Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

Google
"aquarboreal"
"gondwana bonne verhaegen"

:-)

On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

Falsified twice recently:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

On 5/31/23 6:45 AM, Pandora wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
>
> Falsified twice recently:
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
>
> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

It's a characteristic of kooks that they reject phylogenetics, so you
can't bring up that sort of thing. Look at Feduccia. Look at Schwartz.
And of course look at Verhaegen.

On Wed, 31 May 2023 08:42:23 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/31/23 6:45 AM, Pandora wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
>> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
>>
>> Falsified twice recently:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
>>
>> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
>> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.
>
>It's a characteristic of kooks that they reject phylogenetics, so you
>can't bring up that sort of thing.

D'oh!

> Look at Feduccia. Look at Schwartz.

With Schwartz you mean Jeffrey H. Schwartz, I presume?
>And of course look at Verhaegen.

Verhaegen is not even in the same league as Feduccia and Schwartz.
Despite his stubborn opposition to birds as dinosaurs, Professor
Feduccia is still quite knowledgeable in his field of expertise,
ornithology, as Professor Schwartz is in the field of biological
anthropology, despite his stubborn support for an orangutan origin of
humans.
Verhaegen has no such credentials

On 5/31/23 10:08 AM, Pandora wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 08:42:23 -0700, John Harshman
> <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/23 6:45 AM, Pandora wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
>>> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
>>>
>>> Falsified twice recently:
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
>>>
>>> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
>>> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.
>>
>> It's a characteristic of kooks that they reject phylogenetics, so you
>> can't bring up that sort of thing.
>
> D'oh!
>
>> Look at Feduccia. Look at Schwartz.
>
> With Schwartz you mean Jeffrey H. Schwartz, I presume?

Yes, the "orangutans are the sister group of humans" guy.

>> And of course look at Verhaegen.
>
> Verhaegen is not even in the same league as Feduccia and Schwartz.
> Despite his stubborn opposition to birds as dinosaurs, Professor
> Feduccia is still quite knowledgeable in his field of expertise,
> ornithology, as Professor Schwartz is in the field of biological
> anthropology, despite his stubborn support for an orangutan origin of
> humans.
> Verhaegen has no such credentials

Feduccia is knowledgeable in some things, but phylogenetics isn't one of
them. He is well versed in avian anatomy, osteology in particular. But
he doesn't have a clue what to do with that. I will grant that Verhaegen
has shown no comparable knowledge of hominids. Still, there's enough
similarity to make the category valid.

> >Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

some kudu runner:
> Falsified twice recently:

:-DDD

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

:-DDD
My little little boy, this is about *Ardipithecus*!!
For my view on Ardip, see my recent book, e.g.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
In t has 0 to do with my publications, e.g.

MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN AUSTRALOPITHECINE, HUMAN AND APE SKULLS
Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil and living species of hominoids. The comparison is based upon a balanced list of craniodental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain, 1986). The conclusions are: craniodentally the australopithecine species are a unique and rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans; overall, their skull and dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES?
Human Evolution 9: 121-139, 1994
Since australopithecines display humanlike traits such as short ilia, relatively small front teeth and thick molar enamel, they are usually assumed to be related to Homo rather than to Pan or Gorilla. However, this assumption is not supported by many other of their features.
This paper briefly surveys the literature concerning craniodental comparisons of australopith species with those of bonobos, common chimps, humans and gorillas, adult and immature. It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data, that the large australopiths of East Africa were in many instances anatomically and therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo, and the South African australopiths nearer to Pan and Homo than to Gorilla. An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided. It is suggested that the evidence concerning the relation of the different australopithecines with humans, chimpanzees and gorillas should be re-evaluated.
....
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.

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 06:46:19 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
>
>some kudu runner:
>> Falsified twice recently:
>
>:-DDD
>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
>> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
>> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.
>
>:-DDD
>My little little boy, this is about *Ardipithecus*!!

