Describe the LCA.

The ancestor to Chimps; when did it live?

Where did it live?

What did it look like?

Why are Chimps in Africa and not, say, India? Or
Indonesia?

In short: Tell us what YOU are looking for, in that
earliest of Chimp ancestor.

I've spelled out how I see it numerous times. Later I
can spell it out again. And again. It won't make a
difference. Aquatic Ape hasn't advanced one iota in
50 years, according to the faithful. But what we don't
ever see is the savanna side of things, the Out of Africa
approved narrative here.

<Chirp> <Chirp> <Chirp>

Ah, the sound of crickets...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/708228752925196288

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

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:52:12 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Describe the LCA.

The ancestor to Chimps; when did it live?

Where did it live?

What did it look like?

Your point of departure would be something like Sahelanthropus, phylogenetically the most basal hominin and chronologically the oldest
at ~7 Ma, but then without the derived hominin characters: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920250_Virtual_reconstruction_of_Sahelanthropus_tchadensis
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509564102

Why are Chimps in Africa and not, say, India? Or
Indonesia?

Why are African elephants in Africa and Indian Elephants in Asia?
A matter of historical/evolutionary biogeography. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674010598

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

Pandora wrote:

Your point of departure would be something like Sahelanthropus, phylogenetically the most basal hominin and chronologically the oldest
at ~7 Ma, but then without the derived hominin characters:

Many argue that it appears more bipedal than Lucy, given the foreman
magnum, and you yourself argue that Lucy was fully bipedal ala the
Laetoli footprints.

It's environment, it's lifestyle, it's selective pressures had moved the foreman magnum towards the back of the skull the time of Lucy.

Why are African elephants in Africa and Indian Elephants in Asia?

So you can't tell us? It's the same reason why there are no Chimps in
China or India (or Australia) but you don't know what it is?

I'm looking for a model here. You have a line you're claiming goes back
6 or 7 million years in Chad, and that's why there's Chimps somewhere
else but not in other places.

That's not a model.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889

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

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 13:35:35 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Pandora wrote:

Your point of departure would be something like Sahelanthropus,
phylogenetically the most basal hominin and chronologically the oldest
at ~7 Ma, but then without the derived hominin characters:

Many argue that it appears more bipedal than Lucy, given the foreman
magnum, and you yourself argue that Lucy was fully bipedal ala the
Laetoli footprints.

It's environment, it's lifestyle, it's selective pressures had moved the >foreman magnum towards the back of the skull the time of Lucy.

Look at item x (foramen magnum position) in table 1 in: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509564102

Notice that the f.m. is positioned more anteriorly in A. afarensis
(Lucy) than in TM 266 (Sahelanthropus). In fact, Lucy is close to Homo
habilis (22% in Sahelanthropus, 24% and 25% in A. afarensis and H.
habilis respectively). In other words, Lucy is more humanlike than Sahelthropus, and Sahelanthropus is more humanlike than Pan and
Gorilla. Looks like directional change from an ancestor with a more
apelike position of the f.m.

Why are African elephants in Africa and Indian Elephants in Asia?

So you can't tell us? It's the same reason why there are no Chimps in
China or India (or Australia) but you don't know what it is?

I'm looking for a model here. You have a line you're claiming goes back
6 or 7 million years in Chad, and that's why there's Chimps somewhere
else but not in other places.

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment: https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg

All fossil early hominid sites in East- and South-Africa are outside
this range, which would explain why there are virtually no fossils of
early African apes.
The site of Toros-Menalla in Chad (Sahelanthropus) could have been a
northern expansion of this range during climatically more favourable conditions, and become isolated as a refugium after contraction. A
case of vicariance biogeography.

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

Kudu runner:

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment: https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg
All fossil early hominid sites in East- and South-Africa are outside
this range, which would explain why there are virtually no fossils of
early African apes.

:-DDD

How stupid can one be??
All African Pliocene hominid fossils were "early Afr.apes".
Retroviral evidence confirms: Pliocene Homo was not even in Africa.

