Have We Been Barking up the Wrong Ancestral Tree?
Australopithecines Are Probably Not Our Ancestors
Mario Vaneechoutte, Frances Mansfield, Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2023 Nature Anthropology 1(1), 10007 open access
Op maandag 18 december 2023 om 15:48:58 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:
Have We Been Barking up the Wrong Ancestral Tree?
Australopithecines Are Probably Not Our Ancestors
Mario Vaneechoutte, Frances Mansfield, Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2023 >>> Nature Anthropology 1(1), 10007 open access
And then you would expect a phylogenetic analysis comparable in quality
to these:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311
But no, these studies are not even mentioned in your letter.
Yes, AFAICS, they confirm what we're saying.
As such it's worthless.
No wonder you couldn't get it published in JHE.
Yes, like you, JHE still lives in the Middle Ages... :-D
Op 18-12-2023 om 18:36 schreef Marc Verhaegen:
Op maandag 18 december 2023 om 15:48:58 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:
Have We Been Barking up the Wrong Ancestral Tree?
Australopithecines Are Probably Not Our Ancestors
Mario Vaneechoutte, Frances Mansfield, Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2023 >>>> Nature Anthropology 1(1), 10007 open access
And then you would expect a phylogenetic analysis comparable in quality
to these:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311
But no, these studies are not even mentioned in your letter.
Yes, AFAICS, they confirm what we're saying.
Then why does your letter not mention them?
That would have been great support.
But in fact these studies refute your hypothesis, because they show that apiths are the sistertaxon of Homo, to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla.
The fact that you do not mention these studies is a glaring omission that makes your letter totally irrelevant with regard to hominid phylogenetics.
As such it's worthless.
No wonder you couldn't get it published in JHE.
Yes, like you, JHE still lives in the Middle Ages... :-D
I'm afraid that your letter is destined for oblivion.
Pandora wrote:
[...]
Chimps pop into existence, more or less out of thin air, about half a
million years ago. And even then only if we reinvent reality on the
fly, like Out of Africa purists, and pretend that teeth are definitive.
So teeth are absolutely positively definitive except when they are
not.
...like when we find what looks like 10 million year old
Ardi/Australo teeth in Europe.
So teeth are rock solid. Unambiguous. Except when they're not.
But in the case of teeth they are absolutely positively proof, and
they are not.
So Chimps stretch back half a million years old. UNLESS your
model is incomplete at best, or just plain wrong.
The good Doctor's model works. You can piddle over dates and
specific species, whatever, but whatever you slip in there works. Effectively, and this not even be how he characterizes it but,
effectively, he says that Chimps don't magic into existence half
a million years ago. The ancestors of today's Chimps simply don't
look like our Chimps.
Put short: We have found those early "Chimps." But they don't
look the way we want them to.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
You're pushing
I'm pushing
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 303 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 74:52:43 |
Calls: | 6,805 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,327 |
Messages: | 5,400,052 |