Lucy = fossil Gorilla species?
Marc Verhaegen
Israeli researchers:
'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
http://tinyurl.com/yw2an8
Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that
"Lucy" - the world-famous 3.2-Ma Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found
in Ethiopia 33 years ago - is the last ancestor common to humans and another
branch of the great apes family known as the "Robust hominids." The
specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called
Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler
School of Medicine's department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, "The
presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis
and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a
common ancestor."
PNAS 104:6568-72
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests
Au.afarensis link to robust australopiths
Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg & Eli Geffen 2007
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of
Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding
was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of
humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other
primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the
gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in
fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This
particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The
presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au.afarensis and its
absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au.afarensis as a modern
human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is
virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic
scenario.
_____
Of course, there's no evidence that Lucy was our ancestor. Lucy probably
belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have been in its own
species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333, DIK-1 etc.), and
afarensis was very Afr.apelike, more gorilla- than chimplike, eg,
· Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from
A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla."
· Kimbel cs.1984: "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 mates 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 &
Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial
cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the
extant apes."
· Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated
[enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the
modem great apes."
· Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African
apes and also, although at a different rare 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."
· Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern
African apes than to modern humans."
· Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "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 non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the
protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens."
· Schoenemann 1989: "the lower third premolar...LH-4 (afarensis type
specimen) is completely apelike."
· Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most
similar to that observed in Gorilla."
. Alemseged cs.2006: "...including a hyoid that has a typical African ape
morphology. The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear
evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorillalike scapula and long &
curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal
behaviour in A.afarensis."
. Rak cs.2007: " Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered
specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas."
. ...
In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis:
- All so-called "humanlike" features are in fact "primitive-hominid" (sensu
Gorilla+Homo+Pan). Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or
even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids
were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (wading-climbing bipeds
IOO, Verhaegen cs.2002).
- None of the typically-Homo features (external nose, very long legs, very
large brain) are seen in afarensis.
In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (curved
phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs! etc.etc.) might have been a
fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: afarensis
was very gorillalike, and gorillas live in Africa. Everybody who believes
for some reason (other than traditional PA biases) that afarensis did not
belong to Gorilla should provide good arguments.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8u22m1080407t27/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/dutm4r676v2828pq/
spiznet
given to you several weeks ago of why a'pith are likely ancestral or
at least cousins?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 17-05-2007 22:58, in artikel
1179435537.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, spiznet
<ma...@spiznet.com> schreef:
> So you just conveniently forgot the exhaustive laundry list of reasons
> given to you several weeks ago of why a'pith are likely ancestral or
> at least cousins?
Ah? Which, my boy, which??
I'm waiting...
:-D
spiznet
> <m...@spiznet.com> schreef:
>
> > So you just conveniently forgot the exhaustive laundry list of reasons
> > given to you several weeks ago of why a'pith are likely ancestral or
> > at least cousins?
>
> Ah? Which, my boy, which??
> I'm waiting...
>
> :-D
Why should I remind you, its in the archives from 2 weeks ago.
Lee Olsen
> 16.4.07
> Israeli researchers:
> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
<snip>
Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
material) it is 26 years out of date.
http://tinyurl.com/27s3aa
I saw this on TV 26 years ago. Johanson stood there dumbfounded as
Leakey drew an X through Johanson's star-of-the-show Lucy, and placed
a question mark in its place.
Looks like Johanson and White should be looking for a new job, like
picking up trash alongside the freeway. What Johanson ought to do with
that rag sequel "Lucy's Child" is sell the rights to a Japanese film
companyso they could make a sci-fi horror flick out of it. " Lucy from
20,000 Fathoms" would be good a good title I think.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-05-2007 00:42, in artikel
1179441726....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, spiznet
<ma...@spiznet.com> schreef:
No doubt you mean this:
A.afarensis was very Afr.apelike, more gorilla- than chimplike, eg,
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-05-2007 00:58, in artikel
1179442681....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>> 16.4.07
>> Israeli researchers:
>> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
>
> <snip>
>
> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
> material) it is 26 years out of date.
??
My dear boy, in what year do you live??
2006 & 2007:
A.afarensis was very Afr.apelike, more gorilla- than chimplike, eg,
Sigh...
Waiting...
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> 16.4.07
> >> Israeli researchers:
> >> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
>
> Waiting...
Learn to read English fool, that's what Leakey said. Lucy not direct
ancestor......
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-05-2007 02:14, in artikel
1179447242....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
??
Lee Olsen
Nothing to do with what the point was in the first place.......
<snip>
What planet are you from? Don't you even know what Johanson and Leakey
were arguing about? Are you really that ignorant of the history of
their famous debate?
No wonder you understand almost nothing of evolution.
Read my URL and my post for comprehension this time and the conclusion
of the URL you posted to start this thread, which was:
"Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"
Johanson & Edey 1981:284
"Johanson and White are convinced that afarensis, the oldest and most
primitive hominid known, was ancestral to all the others."
ALL THE OTHERS---- which included Homo. Got the issue straight now
Dumbo?
Posting truisms that have nothing to do with the issue of their debate
or my point is a typical, childish ploy of yours. Grow up.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 19-05-2007 04:32, in artikel
1179541922.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 18, 12:16 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with what the point was in the first place.......
The point, my little boy, is:
Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
Snipping doesn't help you.
Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333, DIK-1
etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
chimplike.
Some examples:
There's nothing Homo-like in afarensis:
- All so-called "humanlike" features are in fact "primitive-hominid" (sensu
Gorilla+Homo+Pan). Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or
even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids
were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (wading-climbing IOO,
Verhaegen cs.2002).
- None of the typically-Homo features (external nose, very long legs, very
large brain) are seen in afarensis.
In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (curved
phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs! etc.etc.) might have been a
fossil species belonging to Gorilla.
This is the null-hypothesis: afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas
live in Africa.
Everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional PA biases)
that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes
that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a
fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla.
The same is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei: they're very gorilla-like
& they having nothing uniquely-Homo (thick enamel, short canines &
short-legged partial bipedalism being primitively-hominid).
Not unlikely the chrono-species afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the
genus Gorilla.
In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are more
Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like. They have nothing exclusively-Homo (their
humanlike features are primitive for all hominids sensu Pan-Homo-Gorilla).
It's most parsimonious to place them in the genus Pan.
In conslusion, we have provisionally:
- Gorilla afarensis, G.aethiopicus, G.boisei,`
- Pan africuanus, P.robustus,
- Homo ergaster, H.erectus, H.georgicus etc.
Where to place the so-called "habilis" fossils is more difficult (I'd
generally prefer Gorilla rather than Pan).
The so-called "H.rudolfensis" now seems to belong to "Australopithecus" &
likely Gorilla, see the recent paper of T.Bromage on ER-1470.
The so-called genera "Australopithecus" & "Paranthropus" are paraphyletic
IMO.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8u22m1080407t27/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/dutm4r676v2828pq/
______
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Snipping doesn't help you.
Reading a post correctly should help you, but I doubt it.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/message/64
Marc says: "As I explained to you, my English isn't very good,..."
What part of the this, your own post, are you too stupid to
understand?
"Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"
What part of this are you too stupid to understand?
Johanson & Edey 1981:284
"Johanson and White are convinced that afarensis, the oldest and most
primitive hominid known, was ancestral to all the others."
ALL THE OTHERS---- which included Homo. Leaky crossed that out. You
don't know the debate? What are you doing here???? Got the issue
straight now Dumbo?
Inform a bit, try posting something relevant to what I said you senile
old fart.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 19-05-2007 16:20, in artikel
1179584415....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>> Snipping doesn't help you.
>
> Reading a post correctly should help you, but I doubt it.
The point, my little boy, is:
Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
Snipping doesn't help you.
Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
Irrelevancies snipped.
Lee Olsen
Nothing to do with what I posted.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/message/64
Marc says: "As I explained to you, my English isn't very good,..."
You did not understand what I posted. Go back to school.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 19-05-2007 17:17, in artikel
1179587840.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 19, 7:30 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with what I posted.
Why would I be interested in what you, my little boy, are posting??
:-D
The point is:
Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > On May 19, 7:30 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > Nothing to do with what I posted.
>
> Why would I be interested in what you, my little boy, are posting??
>
ROFL. You answered my post, so you just proved you were interested.
You also don't seem to be interested in the URL you posted to start
this thread either, which clearly said: "'Lucy' is not direct ancestor
of humans" which is old news and stated so by Leakey 26 years ago. In
the future try to add something to these discussions that is not
ancient history.
Marc Verhaegen
>> Why would I be interested in what you, my little boy, are posting??
> ROFL. You answered my post, so you just proved you were interested.
:-D No doubt you're the biggest fool of all savanna believers. I "answer"
your posts, my boy, to give here, as the title of this thread says, my
arguments for Lucy being a fossil relative of gorillas rather than of humans
or chimps. All these arguments, as you can see, are very (bio)logical &
undisputed. Compare with my previous post & note the changes & additions:
Gorilla afarensis
A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike,
and more gorilla- than chimplike:
· Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from
A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla."
· Kimbel cs.1984: "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... 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."
· Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated
[enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the
modern great apes."
· Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African
apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan.
Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments
about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not
therefore identify a hominid."
· Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern
African apes than to modern humans."
· Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "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 non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the
protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens."
· Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third
premolar... is completely apelike."
· Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most
similar to that observed in Gorilla."
. Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist
morphology associated with knuckle-walking."
. Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape
morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..."
. Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered
specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas."
In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis:
- None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs,
very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis.
- All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu
Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or
even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids
were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing?
Verhaegen cs.2002).
In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved
phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a
fossil species belonging to Gorilla.
This is the null-hypothesis:
A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody
who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological
biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he
believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis
is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla.
The same is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei (my Human Evolution
papers, link below): they're very gorilla-like (body size, sexual
dimorphism, humerus & ulna lengths, skull crests, enamel microwear, enamel
prism decussation, orbital morphology, basicranial pneumatisation etc.) &
they having nothing uniquely-Homo (eg, thick enamel, short canines, short
iliac blades & short-legged partial bipedalism are primitively-hominid).
In short, all information we have today suggests that the E.African
chronospecies afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the genus Gorilla.
In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are
clearly more Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like (my Human Evolution papers).
They have nothing exclusively-Homo (their humanlike features are primitive
for all hominids sensu Pan-Homo-Gorilla).
So it's most parsimonious to place the S.Afr.chronospecies
africanus-robustus into the genus Pan.
In conslusion, we have provisionally:
- Gorilla afarensis, G.aethiopicus, G.boisei,`
- Pan africanus, P.robustus,
- Homo erectus, H.georgicus, H.ergaster etc.
The so-called genera "Australopithecus" & "Paranthropus" are paraphyletic.
Where to place the different so-called "habilis" fossils is more difficult,
but some might belong to Gorilla rather than to Homo or to Pan.
The so-called "H.rudolfensis" ER-1470 now seems to belong to
"Australopithecus" (Bromage cs.2007), possibly to Gorilla.
The so-called "Kenyanthropus" specimens also probably belonged to afarensis.
--Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Again, nothing to do with the point of my post that you answered.
>
> :-D No doubt you're the biggest fool of all savanna believers.
Savanna???? Did I say something in my post about savanna? Do you hear
voices also? Does God talk to you?
<snip rubbish>
Review so far....."Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately
(like most of your material) it is 26 years out of date."
