Rising Star Cave Homo naledi

[RonO]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html

The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
ritualistic means of dealing with death.

This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
else should they be looking for?

How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

What is wrong with you? Does anyone know who buried the bodies? There
were other species of Homo existing at the time that had essentially
modern sized brains. Is there some way that we could determine who
buried the bodies? The populations that would become Neanderthal and
modern humans had separated from each other, at least a couple hundred
thousand years (separation 500,000 to 800,000 years ago) before these H.
naledi existed (235,000 years ago), and both would have evidence
eventually be found that they buried their dead.

H. naledi still had arboreal adaptations and a brain size as small as
Homo habilis and australopiths. At the time other species of Homo were
essentially modern from the neck down with much larger brains. We
likely should consider if another species of Homo was responsible for
the burials.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:16:40 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/6/2023 9:26 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 05:39:38 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
>>>
>>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
>>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
>>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
>>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
>>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
>>>
>>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
>>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
>>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
>>> else should they be looking for?
>>>
>>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
>>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
>>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
>>
>
>What is wrong with you?

You should ask yourself that question.

>Does anyone know who buried the bodies? There
>were other species of Homo existing at the time that had essentially
>modern sized brains. Is there some way that we could determine who
>buried the bodies? The populations that would become Neanderthal and
>modern humans had separated from each other, at least a couple hundred
>thousand years (separation 500,000 to 800,000 years ago) before these H.
>naledi existed (235,000 years ago), and both would have evidence
>eventually be found that they buried their dead.
>
>H. naledi still had arboreal adaptations and a brain size as small as
>Homo habilis and australopiths. At the time other species of Homo were
>essentially modern from the neck down with much larger brains. We
>likely should consider if another species of Homo was responsible for
>the burials.

Since you asked, if by "know", you mean with absolute certainty, then
certainly not. However, if you mean to infer a reasonable conclusion
based on evidence, then yes.

That other intelligent apes existed at the same time and general
region doesn't inform your question. It's well-documented H. naledi
occupied large areas of the Rising Star cave system, while evidence of
other intelligent apes in these caves are completely lacking. It's
also documented that at least one body of a naledi child was
deliberately placed in a niche high above the cave floor. Also, it's
well-documented that entrances to the these sites are extremely
narrow, and are physically impassible by any but the smallest
individuals, and H.naledi qualify. Finally, to suppose that other
intelligent apes would go through the trouble to bury *naledi* bodies
in such difficult-to-access locations raises the question; why? Try
to consider these points without twisting your knickers.

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 7 juni 2023 om 06:30:45 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:16:40 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

> >>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
> >>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
> >>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
> >>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
> >>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
> >>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
> >>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
> >>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
> >>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
> >>> else should they be looking for?
> >>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
> >>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
> >>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
> >>> Ron Okimoto

> >> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?

:-DDD
Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??
A mandible fell on the ground from the roof of the cave, says Stephen Tucker, who (with Nick Hunter) discovered the naledi fossils.
There's indeed nothing Homo in the naledi fossils, google
"not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi?".
Completely natural fossilization, interpreted anthropocentrically (as often!).
The carvings ("symbolic markings") are probably recent?

______

[RonO]

On 6/6/2023 11:27 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:16:40 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/6/2023 9:26 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 05:39:38 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
>>>>
>>>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
>>>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
>>>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
>>>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
>>>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
>>>>
>>>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
>>>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
>>>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
>>>> else should they be looking for?
>>>>
>>>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
>>>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
>>>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
>>>
>>
>> What is wrong with you?
>
>
> You should ask yourself that question.

You are the one that is being so negative about stupid things.

>
>
>> Does anyone know who buried the bodies? There
>> were other species of Homo existing at the time that had essentially
>> modern sized brains. Is there some way that we could determine who
>> buried the bodies? The populations that would become Neanderthal and
>> modern humans had separated from each other, at least a couple hundred
>> thousand years (separation 500,000 to 800,000 years ago) before these H.
>> naledi existed (235,000 years ago), and both would have evidence
>> eventually be found that they buried their dead.
>>
>> H. naledi still had arboreal adaptations and a brain size as small as
>> Homo habilis and australopiths. At the time other species of Homo were
>> essentially modern from the neck down with much larger brains. We
>> likely should consider if another species of Homo was responsible for
>> the burials.
>
>
> Since you asked, if by "know", you mean with absolute certainty, then
> certainly not. However, if you mean to infer a reasonable conclusion
> based on evidence, then yes.

That is the assumption, but how do you determine who buried the bodies?
We have pet cemetaries today. We need some means to determine if H.
naledi was responsible.

My take is that they should try to remove the rock fall and try to
restore the original entrance to see what else they can find. They
might find more evidence and rock carvings. There may even be evidence
of habitation where bits of their daily lives might still be found
spanning thousands of years.

>
> That other intelligent apes existed at the same time and general
> region doesn't inform your question.

They were Homo, and essentially modern by that time. As I noted
Neanderthals and modern humans had already separated a couple hundred
thousand years earlier.

It's well-documented H. naledi
> occupied large areas of the Rising Star cave system, while evidence of
> other intelligent apes in these caves are completely lacking. It's
> also documented that at least one body of a naledi child was
> deliberately placed in a niche high above the cave floor. Also, it's
> well-documented that entrances to the these sites are extremely
> narrow, and are physically impassible by any but the smallest
> individuals, and H.naledi qualify. Finally, to suppose that other
> intelligent apes would go through the trouble to bury *naledi* bodies
> in such difficult-to-access locations raises the question; why? Try
> to consider these points without twisting your knickers.
>

They basically have the grave sites. What they need is something like
tool making sites and hearths. Whoever did this did not do it in the
dark. H. naledi may have been not much more than an intelligent ape,
but other Homo that existed at the same time had essentially modern body
forms and brain sizes while H. naledi isn't estimated to be much more
than 600 cc and was likely less than 550. That is half the size of the
brains of other species of Homo that existed at the same time. H.
naledi also retained some of the arboreal adaptions that H. habilis had.
They were still using the trees to a greater extent than other Homo.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 01:35:38 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op woensdag 7 juni 2023 om 06:30:45 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:16:40 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
>> >>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
>> >>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
>> >>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
>> >>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
>> >>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
>> >>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
>> >>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
>> >>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
>> >>> else should they be looking for?
>> >>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
>> >>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
>> >>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
>> >>> Ron Okimoto
>
>> >> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
>
>:-DDD
>Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??

