Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said. Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 05:22:20 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.

What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212

>Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.

Earliest representatives of that taxon are from Africa:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

me:
> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.

kudu runner:
> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212

Thanks a lot, my boy.

> >Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.

> Earliest representatives of that taxon are from Africa:

:-D My little little boy, stop confusing Homo s.s. & Australopithecus habilis, naledi etc.:
inform & think a *little* bit: it's really not difficult, even you can understand:
- wading-climbing Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea, google “aquarboreal”
- wading-diving early-Pleistocene H.erectus cs, google “pachyosteosclerosis”
- wading-walking late-Pleistocene H.neand. cs, google “gondwanatalks Verhaegen Bonne”
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

-- E.Afr.apiths = Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis-->boisei etc. //
-- S.Afr.apiths = Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus-->robustus etc.
PAs find numerous fossil pongids, but for some reason (= afro+anthropocentric prejudices) they don't find Pan or Gorilla fossil relatives... :-D
e.g.
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"
1998 p.128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?" in MA Raath .... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg

> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

The absence of Pliocene African retroviral DNA in humans (e.g. Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol 3:1-11) proves that human ancestors were NOT in Africa, AT LEAST during the Pliocene:
of course: they simply followed the S.Asian coasts --> e.g. Java early-Pleist.:
- fossilization amid shellfish Mojokerto
- brain size x2 = DHA in seafood
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow diving
- stone tools = opening shells cf. sea-otter
- shell engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
- Flores >18 km oversea
- etc.etc.
Only *incredible* idiots believe their Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes... :-DDD
Poor olfaction, fur loss, fat belly, projecting nose, flat feet, salty sweat etc.etc. for running after kudus... :-DDD
How can self-declared "scientists" remain soooo stupid??
Do you already accept plate tectonics, my little boy?? :-D

_______

> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.
> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212
>
> >Indeed, Eugčne Dubois found H.erectus.
>
> Earliest representatives of that taxon are from Africa:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>me:
>> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.
>
>kudu runner:
>> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
>> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
>> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212
>
>Thanks a lot, my boy.

Don't thank me, apologize to Darwin for putting words in his mouth he
never said.

"In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely
related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore
probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely
allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now
man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early
progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere."

In other words, if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to
Africa. Indeed, Darwin was right.

>> >Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.
>
>> Earliest representatives of that taxon are from Africa:
>
>:-D My little little boy, stop confusing Homo s.s. & Australopithecus habilis, naledi etc.:

As a retired general practitioner without any expertise or experience
in paleontology and without having studied these fossils first hand
and up close, comparing them to others, you don't get to say what they
are or what they're not on the basis of wishful thinking.

>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x

What a true expert, Bernard Wood, said about KNM-ER 2598 in the most
comprehensive descriptive catalogue of the Koobi Fora cranial remains
(Koobi Fora Research Project Volume 4, p.130):

"This specimen is a fragment of occipital with inion, lambda, and the
medial ends of both lambdoid sutures: surface bone is missing on the
fragment to the right of lambda. The main features are a marked
occipital torus and a relatively acute angle between the squamous and
nuchal surfaces of the occipital. On the endocranial surface, the
internal occiptal protuberance lies below the level of inion, and
there are marked concavities for the occiptal lobes. Thickness
measurements are given in Reference Table 14; in addition, the
thickness at the extreme end of the specimen, near asterion, is 9 mm
and at the internal occipital protuberance it is 5 mm. These data
suggest that affinities of this fragment are with H. erectus-like
crania."

As such it compares favourably with the slightly younger, more
complete specimens from the same area, such as KNM-ER 3733 (1.65 Ma):
<https://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_ergaster_KNM-ER_3733(DukeC)_800x600/index.html>
Even that specimen is older than the first appearance datum of
Indonesian H. erectus:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8556

Those are the scientific facts.

>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

"DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in
overall cranial shape (Fig. 4)."

Op zondag 9 juli 2023 om 12:12:47 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

me:
> >> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.

kudu runner:
> >> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
> >> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
> >> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212

> >Thanks a lot, my boy.

> Don't thank me, apologize to Darwin for putting words in his mouth he
> never said.

Google: Mario Vaneechoutte.

> "In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely
> related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore
> probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely
> allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now
> man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early
> progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere."
> In other words, if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to
> Africa. Indeed, Darwin was right.

He also said:
Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia.
Google: Mario Vaneechoutte.

> >> >Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.