Proven by this URL
http://tinyurl.com/27s3aa
I didn't say anything about gorillas or savannas. I said the
conclusion ("Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans") was predicted by
Leakey 26 years ago.
Please try to read what was actually said, not what you believed was
said. Do you answer the telephone when it doesn't ring also?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 20-05-2007 16:22, in artikel
1179670920.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Again, nothing to do with the point of my post that you answered.
>
>>
>> :-D No doubt you're the biggest fool of all savanna believers.
snip rubbish
Gorilla afarensis
The same (even more so) is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei (eg, my
Human Evolution papers, link below): they're very gorilla-like (body size,
sexual dimorphism, humerus & ulna lengths, skull crests, enamel microwear,
enamel prism decussation, orbital morphology, basicranial pneumatisation
etc.) & they having nothing uniquely-Homo (eg, thick enamel, short canines,
short iliac blades & short-legged partial bipedalism are
primitively-hominid).
In short, all information we have today suggests that the E.African
chronospecies afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the genus Gorilla.
In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are
clearly more Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like (eg, my Human Evolution
Lee Olsen
>
> A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike,
> and more gorilla- than chimplike:
> · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from
> A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla."
Yes, everyone except Marc knows what the word "composite" means---bits
and pieces of 7 different individuals.
Here is what they really said,
Johanson & Edey 1981:284: "That leaves the Homo types, with back teeth
essentially unchanged from those of their ancestor afarensis, on a
line of their own, with
with the increasingly advanced erectus and sapiens evolving out of H.
habilis."
Homo...ancestor afarensis they say. Still want to cite from 'LUCY the
Beginnings of Humankind' ? You are a desperate, senile, old man
Verhaegen.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 20-05-2007 23:19, in artikel
1179695989.1...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Whether or not J+E believe that "their" fossil is ancestral to Hs (most
fossil huntgers believe that...) is irrelevant in view of the fact that
afarensis (incl.the composite skull) in +-all instances look very
gorilla-like.
I'm waiting for your first objection that afarensis could not have belonged
to the genus Gorilla, but you have proved to have nothing, my little boy.
Zero. Not 1 single argument (unless you call insults arguments). Sad.
Gorilla afarensis
A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike,
and more gorilla- than chimplike:
· Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from
A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla."
spiznet
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Lee, its clear that we are not going to get Marc to recover the
response that stifled him last month, on this very topic. Without such
effort, there is no point.
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 9:05 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike,
> >> and more gorilla- than chimplike:
> >> · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from
> >> A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla."
>
> > Yes, everyone except Marc knows what the word "composite" means---bits
> > and pieces of 7 different individuals.
>
> > Here is what they really said,
> > Johanson & Edey 1981:284: "That leaves the Homo types, with back teeth
> > essentially unchanged from those of their ancestor afarensis, on a
> > line of their own, with
> > with the increasingly advanced erectus and sapiens evolving out of H.
> > habilis."
>
> > Homo...ancestor afarensis they say. Still want to cite from 'LUCY the
> > Beginnings of Humankind' ? You are a desperate, senile, old man
> > Verhaegen.
>
> Whether or not J+E believe that "their" fossil is ancestral to Hs
Yep, that was my point, "their" fossil as "ancestral to all others"
doesn't look so good right now.
> (most
> fossil huntgers believe that...)
Most? The latest trees I have seem reluctant to connect any lines
without question marks.
>is irrelevant in view of the fact that
> afarensis (incl.the composite skull) in +-all instances look very
> gorilla-like.
> I'm waiting for your first objection that afarensis could not have belonged
> to the genus Gorilla, but you have proved to have nothing, my little boy.
> Zero. Not 1 single argument (unless you call insults arguments). Sad.
>
Marc, you are answering a phone that isn't ringing. I have never been
convinced that Lucy was a "direct" ancestor to Homo. So if you believe
Lucy was a gorilla, fine, but I don't think I ever stated an opinion
on that issue one way or another, so how could I prove anything about
an opinion I don't have? You are just making an assumption that
doesn't exist.
IOW, if Lucy is not directly ancestral to Homo, I'm not going to lose
a lot of sleep over what genus she was. My interest is lithics, not
fossils. Nothing out there that would suggest Lucy was making
tools.
The study of extinct Lucy types that did not make stone tools is not
very interesting to me because if we need to test brainless creatures
that don't understand conchoidal fracture, we can test a live gorilla
or a seagull. OTOH, if someone could prove Lucy types were making
tools, then I would be forced to take a closer look at the issue you
are arguing about. Meanwhile, it is difficult enough to keep all the
lithic arguments straight now, don't need any more new guys to worry
about.
Peter Pan
> Most? The latest trees I have seem reluctant to connect any lines
> without question marks.
Can you a URL to that latest tree?
Thanks.
Lee Olsen
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/papchron.pdf
If you draw a line across the page at 2.6 mya you can see where the
Gona tools start and who might have made them.
I have a newer paper copy from 10/ 2005, but I don't know where I
found it. Looks about the same as the 2002 tree though.
Marc Verhaegen
Fine.
--Marc
rmacfarl
>
> Lee, its clear that we are not going to get Marc to recover the
> response that stifled him last month, on this very topic. Without such
>
> - Show quoted text -
j...@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) - Thurs, May 13 2004 4:30 am
Subject: Re: www.aquaticape.org critique
"
...
A.(P.) robustus to G.gorilla is not merely a controversial hypothesis,
but one that such enormous counter evidence as to favor its outright
rejection. A.robustus shares with genus Homo many derived
characteristics. It shares with us a reduction or elmination in the
I2-P3 diastema, incisiform canines, greatly reduced aveolar
prognathism, a more pronounced flexion of the cranial base, shortened
cranial base, deeper TMJ facet, more acute angle of the petrosal
relative to the coronal plane. These are all characteristics where
Gorilla resembles the primitive catarrhine condition and where humans
are very clearly derived. For a robust to be ancestral to Gorilla
would require reversals in all of these traits. Further, for a robust
a'pith to be ancestral to Gorilla would also require reversal of the
megadontia. Gorillas do not show this similar reduction of anterior
dentition relative to the molars. The very, very limited similarities
between the skull of a gorilla and a robust are all either primitive
conditions for hominoidea (if not for catarrhines) or those of very
limited phylogenetic value, such as a saggital crest, a feature that
routinely appears with the increase in mandibular musculature. This
feature has appeared in too many lineages to be taken as a strong
synapomorphy.
...
Lucy's pelvis shares derived characteristics with Homo relative to the
primitive primate condition. This condition is not seen in Gorilla or
Pan, who have a pelvis much more in line with the primitive
morphology. This suggests, cladisticially, that we share a more
recent common ancestor with the apiths than we do with the extant
apes. Since the cranial-dental traits echo this, and there are not
many (any?) synapomorphies between apiths and the extant apes not also
shared with Homo, to favor Algis's interpretation at the expense of an
((Apith-Homo)extant ape) clade is to reject at best all the evidence,
at worst, to reject the very concept of cladistic analysis and the
comparative method in biology.
"
j...@ucdavis.edu Jan 9, 2005 11:45 am Newsgroups:
sci.anthropology.paleo
"
...
Hominin generally refers to the tribe (above genus, below family and
subfamily) "Hominini" and includes genus Homo and other bipedal
hominoids thought to be members of a clade to the exclusion of the
African great apes. The term itself isn't meaningful though. What's
meaningful is the relationships.
Cladistics classifies only according to shared-derived
characteristics. Australopithecines share derived traits not seen in
extant apes and thus appear more closely related (i.e. share a more
recent common ancestor) to genus Homo than they are to Pan or Gorilla.
These traits include reduction of the canines, reduction of the I^2-C
diastema, incisiformation of the canines IN ADDITION to the shared
characteristics of the pelvis and hindlimbs. In all cases, it's clear
that extant apes share traits much more like the ancestral condition
as assessed by comparisons within the primates and comparisons to
Miocene fossil apes, all of whom share the greater canine length,
larger diastema, no incisiformation of the canines and none of whom
show the characteristics of a biped. The similarities
Australopithecines share with apes all appear to be sympleisiomorphies
or primitive characteristics (e.g. pronounced prognathism, low
basicranial flexion) which are unreliable traits of absolutely no use
in assessing cladistic relationships. By any realistic cladistic
measure, australopithecines and Homo belong in a clade to the
exclusion of Pan and Gorilla.
"
JAE Jul 31, 2005 11:32 am Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
"
...
I've very skeptical about most molecular clock estimates in general
(with or without hybridization), but a Pan-Homo split that recent has
some Himalayian-sized obstacles against it interms of character
parsimony in the fossil record. The fossil record provides some
rather compelling reason to set an earlier minimum calibration point,
earlier than 3.5 million years ago when we already see much more human-
like forms. Even ignoring those traits associated with bipedalism
(and I don't think we should ignore these), there was clearly many
forms rather derived away from those characteristics where Pan retains
primitive features in the teeth and skull. Either there were massive
wholescale reversals completely obliterating any traces of change in
the line leading to Pan OR all of the fossil hominids identified are
ridiculously homoplastic with our lineage. Neither of these are
convincing hypotheses in the least and both require a near total
disregard for parsimony. In most regards (e.g. a pronounced diastema;
canine honing complex on P_3; flatter cranial base, angle of petrosal
bone relative to coronal plane; total lack of incisiformation of the
canines) chimps retain a more primitive dentition more akin to Miocene
apes and more akin to other Old World primates. By 4 million years
there was clearly a hominid lineage derived away from this. While
perhaps not ancestral, this most likely indicates sister taxons of
Homo had already split off from the line leading to Pan prior to 4
million ybp.
"
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
From: Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:34:00 +0200
Subject: Re: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis
mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
...
Of couse, one character doesn't mean much. It's only in the context
of
an extensive data set that the significance of such a character
becomes obvious.
But to suggest that Au. afarensis is closer related to the robust
australopithecines is quite different from the suggestion that the
australopithecines are ancestors of the African apes.
It needs to be mentioned that the group of robust australopithecines
is the best supported clade in hominid phylogeny, with 100% support
in
a recent cladistic analysis by Strait and Grine (2004).
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Hominoid_phylogeny.jpg
This clade is more closely related to Homo than to any of the African
apes.
The suggestion that Au. afarensis is more closely related to the
robust clade was made previously by Kimbel et al. (1988), shortly
after the discovery of the black skull (KNM-WT 17000), but so far has
not been substantiated by derived morphology.
Of course it's quite possible that this newly found character will
shift the position of Au. afarensis a few nodes up the tree close to
the base of the robust clade, but given that the character is not
well
known in most other early hominids, this remains to be seen.
This character may be related to heavy mastication and as such likely
subject to convergence.
Strait, D. S. & Grine, F. E. (2004). Inferring hominoid and hominid
phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa.
Journal of Human Evolution 47: 399-452.
Kimbel, W.H. et al. (1988). Implications of KNM-WT 17000 for the
Evolution of "Robust" Australopithecus. pp. 259-268 in Grine, F.E.
(ed.). Evolutionary History of the "Robust" Australopithecines.
Aldine
de Gruyter, New York.
Gerrit
"
Marc Verhaegen
Op 22-05-2007 04:28, in artikel
1179800921....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, rmacfarl
<rmac...@alphalink.com.au> schreef:
> On May 21, 9:23 am, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lee, its clear that we are not going to get Marc to recover the
>> response that stifled him last month, on this very topic. Without such
>> effort, there is no point.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> j...@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) - Thurs, May 13 2004 4:30 am
> Subject: Re: www.aquaticape.org critique
> "
> ...
