There are 100s of hominid fossils, but traditional PAs idiotically call them "hominin", assuming that virtually 0 of these 100s is a closer relative of bonobo than of human, 0 is closer to common chimp than to human, 0 is closer to lowland gorilla than
to human, 0 is closer to highland gorilla than to humans: this assumption is statistically impossible, of course: miraculously, all of these 100s of fossils are believed to be closer relatives of us (anthropocentrism) than of any of the 4 other spp,
although anatomically they're all objectively morphologically closer to the African apes than to humans, as *everybody* agrees:

• “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 [= anthropocentric assumption] in the australopithecines parallel [id.] 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 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 rate 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 seven 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 afarensis type-spm, “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 ... 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, ER 406, OH-24 & OH-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 AL-333 spms “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981
• “Other primitive [sic!! in fact, 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 OH-5 & 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 OH-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
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus 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 Homo 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 ... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978
• “A.africanus Sts.5 ... 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 Praeantr.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

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason (anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer relatives of us
than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

DNA evidence suggests that Pliocene Homo was not in Africa, e.g.our absence of African retroviral DNA.

Concl.: only incredible imbeciles assume apiths are human ancestors.

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

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 05:44:59 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than >they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason >(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

Mongle et al. (2023): "The analysis of evolutionary relationships
among hominin taxa is an ongoing process that requires revision and reassessment as new fossil information becomes available. This is
particularly true regarding the documentation of new species, given
that a number of paleontological discoveries in the last decade have
greatly expanded the known diversity of extinct taxa."

Apparently that doesn't apply to you. You've seen the light 30 years
ago and now it's gospel... how unscientific is that?

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

Pandora wrote:

Mongle et al. (2023): "The analysis of evolutionary relationships
among hominin taxa is an ongoing process that requires revision and reassessment as new fossil information becomes available. This is particularly true regarding the documentation of new species, given
that a number of paleontological discoveries in the last decade have
greatly expanded the known diversity of extinct taxa."

Apparently that doesn't apply to you. You've seen the light 30 years
ago and now it's gospel... how unscientific is that?

Again; the Chimp hand is the more derived. Bipedalism is much older
than any date you'd care to offer for the LCA. If you want to find the
ancestor to Chimps, search for something that appears closer to Homo
than to Chimps.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/ukraine/page/4

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

kudu runner was too stupid to answer this:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

You can see the exact same thing in any "Science" that doesn't have a direct military
or commercial application. There's literally nothing at stake, no consequences for
getting it wrong so, who cares? There was a similar problem in dinosaur paleontology
where the bird brains took control. EVERYWHERE they saw birds. And not just birds,
but clear proof of an arboreal origins of powered flight. I recall one particularly heated
argument about "A bird" that most assuredly could fly, this fact PROVEN in a wind
tunnel, when the only way for it to achieve this "Flight" configuration was to twist the
limbs of the model into positions which could never be achieved in a living animal.

Oh. And the "Arboreal adaptations" turned out to be feathers... a classic circular
argument where they assume an arboreal origins of flight so every time you see a
feather you're glimpsing an arboreal adaptation.

What is it about nutters & trees? Because savanna idiots also claim that it's all about
climbing into trees... "Bipedalism originates in trees! See a bipedal hominin, see an
arboreal ancestor to living humans but never apes."

Clearly, the opposite happened. Chimps BEGAN as bipedal and evolved knuckle walking as an adaptation to the forest. An arboreal lifestyle ENDED bipedalism!






