Kadanuumuu (australopithecus) 3.6 ma

[yelw...@gmail.com]

Not heard of this very important fossil before:
Kadanuumuu (big guy) male australopith, standing about 5.4 feet high,
much bigger than Lucy, and 0.4 Myr older, found in Afar region close
to the location of Lucy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadanuumuu
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Male gorilla.

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/

: This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees
: are not good models for the study of our early human
: ancestors, he added.

Nobody outside of primary schools has thought that
chimps were a good model for early humans, at least
not in decades.

There are as many years between Chimps and the LCA
as there are between humans and the LCA.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178840885993

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:35:33 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/

The following was taken by you from the article, JTEM:

> : This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees
> : are not good models for the study of our early human
> : ancestors, he added.

Do you regularly use the marginal colon when quoting
sources (rather than posts to which you are replying)?

I prefer the more common means of offseting from the margin by
at least two spaces. YMMV.

> Nobody outside of primary schools has thought that
> chimps were a good model for early humans, at least
> not in decades.
>
> There are as many years between Chimps and the LCA
> as there are between humans and the LCA.

That's quite a crushing remark on the lack of scientific
sophistication of this National Geographic article. Truth to
tell, I'm not impressed with the NG science writers in general.


Change of topic: I posted a reply to a September 28
post of yours on the human-chimp split, over on the thread,
"What do you think about my theory of the origins of bipedality?"

Nobody has replied to that on the original thread except
some troll who never posted to this group before or since,
and did not even give a posting nym, let alone his/her real name.


However, I reposted the replies I made directly to you,
in an OP to the sci.bio.paleontology thread, "The Big Splits In Hominidae":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/7oxWsCsFAwAJ
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 12:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <461147c3-3bd8-4538...@googlegroups.com>


and you may want to reply to one or more posts on that thread.

On the other hand, Mario has done a halfway decent job on that thread.
[You had been replying to him on that s.a.p thread, and it looks
like he is expounding on the same themes he did there.]

You may especially want to reply to the sole post that Harshman
has done to that thread. I suggest you be low-key and on-topic.

I don't think Harshman will do very well against you if you do that,
nor will his favorite groupie, Erik Simpson. As for the other big
John Harshman s.b.p. groupie, Oxyaena, 'e has demonstrated
complete incompetence in systematics there. See especially:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/MmHnpsXTBAAJ
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0d871349-931c-4e77...@googlegroups.com>

...where I show how Oxyaena let a 1998 paper in J.Mol.evol using only
mitochondrial DNA over-rule a 2006 paper in *Nature* that used
a hefty part of the genome in dating the human-chimp split.

The former gave 10-13 Mya whereas the latter gave a maximum of 6.3 Ma
and opted for "probably less than 5.4 Mya".

To make matters even more embarrassing for Harshman, Oxyaena claimed
the former gave the "best" existing estimate.


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

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Here's an article that is just a tad less popularized:

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100621/full/news.2010.305.html

I don't know how this online journal relates to "the" journal Nature.
The linked article doesn't give a volume number, etc. but only a doi: number for


By the way, yelw...@gmail.com, do you have a s.a.p. username?
And do you not wish to give out your legal name?

From what little I've seen of your posts, you seem to
be at least as competent as JTEM, who criticized your choice
of journal.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:59:06 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 7:13:51 PM UTC-4, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Not heard of this very important fossil before:
> > Kadanuumuu (big guy) male australopith, standing about 5.4 feet high,
> > much bigger than Lucy, and 0.4 Myr older, found in Afar region close
> > to the location of Lucy.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadanuumuu
> > https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/
>
> Here's an article that is just a tad less popularized:
>
> https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100621/full/news.2010.305.html
>
> I don't know how this online journal relates to "the" journal Nature.
> The linked article doesn't give a volume number, etc. but only a doi: number for

itself.

[Somehow that last word got lost in the shuffle.]

[Pandora]

Already had its monograph published in 2016.

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789401774277
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-7429-1

Some interesting findings, e.g. the thorax was "bell-shaped", with
broad upper portion, not "funnel-shaped" as in African apes.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

Can you point to ANY on-line discussion of this fossil?

Paul.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 6:59:06 PM UTC+1, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Here's an article that is just a tad less popularized:
>
> https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100621/full/news.2010.305.html

I did try to post a link to Nature -- but somehow it didn't copy.