>
> A.(P.) robustus to G.gorilla
??
This has nothing to do with what I said:
Can't these fools *read*??
Gorilla afarensis
The same is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei (my Human Evolution
papers, link below): they're very gorilla-like (body size, sexual
dimorphism, humerus & ulna lengths, skull crests, enamel microwear, enamel
prism decussation, orbital morphology, basicranial pneumatisation etc.) &
they having nothing uniquely-Homo (eg, thick enamel, short canines, short
iliac blades & short-legged partial bipedalism are primitively-hominid).
In short, all information we have today suggests that the E.African
chronospecies afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the genus Gorilla.
In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are
clearly more Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like (my Human Evolution papers).
They have nothing exclusively-Homo (their humanlike features are primitive
for all hominids sensu Pan-Homo-Gorilla).
So it's most parsimonious to place the S.Afr.chronospecies
africanus-robustus into the genus Pan.
In conslusion, we have provisionally:
- Gorilla afarensis, G.aethiopicus, G.boisei,`
- Pan africanus, P.robustus,
- Homo erectus, H.georgicus, H.ergaster etc.
The so-called genera "Australopithecus" & "Paranthropus" are paraphyletic.
Where to place the different so-called "habilis" fossils is more difficult,
but some might belong to Gorilla rather than to Homo or to Pan.
The so-called "H.rudolfensis" ER-1470 now seems to belong to
"Australopithecus" (Bromage cs.2007), possibly to Gorilla.
The so-called "Kenyanthropus" specimens also probably belonged to afarensis.
--Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07
Marc Verhaegen
And of course phys.anthropologists don't agree:
The most sensible have long thought about apiths being fossil relatives of
Afr.apes:
From one of my papers:
Biomolecular data place the Homo/Pan splitting time between 8 and 4 Myr BP
(e.g. Sarich, 1977; Hasegawa et al., 1987, 1988, 1989; Caccone & Powell,
1989). (now 5-4 Ma: Patterson cs.2006 "Genetic evidence for complex
speciation of humans and chimpanzees" Nature 441:1103-8 --MV) This means
that at the time of the earliest undoubted australopithecines (ca. 4 Myr
BP), the differences between human and chimpanzee ancestors were much less
than those between present-day Homo and Pan, so that it is difficult to
decide whether a particular fossil of that age belonged to the Homo or to
the Pan clade. No a priori reason exists therefore to reject the idea that
the African apes may have had australopith ancestors. Several people had
contemplated this possibility even before Sarich & Wilson (1967) initiated
the drastic reduction of the estimated Homo/Pan splitting time (e.g.
Woodward, 1925; Smith, 1925; Keith, 1925a, b; 1931, p.115; Schultz, 1941,
p.100; A. Hrdlicka in Howells, 1985; W. Abel; W. L. Straus, S. Zuckerman, E.
H. Ashton in Reader, 1988, p. 89 and p. 124). Following the introduction of
the biomolecular evidence, the idea has revived (e.g. Kleindienst, 1975;
Goodman, 1982; Gribbin & Cherfas, 1983; Hasegawa et al., 1985; Edelstein,
1987; Verhaegen, 1990; Trevino, 1991, p. 14-15).
IOW, at least 16 authors, often independent.
So far their are no good arguments that contradict that apiths might have
been relatives of gorillas or chimps rather than of humans.
______
Op 22-05-2007 09:56, in artikel C2786EC8.260A%m_ver...@skynet.be, Marc
Verhaegen <m_ver...@skynet.be> schreef:
Lee Olsen
> And of course phys.anthropologists don't agree:
"Prof. Tobias urged to state that the present-day fossil hominid
record consists of hundreds of different well-documented individuals
and that there is general agreement that australopithecines and Homo
have more in common than australopithecines and Pan/Gorilla." I could
be wrong, but wasn't this from your site?
If you want people to take you seriously, you will need a tree. Do you
have a URL that links to one somewhere?
Lee Olsen
Lee Olsen wrote:
> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > 16.4.07
> > Israeli researchers:
> > 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
>
> <snip>
>
> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
> material) it is 26 years out of date.
>
> I saw this on TV 26 years ago. Johanson stood there dumbfounded as
> Leakey drew an X through Johanson's star-of-the-show Lucy, and placed
> a question mark in its place.
I apologize to the group, looks like I was off a country mile on how
out-of-date Marc's material is.
>From "The Emergence of Man by John E. Pfeiffer page 64:
"Most investigators, including his former teacher Elliot Smith at
University College in London, regarded the "Taungs baby" as an ape not
on the line that led to man but more like the chimpanzee or gorilla."
Not to mention this...
Mario Vaneechoutte:
"Although the idea that australopithecines could be the relatives of
chimps and gorillas rather than of humans has been put forward by
others previously (Edelstein, 1987; Kleindienst, 1975; Goodman, 1982)
and more recently (Easteal & Herbert, 1997), Verhaegen's reasoning
was
considered as idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
Marc Verhaegen
Op 26-05-2007 01:45, in artikel
1180136729.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>
>>> 16.4.07
>>> Israeli researchers:
>>> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
>> material) it is 26 years out of date.
??
My boy: 2006 & 2007: new info:
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >>> 16.4.07
> >>> Israeli researchers:
> >>> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
> >> material) it is 26 years out of date.
>
> ??
> My boy: 2006 & 2007: new info:
No one was talking about new info, but the old "26 years out of date"
stuff.
Marc's citation: "Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor
of humans."
Parrot Mark: "Of course, there's no evidence that Lucy was our
ancestor."
Elliot Smith (1920s or early 1930s?)
Kleindienst, 1975
Leakey 1971 & 1981
Goodman, 1982
Edelstein, 1987
Is there anything in the English language you understand?
Here comes Marc bringing up the rear: 1990. African ape ancestry.
Human Evolution 5, 295-297.
<snip>
Mario: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as idiosyncratic by most
of the participants."
"Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles
suggests
Au.afarensis link to robust australopiths "
Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg & Eli Geffen 2007
Where does Rak et al. conclude "Gorilla afarensis" ??????
>
> Gorilla afarensis
Marc Verhaegen
Op 27-05-2007 02:46, in artikel
1180226782.3...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 26, 12:53 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 26-05-2007 01:45, in artikel
>> 1180136729.629906.197...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Lee Olsen wrote:
>>>> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 16.4.07
>>>>> Israeli researchers:
>>>>> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
>>>> material) it is 26 years out of date.
>>
>> ??
>> My boy: 2006 & 2007: new info:
>
> No one was talking about new info, but the old "26 years out of date"
> stuff.
26 or 0 years ago, nothing out of date:
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> 26 or 0 years ago, nothing out of date:
Henry M. McHenry and Katherine Coffing 2000
AUSTRALOPITHECUS TO HOMO: Transformations
in Body andMind. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:125-46
"New discoveries and new analyses of Homo include three major
monographs
(Tobias 1991, Walker & Leakey 1993a, Wood 1991). Most
paleoanthropologists
(e.g. Groves 1989; Tobias 1991; Wood 1991, 1992; Skelton & McHenry
1992;
Walker & Leakey 1993a; McHenry 1994c; Strait et al 1997; Asfaw et al
1999a;
Klein 1999;Wolpoff 1999;Wood & Collard 1999), but not all (e.g. Oxnard
1975),
agree that Homo evolved from Australopithecus, but there is less
consensus on
which species of Australopithecus is the most likely ancestor and
which fossils are
the earliest members of Homo.
The search for the immediate ancestor of Homo among known species of
Australopithecus
may be fruitless because all the possible candidates have unique
specializations (i.e. autapomorphies). It is more useful to search for
the species
whose unknown ancestor most recently branched off from the stem
leading to
Homo."
"Prof. Tobias urged to state that the present-day fossil hominid
record consists of hundreds of different well-documented individuals
and that there is general agreement that australopithecines and Homo
have more in common than australopithecines and Pan/Gorilla."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/abs/nature04629.html
1) Tim D. White
2) Giday WoldeGabriel
3) Berhane Asfaw
4) Stan Ambrose
5) Yonas Beyene
6) Raymond L. Bernor
7) Jean-Renaud Boisserie
8) Brian Currie Henry
9) Henry Gilbert
10) Yohannes Haile-Selassie
11) William K. Hart
12) Leslea J. Hlusko
13) F. Clark Howell
14) Reiko T. Kono
15) Thomas Lehmann
16) Antoine Louchart
17) Owen Lovejoy
18) Paul R. Renne
19) Haruo Saegusa
20) Elisabeth S. Vrba
21) Hank Wesselmanand
22) Gen Suwa
"The origin of Australopithecus, the genus widely interpreted as
ancestral to Homo,...."
Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
Yep, I see nothing out of date here...
Marc Verhaegen
Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
Gorilla afarensis
>
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
> 1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
No need to, looks like you don't have an argument...
Marc Verhaegen
Op 27-05-2007 18:09, in artikel
1180282167.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
...
>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
> No need to, looks like you don't have an argument...
Your intelligence is luckily not my problem:
Gorilla afarensis
A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike,
& clearly more gorilla- than chimplike:
· Johanson & Edey 1981:351: A.L.333 "looked very much like a small female
· Schoenemann 1989: LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely
apelike."
· Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most
similar to that observed in Gorilla."
. Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist
morphology associated with knuckle-walking."
. Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape
morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..."
. Rak cs.2007: AL-822-1: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently
discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas."
In fact, there's nothing uniquely-Homo-like in afarensis:
- None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs,
very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis.
- All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu
Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or
even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. It's generally
agreed that early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing
bipeds (IMO predom.wading-climbing, see Verhaegen cs.2002).
In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved
phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a fossil
species belonging to Gorilla.
This is the null-hypothesis:
A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody
who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological
biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he
believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis
is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla.
--Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 27-05-2007 18:09, in artikel
> 1180282167.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> ...
>
> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
Rich Travsky
>
> Op 19-05-2007 04:32, in artikel
> 1179541922.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > On May 18, 12:16 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >
> > Nothing to do with what the point was in the first place.......
>
> The point, my little boy, is:
> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
>
> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333, DIK-1
> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
> chimplike.
Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
become a quadruped?
Rich Travsky
A keeper. Fantastic!
Rich Travsky
Being an obligate biped is VERY homo like. And VERY UNGORILLA like.
Rich Travsky
>
> Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
> 1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
He did. Conclusively. You're not trying to prop up your hypothesis I hope??
> ...
Did you bother to read it?
I really like that part.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 07:59, in artikel 465A6FD0...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
>> 1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
>
> He did.
Not 1 single little argument... Look for yourself:
Gorilla afarensis
. Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape
morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..."
. Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered
specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas."
In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis:
- None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs,
very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis.
- All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu
Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or
even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids
were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing?
Verhaegen cs.2002).
In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved
phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a
fossil species belonging to Gorilla.
This is the null-hypothesis:
A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody
who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological
biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he
believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis
is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla.
--Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 07:17, in artikel 465A65F2...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
My little boy, I've answered this many times.
Not difficult.
Very easy:
Sahelanthr was bipedal, no?
Lived 7 Ma, no?
When did Homo & Pan split?
Yes, good boy, 5 Ma.
Conclusion? (Even you can do that.)
Bipedalism predated the H/P split.
Good boy. :-)
Instead of snipping, you have better read it properly:
In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis:
- None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs,
very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis.
