Fatal trauma in Australopithecus sediba

[Pandora]

Evidence of fatal skeletal injuries on Malapa Hominins 1 and 2

Abstract

Malapa is one of the richest early hominin sites in Africa and the
discovery site of the hominin species, Australopithecus sediba. The
holotype and paratype (Malapa Hominin 1 and 2, or MH1 and MH2,
respectively) skeletons are among the most complete in the early
hominin record. Dating to approximately two million years BP, MH1 and
MH2 are hypothesized to have fallen into a natural pit trap. All
fractures evident on MH1 and MH2 skeletons were evaluated and
separated based on wet and dry bone fracture
morphology/characteristics. Most observed fractures are
post-depositional, but those in the right upper limb of the adult
hominin strongly indicate active resistance to an impact, while those
in the juvenile hominin mandible are consistent with a blow to the
face. The presence of skeletal trauma independently supports the
falling hypothesis and supplies the first evidence for the manner of
death of an australopith in the fossil record that is not attributed
to predation or natural death.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15120

Pandora

[JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> Malapa is one of the richest early hominin sites in Africa and the
> discovery site of the hominin species, Australopithecus sediba. The
> holotype and paratype (Malapa Hominin 1 and 2, or MH1 and MH2,
> respectively) skeletons are among the most complete in the early
> hominin record. Dating to approximately two million years BP

NOTE: These are currently dated to just under 2 million
years ago. And if you think about it, this STRONGLY suggests
that naledi is much younger, as naledi appears so modern in
some respects.

Remember how you were pretending that there is no basis for
the younger dating? And now you yourself provide basis?






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131018050448

[Pandora]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>

Since the first appearance datum of A. sediba in the fossil record
currently coïncides with its last appearance datum we have no
knowledge of its stratigraphic range. Could be a million years or
more. Just like Paranthropus, A. sediba could have been a parallel
lineage next to early Homo, after the split.

Pandora

[JTEM]

How to tell when someone is faking it:

Pandora wrote:
> A. sediba could have been a parallel
> lineage next to early Homo, after the split.

Could be aliens, for all we know; the product of
convergent evolution. It is possible. There is a
non-zero likelihood, however slim. But...

You're exactly mirroring why views on naledi
WHICH YOU DENOUNCED AS BASELESS, only to turn
around in this thread and post a basis.

The difference here? Your statement really is
baseless. I did have a basis, even if you
couldn't see it at the time. You even provided
basis FOR MY POSITION yourself. But your
statements here regarding sediba? Completely
baseless.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131144394208

[Pandora]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:58:07 +0200, Pandora <pan...@knoware.net>
wrote:

>Evidence of fatal skeletal injuries on Malapa Hominins 1 and 2

Related article:

Taphonomic Analysis of the Faunal Assemblage Associated with the
Hominins (Australopithecus sediba) from the Early Pleistocene Cave
Deposits of Malapa, South Africa
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126904

Pandora

[JTEM]

Pandora wrote:
[...]

This is all an extremely compelling (even
if unintentional) argument FAVORING a
recent dating of Naledi.

I'm terribly sorry you can't see this.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131150494441

[crow...@eircom.net]

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 02:53:23 UTC+1, JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
> [...]
>
> This is all an extremely compelling (even
> if unintentional) argument FAVORING a
> recent dating of Naledi.
>
> I'm terribly sorry you can't see this.

When someone accuses you of failing to grasp
their argument, it's natural to have some concern
that they may be right. After all, everyone has
experience such a failure, followed by later
success.

But when JTEM makes such an accusation,
no one should ever have the slightest concern.
He may just be bull-shitting, or he may be
honest and thoroughly confused. More likely ,
it's a mix of both. But you can be sure of one
thing: you'll never get from him a clear
statement of why he is right and you are wrong.
In fact, you'll never get a clear statement from
him on anything.


Paul

[JTEM]

crow...@eircom.net wrote:

> When someone accuses you of failing to grasp
> their argument

Again, terribly sorry if you can't see it...

They're less than 2 million years old, they're
more primitive than Naledi.

It's really not a stretch here to think that
Naledi has to be more recent. It does FIT the
evidence. It is a reasonable conclusion. It
is a basis for the conclusion. I'm not saying
that these finds are the only such basis, but
that all by themselves they do provided a
basis -- yes.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/41730004667

[crow...@eircom.net]

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:17:53 PM UTC+1, JTEM wrote:

> They're less than 2 million years old, they're
> more primitive than Naledi.

They may be 'more primitive' in many respects,
but they are 'more derived' in many others.

> It's really not a stretch here to think that
> Naledi has to be more recent.

It is a stretch. You simply have to accept that
australopiths spread across Africa fairly soon after
their speciation (~ 4.4 mya) during a period of
fairly benign climate. Then, as a result of their
activities, the climate turned rough (around and
after 3 mya). A lot of areas they had occupied
became uninhabitable. They scattered in all
directions. These newly (relatively) isolated
populations (call them 'species' if you prefer)
evolved (or changed) in a variety of different ways
and at different speeds. When periods of better
climate returned, they re-occupied highland
regions, such as that at Malapa. There they might
have encountered other varieties of australopith
during those periods, but any interbreeding
seems minimal.