Nope, it's about all hominins for which data are available.
This is their single most parsimonious tree from the 2019 paper:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg

And this is the result of their Bayesian Inference Analysis (with
posterior probabilities (%) at the nodes):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr3.jpg

Both Gorilla and Pan are outside the hominin clade. Therefore neither
Australopithecus nor Paranthropus can be their ancestor.
QED.

Op donderdag 1 juni 2023 om 16:46:09 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> >> >Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

kudu runner:
> >> Falsified twice recently:

> >:-DDD

> >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
> >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
> >> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
> >> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

> >:-DDD
> >My little little boy, this is about *Ardipithecus*!!

> Nope, it's about all hominins for which data are available.

Grow up, my boy:
the word "hominin" already *preassumes* that apiths are closer relatives of H than of G or P!
Inform, e.g. google "WHATtalk verhaegen":
- some apiths (africanus->robustus) were closer relatives of H than of G (but closer to P>H>G),
- other apiths (afarensis->boisei) are equally close to H & P (but closer to G>HP).

This is the single most parsimonious tree:
Praeanthr.afarensis->boisei (northern-Rift) evolved // Australop.africanus->robustus (southern-Rift),
meanwhile Homo (no African retrovirus!) was in southern Asia.

See my book p.299-300:
my 2021 hypothesis "Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings":
- 25 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island-peninsula-archipels, rich in coastal forests:
Catarrhini that reached these forests became "aquarboreal"(google): bipedal wading + climbing arms overhead,
- 20 Ma India further underneath Eurasia split lesser (E) & great (W) apes in Tethys Ocean coastal forests,
- 15 Ma the Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongids (E: Ind.Ocean forests) & hominids (W: Medit.coasts),
- 8 Ma, Med.Sea hominids-dryopiths died out (drought?), only Red Sea (incipient) survived: HPG,
Gorilla-Praeanthropus followed the incipient northern-Rift: from late-Pliocene afarensis to early-Pleist.boisei,
- 5.33 Ma, the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf/Aden (Francesca Mansfield):
-- Pan-Australopith. went right: the E.Afr.coast -->incipient southern-Rift -->afrcanus-->robustus (// Praeanthropus),
-- Homo (no African retrovirus!) went left along the S.Asian coast -->Java early-Pleistocene H.erectus shellfish-diving:
olfactory atrophy (no hunting!), stone tools, larger brain (seafood + DHA), shell engravings (google "Joordens Munro"),
external nose (back-floating // sea-otter), pachyosteosclerosis (only seen in slow-divers!) etc.etc.etc.

Simple & (bio)logical... :-)
Only *incredible* idiots believe their Plio-Pleist.ancestors (poor olfaction!!) ran after African antelopes. :-D

Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes!

(Most or all "habilis", "denisova", "naledi" are probably Pan-Australopithecus, not Homo = anthropocentrism!
Bonobos are also more humanlike than common chimps, and much more than gorillas.
Google e.g. "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi".)

On 5/31/23 11:42, John Harshman wrote:
>
> It's a characteristic

why feed trolls

On 6/2/23 6:44 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> On 5/31/23 11:42, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> It's a characteristic
>
>
> why feed trolls

Are you claiming that Pandora is a troll?

Pandora wrote:

> marc verhaegen <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

> Falsified twice recently:

Liar.

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X

How does this supposedly falsify him? You do this a lot. You post
random cites you never read and couldn't understand...

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

You're retarded. Seriously. This couldn't be any less conclusive about
ANYTHING, and certainly does address "Aquarboreal" at all.

> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

Lol!

You honestly have no clue what so ever.

Pan & Gorilla evolved from bipedal ancestors. Their ancestors looked
more like Homo than Pan or Gorilla.

You're comparing Pan & Gorilla RIGHT NOW to animals that lived
millions of years ago and then saying they don't match. THEN you
compare animals that lived millions of years ago to other animals
that lived millions of years ago, and declaring that they're a closer
match.

What a fucking STUPID thing to do!

-- --

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Europe is more verdant now than it was in 1900.
> >
> It does not help anymore that some forest has been
> grown back as the fossil fuel burning is too big emission.

You're dishonest.