- All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu
Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or
even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids
were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing?
Verhaegen cs.2002).
In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved
phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a
fossil species belonging to Gorilla.
This is the null-hypothesis:
A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody
who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological
biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he
believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis
is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla.
--Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 07:12, in artikel 465A64A4...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Keep using such arguments, my boys.
It's *all* you have...
:-D
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 05:36, in artikel 465A4E58...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
....
>> The point, my little boy, is:
>> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
>> Snipping doesn't help you.
>> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
>> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333, DIK-1
>> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
>> chimplike.
> Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
> become a quadruped?
Sigh. I have answered this 1000 times.
My little boy (only little children ask the same question so often), Lucy
had curved hand bones (to give on 1 argument), IOW, it climbed a lot arms
overhead. Understand that? Round bones to hang from round tree branches?
Now, you're fully right that Lucy also moved often on 2 legs. Where do you
think Lucy could combine these 2 things = moving on 2 legs & grasping
branches ove its head? Yes, good boy: in forest swamps, where Lucy was
found, as you know: wading for water+waterside plants (as some gorillas
sometimes do) & grasping branches above its head to pick fruits or climb out
of the swamp (as many apes do).
:-) Got it?
Now, 2d part of answer. Listen good. Bit more difficult. Long long ago (2
Ma) times cooled down & dried (Pleistocene - forget everything between
brackets: it's for the grown-ups). It was colder in water, there were less
swamps, & less of the foods they liked in the swamp, so they liked to be
more on dry ground in the forest, wouldn't you? But why not move on 4 legs
there? It's very easy when you have long arms & short legs, don't you
think?
Okidoki?
:-) Got it?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 00:41, in artikel
1180305690....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Op 27-05-2007 18:09, in artikel
>> 1180282167.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
>
> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>
> Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
??
Is this an *argument* IYO? Or what?
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Op 27-05-2007 18:09, in artikel
> >> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
>
> > If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>
> > Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> > idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>
> ??
> Is this an *argument* IYO? Or what?
In conjuction with what the professionals are saying, yes.
Lee Olsen
Lee Olsen
> Op 28-05-2007 05:36, in artikel 465A4E58.120FF...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> ....
>
> >> The point, my little boy, is:
> >> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
> >> Snipping doesn't help you.
> >> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
> >> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333, DIK-1
> >> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
> >> chimplike.
> > Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
> > become a quadruped?
>
> Sigh. I have answered this 1000 times.
Repeating your sillyness doesn't make it so.
>
> My little boy (only little children ask the same question so often), Lucy
> had curved hand bones (to give on 1 argument), IOW, it climbed a lot arms
> overhead. Understand that?
Curved bones make a gorilla? ROFL.
> Round bones to hang from round tree branches?
> Now, you're fully right that Lucy also moved often on 2 legs. Where do you
> think Lucy could combine these 2 things = moving on 2 legs & grasping
> branches ove its head? Yes, good boy: in forest swamps, where Lucy was
> found, as you know: wading for water+waterside plants (as some gorillas
> sometimes do) & grasping branches above its head to pick fruits or climb out
> of the swamp (as many apes do).
Fool, you can say same thing about orangs, they are found in swamps,
yet they are not waders to the point their features were evolved from
it.
>
> :-) Got it?
You don't.
>
> Now, 2d part of answer. Listen good. Bit more difficult. Long long ago (2
> Ma) times cooled down & dried (Pleistocene - forget everything between
> brackets: it's for the grown-ups). It was colder in water, there were less
> swamps, & less of the foods they liked in the swamp, so they liked to be
> more on dry ground in the forest, wouldn't you? But why not move on 4 legs
> there? It's very easy when you have long arms & short legs, don't you
> think?
>
> Okidoki?
>
> :-) Got it?
"Imagination Theater" at its best.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 19:23, in artikel
1180373038....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 28, 3:40 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 28-05-2007 05:36, in artikel 465A4E58.120FF...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
>> Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>>
>> ....
>>
>>>> The point, my little boy, is:
>>>> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
>>>> Snipping doesn't help you.
>>>> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
>>>> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333,
>>>> DIK-1
>>>> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
>>>> chimplike.
>>> Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
>>> become a quadruped?
>>
>> Sigh. I have answered this 1000 times.
>
> Repeating your sillyness doesn't make it so.
>
>>
>> My little boy (only little children ask the same question so often), Lucy
>> had curved hand bones (to give on 1 argument), IOW, it climbed a lot arms
>> overhead. Understand that?
>
> Curved bones make a gorilla? ROFL.
??
My little boy: the question was: why would Lucy become quadruped.
____
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-05-2007 19:11, in artikel
1180372272.8...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 28, 3:43 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 28-05-2007 00:41, in artikel
>> 1180305690.594027.29...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>> Op 27-05-2007 18:09, in artikel
>>>> 1180282167.334775.197...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>>>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>>> ...
>>
>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
>>
>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>>
>>> Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
>>> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>>
>> ??
>> Is this an *argument* IYO? Or what?
>
> In conjuction with what the professionals are saying, yes.
:-D Try to think for your own, man, instead of parrotting obsolete
ideas.
Lee Olsen
> Op 28-05-2007 19:23, in artikel
> 1180373038.698780.45...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 3:40 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Op 28-05-2007 05:36, in artikel 465A4E58.120FF...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> >> Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> >> ....
>
> >>>> The point, my little boy, is:
> >>>> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
> >>>> Snipping doesn't help you.
> >>>> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
> >>>> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333,
> >>>> DIK-1
> >>>> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
> >>>> chimplike.
> >>> Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
> >>> become a quadruped?
>
> >> Sigh. I have answered this 1000 times.
>
> > Repeating your sillyness doesn't make it so.
>
> >> My little boy (only little children ask the same question so often), Lucy
> >> had curved hand bones (to give on 1 argument), IOW, it climbed a lot arms
> >> overhead. Understand that?
>
> > Curved bones make a gorilla? ROFL.
>
> ??
> My little boy: the question was: why would Lucy become quadruped.
Oh, sorry. I can't imagine where I got this "Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla"
> ____
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Round bones to hang from round tree branches?
> >> Now, you're fully right that Lucy also moved often on 2 legs. Where do you
> >> think Lucy could combine these 2 things = moving on 2 legs & grasping
> >> branches ove its head? Yes, good boy: in forest swamps, where Lucy was
> >> found, as you know: wading for water+waterside plants (as some gorillas
> >> sometimes do) & grasping branches above its head to pick fruits or climb out
> >> of the swamp (as many apes do).
>
> > Fool, you can say same thing about orangs, they are found in swamps,
> > yet they are not waders to the point their features were evolved from
> > it.
>
> >> :-) Got it?
>
> > You don't.
>
> >> Now, 2d part of answer. Listen good. Bit more difficult. Long long ago (2
> >> Ma) times cooled down & dried (Pleistocene - forget everything between
> >> brackets: it's for the grown-ups). It was colder in water, there were less
> >> swamps, & less of the foods they liked in the swamp, so they liked to be
> >> more on dry ground in the forest, wouldn't you? But why not move on 4 legs
> >> there? It's very easy when you have long arms & short legs, don't you
> >> think?
>
> >> Okidoki?
>
> >> :-) Got it?
>
> > "Imagination Theater" at its best.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Lee Olsen
> Op 28-05-2007 19:11, in artikel
> 1180372272.864125.127...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
If your evidence was so overwhelming, Wang, Crompton, White, McHenry,
Tobias et al. could surely see your point.
They write original research papers and you write letters to the
editor, sorry Marc, you will need to do better.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 29-05-2007 01:56, in artikel
1180396615.6...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
My boy, they believe like you that bipedalism is unique for apiths & Homo,
but fail to see that KWing is derived from short-legged bipedalism: "³Early
australopithecines are linked with living humans on the basis of shared
characters related to bipedalism² (Andrews, 1992), but it is often argued
that the African apes¹ ancestors also were more bipedal (theory of W. L.
Straus; see Coon 1954; Kleindienst, 1975; Goodman, 1982; Gribbin & Cherfas,
1983; Hasegawa et al., 1985; and esp. Edelstein, 1987; cf. Schultz 1949, p.
205). Indeed, that the African apes could evolve from digiti-palmigrades
(all other primates, including human infants) to knuckle-walkers implies
that they went through a phase where the arms were barely used for
pronograde locomotion (cf. Edelstein, 1987); an intermediate phase of
orthograde arm-hanging or brachiation insufficiently explains
knuckle-walking since neither orangutans nor hylobatids show traces of
knuckle-walking."
Lee Olsen
line. Why is it that not one wet aper understands geological time. You
make the same error when you cite Mojokerto, like it happened a
million years before Gona not after, as whould be necessary to prove a
diaspora along the coasts. If it was before, yes, you would have a
case if you threw out the evidence from China. You conveniently skip
over the fact that Acheulean sites are found all over India, not just
on the coasts. You will always be a has been who whines to the editor
of journals, rather than creates original research papers.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 30-05-2007 01:08, in artikel
1180480119....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I
>>>>>>>> hope??
>>
>>>>>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
No nonsense, please.
Inform:
R.Wrangham 2005
"The Delta Hypothesis: hominoid ecology & hominin origins"
In D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley
"Interpreting the past: essays on human, primate & mammal evolution in honor
of David Pilbeam"
Brill Ac.Publishers Boston: 231-242.
I'd inform a bit before saying something, Olson.
> Just as I thought, no answer. You have created an impossible time
> line.
Don't be ridiculous: AFAICS I've given a very parsimonious timeline, the
most parsimonious one at present:
- 18 Ma: early apes S (Heliop) & N (Engelswies) of Tethys, found in coastal
sediments at ad-Dabtiyah & Devinska Nova Ves: they lived in coastal forests
(google "aquarboreal" aqua=water + arbor=tree). Formation of Med.Sea: then
island archipelagoes, formation of Alps...
- 15 Ma hominids (W) & pongids (E) split. Hominids 12-6 Ma are found in
swamp forests & on islands N & S of the Med.Sea (Dryop, Oreop, Orrorin...).
- 7-6 Ma G & HP split. There were 2 trop.forests then in Africa
(Jon.Kingdon): G in central forest (Kongo, Rift, incl.E.Afr.apiths), HP in
coastal forest (Mocambique).
- 5-4 Ma P & H split. P remained in the forests (incl.S.Afr.apiths) &
evolved in parallel to G (same climatic changes - followed rivers inland).
H diverged strongly & followed the coasts along the Ind.Ocean (Yohn: absent
from Africa 4-3 Ma), reduced climbing skills, developed stone tool use (sea
otter) for opening coconuts, shellfish..., got diving skills & thick bones,
aligned body, flat feet + short toes, larger brain, extreme dexterity
(racoon, capuchin, sea otter...
- 1.8 Ma (high sea levels): H appears near coasts/lakes... from Ain-Hanech
to Dmanisi to Mojokerto to Rift (marine connections).
What is your problem??
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >>>>>>>> ...
>
> >>>>>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I
> >>>>>>>> hope??
>
> >>>>>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>
> No nonsense, please.
> Inform:
Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
> R.Wrangham 2005
> "The Delta Hypothesis: hominoid ecology & hominin origins"
> In D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley
> "Interpreting the past: essays on human, primate & mammal evolution in honor
> of David Pilbeam"
> Brill Ac.Publishers Boston: 231-242.