I challenge your authority and expertise to rename this species.

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 05:33:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/6/2023 11:27 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:16:40 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2023 9:26 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 05:39:38 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
>>>>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
>>>>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
>>>>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
>>>>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
>>>>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
>>>>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
>>>>> else should they be looking for?
>>>>>
>>>>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
>>>>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
>>>>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is wrong with you?
>>
>>
>> You should ask yourself that question.
>
>You are the one that is being so negative about stupid things.

Yet more baseless allusions. Quelle surprise.

>>> Does anyone know who buried the bodies? There
>>> were other species of Homo existing at the time that had essentially
>>> modern sized brains. Is there some way that we could determine who
>>> buried the bodies? The populations that would become Neanderthal and
>>> modern humans had separated from each other, at least a couple hundred
>>> thousand years (separation 500,000 to 800,000 years ago) before these H.
>>> naledi existed (235,000 years ago), and both would have evidence
>>> eventually be found that they buried their dead.
>>>
>>> H. naledi still had arboreal adaptations and a brain size as small as
>>> Homo habilis and australopiths. At the time other species of Homo were
>>> essentially modern from the neck down with much larger brains. We
>>> likely should consider if another species of Homo was responsible for
>>> the burials.
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, if by "know", you mean with absolute certainty, then
>> certainly not. However, if you mean to infer a reasonable conclusion
>> based on evidence, then yes.
>
>That is the assumption, but how do you determine who buried the bodies?
>We have pet cemetaries today. We need some means to determine if H.
>naledi was responsible.

Do you know of any identified pet cemetaries deep inside nearly
inaccessible caves?

>My take is that they should try to remove the rock fall and try to
>restore the original entrance to see what else they can find. They
>might find more evidence and rock carvings. There may even be evidence
>of habitation where bits of their daily lives might still be found
>spanning thousands of years.

What rock fall? According to those at the site, the caves appear to
have changed very little since H.naledi occupied them. The stated
consensus is the only entrance to the Rising Star caves since its
occupation by H. naledi is the same entrance currently being used.

>> That other intelligent apes existed at the same time and general
>> region doesn't inform your question.
>
>They were Homo, and essentially modern by that time. As I noted
>Neanderthals and modern humans had already separated a couple hundred
>thousand years earlier.
>
>> It's well-documented H. naledi
>> occupied large areas of the Rising Star cave system, while evidence of
>> other intelligent apes in these caves are completely lacking. It's
>> also documented that at least one body of a naledi child was
>> deliberately placed in a niche high above the cave floor. Also, it's
>> well-documented that entrances to the these sites are extremely
>> narrow, and are physically impassible by any but the smallest
>> individuals, and H.naledi qualify. Finally, to suppose that other
>> intelligent apes would go through the trouble to bury *naledi* bodies
>> in such difficult-to-access locations raises the question; why? Try
>> to consider these points without twisting your knickers.

You didn't even address this question. Why is that?

>They basically have the grave sites. What they need is something like
>tool making sites and hearths. Whoever did this did not do it in the
>dark.

"They" have well documented hearths.

>H. naledi may have been not much more than an intelligent ape,
>but other Homo that existed at the same time had essentially modern body
>forms and brain sizes while H. naledi isn't estimated to be much more
>than 600 cc and was likely less than 550. That is half the size of the
>brains of other species of Homo that existed at the same time. H.
>naledi also retained some of the arboreal adaptions that H. habilis had.
> They were still using the trees to a greater extent than other Homo.

Once again, there is zero evidence of any other fossil ape occupying
these caves.

[JTEM is my hero]

RonO wrote:

> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls.

And it only took them, what was it? Seven years to figure this out?

It was six years before anyone bothered to look up, see all the soot
from the smoke... or look down, see the remains of the fire they
were dragging themselves across on a daily basis.

These people are VERY perceptive.

And yet, no mention of the hang gliders.

I wonder why?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719382437569970176

[Pro Plyd]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.01.543127v1
Evidence for deliberate burial of the dead by Homo naledi



https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.01.543133v1
241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings Made by
Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave system, South Africa



https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.01.543135v1

Burials and engravings in a small-brained hominin,
Homo naledi, from the late Pleistocene: contexts and
evolutionary implications

[Pro Plyd]

marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 7 juni 2023 om 06:30:45 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 22:16:40 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
>>>>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
>>>>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
>>>>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
>>>>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
>>>>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
>>>>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
>>>>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
>>>>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
>>>>> else should they be looking for?
>>>>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
>>>>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
>>>>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>
>>>> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
>
> :-DDD
> Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??
> A mandible fell on the ground from the roof of the cave, says Stephen Tucker, who (with Nick Hunter) discovered the naledi fossils.
> There's indeed nothing Homo in the naledi fossils, google

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600720/
Published online 2015 Oct 6.
The foot of Homo naledi

"The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
in morphology and inferred function, with an adducted
hallux, an elongated tarsus, and derived ankle and
calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these features
indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism."

Pan does not walk like homo. Dates for the naledi fossils
can be found here

https://elifesciences.org/articles/24231
The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the
Rising Star Cave, South Africa
May 9, 2017

"...we have constrained the depositional age of Homo naledi
to a period between 236 ka and 335 ka."

You really think that an obligately bipedal creature like
naledi went to a more quadrupedal posture and locomotion in
that amount of time? Does your aqua stuff do any actual
field work or work on actual remains? Or is it all
proceeding from your preconceived notions and then force
all data to it? Are you capable of citing anything
legitimate?

> "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi?".
> Completely natural fossilization, interpreted anthropocentrically (as often!).
> The carvings ("symbolic markings") are probably recent?

The paper is public. Why don't you read it?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.01.543133v1.full.pdf

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 7 juni 2023 om 17:05:45 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

> >> >>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
> >> >>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
> >> >>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
> >> >>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
> >> >>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
> >> >>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
> >> >>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
> >> >>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
> >> >>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
> >> >>> else should they be looking for?
> >> >>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
> >> >>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
> >> >>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
> >> >>> Ron Okimoto

> >> >> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?

> >:-DDD Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??

> I challenge your authority and expertise to rename this species.

:-DDD
I didn't rename the species !!
Please, inform a little bit before talking!