> >> Earliest representatives of that taxon are from Africa:
> >:-D My little little boy, stop confusing Homo s.s. & Australopithecus habilis, naledi etc.:

> As a retired general practitioner without any expertise or experience
> in paleontology and without having studied these fossils first hand
> and up close, comparing them to others, you don't get to say what they
> are or what they're not on the basis of wishful thinking.

Wishful thinkers are the savanna idiots who believe their ancestors (slow, poor olfaction, furless, flat-footed...) ran after antelopes... :-DDD
My little little little boy, open your eyes + think a *little* bit:
fossils pongids are found in abundance,
but for some obscure reason (afro+anthropocentric prejudices) the savanna fools assume that Pan nor Gorilla had no fossil relatives :-D
these idiots confuse "bipedality" with "human ancestors".
As everybody knows, all Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal waders-climbers in coastal forests:
simply google "aquarboreal".
Why don't you inform & think a *little* bit before trying to produce nonsense??

All your "true experts" (I've read them all - I'm old enough...) agree
-- E.Afr.apiths looked most like gorillas,
-- S.Afr.apiths like Pan,
e.g.
• “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 1981:351.
• “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 fronto-maxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex infero-lateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 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.
• 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.
• “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, 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.

> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x

Luckily, some true experts (prof.Tobias) confess they were completely & incomprehensible wrong...

> What a true expert, Bernard Wood, said about KNM-ER 2598 in the most
> comprehensive descriptive catalogue of the Koobi Fora cranial remains
> (Koobi Fora Research Project Volume 4, p.130):
> "This specimen is a fragment of occipital with inion, lambda, and the
> medial ends of both lambdoid sutures: surface bone is missing on the
> fragment to the right of lambda. The main features are a marked
> occipital torus and a relatively acute angle between the squamous and
> nuchal surfaces of the occipital. On the endocranial surface, the
> internal occiptal protuberance lies below the level of inion, and
> there are marked concavities for the occiptal lobes. Thickness
> measurements are given in Reference Table 14; in addition, the
> thickness at the extreme end of the specimen, near asterion, is 9 mm
> and at the internal occipital protuberance it is 5 mm. These data
> suggest that affinities of this fragment are with H. erectus-like
> crania."
> As such it compares favourably with the slightly younger, more
> complete specimens from the same area, such as KNM-ER 3733 (1.65 Ma):
> <https://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_ergaster_KNM-ER_3733(DukeC)_800x600/index.html>
> Even that specimen is older than the first appearance datum of
> Indonesian H.erectus:
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8556
> Those are the scientific facts.

:-DDD Grow up, my boy: see my above quotations + *think* a little bit:
Does out little child knows what "suggests" means?? "among"? "attributed"? "different"? "consistent"? "may"?

The name "erectus" was given to fossils found in Java:
only google "pachyosteosclerosis".

"New hominin remains and revised context from the earliest Homo erectus locality in East Turkana, Kenya"
Ashley S Hammond cs 2021 Nature Comm.12,1939 open access
The KNM-ER 2598 occipital is among the oldest fossils attributed to H.erectus, but did it derive from a younger horizon?
Here we report on efforts to re-locate the KNM-ER 2598 locality, we investigate its paleontological & geological context.
Although located in a different E.Turkana collection area (Area 13) than initially reported, the locality is stratigraphically positioned below the KBS Tuff,
and the outcrops show no evidence of deflation of a younger unit, supporting an age of >1.855 Ma.
Newly recovered faunal material consists primarily of C4 grazers, further confirmed by enamel isotope data.
A hominin proximal MT-3 & partial ilium were discovered <50 m from the reconstructed location where ER-2598 was originally found,
but these cannot be associated directly with the occipital.
The postcrania are cons.x fossil Homo, and may represent the earliest postcrania attributable to H.erectus.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 04:28:21 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op zondag 9 juli 2023 om 12:12:47 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>
>me:
>> >> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.
>
>kudu runner:
>> >> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
>> >> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
>> >> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212
>
>> >Thanks a lot, my boy.
>
>> Don't thank me, apologize to Darwin for putting words in his mouth he
>> never said.
>
>Google: Mario Vaneechoutte.

Google: Charles Darwin.

>> "In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely
>> related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore
>> probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely
>> allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now
>> man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early
>> progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere."
>> In other words, if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to
>> Africa. Indeed, Darwin was right.
>
>He also said:
>Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia.

When and where did he say that?
Quote him, please.

>Google: Mario Vaneechoutte.

Be more specific, a name is not enough.

>> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x
>
>Luckily, some true experts (prof.Tobias) confess they were completely & incomprehensible wrong...
>
>> What a true expert, Bernard Wood, said about KNM-ER 2598 in the most
>> comprehensive descriptive catalogue of the Koobi Fora cranial remains
>> (Koobi Fora Research Project Volume 4, p.130):
>> "This specimen is a fragment of occipital with inion, lambda, and the
>> medial ends of both lambdoid sutures: surface bone is missing on the
>> fragment to the right of lambda. The main features are a marked
>> occipital torus and a relatively acute angle between the squamous and
>> nuchal surfaces of the occipital. On the endocranial surface, the
>> internal occiptal protuberance lies below the level of inion, and
>> there are marked concavities for the occiptal lobes. Thickness
>> measurements are given in Reference Table 14; in addition, the
>> thickness at the extreme end of the specimen, near asterion, is 9 mm
>> and at the internal occipital protuberance it is 5 mm. These data
>> suggest that affinities of this fragment are with H. erectus-like
>> crania."
>> As such it compares favourably with the slightly younger, more
>> complete specimens from the same area, such as KNM-ER 3733 (1.65 Ma):
>> <https://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_ergaster_KNM-ER_3733(DukeC)_800x600/index.html>
>> Even that specimen is older than the first appearance datum of
>> Indonesian H.erectus:
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8556
>> Those are the scientific facts.
>
>:-DDD Grow up, my boy: see my above quotations + *think* a little bit:
>Does out little child knows what "suggests" means?? "among"? "attributed"? "different"? "consistent"? "may"?

Formal taxonomic attribution of KNM-ER 2598: cf. Homo aff. erectus,
which means that its closest affinity is with Homo erectus.

>The name "erectus" was given to fossils found in Java:

Yes, the Trinil 2 calotte is the holotype, but that doesn't imply that
it was the place of origin of that taxon.

>"New hominin remains and revised context from the earliest Homo erectus locality in East Turkana, Kenya"
>Ashley S Hammond cs 2021 Nature Comm.12,1939 open access
>The KNM-ER 2598 occipital is among the oldest fossils attributed to H.erectus, but did it derive from a younger horizon?
>Here we report on efforts to re-locate the KNM-ER 2598 locality, we investigate its paleontological & geological context.
>Although located in a different E.Turkana collection area (Area 13) than initially reported, the locality is stratigraphically positioned below the KBS Tuff,
>and the outcrops show no evidence of deflation of a younger unit, supporting an age of >1.855?Ma.
>Newly recovered faunal material consists primarily of C4 grazers, further confirmed by enamel isotope data.
>A hominin proximal MT-3 & partial ilium were discovered <50?m from the reconstructed location where ER-2598 was originally found,
>but these cannot be associated directly with the occipital.
>The postcrania are cons.x fossil Homo, and may represent the earliest postcrania attributable to H.erectus.
>
>Excellent, thanks!
>
>> >> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
>
>> "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H.erectus cranium in
>> overall cranial shape (Fig. 4)."
>
>Yes, Mojokerto = river delta + shellfish etc.:
>and why does our little boy believe that archaic Homo could not have followed the Ind.Ocean shores + the rivers inland??
>:-DDD

That's possible, but the fossil record suggests they would have to
move out of inland Africa first, because that's where the earliest
representatives of Homo were found.
If you disagree then you should state clearly what you think is the
oldest representative of our genus (i.e. the first appearance datum of
Homo). I dare you, but I'm pretty sure you'll evade that challenge
with fanciful scenario's about Miocene Homo in Asia.

>Ever heard of the retroviral evidence that human Pliocene ancestors were NOT even in Africa??
>Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11.

Yeah, see Discussion in that paper:
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110#s3

Do the authors suggest that an excursion by early hominids to Eurasia
during the time that PTERV1 infected African great apes is the only
speculative scenario to explain the absence of retrovirus in both the
orangutan and human lineages?

Op zondag 9 juli 2023 om 15:36:07 UTC+2 schreef Pandora
his usual irrelevant blabla. Don't waste our time, my little boy:
if you want to understand a bit of hominoid & human evolution, you have to use comperative biology, not fossils in the first place:
only incredible imbeciles believe you evolve poor olfaction & thick bellies & flat feet & salty sweat to hunt antelopes.

