Canine sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus ramidus

20 views
Skip to first unread message

Pandora

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 9:34:45 AM12/2/21
to
Canine sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus ramidus was nearly
human-like.

Abstract

Body and canine size dimorphism in fossils inform sociobehavioral
hypotheses on human evolution and have been of interest since Darwin’s
famous reflections on the subject. Here, we assemble a large dataset
of fossil canines of the human clade, including all available
Ardipithecus ramidus fossils recovered from the Middle Awash and Gona
research areas in Ethiopia, and systematically examine canine
dimorphism through evolutionary time. In particular, we apply a
Bayesian probabilistic method that reduces bias when estimating weak
and moderate levels of dimorphism. Our results show that Ar. ramidus
canine dimorphism was significantly weaker than in the bonobo, the
least dimorphic and behaviorally least aggressive among extant great
apes. Average male-to-female size ratios of the canine in Ar. ramidus
are estimated as 1.06 and 1.13 in the upper and lower canines,
respectively, within modern human population ranges of variation. The
slightly greater magnitude of canine size dimorphism in the lower than
in the upper canines of Ar. ramidus appears to be shared with early
Australopithecus, suggesting that male canine reduction was initially
more advanced in the behaviorally important upper canine. The
available fossil evidence suggests a drastic size reduction of the
male canine prior to Ar. ramidus and the earliest known members of the
human clade, with little change in canine dimorphism levels
thereafter. This evolutionary pattern indicates a profound behavioral
shift associated with comparatively weak levels of male aggression
early in human evolution, a pattern that was subsequently shared by
Australopithecus and Homo.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/49/e2116630118

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 10:26:13 AM12/2/21
to
Jesus, what a bollocks. Do our males really look less aggressive?
Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. Going around on terra
firma (probably only sleeping in trees). This means only one thing, he
had weapon in his hands, not in his mouth.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 7:22:14 PM12/2/21
to
On Thursday 2 December 2021 at 15:26:13 UTC, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. Going around on terra
> firma (probably only sleeping in trees). This means only one thing, he
> had weapon in his hands, not in his mouth.

Any weapon would be useless against the numerous
species of large carnivore and omnivore that were
around at the time.

Which means that they spent a lot of every day
up in trees (as well as nights). When on the ground,
they'd never move far from trees, and they'd be
constantly on the alert. If they were carrying a
weapon, they'd drop it in their haste to get up
a tree.

In other words, they'd be like most other primates
(chimps being a good model) -- and bipedalism
would be of no use whatever.

The fossil record for Ar. Ramidus was probably
systematically distorted. Maybe we have only
female teeth -- e.g. only the females went into
water to harvest certain plants, and sometimes
they drowned or died there for other reasons.

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Dec 2, 2021, 9:33:13 PM12/2/21
to

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 3, 2021, 11:48:45 AM12/3/21
to
Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 16:26:13 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> > Canine sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus ramidus was nearly human-like.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/49/e2116630118
Body & canine size dimorphism in fossils inform socio-behavioral hypotheses on human evolution, and have been of interest since Darwin’s famous reflections on the subject.
Here, we assemble a large data-set of fossil canines of the human(??--mv) clade, incl. all available Ar.ramidus fossils (Middle Awash & Gona), and systematically examine canine dimorphism through evolutionary time ... we apply a Bayesian probabilistic method that reduces bias when estimating weak & moderate levels of dimorphism.
Our results:
Ar.ramidus canine dimorphism was significantly weaker than in the bonobo, the least dimorphic & behaviorally least aggressive among extant great apes.
Average male-to-female canine size ratios are estimated as 1.06 & 1.13 in upper & lower canines resp., within modern human population ranges of variation.
The slightly greater magnitude of canine size dimorphism in the lower than upper canines of Ar.ramidus appears to be shared with early Australopithecus:
was male canine reduction initially more advanced in the behaviorally important upper canine?
The available fossil evidence suggests
- a drastic size reduction(??--mv) of the male canine prior to Ar.ramidus & the earliest known members of the human(??--mv) clade,
- little change in canine dimorphism levels thereafter.
This evolutionary pattern indicates a profound behavioral shift ass.x comparatively weak levels of male aggression early in human evolution,
this pattern that was subsequently shared by Australopithecus & Homo.

> Jesus, what a bollocks. Do our males really look less aggressive?
> Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. ....

Yes, bollocks.
Incredibly prejudiced (anthropocentric).

