https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
2-million-year-old teeth

Ancient protein sequences identify the sex of
Paranthropus robustus fossils and hint at evolutionary
relationships.

Hominins — humans and their ancient relatives — emerged
in Africa some seven million years ago. Now researchers
have gleaned genetic information from an African hominin
that lived two million years ago, the oldest such data
yet recovered.

The protein sequences, described in a preprint posted on
the bioRxiv server on 3 July1, come from several
Paranthropus robustus tooth fossils found in a South
African cave.

These genetic data are the oldest that have been collected
from any hominin, pushing back the genetic record to times
and places previously unthinkable, scientists say.
....
One protein they found, called amelogenin-Y, is produced
by a gene on the Y chromosome. Its presence in two of the
samples allowed the researchers to conclude that the teeth
belonged to males. One of these had previously been
attributed to a female on the basis of its small size. The
other two teeth lacked signs of amelogenin-Y and contained
the X-chromosome version of the protein, leading the
authors to deduce that the specimens were probably female.

Around 400 of the same amino acids were sequenced in all
four samples. This allowed the researchers to build a
simple evolutionary tree confirming that Homo sapiens,
Neanderthals and hominins found in Siberia called
Denisovans that lived in the last 200,000 years are all
more closely related to one another than they are to the
two-million-year-old Paranthropus. Any other relationship
would have been a big surprise, says Douka.
....

The pre-print pdf is public

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.03.547326v1.full.pdf
Enamel proteins reveal biological sex and genetic
variability within southern African Paranthropus

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 22:47:34 -0600, Primum Sapienti
<invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
>Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
>2-million-year-old teeth

These molecular data are devastating for the hypothesis that
australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.

"Based on the phylogenetically informative sites identified (Table
S13, S18-19), all four Paranthropus sequences were closer to those in
the Homo clade than to any other primate."

"To explore the taxonomic placement of the Paranthropus individuals,
we utilised our aligned reference datasets to generate phylogenetic
trees via a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian approach (Fig. 4A, Fig.
S18-S21). The phylogenetic reconstructions place the Paranthropus
individuals as outgroups to the clade containing present-day humans
and available Pleistocene hominins from Eurasia (Neanderthal and
Denisovan). All these individuals, including Paranthropus, form a
clade to the exclusion of other members of present-day Hominidae."

Bye bye, Verhaegen.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in 2-Ma teeth
Ancient protein sequences identify the sex of Par.robustus fossils, and hint at evol.relationships.
Hominins (humans & their ancient relatives) emerged in Africa c 7 Ma.
Now researchers have gleaned genetic info from an African hominin 2 Ma, the oldest such data yet recovered.
The protein sequences (described in a preprint posted on the bioRxiv server on 3 July1) come from several Par.robustus tooth fossils found in a S.Afr.cave.
These genetic data are the oldest that have been collected from any hominin, pushing back the genetic record to times & places previously unthinkable, scientists say. ...
1 protein they found (amelogenin-Y) is produced by a gene on the Y-chromosome.
Its presence in 2 of the samples allowed the researchers to conclude: the teeth belonged to males.
One of these had previously been attributed to a female, on the basis of its small size.
The other 2 teeth lacked signs of amelogenin-Y, and contained the X-chromosome version of the protein: the spms were probably female.
Around 400 of the same AAs were sequenced in all 4 samples.
This allowed the researchers to build a simple evol.tree, confirming:
H.sapiens, Neanderthals & Denisovans that lived in the last 200 ka are all more closely related to one another than they are to the 2-Ma Paranthropus.
Any other relationship would have been a big surprise, says Douka. ...

