Op 26-12-2023 om 17:18 schreef Marc Verhaegen:

> 25 december 2023 JTEM: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/
> What happened is that they found a skull, it was by no means what so ever an erectus skull and the speculation went like this: the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had previously been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others. AND THEN A STUDENT decided that it was closest to erectus. Which is stupid. Actually, he became a Phd candidate AFTER he made his determination... Funny how not a one "Expert" saw an erectus skull, but everyone is onboard with the determination of an undergraduate...
> It's just another example of PROPAGANDA being pushed as science. It's rubbish. The Out of Africa purity gospels are threatened by Asian finds, so we have >> to ignore the Asian finds and invent African finds... And here you are, rehashing old "Finds" in order to troll for a stupid and thoroughly refuted theory... https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/s6luqxT55zU/m/ajRu2ASmBAAJ
>
> Yes, JTEM, you're completely right:
> Some ridiculous antlope runner believes: "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H.erectus cranium in overall cranial shape (Fig.4)" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F4
>
> In fact, there's 0 evidence DHN-134 was erectus: no platycephaly, no pachyosteosclerosis!

That's because it's a juvenile, just like Mojokerto. Such characters are
not expressed to such a degree in juveniles, because they result from
differential growth during ontogeny.

Besides, with a cranial capacity of 538 cc DNH 134 is already well above
the mean of 493 cc for A. robustus. That would be highly unlikely for a
juvenile specimen of that taxon.

See:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573

> Only prejudiced savanna believers want to see erectus in this fossil.

The only reason why you deny it that taxonomic assignment is because you
can't use such an early African Homo in your hypothesis of human evolution.

Op 27-12-2023 om 18:17 schreef Marc Verhaegen:

> Op woensdag 27 december 2023 om 12:57:37 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:
>
> the usual blabla: the poor man?woman doesn't even know what platycephaly & pachyosteosclerosis mean.
> And 538 cc fits with male Au.robustus, but is only half that of H.erectus!
> Imbecilic kudu runners... :-DDD
>
>> Op 26-12-2023 om 17:18 schreef Marc Verhaegen:
>>> 25 december 2023 JTEM: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/
>>> What happened is that they found a skull, it was by no means what so ever an erectus skull and the speculation went like this: the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had previously been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others. AND THEN A STUDENT decided that it was closest to erectus. Which is stupid. Actually, he became a Phd candidate AFTER he made his determination... Funny how not a one "Expert" saw an erectus skull, but everyone is onboard with the determination of an undergraduate...
>>> It's just another example of PROPAGANDA being pushed as science. It's rubbish. The Out of Africa purity gospels are threatened by Asian finds, so we have >> to ignore the Asian finds and invent African finds... And here you are, rehashing old "Finds" in order to troll for a stupid and thoroughly refuted theory... https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/s6luqxT55zU/m/ajRu2ASmBAAJ
>
>>> Yes, JTEM, you're completely right:
>>> Some ridiculous antlope runner believes: "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the Mojokerto H.erectus cranium in overall cranial shape (Fig.4)" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F4
>>> In fact, there's 0 evidence DHN-134 was erectus: no platycephaly, no pachyosteosclerosis!
>
>> That's because it's a juvenile, just like Mojokerto. Such characters are
>> not expressed to such a degree in juveniles, because they result from
>> differential growth during ontogeny.
>>
>> Besides, with a cranial capacity of 538 cc DNH 134 is already well above
>> the mean of 493 cc for A. robustus. That would be highly unlikely for a
>> juvenile specimen of that taxon. See
>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471663573
>
> Only prejudiced savanna believers want to see erectus in this fossil.

This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
cranial capacity 450 cc):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2

Compare to DNH 134:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2

Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
differences that would exclude DNH 134 from being a male A. robustus.

Now compare to KNM-WT 42700, an adult H. erectus with a cranial capacity
of only 691 cc:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-KNM-ER-42700-calvaria-and-KNM-ER-42703-partial-maxillaa-Anterior-b-left-lateral_fig1_6152892

(cranial capacity is even smaller in adult male Dmanisi 5 (546 cc)).

Pandora wrote:

> This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
> cranial capacity 450 cc):
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2
>
> Compare to DNH 134:
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2

One is a juvenile the other is an adult. It's a frigging STUPID
comparison!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5442144/

Wow. Juveniles are not just miniature replicas of adults in
all cases...

> Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
> differences that would exclude DNH 134 from being a male A. robustus.

I won't embarrass you by asking how, when skull capacity was
so unambiguous, it was initially suggested to be a baboon, or a buck
and hyaena, amongst possibilities. Clearly baboons and hyaenas
have a skull capacity pushing 600 cc, because you could not possibly
be THAT MUCH of a nincompoop...

Speaking of nincompoops; you cherry picked the largest estimate
for skull capacity. And being a nincompoop who is required to
view everything in isolation -- because models wreck you -- you
conveniently ignored the fact that skull capacity is circular: You
base skull capacity in VERY large part on your conclusion that it's
erectus!

The skull is a fragment.

What are you pretending is the growth rate?

If you had a model -- if you're not a nincompoop -- and you claim
that you know the skull capacity and this positively rules out THIS
or THAT, then you know the growth rate for BOTH what you are
ruling out and what you are advancing.

Also:

Paranthropus.