It's really not difficult, even kudu runners can hopefully understand: Late-Miocene hominids (today HPG) lived in coastal/swamp...forests along the Med.Sea (e.g. Trachilos footprints) & (incipient) Red Sea,
but those of the Med.Sea etc. would become extinct late-Miocene: cooling? Zanclean flood? Mess.Sal.Crisis?...?

When the northern Rift (N-EARS) began to form c 8 Ma, different hominids colonized it:
e.g. Sahelanthr., Ardipith., Orrorin & Gorilla-Praeanthr.anamensis-afarensis-antiquus-bahrelghazali-ghari-aethiopicus-boisei...
Homo-Pan remained in the Red Sea until it opened into the Gulf (Francesca thinks caused by the Zanclean flood 5.33 Ma):
-Pan went right -> E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-EARS c 3 Ma -> Australop.africanus-sediba-robustus-naledi... (Pan//Gorilla evolution),
-Pliocene Homo went left -> S.Asian coasts -> H.erectus...Java... -> early-Pleist.coastal inter-continental dispersal etc.:
pachy-osteo-sclerosis, platycephaly, playmeria, platypelloidy... = shallow-diving: diet incl.shellfish:
-- shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro",
-- stone tools ++,
-- brain ++,
-- island colonizations, e.g. Flores,
-- POS = only in shallow-diving tetrapods: H.erectus was NO exception,
-- flat feet, short toes etc.etc.

Google e.g.
-"aquaroreal"
-"human evolution Verhaegen"

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

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 04:05:31 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Kudu runner:

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment:
https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg
All fossil early hominid sites in East- and South-Africa are outside
this range, which would explain why there are virtually no fossils of
early African apes.

:-DDD

How stupid can one be??
All African Pliocene hominid fossils were "early Afr.apes".

You're going round in circles, ignoring recent phylogenetic evidence
to the contrary: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

You're hopelesly outdated and conservative.

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

Kudu runner:

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment:
https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg
All fossil early hominid sites in East- and South-Africa are outside
this range, which would explain why there are virtually no fossils of
early African apes.

:-DDD How stupid can one be??
All African Pliocene hominid fossils were "early Afr.apes".

You're going round in circles, ignoring recent phylogenetic evidence
to the contrary: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

My little little little boy, I've answered this as you should know, but you refuse to inform:
you're hopelessly outdated & conservative.

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

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 06:03:22 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Kudu runner:

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment:
https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg
All fossil early hominid sites in East- and South-Africa are outside
this range, which would explain why there are virtually no fossils of
early African apes.

:-DDD How stupid can one be??
All African Pliocene hominid fossils were "early Afr.apes".

You're going round in circles, ignoring recent phylogenetic evidence
to the contrary:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

I've answered this as you should know

Yes, you bluntly said they were wrong, but you failed to explain why.
We would like to hear your critique of their data and/or methods,
after you've studied their paper, not a priori.

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

Pandora wrote:

Look at item x (foramen magnum position) in table 1 in: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509564102

Notice that the f.m. is positioned more anteriorly in A. afarensis

But not africanus. So a moment of confusion, I mixed up the too. Big whoop.
We still have a significantly older find that appears more/better adapted towards bipedalism.

(Lucy) than in TM 266 (Sahelanthropus). In fact, Lucy is close to Homo habilis (22% in Sahelanthropus, 24% and 25% in A. afarensis and H.
habilis respectively). In other words, Lucy is more humanlike than Sahelthropus, and Sahelanthropus is more humanlike than Pan and
Gorilla.

And africanus, apparently.

Pan africanus? You're arguing that the good Doctor got things exactly right, nailed it with Australopithecus, only, like me, he got confused and said Australopithecus afarensis instead of Australopithecus africanus.

Well. I'm glad we cleared that one up. Thanks for your help!

