Op vrijdag 14 februari 2020 00:38:09 UTC+1 schreef
littor...@gmail.com:
Paleo-anthropological textbooks describe
* lots of fossils of early hominoids, e.g. in Europe (Miocene ‘apes’, which might have had already vertical spines, see above), e.g. Gripho-, Dryo-, Pierola-, Anoia-, Hispano-, Ourano-, Graeco-, Oreo-pithecus etc.,
* lots of fossil pongids (relatives of the orangutan Pongo), e.g. Siva-, Lufeng-, Khorat-, Indo-, Giganto-pithecus etc.,
* virtually no Plio–Pleistocene relatives of any of the hominid African apes Pan & Gorilla,
* innumerable fossil "human relatives", so-called "hominins", e.g. Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo habilis, Homo naledi etc. - all are believed to have been "bipedal", therefore to be more related to us than
to Pan or Gorilla.
Statistically this is impossible, of course:
European & Asian great apes fossilize abundantly - why not African great apes??
And why are nearly all Africa hominoid fossils called "human ancestors", never chimp or bonobo or gorilla ancestors or relatives?
The solution of this paradox is not so difficult, google e.g.
"Lucy was no human ancestor Verhaegen".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)