Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen
Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
Kudu runner:
Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen
OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:
Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen
OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:
With an adducted hallux you're not much of a climber: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
And the rest of the lower limb also suggests obligate bipedalism: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23877
Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
Kudu runner:
Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen
OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:
Kudu runner:
With an adducted hallux you're not much of a climber:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)
Thanks for this beautiful description of the Homo or Australopithecus naledi foot skeleton.
However, the interpretation of its morphological details is anthropocentrically biased in my opinion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
Kudu runner, without reading my comment in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)
No, of course:
kudu runners
- have their own uninformed opinion,
- make their your own facts:
e.g. an example of kudu-runners' "logica":
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)
No, of course: kudu runners
- have their own uninformed opinion,
- make their your own facts:
e.g. an example of kudu-runners' "logica":
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
Notice anything?
They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
"The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology
and inferred function, with an adducted hallux,
an elongated tarsus,
and derived ankle and calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these
features indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism",
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
Notice anything?
They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
"The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology
and inferred function, with an adducted hallux,
= wading+swimming
an elongated tarsus,
and derived ankle and calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these
features indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism",
:-DDD
Google ostrich etc.:
aquarboreal naledi: swamp forest = BP + climbing arms overhead.
Op vrijdag 17 maart 2023 om 12:56:08 UTC+1 schreef kudu runner:
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
:-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?
Op vrijdag 17 maart 2023 om 12:56:08 UTC+1 schreef kudu runner:
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial >>>>>> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with >>>>>> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
:-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H. >>>>>> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial >>>>>> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with >>>>>> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).
Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
:-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?
Walker, runner, dancer, jumper, etc https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
and then compare it to a human foot skeleton: https://live.staticflickr.com/2571/3976581615_e7d73ab387_b.jpg
And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion: https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381397320/in/photostream/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381394539/in/photostream/
And compare with human: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_skeleton_-Booth_Museum,_Brighton_and_Hove,_East_Sussex,_England-20Oct2011.jpg
Now mv, how about comparing LEGS of seals and humans?
and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:
And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:
Primum Sapienti wrote:
and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:
And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:
That's only half your argument. The other half is where you compare
the human foot & entire skeleton to that of an antelope, proving that
we were evolved to run on a savanna.
Can you guess why nobody is impressed? Can you? Huh?
Isn't this already too difficult for the kudu runners, JTEM?
Isn't this already too difficult for the kudu runners, JTEM?
Unlearning is *Way* more difficult than learning, for most people.
They learned savanna idiocy. They were graded on how well they
learned savanna idiocy.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 302 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 97:00:04 |
Calls: | 6,764 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,295 |
Messages: | 5,376,370 |
Posted today: | 1 |