Oh I know these things are iffy but you have a skull fragment, you're
calling it a juvenile -- which would mean we could reasonably expect
differences from an adult -- and even your admittedly generous
estimates on cranial capacity leave the space for Paranthropus, which
it was found along side of...

Occam's Razor, dude.

You are literally waving around the most EXTREME answer here, and
doing so without any support but with lots of contradictions.

Pretty typical of the fake science we know of as paleo anthropology.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737861960596586496

Op 28-12-2023 om 00:06 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
>> cranial capacity 450 cc):
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2
>>
>> Compare to DNH 134:
>>
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2
>
>
> One is a juvenile the other is an adult. It's a frigging STUPID
> comparison!

But that is exactly what the other nincompoop did! He compared DNH 134
with adult H. erectus and then concluded on the basis of the absence of
adult characters (platycephaly and skeletal robusticity) that it does
not belong in that taxon.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5442144/
>
> Wow. Juveniles are not just miniature replicas of adults in
> all cases...

Then what are the diagnostic characters that would identify DNH 134 as a
male A. robustus? The other nincompoop didn't mention any.

>> Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
>> differences that would exclude DNH 134 from being a male A. robustus.
>
> I won't embarrass you by asking how, when skull capacity was
> so unambiguous, it was initially suggested to be a baboon, or a buck
> and hyaena, amongst possibilities. Clearly baboons and hyaenas
> have a skull capacity pushing 600 cc, because you could not possibly
> be THAT MUCH of a nincompoop...
>
> Speaking of nincompoops; you cherry picked the largest estimate
> for skull capacity. And being a nincompoop who is required to
> view everything in isolation -- because models wreck you -- you
> conveniently ignored the fact that skull capacity is circular: You
> base skull capacity in VERY large part on your conclusion that it's
> erectus!

I used the estimate of 538 cm3 based on linear regression, with a 95%
single prediction band from 514 to 564 cm3. The reference sample
consists of human, erectus, gorilla, orangutan, and chimpanzee.

The other estimate, based on multiple thin-plate spline reconstructions,
has a larger range (484 to 593 cm3) but is consistent with this
estimate. Thus, estimated brain size in the juvenile DNH 134 overlaps
with the high end of the range of adult Australopithecus and Paranthropus.
And that's kind of a paradox, because juveniles are not supposed to do that.

> The skull is a fragment.
>
> What are you pretending is the growth rate?

"Assuming an age at death between 2 and 3 years, DNH 134 could have
reached a cranial capacity between 588 and 661 cm3 or 551 and 577 cm3
according to a human or a chimpanzee growth model, respectively."
That's both outside the range of known adult A. robustus.

Therefore, there is no justification on the basis of morphology and
cranial capacity to conclude that DNH 134 is probably a male A. robustus.

On the other hand, the striking similarity of DNH 134 with the juvenile
erectus from Mojokerto...
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F4

Pandora wrote:

> But that is exactly what the other nincompoop did! He compared DNH 134
> with adult H. erectus and then concluded on the basis of the absence of
> adult characters (platycephaly and skeletal robusticity) that it does
> not belong in that taxon.

You just keep rehashing the exact same error... isolation.

Nobody saw erectus. So all the "Clear affinities" with erectus, and other
nonsense, were never ever clear... IF you widen your view to include how
long it took before anyone claimed this was "Clear."

Which is why you need to view isolated pieces and never the whole picture.

And why would erectus ever evolve there? Apparently there was so little
selective pressure in the area that more than 1.5 million years later you
still had Naledi running around there...

So the good Doctor offers a model, a complete picture, and you insist on
viewing every little detail in isolation... because you need to. If you don't,
you have a juvenile found with the remains of what is NOT erectus, which
you call erectus based on cherry picked estimates on everything from age
to cranial capacity.

> Then what are the diagnostic characters that would identify DNH 134 as a
> male A. robustus?

I saw what I thought was a squirrel earlier. But it didn't appear to display any
of the diagnostic characteristics of A. robustus, so I guess that makes the
squirrel a living example of erectus. If it doesn't, your so called "Argument"
needs some work.

> I used the estimate of 538 cm3 based on linear regression

You quoted a story, cherry picking the biggest number.

> The reference sample
> consists of human, erectus, gorilla, orangutan, and chimpanzee.

So you admit that you are ignoring what it was found with... ignoring for
the moment that you just removed erectus from the genus Homo.

"Look! Oh, look! I'm rigging the game here!"

> The other estimate, based on multiple thin-plate spline reconstructions,
> has a larger range (484 to 593 cm3) but is consistent with this
> estimate. Thus, estimated brain size in the juvenile DNH 134 overlaps
> with the high end of the range of adult Australopithecus and Paranthropus.
> And that's kind of a paradox, because juveniles are not supposed to do that.

So people legitimately thought they were looking at a hyena, it's cranial
capacity was so massive, and... oops! Gotta isolate ourselves from
everything, don't we? Otherwise your really dumb position kind of looks dumb.

Really dumb.

> "Assuming an age at death between 2 and 3 years

What if we assume something else? Why insist on 2 to 3 years?

> according to a human or a chimpanzee growth model

So cranial capacity honestly is circular. It's based on your conclusion, you
just admitted, rather then a basis for a conclusion.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/737907184184279040