So you can't tell us? It's the same reason why there are no Chimps in
China or India (or Australia) but you don't know what it is?

I'm looking for a model here. You have a line you're claiming goes back
6 or 7 million years in Chad, and that's why there's Chimps somewhere
else but not in other places.

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment: https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg

Of course. So don't I. But how? Why?

By Aquatic Ape, the bipedal ancestor to Chimps pushed inland, for any one
(or more) of a number of reasons, and adapted to the new environment. It
may have even interbred with earlier variants to push in.

That's why Chimps are in Africa and not anywhere else... same reason why
Red Deer People are in China and not anywhere else, or Neanderthals are in eurasia...

The left the coast, adapted to the new environment. This happened at
different times and different places, resulting in distinct populations. In the case of the Chimps, they were initially quite successful, reaching into a number of environments, but with enough cross breeding to moderate their evolution. Until new arrivals from the Aquatic Ape population out competed them... likely preyed on them... driving all but the forest population to extinction.

"Man created Chimps."

That's my theory. Idea.

But either way, thank you for clearly up the Doctor's and my error there... saying Australopithecus afarensis instead of Australopithecus africanus...

Our bad.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/708402086450200576

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

Kudu runner:

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment:
https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg
All fossil early hominid sites in East- and South-Africa are outside
this range, which would explain why there are virtually no fossils of >> >> early African apes.

:-DDD How stupid can one be??
All African Pliocene hominid fossils were "early Afr.apes".

incl."habilis": probably Praeanthr.

You're going round in circles, ignoring recent phylogenetic evidence
to the contrary:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

I've answered this as you should know

Yes, you bluntly said they were wrong, but you failed to explain why.

Not at all: you failed to understand... :-D

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

For.M position more dorsal AFAIK:
Pan > Gorilla > apiths, He, Hn > Hs.
Yrs ago I compared & studied this, but I'm not sure:
Pan=Au.afric. > Gorilla=Praeanthr.afar.?
He > Hn > apiths > Hs?

You'll know my view (??):
late-Miocene hominids s.s. survived in swamp forests around the then incipient Red Sea,
Homo-Pan remained in the Red Sea until it opened into the Gulf (5.33 Ma?? Francesca Mansfield),
but different hominids invaded c 8-6 Ma the swamp forests of the incipient northern Rift, e.g.
Sahelanthr., Orrorin & Gorilla=Praeanthr.afarensis->boisei.
When de Red Sea opened into the Gulf,
-Homo went left -> S.Asian coastal forests -> Java etc.,
-Pan went right -> E.Afr.coastal forests -> southern Rift -> Au.africanus->robustus (//Praeanthr.Gorilla).

_______

Op zondag 5 februari 2023 om 23:19:44 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

Pandora wrote:

Look at item x (foramen magnum position) in table 1 in: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509564102

Notice that the f.m. is positioned more anteriorly in A. afarensis

But not africanus. So a moment of confusion, I mixed up the too. Big whoop. We still have a significantly older find that appears more/better adapted towards bipedalism.

(Lucy) than in TM 266 (Sahelanthropus). In fact, Lucy is close to Homo habilis (22% in Sahelanthropus, 24% and 25% in A. afarensis and H.
habilis respectively). In other words, Lucy is more humanlike than Sahelthropus, and Sahelanthropus is more humanlike than Pan and
Gorilla.

And africanus, apparently.

Pan africanus? You're arguing that the good Doctor got things exactly right, nailed it with Australopithecus, only, like me, he got confused and said Australopithecus afarensis instead of Australopithecus africanus.

Well. I'm glad we cleared that one up. Thanks for your help!

So you can't tell us? It's the same reason why there are no Chimps in >China or India (or Australia) but you don't know what it is?

I'm looking for a model here. You have a line you're claiming goes back
6 or 7 million years in Chad, and that's why there's Chimps somewhere >else but not in other places.