I'd inform a bit before saying something, Verhaegin. Do you see
anything in there about Gorilla afarensis?
>
> > Just as I thought, no answer. You have created an impossible time
> > line.
>
> Don't be ridiculous: AFAICS I've given a very parsimonious timeline, the
> most parsimonious one at present:
Too bad the issue was Lucy to a gorilla, nobody said time lines 18
mya, so nothing to but snip
irrelevant nothings
XXXXXXXXXX
> - 1.8 Ma (high sea levels): H appears near coasts/lakes... from Ain-Hanech
> to Dmanisi to Mojokerto to Rift (marine connections).
>
> What is your problem??
1.8 Ma??? what does that have to do with ostriches, desert tortoises,
and antelope that don't need to drink from a spring?
Try Gona at 2.6 mya for a smoking-gun null hypothesis. No cocos there,
you are million years too late.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 31-05-2007 03:26, in artikel
1180574802.8...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 30, 12:57 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 30-05-2007 01:08, in artikel
>> 1180480119.394642.38...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I
>>>>>>>>>> hope??
>>
>>>>>>>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>>
>> No nonsense, please.
>> Inform:
>
> Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
You keep parrotting this sentence for some reason.
Are you trying to tell us something, my boy?
>> R.Wrangham 2005
>> "The Delta Hypothesis: hominoid ecology & hominin origins"
>> In D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley
>> "Interpreting the past: essays on human, primate & mammal evolution in honor
>> of David Pilbeam"
>> Brill Ac.Publishers Boston: 231-242.
>
> I'd inform a bit before saying something, Verhaegin. Do you see
> anything in there about Gorilla afarensis?
Just read it, my boy.
>>> Just as I thought, no answer. You have created an impossible time
>>> line.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous: AFAICS I've given a very parsimonious timeline, the
>> most parsimonious one at present:
>
> Too bad the issue was Lucy to a gorilla, nobody said time lines 18
> mya, so nothing to but snip
> irrelevant nothings
> XXXXXXXXXX
Irrelevant to biased people.
>> - 1.8 Ma (high sea levels): H appears near coasts/lakes... from Ain-Hanech
>> to Dmanisi to Mojokerto to Rift (marine connections).
>>
>> What is your problem??
>
> 1.8 Ma??? what does that have to do with ostriches, desert tortoises,
> and antelope that don't need to drink from a spring?
My boy, that there were tortoises etc. does IYO that mean that those
hominids did not live at the waterside??
FYI http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
The physiological evidence:
Tobias: Humans are not savannah-adapted animals - In rejecting the savannah
theory, I was moved primarily by the evidence unearthed in S.& E.Africa.
Meanwhile, Elaine Morgan had been piecing together a nr of other arguments
against the SH, based on some anatomical, biochemical & physiological data
of modern humans, much of which was collected by Belgium's Dr Marc
Verhaegen, which contrast sharply with the traits in present-day animals
that are truly adapted to savannah life. As examples, modern humans lack
sun-reflecting fur & are virtually hairless. The cooling system in our skin
is quite unfit for hot, dry, exposed environments: we have numerous sweat
glands , we waste water & sodium - not very suitable for life on the
savannah. Our ability to concentrate our urine is poor & too low and if ever
our earliest ancestors were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst,
the most profligate urinators there. Adapted savannah-dwellers need to
drink more water at a time, but most humans are not able to drink much at a
time. The quantity of our subcutaneous fat, which would insulate us against
heat loss, is never found in truly savannah-adapted animals.
In our bodily functions, chemistry and microscopical anatomy, we should be
hopeless as savannah-dwellers. So Marc Verhaegen & Elaine Morgan, in her
remarkable book, The Scars of Evolution, came to the same conclusion that we
had reached from quite different lines of evidence: the old savannah theory
was not tenable. All former savannah supporters must recant , this I did in
London. It was an exciting moment - living thru a change of paradigm. Max
Planck, the German physicist & Nobel laureate, once wrote these words on the
replacement of an outworn paradigm: "A new scientific truth does not triumph
by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows that is
familiar with it." That must be one of the masterpieces of cynicism on the
scientific process. Paradigm changes, I like to think, flow overwhelmingly
from new evidence and, where the evidence is sound and even irresistible,
they should be embraced just as lief by the old as by the young. It was
three weeks after my 71th birthday and I went on to declare, "A change of
paradigm shakes us up; it rejuvenates us; and, this above all, it prevents
mental fossilisation - and that is good for all of us."
> Try Gona at 2.6 mya for a smoking-gun null hypothesis. No cocos there,
> you are million years too late.
Be relevant. Again for the Xth time:
After 5-4 Ma (H/P split), P gradually adapted to living in trop.forests, H
reduced climbing skills & developed diving skills.
Our H ancestors were probaly absent from Africa 4-3 Ma (retroviral data).
Got it?
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 12:57 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Op 30-05-2007 01:08, in artikel
> >> 1180480119.394642.38...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I
> >>>>>>>>>> hope??
>
> >>>>>>>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>
> >> No nonsense, please.
> >> Inform:
>
> > Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> > idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>
> You keep parrotting this sentence for some reason.
> Are you trying to tell us something, my boy?
It is to remind you, a fact that you keep forgetting, that you are
very much alone in your pseudo-science scenarios.
>
> >> R.Wrangham 2005
> >> "The Delta Hypothesis: hominoid ecology & hominin origins"
> >> In D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley
> >> "Interpreting the past: essays on human, primate & mammal evolution in honor
> >> of David Pilbeam"
> >> Brill Ac.Publishers Boston: 231-242.
>
> > I'd inform a bit before saying something, Verhaegin. Do you see
> > anything in there about Gorilla afarensis?
>
> Just read it, my boy.
Why don't you just cite the page number where he says Lucy evolved
into a gorilla?
>
> >>> Just as I thought, no answer. You have created an impossible time
> >>> line.
>
> >> Don't be ridiculous: AFAICS I've given a very parsimonious timeline, the
> >> most parsimonious one at present:
>
> > Too bad the issue was Lucy to a gorilla, nobody said time lines 18
> > mya, so nothing to but snip
> > irrelevant nothings
> > XXXXXXXXXX
>
> Irrelevant to biased people.
Go ahead, I'm waiting. Cite where R.Wrangham 2005 says Lucy evolved
into a gorilla. I'm interested, no bias here.
>
> >> - 1.8 Ma (high sea levels): H appears near coasts/lakes... from Ain-Hanech
> >> to Dmanisi to Mojokerto to Rift (marine connections).
>
> >> What is your problem??
>
> > 1.8 Ma??? what does that have to do with ostriches, desert tortoises,
> > and antelope that don't need to drink from a spring?
>
> My boy, that there were tortoises etc. does IYO that mean that those
> hominids did not live at the waterside??
Absolutely.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/dispatch/start.htm
"The idea of sleeping on the higher ground rather than next to water
seemed an attractive idea. Lakes, ponds, and stream channels in the
African bush are good natural sources of water and plant food during
the day. But at night they turn into really great places if you want
to be hunted down as prey! The water margins attract the big and small
predators that like to hunt in the dark of night. Even today at
Olorgesailie, we often go to sleep hearing hyenas, jackals, and
sometimes lions growling and whooping off in the distance during their
nighttime prowls. Anyway, early humans could get food in the lowlands
- that's where they left the chipped stone tools and other evidence of
their activities. And, unlike earlier hominins, they could have
avoided the favored hunting areas of other predators if they got to
higher ground at night."
> FYIhttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> The physiological evidence:
> Tobias: Humans are not savannah-adapted animals - In rejecting the savannah
> theory, I was moved primarily by the evidence unearthed in S.& E.Africa.
Does Tobias think the lions were making the stone tools found on the
savannah? How old is this rubbish you keep citing from Tobias??? His
S. Af data is too late and after the fact.
> Meanwhile, Elaine Morgan had been piecing together a nr of other arguments
> against the SH, based on some anatomical, biochemical & physiological data
> of modern humans, much of which was collected by Belgium's Dr Marc
> Verhaegen, which contrast sharply with the traits in present-day animals
> that are truly adapted to savannah life.
Is Elaine Morgan and Mr. Verhaegin also too stupid to figure out how
tools got on the savannah by creatures who didn't live there?
> As examples, modern humans lack
> sun-reflecting fur & are virtually hairless. The cooling system in our skin
> is quite unfit for hot, dry, exposed environments: we have numerous sweat
> glands , we waste water & sodium - not very suitable for life on the
> savannah.
I live in a near desert you stupid idiot, and I am not dead yet. Take
your crack-pot idiocy back to the wet ape loony-bin group.
>Our ability to concentrate our urine is poor & too low and if ever
> our earliest ancestors were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst,
> the most profligate urinators there.
Stupid fool, tools are all over the savannah. Early Homo lived there.
> Adapted savannah-dwellers need to
> drink more water at a time, but most humans are not able to drink much at a
> time. The quantity of our subcutaneous fat, which would insulate us against
> heat loss, is never found in truly savannah-adapted animals.
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups have traditionally practiced "persistence hunting,"
chasing antelopes or other game in the midday heat, often for hours,
until the animals overheat and collapse."
Your perfectly adapted savanna animal pissers are going extint, killed
by Homo who can't live there. You are insane Verhaegin.
> In our bodily functions, chemistry and microscopical anatomy, we should be
> hopeless as savannah-dwellers. So Marc Verhaegen & Elaine Morgan, in her
> remarkable book, The Scars of Evolution, came to the same conclusion that we
> had reached from quite different lines of evidence: the old savannah theory
> was not tenable. All former savannah supporters must recant , this I did in
> London. It was an exciting moment - living thru a change of paradigm. Max
> Planck, the German physicist & Nobel laureate, once wrote these words on the
> replacement of an outworn paradigm: "A new scientific truth does not triumph
> by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
> because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows that is
> familiar with it." That must be one of the masterpieces of cynicism on the
> scientific process. Paradigm changes, I like to think, flow overwhelmingly
> from new evidence and, where the evidence is sound and even irresistible,
> they should be embraced just as lief by the old as by the young. It was
> three weeks after my 71th birthday and I went on to declare, "A change of
> paradigm shakes us up; it rejuvenates us; and, this above all, it prevents
> mental fossilisation - and that is good for all of us."
http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/news/run.asp
Research: Humans are born to run
Study claims early humans evolved to run long distances
by Amanda Onion
November 17, 2004
ABC News
Not everyone may feel this way, but new research argues that humans
evolved to become natural runners.
>From our spring-loaded ligaments to our muscular behinds to our
ability to sweat, the human body took the ideal shape of a long-
distance runner starting some 2 million years ago, the researchers
say. The long, lean build helped us scavenge widely scattered kills
and could also have been an advantage when hunting down prey over long
distances.
"We're lousy sprinters, but we're really great long-distance runners,"
said Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist at Harvard University.
"Anyone who jogs regularly can tell you that it feels good."
How can two legs be better than four when it comes to striding for
long distances? Consider the fact that some 334,000 people ran
marathons in the United States last year, and then try getting an
antelope to run 26 miles, or a chimp, for that matter.
"You'd never beat a chimp in a 100-meter dash, but you could never get
them to run a marathon," he said. "And they wouldn't like trying."
Evolutionary biologists have generally credited humans' ability to run
as an offshoot of our ability to walk on two feet.
"How can anyone even conceive of an animal evolving a walking strategy
that was entirely decoupled from a running strategy?" asks C. Owen
Lovejoy of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio.