"authority"...
e.g. from my almost 50 scient.publications, some that are relevant on australopiths = fossil Afr.apes:
1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African ape ancestry"
1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
2000 with P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2022 Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp "De Evolutie van de Mens – Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken"

> >A mandible fell on the ground from the roof of the cave, says Stephen Tucker, who (with Nick Hunter) discovered the naledi fossils.
> >There's indeed nothing Homo in the naledi fossils, google
> >"not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi?".
> >Completely natural fossilization, interpreted anthropocentrically (as often!).
> >The carvings ("symbolic markings") are probably recent?

...

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 10 juni 2023 om 07:20:48 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

...
Some anthropocentric fanatic:

> >>>> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?

...

> > :-DDD
> > Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??
> > A mandible fell on the ground from the roof of the cave, says Stephen Tucker, who (with Nick Hunter) discovered the naledi fossils.

> > There's indeed nothing uniquely Homo in the naledi fossils, google

Evidence snipped:
google
-not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi
-WHATtalk verhaegen

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600720/
> Published online 2015 Oct 6.
> The foot of Homo naledi
> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
> in morphology and inferred function, with an adducted
> hallux, an elongated tarsus, and derived ankle and
> calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these features
> indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism."
> Pan does not walk like homo. Dates for the naledi fossils
> can be found here
> https://elifesciences.org/articles/24231
> The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the
> Rising Star Cave, South Africa
> May 9, 2017

:-D Ridiculous unscientific anthropocentric interpretation.
We have to walk with such feet because of our waterside past, of course:
-- Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea, google "aquarboreal"
(even newborn chimps have still more humanlike flat feet),
-- omni-molluscivorous archaic Homo,
google "gondwanatalks verhaegen english":
brain++ (DHA), Java, shell engravings, pachyosteosclerosis, island colonizations, stone tools, ear exostoses etc.etc.:
only *incredible* idiots still believe their ancestors ran after gazelles on some savanna... :-DDD
All cursorial tetrapods run on their toes or even hooves! never on flat feet!
Naledi was most likely a fossil relative of bonobos/chimps,
e.g. google "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi".

> "...we have constrained the depositional age of Homo naledi
> to a period between 236 ka and 335 ka."
> You really think that an obligately bipedal creature like
> naledi went to a more quadrupedal posture and locomotion in
> that amount of time?

My little little boy, don't you even know that chimpsare still born with humanlike feet??
Why don't you inform a little bit before talking??
It's really not difficult (even for you??):
-- Mio-Pliocene "bipedal"=aquarboreal hominids, google "aquarboreal",
-- Pleistocene littoral Homo, google "gondwanatalks verhaegen english".

> Does your aqua stuff do any actual
> field work or work on actual remains? Or is it all
> proceeding from your preconceived notions and then force
> all data to it? Are you capable of citing anything
> legitimate?

Even heard of Nature?? New Scientist?? Med.Hypotheses?? Hum.Evol.?? etc.etc.
:-DDD

> > "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi?".
> > Completely natural fossilization, interpreted anthropocentrically (as often!).
> > The carvings ("symbolic markings") are probably recent?


> The paper is public. Why don't you read it?

I did, my little boy. Grow up: why don't you inform a little bit before trying to say something??

> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.01.543133v1.full.pdf

Thanks, the *facts* in this paper (not the ridiculous unscientific anthropocentric interpretations) completely confirm our view. :-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 23:15:20 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>:

It's his religion, which Must Not Be Questioned.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:40:58 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op woensdag 7 juni 2023 om 17:05:45 UTC+2 schreef jillery:
>
>> >> >>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/world/homo-naledi-burials-carvings-scn/index.html
>> >> >>> The articles are going to be published in eLife, but I haven't read the
>> >> >>> preprints in BioRxiv. Apparently the bodies were laid to rest in a
>> >> >>> fetal position and there were symbolic markings on the walls. H. naledi
>> >> >>> is a relatively small brained species of Homo, but seemed to have some
>> >> >>> ritualistic means of dealing with death.
>> >> >>> This is likely an example of what an honest form of intelligent design
>> >> >>> research could assist in. They seem to have wall markings and have been
>> >> >>> able to determine how the bodies had been arranged after death. What
>> >> >>> else should they be looking for?
>> >> >>> How can we differentiate this site from a "pet cemetary"? There were
>> >> >>> larger brained species of Homo that existed at the same time as H.
>> >> >>> naledi. Is there some way that we could determine who burried the bodies?
>> >> >>> Ron Okimoto
>
>> >> >> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
>
>> >:-DDD Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??
>
>> I challenge your authority and expertise to rename this species.
>
>:-DDD
>I didn't rename the species !!

Really? Then you have no good reason to use Pan and Australopithecus
when referring to Homo naledi.

>Please, inform a little bit before talking!
>
>"authority"...
>e.g. from my almost 50 scient.publications, some that are relevant on australopiths = fossil Afr.apes:
>1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
>1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African ape ancestry"
>1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?
>1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
>2000 with P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
>2022 Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp "De Evolutie van de Mens – Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken"
>
>
>> >A mandible fell on the ground from the roof of the cave, says Stephen Tucker, who (with Nick Hunter) discovered the naledi fossils.
>> >There's indeed nothing Homo in the naledi fossils, google
>> >"not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi?".
>> >Completely natural fossilization, interpreted anthropocentrically (as often!).
>> >The carvings ("symbolic markings") are probably recent?
>...

[JTEM is my hero]

Your "Cites" are all dated 2023. The published claims about
burying their dead began no later than 2015.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/Xq0n4Q7pG-o/m/yMKzP5THDgAJ

Funny how the conclusions all came first -- It was a human
ancestor, burying it's dead -- back when there wasn't a lick
of evidence for it, BUT THERE WAS local powers very angry
at Lee Berger and saying they were going to stop him from
digging.

Which is weird, because the Bantu Expansion came maybe
sometime AFTER the pyramids, and at the absolute youngest
Naledi remains couldn't be more recent than 100k years or so,
supposedly.

So maybe the ancestor to the San or someone the San came
into contact with & interbred had ancestors who interbred with
Naledi... big whoop.

They had to turn them into Rocket Scientists and Nuclear
Physicists?

This is stupid.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719765072560488448

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
> in morphology and inferred function, with an adducted
> hallux, an elongated tarsus, and derived ankle and
> calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these features
> indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism."

Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo. You're like one of
those all too common idiots who keeps seeing "Bird like
traits in dinosaurs," even though they're clearly dinosaur
traits, vestiges of a common ancestry with dinosaurs.