-- --

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

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

kudu runner was too stupid to answer this:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than >they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason >(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

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

Op maandag 30 januari 2023 om 22:33:45 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

kudu runner was too stupid to answer this:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

You can see the exact same thing in any "Science" that doesn't have a direct military
or commercial application. There's literally nothing at stake, no consequences for
getting it wrong so, who cares? There was a similar problem in dinosaur paleontology
where the bird brains took control. EVERYWHERE they saw birds. And not just birds,
but clear proof of an arboreal origins of powered flight. I recall one particularly heated
argument about "A bird" that most assuredly could fly, this fact PROVEN in a wind
tunnel, when the only way for it to achieve this "Flight" configuration was to twist the
limbs of the model into positions which could never be achieved in a living animal.
Oh. And the "Arboreal adaptations" turned out to be feathers... a classic circular
argument where they assume an arboreal origins of flight so every time you see a
feather you're glimpsing an arboreal adaptation.
What is it about nutters & trees? Because savanna idiots also claim that it's all about
climbing into trees... "Bipedalism originates in trees! See a bipedal hominin, see an
arboreal ancestor to living humans but never apes."
Clearly, the opposite happened. Chimps BEGAN as bipedal and evolved knuckle walking as an adaptation to the forest. An arboreal lifestyle ENDED bipedalism!

Yes, apparently, but most likely, this Pandora creature is convinced he's right.
I wonder: how can somebody who considers himself a scientist(??) be so wrong?? Doesn't he see that monkeys & apes in trees use 4 limbs??
and that bonobos & lowland gorillas in forest swamps wade on 2 legs?
Our evol.past makes that we have to be BP on the ground, althoug that's slow & risky (falling).

Traditional anthropology = geology before plate tetonics.

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

On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 13:17:04 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than >> >they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason >> >(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not. You reject their
argument a priori. How prejudiced is that?

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

Pandora wrote:

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not.

And they had access to finds that nobody else does?

They know secrets?

Seriously, your "Argument" here is that you like a different argument
and he doesn't. That is, granting you enough credit to assume that
you did not intend some impotent "Argument of Authority" which, as
you know, s totally fallacious and wouldn't be acceptable on a high
school debating team, much less anywhere in real life.

Fact is, the trees are not the origins of bipedalism. They are where
bipedalism went to die in the example of Chimps and likely
Gorillas as well. And the savanna idiocy isn't where bipedalism got
it's start. So that does leave Aquatic Ape.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707828647060471808

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

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 07:51:46 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Pandora wrote:

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not.

And they had access to finds that nobody else does?

Your master, MV, has never studied a single fossil himself or done any field/laboratorywork in PA. He's an armchair "scientist" who scavenges
the hard work of others.

Mongle et al. have data on a lot more fossil material than MV in
1994/1996. Compared to them the work of MV is extremely poor.

For example, we now have a fairly complete skull of an A. afarensis
female, A.L. 822-1: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/32533cfc-a3f6-4ed6-8504-86daa7b5fd75/rstb20100070f04.jpg

Does it look ape-like? Sure, in a very general way in that it combines
a small neurocranium with a big prognathic face, but for the rest it
shares more derived characters with Homo than with Gorilla. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2010.0070

Seriously, your "Argument" here is that you like a different argument
and he doesn't. That is, granting you enough credit to assume that
you did not intend some impotent "Argument of Authority" which, as
you know, s totally fallacious and wouldn't be acceptable on a high
school debating team, much less anywhere in real life.

When your master posts his list of quotes (from his 1994 paper), as he repeatedly does, that's massive argument from authority.

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

Kudu runner:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not.

Liar. Haven't you even seen my comment?? How prejudiced is that?
Were you running after your kudus?? :-DDD

