 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / May 2007Lucy = fossil relative of Gorilla rather than of Homo or Pan?
Gorilla afarensis A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike, and more gorilla- than chimplike: · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla." · Kimbel cs.1984: "Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids... Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes." · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes." · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not therefore identify a hominid." · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans." · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens." · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely apelike." · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla." . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..." . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas." In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: - None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs, very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis. - All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing? Verhaegen cs.2002). In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. The same is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei (my Human Evolution papers, link below): they're very gorilla-like (body size, sexual dimorphism, humerus & ulna lengths, skull crests, enamel microwear, enamel prism decussation, orbital morphology, basicranial pneumatisation etc.) & they having nothing uniquely-Homo (eg, thick enamel, short canines, short iliac blades & short-legged partial bipedalism are primitively-hominid). In short, all information we have today suggests that the E.African chronospecies afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the genus Gorilla. In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are clearly more Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like (my Human Evolution papers). They have nothing exclusively-Homo (their humanlike features are primitive for all hominids sensu Pan-Homo-Gorilla). So it's most parsimonious to place the S.Afr.chronospecies africanus-robustus into the genus Pan. In conslusion, we have provisionally: - Gorilla afarensis, G.aethiopicus, G.boisei,` - Pan africanus, P.robustus, - Homo erectus, H.georgicus, H.ergaster etc. The so-called genera "Australopithecus" & "Paranthropus" are paraphyletic. Where to place the different so-called "habilis" fossils is more difficult, but some might belong to Gorilla rather than to Homo or to Pan. The so-called "H.rudolfensis" ER-1470 now seems to belong to "Australopithecus" (Bromage cs.2007), possibly to Gorilla. The so-called "Kenyanthropus" specimens also probably belonged to afarensis. --Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07 http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8u22m1080407t27/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/dutm4r676v2828pq/ > Gorilla afarensis <snipped the nonsense: > In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: Except the very human-like pelvis that allowed for bipedalism, leg bones, foot bones, hand bones, dentition, etc.. George Op 20-05-2007 20:31, in artikel Nt04i.31780$Cr2.21071@bignews1.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >> Gorilla afarensis > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George Well, hadn't you snipped the email & had read its content, you had read that thick enamel, rel.short canines, short-legged bipedalism etc. are original hominid traits. Instead of producing irrelevancies & insults, my dear George, you had better given some arguments... Gorilla afarensis A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike, and more gorilla- than chimplike: · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla." · Kimbel cs.1984: "Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids... Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes." · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes." · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not therefore identify a hominid." · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans." · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens." · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely apelike." · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla." . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..." . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas." In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: - None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs, very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis. - All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing? Verhaegen cs.2002). In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. The same is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei (my Human Evolution papers, link below): they're very gorilla-like (body size, sexual dimorphism, humerus & ulna lengths, skull crests, enamel microwear, enamel prism decussation, orbital morphology, basicranial pneumatisation etc.) & they having nothing uniquely-Homo (eg, thick enamel, short canines, short iliac blades & short-legged partial bipedalism are primitively-hominid). In short, all information we have today suggests that the E.African chronospecies afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the genus Gorilla. In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are clearly more Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like (my Human Evolution papers). They have nothing exclusively-Homo (their humanlike features are primitive for all hominids sensu Pan-Homo-Gorilla). So it's most parsimonious to place the S.Afr.chronospecies africanus-robustus into the genus Pan. In conslusion, we have provisionally: - Gorilla afarensis, G.aethiopicus, G.boisei,` - Pan africanus, P.robustus, - Homo erectus, H.georgicus, H.ergaster etc. The so-called genera "Australopithecus" & "Paranthropus" are paraphyletic. Where to place the different so-called "habilis" fossils is more difficult, but some might belong to Gorilla rather than to Homo or to Pan. The so-called "H.rudolfensis" ER-1470 now seems to belong to "Australopithecus" (Bromage cs.2007), possibly to Gorilla. The so-called "Kenyanthropus" specimens also probably belonged to afarensis. --Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07 http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8u22m1080407t27/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/dutm4r676v2828pq/ > Op 20-05-2007 20:31, in artikel > Nt04i.31780$Cr2.21071@bignews1.bellsouth.net, George [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > better > given some arguments... If you are suggesting that I posted the same thing you did, why would you consider it to be irrelevant? Are you saying that your own post is irrelevant? And where, in my OP did I post an insult? Is it an insult to say that a hominid is a hominid? And if you agree that the traits I listed are hominid traits then why did you post the following: "In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis"? George Op 21-05-2007 02:42, in artikel 2W54i.3633$to.1528@bignews7.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>> Gorilla afarensis >>> <snipped the nonsense: Snipped what you're unable to answer you mean: Gorilla afarensis A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike, and more gorilla- than chimplike: · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla." · Kimbel cs.1984: "Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids... Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes." · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes." · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not therefore identify a hominid." · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans." · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens." · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely apelike." · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla." . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..." . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas." In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: - None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs, very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis. - All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing? Verhaegen cs.2002). In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. The same is true for A.aethiopicus & for A.boisei (my Human Evolution papers, link below): they're very gorilla-like (body size, sexual dimorphism, humerus & ulna lengths, skull crests, enamel microwear, enamel prism decussation, orbital morphology, basicranial pneumatisation etc.) & they having nothing uniquely-Homo (eg, thick enamel, short canines, short iliac blades & short-legged partial bipedalism are primitively-hominid). In short, all information we have today suggests that the E.African chronospecies afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei belonged to the genus Gorilla. In the same way, the S.Afr.apiths africanus & robustus-crassidens are clearly more Pan- than Gorilla- or Homo-like (my Human Evolution papers). They have nothing exclusively-Homo (their humanlike features are primitive for all hominids sensu Pan-Homo-Gorilla). So it's most parsimonious to place the S.Afr.chronospecies africanus-robustus into the genus Pan. In conslusion, we have provisionally: - Gorilla afarensis, G.aethiopicus, G.boisei,` - Pan africanus, P.robustus, - Homo erectus, H.georgicus, H.ergaster etc. The so-called genera "Australopithecus" & "Paranthropus" are paraphyletic. Where to place the different so-called "habilis" fossils is more difficult, but some might belong to Gorilla rather than to Homo or to Pan. The so-called "H.rudolfensis" ER-1470 now seems to belong to "Australopithecus" (Bromage cs.2007), possibly to Gorilla. The so-called "Kenyanthropus" specimens also probably belonged to afarensis. >>>> In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: >>> Except the very human-like pelvis that allowed for bipedalism, leg >>> bones, foot bones, hand bones, dentition, etc.. George >> Well, hadn't you snipped the email & had read its content, you had read >> that >> thick enamel, rel.short canines, short-legged bipedalism etc. are >> original hominid traits. >> Instead of producing irrelevancies & insults, my dear George, you had >> better given some arguments... > If you are suggesting that I posted the same thing you did, why would you > consider it to be irrelevant? Are you saying that your own post is > irrelevant? And where, in my OP did I post an insult? Is it an insult to > say that a hominid is a hominid? And if you agree that the traits I listed > are hominid traits then why did you post the following: "In fact, there's > nothing Homo-like in afarensis"? George Think a bit & inform before trying to say something. Again: 1) Bipedalism. If Sahelanthr 7 Ma & Orrorin 6 Ma were "bipedal" as usu.claimed (probably short-legged vertical walking-climbing), "bipedalism" predated to Homo/Pan split 5-4 Ma. 2) A.afarensis hand bones were not humanlike. Inform a bit. Never heard of curved phalanges in apiths? 3) Dentition: thick enamel predated the H/P split: nearly all early hominids-pongids had thick or even superthick enamel, eg, Sivapith, Ouranopith, Lufengpith, Samburupith etc. IOW, there is nothing uniquely-human in afarensis. Nothing. No big brain, no very long legs, no absence of knuckle-walking features, no external nose. A.afarensis is very gorilla-like (see above), in most respects (but gorilla innovations are iliac lengthening, knuckle-walking, elongated canines etc.), much more gorilla- than chimp- & certainly human-like. Gorillas live in Africa. If for some obscure reason other than traditional PA biases you believe that afarensis is closer to humans than to gorillas, why don't you give us that reason? And yes, being unable to answer a post & claiming it's nonsense is an insult. The one who produces nonsense & irrelevancies are you, George. --Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07 http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8u22m1080407t27/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/dutm4r676v2828pq/ > Op 21-05-2007 02:42, in artikel > 2W54i.3633$to.1528@bignews7.bellsouth.net, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Snipped what you're unable to answer you mean: <snipped what is already addressed ad nauseum in the professional literature and quote mined here) >> If you are suggesting that I posted the same thing you did, why would >> you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "bipedalism" > predated to Homo/Pan split 5-4 Ma. And the evidence for this assertion is? > 2) A.afarensis hand bones were not humanlike. Inform a bit. Never heard > of > curved phalanges in apiths? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1468111 The systematic comparative studies are highlighting a functional complex of features in the human hand facilitating a distinctive repertoire of grips that are apparently more effective for stone tool making than grips characterising various nonhuman primate species. The new techniques are identifying skeletal variables whose form may provide clues to the potential of fossil hominid hands for one-handed firm precision grips and fine precision manoeuvering movements, both of which are essential for habitual and effective tool making and tool use. > 3) Dentition: thick enamel predated the H/P split: nearly all early > hominids-pongids had thick or even superthick enamel, eg, Sivapith, > Ouranopith, Lufengpith, Samburupith etc. Based on what? > IOW, there is nothing uniquely-human in afarensis. Nothing. No big > brain, > no very long legs, no absence of knuckle-walking features, no external > nose. Ignoring, of course, the very human pelvis (which is also very un-apelike) needed for bipedalism, and which afarensis possessed. Ignoring that brain size is not a valid indicator of intelligence. Ignoring the fact that afarensis possessed a hand that contains important features requisite for habitual and effective tool making and use. That Lucy had short legs should not be surprising to anyone, since overall she was a small animal. Pygmies also have short leg bones. What you are actually arguing for, whether or not you realize it, is that afarensis possesses both human and ape traits, which is exactly what we would expect to find in such a transitional animal. Next. > And yes, being unable to answer a post & claiming it's nonsense is an > insult. The one who produces nonsense & irrelevancies are you, George. > > --Marc Verhaegen 20.5.07 Reposting old ideas that have long been discarded doesn't prove anything except that you are desparate to prove your point. George >> Op 21-05-2007 02:42, in artikel >> 2W54i.3633$to.1528@bignews7.bellsouth.net, [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > George I check in here only occasionally--I'm having trouble getting good photos online of gorilla dentition--strangely I'm having less trouble with images of dentition of A. Afarensis. But from what I'm seeing here, and what my possibly faulty memory of gorilla dentition, the teeth of A. Afarensis are decidedly more human in morphology. Steve  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 Op 21-05-2007 21:17, in artikel Efm4i.8023$QP.3766@trndny03, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> schreef: Gorilla afarensis A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike, and more gorilla- than chimplike: · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla." · Kimbel cs.1984: "Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids... Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes." · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes." · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not therefore identify a hominid." · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans." · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens." · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely apelike." · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla." . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..." . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas." In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: - None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs, very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis. - All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing? Verhaegen cs.2002). In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. > I check in here only occasionally--I'm having trouble getting good > photos online of gorilla dentition--strangely I'm having less trouble > with images of dentition of A. Afarensis. > But from what I'm seeing here, and what my possibly faulty memory of > gorilla dentition, the teeth of A. Afarensis are decidedly more human in > morphology. Steve Yes, see above: although afarensis had apelike cheekteeth (eg, Schoenemann 1989), it had - like humans - thick enamel & rel.shorter canines, but both these are probably primitive for all hominids-pongids (see also above quote of Martin 1985): Ouranopith, Sivapith etc. had (very) thick enamel & rel.short canines. In this respect humans kept the primitive-hominid-pongid features, and apes are derived. Thick enamel does not distinguish the human line. Nor do short canines. The same with "bipedal" features: if Orrorin 6 Ma & Sahelanthropus 7 Ma were bipedal as their discoverers claim (most likeley rel.short-legged vertical walkers-climbers), the Homo/Pan Last Common Ancestor (who lived +- 5-4 Ma, see N.Patterson cs.2006 "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees" Nature 441:1103-8) postdated Orrorin & Sahelanthr, IOW, must already have been (short-legged, parttime) bipedal. The human pelvis is not derivable from an apelike pelvis. The apith pelvis is more primitive, and an apithlike pelvis evolved OT1H into a human pelvis (by reorientation of the iliac blades) & OTOH into an ape pelvis (by lengthening of the iliac blades schematically). Apart from the primitive bipedal, short-canined & thick-enameled features (likely ancestral to all hominids-pongids), everything in afarensis is decidedly apelike & often more specifically gorilla-like: curved hand & foot bones, impression of airsac on hyoid, rel.short leg bones, rel.small brain, no sign of an external nose, features of knuckle-walking, typically gorilla mandibular ramus, gorilla-like scapula, apelike cheekteeth, gorilla-like microwear on incisors, overall resemblance to gorilla skull... In short: 1) no uniquely-human features, 2) clear gorilla-like features: there's no reason why afarensis should be considered a closer relative of Homo rather than of Gorilla. --Marc Verhaegen http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html >>> Op 21-05-2007 02:42, in artikel >>> 2W54i.3633$to.1528@bignews7.bellsouth.net, [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Steve Here is a paper on gorilla dentition: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/52896/sample/9780521652896ws.pdf And if you scroll down about 2/3 down the page on the following link, you will see a comparison of chimp, lucy, and human dentition. George >>>> Op 21-05-2007 02:42, in artikel >>>> 2W54i.3633$to.1528@bignews7.bellsouth.net, [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > George Great--thanks for this. I'll read it as time permits, and comment if I have anything halfway intelligent to say. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > Here is a paper on gorilla dentition: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > George Was there another link you meant to post? The pdf brought me right back to my dental anatomy course in 1973, but I see no mention of Lucy. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >> Here is a paper on gorilla dentition: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve Oops, my mistake. Yeah, there was supposed to be another link. I'll have to look for it and get back to you. George Op 21-05-2007 20:01, in artikel 38l4i.13175$KC4.8094@bignews6.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>>>> Gorilla afarensis >>>>> <snipped the nonsense: >> Snipped what you're unable to answer you mean: > <snipped what is already addressed ad nauseum in the professional > literature and quote mined here) Never addressed: I suggest you read the prof.lit. Gorilla afarensis A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike, and more gorilla- than chimplike: · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla." · Kimbel cs.1984: "Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids... Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes." · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes." · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not therefore identify a hominid." · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans." · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens." · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely apelike." · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla." . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..." . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas." In fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis: - None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs, very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis. - All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing? Verhaegen cs.2002). In conclusion, there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved phalanges, small brain, even laryngeal airsacs!) might have been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. >>> If you are suggesting that I posted the same thing you did, why would >>> you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> there's >>> nothing Homo-like in afarensis"? George >> Think a bit & inform before trying to say something. Again: >> 1) Bipedalism. If Sahelanthr 7 Ma & Orrorin 6 Ma were "bipedal" as >> usu.claimed (probably short-legged vertical walking-climbing), >> "bipedalism" predated to Homo/Pan split 5-4 Ma. > And the evidence for this assertion is? I suggest you read the prof.lit, eg, why not inform a bit on Orrorin & Sahelanthr? >> 2) A.afarensis hand bones were not humanlike. Inform a bit. Never heard >> of curved phalanges in apiths? > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1468111 > The systematic comparative studies are highlighting a functional complex of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fine precision manoeuvering movements, both of which are essential for > habitual and effective tool making and tool use. Much blabla for saying nothing. I guess this is the usual way you talk... Start with JT Stern & RL Susman 1983 "The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis" AJPA 60:279-317, if you want to compare afarensis hands in detail. Even you can understand this: afarensis = curved phalanges = branch-hanging = apelike. >> 3) Dentition: thick enamel predated the H/P split: nearly all early >> hominids-pongids had thick or even superthick enamel, eg, Sivapith, >> Ouranopith, Lufengpith, Samburupith etc. > Based on what? Based on every description. Why don't you read the prof.lit?? Ever heard of Samburupithecus? >> IOW, there is nothing uniquely-human in afarensis. Nothing. No big >> brain, >> no very long legs, no absence of knuckle-walking features, no external >> nose. > Ignoring, of course, the very human pelvis (which is also very un-apelike) > needed for bipedalism, and which afarensis possessed. Inform: start with Stern+Susman 1983. Very detailed. The human pelvis is not derived from the ape pelvis. Both human & ape pelvises are derived (in different directions) from more apith-like pelvises. > Ignoring that brain > size is not a valid indicator of intelligence. ?? And?? Did I use the word intelligence?? Be relevant. > Ignoring the fact that > afarensis possessed a hand that contains important features requisite for > habitual and effective tool making and use. "important features requisite"... Stop talking blabla. A.afarensis had curved phalanges. > That Lucy had short legs > should not be surprising to anyone, since overall she was a small animal. *Relatively* short. What else?? > Pygmies also have short leg bones. What you are actually arguing for, > whether or not you realize it, is that afarensis possesses both human and > ape traits, which is exactly what we would expect to find in such a > transitional animal. Next. Yes, transitional from the hominid LCA to extant gorillas, see above. >> And yes, being unable to answer a post & claiming it's nonsense is an >> insult. The one who produces nonsense & irrelevancies are you, George. > Reposting old ideas that have long been discarded doesn't prove anything > except that you are desparate to prove your point. George 2007 & 2006 = old?? Dikika = recent fossil:"hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..."; "Mandibular ramus morphology... closely matches that of gorillas." In short: 1) afarensis is very gorilla-like; 2) afarensis has nothing uniquely-human; conclusion: afarensis is related to gorillas rather than to humans. Got it? --Marc Verhaegen http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT > Op 21-05-2007 20:01, in artikel > 38l4i.13175$KC4.8094@bignews6.bellsouth.net, [quoted text clipped - 204 lines] > > --Marc Verhaegen The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field support your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George Op 22-05-2007 03:13, in artikel 7tr4i.95$%T3.77@bignews8.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: ... >> Gorilla afarensis >> [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] >> Got it? >> --Marc Verhaegen > The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field support > your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George I know, but they have no arguments except traditional PA biases: who whant to discover some sort of gorilla rather than a "human ancestor"? :-) Keep an open mind, think for yourself & don't parrot textbook talk. A.afarensis looks more like gorillas than like chimps & certainly humans. And they have nothing uniquely-human or uniquely-chimp. Logical conclusion? --Marc > Op 22-05-2007 03:13, in artikel 7tr4i.95$%T3.77@bignews8.bellsouth.net, > George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 228 lines] > > --Marc Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and which you have ignored) that Lucy's pelvis is VERY close to being just like ours, whereas it bears little resemblance to that of a gorilla, or a chimpanzee. http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg George >> Op 22-05-2007 03:13, in artikel 7tr4i.95$%T3.77@bignews8.bellsouth.net, >> George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] > > George I have to say this looks pretty compelling to me. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >>> Op 22-05-2007 03:13, in artikel 7tr4i.95$%T3.77@bignews8.bellsouth.net, >>> George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 247 lines] > > Steve I think it is quite conclusive that Lucy was a habitual biped. George Op 22-05-2007 19:59, in artikel ccG4i.12$dy1.2@bigfe9, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>>>> Gorilla afarensis >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 214 lines] >>>>>> Got it? >>>>>> --Marc Verhaegen >>>>> The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field >>>>> support [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> conclusion? >>>> --Marc >>> Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and which >>> you have ignored) that Lucy's pelvis is VERY close to being just like >>> ours, whereas it bears little resemblance to that of a gorilla, or a >>> chimpanzee. >>> http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg >>> George Not so: Lucy's pelvis is as different from ours as it it from the gorilla's or the chimp's, see, eg, Stern+Susman. >> I have to say this looks pretty compelling to me. >> Steve > I think it is quite conclusive that Lucy was a habitual biped. George 1) The point is not whether afarensis was a biped. Sahelanthr 7 Ma & Orrorin 6 Ma are thought to have been bipeds & they predate the H/P split. IOW, there's little doubt the early hominids (ancestors of H, P & G) were (short-legged, at least parttime) bipeds. 2) Ape pelvises are very different from human pelvises, but apith-like pelvises can "easily" evolve OT1H into an ape pelvis (by elongation of the iliac blades) & OTOH into a human pelvis (by reorientation of the iliac blade). --Marc Verhaegen http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT > Op 22-05-2007 19:59, in artikel ccG4i.12$dy1.2@bigfe9, George > <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 267 lines] > gorilla's > or the chimp's, see, eg, Stern+Susman. Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: "That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute." "... we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." (Stern and Susman, AJPA 60:279-317, 1983) If afarensis was quadrupedal, the upper body should show signs of it. It doesn't. McHenry (Journal of Human Evolution, 15:177-91, 1986) says that australopithecine arms show no adaptations for knuckle walking or any other form of quadrupedalism. Stern and Susman (JHE, 60:284, 1983) say much the same. Cremo and Thompson use Stern and Susman as support for their idea that australopithecines have been misrepresented as human ancestors. But Stern and Susman say nothing of the sort: "In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward full-time bipedality ..." (same paper as above) Obviously, before hominids were full-time bipeds they had to be something else. The fact that Lucy was partly arboreal and partly bipedal is evidence *for* being related to humans, not evidence against it. >>> I have to say this looks pretty compelling to me. >>> Steve [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > iliac blades) & OTOH into a human pelvis (by reorientation of the iliac > blade). See above. George Op 22-05-2007 23:33, in artikel KkJ4i.66$YM5.44@bignews2.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>>>>>> Gorilla afarensis >>>>>>>> A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >>>>>>>> why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that >>>>>>>> afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. >>>>>>>>>>> If you are suggesting that I posted the same thing you did, why >>>>>>>>>>> would you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>>>>>>>> are hominid traits then why did you post the following: "In >>>>>>>>>>> fact, there's nothing Homo-like in afarensis"? George >>>>>>>>>> Think a bit & inform before trying to say something. Again: >>>>>>>>>> 1) Bipedalism. If Sahelanthr 7 Ma & Orrorin 6 Ma were "bipedal" >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> usu.claimed (probably short-legged vertical walking-climbing), >>>>>>>>>> "bipedalism" predated to Homo/Pan split 5-4 Ma. >>>>>>>>> And the evidence for this assertion is? >>>>>>>> I suggest you read the prof.lit, eg, why not inform a bit on >>>>>>>> Orrorin & Sahelanthr? >>>>>>>>>> 2) A.afarensis hand bones were not humanlike. Inform a bit. Never >>>>>>>>>> heard of curved phalanges in apiths? >>>>>>>>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1468111 >>>>>>>>> The systematic comparative studies are highlighting a functional [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>>>>>>> fine precision manoeuvering movements, both of which are essential >>>>>>>>> for habitual and effective tool making and tool use. >>>>>>>> Much blabla for saying nothing. I guess this is the usual way you >>>>>>>> talk... >>>>>>>> Start with JT Stern & RL Susman 1983 "The locomotor anatomy of >>>>>>>> Australopithecus afarensis" AJPA 60:279-317, if you want to compare >>>>>>>> afarensis hands in detail. Even you can understand this: >>>>>>>> afarensis = curved phalanges = branch-hanging = apelike. >>>>>>>>>> 3) Dentition: thick enamel predated the H/P split: nearly all >>>>>>>>>> early >>>>>>>>>> hominids-pongids had thick or even superthick enamel, eg, >>>>>>>>>> Sivapith, Ouranopith, Lufengpith, Samburupith etc. >>>>>>>>> Based on what? >>>>>>>> Based on every description. Why don't you read the prof.lit?? >>>>>>>> Ever heard of Samburupithecus? >>>>>>>>>> IOW, there is nothing uniquely-human in afarensis. Nothing. No >>>>>>>>>> big brain, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>>>> un-apelike) >>>>>>>>> needed for bipedalism, and which afarensis possessed. >>>>>>>> Inform: start with Stern+Susman 1983. Very detailed. >>>>>>>> The human pelvis is not derived from the ape pelvis. Both human & >>>>>>>> ape >>>>>>>> pelvises are derived (in different directions) from more apith-like >>>>>>>> pelvises. >>>>>>>>> Ignoring that brain >>>>>>>>> size is not a valid indicator of intelligence. >>>>>>>> ?? And?? Did I use the word intelligence?? Be relevant. >>>>>>>>> Ignoring the fact that >>>>>>>>> afarensis possessed a hand that contains important features >>>>>>>>> requisite for >>>>>>>>> habitual and effective tool making and use. >>>>>>>> "important features requisite"... Stop talking blabla. >>>>>>>> A.afarensis had curved phalanges. >>>>>>>>> That Lucy had short legs >>>>>>>>> should not be surprising to anyone, since overall she was a small >>>>>>>>> animal. >>>>>>>> *Relatively* short. What else?? >>>>>>>>> Pygmies also have short leg bones. What you are actually arguing >>>>>>>>> for, >>>>>>>>> whether or not you realize it, is that afarensis possesses both >>>>>>>>> human and >>>>>>>>> ape traits, which is exactly what we would expect to find in such >>>>>>>>> a transitional animal. Next. >>>>>>>> Yes, transitional from the hominid LCA to extant gorillas, see >>>>>>>> above. >>>>>>>>>> And yes, being unable to answer a post & claiming it's nonsense >>>>>>>>>> is an >>>>>>>>>> insult. The one who produces nonsense & irrelevancies are you, >>>>>>>>>> George. >>>>>>>>> Reposting old ideas that have long been discarded doesn't prove >>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>> except that you are desparate to prove your point. George >>>>>>>> 2007 & 2006 = old?? >>>>>>>> Dikika = recent fossil:"hyoid that has a typical African ape >>>>>>>> morphology... >>>>>>>> gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..."; >>>>>>>> "Mandibular >>>>>>>> ramus morphology... closely matches that of gorillas." >>>>>>>> In short: >>>>>>>> 1) afarensis is very gorilla-like; >>>>>>>> 2) afarensis has nothing uniquely-human; >>>>>>>> conclusion: afarensis is related to gorillas rather than to humans. >>>>>>>> Got it? --Marc Verhaegen >>>>>>> The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field >>>>>>> support your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George >>>>>> I know, but they have no arguments except traditional PA biases: who >>>>>> wants [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>> And they have nothing uniquely-human or uniquely-chimp. Logical >>>>>> conclusion? --Marc >>>>> Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and >>>>> which >>>>> you have ignored) that Lucy's pelvis is VERY close to being just like >>>>> ours, whereas it bears little resemblance to that of a gorilla, or a >>>>> chimpanzee. http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg George >> Not so: Lucy's pelvis is as different from ours as it it from the >> gorilla's or the chimp's, see, eg, Stern+Susman. > Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: > "That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." > (Stern and Susman, AJPA 60:279-317, 1983) I think you're not following what I said: again: 1) I too think Lucy walked parttime upright (IMO they waded bipedally in forest swamps, see my Hum.Evol.papers & Trends in Ecol.& Evol.17:212-7). 2) Orrorin 6 Ma & Sahelanthr 7 Ma are believed to have walked upright. If so (& I tend to agree, see my Human.Evol. & TREE papers), the Homo/Pan LCA 5-4 Ma must also have walked (waded) upright, since the LCA postdated Sahelanthr & Orrorin. 3) Whether or not Lucy walked upright, it's beyond doubt it was (parttime) arm-hanging, see the curved phalanges (eg, see N&V paper B.Wood 2006 "A precious little bundle" Nature 443:278-281 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/full/443278a.html > If afarensis was quadrupedal, the upper body should show signs of it. It > doesn't. McHenry (Journal of Human Evolution, 15:177-91, 1986) says that > australopithecine arms show no adaptations for knuckle walking or any other > form of quadrupedalism. Well, in the case of the E.Afr.apiths & KWing, McH is obviously wrong : 1) boisei: The boisei ulnae OH-36 & L.40-19 & humerus ER-739 were almost of gorilla robusticity & length (McHenry himself 1991, 1992, Howell & Wood 1974, Senut 1980, Leakey 1971, Aiello & Dean 1990:367-9). The curvature & the cross-section of L.40-19 are reminiscent of KWers (Howell & Wood 1974). Leakey 1971: "the Rudolf australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the 'knuckle-walker' condition, not unlike the extant African apes." A.boisei arm lengthening & strengthening are paralleled ontogenetically in the African apes: Rensch 1972:45: "it is only after birth that an ape¹s arms become disproportionally long." 2) anamensis & afarensis: Richmond & Strait 2000 described a few KWing features in ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." I'm not saying E.Afr.apiths already frequently KWed, but they were apparently evolving into the KWing direction, evolving more & more KWing features & logner arms. > Stern and Susman (JHE, 60:284, 1983) say much the same. S+S say afarensis had features of both apes & humans. PAs often assume (on no basis, to the contrary) that the ape features are primitive: their anthropocentrism confuses apelike & primitive. But apes live today, they're derived from older forms. Apiths were older forms. IMO, both humans & Afr.apes are derived from more apith-like ancestors. As can be expected, in some respects, humans are more like apiths (eg, thick enamel, rel.short arms...), in other respects apes are more like apiths (eg, rel.short legs, curved phalanges...). > Cremo and Thompson use Stern and Susman as support for their idea > that australopithecines have been misrepresented as human ancestors. But [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward > full-time bipedality ..." (same paper as above) Who are Cremo+Thompson? Relevant? You think too black-white, George: it's not bi- vs.QPal. We're not looking for "missing links" between apes & humans (nor v.v.): both humans & chimps had ancestors that were different from both H & P. All sorts of locomotions & transitions are possible, eg, parttime Kwing in shallow water or on dry ground, wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead (Ndoki gorillas), pronogrady on the ground or the branches, brachiating & walking on 2 legs over branches (gibbons), running on 2 legs in shallow water & on dry ground (proboscis monkeys), etc. S+S think afarensis is a missing link from apes to humans. But they forget that apes live today & are very derived creatures. More likely the oldest creature (Lucy) is nearest to the Homo-Pan LCA. IOW, it's more likely that both apes & humans (in different directions) evolved from more apith-like ancestors. In the case of the pelvis, this fits perfectly: apes elongated Lucy's ilia, humans reoriented Lucy's ilia. The human pelvis can't be derived from the chimp's, nor vice versa, but both can be derived from an apith-like pelvis. > Obviously, before hominids were full-time bipeds they had to be something > else. The fact that Lucy was partly arboreal and partly bipedal is > evidence *for* being related to humans, not evidence against it. Before *humans* were fulltime bipeds, you mean? Early hominids were probably parttime bipeds & no doubt parttime arms-hanging (curved phalanges): IMO in forest swamps, where most of their fossils have been found: wading on 2 legs & climbing arms overhead, like lowland gorillas do in forest swamps. >>> I think it is quite conclusive that Lucy was a habitual biped. George >> 1) The point is not whether afarensis was a biped. Sahelanthr 7 Ma & >> Orrorin 6 Ma are thought to have been bipeds & they predate the H/P [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> iliac blades) & OTOH into a human pelvis (by reorientation of the iliac >> blade). Yes, see above. --Marc Op 22-05-2007 18:18, in artikel hJE4i.7202$YW1.5115@trnddc04, Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> schreef: >> Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and which >> you have ignored) that Lucy's pelvis is VERY close to being just like ours, >> whereas it bears little resemblance to that of a gorilla, or a chimpanzee. >> http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg George > I have to say this looks pretty compelling to me. Steve Yes, it "looks" compelling, but that's because apith, monkey & human pelvises are "low" (primitive situation) & apes have secondarily elongated the iliac blades. The orientation of the ilia OTOH is the same in apiths & apes. --Marc > Op 22-05-2007 18:18, in artikel hJE4i.7202$YW1.5115@trnddc04, Mark & > Steven [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > --Marc There is abundant evidence that Lucy walked upright: http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html#upright and no qualified anthropologist I know disputes it. George Op 22-05-2007 23:43, in artikel euJ4i.69$YM5.49@bignews2.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>> Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and >>>> which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> chimpanzee. >>>> http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg George >>> I have to say this looks pretty compelling to me. Steve >> Yes, it "looks" compelling, but that's because apith, monkey & human >> pelvises are "low" (primitive situation) & apes have secondarily >> elongated >> the iliac blades. The orientation of the ilia OTOH is the same in apiths >> & apes. --Marc > There is abundant evidence that Lucy walked upright > http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html#upright > and no qualified anthropologist I know disputes it. George Yes. Again: that is not the issue: 1) I too think Lucy walked parttime upright (IMO they waded bipedally in forest swamps, see my Hum.Evol.papers & Trends in Ecol.& Evol.17:212-7). 2) Orrorin 6 Ma & Sahelanthr 7 Ma are believed to have walked upright. If so (& I tend to agree, see my Human.Evol. & TREE papers), the Homo/Pan LCA 5-4 Ma must also have walked (waded) upright, since the LCA postdated Sahelanthr & Orrorin. 3) Whether or not Lucy walked upright, it's beyond doubt it was (parttime) arm-hanging, see the curved phalanges (eg, see N&V paper B.Wood 2006 "A precious little bundle" Nature 443:278-281 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/full/443278a.html Everything suggests early hominids (= fossil relatives of G, H & P) were vertical (=bipedal) waders-climbers (arms overhead) in forest swamps, where all early fossils are found: - P & G evolved in parallel & became generally more knuckle-walking & less bipedally wading in drier forests (cf.Pleistocene cooling + drying). Hence iliac elongation, arm elongation etc. - H took a different direction & colonised the Red Sea coasts, Med.Sea &/or Indian ocean coasts (eg, marine sediments in Mojokerto possibly 1.8 Ma), from where they invaded the land following the rivers (eg, marine connections in Rift at 1.8 Ma (stingrays) & possibly at 2.5 & 1.1 Ma with high sea levels). --Marc Verhaegen http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT Op 22-05-2007 18:14, in artikel SzE4i.5552$px2.625@bignews4.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: ... >>> The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field >>> support >>> your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George >> I know, but they have no arguments except traditional PA biases: who >> wants [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> And they have nothing uniquely-human or uniquely-chimp. Logical >> conclusion? --Marc > Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and which > you have ignored) that Lucy's pelvis is VERY close to being just like ours, > whereas it bears little resemblance to that of a gorilla, or a chimpanzee. > http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg George That's simply not true, see Stern+Susman's paper. Lucy's pelvis is about as different from ours (different iliac orientation) as it is from the apes' (longer ilia). An ape's pelvis can't directly evolve into a human pelvis, but an apith pelvis can "easily" evolve into an ape pelvis (by elongating the ilia). --Marc > Op 22-05-2007 18:14, in artikel > SzE4i.5552$px2.625@bignews4.bellsouth.net, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > --Marc You're repeating Stern & Susman doesn't help you make your case. As I pointed out earlier: Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: "That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute." "... we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate." (Stern and Susman, AJPA 60:279-317, 1983) If afarensis was quadrupedal, the upper body should show signs of it. It doesn't. McHenry (Journal of Human Evolution, 15:177-91, 1986) says that australopithecine arms show no adaptations for knuckle walking or any other form of quadrupedalism. Stern and Susman (JHE, 60:284, 1983) say much the same. Cremo and Thompson use Stern and Susman as support for their idea that australopithecines have been misrepresented as human ancestors. But Stern and Susman say nothing of the sort: "In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road toward full-time bipedality ..." (same paper as above) Obviously, before hominids were full-time bipeds they had to be something else. The fact that Lucy was partly arboreal and partly bipedal is evidence *for* being related to humans, not evidence against it. Op 22-05-2007 23:46, in artikel 8wJ4i.71$YM5.14@bignews2.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>>> The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field >>>>> support your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George "odd"?? There's NOTHING odd in Lucy possibly having been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla rather than to Homo or Pan: A.afarensis, to which DIK-1 & Lucy AL-288-1 belong, was very Afr.apelike, and more gorilla- than chimplike: · Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked very much like a small female gorilla." · Kimbel cs.1984: "Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids... Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes." · Bromage & Dean 1985: "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modern great apes." · Martin 1985: "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid [relative of Homo rather than of Pan], does not therefore identify a hominid." · Ferguson 1987: "A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans." · Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988: "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens." · Schoenemann 1989: A.afarensis type specimen LH-4: "the lower third premolar... is completely apelike." · Ryan & Johanson 1989: "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla." . Richmond & Strait 2000: A.anamensis ER-20419 & Lucy: "specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking." . Alemseged cs.2006: DIK-1: "a hyoid that has a typical African ape morphology... gorillalike scapula and long & curved manual phalanges..." . Rak cs.2007: "Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of A.afarensis closely matches that of gorillas." Moreover, there's nothing uniquely-Homo in afarensis: - None of the typically-Homo features (eg, external nose, very long legs, very large brain, no trace of knuckle-walking) are seen in afarensis. - All so-called "humanlike" features are "primitive-hominid" (sensu Gorilla+Homo+Pan): Mio-Pliocene hominids & pongids had typically thick or even superthick (eg, Ouranopith) enamel & rel.short canines. Early hominids were short-legged vertical walking-climbing bipeds (predom.wading-climbing? Verhaegen cs.2002). Conclusion: there's nothing that excludes that afarensis (eg, curved phalanges, small brain, probably even laryngeal airsacs, see Wood's paper!) might have been a fossil species belonging to Gorilla. This is the null-hypothesis: A.afarensis was very gorilla-like, and gorillas live in Africa, so everybody who believes for some reason (other than traditional paleo-anthropological biases) that afarensis did not belong to Gorilla should let us know why he believes that. As long as he can't, the null-hypothesis is that afarensis is a fossil species belonging to the genus Gorilla. Of course, the quotes above don't prove Lucy was some fossil Gorilla species, but PAs should be open-minded enough to consider the possibility instead of simplistic black-white reasoning: Lucy=bipedal, hence closer to H than to P or G. Obviously our bipedality didn't evolve at once. Both human & chimp locomotion derive from an earlier LCA locomotion. IMO, this early locomotion was short-legged bipedal wading + climbing arms overhead in the forest swamps where the fossils lay. This locomotion can easily evolve OT1H into the Afr.ape locomotion (Kwing, eg, longer arms) & OTOH into the human locomotion (biped, eg, longer legs). But the transition from human (arms- legs+) to ape (arms+ legs-), or from ape to human locomotion directly is impossible. >>>> I know, but they have no arguments except traditional PA biases: who >>>> wants [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> And they have nothing uniquely-human or uniquely-chimp. Logical >>>> conclusion? --Marc >>> Except for the obvious fact (that I've repeated several times, and which >>> you have ignored) that Lucy's pelvis is VERY close to being just like >>> ours, >>> whereas it bears little resemblance to that of a gorilla, or a >>> chimpanzee. >>> http://www.goatstar.org/lucyhips.jpg George >> That's simply not true, see Stern+Susman's paper. Lucy's pelvis is about >> as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> but an apith pelvis can "easily" evolve into an ape pelvis (by elongating >> the ilia). --Marc > You're repeating Stern & Susman doesn't help you make your case. As I > pointed out earlier: > Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: Yes, that's exactly my point: you're not reading well, George: again: 1) I too think Lucy walked parttime upright (IMO they waded bipedally in forest swamps, see my Hum.Evol.papers & Trends in Ecol.& Evol.17:212-7). 2) Orrorin 6 Ma & Sahelanthr 7 Ma are believed to have walked upright. If so (& I tend to agree, see my Human.Evol. & TREE papers), the Homo/Pan LCA 5-4 Ma must also have walked (waded) upright, since the LCA postdated Sahelanthr & Orrorin. 3) Whether or not Lucy walked upright, it's beyond doubt it was (parttime) arm-hanging, see the curved phalanges (eg, see N&V paper B.Wood 2006 "A precious little bundle" Nature 443:278-281 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/full/443278a.html ... --Marc > Op 22-05-2007 23:46, in artikel 8wJ4i.71$YM5.14@bignews2.bellsouth.net, > George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "odd"?? Yes, Odd. And taking what other researchers have said out of context doesn't make for an honest argument, Marc. >> You're repeating Stern & Susman doesn't help you make your case. As I >> pointed out earlier: >> Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: > > Yes, that's exactly my point: you're not reading well, George: again: > 1) I too think Lucy walked parttime upright The evidence is quite clear that lucy was a habitual biped, not a parttime biped. There is concensus by PAs on this issue. George Op 23-05-2007 23:06, in artikel 9125i.449$xu.375@bignews1.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>>>>> The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field >>>>>>> support your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George >> "odd"?? > Yes, Odd. And taking what other researchers have said out of context > doesn't make for an honest argument, Marc. Nothing out of context. The pure *facts*. Without the usual biases... :-) >>> You're repeating Stern & Susman doesn't help you make your case. As I >>> pointed out earlier: >>> Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: >> Yes, that's exactly my point: you're not reading well, George: again: >> 1) I too think Lucy walked parttime upright ... Snipping the essential is not so honest, George. > The evidence is quite clear that lucy was a habitual biped, not a parttime > biped. There is concensus by PAs on this issue. George 1) The evidence is not so clear as you believe. Many PAs *believe* (for educational biases I guess) that afarensis was bipedal because it had some lower limb resemblances to humans. But statistically this says nothing, since only humans have this kind of bipedality (n=1). 2) Consensus by PAs says even less, eg, geologists once rejected plate tectonics... 3) Again: I do think afarensis was habitually bipedal. For my *arguments* to think that (contrary to your *beliefs* to think that), see, eg, our Trends in Ecol.& Evol.paper. 4) It's ridiculous to declare that a primate with curved phalanges (= climbing arms overhead) was fulltime bipedal. It's not so difficult: afarensis was probably habitually bipedal + no doubt often climbing arms overhead. Where can these 2 locomotions occur together? Some primates use these 2 locomotions (besides other locomotions), eg, - Nasalis in mangrove areas wades & walks regularly on 2 legs & sometimes climbs arms overhead; - lowland gorillas regularly wade on 2 legs in forest swamps & sometimes climb out of the swamp by grasping branches above their heads. Now, all early hominids have been found in well-watered & well-wooded milieus. The most parsimonious solution is they frequently waded on 2 legs (eg, in search for sedges or aquatic herbaceous vegetation, as Ndoki gorillas often do) & sometimes climbed trees arms overhead. This lifestyle fits all known evidence. --Marc > Op 23-05-2007 23:06, in artikel 9125i.449$xu.375@bignews1.bellsouth.net, > George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Snipping the essential is not so honest, George. What I snipped was irrelevant to my point (and at any rate, I had already addressed a number of those points). >> The evidence is quite clear that lucy was a habitual biped, not a >> parttime [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lower limb resemblances to humans. But statistically this says nothing, > since only humans have this kind of bipedality (n=1). Your comment above reminds me of when creationists say that evolution is "only a theory". Like when a neocon calls someone a "liberal". It comes off sounding like a dirty word. Belief has nothing to do with it. Sure, all scientists have biases, but most try to account for those biases in their research. I've seen nothing in the literature that leads me to conclude that the vast majority of researchers who think Lucy was a habitual biped came to that conclusion out of wishful thinking. Statistically, just saying that "statistically this says nothing" says nothing, since your claim that "only humans have this kind of bipedalism" is not substantiated with any peer-reviewed data you've presented here, nor is it substantiated by the rather large volume of work that has been peer-reviewed. Bold statements do not make claims true. > 2) Consensus by PAs says even less, eg, geologists once rejected plate > tectonics... If the vast majority of PAs didn't know what they were doing, or if the science was at the stage it was at in 1901, you'd have a point. As for the last comment about geologists, that is a false analogy. Geologists rejected continental drift because there was scant evidence for it and no understanding at the time of a possible mechanism. The discovery of the mid oceanic ridges changed all that. Such is not the case with studies of bipedalism in hominids. I think it is pretty well understood because there is plenty enough data to make a compelling case for habitual bipedalism, especially, but not exclusively, Lucy's skeleton. Yes, more fossils are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, but that knowledge, as it stands today, is pretty convincing. > 3) Again: I do think afarensis was habitually bipedal. For my > *arguments* > to think that (contrary to your *beliefs* to think that), see, eg, our > Trends in Ecol.& Evol.paper. > 4) It's ridiculous to declare that a primate with curved phalanges (= > climbing arms overhead) was fulltime bipedal. You're comments above make no sense. In the first, you say that you DO think that afarensis was habitually bipedal. In the second, you say that it is ridiculous to declare that it was a fulltime biped. Your statements are contradictory, and contradict what you posted previously. Care to clarify your thoughts? > It's not so difficult: afarensis was probably habitually bipedal + no > doubt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - Nasalis in mangrove areas wades & walks regularly on 2 legs & sometimes > climbs arms overhead; This does not make them habitual bipeds. Nasalis does not have the same pelvic morphology Lucy has. Lucy's pelvic morphology most closely resembles Homo, and clearly could walk for long distances upright, probably all day if it wanted to. Show me a Nasalis that can walk bipedally all day long with ease and at a human, or near human gate. > - lowland gorillas regularly wade on 2 legs in forest swamps & sometimes > climb out of the swamp by grasping branches above their heads. This does not make them habitual bipeds, and I challenge you to find 5 primatologists who would agree that gorillas are habitual bipeds. > Now, all early hominids have been found in well-watered & well-wooded > milieus. The most parsimonious solution is they frequently waded on 2 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > --Marc Lucy was found in flood deposits alongside an ancient river bed. She likely drowned. That is not evidence that she was an aquatic ape any more than finding a dead Homo Sapiens in the bottom of a reservoir is evidence that it was adapted to life in a reservoir. George Op 25-05-2007 04:26, in artikel 4Pr5i.879$YM5.612@bignews2.bellsouth.net, George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: >>>>>>>>> The fact is, Marc, that very few, if any researchers in the field >>>>>>>>> support your odd notion that Lucy was a gorilla. George >>>> "odd"?? >>> Yes, Odd. And taking what other researchers have said out of context >>> doesn't make for an honest argument, Marc. >> Nothing out of context. >> The pure *facts*. >> Without the usual biases... :-) >>>>> You're repeating Stern & Susman doesn't help you make your case. As I >>>>> pointed out earlier: >>>>> Stern and Susman are quite adamant that Lucy was bipedal: >>>> Yes, that's exactly my point: you're not reading well, George: again: >>>> 1) I too think Lucy walked parttime upright >>> ... >> Snipping the essential is not so honest, George. > What I snipped was irrelevant to my point (and at any rate, I had already > addressed a number of those points). OK. Only: don't use arguments based on "honesty" etc., see above. >>> The evidence is quite clear that lucy was a habitual biped, not a >>> parttime >>> biped. There is concensus by PAs on this issue. George >> 1) The evidence is not so clear as you believe. Many PAs *believe* (for >> educational biases I guess) that afarensis was bipedal because it had >> some >> lower limb resemblances to humans. But statistically this says nothing, >> since only humans have this kind of bipedality (n=1). > Your comment above reminds me of when creationists say that evolution is > "only a theory". Like when a neocon calls someone a "liberal". It comes > off sounding like a dirty word. ?? Please try to be a bit relevant. Are you a creationist?? > Belief has nothing to do with it. Sure, > all scientists have biases, but most try to account for those biases in > their research. I've seen nothing in the literature that leads me to > conclude that the vast majority of researchers who think Lucy was a > habitual biped came to that conclusion out of wishful thinking. "Wishful thinking" is perhaps not the best term, but rather non-statitistical thinking: they think Lucy was bipedal because it had lower limb features as seen in humans. This says nothing statistically, since n=1: if they had to judge bipedality, they had to look at all bipedal creatures, not just humans. If you want to study wings, you have to look at bats, birds, insects, even aeroplanes... If you want to study bipedalism, you have to look at flamingoes, penguins, ostriches, T.rex, kangaroos, tarsiers, gibbons, birds etc.etc. > Statistically, just saying that "statistically this says nothing" says > nothing, since your claim that "only humans have this kind of bipedalism" > is not substantiated with any peer-reviewed data you've presented here, nor > is it substantiated by the rather large volume of work that has been > peer-reviewed. Bold statements do not make claims true. This has nothing to do with peer-reviews: they only compare to us (n=1): statistically this is worthless. (Besides, peer-reviews tend to make their field extremely conservative: peer-reviews are the best protection against something new in the field.) >> 2) Consensus by PAs says even less, eg, geologists once rejected plate >> tectonics... > If the vast majority of PAs didn't know what they were doing, or if the > science was at the stage it was at in 1901, you'd have a point. As for the > last comment about geologists, that is a false analogy. Geologists > rejected continental drift because there was scant evidence for it and no > understanding at the time of a possible mechanism. The discovery of the > mid oceanic ridges changed all that. Well, if geologists had thought a bit & used all the evidence, they (just like Wegener & others) had known this long before mid-oceanic ridges were discovered. Many present-day PAs are acting exactly the same as those geologists & use only part of the evidence. > Such is not the case with studies of > bipedalism in hominids. I think it is pretty well understood because there > is plenty enough data to make a compelling case for habitual bipedalism, Well, no: they compare to humans only (n=1): they reason: we, as opposed to chimps etc., are bipedal, Lucy in this or that resembled us, so Lucy is bipedal. Needless to say, this is no science. > especially, but not exclusively, Lucy's skeleton. Yes, more fossils are > needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, but that knowledge, as it > stands today, is pretty convincing. Not so, see above. >> 3) Again: I do think afarensis was habitually bipedal. For my >> *arguments* >> to think that (contrary to your *beliefs* to think that), see, eg, our >> Trends in Ecol.& Evol.paper. >> 4) It's ridiculous to declare that a primate with curved phalanges (= >> climbing arms overhead) was fulltime bipedal. > You're comments above make no sense. In the first, you say that you DO > think that afarensis was habitually bipedal. In the second, you say that > it is ridiculous to declare that it was a fulltime biped. Your statements > are contradictory, and contradict what you posted previously. Care to > clarify your thoughts? No contradiction: IMO, Lucy often waded bipedally in search for AHV etc. (= habitual biped) & climbed out of the swamp arms overhead (= not fulltime biped: it had curved phalanges, so it must have climbed a lot arms overhead). >> It's not so difficult: afarensis was probably habitually bipedal + no >> doubt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> - Nasalis in mangrove areas wades & walks regularly on 2 legs & sometimes >> climbs arms overhead; > This does not make them habitual bipeds. Nasalis does not have the same > pelvic morphology Lucy has. No black-white thinking please: IMO Lucy waded a lot *more* than Nasalis does. The question is: does Nasalis differ from other colobines in shifting towards Lucy's position. (This is so for its elbow IIRC, but AFAIK there are no studies on this for its pelvis. Nasalis is the largest colobine, the one who climbs most arms overhead, they one who of all colobines runs most on 2 legs, in shallow water & on land, the one with rel.the longest arms, etc.) > Lucy's pelvic morphology most closely resembles Homo, Again: Stern+Susman: Lucy's pelvis could evolve in the human direction by reorienting the iliac blades, it could as easily evolve into the chimp's pelvis by elongating the iliac blades. If an apelike pelvis had to evolve into our pelvis, it had needed *both* changes (first iliac shortening, then iliac reorienting). IOW, it's far more parsimonious to take the oldest fossil as the most primitive (Fox cs.1999 "Reconstructing phylogeny with & without temporal data" Sci.284:1816) & to derive the P, H & G pelvises from an original apith-like pelvis. > and clearly could walk for long distances upright, probably > all day if it wanted to. You have no evidence for this. Facts, please, instead of producing just-so stories. Lucy's pelvis was a lot broader than ours, it had very long femoral necks, these were more horizontal than ours. All this suggests Lucy walked less than we do, but had probably better femoral abduction (needless to say, this fits perfectly with AHV consumption as sometimes seen in Ndoki gorilla). Moreover, it had rel.much shorter legs. And curved foot phalanges! > Show me a Nasalis that can walk bipedally all day > long with ease and at a human, or near human gate. Why should I?? If I did, this would contradict what I'm saying. >> - lowland gorillas regularly wade on 2 legs in forest swamps & sometimes >> climb out of the swamp by grasping branches above their heads. > This does not make them habitual bipeds, and I challenge you to find 5 > primatologists who would agree that gorillas are habitual bipeds. Again: you're thinking black-white. I'm saying gorillas wade sometimes, I guess a lot less than IMO Lucy did: this fits perfectly the data. >> Now, all early hominids have been found in well-watered & well-wooded >> milieus. The most parsimonious solution is they frequently waded on 2 >> legs >> (eg, in search for sedges or aquatic herbaceous vegetation, as Ndoki >> gorillas often do) & sometimes climbed trees arms overhead. >> This lifestyle fits all known evidence. --Marc > Lucy was found in flood deposits alongside an ancient river bed. She > likely drowned. That is not evidence that she was an aquatic ape any more > than finding a dead Homo Sapiens in the bottom of a reservoir is evidence > that it was adapted to life in a reservoir. George 1) You're apparently confusing AL-333 & AL-288. Lucy was not found in flood deposits, but in very slowly moving water, near delicate items such as crab claws etc. 2) I never said Lucy was an aq.ape. Please don't misrepresent my ideas. Nevertheless, thanks, George, for trying to understand what we're saying, instead of reacting like some closed-minded people here do. --Marc Verhaegen http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT > Op 25-05-2007 04:26, in artikel 4Pr5i.879$YM5.612@bignews2.bellsouth.net, > George <george@yourservice.com> schreef: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > ?? > Please try to be a bit relevant. Are you a creationist?? Umm. No. And I don't think anyone has ever accused me of that, either. >> Belief has nothing to do with it. Sure, >> all scientists have biases, but most try to account for those biases in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you have to look at flamingoes, penguins, ostriches, T.rex, kangaroos, > tarsiers, gibbons, birds etc.etc. Except that Lucy DOES have lower limb and pelvic features in common with Homo. Whether there is only one or a dozen, the fact remains that she DOES possess these features. As for wings, did anyone study bat wings when they designed and built the B-2? If you want to study HUMAN bipedalism, as opposed to, say ostrich or penguin bipedalism (which have completely different morphologies), you need to study human analogues. None of the critters you mention are good human analogues for pibedalism. >> Statistically, just saying that "statistically this says nothing" says >> nothing, since your claim that "only humans have this kind of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This has nothing to do with peer-reviews: they only compare to us (n=1): > statistically this is worthless. You can't ignore the fact that Lucy has essentially a human pelvic structure just because she possesses the only afarensis pelvis known. The fact that she doe |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message