You raised the reduction in trees -- even though they've
actually increased in number -- pretending that this was
a great factor in your precious Gwobull Warbling.

But it defeats you.

Because according to your mythology, burning trees is
"Carbon Neutral." So a permissible alternative to using
fossil fuels, according to the AGW fairy tale, is burning
trees. As there is no way to burn a tree and allow it to
remain growing, every "Carbon Neutral" tree burned
results in one fewer tree.

> > But if you're going to "Argue" your deforestation, and not
> > just throw it out there as a cheap rationalization, you go
> > ahead and do that.
> >
> > How much CO2 did the missing trees absorb? What are
> > emissions today?
> >
> About half billion hectares that absorbs 7.5 Gt.

China surpassed 11 Gigatons already, though they are notorious
for under reporting. For all we know they're past 12 or 20...

> I already posted that todays numbers are way more massive:

Trees? You're right. There's a lot more today than in 1900.

> Emission 2022 from coal burning

Over half burned in China, officially, but they did announce a
massive increase in planned consumption...

> 15.5
> 11.2 Gt
> 7.3 Gt.

You're dishonest to the core.

There's no equivalent.

Wood, which is considered "Green" and a solid alternative to
fossil fuels, has higher CO2 emissions than even coal.

Coal has the highest CO2 emissions of any fossil fuel.

CO2 really doesn't matter. The claim that it's a climate drive
is thoroughly debunked.

You're just throwing out a confused jumble of numbers, hoping
to sound "Sciency."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719194335256674305

Pandora wrote:

> Nope, it's about all hominins for which data are available.

No it isn't. It's about building models that account for both
available data and missing data; a "Hypothesis."

> This is their single most parsimonious tree from the 2019 paper:

This is a discussion group, yet all you ever want to do is cite
your scripture, which you never read much less understood,
and uphold your priests.

> And this is the result of their Bayesian Inference Analysis

Naleldi is 900,000 years old, according to such "Analysis."

That's a error margin of only 300 to 450%. "Close" by nuclear
weapons standards, I suppose...

> Both Gorilla and Pan are outside the hominin clade.

Seeing how BOTH are living millions of years AFTER the
fossils you're comparing them to, and BOTH evolved from
a bipedal ancestor, you're an idiot for saying that.

"LOOK AT THIS EGG! It's oval, for Christ's sake, and do you
see any feathers? Clearly it's unrelated to any Chicken!"

-- --

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Europe is more verdant now than it was in 1900.
> >
> It does not help anymore that some forest has been
> grown back as the fossil fuel burning is too big emission.

You're dishonest.

You raised the reduction in trees -- even though they've
actually increased in number -- pretending that this was
a great factor in your precious Gwobull Warbling.

But it defeats you.

Because according to your mythology, burning trees is
"Carbon Neutral." So a permissible alternative to using
fossil fuels, according to the AGW fairy tale, is burning
trees. As there is no way to burn a tree and allow it to
remain growing, every "Carbon Neutral" tree burned
results in one fewer tree.

> > But if you're going to "Argue" your deforestation, and not
> > just throw it out there as a cheap rationalization, you go
> > ahead and do that.
> >
> > How much CO2 did the missing trees absorb? What are
> > emissions today?
> >
> About half billion hectares that absorbs 7.5 Gt.

China surpassed 11 Gigatons already, though they are notorious
for under reporting. For all we know they're past 12 or 20...

> I already posted that todays numbers are way more massive:

Trees? You're right. There's a lot more today than in 1900.

> Emission 2022 from coal burning

Over half burned in China, officially, but they did announce a
massive increase in planned consumption...

> 15.5
> 11.2 Gt
> 7.3 Gt.

You're dishonest to the core.

There's no equivalent.

Wood, which is considered "Green" and a solid alternative to
fossil fuels, has higher CO2 emissions than even coal.

Coal has the highest CO2 emissions of any fossil fuel.

CO2 really doesn't matter. The claim that it's a climate drive
is thoroughly debunked.

You're just throwing out a confused jumble of numbers, hoping
to sound "Sciency."