I hypothesize that the ancestral chimps lived in about the same area
as their modern descendants, adapted to a forest environment: https://africageographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Chimpanzee-Distribution-Map-2.jpg

Of course. So don't I. But how? Why?

By Aquatic Ape, the bipedal ancestor to Chimps pushed inland, for any one
(or more) of a number of reasons, and adapted to the new environment. It
may have even interbred with earlier variants to push in.

That's why Chimps are in Africa and not anywhere else... same reason why
Red Deer People are in China and not anywhere else, or Neanderthals are in eurasia...

The left the coast, adapted to the new environment. This happened at different times and different places, resulting in distinct populations. In the
case of the Chimps, they were initially quite successful, reaching into a number of environments, but with enough cross breeding to moderate their evolution. Until new arrivals from the Aquatic Ape population out competed them... likely preyed on them... driving all but the forest population to extinction.

"Man created Chimps."

That's my theory. Idea.

But either way, thank you for clearly up the Doctor's and my error there... saying Australopithecus afarensis instead of Australopithecus africanus...

Our bad.

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

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 14:19:42 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Pandora wrote:

Look at item x (foramen magnum position) in table 1 in:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509564102

Notice that the f.m. is positioned more anteriorly in A. afarensis

But not africanus. So a moment of confusion, I mixed up the too. Big whoop. >We still have a significantly older find that appears more/better adapted >towards bipedalism.

(Lucy) than in TM 266 (Sahelanthropus). In fact, Lucy is close to Homo
habilis (22% in Sahelanthropus, 24% and 25% in A. afarensis and H.
habilis respectively). In other words, Lucy is more humanlike than
Sahelthropus, and Sahelanthropus is more humanlike than Pan and
Gorilla.

And africanus, apparently.

Pan africanus? You're arguing that the good Doctor got things exactly right, >nailed it with Australopithecus, only, like me, he got confused and said >Australopithecus afarensis instead of Australopithecus africanus.

Well. I'm glad we cleared that one up. Thanks for your help!

It's good to see that at least one of you can admit a mistake, be it
rather opportunistically. Apparently the good Doctor is incapable of
it.
But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A. africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan, as Mongle et al. (2023) have shown.
Besides, index of foramen magnum position in A. africanus is based on
only 2 specimens (Sts 5 and Sts 71, with index value 19% and 21%
respectively), and therefore may not be (statistically) signifantly
different from Sahelanthropus (22%).

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

kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A.africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becomming more+more delusional & infantile: perhaps you have "derived" brains, about as large as Au.africanus c 420 cc? Only incredible imbeciles think apelike=primitive.
Moreover, Taung was clearly a fossil Pan, like Lucy was a fossil relative of Gorilla:
apiths become more+more apelike, early-Pleist.robusts>late-Pliocene graciles. The early PAs already saw this, and it's becoming more+more clear:
• “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, he found
that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that
of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in
design’”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”.
Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones
among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

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

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 15:21:42 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A.africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becomming more+more delusional & infantile: >perhaps you have "derived" brains, about as large as Au.africanus c 420 cc?

A. africanus average endocranial volume is 462 cc versus P.
troglodytes 405 cc, with Stw 505 as high as 560 cc.
See appendix 1, part II: average endocranial volumes and EQs in: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573

A. africanus EQ (Martin) is 5.21 versus P. troglodytes 3.75.
So yes, A. africanus neurologically derived.

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

kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A.africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becomming more+more delusional & infantile: >perhaps you have "derived" brains, about as large as Au.africanus c 420 cc?

A. africanus average endocranial volume is 462 cc versus P.
troglodytes 405 cc, with Stw 505 as high as 560 cc.
See appendix 1, part II: average endocranial volumes and EQs in: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573
A. africanus EQ (Martin) is 5.21 versus P. troglodytes 3.75.
So yes, A. africanus neurologically derived.

CC Hs<Hn = "derived"!

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

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 08:28:47 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A.africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becomming more+more delusional & infantile:
perhaps you have "derived" brains, about as large as Au.africanus c 420 cc?

