http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.html
Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 23:42:18 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:-
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.html
Fossil profile:
Sangiran 31 and the exceptionally thick skulls of Homo erectus
We cannot interpret the entire fossil record by limiting our view to the most extreme specimens, yet sometimes extremes are instructive.
S31 has some of the thickest cranial bone of any fossil member of our genus. Its nuchal or occipital torus (which sticks out above the origin of the trapezius muscles & the insertion of the splenius capitis muscles on the back of the skull) is thicker & more projecting than any other fossil human relative.
The fossil only includes the posterior portion of the cranial vault, so we do not know what the face or jaw of this individual would have looked like.
S31 lived sometime between 1.27 & 0.9 Ma, on what is today the island of Java.
At times in the Pleistocene, Java was connected to Borneo & Sumatra & the Asian mainland.
Other Pleist.fossils attributed to H.erectus from Indonesia also have quite thick cranial bone,
generally thick cranial bone is a feature found in most H.erectus skulls. Likewise, many H.erectus skulls have a projecting & well delineated nuchal torus.
With traits that are so distinctive & so different from most living people, it’s natural to ask why these evolved.
These are not traits that H.erectus inherited from earlier hominin ancestors:
they evolved within H.erectus, and later hominins evolved differently.
What was the advantage of a nuchal torus?
Why did H.erectus have such thick cranial bone?
These questions don’t have well-tested scientific answers.
:-DDD
Hawks still believes his Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes...
In today’s people, thickening of the cranial bone & increasing size & prominence of “superstructures” like the occipital torus & superciliary arches tend to be slightly correlated, and correlated with cranial size.
Muscle entheses on the skull like the superior nuchal line can be correlated with muscle strength & use, but it’s not clear whether any effects of use of the muscles make a difference to torus development.
The developmental processes by which these traits appeared in H.erectus are long gone, so studying correlations in living people may not be very useful to understanding them in extinct hominin populations.
:-DDD
Thick & dense bones in tetrapods = invariably shallow diving.
Hasn't the man even heard the word "pachy-osteo-sclerosis"??
Why doesn't he inform a bit before trying to say something??
My personal favorite hypothesis is that H.erectus evolved thick cranial bone because it helped resist injuries.
:-DDD
Pachyosteosclerotic bones are brittle!
This hypothesis is supported by the quite high frequency of healed lesions on the exterior surface of the skull in H. erectus fossils.
But this hypothesis does little to explain a structure like the occipital torus, nor does it explain why other populations of ancient humans like the Neandertals had thinner cranial bone, despite also displaying a good number of healed cranial lesions.
:-DDD
Why doen't this man inform a little bit before talking nonsense?? Neandertals were not exclusively coastal any more, but also lived along rivers (less dense):
very likely IMO, neandertals simply followed the river inland seasonally, e.g. the Meuse.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.htmlFossil profile: Sangiran 31 and the exceptionally thick skulls of Homo erectus
We cannot interpret the entire fossil record by limiting our view to the most extreme specimens, yet sometimes extremes are instructive.
S31 has some of the thickest cranial bone of any fossil member of our genus.
Its nuchal or occipital torus (which sticks out above the origin of the trapezius muscles & the insertion of the splenius capitis muscles on the back of the skull) is thicker & more projecting than any other fossil human relative.
The fossil only includes the posterior portion of the cranial vault, so we do not know what the face or jaw of this individual would have looked like.
S31 lived sometime between 1.27 & 0.9 Ma, on what is today the island of Java.
At times in the Pleistocene, Java was connected to Borneo & Sumatra & the Asian mainland.
Other Pleist.fossils attributed to H.erectus from Indonesia also have quite thick cranial bone,
generally thick cranial bone is a feature found in most H.erectus skulls. Likewise, many H.erectus skulls have a projecting & well delineated nuchal torus.
With traits that are so distinctive & so different from most living people, it’s natural to ask why these evolved.
These are not traits that H.erectus inherited from earlier hominin ancestors:
they evolved within H.erectus, and later hominins evolved differently. What was the advantage of a nuchal torus?
Why did H.erectus have such thick cranial bone?
These questions don’t have well-tested scientific answers.
:-DDD Hawks still believes his Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes ... Thick & dense bones in tetrapods = invariably shallow diving.