But in a study appearing in this week's issue of "Nature," Harvard's
Lieberman and Dennis Bramble of the University of Utah argue that
endurance running may have been so critical in early humans' survival
that it played a role in shaping many aspects of our bodies.
Runners From Head to Toe
The pair studied both modern human anatomy and the fossil record of
early human ancestors to look for characteristics that would have
specifically enhanced people's ability to run for long distances. They
say most, if not all of these key features seem to have emerged 2
million years ago with the first appearances of the genus Homo -- the
same group as modern living humans.
The peroneus brevis tendon, for example, made famous by Red Sox
pitcher Curt Schilling's injury during the 2004 World Series, is one
of several elongated tendons in the human body that the authors argue
provides critical spring as a person runs. In apes and chimpanzees,
the same tendons are much shorter, says Lieberman, and don't offer the
same kind of spring-loading action.
Then there is the gluteus maximus -- the unusually large muscle humans
carry at their rear. Why such bulk in back? Lieberman says it's for
running and, again, this feature is less pronounced in our
evolutionary ancestors.
"When we walk, we barely use the gluteus maximus," he said. "As soon
as you start running, it plays a vital role to keep you from falling
-- it stabilizes your trunk."
Other features the authors list that help us run include the arches in
our feet, which offer spring in our step, and broad surface areas of
our joints, which help distribute the shock of impact from running --
at least enough for ancient man, who didn't run on pavement and who
never lived much longer than 40 years.
The upper body, meanwhile, carries its own made-for-running designs,
including wide shoulders -- good for swinging arms from for balance as
we stride -- and lighter forearms that are easy to move back and
forth. Even our heads are equipped for running, they say, as a large
ligament stretching from our spines to the back of our heads acts to
dampen the oscillation of our heads as we plod along.
Finally, our ability to sweat is unmatched with our estimated 3
million sweat glands. Couple that with the fact that we aren't very
furry and you have a cool, running machine.
Jogging for Supper
Bernd Heinrich, a world record holder in the ultra marathon and
biologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington, says the
authors' points make sense.
"Most of us don't do much running so it may not feel natural, but it
feels natural to me," he said. "Not much is new here, but I think they
bring together a lot of evidence so it all fits into a pattern."
While few anthropologists argue with the fact that humans evolved to
become good runners, Lovejoy remains skeptical we were specifically
designed for endurance running.
"There is little doubt that many of the bony features that are
mentioned ... are adaptations to running and walking, but there is no
evidence that they are specifically adapted to endurance running," he
said.
Lovejoy points out that our arms and legs could also be considered
well designed for swimming, but that doesn't necessarily mean we
evolved specifically to be elite swimmers.
But Lieberman and others counter that endurance running, unlike
swimming, could have been a key part of early man's survival. It may
have helped them during long hunts and in scouting out abandoned
carcasses first, for example.
"Being fast would have been a huge premium," said Heinrich. "Vultures
can come in and devour a dead cow in an hour or two. So ideally, the
humans would get there first."
Patricia Kramer of the University of Washington, points out there may
be a small glitch in that theory. According to most research, early
female humans likely did not participate in long hunts, but stayed
behind to care for the young. If this is the case, Kramer asks, why
would women also have evolved to be good long-distance runners?
"If endurance running was a male activity, then why do women have
small waists and hypotrophied gluteus maximae?" she asks. "I think
that understanding how we moved through our environment is critical to
understanding who we are as evolved primates ... but as with all good
research this causes us to ask a new set of questions."
>
> > Try Gona at 2.6 mya for a smoking-gun null hypothesis. No cocos there,
> > you are million years too late.
>
> Be relevant. Again for the Xth time:
> After 5-4 Ma (H/P split), P gradually adapted to living in trop.forests,
So what?
> H
> reduced climbing skills & developed diving skills.
Diving skills on the savanna in knee-deep water. You are mentally ill.
> Our H ancestors were probaly absent from Africa 4-3 Ma (retroviral data).
Probably again and again and again, do ever have any evidence for
anything?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 31-05-2007 17:56, in artikel
1180626978....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On May 31, 3:45 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 31-05-2007 03:26, in artikel
>> 1180574802.883870.263...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 30, 12:57 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>> Op 30-05-2007 01:08, in artikel
>>>> 1180480119.394642.38...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>>>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I
>>>>>>>>>>>> hope??
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>>
>>>> No nonsense, please.
>>>> Inform:
>>
>>> Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
>>> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>>
>> You keep parrotting this sentence for some reason.
>> Are you trying to tell us something, my boy?
>
> It is to remind you, a fact that you keep forgetting, that you are
> very much alone in your pseudo-science scenarios.
Grow up. Pseudo-scientists are the idiots who believe human ancestors ran
over savannas:
Nature 325:305-306, 1987
Origin of hominid bipedalism
Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging
hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating
savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid
ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores
were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or
long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is
inefficient and costly (2,3).
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely
that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a
savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna
mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need
much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in
water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the
savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many
anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for
bipedalism, while they should know there are much better explanations
(9-11).
Lee Olsen
> Op 31-05-2007 17:56, in artikel
> 1180626978.613399.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 3:45 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Op 31-05-2007 03:26, in artikel
> >> 1180574802.883870.263...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >>> On May 30, 12:57 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>> Op 30-05-2007 01:08, in artikel
> >>>> 1180480119.394642.38...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >>>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hope??
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have an argument, nobody is listening...
>
> >>>> No nonsense, please.
> >>>> Inform:
>
> >>> Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> >>> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>
> >> You keep parrotting this sentence for some reason.
> >> Are you trying to tell us something, my boy?
>
> > It is to remind you, a fact that you keep forgetting, that you are
> > very much alone in your pseudo-science scenarios.
>
> Grow up. Pseudo-scientists are the idiots who believe human ancestors ran
> over savannas:
Idiots are those who do not know on-the-ground evidence when they see
it. It trumps compartive evidence every time.
Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
eating meat. Even a pathological side-show freak could undestand
that.
"Specifically, longer, more linear bodies are better adapted for heat
loss in dry open environments, where evaporative heat loss from
sweating is very effective. All modern-day tall "elongated" Africans
(e.g., Nilotics) are restricted to such environments."
Alan Walker and Richard Leakey editors. 1993 The Nariokotome Homo
Erectus Skeleton. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
>
> Nature 325:305-306, 1987
> Origin of hominid bipedalism
> Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging
> hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating
> savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable.
Tool stone tracing shows this not only probable, but a proven fact.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/dispatch/start.htm
Instead, we think the nomadic groups moved across a wider region, from
one basin to the next, taking with them a few local stone tools from
one place to wherever they ended up. By the time they got to
Olorgesailie, it must have seemed like an oasis of rock - all the
rocks they could possibly want. A good thing, too, since the rocks
they brought from distant places were pretty much used up by the time
they got here.
Only those with IQs less than 1 could not understnd this simple,
proven fact. Although it is understandable why a wet aper couldn't.
> There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid
> ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores
> were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or
> long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
> Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is
> inefficient and costly (2,3).
Tell that to Mr. Karoha, he is earing steak tonight.
http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups have traditionally practiced "persistence hunting,"
chasing antelopes or other game in the midday heat, often for hours,
until the animals overheat and collapse."
> Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
> savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely
> that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a
> savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
> thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna
> mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
> sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
> concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need
> much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
> savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
> The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in
> water-rich environments.
> It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the
> savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many
> anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for
> bipedalism, while they should know there are much better explanations
> (9-11)
ROFL. Take your silly out-dated rubbish back to your swamp forum where
someone might believe you.
"New estimates of tooth mark and percussion mark frequencies at the
FLK Zinj site: the carnivore-hominid-carnivore hypothesis falsified."
Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Barba R.
J Hum Evol. 2006 Feb;50(2):170-94. Epub 2006 Jan 4
"Traditional interpretations of hominid carcass acquisition strategies
revolve around the debate over whether early hominids hunted or
scavenged. A popular version of the scavenging scenario is the
carnivore-hominid-carnivore hypothesis, which argues that hominids
acquired animal resources primarily through passive opportunistic
scavenging from felid-defleshed carcasses. Its main empirical support
comes from the analysis of tooth mark frequency and distribution at
the FLK Zinj site reported by Blumenschine (Blumenschine, 1995, J.
Hum. Evol. 29, 21-51), in which it was shown that long bone mid-shafts
exhibited a high frequency of tooth marks, only explainable if felids
had preceded hominids in carcass defleshing. The present work shows
that previous estimates of tooth marks on the FLK Zinj assemblage were
artificially high, since natural biochemical marks were mistaken for
tooth marks. Revised estimates are similar to those obtained in
experiments in which hyenas intervene after humans in bone
modification. Furthermore, analyses of percussion marks, notches, and
breakage patterns provide data which are best interpreted as the
results of hominid activity (hammerstone percussion and marrow
extraction), based on experimentally-derived referential frameworks.
These multiple lines of evidence support previous analyses of cut
marks and their anatomical distribution; all indicate that hominids
had early access to fleshed carcasses that were transported,
processed, and accumulated at the FLK Zinj site."
1987??? You must be a fossil yourself Verhaegin. Try a library that is
up-to-date.
Marc Verhaegen
1180739346....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> Idiots are those who do not know on-the-ground evidence when they see
> it. It trumps compartive evidence every time.
> Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
> eating meat. Even a pathological side-show freak could undestand
> that.
Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say: my ancestor made this.
Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves my ancestors ran
over the savannas.
Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves our ancestors were
not waterside.
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora. łAquatic Ape Theory˛ is not about apes, nor
about having been aquatic, and contrary to what many PAs think, itąs not
about australopiths. AAT is about our Homo ancestors after the Homo/Pan
split ~5 Ma having been waterside (coast/lake/river-side). Homo remains 1.8
Ma are found in places as far as Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia),
Mojokerto (Java) etc.: AAT says their ancestorsafter the H/P split got there
along shorelines, not over dry plains. Leading PAs such as Ph.Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
<http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm> & Chr.Stringer
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html now agree with a "wet" past &
shoreline dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT>
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > Idiots are those who do not know on-the-ground evidence when they see
> > it. It trumps compartive evidence every time.
> > Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
> > eating meat. Even a pathological side-show freak could undestand
> > that.
>
> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say: my ancestor made this.
How unprofessional, name calling only, no rebuttal.
> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves my ancestors ran
> over the savannas.
Says more than imagination arguments by those who have no evidence.
> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves our ancestors were
> not waterside.
Ah, who said anything about "prove" Cite your source. Do you hear
voices in the night talking to you? As all swamp people, you simply
make everything up.
snip rubbish.
Repeating your ignorance doesn't make it true.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 02-06-2007 15:41, in artikel
1180791685....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On Jun 2, 3:45 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 02-06-2007 01:09, in artikel
>> 1180739346.577597.63...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>
>>> Idiots are those who do not know on-the-ground evidence when they see
>>> it. It trumps compartive evidence every time.
>>> Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
>>> eating meat. Even a pathological side-show freak could undestand
>>> that.
>>
>> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say: my ancestor made this.
>
> How unprofessional, name calling only, no rebuttal.
Who's the name caller, my boy?
Only fools think that when they find a cutmark they think their ancestors
made it.
>> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves my ancestors ran
>> over the savannas.
>
> Says more than imagination arguments by those who have no evidence.
You don't have the slightest evidence in favour of your savanna stories.
>> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves our ancestors were
>> not waterside.