:-) Of course, robustus = fossil Pan, not Homo:
1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.03.547326v1.full.pdf
Enamel proteins reveal biological sex and genetic variability within southern African Paranthropus
Enamel proteins reveal biological sex and 1 genetic variability within southern African 2 Paranthropus 3
Palesa P. Madupe 2023
The evol.relationships among extinct African hominin taxa are highly debated and largely unresolved, due in part to a lack of molecular data.
Even within taxa, it is not always clear, based on morphology alone:
are ranges of variation are due to sex.dimorphism vs potentially undescribed taxonomic diversity?
For Par.robustus (Pleist.hominin found only in S.Africa), phylogenetic relationships to other taxa & the nature of intraspec.variation are still 40 disputed.
Here we report the mass spectrometric (MS) sequencing of enamel proteomes from 4 c.2 41-Ma dental spms, attributed morphologically to P.robustus, SK.
The identification of AMELY-specific peptides & semi-quantitative MS data analysis enabled 43 us to determine the biological sex of all the spms.
Our combined molecular & morphometric data also provide compelling evidence of a significant degree of variation within S-Afr.Paranthropus, as previously suggested, based on morphology alone.
Finally, the molecular data also confirm the taxonomic placement of Paranthropus within the hominin clade.
This study demonstrates the feasibility of recovering informative Early-Pleistocene hominin enamel proteins from Africa.
Crucially, it also shows how the analysis of these proteins can contribute to understanding:
is hominin morphological variation due to sex.dimorphism? or to taxonomic differences?
We anticipate: this approach can be widely applied to geologically-comparable sites within S.Africa, and possibly more broadly across Africa.

> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
> >Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
> >2-million-year-old teeth

> These molecular data are devastating for the hypothesis that
> australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.
> "Based on the phylogenetically informative sites identified (Table
> S13, S18-19), all four Paranthropus sequences were closer to those in
> the Homo clade than to any other primate."
> "To explore the taxonomic placement of the Paranthropus individuals,
> we utilised our aligned reference datasets to generate phylogenetic
> trees via a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian approach (Fig. 4A, Fig.
> S18-S21). The phylogenetic reconstructions place the Paranthropus
> individuals as outgroups to the clade containing present-day humans
> and available Pleistocene hominins from Eurasia (Neanderthal and
> Denisovan). All these individuals, including Paranthropus, form a
> clade to the exclusion of other members of present-day Hominidae."

:-DDD
Bye bye, my little little child:
of course, "Paranthropus" = outgroup of Hs, Hn, Hd!
And E.Afr. "Paranthr."robustus (Pan) even considerably more than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla), of course:

Table 3 - Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania
• “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.

Table 2 - Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania
• “Incisal dental microwear in A. afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? M. V.] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker et al., 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy, 1991 (see also his fig. 1).
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson, 1960.
• The A. boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
• A. boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:05 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
>> >Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
>> >2-million-year-old teeth
>
>> These molecular data are devastating for the hypothesis that
>> australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.
>> "Based on the phylogenetically informative sites identified (Table
>> S13, S18-19), all four Paranthropus sequences were closer to those in
>> the Homo clade than to any other primate."
>> "To explore the taxonomic placement of the Paranthropus individuals,
>> we utilised our aligned reference datasets to generate phylogenetic
>> trees via a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian approach (Fig. 4A, Fig.
>> S18-S21). The phylogenetic reconstructions place the Paranthropus
>> individuals as outgroups to the clade containing present-day humans
>> and available Pleistocene hominins from Eurasia (Neanderthal and
>> Denisovan). All these individuals, including Paranthropus, form a
>> clade to the exclusion of other members of present-day Hominidae."
>
>:-DDD
>Bye bye, my little little child:
>of course, "Paranthropus" = outgroup of Hs, Hn, Hd!
>And E.Afr. "Paranthr."robustus (Pan) even considerably more than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla), of course:

You don't seem to get it, yet.
The molecular phylogenetic tree in fig.4A in the paper of Madupe et
al. shows that Paranthropus forms a clade with Homo to the exclusion
of Pan, Gorilla, Pongo, and Nomascus, just as with the morphological
data. This implies that Paranthropus cannot be the ancestor of Pan or
Gorilla. It's simple phylogenetic logic. Let it sink in for a few days
and then you'll realize the shock.