Hasn't the man even heard the word "pachy-osteo-sclerosis"??
Why doesn't he inform a bit before trying to say something?? ... Pachyosteosclerotic bones are brittle! ...
Neandertals were not exclusively coastal any more, but also lived along rivers (less dense):
very likely IMO, neandertals simply followed the river inland seasonally, e.g. the Meuse.
Central west Africans have the densest bones of anyone.
Occipital torus and thickening clearly relates to terrestrial orthograde striding bipedalism in a tail-less taxon,
Op zaterdag 13 november 2021 om 11:50:07 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:-
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.htmlFossil profile: Sangiran 31 and the exceptionally thick skulls of Homo erectus
We cannot interpret the entire fossil record by limiting our view to the most extreme specimens, yet sometimes extremes are instructive.
S31 has some of the thickest cranial bone of any fossil member of our genus.
Its nuchal or occipital torus (which sticks out above the origin of the trapezius muscles & the insertion of the splenius capitis muscles on the back of the skull) is thicker & more projecting than any other fossil human relative.
The fossil only includes the posterior portion of the cranial vault, so we do not know what the face or jaw of this individual would have looked like.
S31 lived sometime between 1.27 & 0.9 Ma, on what is today the island of Java.
At times in the Pleistocene, Java was connected to Borneo & Sumatra & the Asian mainland.
Other Pleist.fossils attributed to H.erectus from Indonesia also have quite thick cranial bone,
generally thick cranial bone is a feature found in most H.erectus skulls.
Likewise, many H.erectus skulls have a projecting & well delineated nuchal torus.
With traits that are so distinctive & so different from most living people, it’s natural to ask why these evolved.
These are not traits that H.erectus inherited from earlier hominin ancestors:
they evolved within H.erectus, and later hominins evolved differently. What was the advantage of a nuchal torus?
Why did H.erectus have such thick cranial bone?
These questions don’t have well-tested scientific answers.
Of course, my boy, but that's no pachyosteosclerosis.:-DDD Hawks still believes his Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes ... Thick & dense bones in tetrapods = invariably shallow diving.Central west Africans have the densest bones of anyone.
Hasn't the man even heard the word "pachy-osteo-sclerosis"??
Why doesn't he inform a bit before trying to say something?? ... Pachyosteosclerotic bones are brittle! ...
Neandertals were not exclusively coastal any more, but also lived along rivers (less dense):
very likely IMO, neandertals simply followed the river inland seasonally, e.g. the Meuse.
Occipital torus and thickening clearly relates to terrestrial orthograde striding bipedalism in a tail-less taxon,:-DDD, you're as stupid as Hawks is.
The term "erectus" (Dubois IIRC) couldn't be wronger.
H.erectus was the least erect of all Primates.
Apiths were already erect: wading vertically + clilmbing arms overhead, google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
But H.erectus was mostly horizontal or head-down: diving for shellfish.
Early H.sapiens
- stopped diving,
- became more wading:
upright
longer legs, esp.tibiae
loss of platymeria
less valgus knees
narrower pelvis
loss of iliac flaring
less horizontal femoral necks
loss of platypelloidy
loss of prognathism
chin & slender cheek-bones
high forehead
eyes directed more ventrally
loss of POS
loss or platycephaly
etc.etc.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.html
Fossil profile: Sangiran 31 and the exceptionally thick skulls of Homo erectus
We cannot interpret the entire fossil record by limiting our view to the most extreme specimens, yet sometimes extremes are instructive.
S31 has some of the thickest cranial bone of any fossil member of our genus.
Its nuchal or occipital torus (which sticks out above the origin of the trapezius muscles & the insertion of the splenius capitis muscles on the back of the skull) is thicker & more projecting than any other fossil human relative.
The fossil only includes the posterior portion of the cranial vault, so we do not know what the face or jaw of this individual would have looked like.
S31 lived sometime between 1.27 & 0.9 Ma, on what is today the island of Java.
At times in the Pleistocene, Java was connected to Borneo & Sumatra & the Asian mainland.
Other Pleist.fossils attributed to H.erectus from Indonesia also have quite thick cranial bone,
generally thick cranial bone is a feature found in most H.erectus skulls.
