H. naledi, a Carnegie lecture by Lee Berger

[jillery]

<https://livestream.com/carnegiescience/explorationage/videos/234027978>

[JTEM]

69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
> <https://livestream.com/carnegiescience/explorationage/videos/234027978>

Is this a joke?

Is this supposed to be for real?

Or is he just a HORRENDOUSLY BAD communicator?

I mean, he thought it was no big deal, maybe one skeleton, so he went hog wild
creating a media frenzy FROM THE BEGINNING?

They never talked dating? Really? THEY CALLED IT A NEW HUMAN ANCESTOR!
They said it was 2 million+ years old!

Has something changed, is there now more than one endocast where they claim
to see "Modern" brains?

Is there something other than THE ONE SINGLE "find" that allows them to claim
a cranial capacity within the range of habilis? Found in a DIFFERENT chamber, of
course.

HOW can one man have so much power over a field? Has science learned
NOTHING from Piltdown man? One person, one agenda controlling so much?

LISTEN TO HIS INTRODUCTION!

And the circular argument where everything is framed within AND ASSESSED
WITHIN Out of Africa purity, "The Cradle of Humankind."

And they weren't burying their dead. No. They were carrying dead antelopes
and piles of kindling and they know all this from evidence that entirely
escaped them FOR SIX YEARS OR MORE?

Not one person looked up? Not one? And he made these discoveries the
very first time he went in, coinciding with a hearth?

If I sat down ten years ago, typed this all out you'd laugh at such transparent
fiction!

Humans are known to have explored the caves since the 1960s:

: Recreational caving has occurred there since the 1960s.[2] Fossils found (starting
: in 2013) in the cave were, in 2015, proposed to represent a previously unknown
: extinct species of hominin named Homo naledi.[1]

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

This wasn't a random "Exploration." He says that he expected maybe a skeleton.

He expected.

He knew there were fossils in there before he recruited a single climber. And he
had never been inside himself.

So how is it all virgin caves in 2022?

EVERYTHING is a contradiction!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703033379335110656

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:48:21 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All of your alleged contradictions are resolved by reading for
comprehension the Wikipedia article, and listening for comprehension
Berger's lecture.

[JTEM]

Okay. And you are pretending to have done that so go right ahead,
Point out these imaginary resolutions.

If the exist, this should be no effort for you.

I’m calling bullshit

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 01:38:48 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>

What "imaginary resolutions" are you imagining here?

>If the exist, this should be no effort for you.

Yes, go ahead and back up your alleged *contradictions*.


>I’m calling bullshit


And so you begin. Quelle surprise.

[JTEM]

69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

You're a mental case.

You made a claim, one that would have been quite easy to prove if
it were true, so I challenged you to back up your claim with some
proof.

You ran like a pussy...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703123684715577344

[jillery]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:21:19 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

>>Yes, go ahead and back up your alleged *contradictions*.
>

>You're a mental case.

You didn't even try.

>You ran like a pussy...

You describe your own behavior, a doppelganger of the one who invoked
your nic.

[JTEM]

69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

> You didn't even try.

Try.. what? To read your mind?

If you think you have an argument, make it.

If you think you found "Resolutions," cite them. Quote them.

This isn't hard. You are claiming to have seen things, read things, and
I'm saying that if you're telling the truth, go ahead to cite those very
things.

I'm not claiming to have seen these "Resolutions." You are. So go ahead.
Copy & paste them. Explain what they are resolving.

Again, this isn't hard.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703387388268953600

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:53:43 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If you think you have an argument, make it.

You first.

[JTEM]

69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

> You first.

Sorry, I'm moving too fast for you.

#1. You posted a link to a video.

#2. I replied with a critique, noting contradictions.

#3. You claimed that these contradictions were resolved.

#4. I challenged you to go right ahead and resolve them.

#5. You react with, "You first."

Let's pretend that #5 never happened, back up to #4 and you
just go right ahead and post these "Resolutions" you think
you read.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703468006592905216

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 23:23:28 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You first.
>
>Sorry, I'm moving too fast for you.

