“After decades in which Dart, Broom, Sollas, Clark, Robinson, Schepers etc strove to show how human Australopithecus was, and ultimately were so successful that virtually everyone came to accept Australopithecus as a hominid,(today="hominin" --mv) it may seem strange that in the final decade of the century we are bringing to light more & more apish features of this extraordinary species.... Falk (1989) & Tobias (1981) revealed how strikingly ape-like the brain of A.africanus was, in quantity & quality. Dean & Wood (1981) & Tobias (1967) showed how apish the base of the cranium was, with its ape-like petrous pyramids. Conroy & Kuykendall (1995) & Moggi-Cecchi (1997) laid bare the ape-like pattern of tooth formation—and so did Beynon & Dean (1988) for the rate of tooth formation. Benade (1990) demonstrated some curious ape-like features of the spinal column. Berger (1994) produced the same from the shoulder & the knee (Berger & Tobias 1996), Brauer cs inferred the ape-like great toe of “Little Foot”. McHenry & Berger found apish bodily proportions in A.africanus. Everybody, everything, was crying Ape! After long years of australopithecine anthropo-centrism, we have entered upon a period of rampant australopithecine apishness! So much so that the custodian* of the largest collection of A.africanus spms could stand before the Royal Anthropological Institute, and feel justified in asking: Was A.africanus a hominid? We should not be surprised to find many ape-like traits in the australopithecines. From the beginning, Dart saw apish features: he called the species Australopithecus—the southern ape, not Australanthropus—the southern man.”

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> “After decades in which Dart, Broom, Sollas, Clark, Robinson, Schepers etc strove to
> show how human Australopithecus was, and ultimately were so successful that
> virtually everyone came to accept Australopithecus as a hominid,(today="hominin" --mv)
> it may seem strange that in the final decade of the century we are bringing to light
> more & more apish features of this extraordinary species.... Falk (1989) & Tobias
> (1981) revealed how strikingly ape-like the brain of A.africanus was, in quantity & quality.

Seems to me that few if any are willing to entertain the notion that Lucy dates to
BEFORE the LCA, while at the same time there is a good argument to be made
that she walked the earth some hundreds of thousands of years AFTERWARDS.

Which means, what? That she's on the Pan side of the divide?

Remember the grossly overstated age of the LCA was based on a non-existing
"molecular clock" viewing mtDNA. Which is obscene, because there was actually
a great deal of selective pressure on the mtDNA, especially on populations outside
of Africa. THEN, a study of the y-Chromosome knocked more than a million years
off the previous estimates, but it still exaggerated the age. There was also a great
deal of selective pressure on the y-Chromosome, especially amongst Chimps.

Anyway, later studies, encompassing much of the remaining genome knocked off
even more years from this imaginary "Molecular Clock." Problem is that there was
selective pressure on a lot of those other genes, which still exaggerates the age.

The final "Molecular Dating" that I saw placed the split as recently as 3.7 million
years ago, with maybe 4+ million years on the upward limit...

Either way, Lucy lived long after the divide. So the next question is if she was a
human ancestor -- fat chance there -- or if she was on the Pan side...

The consensus was that she was no ancestor. It was only when the Out of Africa
purity agenda went into overdrive when we were ordered to believe her to be an
ancestor.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/694868891895316480

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 6:22:19 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> “After decades in which Dart, Broom, Sollas, Clark, Robinson, Schepers etc strove to show how human Australopithecus was, and ultimately were so successful that virtually everyone came to accept Australopithecus as a hominid,(today="hominin" --mv) it may seem strange that in the final decade of the century we are bringing to light more & more apish features of this extraordinary species.... Falk (1989) & Tobias (1981) revealed how strikingly ape-like the brain of A.africanus was, in quantity & quality. Dean & Wood (1981) & Tobias (1967) showed how apish the base of the cranium was, with its ape-like petrous pyramids. Conroy & Kuykendall (1995) & Moggi-Cecchi (1997) laid bare the ape-like pattern of tooth formation—and so did Beynon & Dean (1988) for the rate of tooth formation. Benade (1990) demonstrated some curious ape-like features of the spinal column. Berger (1994) produced the same from the shoulder & the knee (Berger & Tobias 1996), Brauer cs inferred the ape-like great toe of “Little Foot”. McHenry & Berger found apish bodily proportions in A.africanus. Everybody, everything, was crying Ape! After long years of australopithecine anthropo-centrism, we have entered upon a period of rampant australopithecine apishness! So much so that the custodian* of the largest collection of A.africanus spms could stand before the Royal Anthropological Institute, and feel justified in asking: Was A.africanus a hominid? We should not be surprised to find many ape-like traits in the australopithecines. From the beginning, Dart saw apish features: he called the species Australopithecus—the southern ape, not Australanthropus—the southern man.”