> By the way, yelw...@gmail.com, do you have a s.a.p. username?
> And do you not wish to give out your legal name?

My legal name is "Paul Crowley". Yelworcp is the name backwards.
I've been posting here regularly for over 20 years -- if not always
with that email address.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:35:33 AM UTC+1, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:

>> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/
>
> : This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees
> : are not good models for the study of our early human
> : ancestors, he added.

A fuller quote from the article:

" . . . In addition to being much bigger than Lucy, the new fossil
contains a more complete shoulder blade than previously known, a
major portion of the rib cage, and pelvis fragments that shed new
light on how A. afarensis moved.
Kadanuumuu's skeletal features are surprisingly similar to those of
modern humans, Haile-Selassie said in an interview.

This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees are not good

models for the study of our early human ancestors, he added. . . "

Haile-Selassie here is misleading or, more likely, his
thinking is illogical -- probably hopelessly distorted by
the (required) belief of his group that Ardi is ancestral
(or nearly so) and must fit in somewhere close.

I'm surprised that I missed the discovery of this fossil.
That must partly be because it has received little
publicity or discussion. It fits perfectly into my
thinking about human evolution. It shows that much
of what we think of as 'modern' was present soon
after the evolution of bipedalism -- the long legs, the
relatively large size, the broad thorax, the inability to
climb, or move around (or stay in) trees (any more
than modern humans), and the commitment to a
terrestrial way of life.

All that is alien to the standard assumptions, routinely
regurgitated in most PA papers -- that until recently (at
until some recent undefined date) human ancestors
could only avoid predators by staying in, and fleeing
to, trees -- especially at night.

My guess is that Kadanuumuu tells us things about
human evolution that the practitioners in the field
prefer not to think about -- and that's why it's rarely
mentioned or discussed.

> Nobody outside of primary schools has thought that
> chimps were a good model for early humans, at least
> not in decades.

Even if that were true (which I dispute) fashion is not a
good argument in science. Among known primates,
chimps are our closest relatives. No one (I think)
seriously argues that hominins have remained the same
since our split from them (although evolutionary views
around here are so nutty, that I would not be surprised
to be proved false here).

> There are as many years between Chimps and the LCA
> as there are between humans and the LCA.

Time, in and of itself, is not a cause of evolutionary
change. Once a taxon has found a niche, it often has
no reason to change. Do you think that (say) crows,
including ravens, have changed much over the past
30 Myr?

Perhaps sometime, you'd care to set out what you think
were the likely developments in chimp evolution since
the split from humans. You could also list their probable
causes -- e.g. the changes that took place in African
tropical forests, especially during early hominin evolution
from (say) 6 ma to 3 ma.

Paul.

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> > Nobody outside of primary schools has thought that
> > chimps were a good model for early humans, at least
> > not in decades.

> Even if that were true (which I dispute) fashion is not a
> good argument in science. Among known primates,
> chimps are our closest relatives. No one (I think)
> seriously argues that hominins have remained the same
> since our split from them (although evolutionary views
> around here are so nutty, that I would not be surprised
> to be proved false here).

Reverse it. Your logic still applies: Chimps and
humans were once one population and then they split,
so humans are an excellent model for the earliest
chimps!

The logic is exactly as sound whichever way you apply
it...

So if the exact same "Logic" applies to both viewpoints,
what does the evidence say? Well, for starters it says
that the human hand, and not the chimps, is the more
primitive:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/humans-have-more-primitive-hands-chimpanzees

The evidence says that upright walking, like what we
humans do, is OLDER than the human/chimp split, even
going by the archaic & discredited 6 myo divergence
based on mtDNA!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

Heck, that one demonstrates that upright walking was
already thing prior to the youngest estimates on the
human/gorilla split!

> Time, in and of itself, is not a cause of evolutionary
> change.

Oh, I agree. I've argued many times: Evolution happens
in as much time as is available. Sometimes that's
not much time at all.

...of course, in the vast majority of cases the
population goes extinct rather than "Evolve" into
something else...

> Once a taxon has found a niche, it often has
> no reason to change.

Macro vs. Micro evolution. The Macro is probably
the "Do or Die" -- the quantum leap -- and from
there it's micro evolution smoothing out the
edges... refining the model...

> Perhaps sometime, you'd care to set out what you think
> were the likely developments in chimp evolution

I already have done that, many times:

Humans.