First inform a bit: ape+human evolution short, even you can understand:
- wading-climbing Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea, google “aquarboreal”
- wading-diving early-Pleistocene H.erectus, google “pachyosteosclerosis”
- wading-walking late-Pleistocene H.neanderth., google “gondwanatalks Verhaegen Bonne”
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

me:
> >> >> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.
> >
> >kudu runner:
> >> >> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
> >> >> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
> >> >> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212
> >
> >> >Thanks a lot, my boy.
> >
> >> Don't thank me, apologize to Darwin for putting words in his mouth he
> >> never said.
> >
> >Google: Mario Vaneechoutte.
> Google: Charles Darwin.
> >> "In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely
> >> related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore
> >> probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely
> >> allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now
> >> man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early
> >> progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere."
> >> In other words, if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to
> >> Africa. Indeed, Darwin was right.
> >
> >He also said:
> >Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia.
> When and where did he say that?
> Quote him, please.
>
> >Google: Mario Vaneechoutte.
>
> Be more specific, a name is not enough.
> >> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x
> >
> >Luckily, some true experts (prof.Tobias) confess they were completely & incomprehensible wrong...
> >
> >> What a true expert, Bernard Wood, said about KNM-ER 2598 in the most
> >> comprehensive descriptive catalogue of the Koobi Fora cranial remains
> >> (Koobi Fora Research Project Volume 4, p.130):
> >> "This specimen is a fragment of occipital with inion, lambda, and the
> >> medial ends of both lambdoid sutures: surface bone is missing on the
> >> fragment to the right of lambda. The main features are a marked
> >> occipital torus and a relatively acute angle between the squamous and
> >> nuchal surfaces of the occipital. On the endocranial surface, the
> >> internal occiptal protuberance lies below the level of inion, and
> >> there are marked concavities for the occiptal lobes. Thickness
> >> measurements are given in Reference Table 14; in addition, the
> >> thickness at the extreme end of the specimen, near asterion, is 9 mm
> >> and at the internal occipital protuberance it is 5 mm. These data
> >> suggest that affinities of this fragment are with H. erectus-like
> >> crania."
> >> As such it compares favourably with the slightly younger, more
> >> complete specimens from the same area, such as KNM-ER 3733 (1.65 Ma):
> >> <https://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_ergaster_KNM-ER_3733(DukeC)_800x600/index.html>
> >> Even that specimen is older than the first appearance datum of
> >> Indonesian H.erectus:
> >> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8556
> >> Those are the scientific facts.
> >
> >:-DDD Grow up, my boy: see my above quotations + *think* a little bit:
> >Does out little child knows what "suggests" means?? "among"? "attributed"? "different"? "consistent"? "may"?
> Formal taxonomic attribution of KNM-ER 2598: cf. Homo aff. erectus,
> which means that its closest affinity is with Homo erectus.
> >The name "erectus" was given to fossils found in Java:
> Yes, the Trinil 2 calotte is the holotype, but that doesn't imply that
> it was the place of origin of that taxon.
> >"New hominin remains and revised context from the earliest Homo erectus locality in East Turkana, Kenya"
> >Ashley S Hammond cs 2021 Nature Comm.12,1939 open access
> >The KNM-ER 2598 occipital is among the oldest fossils attributed to H.erectus, but did it derive from a younger horizon?
> >Here we report on efforts to re-locate the KNM-ER 2598 locality, we investigate its paleontological & geological context.
> >Although located in a different E.Turkana collection area (Area 13) than initially reported, the locality is stratigraphically positioned below the KBS Tuff,
> >and the outcrops show no evidence of deflation of a younger unit, supporting an age of >1.855?Ma.
> >Newly recovered faunal material consists primarily of C4 grazers, further confirmed by enamel isotope data.
> >A hominin proximal MT-3 & partial ilium were discovered <50?m from the reconstructed location where ER-2598 was originally found,
> >but these cannot be associated directly with the occipital.
> >The postcrania are cons.x fossil Homo, and may represent the earliest postcrania attributable to H.erectus.
> >
> >Excellent, thanks!
> >
> >> >> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
> >
> >> "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H.erectus cranium in
> >> overall cranial shape (Fig. 4)."
> >
> >Yes, Mojokerto = river delta + shellfish etc.:
> >and why does our little boy believe that archaic Homo could not have followed the Ind.Ocean shores + the rivers inland??
> >:-DDD
> That's possible, but the fossil record suggests they would have to
> move out of inland Africa first, because that's where the earliest
> representatives of Homo were found.
> If you disagree then you should state clearly what you think is the
> oldest representative of our genus (i.e. the first appearance datum of
> Homo). I dare you, but I'm pretty sure you'll evade that challenge
> with fanciful scenario's about Miocene Homo in Asia.
> >Ever heard of the retroviral evidence that human Pliocene ancestors were NOT even in Africa??
> >Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11.
> Yeah, see Discussion in that paper:
> https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110#s3
>
> Do the authors suggest that an excursion by early hominids to Eurasia
> during the time that PTERV1 infected African great apes is the only
> speculative scenario to explain the absence of retrovirus in both the
> orangutan and human lineages?