Snip rubbish. Repeating your ignorance doesn't make it true.
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 02-06-2007 15:41, in artikel
> 1180791685....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
> > On Jun 2, 3:45 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> Op 02-06-2007 01:09, in artikel
> >> 1180739346.577597.63...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> >>
> >>> Idiots are those who do not know on-the-ground evidence when they see
> >>> it. It trumps compartive evidence every time.
> >>> Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
> >>> eating meat. Even a pathological side-show freak could undestand
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say: my ancestor made this.
> >
> > How unprofessional, name calling only, no rebuttal.
>
> Who's the name caller, my boy?
Marc---my boy
>
> Only fools think that when they find a cutmark they think their ancestors
> made it.
See any chimps making cut marks on bones?
>
> >> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves my ancestors ran
> >> over the savannas.
> >
> > Says more than imagination arguments by those who have no evidence.
>
> You don't have the slightest evidence in favour of your savanna stories.
Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
eating meat. What don't you understand?
>
> >> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say this proves our ancestors were
> >> not waterside.
> Snip rubbish. Repeating your ignorance doesn't make it true.
I never said "proved" so you lied. I said you don't have any evidence
to back up your claims--coconuts indeed.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 03-06-2007 02:58, in artikel
1180832295.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>>>> Idiots are those who do not know on-the-ground evidence when they see
>>>>> it. It trumps compartive evidence every time.
>>>>> Gona 2.6 mya = tools = ostrich = antelope = tortoise = cut marks =
>>>>> eating meat. Even a pathological side-show freak could undestand
>>>>> that.
>>>> Idiots are the ones who find cutmarks & say: my ancestor made this.
>>> How unprofessional, name calling only, no rebuttal.
>> Who's the name caller, my boy?
> Marc---my boy
You are a child: parrotting everything you're told without thinking a bit
for yourself.
Grow up, my boy.
Lee Olsen
Found any cut-marks on coconuts?
Rich Travsky
>
> Op 28-05-2007 07:59, in artikel 465A6FD0...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>
> >> Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
> >> 1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> >>
> >> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
> >
>
> Not 1 single little argument... Look for yourself:
>
> Gorilla afarensis
Not one argument for such a creature.
Here's Lee's material again:
Rich Travsky
>
> Op 28-05-2007 07:17, in artikel 465A65F2...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>
> >> 1180136729.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Lee Olsen wrote:
> >>>> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 16.4.07
> >>>>> Israeli researchers:
> >>>>> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
> >>>> material) it is 26 years out of date.
> >>
> >> My boy: 2006 & 2007: new info:
> >>
> >> Gorilla afarensis
> >>
> >> A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike,
> >> and more gorilla- than chimplike:
> >> · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from
> >> A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla."
> >> · Kimbel cs.1984: "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... 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."
> >> · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated
> >> [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the
> >> modern great apes."
> >> · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African
> >> apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan.
> >> Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments
> >> about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not
> >> therefore identify a hominid."
> >> · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern
> >> African apes than to modern humans."
> >> · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "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 non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the
> >> protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens."
> >> · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third
> >> premolar... is completely apelike."
> >> · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most
> >> similar to that observed in Gorilla."
> >> . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist
> >> morphology associated with knuckle-walking."
> >> . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape
> >> morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..."
> >> . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered
> >> specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas."
> >>
> >> In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis:
> >
> > Being an obligate biped is VERY homo like. And VERY UNGORILLA like.
>
> My little boy, I've answered this many times.
You've dodged it each time I ask how an obligate biped becomes a quadruped.
> Not difficult.
> Very easy:
>
> Sahelanthr was bipedal, no?
> Lived 7 Ma, no?
How would it become a quadruped?
> When did Homo & Pan split?
> Yes, good boy, 5 Ma.
>
> Conclusion? (Even you can do that.)
How did it become a quadruped?
> Bipedalism predated the H/P split.
>
> Good boy. :-)
None of which pertains to obligate bipedality being UNgorilla like.
> Instead of snipping, you have better read it properly:
Instead of pasting the same bla bla over and over, please consider
how an obligate biped becomes a quadruped...
Rich Travsky
>
> Op 28-05-2007 07:12, in artikel 465A64A4...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> >>
> >> Lee Olsen wrote:
> >>> On May 17, 8:39 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 16.4.07
> >>>> Israeli researchers:
> >>>> 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Marc for your effort, but unfortunately (like most of your
> >>> material) it is 26 years out of date.
> >>>
> >>> I saw this on TV 26 years ago. Johanson stood there dumbfounded as
> >>> Leakey drew an X through Johanson's star-of-the-show Lucy, and placed
> >>> a question mark in its place.
> >>
> >> I apologize to the group, looks like I was off a country mile on how
> >> out-of-date Marc's material is.
> >>
> >>> From "The Emergence of Man by John E. Pfeiffer page 64:
> >> "Most investigators, including his former teacher Elliot Smith at
> >> University College in London, regarded the "Taungs baby" as an ape not
> >> on the line that led to man but more like the chimpanzee or gorilla."
> >>
> >> Not to mention this...
> >>
> >> Mario Vaneechoutte:
> >> "Although the idea that australopithecines could be the relatives of
> >> chimps and gorillas rather than of humans has been put forward by
> >> others previously (Edelstein, 1987; Kleindienst, 1975; Goodman, 1982)
> >> and more recently (Easteal & Herbert, 1997), Verhaegen's reasoning
> >> was
> >> considered as idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
> >
>
> Keep using such arguments, my boys.
> It's *all* you have...
No refutation noted.
:-D
Rich Travsky
>
> Op 28-05-2007 05:36, in artikel 465A4E58...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> ....
>
> >> The point, my little boy, is:
> >> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
> >> Snipping doesn't help you.
> >> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
> >> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333, DIK-1
> >> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
> >> chimplike.
>
> > Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
> > become a quadruped?
>
> Sigh. I have answered this 1000 times.
No. You have not.
> My little boy (only little children ask the same question so often), Lucy
> had curved hand bones (to give on 1 argument), IOW, it climbed a lot arms
> overhead. Understand that? Round bones to hang from round tree branches?
> Now, you're fully right that Lucy also moved often on 2 legs. Where do you
> think Lucy could combine these 2 things = moving on 2 legs & grasping
> branches ove its head? Yes, good boy: in forest swamps, where Lucy was
> found, as you know: wading for water+waterside plants (as some gorillas
> sometimes do) & grasping branches above its head to pick fruits or climb out
> of the swamp (as many apes do).
>
> :-) Got it?
I see that you still have not explained how an obligate biped becomes a quadruped.
There is nothing in what you posted that explains it.
> Now, 2d part of answer. Listen good. Bit more difficult. Long long ago (2
> Ma) times cooled down & dried (Pleistocene - forget everything between
> brackets: it's for the grown-ups). It was colder in water, there were less
> swamps, & less of the foods they liked in the swamp, so they liked to be
> more on dry ground in the forest, wouldn't you? But why not move on 4 legs
> there? It's very easy when you have long arms & short legs, don't you
> think?
>
> Okidoki?
>
> :-) Got it?
I see that you don't know what you're talking about. "why not move on 4 legs"
is not a scientific argument.
got that?
Rich Travsky
And Marc's scientific theory is "why not move on 4 legs" ...
Pathetic.
Rich Travsky
No. Not when it's obligate bipedalism that's involved.
"why not move on 4 legs" provides NO mechanism or rationale for such a
transition.
> australopithecines are linked with living humans on the basis of shared
> characters related to bipedalism˛ (Andrews, 1992), but it is often argued
> that the African apesą ancestors also were more bipedal (theory of W. L.
Rich Travsky
1987? :-D
Rich Travsky
> > My boy, that there were tortoises etc. does IYO that mean that those
> > hominids did not live at the waterside??
>
> Absolutely.
>
> http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/dispatch/start.htm
>
> "The idea of sleeping on the higher ground rather than next to water
> seemed an attractive idea. Lakes, ponds, and stream channels in the
> African bush are good natural sources of water and plant food during
> the day. But at night they turn into really great places if you want
> to be hunted down as prey! The water margins attract the big and small
> predators that like to hunt in the dark of night. Even today at
> Olorgesailie, we often go to sleep hearing hyenas, jackals, and
> sometimes lions growling and whooping off in the distance during their
> nighttime prowls. Anyway, early humans could get food in the lowlands
> - that's where they left the chipped stone tools and other evidence of
> their activities. And, unlike earlier hominins, they could have
> avoided the favored hunting areas of other predators if they got to
> higher ground at night."
Even daytime is chancy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
"A battle between a pride of lions, a herd of buffalo, and 2 crocodiles at a
watering hole in South Africa's Kruger National Park while on safari."
> [...]
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 05:17, in artikel 46662736...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>> Nature 325:305-306, 1987
>
> 1987? :-D
Yes, until now, everything in it stands.
:-)
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 05:15, in artikel 466626D6...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
If you're talking about afarensis, it had curved phalanges = climbing arms
overhead. If you want to call orangutans (parttime bipedal in trees)
"obligate bipeds"...
> "why not move on 4 legs" provides NO mechanism or rationale for such a
> transition.
Never heard of evolution = adaptation?? Read Darwin.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 05:14, in artikel 4666267C...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Pathetic. Darwinism = adaptation: +-all mammals run on 4 legs = fast,
stable etc. There have to be good reasons to walk on 2 legs.
>
>>>> Round bones to hang from round tree branches?
>>>> Now, you're fully right that Lucy also moved often on 2 legs. Where do you
>>>> think Lucy could combine these 2 things = moving on 2 legs & grasping
>>>> branches ove its head? Yes, good boy: in forest swamps, where Lucy was
>>>> found, as you know: wading for water+waterside plants (as some gorillas
>>>> sometimes do) & grasping branches above its head to pick fruits or climb
>>>> out
>>>> of the swamp (as many apes do).
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 05:12, in artikel 4666261E...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Op 28-05-2007 05:36, in artikel 465A4E58...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
>> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>>
>> ....
>>
>>>> The point, my little boy, is:
>>>> Is Lucy a fossil Gorilla sp?
>>>> Snipping doesn't help you.
>>>> Lucy probably belonged to afarensis (some, eg, Ferguson, think it may have
>>>> been in its own species "antiquus", different from "afarensis" AL-333,
>>>> DIK-1
>>>> etc.), and afarensis was very Afr.apelike, and clearly more gorilla- than
>>>> chimplike.
>>
>>> Except for being an obligate biped. Why, and how, would an obligate biped
>>> become a quadruped?
>>
>> Sigh. I have answered this 1000 times.
>
> No. You have not.
Your intelligence is not my problem.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 06:01, in artikel 466631A9...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
>> On May 31, 3:45 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> My boy, that there were tortoises etc. does IYO that mean that those
>>> hominids did not live at the waterside??
>>
>> Absolutely.
An answer to be expected from a fanatic mind.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 05:08, in artikel 4666253F...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Don't lie. Again: only fools call a creature with curved phalanges (=
climbing arms overhead) an "obligate biped".
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 05:05, in artikel 46662484...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Op 28-05-2007 07:59, in artikel 465A6FD0...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
>> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>>
>>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
>>>> 1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
>>>> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>>>
>>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
>>>
>>> He did.
>>
>> Not 1 single little argument... Look for yourself:
>>
>> Gorilla afarensis
>
> Not one argument for such a creature.