Of course, Ardip was BP: all Miocene hominoids were BP,
not for running after antelopes :-DDD but for wading in swamp forests,
google "gorilla bai" or "bonobo wading" or
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Dec 3, 2021, 6:12:45 PM12/3/21
to
On 3.12.2021. 17:48, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 16:26:13 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>> Canine sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus ramidus was nearly human-like.
> https://www.pnas.org/content/118/49/e2116630118
> Body & canine size dimorphism in fossils inform socio-behavioral hypotheses on human evolution, and have been of interest since Darwin’s famous reflections on the subject.
> Here, we assemble a large data-set of fossil canines of the human(??--mv) clade, incl. all available Ar.ramidus fossils (Middle Awash & Gona), and systematically examine canine dimorphism through evolutionary time ... we apply a Bayesian probabilistic method that reduces bias when estimating weak & moderate levels of dimorphism.
> Our results:
> Ar.ramidus canine dimorphism was significantly weaker than in the bonobo, the least dimorphic & behaviorally least aggressive among extant great apes.
> Average male-to-female canine size ratios are estimated as 1.06 & 1.13 in upper & lower canines resp., within modern human population ranges of variation.
> The slightly greater magnitude of canine size dimorphism in the lower than upper canines of Ar.ramidus appears to be shared with early Australopithecus:
> was male canine reduction initially more advanced in the behaviorally important upper canine?
> The available fossil evidence suggests
> - a drastic size reduction(??--mv) of the male canine prior to Ar.ramidus & the earliest known members of the human(??--mv) clade,
> - little change in canine dimorphism levels thereafter.
> This evolutionary pattern indicates a profound behavioral shift ass.x comparatively weak levels of male aggression early in human evolution,
> this pattern that was subsequently shared by Australopithecus & Homo.
>
>> Jesus, what a bollocks. Do our males really look less aggressive?
>> Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. ....
>
> Yes, bollocks.
> Incredibly prejudiced (anthropocentric).

Actually, it is always the same (Catholic) narrative, spirituality,
"God is love", intellectual spark has shit us, this is why we are so
spiritual, and the same sh.t, all over again, in every pore of
paleoanthropology. We are not just like normal animals, we are closer to
God, godlike behaving is what determine us, it is our main characteristics.

> Of course, Ardip was BP: all Miocene hominoids were BP,
> not for running after antelopes :-DDD but for wading in swamp forests,
> google "gorilla bai" or "bonobo wading" or
> "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 4:10:59 AM12/4/21
to
Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 00:12:45 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> >>> Canine sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus ramidus was nearly human-like.
> > https://www.pnas.org/content/118/49/e2116630118
> > Body & canine size dimorphism in fossils inform socio-behavioral hypotheses on human evolution, and have been of interest since Darwin’s famous reflections on the subject.
> > Here, we assemble a large data-set of fossil canines of the human(??--mv) clade, incl. all available Ar.ramidus fossils (Middle Awash & Gona), and systematically examine canine dimorphism through evolutionary time ... we apply a Bayesian probabilistic method that reduces bias when estimating weak & moderate levels of dimorphism.
> > Our results:
> > Ar.ramidus canine dimorphism was significantly weaker than in the bonobo, the least dimorphic & behaviorally least aggressive among extant great apes.
> > Average male-to-female canine size ratios are estimated as 1.06 & 1.13 in upper & lower canines resp., within modern human population ranges of variation.
> > The slightly greater magnitude of canine size dimorphism in the lower than upper canines of Ar.ramidus appears to be shared with early Australopithecus:
> > was male canine reduction initially more advanced in the behaviorally important upper canine?
> > The available fossil evidence suggests
> > - a drastic size reduction(??--mv) of the male canine prior to Ar.ramidus & the earliest known members of the human(??--mv) clade,
> > - little change in canine dimorphism levels thereafter.
> > This evolutionary pattern indicates a profound behavioral shift ass.x comparatively weak levels of male aggression early in human evolution,
> > this pattern that was subsequently shared by Australopithecus & Homo.

> >> Jesus, what a bollocks. Do our males really look less aggressive?
> >> Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. ....

> > Yes, bollocks.
> > Incredibly prejudiced (anthropocentric).

> Actually, it is always the same (Catholic) narrative, spirituality,
> "God is love", intellectual spark has shit us, this is why we are so
> spiritual, and the same sh.t, all over again, in every pore of
> paleoanthropology. We are not just like normal animals, we are closer to
> God, godlike behaving is what determine us, it is our main characteristics.

