancestors of African apes.

Yes, probably not the direct ancestors, but close relatives:

Agreed, just like Homo is a close relative of African apes, but closer
to Pan than to Gorilla.

-E.Afr.apiths of Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths of Pan:

Mongle et al. (2023) again recover a clade (Paranthropus) of S.Afr.
and E.Afr. robust apiths that is closer to Homo than to African apes.
Other apiths (e.g. anamensis, afarensis) are successive stem taxa
closer to Homo than to African apes.

No, my little boy: boisei // robustus.
Never heard of parallel evolution??

Sure, but that is something you have to make plausible with data.
And Mongle et al. (2023) used a lot of data (107 craniodental
characters on 21 operational taxonomic units (7 extant, 14 fossil)),
including from newly described specimens such as MLD-VP-1/1 (A.
anamensis) and DNH 7 and 155 (P. robustus).
In all of their analyses (both parsimony and Bayesian), aethiopicus,
robustus, and boisei are always recovered as a clade, never as parallel/convergent lineages.

Thus, your hypothesis is thoroughly demolished.

:-D
Not at all, my little boy, can't your even *read*??
1) Don't you understand the word "plausibly"??

In the context of "Therefore, based on currently available
craniodental evidence, we conclude that A. sediba is plausibly the
terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor with the
earliest representatives of Homo", it means somethiing like "in a way
that is likely to be true".

2) "necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis"??

In the context of "We caution, however, that the discovery of new A.
sediba fossils preserving adult cranial morphology or the inclusion of postcranial characters may ultimately necessitate a re-evaluation of
this hypothesis", it means that the hypothesis can always be tested
with new data.
Do you have such new data, or only old ones?

3) Homo is indeed closer to Pan than to Gorilla, didn't you even know this???

I was being cynical, dummy.

Then what did we descend from?

I descend from early-Pleist.Homo at the Ind.Ocean, but you???

Sure, we all descend from Pleistocene Homo, but what is the Pliocene
ancestor of Homo?

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

Our little boy doesn't even understand "Ind.Ocean"...
Sigh.

IOW, you've got nothing, not a single tooth, nothing but paleofantasy
about Pliocene hominins running after kudus in Africa.

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

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:54:00 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

I descend from early-Pleist.Homo at the Ind.Ocean, but you???

Kudu runner:

Sure, we all descend from Pleistocene Homo, but what is the Pliocene
ancestor of Homo?

Our little boy doesn't even understand "Ind.Ocean"...
Sigh.

IOW, you've got nothing, not a single tooth, nothing but paleofantasy
about Pliocene hominins living along the Ind.Ocean coast in Asia.

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

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 02:52:25 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Our little boy doesn't even understand "Ind.Ocean"...
Sigh.

IOW, you've got nothing, not a single tooth, nothing but paleofantasy
about Pliocene hominins running after kudus in Africa.

I've got more than a tooth from Pliocene Homo in Africa: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216209873

and Pliocene stone tools associated with cutmarked bones of large
ungulates at 2.5 Ma:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.004

and I've got lots of Pliocene fossils of African taxa closer related
to Homo than to Pan:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

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

kudu runner:

An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on
re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus
sediba. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

Yes, my boy, the authors even admit that "the discovery of new Au.sediba fossils + adult cranial morphology, or the inclusion of postcranial characters, may ultimately necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis".
Au.sediba was of course a closer relative of us than of E.Afr.apiths, but only incredible imbeciles believe sediba was a closer relatives of them than of S.Afr.apiths.

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

Pandora wrote:

I've got more than a tooth from Pliocene Homo in Africa: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216209873

The location is consistent with an Asian origins, the age, if
accurate, makes it a contemporary of finds in China.

But you're arguing in favor of Out of Africa purity by regurgitating Out
of Africa purity. You do this a lot, despite your errors being pointed
out to you.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.004

Same perfect spot for an Out of Asia migration.

and I've got lots of Pliocene fossils of African taxa closer related
to Homo than to Pan:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

You've cited this before. It has zero significance. But you seem to be
in the habit of posting random cites that you never read, hoping to
fool people to thinking you made an argument.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707620975420850176

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

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 19:39:02 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Pandora wrote:

I've got more than a tooth from Pliocene Homo in Africa:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216209873

The location is consistent with an Asian origins, the age, if
accurate, makes it a contemporary of finds in China.

But you're arguing in favor of Out of Africa purity by regurgitating Out
of Africa purity. You do this a lot, despite your errors being pointed
out to you.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.004

Same perfect spot for an Out of Asia migration.