Likewise, many H.erectus skulls have a projecting & well delineated nuchal torus.
With traits that are so distinctive & so different from most living people, it’s natural to ask why these evolved.
These are not traits that H.erectus inherited from earlier hominin ancestors:
they evolved within H.erectus, and later hominins evolved differently. What was the advantage of a nuchal torus?
Why did H.erectus have such thick cranial bone?
These questions don’t have well-tested scientific answers.
:-DDD Hawks still believes his Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes ...
Thick & dense bones in tetrapods = invariably shallow diving.
Hasn't the man even heard the word "pachy-osteo-sclerosis"??
Why doesn't he inform a bit before trying to say something?? ... Pachyosteosclerotic bones are brittle! ...
Neandertals were not exclusively coastal any more, but also lived along rivers (less dense):
very likely IMO, neandertals simply followed the river inland seasonally, e.g. the Meuse.
Central west Africans have the densest bones of anyone.
Of course, my boy, but that's no pachyosteosclerosis.
Occipital torus and thickening clearly relates to terrestrial orthograde striding bipedalism in a tail-less taxon,
:-DDD, you're as stupid as Hawks is.
The term "erectus" (Dubois IIRC) couldn't be wronger.
H.erectus was the least erect of all Primates.
Apiths were already erect: wading vertically + clilmbing arms overhead, google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
But H.erectus was mostly horizontal or head-down: diving for shellfish. Early H.sapiens
- stopped diving,
- became more wading:
upright
longer legs, esp.tibiae
loss of platymeria
less valgus knees
narrower pelvis
loss of iliac flaring
less horizontal femoral necks
loss of platypelloidy
loss of prognathism
chin & slender cheek-bones
high forehead
eyes directed more ventrally
loss of POS
loss or platycephaly
etc.etc.
No detours please!
Hawks and you both miss the fact that a dense occiput acted as a pendulum counter-balancing anchor in a striding bipedal H erectus
Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 01:35:30 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.html
Fossil profile: Sangiran 31 and the exceptionally thick skulls of Homo erectus
We cannot interpret the entire fossil record by limiting our view to the most extreme specimens, yet sometimes extremes are instructive.
S31 has some of the thickest cranial bone of any fossil member of our genus.
Its nuchal or occipital torus (which sticks out above the origin of the trapezius muscles & the insertion of the splenius capitis muscles on the back of the skull) is thicker & more projecting than any other fossil human relative.
The fossil only includes the posterior portion of the cranial vault, so we do not know what the face or jaw of this individual would have looked like.
S31 lived sometime between 1.27 & 0.9 Ma, on what is today the island of Java.
At times in the Pleistocene, Java was connected to Borneo & Sumatra & the Asian mainland.
Other Pleist.fossils attributed to H.erectus from Indonesia also have quite thick cranial bone,
generally thick cranial bone is a feature found in most H.erectus skulls.
Likewise, many H.erectus skulls have a projecting & well delineated nuchal torus.
With traits that are so distinctive & so different from most living people, it’s natural to ask why these evolved.
These are not traits that H.erectus inherited from earlier hominin ancestors:
they evolved within H.erectus, and later hominins evolved differently.
What was the advantage of a nuchal torus?
Why did H.erectus have such thick cranial bone?
These questions don’t have well-tested scientific answers.
:-DDD Hawks still believes his Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes ...
Thick & dense bones in tetrapods = invariably shallow diving.
Hasn't the man even heard the word "pachy-osteo-sclerosis"??
Why doesn't he inform a bit before trying to say something?? ... Pachyosteosclerotic bones are brittle! ...
Neandertals were not exclusively coastal any more, but also lived along rivers (less dense):
very likely IMO, neandertals simply followed the river inland seasonally, e.g. the Meuse.
Central west Africans have the densest bones of anyone.
Of course, my boy, but that's no pachyosteosclerosis.
Occipital torus and thickening clearly relates to terrestrial orthograde striding bipedalism in a tail-less taxon,
:-DDD, you're as stupid as Hawks is.No detours please!
The term "erectus" (Dubois IIRC) couldn't be wronger.
H.erectus was the least erect of all Primates.