Pandora wrote:

> You don't seem to get it, yet.

Oh, the irony here...

Lord knows, you're not bright. Even to call you "Dim" would be to
grant you a little undue credit, but let's start at the top of the
page:

"Ancient protein sequences identify the sex of Paranthropus robustus
fossils and hint at evolutionary relationships."

For some reason or another, and I don't really care why, you seem to
believe that the above says "ESTABLISHES WITHOUT THE GLIMMER
OF A DOUBT WHAT ALL THE EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS ARE!"

Again, don't know why you are doing this, don't really care, all I do
know is how much I enjoy rubbing your nose in these stupid errors.

Childish, not something I should be proud of but, there you go.

NEXT, your cite repeatedly used the word "Genetic" when this is not
true at all.

Do the Google. Ed-umacte yourself.

Going from DNA evidence to this protein stuff is like going from a
2 megapixel image to... what? Maybe 16k?

The point isn't about exact numbers -- and I know how much that
confuses you -- as illustrating the point: Ain't the same thing.

One tells you far, Far, FAR less than the other...

> The molecular phylogenetic tree in fig.4A in the paper of Madupe et
> al. shows that Paranthropus forms a clade with Homo to the exclusion
> of Pan, Gorilla, Pongo, and Nomascus, just as with the morphological
> data.

So this "phylogenetic tree" isn't based on morphology at all?

> This implies that Paranthropus cannot be the ancestor of Pan or
> Gorilla.

And how old is it? Hmm?

Because, now hold onto your hat, I'm not the ancestor to my
grandparents.

Seriously. I'm not.

No, really. I'm not.

No doubt this is shocking to you.

> It's simple phylogenetic logic.

You're a mess! You're using words you don't grasp to say things
you don't understand.

...and I'm here to rub your nose in it. Again, nothing I should
be proud of -- my behavior is reprehensible -- but none the less,
there it is. I'm rubbing your nose in your stupid mistakes.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722572844550275072

Op woensdag 12 juli 2023 om 17:10:10 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:05 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
> >> >Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
> >> >2-million-year-old teeth
> >
> >> These molecular data are devastating for the hypothesis that
> >> australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.
> >> "Based on the phylogenetically informative sites identified (Table
> >> S13, S18-19), all four Paranthropus sequences were closer to those in
> >> the Homo clade than to any other primate."
> >> "To explore the taxonomic placement of the Paranthropus individuals,
> >> we utilised our aligned reference datasets to generate phylogenetic
> >> trees via a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian approach (Fig. 4A, Fig.
> >> S18-S21). The phylogenetic reconstructions place the Paranthropus
> >> individuals as outgroups to the clade containing present-day humans
> >> and available Pleistocene hominins from Eurasia (Neanderthal and
> >> Denisovan). All these individuals, including Paranthropus, form a
> >> clade to the exclusion of other members of present-day Hominidae."

> >:-DDD Bye bye, my little little child:
> >of course, "Paranthropus" = outgroup of Hs, Hn, Hd!
> >And E.Afr. "Paranthr."robustus (Pan) even considerably more than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla), of course:

Kudu runner snipped evidence, but didn't get it:

> The molecular phylogenetic tree in fig.4A in the paper of Madupe et
> al. shows that Paranthropus forms a clade with Homo to the exclusion
> of Pan, Gorilla, Pongo, and Nomascus, just as with the morphological
> data. This implies that Paranthropus cannot be the ancestor of Pan or
> Gorilla. It's simple phylogenetic logic. Let it sink in for a few days
> and then you'll realize the shock.

My little little little little boy, again:
don't you even know that Gorilla split off from us a few mill.yrs earlier than Pan did??
E.Afr."Paranthr."robustus (Pan) was a much closer relative of us (Homo) than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla) was:
Gorilla fossil subgenus afarensis->boisei evolved in parallel with Pan fossil subgenus Australoithecus africanus->robustus:
from late-Pliocene "gracile"forms to early-Pleist."robust"forms,
just like Gorilla // Pan evolved knuckle-walking in parallel, shown by me in 1990, now +-generally accepted. :-)

From my 1994 Hum.Evol.paper:

Table 2 - gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 spms “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [advanced gorilla-like! MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.