Only in your wet dreams.

>#1. You posted a link to a video.

Correct. That's one in a row.

>#2. I replied with a critique, noting contradictions.

To be accurate, you replied with a series of baseless opinions and
alluded to contradictions that you don't cite. There's a difference.

>#3. You claimed that these contradictions were resolved.

To be accurate, I said that what you thought were contradictions would
be resolved if you read and listened for comprehension the cites
provided. There's a difference. Apparently you haven't done that,
and instead just jumped into troll mode.

>#4. I challenged you to go right ahead and resolve them.

And I challenged you to actually show where those alleged
contradictions actually exist, which you *still* haven't done.

>#5. You react with, "You first."

To be accurate, my response above was to your challenge for me to post
an argument, and you *still* haven't said what I'm supposed to argue
about.

>Let's pretend that #5 never happened, back up to #4 and you
>just go right ahead and post these "Resolutions" you think
>you read.

To be accurate, I note that #2 never happened. Apparently it never
will. Apparently you're more interested in trolling than you are in
actually posting an actual argument. I know of no good reason to do
your work for you.

And FTR all that I say above is documented in previous posts, so
there's no good reason for you to continuously delete all context.

[JTEM]

69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

> >#2. I replied with a critique, noting contradictions.

> To be accurate

If you want to be "Accurate," which you clearly do not, you could
simply read my initial response, not my objections and then
actually respond to them... instead of imagining that you saw
a "Resolution" of the contradictions.

It's not hard. Or it wouldn't be if you weren't imagining your
so called "resolution."

> >#3. You claimed that these contradictions were resolved.

> To be accurate

Again, my post is still there, along with your reference to
imaginary "Resolutions."

If you want to claim that you aren't making things up as you go
along, simply quote these "Resolutions."

...if they were real, this would be easy.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703468006592905216

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 06:11:07 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
continues to troll. Quelle surprise.

[JTEM]

69jp...@gmail.com wrote:

> continues

Again, NOT difficult. You claimed to have seen or read or heard
some imaginary "Resolutions" to any contradictions I raised. So,
go right ahead and cite them.

If they were real, if you weren't delusional, you could do this.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 8 december 2022 om 02:10:48 UTC+1 schreef jillery:
> <https://livestream.com/carnegiescience/explorationage/videos/234027978>

A very interesting research, but unfortunately an anthropocentric interpretation:
Naledi was an australopith, of course, a fossil relative of bonobo or chimp, google e.g.
"Not Homo, but Pan or Australopithecus naledi".

[Popping Mad]

On 3/10/23 16:55, marc verhaegen wrote:
> australopith, of course, a fossil relative of bonobo or chimp, g

no

[JTEM]

Popping Mad wrote:

> marc verhaegen wrote:
> > australopith, of course, a fossil relative of bonobo or chimp, g

> no

Well you may be correct, it could be Pan naledi and not Australopithecus
naledi. If you want to argue the point -- stretch your vocabulary beyond a
single word, a single syllable, you may find some common ground.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711397709548027904

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 11 maart 2023 om 20:41:18 UTC+1 schreef Popping Mad:

> On 3/10/23 16:55, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > australopith, of course, a fossil relative of bonobo or chimp, g

> no

:-D
If that's all you know, you're obviously wrong:
Naledi was an australopith, of course, a fossil relative of bonobo/chimp,

[Peter Nyikos]

The original title had a question mark at the end. This clashes with your "of course".

Why not post the url instead of telling people to google? Here it is:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi


You give some support to the hypothesis there, and I take it seriously.
And so does JTEM, who is in good form here. Popping Mad and jillery dismiss JTEM as a troll,
and he DOES behave like one all too often, but not on *this* thread.

On this thread, he makes the two look like trolls in comparison,
with him in the role of "feeding the trolls".