I believe that there were various populations of pan,
mirroring the Hss/Neanderthal/Denisovan/etc. And, that
where & when these various populations intersected they
interbreed, moderating any changes. But humans almost
certainly saw them as prey (DINNER!). And even if our
ancestors weren't eating them they were certainly
competing with any number of populations. As we wiped
out all the costal/savanna/whatever populations there
was less and less "Moderating" of the genome of the
forest population... where the members could take to
the canopy to escape predation.

There. That's it. We drove all but the forest populations
extinct, allowing them to adapt to their environment
without any moderation resulting from the interbreeding
with populations carrying DNA adapted to other environments.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121165529878

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op maandag 8 oktober 2018 01:13:51 UTC+2 schreef yelw...@gmail.com:

Kadanuumuu was a male Praeanthropus afarensis ("Australopithecus" should be reserved IMO for the S.African apiths), IMO a relative of Gorilla rather than of Homo-Pan. The males were much larger than the females (sexual dimporphism, as in Gorilla & Pongo, vs Pan & Homo). Like most or all Mio-Pliocene hominoids, they were upright (vertical spine), not for walking on dry ground of course, but for climbing vertically & for wading bipedally and floating vertically in forest swamps where the fossil was found (aquarboreal), much like lowland gorillas do in forest swamps, google "gorilla bai", and "Ape and Human Evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism".

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:10:59 PM UTC+1, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:

> Reverse it. Your logic still applies: Chimps and
> humans were once one population and then they split,
> so humans are an excellent model for the earliest
> chimps!
>
> The logic is exactly as sound whichever way you apply
> it...

Not if you grasp the concept of 'niche'. If you
don't (as the great bulk of standard PA doesn't)
then you will have nothing on which to base an
understanding of evolution.

Chimps and gorillas occupy closely related niches.
Bonobos are chimps which found a way to get
to the other side of the Congo River where there
are no gorillas. So they were able to occupy what
can be seen as a joint chimp/gorilla niche. The
chimp niche and the gorilla niche have been in
existence since before chimps and gorillas split.
Neither have changed significantly since.

> So if the exact same "Logic" applies to both viewpoints,
> what does the evidence say? Well, for starters it says
> that the human hand, and not the chimps, is the more
> primitive:

The human hand reverted to a more primitive
form when it no longer needed the specialism
of brachiation.

> The evidence says that upright walking, like what we
> humans do, is OLDER than the human/chimp split

Essentially nonsense. Maybe -- MAYBE -- there
were a few isolated populations of smallish
primates on islands that became bipedal. If so,
they could afford to lose their former fast mode
of locomotion (and ability to scamper up pole-
like trees with their infants attached to their
bellies) because they had no predators.
(Although, it's very hard to see what possible
advantages they might have got from becoming
bipedal.) But there were no such bipedal animals
on the African mainland (nor any other mainland).

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

That 'source' calls the assertion of possible
bipedalism 'speculation'.

>> Time, in and of itself, is not a cause of evolutionary
>> change.
>
> Oh, I agree. I've argued many times: Evolution happens
> in as much time as is available. Sometimes that's
> not much time at all.

And -- usually -- it does not happen at all.

>> Once a taxon has found a niche, it often has
>> no reason to change.
>
> Macro vs. Micro evolution. The Macro is probably
> the "Do or Die" -- the quantum leap -- and from
> there it's micro evolution smoothing out the
> edges... refining the model...

No idea what you are on about here.

> I believe that there were various populations of pan,
> mirroring the Hss/Neanderthal/Denisovan/etc. And, that
> where & when these various populations intersected they
> interbreed, moderating any changes. But humans almost
> certainly saw them as prey (DINNER!). And even if our
> ancestors weren't eating them they were certainly
> competing with any number of populations.

The only reasonable models on which we could
base such a scenario are modern humans and
modern chimps. How would a bunch of humans
armed only with clubs and spears cope with
chimps?

> As we wiped out all the costal/savanna/whatever
> populations there was less and less "Moderating" of
> the genome of the forest population... where the
> members could take to the canopy to escape
> predation.

You seem unaware that almost all tropical
Africa was covered by dense forest during the
relevant period -- i.e. prior to the onset of ice-
ages.

> There. That's it.