Table 3 - chimp-like features in South African australopith crania
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.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”". Ferguson 1989.
• 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, (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.

Okidoki? :-DDD
Lucy was a fossil relative of gorillas, not of us - got it??

Which fossil hunter prefers to find a fossil ape relative rather than a "human ancestor"?
:-DD
Ever heard of "anthropocentrism"??

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 04:31:27 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op woensdag 12 juli 2023 om 17:10:10 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:05 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
>> >> >Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
>> >> >2-million-year-old teeth
>> >
>> >> These molecular data are devastating for the hypothesis that
>> >> australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.
>> >> "Based on the phylogenetically informative sites identified (Table
>> >> S13, S18-19), all four Paranthropus sequences were closer to those in
>> >> the Homo clade than to any other primate."
>> >> "To explore the taxonomic placement of the Paranthropus individuals,
>> >> we utilised our aligned reference datasets to generate phylogenetic
>> >> trees via a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian approach (Fig. 4A, Fig.
>> >> S18-S21). The phylogenetic reconstructions place the Paranthropus
>> >> individuals as outgroups to the clade containing present-day humans
>> >> and available Pleistocene hominins from Eurasia (Neanderthal and
>> >> Denisovan). All these individuals, including Paranthropus, form a
>> >> clade to the exclusion of other members of present-day Hominidae."
>
>> >:-DDD Bye bye, my little little child:
>> >of course, "Paranthropus" = outgroup of Hs, Hn, Hd!
>> >And E.Afr. "Paranthr."robustus (Pan) even considerably more than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla), of course:
>
>Kudu runner snipped evidence, but didn't get it:
>
>> The molecular phylogenetic tree in fig.4A in the paper of Madupe et
>> al. shows that Paranthropus forms a clade with Homo to the exclusion
>> of Pan, Gorilla, Pongo, and Nomascus, just as with the morphological
>> data. This implies that Paranthropus cannot be the ancestor of Pan or
>> Gorilla. It's simple phylogenetic logic. Let it sink in for a few days
>> and then you'll realize the shock.
>
>My little little little little boy, again:
>don't you even know that Gorilla split off from us a few mill.yrs earlier than Pan did??
>E.Afr."Paranthr."robustus (Pan) was a much closer relative of us (Homo) than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla) was:
>Gorilla fossil subgenus afarensis->boisei evolved in parallel with Pan fossil subgenus Australoithecus africanus->robustus:
>from late-Pliocene "gracile"forms to early-Pleist."robust"forms,
>just like Gorilla // Pan evolved knuckle-walking in parallel, shown by me in 1990, now +-generally accepted. :-)

Let me try to explain it to you one more time.
Here's the molecular phylogenetic tree from Madupe et al.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2023/07/03/2023.07.03.547326/F4.large.jpg

What this topology tells you is that Paranthropus from Swartkrans,
South Africa, shares a more recent common ancestor with Homo than with
either Pan or Gorilla. What this means is that Gorilla and Pan split
from a hominin clade before Paranthropus split from Homo and have been
separate lineages ever since. Therefore these australopithecines can't
be the ancestor of the African apes (i.e.Paranthropus is not the
sistertaxon of Pan or Gorilla). It's that simple.

It's essentially also the same topology as in Mongle et al. (2019) and
Mongle et al. (2023) based on morphological data:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

In other words, the molecular data corroborates the morphological data
and falsifies your hypothesis. Live with it.

Pandora wrote:

> Let me try to explain it to you one more time.

Omg, I hope you're cute! Your behavior is absolutely *Adorable*! It's
very reminiscent of a small child getting into mommy's lipstick &
painting their face... *Adorable*!

> Here's the molecular phylogenetic tree

The "Molecular" Phylogenetic Tree!