> It does FIT the evidence. k

Sorry, but it doesn't. The mixture of primitive
and derived features in Sediba and Naledi are
too different and too complex to say that one is
early and the other late, or that one is ancestral
to the other.

Paul

[JTEM]

crow...@eircom.net wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
> > They're less than 2 million years old, they're
> > more primitive than Naledi.

> They may be 'more primitive' in many respects,
> but they are 'more derived' in many others.

Explain. How?

> > It's really not a stretch here to think that
> > Naledi has to be more recent.

> It is a stretch.

No it isn't, as you went on to prove:

> You simply have to accept that
> australopiths spread across Africa fairly soon after
> their speciation (~ 4.4 mya) during a period of
> fairly benign climate. Then, as a result of their
> activities, the climate turned rough (around and
> after 3 mya).

So in order to NOT see Naledi as more recent, all we
have to do is completely re-write the history of Lucy
& her kin, plus ignore the glacial/interglacial cycle,
replacing it with Apeman-made-global-warming.

Yes, honey, that *Is* quite a stretch. So in order to
avoid that enormous stretch, all we have to do is
conclude that Naledi is more recent.

> The mixture of primitive
> and derived features in Sediba and Naledi are
> too different and too complex to say that one is
> early and the other late

That's not true at all. Naledi had them all scratching
their head, the advanced features were so advanced. And
it's not that some features are primitive, it's that they
are so well adapted to a basal role.

In other words, Naledi looks like a hybrid. It has
features which place it very recently, and other
features which plucked from some primitive arboreal
ancestor completely unmoderated.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/123535780573

[crow...@eircom.net]

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 6:53:34 AM UTC+1, JTEM wrote:

> > > They're less than 2 million years old, they're
> > > more primitive than Naledi.
>
> > They may be 'more primitive' in many respects,
> > but they are 'more derived' in many others.
>
> Explain. How?

"Naledi is almost the mirror of sediba," says Berger. "Almost everywhere in the sediba skeleton where you see primitive features, in naledi you see derived features. And almost everywhere that sediba is derived, naledi is primitive."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-700-new-species-extinct-human-found-in-cave-may-rewrite-history/

> > You simply have to accept that
> > australopiths spread across Africa fairly soon after
> > their speciation (~ 4.4 mya) during a period of
> > fairly benign climate. Then, as a result of their
> > activities, the climate turned rough (around and
> > after 3 mya).
>
> So in order to NOT see Naledi as more recent, all we
> have to do is completely re-write the history of Lucy
> & her kin, plus ignore the glacial/interglacial cycle,
> replacing it with Apeman-made-global-warming.

Sorry, I was giving you the full story. That was a mistake.
Just stick with the standard stuff. Ice-ages happened
because ice-ages happened, and that's because ice-
ages happened. After all, this is a 'science' and we must
be consistent in our approach to every question.

And don't ignore well-established facts, such as that
inter-glacials were relatively brief interludes in what
was, in effect, one long 3-million year ice-age.

> > The mixture of primitive
> > and derived features in Sediba and Naledi are
> > too different and too complex to say that one is
> > early and the other late
>
> That's not true at all.

It's what Berger says, and for some strange irrational
reason, I prefer to take his word before yours.

> Naledi had them all scratching
> their head, the advanced features were so advanced. And
> it's not that some features are primitive, it's that they
> are so well adapted to a basal role.

I've no idea what you might mean by that. But PLEASE
don't tell me.

Paul

[JTEM]

crow...@eircom.net wrote:

> "Naledi is almost the mirror of sediba," says Berger.

"Mirror image" means sediba lacks the bigger brain and
the human foot.

If there's two things that mark HUMAN development it's
brain size and our locomotion, BOTH of which are clearly
more advanced in naledi.

Secondly, your "Cite" is ridiculous. It implies a
possibility that naledi represents prepared burial
when there is no evidence to support such a notion,
and the only thing favoring EVER was entirely
circumstantial (and weak at that).

So you cite hyperbole to support an undefined/undescribed
concept.

> > So in order to NOT see Naledi as more recent, all we
> > have to do is completely re-write the history of Lucy
> > & her kin, plus ignore the glacial/interglacial cycle,
> > replacing it with Apeman-made-global-warming.

> Sorry, I was giving you the full story. That was a mistake.
> Just stick with the standard stuff. Ice-ages happened
> because ice-ages happened, and that's because ice-
> ages happened.

The happen chiefly because of plate tectonics changing
the ocean/air circulation, predisposing us to cooling.
THEN major events occur -- like super volcanic eruptions --
which literally stop summers from happening for years.
The southern hemisphere recovers more quickly, of course,
as atmospheric pollutants migrate to/accumulate above
the northern hemisphere. Always. No exception. Even today,
we see the exact same thing with industrial pollution...

This is what grows the glaciers, drops sea level. Krakatoa
alone erupted in the late 19th century and dropped
temperatures significantly more than one and a third
centuries of supposed "Global Warming" could produce...