Except that these African finds predate Asia.

and I've got lots of Pliocene fossils of African taxa closer related
to Homo than to Pan:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

You've cited this before. It has zero significance.

Anyone who thinks this study has no significance simply doesn't know
what he's talking about, period.

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

kudu runner = waste of time -
I only read this last ridiculous sentence:
it's as stupid as believing that humans had knuckle-walking ancestors because chimps & gorillas knuckle-walk!

3) Paranthopus is the best supported clade,

:-DDD
Incredible imbeciles!
The idiots haven't even heard of (parallel & other) evolution!!

Only self-declared "PAs" believe boisei & robustus belong to the same fossil subgenus Paranthropus.
A child can see:
-late-Miocene "gracile" afarensis evolved into "robust" boisei,
in parallel & at about the same geol.time when
-late-Miocene "gracile" africanus evolved into "robust" robustus.

In the same way, gorilla chimps KWing *resemble* each other, but evolved in //.

Grow up, little little boy!
Begin with google "human evolution Verhaegen". :-D

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

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

kudu runner:

An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on
re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus
sediba.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

Yes, my boy, the authors even admit that "the discovery of new Au.sediba fossils
+ adult cranial morphology, or the inclusion of postcranial characters, may ultimately
necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis".

They caution against the position of A. sediba because that taxon is
based on subadult material for which some characters may change state
in adults (e.g. SG21, "compound T/N crest, at least in presumptive
males").
And of course, a phylogenetic analysis is a hypothesis that can always
change with additional material and new taxa. That's why this update
is so important. One shouldn't just stick to something done 30 years
ago.
The inclusion of postcranial material would be an important addition,
but few specimens have high confidence taxonomic attribution (e.g. the
OH 8 foot bones have formally been assigned to H. habilis, but might
just as well be P. boisei). See:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103255

Au.sediba was of course a closer relative of us than of E.Afr.apiths, but only >incredible imbeciles believe sediba was a closer relatives of them than of S.Afr.apiths.

I'm probably wasting my time with you, but let's have a look at their
results anyway.

Results of parsimony analysis. Majority rule consensus tree based on
10,000 bootstrapped replicate sets of the character matrix in which Australopithecus sediba was assigned character states representing
morphology as preserved in both MH1 and MH2, regardless of ontogenetic
status. Bootstrap values are given as both GC frequencies (top
value at each node) and absolute frequencies when >50% (second value
at each node). The third value at each node is the Bremer support
value: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248422001713-gr1_lrg.jpg

Results of Bayesian inference analysis. Maximum credibility majority
rule ('halfcompat') tree from Bayesian Inference analysis of the
character matrix in which Australopithecus sediba was assigned
character states representing morphology as preserved in both MH1 and
MH2, regardless of ontogenetic status. Values at nodes represent
posterior probabilities (%): https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248422001713-gr2_lrg.jpg

Results of parsimony analysis. The four most parsimonious trees (AeD)
that resulted from a maximum parsimony analysis of character matrix in
which ontogenetically influenced characters were treated as missing
data for Australopithecus sediba: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248422001713-gr3_lrg.jpg

Results of parsimony analysis. Majority rule consensus tree based on
10,000 bootstrapped replicate sets of the character matrix in which ontogenetically influenced characters are treated as missing data for Australopithecus sediba and Kenyanthropus platyops is excluded.
Bootstrap values given as both GC frequencies (top value at each
node) and absolute frequencies when >50% (second value at each node).
The third value at each node is the Bremer support value: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248422001713-gr4_lrg.jpg

Results of Bayesian inference analysis. Maximum credibility majority
rule ('halfcompat') tree from Bayesian Inference analysis of the
character matrix in which ontogenetically influenced characters were
treated as missing data for Australopithecus sediba. Values at nodes
represent posterior probabilities (%). https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248422001713-gr5_lrg.jpg

The conclusions we can draw from these thorough analyses are:

1) Hominins always form a clade to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla,
which implies that australopithecines could not have been the
ancestors of African apes, period.

2) The base of the tree up to and including A. afarensis is stable,
which implies that Sahelanthropus is the most basal hominin and
Ardipithecus, A. anamensis, and A. afarensis are succesively more
derived.

3) Paranthopus is the best supported clade, which implies that the
robust features of P. aethiopicus, P. robustus and P. boisei are not
due to parallel evolution, but to common ancestry.

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

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 02:49:18 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

I only read this last ridiculous sentence:

Which implies that you deliberately close your eyes for data and
arguments that counter your view. That's cognitive dissonance.

it's as stupid as believing that humans had knuckle-walking ancestors because chimps & gorillas knuckle-walk!