...not saying you're a moron but, you are a moron,

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719194335256674305

On 6/4/23 11:19 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
>> marc verhaegen <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
>
>> Falsified twice recently:
>
> Liar.
>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
>
> How does this supposedly falsify him? You do this a lot. You post
> random cites you never read and couldn't understand...

SPROING!

>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
>
> You're retarded. Seriously. This couldn't be any less conclusive about
> ANYTHING, and certainly does address "Aquarboreal" at all.
>
>> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
>> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.
>
> Lol!
>
> You honestly have no clue what so ever.
>
> Pan & Gorilla evolved from bipedal ancestors. Their ancestors looked
> more like Homo than Pan or Gorilla.
>
> You're comparing Pan & Gorilla RIGHT NOW to animals that lived
> millions of years ago and then saying they don't match. THEN you
> compare animals that lived millions of years ago to other animals
> that lived millions of years ago, and declaring that they're a closer
> match.
>
> What a fucking STUPID thing to do!

It appears that neither JTEM nor his buddy are acquainted with
phylogenetic analysis.

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > How does this supposedly falsify him? You do this a lot. You post
> > random cites you never read and couldn't understand...

> SPROING!

So no answer.

> It appears that neither JTEM nor his buddy are acquainted with
> phylogenetic analysis.

Look. I just spelled this out in no uncertain terms, without you grasping
it, so there's no hope here. And, honestly, your disorder won't allow you
to admit your frequent mistakes. But...

You're "Analyzing" things that don't exist. There are no Chimp or Gorilla
fossils for you to analyze. The oldest claimed Chimp fossils are just
teeth, and that's hardly definitive, and they're only about half a million
years old. Sediba is like 2 million years old.

There is nothing even remotely similar to valid in your claims. Nothing.

You don't even seem to be aware of the massive temporal divide here,
or the fact that evolution has been occurring the whole time!

AND, just to rest that cherry on top here: These "Homo" traits aren't
"Homo" traits. They predate Homo.

Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo, the human hand is the more
derived... etc.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719194335256674305

On 6/4/23 12:35 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>>> How does this supposedly falsify him? You do this a lot. You post
>>> random cites you never read and couldn't understand...
>
>> SPROING!
>
> So no answer.
>
>> It appears that neither JTEM nor his buddy are acquainted with
>> phylogenetic analysis.
>
> Look. I just spelled this out in no uncertain terms, without you grasping
> it, so there's no hope here. And, honestly, your disorder won't allow you
> to admit your frequent mistakes. But...
>
> You're "Analyzing" things that don't exist. There are no Chimp or Gorilla
> fossils for you to analyze. The oldest claimed Chimp fossils are just
> teeth, and that's hardly definitive, and they're only about half a million
> years old. Sediba is like 2 million years old.
>
> There is nothing even remotely similar to valid in your claims. Nothing.
>
> You don't even seem to be aware of the massive temporal divide here,
> or the fact that evolution has been occurring the whole time!
>
> AND, just to rest that cherry on top here: These "Homo" traits aren't
> "Homo" traits. They predate Homo.
>
> Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo, the human hand is the more
> derived... etc.

As I said, you seem unfamiliar with phylogenetic analysis. And so you
spout irrelevancies.

John Harshman wrote:

> As I said

You make stupid pronouncement. You're *way* out of your
league here, which is why you resort to the sock puppets.

You know what you are, too.

There are no Chimp or Gorilla fossils contemporary to Ardi
or anything else you care to misunderstand. Now the
safest, most conservative, absolute simplest answer is that
we have found Chimp ancestors, they just don't look like
Chimps. Because they didn't. Because they looked like Homo.
They were bipedal, for example...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719194335256674305

On 6/4/23 1:22 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> As I said
>
> You make stupid pronouncement. You're *way* out of your
> league here, which is why you resort to the sock puppets.

No sock puppets. The people you are insulting are all really different
people. I know Pandora, and she's a real vertebrate paleontologist. I'm
a real phylogeneticist. You, on the other hand, have shown no
understanding of any scientific field.

> You know what you are, too.
>
> There are no Chimp or Gorilla fossils contemporary to Ardi
> or anything else you care to misunderstand. Now the
> safest, most conservative, absolute simplest answer is that
> we have found Chimp ancestors, they just don't look like
> Chimps. Because they didn't. Because they looked like Homo.
> They were bipedal, for example...

So you're saying that the data we don't have would, if we had it,
support your claims. But other people are pointing that the data we do
have don't support your claims, and in fact contradict them strongly. So
which do we rely on, the data we have or the data we don't?

I'm willing to bet you didn't even look at the references.

> >> >Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

kudu runner:
> >> Falsified twice recently:

> >:-DDD

> >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
> >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
> >> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
> >> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

> >:-DDD My little little boy, this is about *Ardipithecus*!!

kudu runner:
> Nope, it's about all hominins for which data are available.

:-DDD
Only incredible imbeciles still use the prejudiced word "hominin" = they *preassume* that apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla, which is BS, of course:
1) our absence of Pliocene African retroviral DNA shows that our Pliocene ancestors were NOT in Africa (they followed S-Asian coasts, google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen"),
2) orangutans have numerous fossil relatives, but many PAs still anthropocentrically believe that chimps nor gorilla could have had fossil relatives, and that all African hominid fossils were closer relatives of Homo!? :-D
3) simple objective morphological comparisons show that early E.Afr.hominids were fossil members of Gorilla, and that S.Afr.apiths were fossil members of Pan:

Some quotations on ape-like features in australopith crania:
• “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.
• “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 [? MV] in the australopithecines parallel [? MV] 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.
• “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.

Some 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).

Some 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.

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > There are no Chimp or Gorilla fossils contemporary to Ardi
> > or anything else you care to misunderstand. Now the
> > safest, most conservative, absolute simplest answer is that
> > we have found Chimp ancestors, they just don't look like
> > Chimps. Because they didn't. Because they looked like Homo.
> > They were bipedal, for example...

> So you're saying that the data we don't have would, if we had it,
> support your claims.

No, you blithering idiot. YOU are saying that. You're saying "Well
we don't have Chimp and Gorilla ancestors to compare anything
to but if we do compare them then they're different."

I'm saying you're a frigging idiot and the simplest, most conservative
answer is that we do have Chimp & Gorilla ancestors, their fossils.

They just don't look like Chimps and Gorillas.

But either way it doesn't matter. Whatever age you want to cherry
pick for the LCA, bipedalism is older. So Chimps still evolved from
a bipedal ancestor.

As the good Doctor pointed out in his excellent Youtube address,
these traits are NOT "Homo" traits. They predate Homo by a long
ways. Most of the history of bipedalism amongst our ancestors
took place BEFORE Homo habilis, popularly credited as the very
first of our genus.

So going by what YOU know, what YOU believe, it's goddamn
freaking STUPID to make the claims YOU are making here.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719347036392243200

Thanks, JTEM.
Pliocene Homo was not in Africa (retroviral evidence), but followed S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus.

Pan & Gorilla fossils are very abundant in Africa, e.g.
-- "On New Perspectives on Ape and Human Evolution" Maxine Kleindienst, Frances Burton & Adriaan Kortlandt 1975 Curr.Anthrop.16:644-651,
-- "The monkey puzzle - are apes descended from Man?" John Gribbin & Jeremy Cherfas 1983.
Maxine Kleindienst thought "graciles"=Pan, "robusts"=Gorilla,
but descriptions are clear IMO:
Gorilla & Pan evolved in parallel from late-Plio-"gracile" to early-Pleisto-"robust":
Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei
// Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus->robustus.

I've only considered afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus in detail (Hum.Evol.1994, 1996), but I'd think so-called
- anamensis, bahrelghazali, deyiremeda, denisova, ??platyops, antiquus, gahri, aethiopicus = Praeanthropus?
- prometheus, transvaalensis, sediba, crassidens, naledi, ??habilis = Australopithecus?
:-D

Some Homo "spp": ??rudolfensis, georgicus, ergaster, floresiensis, luzonensis, mauritanicus, antecessor, denisova, rhodesiensis...
No shortness of names... :-DDD

Google e.g. "WHATtalk verhaegen".

_____

Op dinsdag 6 juni 2023 om 08:37:59 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > There are no Chimp or Gorilla fossils contemporary to Ardi
> > > or anything else you care to misunderstand. Now the
> > > safest, most conservative, absolute simplest answer is that
> > > we have found Chimp ancestors, they just don't look like
> > > Chimps. Because they didn't. Because they looked like Homo.
> > > They were bipedal, for example...
>
> > So you're saying that the data we don't have would, if we had it,
> > support your claims.
> No, you blithering idiot. YOU are saying that. You're saying "Well
> we don't have Chimp and Gorilla ancestors to compare anything
> to but if we do compare them then they're different."
>
> I'm saying you're a frigging idiot and the simplest, most conservative
> answer is that we do have Chimp & Gorilla ancestors, their fossils.
>
> They just don't look like Chimps and Gorillas.
>
> But either way it doesn't matter. Whatever age you want to cherry
> pick for the LCA, bipedalism is older. So Chimps still evolved from
> a bipedal ancestor.
>
> As the good Doctor pointed out in his excellent Youtube address,
> these traits are NOT "Homo" traits. They predate Homo by a long
> ways. Most of the history of bipedalism amongst our ancestors
> took place BEFORE Homo habilis, popularly credited as the very
> first of our genus.
>
> So going by what YOU know, what YOU believe, it's goddamn
> freaking STUPID to make the claims YOU are making here.

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:42:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/31/23 6:45 AM, Pandora wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
> > <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
> >
> > Falsified twice recently:
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
> >
> > These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
> > be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.

It's good to see Pandora posting here to s.b.p. again.
If you and a bunch of other talk.origins regulars hadn't
occupied my attention with off-topic bilge, I would have
looked at sci.bio.paleontology at least ten days ago, and
seen this post in timely fashion.

> It's a characteristic of kooks that they reject phylogenetics, so you
> can't bring up that sort of thing. Look at Feduccia.

Feduccia rejects phylogenetic analyses of bird placement that
do not include representatives from all the major clades of Archosauria.
At one point you admitted that there were very few that
aren't confined to Dinosauria (or even Theropoda?).

You rejected an extensive analysis that did include such representatives, on grounds
that seemed to be very weak to me at the time. It was:

"Cladistics and the Origins of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses,"
by F.C. James and J. A. Pourtless IV, Ornithological Monographs 66 (2009): 1 - 78.

> Look at Schwartz.

I'll pass on that for now.

> And of course look at Verhaegen.

I finally got completely fed up with him. His spam is threatening to destroy s.b.p.
almost as much as that of Thrinaxodon did back in the previous decade. Not as crazy,
but guilty of blatant self-advertisement with no attempt to have a
serious discussion with anyone. Reminiscent of Dr. Dr. Kleinman of talk.origins.

It's a good thing talk.origins is far more robust than sci.bio.paleontology, otherwise
he'd try to take that group over too.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 6/13/23 11:19 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:42:28 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 6:45 AM, Pandora wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 May 2023 04:24:05 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
>>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes
>>>
>>> Falsified twice recently:
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
>>>
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
>>>
>>> These phylogenetic analyses show Australopithecus and Paranthropus to
>>> be part of a clade that includes Homo, but not Pan and Gorilla.
>
> It's good to see Pandora posting here to s.b.p. again.
> If you and a bunch of other talk.origins regulars hadn't
> occupied my attention with off-topic bilge, I would have
> looked at sci.bio.paleontology at least ten days ago, and
> seen this post in timely fashion.
>
>
>> It's a characteristic of kooks that they reject phylogenetics, so you
>> can't bring up that sort of thing. Look at Feduccia.
>
> Feduccia rejects phylogenetic analyses of bird placement that
> do not include representatives from all the major clades of Archosauria.
> At one point you admitted that there were very few that
> aren't confined to Dinosauria (or even Theropoda?).