Unfortunately, this whole thread is almost devoid of reasoned argument.
I regret to say that your "of course" is not one of them. Do you rely on the
utter dearth of fossils that are generally recognized to be those of
chimp and gorilla ancestors for this conclusion?

Don't forget that paleontologists do not dig for fossils unless there is some sign
on the surface of the ground of their presence. And a rain forest is not the best
place to find large tracts of exposed ground.


There are weightier counter-arguments. Here is an article that, while not arbitrarily
dismissive of the "other hominin" hypothesis, nevertheless gives evidence of
membership in Homo:

https://theconversation.com/chipped-teeth-suggests-homo-naledi-had-a-unique-diet-80714
Excerpts:

"In H. naledi, more than 40% of teeth are affected – which is very high. However, this chipping is not distributed evenly over the teeth. The back teeth are the most fractured, with more than half having at least one chip and many having multiple small chips. That said, front teeth are still affected much more than in other species – more than 30% have one chip or more.
...
"To put these results into context, H. naledi has more than twice the chipping rate of *Australopithecus* *africanus,* and four times that of *Paranthropus* *robustus*, two extinct hominin species often thought to have commonly consumed hard foods (though there’s still a lot of discussion about exactly what their diet consisted of). This contrast becomes even more marked when compared to living great apes, with gorillas having around 10% of teeth chipped and chimpanzees only 5%. Furthermore, the multiple small chips, sometimes more than five on a single tooth, found on H. naledi is not found on any individual in the comparative samples studied – strongly suggesting this species had a unique diet.

"The species with the most similar rate and pattern of chipping to H. naledi is baboons – 25% of their teeth have fractures.
...
"Certain samples of modern humans also show a similar chipping rate to H. naledi, including living Inuit and Aboriginal Australians as well as fossils of dead humans from other groups. However, the pattern of chipping is substantially different – modern humans tend to show the most fractures on the front teeth. The few archaeological examples that do have similar fracture patterns support the conclusion that the chipping in H. naledi relates to diet and not to using teeth as tools."

The most powerful evidence for me is the complete lower jaw illustrated between the second and
third of the above paragraphs. The teeth, and the way the lower jaw narrows to the front, cry "Homo!"
at me. The teeth are in similar proportion to my own, except that my wisdom teeth were impacted.


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

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 23 maart 2023 om 03:36:04 UTC+1 schreef Peter Nyikos:

...

> > Naledi was an australopith, of course, a fossil relative of bonobo/chimp,
> > google e.g. "Not Homo, but Pan or Australopithecus naledi".

> The original title had a question mark at the end. This clashes with your "of course".

The "?" is also to not scare possible readers - for googling, you don't need it.

> Why not post the url instead of telling people to google?

Yes, I'm from the pre-computer era. :-)

> Here it is:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317336008_Not_Homo_but_Pan_or_Australopithecus_naledi

"Discoverers of the naledi fossils (Gauteng, S-Africa, first described in 2015) assume that naledi (1) belonged to the genus Homo, (2) buried their dead in caves, (3) were tool makers, (4) ran over African plains.
Comparative anatomy shows these assumptions to be wrong, and suggests that naledi (1) belonged to the genus Pan or Australopithecus, (2) fossilized in a natural way, (3) were no better tool makers than extant chimps are, (4) spent an important part of their day wading bipedally in forest swamps or wetlands, in search for wetland foods, possibly waterlilies or other aquatic herbaceous vegetation (AHV, possibly containing snail shells), like bonobos & lowland gorillas still do, but more frequently."

:-)

> You give some support to the hypothesis there, and I take it seriously.
> And so does JTEM, who is in good form here. Popping Mad and jillery dismiss JTEM as a troll,
> and he DOES behave like one all too often, but not on *this* thread.

He writes too much, I can't always follow him.

> On this thread, he makes the two look like trolls in comparison,
> with him in the role of "feeding the trolls".
> Unfortunately, this whole thread is almost devoid of reasoned argument.
> I regret to say that your "of course" is not one of them. Do you rely on the
> utter dearth of fossils that are generally recognized to be those of
> chimp and gorilla ancestors for this conclusion?