Our species is the last of it's line, the only living example
of a many millions of years old physical adaptation to
bipedal locomotion.

The majority of the history of bipedal locomotion amongst
our ancestors took place before Homo is conventionally
dated as appearing...

> Pan does not walk like homo.

Their ancestors did. Unless you want to go insane again,
whatever date you cherry pick for an LCA comes AFTER
bipedalism.

> Dates for the naledi fossils can be found here

> https://elifesciences.org/articles/24231

Oddly, at the time that your first cite was written, they
were claiming an age of 2 million+ years old. And you
were believing it.

> "...we have constrained the depositional age of Homo naledi
> to a period between 236 ka and 335 ka."

You let out the +/-. That's quite dishonest.

You also left out this:

: whilst a minimum age scenario yields an average age of 200
: +70/–61 ka.

So in reality, even if they view it as unlikely, their dating left the
possibility that Naledi is 139k years old.

> You really think that an obligately bipedal creature like
> naledi went to a more quadrupedal posture and locomotion in
> that amount of time?

You being an idiot I need to point out: Naledi is extinct. And
knuckle walking developed more than once, independently.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719765072560488448

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> It's his religion, which Must Not Be Questioned.

So EVERYTHING stated about Naledi back in 2015 has
since been proven bullshit, but it was right back then and
it's right now, and everyone who told you the bullshit is
still right, and you always believe every word they ever
speak, while anyone not like you is religious...

You're fucked up. You are seriously fucked in the head.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719765072560488448

[jillery]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 00:10:12 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Your "Cites" are all dated 2023. The published claims about
>burying their dead began no later than 2015.
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/Xq0n4Q7pG-o/m/yMKzP5THDgAJ

Pro Ployd's cites are dated 2023 because they describe new evidence.
OTOH your link is to a zombie thread from 2015. Naledi burying their
dead was a plausible hypothesis from the moment the first fossils of
multiple naledi individuals were uncovered deep inside the Rising Star
caverns. That an active site provides additional evidence should not
surprise even you.

>Funny how the conclusions all came first -- It was a human
>ancestor, burying it's dead -- back when there wasn't a lick
>of evidence for it, BUT THERE WAS local powers very angry
>at Lee Berger and saying they were going to stop him from
>digging.
>
>Which is weird, because the Bantu Expansion came maybe
>sometime AFTER the pyramids, and at the absolute youngest
>Naledi remains couldn't be more recent than 100k years or so,
>supposedly.
>
>So maybe the ancestor to the San or someone the San came
>into contact with & interbred had ancestors who interbred with
>Naledi... big whoop.
>
>They had to turn them into Rocket Scientists and Nuclear
>Physicists?
>
>This is stupid.

If by "this" you mean your comments, I concur.

[JTEM is my hero]

Raging narcissist & idiot, but not named jillery wrote:

> Pro Ployd's cites are dated 2023 because they describe new evidence.

Only took them 8 years to notice, huh?

> OTOH your link is to a zombie thread from 2015.

You being a nym shifting fraud, we established that what you call
"New" evidence didn't exist in 2015... nor 2016, 2017, 2018 (etc).

But you're so fucking stupid this never occurs to you, not even
after I just pointed it out.

> Naledi burying their
> dead was a plausible hypothesis from the moment the first fossils of
> multiple naledi individuals were uncovered deep inside the Rising Star
> caverns.

No it wasn't. It was never plausible. There was never any reason
to suspect it. And there still isn't.

> That an active site provides additional evidence should not
> surprise even you.

They're claiming a ceiling caked in soot, that nobody bothered to
look up at for 6 years... or was it seven?

Carving! Patterns! In the rock! And nobody noticed for at least
8 years...

I'm still waiting for the hang gliders.

Again, if I had said ANY of this about naledi in 2014 you would
have attacked it without hesitation. You prove once again that
you auto swallow ANYTHING coming from what you perceive
as an authority.

You don't think. You have no knowledge. You're simply obedient.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719822321821548544

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
>> in morphology and inferred function, with an adducted
>> hallux, an elongated tarsus, and derived ankle and
>> calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these features
>> indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism."
>
> Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo. You're like one of

A meaningless statement, there are many fossils of non Homo
species that were bipedal. Try sticking to hominids.

> those all too common idiots who keeps seeing "Bird like
> traits in dinosaurs," even though they're clearly dinosaur
> traits, vestiges of a common ancestry with dinosaurs.
>
> Our species is the last of it's line, the only living example
> of a many millions of years old physical adaptation to
> bipedal locomotion.
>
> The majority of the history of bipedal locomotion amongst
> our ancestors took place before Homo is conventionally
> dated as appearing...

As appearing what?

>> Pan does not walk like homo.
>
> Their ancestors did. Unless you want to go insane again,

All you need is evidence, eh?

> whatever date you cherry pick for an LCA comes AFTER
> bipedalism.
>
>> Dates for the naledi fossils can be found here
>
>> https://elifesciences.org/articles/24231
>
> Oddly, at the time that your first cite was written, they
> were claiming an age of 2 million+ years old. And you
> were believing it.

Oddly enough, you're making that up.

>> "...we have constrained the depositional age of Homo naledi
>> to a period between 236 ka and 335 ka."
>
> You let out the +/-. That's quite dishonest.

There wasn't a "+/-". Follow the link. That's an exact quote.
This is quite dishonest of you.

> You also left out this:
>
> : whilst a minimum age scenario yields an average age of 200
> : +70/–61 ka.

Didn't need it. They summed up in this statement

"By combining the US-ESR maximum age estimate obtained from
the teeth, with the U-Th age for the oldest flowstone
overlying Homo naledi fossils, we have constrained the

depositional age of Homo naledi to a period between 236 ka
and 335 ka."

> So in reality, even if they view it as unlikely, their dating left the
> possibility that Naledi is 139k years old.
>
>> You really think that an obligately bipedal creature like
>> naledi went to a more quadrupedal posture and locomotion in
>> that amount of time?
>
> You being an idiot I need to point out: Naledi is extinct. And
> knuckle walking developed more than once, independently.

Let us know when you have evidence.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > Bipedalism is *Way* older than Homo.

> A meaningless statement

No it's not. It's defining a relationship, one you've gotten backwards.

> there are many fossils of non Homo
> species that were bipedal.

I just said that, actually. Glad you almost kept up.

Here:

> > The majority of the history of bipedal locomotion amongst
> > our ancestors took place before Homo is conventionally
> > dated as appearing...