How does this compare to your Phylogenetic Tree prior to this
"Molecular" evidence you're imagining?

Did it even occur to you to ask that question yourself?

And why is Naledi missing?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722677680584179712

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 09:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> Let me try to explain it to you one more time.
>
>Omg, I hope you're cute! Your behavior is absolutely *Adorable*! It's
>very reminiscent of a small child getting into mommy's lipstick &
>painting their face... *Adorable*!
>
>> Here's the molecular phylogenetic tree
>
>The "Molecular" Phylogenetic Tree!

Yes, protein sequences.

>How does this compare to your Phylogenetic Tree prior to this
>"Molecular" evidence you're imagining?

With regard to the taxa included in both analyses the topology of the
molecular and morphological tree are identical:
(Macaca (Nomascus (Pongo (Gorilla (Pan (Paranthropus, Homo))))))

>Did it even occur to you to ask that question yourself?
>
>And why is Naledi missing?

Homo naledi constitutes a large collection of specimens that is in the
process of being prepared, analysed and described. The authors
probably haven't had the opportunity yet to score and include all
characters for this taxon in their matrix of 107 characters.

Op donderdag 13 juli 2023 om 14:31:39 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 04:31:27 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Op woensdag 12 juli 2023 om 17:10:10 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:05 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> >> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02242-z
> >> >> >Oldest genetic data from a human relative found in
> >> >> >2-million-year-old teeth
> >> >
> >> >> These molecular data are devastating for the hypothesis that
> >> >> australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.
> >> >> "Based on the phylogenetically informative sites identified (Table
> >> >> S13, S18-19), all four Paranthropus sequences were closer to those in
> >> >> the Homo clade than to any other primate."
> >> >> "To explore the taxonomic placement of the Paranthropus individuals,
> >> >> we utilised our aligned reference datasets to generate phylogenetic
> >> >> trees via a maximum likelihood and a Bayesian approach (Fig. 4A, Fig.
> >> >> S18-S21). The phylogenetic reconstructions place the Paranthropus
> >> >> individuals as outgroups to the clade containing present-day humans
> >> >> and available Pleistocene hominins from Eurasia (Neanderthal and
> >> >> Denisovan). All these individuals, including Paranthropus, form a
> >> >> clade to the exclusion of other members of present-day Hominidae."
> >
> >> >:-DDD Bye bye, my little little child:
> >> >of course, "Paranthropus" = outgroup of Hs, Hn, Hd!
> >> >And E.Afr. "Paranthr."robustus (Pan) even considerably more than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla), of course:
> >
> >Kudu runner snipped evidence, but didn't get it:
> >
> >> The molecular phylogenetic tree in fig.4A in the paper of Madupe et
> >> al. shows that Paranthropus forms a clade with Homo to the exclusion
> >> of Pan, Gorilla, Pongo, and Nomascus, just as with the morphological
> >> data. This implies that Paranthropus cannot be the ancestor of Pan or
> >> Gorilla. It's simple phylogenetic logic. Let it sink in for a few days
> >> and then you'll realize the shock.
> >
> >My little little little little boy, again:
> >don't you even know that Gorilla split off from us a few mill.yrs earlier than Pan did??
> >E.Afr."Paranthr."robustus (Pan) was a much closer relative of us (Homo) than S.Afr."Paranthr."boisei (Gorilla) was:
> >Gorilla fossil subgenus afarensis->boisei evolved in parallel with Pan fossil subgenus Australoithecus africanus->robustus:
> >from late-Pliocene "gracile"forms to early-Pleist."robust"forms,
> >just like Gorilla // Pan evolved knuckle-walking in parallel, shown by me in 1990, now +-generally accepted. :-)

Kudu runner snipped anatomical evidence:
let me try to explain it to you one more time:
the molecular data are perfectly compatible with the morphological data,
they falsify your retarded anthropocentric prejudices.
Live with it: morphologically,
- E.Afr.apiths = Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths = Pan:

Table 1 - Some quotations on ape-like features in australopith crania

• “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved separately [? M. V.] in the australopithecines parallel [? M. V.] with the great apes. The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look. The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A. africanus”. Ferguson, 1989b.
• “Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”. Bromage & Dean, 1985.
• “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rate and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin, 1985 (but Beynon et al., 1991).
• In the South African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of seven australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk, 1987.
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk, 1985.
• In the type specimen of A. afarensis, “the lower third premolar of ‘A. africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson, 1987b.
• “A. afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann, 1989.
• “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L. 333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P. troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A. afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel et al., 1984.
• “Prior to the identification of A. afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A. afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel et al., 1984.
• “... the fact that two presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman, 1954b.
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also apelike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the second year...”. Laitman & Heimbuch, 1982.
• “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H. sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus, 1988.

Table 2 - Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania

• “Incisal dental microwear in A. afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? M. V.] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker et al., 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy, 1991 (see also his fig. 1).
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson, 1960.
• The A. boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
• A. boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).

Table 3 - Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania

• “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.

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

Oh, I forgot; you're retarded.

Why are you here? You demonstrate ZERO interest in these topics, you
post random, irrelevant "cites" you never read and couldn't understand
anyway AND you engage in infantile behavior.

Go away.

We're always so kind to you, so polite, despite your many obvious
flaws... your many, many flaws... many, many, many, many flaws...

Anyhow, we're always so cordial, pretending not to notice the
drool, never asking about the stains on the front of your pants,
and yet you return our charity with such rudeness! Did they teach
you nothing at that trailer park?

You don't make a good parrot, bird brain.

The gravity of the situation, vis a vis your mental health, is
troubling to say the least.

Look. You're an idiot. There's no denying that.

Lord knows you're not bright, and you're unaware of this fact (despite
the constant reminders).

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[OCPD]

I repeat: he "Molecular" Phylogenetic Tree! How does this compare to your
Phylogenetic Tree prior to this "Molecular" evidence you're imagining?

Did it even occur to you to ask that question yourself? No? Of course not.
And why is Naledi missing?

It's too young? Can't get your "Molecular" evidence unless we're talking
about something VERY old?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723823836258254848

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

Oh, I forgot; you're retarded.

Why are you here? You demonstrate ZERO interest in these topics, you
post random, irrelevant "cites" you never read and couldn't understand
anyway AND you engage in infantile behavior.

Go away.

We're always so kind to you, so polite, despite your many obvious
flaws... your many, many flaws... many, many, many, many flaws...

Anyhow, we're always so cordial, pretending not to notice the
drool, never asking about the stains on the front of your pants,
and yet you return our charity with such rudeness! Did they teach
you nothing at that trailer park?

You don't make a good parrot, bird brain.

The gravity of the situation, vis a vis your mental health, is
troubling to say the least.

Look. You're an idiot. There's no denying that.

Lord knows you're not bright, and you're unaware of this fact (despite
the constant reminders).

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[OCPD]

Yeah, the FBI has been informed about you... can't take any risks.

So, anyway, you are a blithering idiot, quoting things you never read,
much less understood, and that's why you can't answer even basis
questions.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/724349278678614016

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

[OCPD]

Yeah, the FBI has been informed about you... can't take any risks.

So, anyway, you are a blithering idiot, quoting things you never read,
much less understood, and that's why you can't answer even basis
questions.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Your OCPD isn't an argument. It's a condemnation of your parents
and the healthcare system.

The protein analysis is incapable of making the determinations
claimed here for the simple reason that they are NOT making
valid comparisons.

They are not comparing "Paranthropus" to any contemporary
Pan, because they have never identified any such Pan. For all
any of us knows Paranthropus *Is* Pan, or at least on the Pan
side of the line.

This is rudimentary level science. And yet paleo anthropology
FAILS once again. This is why I say without any sarcasm what
so ever, placing "Paleo" before "Anthology" is similar to placing
"Biblical" before "Archaeology."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/725326422014640128