Pandora wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 05:22:20 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go to Asia, Darwin said.
>
> What Darwin really said about the birthplace and antiquity of man in
> 1871, The Descent of Man, p.199:
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=image&pageseq=212
>
>> Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.
>
> Earliest representatives of that taxon are from Africa:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22208-x
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
>

Our closest genetic relatives are in Africa...

kudu runner:
> Our closest genetic relatives are in Africa...

:-DDD
Of course, my little little boy, of course: Pan & Gorilla ancestors were in Africa when Homo was in S-Asia:
• “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 in the australopithecines ... 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.
• In the S.African fossils incl.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 spm of A.afarensis, “the lower third premolar of ‘A.afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987.
• “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 cs1984.
• “Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & 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 cs 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 1954.
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 & 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.
• “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 [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 and 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.
• “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.
• “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 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.

IOW,
-E.Afr.apiths = fossil Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths = fossil Pan.

It's really not difficult, even you can understand:

Late-Miocene hominids survived in (incipient) Red Sea forests:
-Gorilla 8-7 Ma followed the (incipient) N-Rift -> Lucy->boisei etc.
6-5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
-Pan went right: E.Afr.coast -> c 4 Ma incipient S-Rift -> Taung->robustus etc.
-Homo went left: S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.Mojokerto etc.

C.Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11:
"Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans"
RV infections of the germ-line have the potential to episodically alter gene function & genome structure during evolution.
Horizontal transmissions between spp have been proposed, but little evidence exists for such events in the human/gr.ape lineage of evolution.
Based on analysis of finished BAC chimp genome sequence, we characterize a RV element P.troglodytes endogenous RV-1:
PTERV1 has become integrated in the germline of Afr.gr.ape & Old World monkey spp, but is absent from humans & Asian ape genomes.
We unambiguously map 287 RV integration sites: c 95.8% of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related spp.
Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous RV reveals:
Gorilla & Pan elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the OLW retroviral elements,
but the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule.
Within the chimp, there is a significant integration bias against genes: only 14 of these insertions map within intronic regions.
6 out of 10 of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human & chimp.
Our data are cons.x a RV infection that bombarded Pan & Gorilla genomes independently & concurrently, 3–4 Ma.
We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of humans & gr.apes.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Pongids & hylobatids live in SE.Asia: if you want to find human ancestral fossils, go
> to Asia, Darwin said. Indeed, Eugène Dubois found H.erectus.

Let's not get carried away here. Darwin couldn't pee without staining his
socks yellow, the man was so worthless. He had the secrets of inheritance
cracked, for example. Mendel had worked it all out, he contacted Darwin
but he didn't need to. An exert of his work was published in a book Darwin
owned and read -- or at least moved his lips while flipping through all the
pages -- AND HE STILL GOT IT ALL WRONG!

Darwin was such a waste product that it's actually a misnomer to even
associate him with evolution. For two reasons.

Darwin's topic wasn't evolution, it was common descent. He believed
this was somehow his, or the family's property, as his grandfather was
a major proponent amongst the snot encrusted, stick-up-the-ass
British aristocrats. Secondly...

Darwin's one and only theory was called "Pangenesis," and it's pretty
EXACTLY what people OPPOSED TO evolution adopted.

In the communist world, under Stalin and then Mao, evolution was
forbidden. It was denounced as a western, capitalist excuse for
racism and class warfare -- "Our victims are less evolved. They
deserve it."

So the communist world REJECTED EVOLUTION, they banned it,
you could go to prison for teach/advocating evolution and in its
place they put lysenkoism, which is Darwin's Pangenesis with a
precious few alterations that in no way allow any room for
validate Darwin's stupidity.

No, sorry, Darwin was such a waste product that he didn't even
believe in evolution!

On the bright side, by becoming the name and face of naturalism
and discarding Mendel, Darwin single handedly stopped the
English speaking world from seeing any sort of scientific
advancement regarding evolution... for 20 years.

He needs to be reviled. Darwin is the prime example of the
dangers of the status quo, of "Authority" and "Status" over
facts.

Piltdown Man was allowed to occur for the very same reasons
that Darwin's stupidity was allowed to stand for two decades.

Piltdown Man was FAR LESS of a mistake, less damaging...

Darwin needs to be dug up, his corpse salted & burned.

-- --

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

snorkel noser wrote:
> kudu runner:
>> Our closest genetic relatives are in Africa...
>
> Of course

:=}