> As appearing what?

It's a mystery. You're a raging narcissist and you need treatment,
not usenet.

> >> Pan does not walk like homo.
> >
> > Their ancestors did. Unless you want to go insane again,

> All you need is evidence, eh?

No. Evidence is only needed to establish facts. Bipedalism
predating the LCA is accepted by all of us and thus need not
be established, unless you're a narcissist -- and not a bright
one -- trying to obstruct discussion. Then you need to demand
that I prove things that aren't in dispute, because that's what
you narcissist do.

I'm not playing.

The good Doctor makes many fine points and even if you have
an emotional need to dispute the odd point here or there, you
know his overall view is correct: Aquatic Ape.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720236185517260800

[Pro Plyd]

marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op zaterdag 10 juni 2023 om 07:20:48 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:
>
> ...
> Some anthropocentric fanatic:
>>>>>> Is there any doubt H.naledi buried the bodies?
> ...
>>> :-DDD
>>> Is there still anybody who believes Pan or Australopithecus naledi buried the bodies??
>>> A mandible fell on the ground from the roof of the cave, says Stephen Tucker, who (with Nick Hunter) discovered the naledi fossils.
>>> There's indeed nothing uniquely Homo in the naledi fossils, google
>
> Evidence snipped:

Evidence restored

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600720/
Published online 2015 Oct 6.
The foot of Homo naledi

"The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
in morphology and inferred function, with an adducted
hallux, an elongated tarsus, and derived ankle and
calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these features
indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism."

Pan does not walk like homo. Dates for the naledi fossils
can be found here

https://elifesciences.org/articles/24231
The age of Homo naledi and associated sediments in the
Rising Star Cave, South Africa
May 9, 2017

"...we have constrained the depositional age of Homo naledi
to a period between 236 ka and 335 ka."

You really think that an obligately bipedal creature like
naledi went to a more quadrupedal posture and locomotion in

that amount of time? Does your aqua stuff do any actual

field work or work on actual remains? Or is it all
proceeding from your preconceived notions and then force
all data to it? Are you capable of citing anything
legitimate?

> "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi?".
> Completely natural fossilization, interpreted anthropocentrically (as
often!).
> The carvings ("symbolic markings") are probably recent?

The paper is public. Why don't you read it?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.01.543133v1.full.pdf

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
> in morphology and inferred function

It could be maybe 3 million years old and practiced rituals:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447

In reality, at least on this planet, bipedalism is NOT a "human"
trait. It predates Homo. Amongst our ancestors, most of the
history of bipedalism took place BEFORE Homo ever arose.

You're as ignorant as those jerkwads who think they keep
seeing "Bird like traits in dinosaurs," when in fact it's the other
way around, with the traits predating birds by a very long way.

in the case of Naledi though; who knows? They have gushed
just so much BULLSHIT that it's impossible to take ANYTHING
at face value. The narrative is so ridiculously implausible, the
claims so wild that it seems idiotic to even bother at this point.

From the start: There was ALWAYS far better explanations
than intentional burials. The first one that popped into my
head was animals driven into the depths of a cave in search
of water during a drought -- lured in by moist air. Why they
instead DEFAULTED to the FIRST and ONLY ritual practices
observed in Africa in 3 million years is beyond me.

...besides the politics.

> Pan does not walk like homo.

If you believe that the LCA lived 5 million years ago then YOU
believe that Pan is what we see only after 5 million years of
evolution... AND that Pan split off long after bipedalism
emerged amongst our ancestors.

IT'S GODDAMN RETARDED!

Are these people retarded? Is this your "Argument?" They
don't know that Pan has evolved for as long as we have
since the LCA? They don't know this?

You're "Argument" is that they are comparing PRESENT
DAY PAN to Naledi claims, instead of the LCA, because
they don't know that Pan has evolved?

That's a frigging STUPID argument.

Safer to assume that they're not the idiots, you are. That,
they're bullshitting you and you're falling for it. They're
intentionally making an illegitimate comparison because
they know you'll buy anything.

This is actually the safer, more likely, more conservative
answer.










-- --

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:52:05 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
>> in morphology and inferred function
>
>It could be maybe 3 million years old and practiced rituals:
>
>https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447
>
>In reality, at least on this planet, bipedalism is NOT a "human"
>trait. It predates Homo. Amongst our ancestors, most of the
>history of bipedalism took place BEFORE Homo ever arose.

I acknowledge many different organisms were bipedal since the first
dinosaurs practiced it. However, bipedalism in other lineages are a
consequence of analogous behavior and structures, and so don't inform
this discussion. In reality, the common features H. naledi feet and
other structures have with modern humans are evidence they are
homologous with a common origin.

>You're as ignorant as those jerkwads who think they keep
>seeing "Bird like traits in dinosaurs," when in fact it's the other
>way around, with the traits predating birds by a very long way.
>
>in the case of Naledi though; who knows? They have gushed
>just so much BULLSHIT that it's impossible to take ANYTHING
>at face value. The narrative is so ridiculously implausible, the
>claims so wild that it seems idiotic to even bother at this point.
>
>From the start: There was ALWAYS far better explanations
>than intentional burials. The first one that popped into my
>head was animals driven into the depths of a cave in search
>of water during a drought -- lured in by moist air. Why they
>instead DEFAULTED to the FIRST and ONLY ritual practices
>observed in Africa in 3 million years is beyond me.

Animal deposition is the poorest explanation. There are no signs H.
naledi bones were scavenged, and there are no signs scavenging animals
occupied the areas where H. naledi bones are deposited.

> ...besides the politics.
>
>> Pan does not walk like homo.
>
>If you believe that the LCA lived 5 million years ago then YOU
>believe that Pan is what we see only after 5 million years of
>evolution... AND that Pan split off long after bipedalism
>emerged amongst our ancestors.

The remains of H. naledi in the Rising Star caverns are dated between
335,000 to 236,000 years ago. Whatever happened 5mya doesn't inform
this discussion any more than does bipedalism in other organisms.

>IT'S GODDAMN RETARDED!
>
>Are these people retarded? Is this your "Argument?" They
>don't know that Pan has evolved for as long as we have
>since the LCA? They don't know this?
>
>You're "Argument" is that they are comparing PRESENT
>DAY PAN to Naledi claims, instead of the LCA, because
>they don't know that Pan has evolved?

I know of nobody who makes that claim on T.O. Your comments are
made-up strawmen.