Apiths were already erect: wading vertically + clilmbing arms overhead, google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
But H.erectus was mostly horizontal or head-down: diving for shellfish. Early H.sapiens
- stopped diving,
- became more wading:
upright
longer legs, esp.tibiae
loss of platymeria
less valgus knees
narrower pelvis
loss of iliac flaring
less horizontal femoral necks
loss of platypelloidy
loss of prognathism
chin & slender cheek-bones
high forehead
eyes directed more ventrally
loss of POS
loss or platycephaly
etc.etc.
If you believe these are detours, you're stupid.
Hawks and you both miss the fact that a dense occiput acted as a pendulum counter-balancing anchor in a striding bipedal H erectus:-DDD You're as stupid as the kudu runners, my boy.
Waders became divers became waders became runners!!!
Op vrijdag 19 november 2021 om 08:21:10 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
Waders became divers became waders became runners!!!:-DDD
No, my boy, that's nonsense.
You really don't know?understand what I'm saying??
It's not difficult, even you can get it:
schematically:
-Mio-Pliocene hominoids incl.apiths: aquarboreal,
-early-mid-Pleistocene Homo: littoral,
-late-Pleist.H.sapiens: wading-walking.
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
Ceterum censeo:
only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes.
Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 01:35:30 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:-
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/artcards/sangiran-31-calvaria.html
Fossil profile: Sangiran 31 and the exceptionally thick skulls of Homo erectus
We cannot interpret the entire fossil record by limiting our view to the most extreme specimens, yet sometimes extremes are instructive.
S31 has some of the thickest cranial bone of any fossil member of our genus.
Its nuchal or occipital torus (which sticks out above the origin of the trapezius muscles & the insertion of the splenius capitis muscles on the back of the skull) is thicker & more projecting than any other fossil human relative.
The fossil only includes the posterior portion of the cranial vault, so we do not know what the face or jaw of this individual would have looked like.
S31 lived sometime between 1.27 & 0.9 Ma, on what is today the island of Java.
At times in the Pleistocene, Java was connected to Borneo & Sumatra & the Asian mainland.
Other Pleist.fossils attributed to H.erectus from Indonesia also have quite thick cranial bone,
generally thick cranial bone is a feature found in most H.erectus skulls.
Likewise, many H.erectus skulls have a projecting & well delineated nuchal torus.
With traits that are so distinctive & so different from most living people, it’s natural to ask why these evolved.
These are not traits that H.erectus inherited from earlier hominin ancestors:
they evolved within H.erectus, and later hominins evolved differently.
What was the advantage of a nuchal torus?
Why did H.erectus have such thick cranial bone?
These questions don’t have well-tested scientific answers.
:-DDD Hawks still believes his Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes ...
Thick & dense bones in tetrapods = invariably shallow diving.
Hasn't the man even heard the word "pachy-osteo-sclerosis"??
Why doesn't he inform a bit before trying to say something?? ... Pachyosteosclerotic bones are brittle! ...
Neandertals were not exclusively coastal any more, but also lived along rivers (less dense):
very likely IMO, neandertals simply followed the river inland seasonally, e.g. the Meuse.
Central west Africans have the densest bones of anyone.
Of course, my boy, but that's no pachyosteosclerosis.
Occipital torus and thickening clearly relates to terrestrial orthograde striding bipedalism in a tail-less taxon,
:-DDD, you're as stupid as Hawks is.No detours please!
The term "erectus" (Dubois IIRC) couldn't be wronger.
H.erectus was the least erect of all Primates.
Apiths were already erect: wading vertically + clilmbing arms overhead, google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
But H.erectus was mostly horizontal or head-down: diving for shellfish. Early H.sapiens
- stopped diving,
- became more wading:
upright
longer legs, esp.tibiae
loss of platymeria
less valgus knees
narrower pelvis
loss of iliac flaring
less horizontal femoral necks
loss of platypelloidy
loss of prognathism
chin & slender cheek-bones
high forehead
eyes directed more ventrally
loss of POS
loss or platycephaly
etc.etc.
If you believe these are detours, you're stupid.
Hawks and you both miss the fact that a dense occiput acted as a pendulum counter-balancing anchor in a striding bipedal H erectus:-DDD You're as stupid as the kudu runners, my boy.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 81:59:37 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,417 |
| Posted today: | 1 |