Global COOLING is rapid & catastrophic. The Toba
eruption of 70K years ago is presently estimated
to have dropped average temperatures by about
20 degrees Fahrenheit. Summer was gone for at least
a decade, if not longer, and snows that fell in
December never melted, accumulating year after year.

THIS IS HOW GLACIERS GROW!

"Glacial Maximum" coincides with a major volcanic
event in Japan...

The Younger Dryar Cooling -- the sudden cooling
that threw the earth BACK into the ice age --
is presently believed by all (except "Officially"
NOAA) to have been caused by one or more objects
from space, a meteorite or small comet.

Nuclear Weapons, btw, have the same effect as
meteorites and volcanoes. Google: Nuclear Winter.

> And don't ignore well-established facts, such as that
> inter-glacials were relatively brief interludes in what
> was, in effect, one long 3-million year ice-age.

Most last no more than 10 thousand years. Our at present
is conservatively dated to almost 12 thousand years,
and more accurately dated to 15 thousand years ago.

> > Naledi had them all scratching
> > their head, the advanced features were so advanced. And
> > it's not that some features are primitive, it's that they
> > are so well adapted to a basal role.
>
> I've no idea what you might mean by that.

Naledi has a bigger brain and a far more human like
foot.

NOBODY looked at sediba and said "We have to re-write
everything," while naledi has everyone scratching
their heads.

There is no comparison.

At best, BOTH do support multi regionalism/hybridization,
a model we both support albeit to different extremes.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131368453485

[crow...@eircom.net]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 20:45:39 UTC+1, JTEM wrote:

> > "Naledi is almost the mirror of sediba," says Berger.
>
> "Mirror image" means sediba lacks the bigger brain and
> the human foot.

Both sediba and naledi have small brains, and both
have close-to-modern feet. Berger was referring to
quite small details in their respective anatomies.

> If there's two things that mark HUMAN development it's
> brain size and our locomotion, BOTH of which are clearly
> more advanced in naledi.

Naledi is marginally closer to modern humans in their
feet, but certainly not in their brains.

> Secondly, your "Cite" is ridiculous. It implies a
> possibility that naledi represents prepared burial
> when there is no evidence to support such a notion,
> and the only thing favoring EVER was entirely
> circumstantial (and weak at that).

Of course it's circumstantial. No one alive would claim
to have witnessed the burial. But there is no other
explanation for all those bodies in that chamber.

> So you cite hyperbole to support an undefined/undescribed
> concept.

There is nothing unclear about the hypothesis.
That naledi population left their dead in that chamber.

> > Sorry, I was giving you the full story. That was a mistake.
> > Just stick with the standard stuff. Ice-ages happened
> > because ice-ages happened, and that's because ice-
> > ages happened.
>
> The happen chiefly because of plate tectonics changing
> the ocean/air circulation, predisposing us to cooling.

There was no significant change around 3 or 4 mya
which would have brought about cooling.

> THEN major events occur -- like super volcanic eruptions --
> which literally stop summers from happening for years.
> The southern hemisphere recovers more quickly, of course,
> as atmospheric pollutants migrate to/accumulate above
> the northern hemisphere. Always. No exception. Even today,
> we see the exact same thing with industrial pollution...

Crap. Industrial pollution is greater in the north because
that's where most of the industry is.

> This is what grows the glaciers, drops sea level. Krakatoa
> alone erupted in the late 19th century and dropped
> temperatures significantly more than one and a third
> centuries of supposed "Global Warming" could produce...

Volcanoes have been erupting since the earth got a
crust. Nothing special was happening around 3 or 4
mya. There were no unusual extinctions before about
3.5 mya.
[..]

> NOBODY looked at sediba and said "We have to re-write
> everything," while naledi has everyone scratching
> their heads.

That's mainly because of the inescapable conclusions
that (a) they 'buried' their dead; and
(b) they were apparently able to use fire in a highly
sophisticated manner -- to provide light in a cave
system, for a period of an hour or more.

Another set of reasons come from the great number
and wide variety of anatomical differences.

Paul

[JTEM]

crow...@eircom.net wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > "Mirror image" means sediba lacks the bigger brain and
> > the human foot.

> Both sediba and naledi have small brains

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Sediba's brain is described as about a third the
size of ours (33%) while naledi is as large as
50% of ours.

That's significant.

> and both have close-to-modern feet.

I can't find any source that claims sediba's feet are
comparable to naledi's in their closeness to modern
humans. Most read like this:

: "The foot of H. naledi can be distinguished from the
: foot of H. sapiens only by its flatter lateral and
: medial malleolar facets on the talus, its low angle
: of plantar declination of the talar head, its lower
: orientation of the calcaneal sustentaculum tali, and
: its gracile calcaneal tuber."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/hominid_hype_an099541.html

So, AGAIN, we have a bigger brain and more modern feet.
Together they suggest a more advanced, more recent
population.

> > If there's two things that mark HUMAN development it's
> > brain size and our locomotion, BOTH of which are clearly
> > more advanced in naledi.
>
> Naledi is marginally closer to modern humans in their
> feet, but certainly not in their brains.

You're simply making things up.

The feet are without question more human like in Naledi,
and current estimates say the brain could be more than
25% larger.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/131246508838