>That's a frigging STUPID argument.
>
>Safer to assume that they're not the idiots, you are. That,
>they're bullshitting you and you're falling for it. They're
>intentionally making an illegitimate comparison because
>they know you'll buy anything.
>
>This is actually the safer, more likely, more conservative
>answer.


--

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally ill, intellectually stunted, jillery wrote:

> The god like JTEM bestowed:

> >It could be maybe 3 million years old and practiced rituals:
> >
> >https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447
> >
> >In reality, at least on this planet, bipedalism is NOT a "human"
> >trait. It predates Homo. Amongst our ancestors, most of the
> >history of bipedalism took place BEFORE Homo ever arose.

> I acknowledge many different organisms were bipedal since the first
> dinosaurs practiced it.

AMONGST OUR ANCESTORS, most of the history of bipedalism
took place before the existence of Homo.

Our ancestors. Our pre Homo ancestors. The history of bipedalism,
AMONGST OUR ANCESTORS stretches well beyond the history of
Homo. Most of our bipedal ancestors lived prior to the evolution of
Homo.

You are such a raging narcissist that you have to try to switch from
speaking of HUMAN ORIGINS to dinosaurs, just to disrupt a
conversation you can't control.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720565414942343168

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 18:47:04 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>
>Mentally ill, intellectually stunted, jillery wrote:
>
>> The god like JTEM bestowed:
>
>> >It could be maybe 3 million years old and practiced rituals:
>> >
>> >https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447
>> >
>> >In reality, at least on this planet, bipedalism is NOT a "human"
>> >trait. It predates Homo. Amongst our ancestors, most of the
>> >history of bipedalism took place BEFORE Homo ever arose.

<restored>

>>I acknowledge many different organisms were bipedal since the first

>>dinosaurs practiced it. However, bipedalism in other lineages are a
>>consequence of analogous behavior and structures, and so don't inform
>>this discussion. In reality, the common features H. naledi feet and
>>other structures have with modern humans are evidence they are
>>homologous with a common origin.
>>
>>>You're as ignorant as those jerkwads who think they keep
>>>seeing "Bird like traits in dinosaurs," when in fact it's the other
>>>way around, with the traits predating birds by a very long way.
>

>AMONGST OUR ANCESTORS, most of the history of bipedalism
>took place before the existence of Homo.
>
>Our ancestors. Our pre Homo ancestors. The history of bipedalism,
>AMONGST OUR ANCESTORS stretches well beyond the history of
>Homo. Most of our bipedal ancestors lived prior to the evolution of
>Homo.
>
>You are such a raging narcissist that you have to try to switch from
>speaking of HUMAN ORIGINS to dinosaurs, just to disrupt a
>conversation you can't control.

So you're NOT going to mention dinosaurs and birds ever again. Good.

Now then, what's your problem with H.naledi bipedalism?

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally ill and NOT named jillery trolled:

> So you're NOT going to mention dinosaurs and birds ever again. Good.

You're mentally ill, stupid and you have no reading comprehension
so I remind you: YOU were reacting towards me, and I was speaking
of human origins. I used the words "Amongst human origins" and
then YOU reacted outside that context.

Jackass.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720724355194273792

[marc verhaegen]

somebody:

> Now then, what's your problem with H.naledi bipedalism?

:-DDD You're entitled to your own opinions, but not entitled to your own facts.

1) Google "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi":
naledi has 0 to do with human evolution: it was a fossil relative of bonobos/chimps.

2) Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" in swamp forests, of course:
wading fully upright + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water:
google "aquarboreal".

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:21:55 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>somebody:
>> Now then, what's your problem with H.naledi bipedalism?
>
>:-DDD You're entitled to your own opinions, but not entitled to your own facts.
>
>1) Google "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi":

All authoritative articles I have found which mention the fossil
specie from the Rising Star cave refer to it as Homo naledi and
specifically mention its human-like feet and bipedal posture. Based
on that, I conclude that you are making up your own facts.

>naledi has 0 to do with human evolution: it was a fossil relative of bonobos/chimps.
>
>2) Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" in swamp forests, of course:
>wading fully upright + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water:
>google "aquarboreal".

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>
>Mentally ill and NOT named jillery trolled:
>
>> So you're NOT going to mention dinosaurs and birds ever again. Good.
>
>You're mentally ill, stupid and you have no reading comprehension
>so I remind you: YOU were reacting towards me, and I was speaking
>of human origins.

Then you had no good reason to mention dinosaurs and birds.

>I used the words "Amongst human origins"

Not in the post you mentioned dinosaurs and birds. Instead, you
wrote:

"Amongst our ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism took place
BEFORE Homo ever arose."

Almost all of our ancestors were non-Homo. Even you should know
"human origins" and "our ancestors" don't mean the same thing.

>and
>then YOU reacted outside that context.

Another willfully stupid lie. I responded directly to what you wrote.


>Jackass.


Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> All authoritative articles I have found which mention the fossil
> specie from the Rising Star cave refer to it as Homo naledi

Well you religious fundamentalists are always clinging to a
literally true Word of God, now aren't you?

"If the bible or media says it, it has to be literally true!"

> and
> specifically mention its human-like feet and bipedal posture.

And has been pointed out repeatedly without your acknowledgement,
bipedalism isn't a trait of Homo. The majority of the history of our
bipedal ancestors happened BEFORE Homo arose. Pretending that
bipedalism or bipedal adaptions are "Human" is no different than
seeing "Bird like traits in dinosaurs."

> I conclude that you are making up your own facts.

...said the troll that religiously beliefs a "Homo"
designation that was "Determined" when they were
saying Naledi was 2+ million years old -- maybe as
much as 3 million years!

So in reality they were claiming it looked like something
two to three million years OLDER than it was, 2 to 3
million years OLDER than Neanderthals -- "So modern!"

Do you not grasp this?

Were you born after 2015? Is that it? You have no recollection?

You never had any interests in these topics so you missed the
first 7 or 8 years of reporting?

They thought Naledi was 2+ million years old. THAT was the
context. They weren't saying "Gee, it looks so much like Homo
sapiens sapiens!"... or erectus, even.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720724355194273792

[JTEM is my hero]

Emotionally unhinged, intellectually challenged jillery wrote:

> Our beloved JTEM blessed us with:

> >You're mentally ill, stupid and you have no reading comprehension
> >so I remind you: YOU were reacting towards me, and I was speaking
> >of human origins.