3) Paranthopus is the best supported clade,

:-DDD
Incredible imbeciles!
The idiots haven't even heard of (parallel & other) evolution!!

Only self-declared "PAs" believe boisei & robustus belong to the same fossil subgenus Paranthropus.

Not self-declared; Mongle, Strait and Grine were granted their titles
(PhD) because they studied and did research, unlike you.

https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/anthropology/faculty-and-staff/mongle-c.php

A child can see:
-late-Miocene "gracile" afarensis evolved into "robust" boisei,
in parallel & at about the same geol.time when
-late-Miocene "gracile" africanus evolved into "robust" robustus.

Well, then you must be the child, because expert grown-ups see
something different.

..., gorilla chimps KWing *resemble* each other, but evolved in //.

That's compatible with the phylogenetic study of Mongle et al.

Grow up, little little boy!
Begin with google "human evolution Verhaegen". :-D

Gospel is not science.

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

...

..., gorilla chimps KWing *resemble* each other, but evolved in //.

kudu runner:

That's compatible with the phylogenetic study of Mongle et al.

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

Paleo-anthropology is more retarded than geology was before plate tectonics.

Only incredible imbeciles talk about "hominins":
with this word, they *assume* that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes.

And of course, S.Afr.apiths are indeed closer relatives of us than of gorillas... (though not of Pan).

But that's already too difficult for a prejudiced fanatic like you. :-D

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

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

...

..., gorilla chimps KWing *resemble* each other, but evolved in //.

kudu runner:

That's compatible with the phylogenetic study of Mongle et al.

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in
parallel?

Paleo-anthropology is more retarded than geology was before plate tectonics.

Only incredible imbeciles talk about "hominins":
with this word, they *assume* that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes.

They don't assume, they demonstrate with reproducible data and
methods. That's called science.

And of course, S.Afr.apiths are indeed closer relatives of us than of gorillas... (though not of Pan).

According to Mongle et al. (2023) S.Afr.apiths are closer related to
Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.

But that's already too difficult for a prejudiced fanatic like you. :-D

You should address Mongle, Strait, and Grine, and tell them where they
went wrong with their data and methods. But so far you've only been
throwing a temper tantrum because you just don't like what they say.

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

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

Kudu runner:

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in parallel?

At least already in 1997, not 15 but 26 yrs ago, e.g. my book p.163:
"Gorilla's en chimpansees evolueerden dan opmerkelijk parallel - in knokkelgang, armverlenging, darmbeenverlenging enzovoort - maar zijn daarin helemaal geen uitzondering: zie de diverse soorten 'mollen' onder grond en 'springmuizen' in de woestijn."
I was smarter than I thought... :-D

Paleo-anthropology is more retarded than geology was before plate tectonics. >Only incredible imbeciles talk about "hominins":
with this word, they *assume* that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes.

They don't assume, they demonstrate with reproducible data and
methods. That's called science.

:-DDD
That's wishful thinking.
Self-declared "scientists" that produce fantasies...

And of course, S.Afr.apiths are indeed closer relatives of us than of gorillas... (though not of Pan).

According to Mongle et al. (2023) S.Afr.apiths are closer related to
Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.

Mongle cs are wrong.

But that's already too difficult for a prejudiced fanatic like you. :-D

You should address Mongle, Strait, and Grine, and tell them where they
went wrong with their data and methods. But so far you've only been
throwing a temper tantrum because you just don't like what they say.

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

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

Kudu runner:

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in parallel?

At least already in 1997, not 15 but 26 yrs ago, e.g. my book p.163: >"Gorilla's en chimpansees evolueerden dan opmerkelijk parallel - in knokkelgang,
armverlenging, darmbeenverlenging enzovoort - maar zijn daarin helemaal geen >uitzondering: zie de diverse soorten 'mollen' onder grond en 'springmuizen' in de woestijn."
I was smarter than I thought... :-D

In 1999 JHE published a paper by Dainton and Macho in which they
suggested that knuck-walking evolved twice: https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1998.0265

That paper was submitted 21 May 1997.
Those authors probably hadn't read your book.

Paleo-anthropology is more retarded than geology was before plate tectonics.
Only incredible imbeciles talk about "hominins":
with this word, they *assume* that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes.

They don't assume, they demonstrate with reproducible data and
methods. That's called science.

:-DDD
That's wishful thinking.
Self-declared "scientists" that produce fantasies...

Do you know Frederick Grine?

And of course, S.Afr.apiths are indeed closer relatives of us than of gorillas... (though not of Pan).

According to Mongle et al. (2023) S.Afr.apiths are closer related to
Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.

Mongle cs are wrong.

So you say, but you fail to explain why.
You don't really criticize their data or methods.
You just stamp your feet.