Miocene Hominoidea were already bipedal, not for running, of course, but for wading upright in the swamp forests where they lived, and climbing arms overhead in the branches above the swamp: this explains why hominoid apes became larger than monkeys,
lost the tail, evolved a shorter & more vertical & more central lumbar spine (vertical posture), a broader breast-bone (Hominoidea = Latisternalia), thorax (with dorsal scapulas) & pelvis (cf. lateral arm & leg movements), see my book p.299 “De
Evolutie van de Mens” (Acad.uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL): the Homo-Pan last common ancestor 6-5 mill.yrs ago probably lived in coastal forests along the Red Sea until the Red Sea opened ito the Gulf (caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma according
to Francesca Mansfield), and Pan followed the E.African coastal forests -> S.African australopiths, and Homo followed the S.Asian coasts as far as Java & Flores, where their diet included shellfish, cf.
- erectus’ brain size x2 (seafood + DHA etc.),
- our flat feet (wading-swimming),
- human small mouth (suction feeding) & voluntary breathing (diving, cf. speech origins),
- shell engravings (google “Joordens Munro”),
- stone tools (opening shells cf. sea-otter),
- erectus’ pachy-osteo-sclerosis (very heavy skeletons for shallow-diving),
- island colonizations (e.g. Flores), intercontinental coastal dispersal etc.

-For Mio-Pliocene hominoid (“ape”) evolution, google “aquarboreal”. -For Plio-Pleistocene Homo, google e.g. “human evolution Verhaegen”.


Only incredible idiots don't see that H.erectus was coastal.
Or do you still believe that Flores lies in the savanna?? :-DDD

You reject their argument a priori.

A posteriori, my little boy:
their afro+anthropocentric "arguments"(???) are worthless, of course, as a little child can see.

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

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 11:13:34 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not.
You reject their argument a priori.

A posteriori

If you've really read their paper then should be able to answer
following:
How does Australopithecus sediba score with regard to SG 13 (Index of
palate protrusion anterior to sellion (facial prognathism)?

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

On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 15:26:44 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Op maandag 30 januari 2023 om 22:33:45 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

kudu runner was too stupid to answer this:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

You can see the exact same thing in any "Science" that doesn't have a direct military
or commercial application. There's literally nothing at stake, no consequences for
getting it wrong so, who cares? There was a similar problem in dinosaur paleontology
where the bird brains took control. EVERYWHERE they saw birds. And not just birds,
but clear proof of an arboreal origins of powered flight. I recall one particularly heated
argument about "A bird" that most assuredly could fly, this fact PROVEN in a wind
tunnel, when the only way for it to achieve this "Flight" configuration was to twist the
limbs of the model into positions which could never be achieved in a living animal.
Oh. And the "Arboreal adaptations" turned out to be feathers... a classic circular
argument where they assume an arboreal origins of flight so every time you see a
feather you're glimpsing an arboreal adaptation.
What is it about nutters & trees? Because savanna idiots also claim that it's all about
climbing into trees... "Bipedalism originates in trees! See a bipedal hominin, see an
arboreal ancestor to living humans but never apes."
Clearly, the opposite happened. Chimps BEGAN as bipedal and evolved knuckle >> walking as an adaptation to the forest. An arboreal lifestyle ENDED bipedalism!

Yes, apparently, but most likely, this Pandora creature is convinced he's right.

Look who's talking.
When was the last time you had any doubts about the Aquatic Adaptation
Theory?

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

Kudu runner:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not.
You reject their argument a priori.

Liar: haven't you even *read* my comment??? Incredible: apparently *you* haven't read the paper!!
What are doing here???

If you've really read their paper then should be able to answer
following:
How does Australopithecus sediba score with regard to SG 13 (Index of
palate protrusion anterior to sellion (facial prognathism)?

My little little boy (when will you grow up??), some people have small noses, other larger ones...
Some apiths have more prognathism than others. Sigh. Never heard of statitics??
As might know (but no doubt don't) this exercise was done many years ago.
What everybody could see was confirmed by the measurements:

Morphological Distance beetween Australopithecine, Human and Ape Skulls
Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil & living spp of hominoids. The comparison is based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain 1986). The conclusions are: cranio-
dentally the australopithecine spp are a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans; overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.
... This comparison of 37 cranio-dental characters of fossil & living apes & humans yields no indication that any of the australopithecine spp has evolved in the human direction. S.African australopithecine skulls are morphologically closest to the
chimpanzee among the living hominoids. A.boisei is closest to the gorilla among the living hominoids. ..

Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?
Human Evolution 9: 121-139, 1994
Since australopithecines display humanlike traits such as short ilia, rel.small front teeth & thick molar enamel, they are usually 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 those of bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature. It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data, 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 australopithecines with humans, chimpanzees & gorillas should be re-evaluated.
.... A review of the PA literature reveals no data that exclude the possibility that both gorillas & chimpanzees could have had australopith ancestors. Bipedalism is generally considered to be the shared feature that links australopithecines with humans,
and there is no doubt that at least some of the australopith spp were partial bipeds. But it has never been proven that the African apes’ unique locomotion (plantigrade knuckle-walking) could not have evolved from some kind of (“short”-legged)
bipedalism. In fact, insofar as the fragmentary fossil material & the incomplete comparisons with extant apes allow, ontogenetic & morphological evidence tends to favour the hypothesis that the last common ancestor of Homo & Pan 8–4 Ma was a partially
bipedal, gracile australopith with chiefly a mosaic of human & chimpanzee (esp.bonobo) features: low sexual dimorphism, minimal prognathism, slightly enlarged canines, non-protruding nasal skeleton, smooth ectocranium without crests, “small” brain
with ape-like sulcal pattern, rel.non-flexed basicranium, intermediate position of foramen magnum, “short” forelimbs without knuckle-walking features, low ilia, (very) long femoral necks, “short” legs, (very) valgus knees, full plantigrady,
longer & not very abductable halluces.

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

Pandora wrote:

Your master, MV, has never studied a single fossil himself or done any field/laboratorywork in PA.

And yet he has a model that explains where the DHA came from, as well
as human dispersal, while nobody else does.

He's an armchair "scientist" who scavenges
the hard work of others.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, you either do that or you're just a religious twit being dogmatic.

Before anyone could invent the car someone had to invent the screwdriver.

The wheel.

Wire. Spark plugs... gearing... you name it.

Science today is an accumulation of all that came before it.

Over simplified there's Hegel Dialectic. The military expresses the same concept with Measure/Countermeasure.

Mongle et al. have data on a lot more fossil material than MV in
1994/1996. Compared to them the work of MV is extremely poor.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/

That's your mistake.

Does it look ape-like? Sure, in a very general way in that it combines
a small neurocranium with a big prognathic face, but for the rest it
shares more derived characters with Homo than with Gorilla.

You're rationalizing. It has been pointed out to you again and again and
again that the ancestor to Chimps looked more like Homo than even
Chimps, much less Gorillas.

Who cares what THIS or THAT skull looks like? There isn't a context, a
model that explains HOW and WHY things turned out the way they did.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/zUeFQq41AtI/m/wAVy5QrjAQAJ

There's no pictures and this is usenet, not a classroom, so I never
proof read these posts -- despite my horrible typing skills & attention
span -- but it illustrates how much the savanna idiots invest into
knocking down ONE piece of evidence, focusing like a laser beam on
ONE point, all the while ignoring (intentionally distracting from) the
big picture.

Data is like a pixel in an online image. The data you keep invoking
does not form a coherent picture that is different from the good
Doctor's. It's a distraction, not an image.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707927089453645825

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

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:19:30 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Mongle et al. have data on a lot more fossil material than MV in
1994/1996. Compared to them the work of MV is extremely poor.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/

That's your mistake.

Actually it's not. It doesn't matter WHO did the research, it matters
that I can check their data and methods and conclude that they did a
thorough job and that their results are solid. Although I know they
are experts in their field and they've earned their PhD's, I don't
care about the people, I care about the work.

Contrary to MV I'm not categorically rejecting it without even having
read it (or just the abstract).

Does it look ape-like? Sure, in a very general way in that it combines
a small neurocranium with a big prognathic face, but for the rest it
shares more derived characters with Homo than with Gorilla.

You're rationalizing. It has been pointed out to you again and again and >again that the ancestor to Chimps looked more like Homo than even
Chimps, much less Gorillas.