> Then you

You can't follow conversations that you're active in. Not even with
them all archived for you, staring you in the face. You have ZERO
reading comprehension and you prove it every day, AND you
pretend that you can read, understand and accurately describe
scientific papers.

You're a fraud.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720724355194273792

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:43:56 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> All authoritative articles I have found which mention the fossil
>> specie from the Rising Star cave refer to it as Homo naledi
>
>Well you religious fundamentalists are always clinging to a
>literally true Word of God, now aren't you?
>
> "If the bible or media says it, it has to be literally true!"

Between those who knows what they're talking about, and someone who
shows with every post he has no idea what he's talking about and is
proud of it, my money is going on the former. That doesn't mean he's
wrong. It just makes it more likely.

>> and
>> specifically mention its human-like feet and bipedal posture.
>
>And has been pointed out repeatedly without your acknowledgement,
>bipedalism isn't a trait of Homo.

Yes another one of your willfully stupid lies:
*******************************
From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Human bipedalism
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 02:50:19 -0400
Message-ID: <of9clhh9hcafsgj2k...@4ax.com>
********************************

>The majority of the history of our
>bipedal ancestors happened BEFORE Homo arose. Pretending that
>bipedalism or bipedal adaptions are "Human" is no different than
>seeing "Bird like traits in dinosaurs."
>
>> I conclude that you are making up your own facts.
>
> ...said the troll that religiously beliefs a "Homo"
>designation that was "Determined" when they were
>saying Naledi was 2+ million years old -- maybe as
>much as 3 million years!
>
>So in reality they were claiming it looked like something
>two to three million years OLDER than it was, 2 to 3
>million years OLDER than Neanderthals -- "So modern!"
>
>Do you not grasp this?
>
>Were you born after 2015? Is that it? You have no recollection?
>
>You never had any interests in these topics so you missed the
>first 7 or 8 years of reporting?
>
>They thought Naledi was 2+ million years old. THAT was the
>context. They weren't saying "Gee, it looks so much like Homo
>sapiens sapiens!"... or erectus, even.

The keyword above is "thought" aka past tense. Once again, more
recent evidence indicates H.naledi fossils are from between
335,000–236,000 years ago.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:46:40 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Between those who knows what they're talking about

These being the people who said it was a 3 million year old
human ancestor that re-wrote the book on evolution.

But you've never been described as "Bright," you have proven
your inability to follow even your own half of a conversation
and, God knows, you have absolutely no reading comprehension
to speak of... so you probably missed this fact. And by that I
mean you did miss this... and everything else that happened
over the years... days... minutes...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720724355194273792

[JTEM is my hero]

Off his meds and NOT named jillery wrote:
[...]

ALL THE CONCLUSIONS have remained the same. EVERYTHING
they concluded at least 8 years ago has remained exactly the
same. But all the facts have changed.

In any case that the media hasn't ordered you to obey as
"Science," even the dim likes of you would call it rationalizing.

They came up with the narrative FIRST, and stuck with it,
unwavering, as they later "Discovered" the justification even
as shattering all their initial assumptions.








-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720724355194273792

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally damaged and not named jillery wrote:

> Between those who knows what they're talking about

So Naledi really is 3 million years old, you're arguing.

Well, certainly over 2 million anyway...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719822321821548544

[jillery]

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally ill, incredibly stupid and not named jillery wrote:

[...]

So you're still "Arguing" that Naledi is 3 million years old, or
certainly over 2 million years old at the very least.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719822321821548544

[Pro Plyd]

jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:52:05 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
>>> in morphology and inferred function
>>
>> It could be maybe 3 million years old and practiced rituals:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447
>>
>> In reality, at least on this planet, bipedalism is NOT a "human"
>> trait. It predates Homo. Amongst our ancestors, most of the
>> history of bipedalism took place BEFORE Homo ever arose.
>
> I acknowledge many different organisms were bipedal since the first
> dinosaurs practiced it. However, bipedalism in other lineages are a

In the Triassic it appears.

> consequence of analogous behavior and structures, and so don't inform
> this discussion. In reality, the common features H. naledi feet and
> other structures have with modern humans are evidence they are
> homologous with a common origin.

A common origin and meeting the same demands.

>>From the start: There was ALWAYS far better explanations
>> than intentional burials. The first one that popped into my
>> head was animals driven into the depths of a cave in search
>> of water during a drought -- lured in by moist air. Why they
>> instead DEFAULTED to the FIRST and ONLY ritual practices
>> observed in Africa in 3 million years is beyond me.
>
> Animal deposition is the poorest explanation. There are no signs H.
> naledi bones were scavenged, and there are no signs scavenging animals
> occupied the areas where H. naledi bones are deposited.

The Taung child does come to mind here re the skull holes and the
apparent match with either predator teeth or the claws of a predator
bird (the latter is the most likely). However, the number of
individuals represented by the remains argue fairly conclusively
against a predator(s) being responsible.

>> ...besides the politics.
>>
>>> Pan does not walk like homo.
>>
>> If you believe that the LCA lived 5 million years ago then YOU
>> believe that Pan is what we see only after 5 million years of
>> evolution... AND that Pan split off long after bipedalism
>> emerged amongst our ancestors.
>
>
> The remains of H. naledi in the Rising Star caverns are dated between
> 335,000 to 236,000 years ago. Whatever happened 5mya doesn't inform
> this discussion any more than does bipedalism in other organisms.
>
>
>> IT'S GODDAMN RETARDED!
>>
>> Are these people retarded? Is this your "Argument?" They
>> don't know that Pan has evolved for as long as we have
>> since the LCA? They don't know this?
>>
>> You're "Argument" is that they are comparing PRESENT
>> DAY PAN to Naledi claims, instead of the LCA, because
>> they don't know that Pan has evolved?
>
>
> I know of nobody who makes that claim on T.O. Your comments are
> made-up strawmen.

Aquatic strawmen.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

[...]

Why are you disgracing yourself with babbling about dinosaurs?

The focus is human evolution. If you can't keep track of that,
don't bother hitting reply. If you can keep track, follow along,
you're admitting that your a goddamn narcissist trying to
obstruct, not discuss.

I don't need to say "And I don't mean dinosaurs" when I mention
that bipedalism predates Homo, not in a discussion on human
origins or even Naledi. Non mentally ill people grasp the context.
They don't need to pretend that everything is created anew with
every sentence...