A. africanus average endocranial volume is 462 cc versus P.
troglodytes 405 cc, with Stw 505 as high as 560 cc.
See appendix 1, part II: average endocranial volumes and EQs in:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573
A. africanus EQ (Martin) is 5.21 versus P. troglodytes 3.75.
So yes, A. africanus neurologically derived.

CC Hs<Hn = "derived"!

See table 2 in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221734226_Hominins_and_the_emergence_of_the_modern_human_brain

Mean endocranial volume in:
H. neanderthalensis 1404 cc (min. 1172, max. 1740)
H. sapiens 1463 cc (min. 1090, max. 1880)

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

Op woensdag 8 februari 2023 om 19:19:10 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 08:28:47 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A.africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becomming more+more delusional & infantile: >> >perhaps you have "derived" brains, about as large as Au.africanus c 420 cc?

A. africanus average endocranial volume is 462 cc versus P.
troglodytes 405 cc, with Stw 505 as high as 560 cc.
See appendix 1, part II: average endocranial volumes and EQs in:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573
A. africanus EQ (Martin) is 5.21 versus P. troglodytes 3.75.
So yes, A. africanus neurologically derived.

CC Hs<Hn = "derived"!

See table 2 in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221734226_Hominins_and_the_emergence_of_the_modern_human_brain

Mean endocranial volume in:
H. neanderthalensis 1404 cc (min. 1172, max. 1740)
H. sapiens 1463 cc (min. 1090, max. 1880)

Yes, my little little boy, but there are many more Hs than Hn.
Please try to think a *little* bit before wasting our time...

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

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:45:31 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Op woensdag 8 februari 2023 om 19:19:10 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 08:28:47 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A.africanus is derived in >> >> >> so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becomming more+more delusional & infantile: >> >> >perhaps you have "derived" brains, about as large as Au.africanus c 420 cc?

A. africanus average endocranial volume is 462 cc versus P.
troglodytes 405 cc, with Stw 505 as high as 560 cc.
See appendix 1, part II: average endocranial volumes and EQs in:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573
A. africanus EQ (Martin) is 5.21 versus P. troglodytes 3.75.
So yes, A. africanus neurologically derived.

CC Hs<Hn = "derived"!

See table 2 in:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221734226_Hominins_and_the_emergence_of_the_modern_human_brain

Mean endocranial volume in:
H. neanderthalensis 1404 cc (min. 1172, max. 1740)
H. sapiens 1463 cc (min. 1090, max. 1880)

Yes

Good, admitting you're wrong is improvement.

but there are many more Hs than Hn.

Sample size is 79 and 27 respectively.
So?

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

Pandora wrote:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A. africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

That wasn't the question, so another point goes to the good Doctor!

It was about Sahelanthropus. And, specifically, how the foramen
magnum evolved closer to the back of the skull after said
Sahelanthropus.

The only evidence we have, until some church authority makes up
some new stuff, is that Sahelanthropus looks more bipedal.

AND YOU HELPED CLARIFY! Someone may have thought, "Silly
Doctor!" but, no, you clarified. You explained that he was absolutely
right about Australopithecus... we just have to keep things straight
regarding WHICH Australopithecus we're talking about.

Thank you so much.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/708904444757147648

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

Kudu runner:

But alas, it's not gonna help you, because A. africanus is derived in
so many other aspects that it still turns out to be much closer to
Homo than to Pan

:-DDD

I think our kudu runner is "derived" in having a brain of <500 cc...

My little little little boy (you're becoming more+more infantile), Au.africanus is derived into the bonobo/chimp direction, as everybody knows since decades
(from "Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?" 1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139):

• “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, he found
that the pattern changed”. Leakey, 1981, pp. 74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt, 1987.
• “P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman et al., 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 A. boisei. Rak & Howell, 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage, 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that
of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in
design’”. Falk, 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”.
Bromage & Dean, 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones
among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz, 1941.

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