Humans are apes.
Every historical human population relied upon wood, shelters, fire, language.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Humans are apes.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/search/humans+are+apes

You're spewing dogma, not science. By the naming convention you pretend
to follow, Chimps are human. After all, the evolved from an upright walker
with a hand more like ours than any ape's...

I explain it here. Find an adult to help you with some of the words:

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

> Every historical human population

So nothing we're discussing here, the pre history of humans.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/search/humans+are+apes

Op vrijdag 9 september 2022 om 00:22:19 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

> “After decades in which Dart, Broom, Sollas, Clark, Robinson, Schepers etc strove to show how human Australopithecus was, and ultimately were so successful that virtually everyone came to accept Australopithecus as a hominid,(today="hominin" --mv) it may seem strange that in the final decade of the century we are bringing to light more & more apish features of this extraordinary species.... Falk (1989) & Tobias (1981) revealed how strikingly ape-like the brain of A.africanus was, in quantity & quality. Dean & Wood (1981) & Tobias (1967) showed how apish the base of the cranium was, with its ape-like petrous pyramids. Conroy & Kuykendall (1995) & Moggi-Cecchi (1997) laid bare the ape-like pattern of tooth formation—and so did Beynon & Dean (1988) for the rate of tooth formation. Benade (1990) demonstrated some curious ape-like features of the spinal column. Berger (1994) produced the same from the shoulder & the knee (Berger & Tobias 1996), Brauer cs inferred the ape-like great toe of “Little Foot”. McHenry & Berger found apish bodily proportions in A.africanus. Everybody, everything, was crying Ape! After long years of australopithecine anthropo-centrism, we have entered upon a period of rampant australopithecine apishness! So much so that the custodian* of the largest collection of A.africanus spms could stand before the Royal Anthropological Institute, and feel justified in asking: Was A.africanus a hominid? We should not be surprised to find many ape-like traits in the australopithecines. From the beginning, Dart saw apish features: he called the species Australopithecus—the southern ape, not Australanthropus—the southern man.”

More specifically, detailed comparisons show Au.africanus-robustus were fossil species of Pan, whereas E.Afr.apiths afarensis-boisei were fossil Gorilla.

Op vrijdag 9 september 2022 om 11:43:56 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

> > “After decades in which Dart, Broom, Sollas, Clark, Robinson, Schepers etc strove to show how human Australopithecus was, and ultimately were so successful that virtually everyone came to accept Australopithecus as a hominid,(today="hominin" --mv) it may seem strange that in the final decade of the century we are bringing to light more & more apish features of this extraordinary species ...
- Falk (1989) & Tobias (1981) revealed how strikingly ape-like the brain of A.africanus was, in quantity & quality.
- Dean & Wood (1981) & Tobias (1967) showed how apish the base of the cranium was, with its ape-like petrous pyramids.
- Conroy & Kuykendall (1995) & Moggi-Cecchi (1997) laid bare the ape-like pattern of tooth formation — and so did Beynon & Dean (1988) for the rate of tooth fm.
- Benade (1990) demonstrated some curious ape-like features of the spinal column.
- Berger (1994) produced the same from the shoulder & the knee (Berger & Tobias 1996),
- Brauer cs inferred the ape-like great toe of “Little Foot”.
- McHenry & Berger found apish bodily proportions in A.africanus.
Everybody, everything, was crying Ape!
After long years of australopithecine anthropo-centrism, we have entered upon a period of rampant australopithecine apishness!
So much so that the custodian* of the largest collection of A.africanus spms could stand before the Royal Anthropological Institute, and feel justified in asking:
Was A.africanus a hominid? We should not be surprised to find many ape-like traits in the australopithecines.
From the beginning, Dart saw apish features: he called the species Australopithecus—the southern ape, not Australanthropus—the southern man.”

> More specifically, detailed comparisons show Au.africanus-robustus were fossil species of Pan, whereas E.Afr.apiths afarensis-boisei were fossil Gorilla.

Apparently, late-Miocene "graciles" (afarensis//africanus) evoled in parallel to early-Pleistocene "robusts" (boisei//robustus).
But why?
What was the environmental change (ice ages = chanqing vegetation & diet??) that elicited the transition from gracile to robust?