Bipedalism isn't a Homo trait. You "Get" this or you're a frigging
idiot. Bipedalism was already millions of years old before the
first Homo. Pretending bipedal adaptions mean "Homo" is
about as retarded as claiming dinosaur traits seen in birds are
bird traits seen in dinosaurs.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722677680584179712

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 23:17:09 -0600, Pro Plyd
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:52:05 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like
>>>> in morphology and inferred function
>>>
>>> It could be maybe 3 million years old and practiced rituals:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447
>>>
>>> In reality, at least on this planet, bipedalism is NOT a "human"
>>> trait. It predates Homo. Amongst our ancestors, most of the
>>> history of bipedalism took place BEFORE Homo ever arose.
>>
>> I acknowledge many different organisms were bipedal since the first
>> dinosaurs practiced it. However, bipedalism in other lineages are a
>
>In the Triassic it appears.

Correct is your comment.

>> consequence of analogous behavior and structures, and so don't inform
>> this discussion. In reality, the common features H. naledi feet and
>> other structures have with modern humans are evidence they are
>> homologous with a common origin.
>
>A common origin and meeting the same demands.

Yeppers.

>>>From the start: There was ALWAYS far better explanations
>>> than intentional burials. The first one that popped into my
>>> head was animals driven into the depths of a cave in search
>>> of water during a drought -- lured in by moist air. Why they
>>> instead DEFAULTED to the FIRST and ONLY ritual practices
>>> observed in Africa in 3 million years is beyond me.
>>
>> Animal deposition is the poorest explanation. There are no signs H.
>> naledi bones were scavenged, and there are no signs scavenging animals
>> occupied the areas where H. naledi bones are deposited.
>
>The Taung child does come to mind here re the skull holes and the
>apparent match with either predator teeth or the claws of a predator
>bird (the latter is the most likely). However, the number of
>individuals represented by the remains argue fairly conclusively
>against a predator(s) being responsible.

Also their arrangement.

>>> ...besides the politics.
>>>
>>>> Pan does not walk like homo.
>>>
>>> If you believe that the LCA lived 5 million years ago then YOU
>>> believe that Pan is what we see only after 5 million years of
>>> evolution... AND that Pan split off long after bipedalism
>>> emerged amongst our ancestors.
>>
>>
>> The remains of H. naledi in the Rising Star caverns are dated between
>> 335,000 to 236,000 years ago. Whatever happened 5mya doesn't inform
>> this discussion any more than does bipedalism in other organisms.
>>
>>
>>> IT'S GODDAMN RETARDED!
>>>
>>> Are these people retarded? Is this your "Argument?" They
>>> don't know that Pan has evolved for as long as we have
>>> since the LCA? They don't know this?
>>>
>>> You're "Argument" is that they are comparing PRESENT
>>> DAY PAN to Naledi claims, instead of the LCA, because
>>> they don't know that Pan has evolved?
>>
>>
>> I know of nobody who makes that claim on T.O. Your comments are
>> made-up strawmen.
>
>Aquatic strawmen.

Aquarboreal strawmen.

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 06:43:58 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't need to say "And I don't mean dinosaurs" when I mention
>that bipedalism predates Homo, not in a discussion on human
>origins or even Naledi.

Yes, you do, especially when you also say...

>Bipedalism isn't a Homo trait. You "Get" this or you're a frigging
>idiot.

All humans, extinct and extant, are/were bipedal. That makes
bipedalism a Homo trait.

>Bipedalism was already millions of years old before the
>first Homo.

So you're not talking about human origins after all. Quelle surprise.

>Pretending bipedal adaptions mean "Homo" is
>about as retarded as claiming dinosaur traits seen in birds are
>bird traits seen in dinosaurs.


--

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >Bipedalism isn't a Homo trait. You "Get" this or you're a frigging
> >idiot.

> All humans, extinct and extant, are/were bipedal. That makes
> bipedalism a Homo trait.

No. That's akin to misidentifying dinosaur traits in seen birds as

bird traits seen in dinosaurs.

Tracing back our ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism was
already over with before Homo arose.

So we had MORE time before homo for branchings then existed
afterwards...

When you think correctly, frame things right -- reject the false
parameters -- you see how insane the status quo is.

Look at all the branchings AFTER the LCA, and now accept the
fact that more time and hence opportunities existed BEFORE
the LCA.

...now consider the penchant of the status quo to label
everything a "Human Ancestor."



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 17:10:42 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> >Bipedalism isn't a Homo trait. You "Get" this or you're a frigging
>> >idiot.
>
>> All humans, extinct and extant, are/were bipedal. That makes
>> bipedalism a Homo trait.
>
>No. That's akin to misidentifying dinosaur traits in seen birds as
>bird traits seen in dinosaurs.

Incorrect. Your confusion wrt dinosaurs/birds doesn't inform your
confusion wrt human bipedalism, except in the sense that both
illustrate your overall confusion.

>Tracing back our ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism was
>already over with before Homo arose.

So you aren't talking about human origins after all.

>So we had MORE time before homo for branchings then existed
>afterwards...
>
>When you think correctly, frame things right -- reject the false
>parameters -- you see how insane the status quo is.
>
>Look at all the branchings AFTER the LCA, and now accept the
>fact that more time and hence opportunities existed BEFORE
>the LCA.
>
> ...now consider the penchant of the status quo to label
>everything a "Human Ancestor."

I acknowledge there was evolution before and after the LCA. That and
$5 will get you a latte.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Incorrect. Your confusion wrt dinosaurs/birds doesn't inform your

Omg, STOP your idiocy! "Doesn't inform..." Sheesh!

Bipedalism is to Homo what imaginary "Bird like traits" are to birds.

Those traits are not "Bird like traits," they are dinosaur traits that
birds inherited. AND THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE how bipedalism did not
arise in Homo. Homo inherited bipedalism from a very, Very, VERY
long line of ancestors that went back further BEFORE Homo than
all the years that Homo has existed thus far.

This is base.

If you can't grasp this, let alone incorporate it into what passes
for understanding on your part, find a new topic. Move on to
Hogan's Heroes or something...

> >Tracing back our ancestors, most of the history of bipedalism was
> >already over with before Homo arose.

> So you aren't talking about human origins after all.

Well right now I'm laughing at you!

Damn, You say such stupid things...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

[Pro Plyd]

Oh that's even better!

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

[...]

You gave up. You realized that you're the proverbial one-legged-man
in an ass kicking contest and you gave up.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719144199654621184