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

Pandora wrote:

Which implies that you deliberately close your eyes for data and
arguments that counter your view.

The Chimpanzee hand is the more derived, bipedalism is significantly
older than the LCA... the ancestor of Chimps was closer to Homo than
Chimps.

Period.

Please stop denying the data! Open your eyes to facts that run counter
to your views!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707746247119929344

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

Pandora wrote:

Except that these African finds predate Asia.

No they don't. They're roughly the same age as finds in China, assuming that the ages you cite are even accurate, and the finds in China are NOT some
basal Homo.

and I've got lots of Pliocene fossils of African taxa closer related
to Homo than to Pan:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

You've cited this before. It has zero significance.

Anyone who thinks this study has no significance

This study has no significance. It's too young, for starters. The ancestor to Pan was closer to Homo than Pan, for another issue. It's just another
random, irrelevant cite which we have to pretend rests in isolation, there's
no need to fit it into the context of everything before & after, no model for human evolution... just an isolated reference... irrelevant.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707746247119929344

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

Kudu runner:

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in parallel?

At least already in 1997, not 15 but 26 yrs ago, e.g. my book p.163: >"Gorilla's en chimpansees evolueerden dan opmerkelijk parallel - in knokkelgang,
armverlenging, darmbeenverlenging enzovoort - maar zijn daarin helemaal geen >uitzondering: zie de diverse soorten 'mollen' onder grond en 'springmuizen' in de woestijn."
I was smarter than I thought... :-D

In 1999 JHE published a paper by Dainton and Macho in which they
suggested that knuck-walking evolved twice: https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1998.0265
That paper was submitted 21 May 1997.
Those authors probably hadn't read your book.

:-DDD

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

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 12:49:41 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Kudu runner:

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in parallel?

At least already in 1997, not 15 but 26 yrs ago, e.g. my book p.163:
"Gorilla's en chimpansees evolueerden dan opmerkelijk parallel - in knokkelgang,
armverlenging, darmbeenverlenging enzovoort - maar zijn daarin helemaal geen
uitzondering: zie de diverse soorten 'mollen' onder grond en 'springmuizen' in de woestijn."
I was smarter than I thought... :-D

In 1999 JHE published a paper by Dainton and Macho in which they
suggested that knuck-walking evolved twice:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1998.0265
That paper was submitted 21 May 1997.
Those authors probably hadn't read your book.

:-DDD

Maybe you should have published your book in English, then it wouldn't
have been destined for oblivion, just like your new book.

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

Op maandag 30 januari 2023 om 16:44:06 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

Kudu runner:

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //.
At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in parallel?

At least already in 1997, not 15 but 26 yrs ago, e.g. my book p.163:
"Gorilla's en chimpansees evolueerden dan opmerkelijk parallel - in knokkelgang,
armverlenging, darmbeenverlenging enzovoort - maar zijn daarin helemaal geen
uitzondering: zie de diverse soorten 'mollen' onder grond en 'springmuizen' in de woestijn."
I was smarter than I thought... :-D

In 1999 JHE published a paper by Dainton and Macho in which they
suggested that knuck-walking evolved twice:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1998.0265
That paper was submitted 21 May 1997.
Those authors probably hadn't read your book.

Maybe you should have published your book in English, then it wouldn't
have been destined for oblivion, just like your new book.

Yes, but my English isn't good enough...

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

On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 15:48:47 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2023 om 16:44:06 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

Kudu runner:

Rigid, sclerotic old guy wrote:

Yes, I was the 1st who said that Pan & Gorilla KWing evolved in //. >> >> >> >At first, the self-declared "scientists" laughed - not any more... after 15 perhaps 20 yrs!!

When exactly did you first suggest that knuckle-walking evolved in parallel?

At least already in 1997, not 15 but 26 yrs ago, e.g. my book p.163:
"Gorilla's en chimpansees evolueerden dan opmerkelijk parallel - in knokkelgang,
armverlenging, darmbeenverlenging enzovoort - maar zijn daarin helemaal geen
uitzondering: zie de diverse soorten 'mollen' onder grond en 'springmuizen' in de woestijn."
I was smarter than I thought... :-D

In 1999 JHE published a paper by Dainton and Macho in which they
suggested that knuck-walking evolved twice:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1998.0265
That paper was submitted 21 May 1997.
Those authors probably hadn't read your book.

Maybe you should have published your book in English, then it wouldn't
have been destined for oblivion, just like your new book.

Yes, but my English isn't good enough...

That guy on the cover looks almost identical to this one: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/ancient-people-against-evening-landscape-104190221

You're not a creationist, are you?

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