True, but that's because previous phylogenetic analyses had settled the
issue. He rejects those too. He doesn't like the result, but he also
just doesn't like the methods. This has resulted in some real howlers
over the years, as when he thought that flamingos had descended from one
particular genus of stilt, Cladorhynchus. If I recall, his basis for
that belief was a single character.

> You rejected an extensive analysis that did include such representatives, on grounds
> that seemed to be very weak to me at the time. It was:
>
> "Cladistics and the Origins of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses,"
> by F.C. James and J. A. Pourtless IV, Ornithological Monographs 66 (2009): 1 - 78.

Yes, that's widely considered a joke in the systematics community.
BANDits love it. We could discuss it if you really want. Maybe Pandora
even has an opinion on it. But if so, I guarantee it won't be favorable.

> > Look at Schwartz.
>
> I'll pass on that for now.
>
>
>> And of course look at Verhaegen.
>
> I finally got completely fed up with him. His spam is threatening to destroy s.b.p.
> almost as much as that of Thrinaxodon did back in the previous decade. Not as crazy,
> but guilty of blatant self-advertisement with no attempt to have a
> serious discussion with anyone. Reminiscent of Dr. Dr. Kleinman of talk.origins.
>
> It's a good thing talk.origins is far more robust than sci.bio.paleontology, otherwise
> he'd try to take that group over too.

Ignoring is a good strategy.

> >>>> Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes

Some incredible imbecile:
> >>> Falsified twice recently:
> >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
> >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713

Not at all: these papers are about Ardipithecus & anamensis!!
Why not read them before trying to use them?? :-D

Pongo is believed by PAs to have lots of fossil relatives, but for some obscure reason (anthropocentric prejudices) PAs believe Pan nor Gorilla had 0 fossil relatives... :-D
In fact,
-retroviral DNA shows Pliocene human ancestors were not even in Africa (of course: early-Pleist.H.erectus on Java!),
-both simple anatomical comparisons as well as detailed comparative measuremants show that
-- E.Afr.apiths afarensis & boisei were fossil relatives of Gorilla,
-- S.Afr.africanus & robustus, of Pan:

Australopith crania were very apelike, and became gradually more apelike:
• “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 [also] 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 1989.
• “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 7 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 afarensis, “the lower third premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987.
• “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 cs 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 cs 1984.
• “... 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 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.

E.African australopith crania become more & more gorilla-like:
• “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 & 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 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.
• boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.

S.African australopith crania become more & more chimp-like:
• “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 1981:74-75.
• “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 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, only *incredible* imbeciles still believe they descend from apiths:
Pliocene Homo simply followed the S.Asian Ind.Ocean coasts -> early-Pleist.Java H.erectus.

I showed this already a few decades ago, and all infm since confirms this:
-large E.Afr.apiths = Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths = Pan.

MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN AUSTRALOPITHECINE, HUMAN AND APE SKULLS
Hum.Evol.11: 35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil & living spp of hominoids. The comparison is based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters, corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain 1986). The conclusions are:
- cranio-dentally the australopithp spp are a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans,
- overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimp's do.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES?
Hum.Evol.9: 121-139, 1994
Since australopiths display humanlike traits such as short ilia, relatively small front teeth and thick molar enamel, they are usu.assumed to be related to Homo rather than to Pan or Gorilla.
But this assumption is not supported by many other of their features.
This paper briefly surveys the literature concerning cranio-dental comparisons of australopith spp with bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature.
It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data:
- the large australopiths of E.Africa were in many instances anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo,
- the S.African australopiths were evolutionarily nearer to Pan & Homo than to Gorilla.
An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided. ...

JTEM wrote:

> Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo, the human hand is the more
> derived... etc.

LESS. I stated it backwards. And nobody noticed.

Figures.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720218067717734400

On 6/17/23 6:22 PM, JTEM wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
>> Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo, the human hand is the more
>> derived... etc.
>
> LESS. I stated it backwards. And nobody noticed.
>
> Figures.

Who can tell how much of your incoherent jabbering is intentional and
how much isn't? And, let's face it, does anyone even have a reason to
wade through it?