The earliest undoubted Homo fossils come from SE.Asia (H.erectus):
apiths are apelike: all early discoverers thought they had discovered ape fossil apes.
Only afterwards, PAs began their anthropo- & afro-centric nonsense:
they reason like real idiots:
"our nearest relatives are Pan & Gorilla, therefore we evolved in Africa, and had Afr.apelike ancestors".

> Don't forget that paleontologists do not dig for fossils unless there is some sign
> on the surface of the ground of their presence. And a rain forest is not the best
> place to find large tracts of exposed ground.

Of course, but today's PAs find always "human ancestors" ("hominin" :-D "because bipedal"), never fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla...
= statistically alone aleady +-impossible.
And when we look at the details (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers 1990, 1994, 1996) I have no doubt:
E.Afr.apiths = fossil Gorilla // S.Afr.apiths = fossil Pan:
they evolved in parallel from "gracile" late-Pliocene -> robust" early-Pleist.:
northern Rift Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei // southern Rift Australopithecus africanus -> robustus
(the term "Paranthropus" is paraphyletic = useless & confusing).

Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were "bipedal", simply for wading+climbing in swamp forests, as still seen now & then (in spite of Pleist.coolings?) in lowland gorillas, bonobos & orangs.

> There are weightier counter-arguments. Here is an article that, while not arbitrarily
> dismissive of the "other hominin" hypothesis, nevertheless gives evidence of
> membership in Homo:
> https://theconversation.com/chipped-teeth-suggests-homo-naledi-had-a-unique-diet-80714

Thanks, a bit shortened:
>40 % of naledi teeth are affected = very high, but this chipping is not distributed evenly over the teeth:
-- back-teeth are the most fractured: >1/2 have at least 1 chip, many have multiple small chips,
-- front-teeth are still affected >> other spp: >30 % have 1 chip or more. ...
cf. H.naledi has >2x the chipping rate of Au.africanus, 4x of Par.robustus (2 extinct hominin(sic --mv) spp, often thought to have commonly consumed hard foods ... (sedges?? rice?? shells?? nuts?? ...?? --mv)
vs gorillas c 10% of teeth chipped, chimps 5%,
naledi's multiple small chips (sometimes >5 on 1 tooth) are not found on any individual in the comparative samples: did this species have a unique diet?
The species with the most similar rate & pattern of chipping to H.naledi is baboons: 25% of their teeth have fractures. (grasses?? --mv) ...
Some Hs also show chipping cf naledi, incl. Inuit & Austr.Aboriginal & fossils of dead Hs from other groups,
but the pattern of chipping is substantially different: Hs tend to show the most fractures on the front-teeth.
The few archaeol.examples + similar fracture patterns support: naledi's chipping relates to diet, not to using teeth as tools.

> The most powerful evidence for me is the complete lower jaw illustrated between the second and
> third of the above paragraphs. The teeth, and the way the lower jaw narrows to the front, cry "Homo!"
> at me. The teeth are in similar proportion to my own, except that my wisdom teeth were impacted. Peter Nyikos

:-)
They cry "baboon diet" to me... grass/rice seeds?? ...??
Are there comparisons with H.erectus? with P.paniscus?

IMO, naledi is simply a fossil Pan species.
What caused the chipping? e.g. bonobos wade for waterlilies, lowland gorillas for sedges etc.

Thanks, Peter, will we send this to sci.anthropology.paleo?
Best --marc

[JTEM]

marc verhaegen wrote:

> > You give some support to the hypothesis there, and I take it seriously.
> > And so does JTEM, who is in good form here. Popping Mad and jillery dismiss JTEM as a troll,
> > and he DOES behave like one all too often, but not on *this* thread.

> He writes too much, I can't always follow him.

I am the very embodiment of restraint, using words in the utmost economy; I am
brevity incarnate!






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712622932947517440