Yes, many PAs still (unconsciously, anthropocentrically) believe there'sa fundamental difference: humans are "higher" than apes & other animals.
It's not: our evolution underwent special circumstances, but: we are animals like all others:
all naked & fat mammals live in warm(er) waters - we wear clothes, and probably lost weight, but so did our ancestors.
This is confirmed by everything we know: our very big brains (DHA), our "linear" build, our flat feet etc.:
only incredible imbeciles still believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Dec 4, 2021, 7:16:12 PM12/4/21
to
Carthago delenda est, ;) .

>>> Of course, Ardip was BP: all Miocene hominoids were BP,
>>> not for running after antelopes :-DDD but for wading in swamp forests,
>>> google "gorilla bai" or "bonobo wading" or
>>> "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com

Paul Crowley

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 5:23:48 PM12/5/21
to
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 4:48:45 PM UTC, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 16:26:13 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> > Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. ....
>
> Yes, bollocks.

1. Was Ardi bipedal?
2. You must distinguish obligate bipedality
from facultative bipedality
3. Did Ardi possess facultative bipedality?
4. Almost certainly, since nearly all primates do;
5. So such a claim is banal -- not scientific in
any way
6. Was Ardi an obligate biped?
7. Certainly not -- it would not have been
able to sleep in trees, nor climb them with
any speed or comfort, and it would have
lost its fast mode of locomotion on the
ground in a habitat full of large predators.
8. If you are not making this extraordinary claim,
go back to Line 2;
If you are, you need extraordinary evidence.
If you don't have that, go back to Line 2.

> Incredibly prejudiced (anthropocentric).
>
> Of course, Ardip was BP: all Miocene hominoids were BP,
> not for running after antelopes :-DDD but for wading in swamp forests,

Bipedal wading is common among living primates;
it is nearly always facultative, and usually employed
for brief periods. Only one species is an obligate
biped.


littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 5:35:48 PM12/5/21
to
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 01:16:12 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> > only incredible imbeciles still believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

> Carthago delenda est, ;) .

:-) Yes, Mario, completely delenda.
I can't understand that intelligent people believe the savanna nonsense.

Humans have
-no fur
-thick SC fat
-poor olfaction
-voluntary breathing
-salt sweat
-flat feet
-big nose etc.:
no doubt we were semi-aquatic.
IOW,

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 5:39:14 PM12/5/21
to
Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 23:23:48 UTC+1 schreef Paul Crowley:


> > > Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. ....

> > Yes, bollocks.

> 1. Was Ardi bipedal?

...

> > Of course, Ardip was BP: all Miocene hominoids were BP,
> > not for running after antelopes :-DDD but for wading in swamp forests,

> Bipedal wading is common among living primates;
> it is nearly always facultative, and usually employed
> for brief periods. Only one species is an obligate
> biped.

Kangaroos, you mean?

Ardip was aquarboreal.
Google our Trends paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?"

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Dec 5, 2021, 8:21:08 PM12/5/21
to
On 5.12.2021. 23:23, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 4:48:45 PM UTC, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 16:26:13 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>>> Of course, Ardipithecus ramidus was bipedal. ....
>>
>> Yes, bollocks.
>
> 1. Was Ardi bipedal?
> 2. You must distinguish obligate bipedality
> from facultative bipedality
> 3. Did Ardi possess facultative bipedality?
> 4. Almost certainly, since nearly all primates do;
> 5. So such a claim is banal -- not scientific in
> any way
> 6. Was Ardi an obligate biped?
> 7. Certainly not -- it would not have been
> able to sleep in trees, nor climb them with
> any speed or comfort, and it would have
> lost its fast mode of locomotion on the
> ground in a habitat full of large predators.
> 8. If you are not making this extraordinary claim,
> go back to Line 2;
> If you are, you need extraordinary evidence.
> If you don't have that, go back to Line 2.

Somebody who has such a pelvis can only be obligate biped. He doesn't
have to climb trees quickly, only to go to sleep, not to escape
predators. Also, he doesn't have to move quickly on the ground, we also
are not quick on the ground. It has weapons in his hands, that's enough
for him and for us. The only difference is in sleeping preference. We
slept on cliffs, he evolved where there are no cliffs, so, that's the
difference. No need to be fast, we, certainly, also were very clumsy in
the beginning.

>> Incredibly prejudiced (anthropocentric).
>>
>> Of course, Ardip was BP: all Miocene hominoids were BP,
>> not for running after antelopes :-DDD but for wading in swamp forests,
>
> Bipedal wading is common among living primates;
> it is nearly always facultative, and usually employed
> for brief periods. Only one species is an obligate
> biped.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages