Australopithecus afarensis?

First, let's look at the dating using one cite:

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis

They're claiming between 3.85 and 2.95 million
years.

Hmm. And in previous threads I pointed to dates
for the LCA as less than 4 million, with 2 million as
the lower limit. Not bad. Not bad at all. But then...

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaav9038

: ...the most viable candidate ancestral species remains
: Australopithecus afarensis.

That cite is about Sediba, but the topic is the ancestor
to the genus Homo -- the immediate predecessor to
humans. The cite is ruling out Sediba and identifying
Australopithecus afarensis.

It's the dating that piqued my interest.

If the first "Modern" human was erectus somewhere
from 1.8 million years, and it takes maybe a good 2
million years for an unambiguous speciation then,
the dating kicked around in the cite works out perfect.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/655836940444286976

Op maandag 5 juli 2021 om 07:28:48 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> Australopithecus afarensis?
> First, let's look at the dating using one cite:
> https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis
> They're claiming between 3.85 and 2.95 Ma.
> Hmm. And in previous threads I pointed to dates
> for the LCA as less than 4 million, with 2 million as
> the lower limit. Not bad. Not bad at all. But then...
> https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaav9038
> : ...the most viable candidate ancestral species remains
> : Australopithecus afarensis.
> That cite is about Sediba, but the topic is the ancestor
> to the genus Homo -- the immediate predecessor to
> humans. The cite is ruling out Sediba and identifying
> Australopithecus afarensis.
> It's the dating that piqued my interest.
> If the first "Modern" human was erectus somewhere
> from 1.8 million years, and it takes maybe a good 2
> million years for an unambiguous speciation then,
> the dating kicked around in the cite works out perfect.

Lucy was certainly no human ancestor,
IMO a fossil relative of Gorilla,
I'd call the fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei...:

Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania
-“Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989
-The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351
-“Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are:
--very small cranial capacity,
--low posterior profile of the calvaria,
--nasals extended far above the fronto-maxillar suture, well onto an uninflated glabella,
--extremely convex infero-lateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986
-As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean:
both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991
-In O.H.5, “the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960
-The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988
-A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986

There's no doubt apiths were closer relatives of Gorilla or Pan than of us:
-“The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line.
Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’.
Cranial proportions & ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved separately [? MV] in the australopithecines parallel [? MV] with the great apes.
The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look.
The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”. Ferguson 1989
-“Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”. Bromage & Dean 1985
-“Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes & (although at a different rare & extent) the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985
-“Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast & skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape & cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk 1985
-In the type specimen of A.afarensis, “the lower 3rd premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”.. Ferguson 1987
-“A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann, 1989.
-“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 & females,
the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984
-“Prior to the identification of A.afarensis, the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids.
Kimbel and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A. afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel et al., 1984.
-“... the fact that 2 presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman, 1954b.
-In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 & O.H.5, “cranio-metric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids.
These basi-cranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids & extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also alike in appearance..." Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
-“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”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988

IOW, only stubborn anthropocentrically-biased PAs still believe apiths were human ancestors.
This is almost as stupid as believing that Plio-Pleistocene human ancestors ran antelopes to exhaustion.
The mistake is the same: anthropocentry.

It has mathematically been proved that apith skulls are morphologically are much closer to Gorilla or Pan than to Homo:

Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls
Hum.Evol.11: 35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil & living species of hominoids.
The comparison is based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain 1986).
The conclusions are:
cranio-dentally the australopithecine spp are a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans;
overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.
Introduction
The australopithecine spp are commonly considered to be “hominids” because
- they lack some of the features that characterize the living apes,
- they display certain humanlike characters.
Yet it has often been argued that
- their human-like characters might be primitive (indeed many of these characters are found in premature African apes),
- the australopiths should not be included in the evolutionary branch towards humans, but instead are a unique group of apes or might even be closer phylogenetically to the African apes than to humans
(e.g. Kleindienst 1975, Goodman 1982, Gribbin & Cherfas 1983, Oxnard 1984, Hasegawa cs 1985, Edelstein 1987, Verhaegen 1990, 1994).
The aim of this paper is to objectivate morphological resemblances of australopithecine spp with living hominoid species.
(To establish phylogenetic relationships, bio-molecular comparisons of nucleic acids or proteins are preferable to morphological comparisons,
but it does not seem very probable that extraction of enough DNA or protein from fossil bone will ever become possible.)??

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> There's no doubt apiths were closer relatives of Gorilla or Pan than of us:
> -“The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line.
> Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’.

Well evolution is NOT linear, human evolution doubly so. Which means you have to
not only consider but factor in two points:

#1. Working with the 2 million year estimated timespan needed for a full speciation,
a human ancestor living 3.7 million years ago could have been interbreeding with
populations it diverged from up to 5.7 million years ago. I'm not saying that interbreeding
was common and always successful -- maybe it was, but we both doubt it -- only that
it could happen. That kind of hybridization could and almost certainly did happen.

#2. We have a common ancestor to Chimps. We share an ancestor. So it's without
question that, following the split, either the Chimps became more ape like or we
became more human like, or both. As far as we can tell, in all important matters the
Chimps became more ape like.

This makes perfect sense.

Once they diverged they no longer exploited the same environments as our ancestors.
They no longer lived in the same places, ate the same foods. They had to adapt to
conditions which were quite different from our own.

Chimps entered a new niche.

Personally, and I strongly emphasize this, I believe that we drove them into the trees.
That, once we were distinct enough they became a competitor, an enemy and
perhaps even a food source... very likely a food source. So the more we competed
with them in our habitat the less gene flow from that habitat to other members of
their population... the less selective pressures for a human like habitat.... the stronger
the selective pressures on the forest niche.

So non-linear evolution predicts everything. It doesn't just explain things it predicts
what we find.

> IOW, only stubborn anthropocentrically-biased PAs still believe apiths were human ancestors.

I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Their model is completely wrong, that goes without saying,
but that's more to do with HOW things happened, not WHAT happened.
> It has mathematically been proved that apith skulls are morphologically are much closer to Gorilla or Pan than to Homo:

And we share ancestors with both. So the gorilla skull grew gorilla like AFTER
divergence or our skulls grew less gorilla like after divergence.

But there was that point of divergence. We were one and the same population
and then we weren't. We did have the exact same morphology, and then we
didn't.

ALL the pieces have to fit together. One of those pieces is the shared ancestor
with gorillas.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/655829473683439616

Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 00:19:59 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > There's no doubt apiths were closer relatives of Gorilla or Pan than of us:
> > -“The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line.
> > Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’.

> Well evolution is NOT linear, human evolution doubly so.

Yes, that confirms my view:
-the hominid LCA (HPG c 8 Ma) lived in Red Sea or Gulf coastal forests,
-Gorilla followed the Rift -> G.afarensis-boisei-beringei/gorilla,
-the HP-LCA c 5 Ma split into
--Pan in E.Afr.coastal forests -> P.africanus-robustus-paniscus/troglodytes,
--Homo in S.Asian coasts -> littoral erectus in Java etc.
See the evidence you snipped, or google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> See the evidence you snipped, or google
> "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

I am unable to edit your posts. It all remains unchanged.

What I did was respond to your position by pointing out that regardless
of how many differences or what kind we have from gorillas or Chimps,
we did begin the same. We did have the exact same morphology.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/655829473683439616

Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 02:40:16 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > See the evidence you snipped, or google
> > "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

> I am unable to edit your posts. It all remains unchanged.
> What I did was respond to your position by pointing out that regardless
> of how many differences or what kind we have from gorillas or Chimps,
> we did begin the same. We did have the exact same morphology.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, my boy:
inform a little bit before talking:
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen"

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> schreef I Envy JTEM:
> > What I did was respond to your position by pointing out that regardless
> > of how many differences or what kind we have from gorillas or Chimps,
> > we did begin the same. We did have the exact same morphology.

> Yes, that's what I'm saying, my boy:

All your "Not Homo but Pan" seems to be stating the opposite.

Two critical points:

#1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
species, one population.

#2. The split occurred less than 4 million years ago.

This makes Australopithecus afarensis a great candidate for the LCA, or
even the immediate predecessor to the LCA.

I personally tend to see dates as exaggerated, more a less a conditioning
from the decades of "Molecular Dating." which makes me think that
Australopithecus afarensis was the LCA, rather than the first to arise following
the split.

Now if you add aquatic ape, and you consider that as a fake science paleo
anthropology searches where it's more convenient to search, not where our
ancestors most likely lived, then you have to be right.

You'd have to be correct in that the inland population -- which is the only one
they dig up -- would be ancestral to Pan not Homo. Even if they were technically
the same species, the population left no descendants among Homo, only Pan.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/655938928989356032

Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 22:46:22 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > > What I did was respond to your position by pointing out that regardless
> > > of how many differences or what kind we have from gorillas or Chimps,
> > > we did begin the same. We did have the exact same morphology.
> > Yes, that's what I'm saying, my boy:

> All your "Not Homo but Pan" seems to be stating the opposite.

No: apparently
-the hominid LCA (HPG c 8 Ma) lived in Red Sea or Gulf coastal forests,
-Gorilla followed the Rift -> G.afarensis-boisei-beringei/gorilla,
-the HP-LCA c 5 Ma split into
---Pan in E.Afr.coastal forests -> P.africanus-robustus-paniscus/troglodytes,
---Homo in S.Asian coasts -> littoral erectus in Java etc.
Google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

> Two critical points:
> #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
> species, one population.
> #2. The split occurred less than 4 million years ago.

Probably >4 Ma.

> This makes Australopithecus afarensis a great candidate for the LCA, or
> even the immediate predecessor to the LCA.

No: afarensis probably belonged to Gorilla, fossil subgenus Praeanthropus.

> I personally tend to see dates as exaggerated, more a less a conditioning
> from the decades of "Molecular Dating." which makes me think that
> Australopithecus afarensis was the LCA, rather than the first to arise following
> the split.

No: afarensis probably belonged to Gorilla, fossil subgenus Praeanthropus.

> Now if you add aquatic ape, and you consider that as a fake science paleo
> anthropology searches where it's more convenient to search, not where our
> ancestors most likely lived, then you have to be right.
> You'd have to be correct in that the inland population -- which is the only one
> they dig up -- would be ancestral to Pan not Homo. Even if they were technically
> the same species, the population left no descendants among Homo, only Pan.

No: again: IMO:
-the hominid LCA (HPG c 8 Ma) lived in Red Sea or Gulf coastal forests,
-Gorilla followed the Rift -> G.afarensis-boisei-beringei/gorilla,
-the HP-LCA c 5 Ma split into
---Pan in E.Afr.coastal forests -> P.africanus-robustus-paniscus/troglodytes,
---Homo in S.Asian coasts -> littoral erectus in Java etc.
Google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> No: apparently
> -the hominid LCA (HPG c 8 Ma) lived in Red Sea or Gulf coastal forests

That seems pretty baseless.

It's true that Saudi Arabia was once (and will again) be quite verdant but,
we have stronger evidence for your apes in Europe!

> > Two critical points:
> > #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
> > species, one population.
> > #2. The split occurred less than 4 million years ago.
> Probably >4 Ma.

No. If we go by the DNA than less than 4 million, if we go by the fossils
than maybe 2 million or less. After all, the oldest so called Chimp fossil
is only half a million years old.

We can only go by the evidence. Everything else is simply imagination.

> > This makes Australopithecus afarensis a great candidate for the LCA, or
> > even the immediate predecessor to the LCA.

> No: afarensis probably belonged to Gorilla, fossil subgenus Praeanthropus.

You're dating the emergence of gorillas to less than 4 million years ago, just
so you know.

> > I personally tend to see dates as exaggerated, more a less a conditioning
> > from the decades of "Molecular Dating." which makes me think that
> > Australopithecus afarensis was the LCA, rather than the first to arise following
> > the split.

> No: afarensis probably belonged to Gorilla

That's baseless. Gorillas? Less than 4 million years ago?

> > Now if you add aquatic ape, and you consider that as a fake science paleo
> > anthropology searches where it's more convenient to search, not where our
> > ancestors most likely lived, then you have to be right.
> > You'd have to be correct in that the inland population -- which is the only one
> > they dig up -- would be ancestral to Pan not Homo. Even if they were technically
> > the same species, the population left no descendants among Homo, only Pan.

This stands.

Two populations can be the same species and be separated by tens, hundreds or
even a thousand generations. At a more or less constant rate, the aquatic ape
would have had groups peeling off, populations moving inland. These populations
adapted to their new niche. Eventually most went extinct, others remained linked
via the conduit of aquatic ape -- DNA moving along the coast to each of the
groups -- but some like Chimps neither died out nor remained linked. They broke
cleanly.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/655997404950249472

Op woensdag 7 juli 2021 om 08:50:56 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

....

> > No: apparently
> > -the hominid LCA (HPG c 8 Ma) lived in Red Sea or Gulf coastal forests

> That seems pretty baseless.
> It's true that Saudi Arabia was once (and will again) be quite verdant but,
> we have stronger evidence for your apes in Europe!

Miocene hominoids along Tethys coasts:
1) c 20 Ma hylobatids along S.Asian coasts to SE.Asia,
2) c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway closure split hominids & pongids?

> > > Two critical points:
> > > #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
> > > species, one population.

??
Certainly not: chimp anatomy is very derived.

> > > #2. The split occurred less than 4 million years ago.

> > Probably >4 Ma.

> No. If we go by the DNA than less than 4 million, if we go by the fossils
> than maybe 2 million or less. After all, the oldest so called Chimp fossil
> is only half a million years old.

H.sapiens is even less.
We did NOT evolved from chimps,
chimps had S.Afr.apith-like ancestors.

> We can only go by the evidence. Everything else is simply imagination.

Of course, google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen"

> > > This makes Australopithecus afarensis a great candidate for the LCA, or
> > > even the immediate predecessor to the LCA.

> > No: afarensis probably belonged to Gorilla, fossil subgenus Praeanthropus.

> You're dating the emergence of gorillas to less than 4 million years ago, just
> so you know.

HP/G split c 8 Ma,
H/P split c 5 Ma.

> > > I personally tend to see dates as exaggerated, more a less a conditioning
> > > from the decades of "Molecular Dating." which makes me think that
> > > Australopithecus afarensis was the LCA, rather than the first to arise following
> > > the split.

> > No: afarensis probably belonged to Gorilla

> That's baseless. Gorillas? Less than 4 million years ago?

No: genus Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis etc.

> > > Now if you add aquatic ape, and you consider that as a fake science paleo
> > > anthropology searches where it's more convenient to search, not where our
> > > ancestors most likely lived, then you have to be right.
> > > You'd have to be correct in that the inland population -- which is the only one
> > > they dig up -- would be ancestral to Pan not Homo. Even if they were technically
> > > the same species, the population left no descendants among Homo, only Pan.

Terminology!
"aq.ape" is a confusing term, not very correct:
we had
-Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal "apes", after c 15 Ma pongids & hominids,
-only Homo was biologically "littoral" = Pleistocene shallow divinbg for shellfish ("aq.not-ape").

> This stands.
> Two populations can be the same species and be separated by tens, hundreds or
> even a thousand generations. At a more or less constant rate, the aquatic ape
> would have had groups peeling off, populations moving inland. These populations
> adapted to their new niche. Eventually most went extinct, others remained linked
> via the conduit of aquatic ape -- DNA moving along the coast to each of the
> groups -- but some like Chimps neither died out nor remained linked. They broke
> cleanly.

Gorilla & Pan evolved in parallel in E // S.Africa
--from Pliocene "gracile" afarensis // africanus
--to early-Pleistocene "robust" boisei // robustus
--today apes Gorilla // Pan evolved knuckle-walking etc.

Kingdon: Africa had/has 2 great forests (central-African & coastal east-African), which are mostly separated, but sometimes interconnected.

Google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen"

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
> > > > species, one population.
> ??
> Certainly not: chimp anatomy is very derived.

I have to believe that you're trolling.

The Homo & Pan lines diverged. Which means -- it requires, it's another way
of saying that -- there was only one line, a single line that was the ancestors
to both the Homo and the Pan line. And then they split. So until that split
occurred there was no difference in morphology. All the differences in
morphology arose AFTER that split.

....and that split happened less than 4 million years ago.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/656035838632837120

Op woensdag 7 juli 2021 om 22:53:32 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > > > > #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
> > > > > species, one population.

> > ?? Certainly not: chimp anatomy is very derived.

> I have to believe that you're trolling.

Certainly not.
The HP-LCA (+-Au.africanus-like) was much more chimp-like in e.g. "small" brain, "short" legs, absence of an external nose etc.,
but probably had thicker molar enamel & shorter canines than chimps, flatter feet, an upright spine (for wading+climbing arms overhead in swamp forests) but no very long arms, no knuckle-walking, no elongated ilia, no projecting cheek etc.
IOW, in many instances, human anatomy is less derived, but in other instances, we are very derived: brain size, external nose, very long legs etc.
You have to google "ape & human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen".

-

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I have to believe that you're trolling.

> Certainly not.

You cite yourself, ignore facts and defend baseless dating. I'd definitely say
that you're trolling.

> The HP-LCA (+-Au.africanus-like) was much more chimp-like in e.g. "small" brain, "short" legs, absence of an external nose etc.

So what?

The Homo and Pan line diverged at some point. Until that point they were one and the
same. Until that point their morphology was our morphology.

Nothing you're saying soo much as acknowledges this, much less incorporates it
into your ideas.

As I keep saying: ALL the pieces must fit together! All of them. Ignoring any of them
is failure.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/656099173775589376

Op donderdag 8 juli 2021 om 09:52:26 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > > I have to believe that you're trolling.

> > Certainly not.
> You cite yourself,

Yes, that's easiest.

> ignore facts

Is what you do.

>and defend baseless dating.

??
I'd definitely say that you're trolling.

> > The HP-LCA (+-Au.africanus-like) was much more chimp-like in e.g. "small" brain, "short" legs, absence of an external nose etc.

> So what?

If you don't understand wht that means, google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

> The Homo and Pan line diverged at some point. Until that point they were one and the
> same. Until that point their morphology was our morphology.

Yes, that's what i'm saying:
apparently the H/P-LCA was rather Au.africanus-like.

> Nothing you're saying soo much as acknowledges this, much less incorporates it
> into your ideas.

To the contrary: ALL the pieces must fit together! All of them. Ignoring any of them is failure.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

Why? You're right here. If you have a position, state it and defend it. If
you don't no amount of citing yourself can help.

> > The Homo and Pan line diverged at some point. Until that point they were one and the
> > same. Until that point their morphology was our morphology.

> Yes, that's what i'm saying:

You haven't been saying that at all. Here. I'll offer an exact quote:

:> #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
:> species, one population.
: : ??
: Certainly not: chimp anatomy is very derived.

There. You stated the polar opposite. Emphatically.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/656271809124155392

Op zaterdag 10 juli 2021 om 19:03:30 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

> Why? You're right here. If you have a position, state it and defend it. If
> you don't no amount of citing yourself can help.

> > > The Homo and Pan line diverged at some point. Until that point they were one and the
> > > same. Until that point their morphology was our morphology.

> > Yes, that's what i'm saying:

> You haven't been saying that at all. Here. I'll offer an exact quote:
> :> #1. We had the exact same morphology as Chimps. We began as one
> :> species, one population.

Of course, by definition, at the time of the split their anatomy was our anatomy.
It was apparently a mozaic, probably e.g.
- humanlike: (very?) thick enamel, low ilia, flat feet, no knuckle-walking, no very long arms...
- intermediate? smaller canines, no very flat face, often upright spine...
- chimp-like: small brain, no very long legs, funnel-like thorax?,...

> : ??
> : Certainly not: chimp anatomy is very derived.

> There. You stated the polar opposite. Emphatically.

Human anatomy is also very derived, of course, see above.