You've forgotten the overwhelming presence
of large predators (both omnivore and
carnivore) that have long since forced both
chimps and gorillas up into the canopy.
You've also forgotten to explain how early
hominins coped with such creatures.

> We drove all but the forest populations extinct

There is no reason whatever to suppose that
either chimps or gorillas (or orangs or
gibbons) ever had populations that lived else-
where but in forests.

Your evolutionary scenario is based on next
to nothing.

Paul.

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> > Reverse it. Your logic still applies: Chimps and
> > humans were once one population and then they split,
> > so humans are an excellent model for the earliest
> > chimps!
> >
> > The logic is exactly as sound whichever way you apply
> > it...

> Not if you grasp the concept of 'niche'.

Again, upright walking AND the human hand predate
the split. So whatever niche you want to talk
about, it's the niche where the human side prevailed.

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus

> That 'source' calls the assertion of possible
> bipedalism 'speculation'.

Then it's wrong. It's not mere speculation. The
foramen magnum is more human like than any
existing apes with the exception of humans. This
really does suggest upright walking.

> > Macro vs. Micro evolution. The Macro is probably
> > the "Do or Die" -- the quantum leap -- and from
> > there it's micro evolution smoothing out the
> > edges... refining the model...

> No idea what you are on about here.

You just discredited yourself.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[Mario Petrinovic]

I was aware of this, and I do believe it was mentioned once somewhere.
Maybe here.

[Pandora]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:54:38 -0700 (PDT), littor...@gmail.com
wrote:

Jumping to conclusions on the basis of an aquatic bias.

"the paleohabitat was likely medium to dense woodland with grassy and
bushed ground cover." No hippopotamids and reduncine bovids. Very few
aquatic taxa (an otter (Torolutra) and dental specimens of Crocodylia)
indicate a larger body of water distal to the site.

[Pandora]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:42:40 -0700 (PDT), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >Not heard of this very important fossil before:

You thereby admit you're not well enough informed with regard to the
hominin fossil record to be such a big mouth about it all the time.

>> >Kadanuumuu (big guy) male australopith, standing about 5.4 feet high,
>> >much bigger than Lucy, and 0.4 Myr older, found in Afar region close
>> >to the location of Lucy.
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadanuumuu
>> >https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/
>>
>> Already had its monograph published in 2016.
>>
>> https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789401774277
>> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-7429-1
>>
>> Some interesting findings, e.g. the thorax was "bell-shaped", with
>> broad upper portion, not "funnel-shaped" as in African apes.
>
>Can you point to ANY on-line discussion of this fossil?

It was mentioned here a few times in the past.

[Pandora]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:47:44 -0700 (PDT), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/
>>
>> : This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees
>> : are not good models for the study of our early human
>> : ancestors, he added.
>
>A fuller quote from the article:
>
>" . . . In addition to being much bigger than Lucy, the new fossil
>contains a more complete shoulder blade than previously known, a
>major portion of the rib cage, and pelvis fragments that shed new
>light on how A. afarensis moved.
>Kadanuumuu's skeletal features are surprisingly similar to those of
>modern humans, Haile-Selassie said in an interview.
>This supports recent findings that suggest chimpanzees are not good
>models for the study of our early human ancestors, he added. . . "
>
>Haile-Selassie here is misleading or, more likely, his
>thinking is illogical -- probably hopelessly distorted by
>the (required) belief of his group that Ardi is ancestral
>(or nearly so) and must fit in somewhere close.

Again, in phylogenetic analyses Ardipithecus is recovered as the
sistertaxon to all other hominins except Sahelanthropus. This fact
alone suggests that Ardipithecus may indeed be ancestral.

>I'm surprised that I missed the discovery of this fossil.
>That must partly be because it has received little
>publicity or discussion. It fits perfectly into my
>thinking about human evolution. It shows that much
>of what we think of as 'modern' was present soon
>after the evolution of bipedalism -- the long legs, the
>relatively large size, the broad thorax, the inability to
>climb, or move around (or stay in) trees (any more
>than modern humans), and the commitment to a
>terrestrial way of life.

If taxa such Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are indeed hominins then
KSD-VP-1-1 at 3.6 mya does not represent a position soon after the
evolution of bipedalism, but already a much later and more derived
stage.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op dinsdag 9 oktober 2018 01:20:37 UTC+2 schreef yelw...@gmail.com:

> The human hand reverted to a more primitive
> form when it no longer needed the specialism
> of brachiation.

No, no.
Gorilla & the human hand is generally primitive, not elongated, rather monkey-like (e.g. Saimiri) but broader.
The early hominoids (Miocene) were vertical climbers.
Among hominoids, only hylobatids (gibbons, siamang) evolved into full brachiators.
Schematically:
-Pan evolved longer hands (below-branch locomotion),
-Pongo evolved long hands (suspension),
-hylobatids evolved very long hand (brachiation).
Google:
Ape &nd Human evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op dinsdag 9 oktober 2018 21:04:30 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:42:40 -0700 (PDT), yelworcp... wrote:

> >> >Not heard of this very important fossil before:

> You thereby admit you're not well enough informed with regard to the
> hominin fossil record to be such a big mouth about it all the time.

AFAICS, big mouth = Pandora.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Hey Pandora, you weren't around. I compiled a nice mechanism, based on
the idea that we discussed before, on the typical adaptations we have.
Take a look:

How to turn an ape into a human

Position: Put an ape into bipedal stance, and give him something to carry.
Action: Push him from behind, and do this a lot.

Two things will happen:
1) Lower leg (foot) - the body will tend to rotate around midtarsal break.
In order to counter this, ape would tend to stiffen its midfoot. When
he stiffens his midfoot, the body would tend to rotate around the ball
of foot. Helpful will be if arch develops, arch pushes ball of foot more
into the ground, and resists rotation.
At that point heel rises up. This dorsiflex toes. Actually, curved
toes can help in this situation by resisting rotation. Short or long
phalanges work well.
2) Upper leg (pelvis) - to stop the rotation of body, gluteal muscles
will pull illiac down. This is the only situation that can create
human-like pelvis.

Where in nature this situation can occur?
Because of physics, sea waves always run parallel to shore
(http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_beach2_e.htm). In other
words, the force of waves is always perpendicular to the shore. When
exiting sea, waves push you from behind.

Other adaptations (adduction/abduction ability, flexible joints, wide
chest, adducted big toe) are usable in climbing vertical sea cliffs,
which emerged during rifting. Rifting emerged when apes emerged.

[Pandora]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:44:26 -0700 (PDT), littor...@gmail.com

wrote:

>> >> >Not heard of this very important fossil before:
>
>> You thereby admit you're not well enough informed with regard to the
>> hominin fossil record to be such a big mouth about it all the time.
>
>AFAICS, big mouth = Pandora.

As a vociferous proponent of another fringe theory (AAT) and with a
similar disrespect for normal science as Paul you're opinion of me is
understandable.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:04:30 PM UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

>>>> Not heard of this very important fossil before:
>
> You thereby admit you're not well enough informed with regard to the
> hominin fossil record to be such a big mouth about it all the time.

Think of me as a follower of Galileo around 1640, paying
very little attention to the work of the professional
astronomers of the day, especially as they disdained the
use of telescopes; or as an admirer of Wegener around
1960, occasionally glancing at the 'discoveries' of the
geologists of the time -- but then being very surprised
when they locate mid-ocean ridges while not, of course,
realising what they were.

>>>> Kadanuumuu (big guy) male australopith, standing about 5.4 feet high,
>>>> much bigger than Lucy, and 0.4 Myr older, found in Afar region close
>>>> to the location of Lucy.

>>> https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789401774277
>>> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-7429-1
>>>
>>> Some interesting findings, e.g. the thorax was "bell-shaped", with
>>> broad upper portion, not "funnel-shaped" as in African apes.
>>
>> Can you point to ANY on-line discussion of this fossil?
>
> It was mentioned here a few times in the past.

Almost always mentioned in passing, in some kind of
list, with little or no appreciation for what it was. A
comparison of the citation numbers as against those
for (the virtually irrelevant) Ardi, would reveal what
I am on about.

Paul.

[yelw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:18:26 PM UTC+1, Pandora wrote:

>> Haile-Selassie here is misleading or, more likely, his
>> thinking is illogical -- probably hopelessly distorted by
>> the (required) belief of his group that Ardi is ancestral
>> (or nearly so) and must fit in somewhere close.
>
> Again, in phylogenetic analyses Ardipithecus is recovered as the
> sistertaxon to all other hominins except Sahelanthropus. This fact
> alone suggests that Ardipithecus may indeed be ancestral.

"Phylogenetic analyses" should NOT be called a 'fact'.

>> I'm surprised that I missed the discovery of this fossil.
>> That must partly be because it has received little
>> publicity or discussion. It fits perfectly into my
>> thinking about human evolution. It shows that much
>> of what we think of as 'modern' was present soon
>> after the evolution of bipedalism -- the long legs, the
>> relatively large size, the broad thorax, the inability to
>> climb, or move around (or stay in) trees (any more
>> than modern humans), and the commitment to a
>> terrestrial way of life.
>
> If taxa such Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are indeed hominins

They aren't. The evolution of bipedalism involved
(and required) enormous changes -- in habitat, in
morphology, in behaviour, in social structure, in
child- and infant-rearing, in predator-avoidance, and
in numerous other matters. Standard PA (and most of
the idiots around here) think of it as little more than
a nervous tic.

> then KSD-VP-1-1 at 3.6 mya does not represent a position soon after
> the evolution of bipedalism, but already a much later and more
> derived stage.

KSD-VP-1-1 (Kadanuumuu) appears to be the
first substantial hominin fossil that we have.
It may be much later than the initial biped,
but why should it be 'more derived'?

If you believed -- from DNA evidence -- that
(say) blue-tits evolved 6 ma, and you found a
fossil for one at 3 ma, would you expect it to
be 'more derived' than the initial blue-tits?

If you believed -- from DNA evidence -- that
Species X evolved N ma, and you found a
fossil for one at N/2 ma, would you expect it to
be 'more derived' than the initial Species X?

I suggest that nearly all naturalists would say
'No'. They would not expect blue-tits (nor
almost every other species) to have changed
significantly since it first evolved into its
distinctive niche.

Why then are your expectations (and those
of PA generally) so different about their own
chrono-species?

Early hominins were about our size, and had
our shape and our appearance (i.e they were
naked), had near-similar behaviours (e.g. were
substantially monogamous and strongly
territorial) and had nearly identical physical.
mental and social capacities.

Paul.
===========================================

[Mario Petrinovic]

I remember this was given a credible credit (or whatever), possibly by
Pandora. In any case, I do remember it as exactly for what it is, nice
fact that changes our view about Australopithecus thorax. It was given
the right attention. Only, this was very much in tune with my view (just
like everything else), so I wasn't as excited as you are. But, since I
don't know everything about everything, I was surprised at why
scientists had a view that Australopithecus' thorax is more chimp-like,
if it, obviously, isn't? But, then I thought again, and realized that
this actually isn't that surprising, lol.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op dinsdag 9 oktober 2018 22:09:48 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> >> >> >Not heard of this very important fossil before:

Pandora:

> >> You thereby admit you're not well enough informed with regard to the
> >> hominin fossil record to be such a big mouth about it all the time.

> >AFAICS, big mouth = Pandora.

Pandora:

> As a vociferous proponent of another fringe theory (AAT) and with a
> similar disrespect for normal science as Paul you're opinion of me is
> understandable.

Yes:

1)Savanna idea = outdated, only Pandora still believes it.

2)Littoral theory: Pleistocene archaic Homo colonizing African & Eurasian coasts, rivers, islands = obvious,
google
"coastal dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism"

[Pandora]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> Not heard of this very important fossil before:
>>
>> You thereby admit you're not well enough informed with regard to the
>> hominin fossil record to be such a big mouth about it all the time.
>
>Think of me as a follower of Galileo around 1640, paying
>very little attention to the work of the professional
>astronomers of the day, especially as they disdained the
>use of telescopes; or as an admirer of Wegener around
>1960, occasionally glancing at the 'discoveries' of the
>geologists of the time -- but then being very surprised
>when they locate mid-ocean ridges while not, of course,
>realising what they were.

Unfortunately, you seem more like the joker dancing around Galileo,
juggling with his balls, pretending that's empirical science too.

>>>>> Kadanuumuu (big guy) male australopith, standing about 5.4 feet high,
>>>>> much bigger than Lucy, and 0.4 Myr older, found in Afar region close
>>>>> to the location of Lucy.
>
>>>> https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789401774277
>>>> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-7429-1
>>>>
>>>> Some interesting findings, e.g. the thorax was "bell-shaped", with
>>>> broad upper portion, not "funnel-shaped" as in African apes.
>>>
>>> Can you point to ANY on-line discussion of this fossil?
>>
>> It was mentioned here a few times in the past.
>
>Almost always mentioned in passing, in some kind of
>list, with little or no appreciation for what it was. A
>comparison of the citation numbers as against those
>for (the virtually irrelevant) Ardi, would reveal what
>I am on about.

Given that Kadanuumuu is a more recent discovery (2005) than Ardi and
an addition to an already extensively discussed hypodigm of A.
afarensis, less citation of this one specimen is merely an historical
artefact. Besides, it received monographic treatment, which you
totally missed. That's how well-informed you are.

[Pandora]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT), yelw...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Haile-Selassie here is misleading or, more likely, his
>>> thinking is illogical -- probably hopelessly distorted by
>>> the (required) belief of his group that Ardi is ancestral
>>> (or nearly so) and must fit in somewhere close.
>>
>> Again, in phylogenetic analyses Ardipithecus is recovered as the
>> sistertaxon to all other hominins except Sahelanthropus. This fact
>> alone suggests that Ardipithecus may indeed be ancestral.
>
>"Phylogenetic analyses" should NOT be called a 'fact'.

At least it's an empirical approach with a considerable degree of
objectivity. The approach may be statistical/probabilistic, e.g.
bootstrap values, if the result is that Ardi is the sistertaxon of all
other hominins except Sahelanthropus in more than 50% of trees then
that's a fact.
The alternative is your kind of subjective, ideological stance.

>>> I'm surprised that I missed the discovery of this fossil.
>>> That must partly be because it has received little
>>> publicity or discussion. It fits perfectly into my
>>> thinking about human evolution. It shows that much
>>> of what we think of as 'modern' was present soon
>>> after the evolution of bipedalism -- the long legs, the
>>> relatively large size, the broad thorax, the inability to
>>> climb, or move around (or stay in) trees (any more
>>> than modern humans), and the commitment to a
>>> terrestrial way of life.
>>
>> If taxa such Sahelanthropus and Orrorin are indeed hominins
>
>They aren't.

And on the basis of what empirical evidence have you decided so,
contrary to those who have actually studied the material?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920250_Virtual_reconstruction_of_Sahelanthropus_tchadensis

>The evolution of bipedalism involved
>(and required) enormous changes -- in habitat, in
>morphology, in behaviour, in social structure, in
>child- and infant-rearing, in predator-avoidance, and
>in numerous other matters. Standard PA (and most of
>the idiots around here) think of it as little more than
>a nervous tic.

"Standard" PA sees a multi-million year trajectory of bipedalism that
culminates in the modern human form, with many morphologically
distinct taxa along the line.

>> then KSD-VP-1-1 at 3.6 mya does not represent a position soon after
>> the evolution of bipedalism, but already a much later and more
>> derived stage.
>
>KSD-VP-1-1 (Kadanuumuu) appears to be the
>first substantial hominin fossil that we have.
>It may be much later than the initial biped,
>but why should it be 'more derived'?

Because it's more modern in appearance than preceding taxa.

>If you believed -- from DNA evidence -- that
>(say) blue-tits evolved 6 ma, and you found a
>fossil for one at 3 ma, would you expect it to
>be 'more derived' than the initial blue-tits?
>
>If you believed -- from DNA evidence -- that
>Species X evolved N ma, and you found a
>fossil for one at N/2 ma, would you expect it to
>be 'more derived' than the initial Species X?
>
>I suggest that nearly all naturalists would say
>'No'. They would not expect blue-tits (nor
>almost every other species) to have changed
>significantly since it first evolved into its
>distinctive niche.
>
>Why then are your expectations (and those
>of PA generally) so different about their own
>chrono-species?

You are confusing single species (e.g. Homo sapiens) with more
inclusive clades of multiple species (e.g. Hominidae) and then extend
the adaptations of the former to the latter.
However, if two similar birds, millions of years apart, were to differ
in brain size by a factor of three then they probably wouldn't be the
same species and consequently also not occupy the same niche.

>Early hominins were about our size, and had
>our shape and our appearance (i.e they were
>naked), had near-similar behaviours (e.g. were
>substantially monogamous and strongly
>territorial) and had nearly identical physical.
>mental and social capacities.

Strange then that they haven't recovered those yet from the
fossil/archeological record.