>
> Here's Lee's material again:
No "material" but just-so opinions:
> Henry M. McHenry and Katherine Coffing 2000
> AUSTRALOPITHECUS TO HOMO: Transformations
> in Body andMind. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:125-46
The usual confirmation of the old axioma without arguments:
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 06-06-2007 05:17, in artikel 46662736...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> >> Nature 325:305-306, 1987
> >
> > 1987? :-D
>
> Yes, until now, everything in it stands.
>
> :-)
>
> >> Origin of hominid bipedalism
> >> Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging
> >> hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating
> >> savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable.
Sinclare who?
> >> There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid
> >> ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores
> >> were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or
> >> long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Vultures, canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores leaving cut-marks on
bones?
> >> Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is
> >> inefficient and costly (2,3).
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups have traditionally practiced "persistence hunting,"
chasing antelopes or other game in the midday heat, often for hours,
until the animals overheat and collapse."
> >> Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
> >> savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely
> >> that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas.
Gona = 2.6 mya = first core tools = ostrich = tortoise = antelope =
savanna.
Man is the opposite of a
> >> savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
> >> thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna
> >> mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
> >> sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
> >> concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need
> >> much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
> >> savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
> >> The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in
> >> water-rich environments.
Gona = 2.6 mya = first core tools = ostrich = tortoise = antelope =
savanna = living there.
> >> It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the
> >> savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many
> >> anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for
> >> bipedalism, while they should know there are much better explanations
> >> (9-11).
The problem is your misunderstanding of "bipedalism." You are
confused about what is in the literature, so you invent wooden-man
arguments that have no meaning in todays world. You Marc, are living
in the past.
Gona = 2.6 mya = first core tools = ostrich = tortoise = antelope =
savanna = living there.
Lee Olsen
> >
> > No. Not when it's obligate bipedalism that's involved.
>
> If you're talking about afarensis, it had curved phalanges = climbing arms
> overhead. If you want to call orangutans (parttime bipedal in trees)
> "obligate bipeds"...
>
> > "why not move on 4 legs" provides NO mechanism or rationale for such a
> > transition.
>
> Never heard of evolution = adaptation?? Read Darwin.
That's not an explanation, it's a cop out.
>
> >> australopithecines are linked with living humans on the basis of shared
> >> characters related to bipedalism² (Andrews, 1992), but it is often argued
> >> that the African apes¹ ancestors also were more bipedal (theory of W. L.
Lee Olsen
Insults, only argument you have left.
Lee Olsen
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op 06-06-2007 05:05, in artikel 46662484...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>
> >> Op 28-05-2007 07:59, in artikel 465A6FD0...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> >> Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> >>
> >>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Op 27-05-2007 14:15, in artikel
> >>>> 1180268126....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> >>>> <pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>> My boy, you're not trying to give arguments against my hypothesis I hope??
> >>>
> >>> He did.
> >>
> >> Not 1 single little argument... Look for yourself:
> >>
> >> Gorilla afarensis
> >
> > Not one argument for such a creature.
> >
> > Here's Lee's material again:
>
>
> > Henry M. McHenry and Katherine Coffing 2000
> > AUSTRALOPITHECUS TO HOMO: Transformations
> > in Body andMind. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:125-46
>
> The usual confirmation of the old axioma without arguments:
Senile and going blind.
Lee Olsen
Answer his question. It is obvious you want to play semantic games
rather than give an explanation.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 17:59, in artikel
1181145540.7...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>>>> but fail to see that KWing is derived from short-legged bipedalism: "łEarly
>>>
>>> No. Not when it's obligate bipedalism that's involved.
>>
>> If you're talking about afarensis, it had curved phalanges = climbing arms
>> overhead. If you want to call orangutans (parttime bipedal in trees)
>> "obligate bipeds"...
>>
>>> "why not move on 4 legs" provides NO mechanism or rationale for such a
>>> transition.
>>
>> Never heard of evolution = adaptation?? Read Darwin.
>
> That's not an explanation
Your intelligence is not my problem.
>, it's a cop out.
>
>>
>>>> australopithecines are linked with living humans on the basis of shared
>>>> characters related to bipedalism˛ (Andrews, 1992), but it is often argued
>>>> that the African apesą ancestors also were more bipedal (theory of W. L.
Lee Olsen
No answer.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 18:13, in artikel
1181146415....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Grow up.
Are you really that stupid??
Curverd hand bones = climbing arms overhead.
Got it??
>
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Op 06-06-2007 05:08, in artikel 4666253F.68D6C...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> >> Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> >>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> >>>> Op 28-05-2007 07:17, in artikel 465A65F2.B9EC3...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
> >>>> Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> >>>>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Op 26-05-2007 01:45, in artikel
> >>>>>> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Still no answer from doughboy. I guess he doesn't have one.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marc Verhaegen
Op 06-06-2007 23:27, in artikel
1181165271.7...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
No answer. Only this nonsense:
>>>>>>> Being an obligate biped is VERY homo like. And VERY UNGORILLA like.
>>
>>>>>> My little boy, I've answered this many times.
>>
>>>>> You've dodged it each time I ask how an obligate biped becomes a
>>>>> quadruped.
>>
>>>> Don't lie. Again: only fools call a creature with curved phalanges (=
>>>> climbing arms overhead) an "obligate biped".
>>
>>> Answer his question. It is obvious you want to play semantic games
>>> rather than give an explanation.
>>
>> Grow up.
>> Are you really that stupid??
>> Curved hand bones = climbing arms overhead.
>> Got it??
> Still no answer from doughboy. I guess he doesn't have one.
Only fools call animals that climb arms overhead "obligate bipeds".
Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
The issue was not the definition of "obligate" your changing the goal
posts only makes you look like the jerk you really are. The issue is
how did A'piths, for instance, get from their "intermediate position
and back to
a chimpanzee (or Gorilla) position in less than 1 million years? There
are just too many differences to be accounted for than just saying
simplistically curved flanges mean something. See:
fig 15 "The iliac neck (hatched) therefore can be
long in the chimpanzee (d) and must be
short in Homo (f). The iliac crest (black,
g-i) indicates low resistance to bending
in the chimpanzee (g) and high
resistance to bending in Homo (i).
Australopithecus (e,h) assumes an
intermediate position."
Holger Preuschoft J. Anat.
(2004) 204, pp363-384
Another example is how little changes in the about the same amount of
time ( geologically speaking) between the different species of chimps.
Almost nothing compared to the changes from boisie to G. Where are
your intermediate fossils?
Rich Travsky
Are humans obligate bipeds Marc?
http://www.hendricksmn.com/hendricks_mn/monkey_bars_1b.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circus-school-birds-nest.jpg
How about this one Marc? Terrorists training:
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Al%20Qaeda%20on%20monkey%20bars%20from%20middle%20east%20online.jpg
Or this one in the military:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/milsci/gallery/albums/album05/aah.sized.jpg
Why do you set yourself up like this? Is it any wonder you're known as a kook?
Rich Travsky
There is no possible reconstruction that can be applied to an australopith
that can show it as anything other than a biped. Not even a computer simulation.
Marc, if you have one, SHOW IT.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 07-06-2007 16:08, in artikel 46681142...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Yes. So?? Try to be relevant, my boy.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 07-06-2007 16:11, in artikel 46681207...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich
Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> There is no possible reconstruction that can be applied to an australopith
> that can show it as anything other than a biped. Not even a computer
> simulation. Marc, if you have one, SHOW IT.
Man, for the 1000th time, I too think that apiths were bipeds, forgot?? Why
don't you inform a bit before trying to say something. Why don't you even
read our TREE paper?? Just google "aquarboreal".
FYI, from our paper:
Were australopiths wetland waders?
Our extensive survey of the literature17 suggests that most hominids might
have dwelt in Śwetą rather than Śdryą habitats, and this has been confirmed
by recent discoveries14,18,19. Palaeo-ecological reconstructions are
notoriously difficult and our view has been contested by supporters of
traditional savannah interpretations1-3,17,19, yet it appears clear that all
australopiths lived near trees, with early species generally living in wet
and well-wooded environments and later species living more often in more
open wetlands. Table 2 shows a limited selection of our data.
Our interpretation is corroborated by (1) comparisons of postcranial
skeleton, (2) tooth enamel microwear, (3) strontium:calcium ratios and (4)
isotopic evidence.
(1) Fossilized footprints and skeletal remains suggest that australopiths
had a mixture of bipedal, tree-climbing and probably20 knuckle-walking
features. These would have been ideal for wetlands: bipedalism in waist-deep
water, knuckle-walking in knee-deep water, and grasping fruits and climbing
arms-overhead in the waterside vegetation, as seen today to varying degrees
in pygmy chimpanzees and lowland gorillas in flooded rainforests or forest
swamps15. Australopith short-legged bipedalism was different from human
bipedalism21, probably including a somewhat forward-leaning trunk posture22,
and would have been suitable for aquarborealism. The A. africanus StW-573
foot from Sterkfontein, South Africa, for instance, łhad both bipedal and
climbing adaptations. This skeletonąs foot morphology is consistent with the
bipedal Laetoli footprints, which are not those of fully human feet, but
which have very clear ape-like morphology˛23. Tree-climbing features (which
are less obvious in the robust australopiths) include apelike
upward-directed shoulder joints and curved finger and toe phalanges.
(2) Our tooth microwear studies indicate that A. afarensis molar enamel has
a glossy polished surface that is typical of the molars of capybaras
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa24. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs, grasses and the bark of
young trees. The microwear of Australopithecus boisei displays more pits,
wide parallel striations and deep-recessed occlusal dentine features when
compared to A. afarensis25,26, resembling that of beavers Castor fiber,
which feed on riverine herbs, roots of water-lilies, bark and woody plants.
Apparently, an early australopith diet of fruits (larger front-teeth) and
swamp herbs (polishing) was supplemented with woody plants in the robust
australopiths (more wear). Walkerąs suggestion that A. boisei were
bulk-eaters of łsmall, hard fruits with casings, pulp, seeds and all˛27
could explain the deep-recessed dentine, but not the heavily polished enamel
that is typical of marsh-plant feeders24,25.
(3-4) These microwear data are consistent with two studies on South-African
australopiths28,29. Sillen provides three possibilities for low
strontium:calcium ratios in A. robustus: partial carnivory; eating leaves
and shoots of forbs and woody plants; and eating food derived from
well-drained streamside soils28. Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp state that A.
africanus łate not only fruits and leaves but also large quantities of
carbon-13-enriched foods such as grasses and sedges or animals that ate
these plants, or both˛29. However, regular consumption of savannah grasses
is incompatible with the polished, rounded microwear24,29 and predominant
meat eating is unlikely in view of the blunt molars27. More probable is a
diet of sedges and other marshland plants supplemented with fruits and
animals (e.g. tools attributed to A. robustus now suggest termite-eating30).
Independent lines of evidence thus suggest that different australopith
species regularly waded for shallow-water plants, possibly like lowland
gorillas do today15, only much more frequently. Papyrus or reed sedges were
abundant in australopith environments (Table 2) and are part of the diet of
extant hominids. Gorillas eat bamboo shoots and stalks, as well as swamp
herbs and sedges (Table 1); all hominids eat cane; bipedally wading
chimpanzees and humans collect water-lilies; and rice growing in shallow
water and other cereals are staple foods for humans.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 07-06-2007 06:07, in artikel
1181189232.1...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
My dear imbecile: where do you get in less than 1 My??
Back to school, my boy.