Show me that ancestor.
Which fossil specimen is it?

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

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:30:26 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

IOW, *everybody* sees & admits that apiths resemble Afr.apes much more than
they resemble Homo, yet traditonal PAs still assume for some obscure reason
(anthropocentric prejudices = more subsidies??) that apiths are nevertheless closer
relatives of us than of chimps or bonobos or gorillas... how unscientific is that??

I've read mongle et al. (2023), while you have not.
You reject their argument a priori.

Liar: haven't you even *read* my comment??? Incredible: apparently *you* haven't read the paper!!
What are doing here???

If you've really read their paper then should be able to answer
following:
How does Australopithecus sediba score with regard to SG 13 (Index of
palate protrusion anterior to sellion (facial prognathism)?

It was a simple test, and you failed. Now, we can confidently assume
that you didn't read the paper and that your judgement of Mongle et
al. (2023) was prejudiced.
Or do you want to give it another shot? SG41 perhaps?

My little little boy (when will you grow up??), some people have small noses, other larger ones...
Some apiths have more prognathism than others. Sigh. Never heard of statitics??

The point is to systematically investigate such characters (107 in
Mongle et al.) and their variance, in all available specimens of all operational taxonomic units and to test their phylogenetic signal with
methods such as parsimony and Bayesian inference that are well-founded
in statistics/probability.
That's what Mongle et al. did.

As might know (but no doubt don't) this exercise was done many years ago. >What everybody could see was confirmed by the measurements:

Morphological Distance beetween Australopithecine, Human and Ape Skulls
Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996

Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?
Human Evolution 9: 121-139, 1994

Outdated and obsolete.
Did you include Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, A. anamensis?
Did you include A.L 444-2, A.L. 822-1, DNH 7, DNH 155, etc.

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

As might know (but no doubt don't) this exercise was done many years ago. >What everybody could see was confirmed by the measurements:
Morphological Distance beetween Australopithecine, Human and Ape Skulls >Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?
Human Evolution 9: 121-139, 1994

Outdated and obsolete.

Not

Did you include Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, A. anamensis?
Did you include A.L 444-2, A.L. 822-1, DNH 7, DNH 155, etc.

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

Pandora wrote:

Actually it's not. It doesn't matter WHO did the research, it matters
that I can check their data and methods and conclude that they did a
thorough job and that their results are solid.

But we both know that they're not. Google any or all of the following:

Sample bias
Selection bias
Preservation bias

Next, do the Google on:

A-priori assumptions

Like when you find a fossil exactly where an Out of Asia migration
would cross and assume that it can never be anything but evidence
of an Out of Africa migration.

And then there's just plain batshit crazy: Knowing the ancestor to
Chimps looks more like Homo than Chimps (never mind Gorillas)
and then concluding anything that looks more like Homo than
Chimps & Gorillas must not be an ancestor of Chimps.

Yeah, that's batshit crazy...

You're rationalizing. It has been pointed out to you again and again and >again that the ancestor to Chimps looked more like Homo than even
Chimps, much less Gorillas.

Show me that ancestor.

Exactly.

We're looking for an upright walker, possibly a tool user in a way that only Homo used tools, quite possibly with a much more human like hand...
something that looks more Homo than Pan...

According to you right now, we don't find anything that looks like that.

But we know this is what we're looking for. We know the Chimp hand is
the more derived -- the hand of the Chimp ancestor is more like ours. We
know that it sprung up AFTER bipedalism, that it EVOLVED knuckle
walking after the split... if you assume Aquatic Ape, and we both do, then
it probably had a larger brain.

So the good Doctor is right in saying that Lucy fits the bill.

She does.

What we are looking for appears way more like Lucy than a Chimp.

Sediba? That's even MORE recent! I mean, here I was thinking I was
alone in suggesting that the split was far more recent than is
conventionally thought but, wow, you're pushing it!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/708030054879428608

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