mm skull thickness
gorilla 3.6
chimp 5.3
australopith 5.6
H.sapiens 5.6
H.erectus 10.6
H.neanderth. 8.1

% cortical bone
apes 42
swine 30
saiga 32
H.sapiens 58
ER-1472, -1481 74
Ichthyolestes 75

(Kennedy 1991, Aiello 1990, Thewissen 2007)

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 06:12:07 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>mm skull thickness
>gorilla 3.6
>chimp 5.3
>australopith 5.6
>H.sapiens 5.6
>H.erectus 10.6
>H.neanderth. 8.1

This is misleading, because it depends very much on what comparative
sample of H. sapiens you use and where on the skull you measure
thickness. For example, Late Pleistocene H. sapiens from Australia
(Kow Swamp, Nacurrie, Coobol Creek, Keilor, Cohuna) from 14,000 to
9000 years BP have skull thickness at some points as thick or even
thicker than Homo erectus, or at least statistically not significantly
different, with the exception of the parietal eminence.

See table 3 in:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285087555_Cranial_vault_thickness_in_Asian_Homo_erectus_and_Homo_sapiens

some kudu runner:

> >mm skull thickness
> >gorilla 3.6
> >chimp 5.3
> >australopith 5.6
> >H.sapiens 5.6
> >H.erectus 10.6
> >H.neanderth. 8.1

> This is misleading,

Liar.
It only shows that the Kow Swamp people dived a lot.
Grow up!

because it depends very much on what comparative
> sample of H. sapiens you use and where on the skull you measure
> thickness. For example, Late Pleistocene H. sapiens from Australia
> (Kow Swamp, Nacurrie, Coobol Creek, Keilor, Cohuna) from 14,000 to
> 9000 years BP have skull thickness at some points as thick or even
> thicker than Homo erectus, or at least statistically not significantly
> different, with the exception of the parietal eminence.
> See table 3 in:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285087555_Cranial_vault_thickness_in_Asian_Homo_erectus_and_Homo_sapiens

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 14:12:43 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>some kudu runner:
>
>> >mm skull thickness
>> >gorilla 3.6
>> >chimp 5.3
>> >australopith 5.6
>> >H.sapiens 5.6
>> >H.erectus 10.6
>> >H.neanderth. 8.1
>
>> This is misleading,
>
>Liar.

No, my little boy, it's the naked truth, based on firm empirical
evidence:

"Vault bone thickness dimensions in Asian H. erectus have considerable
overlap with terminal Pleistocene and recent Australian Aboriginal
populations, as wel as "archaic" H. sapiens. The absence of a firm
distinction between cranial vault bone thickness in H. erectus, H.
sapiens and Australopithecus precludes its use as an autopomorphic
trait in H. erectus."

>It only shows that the Kow Swamp people dived a lot.

On the contrary, late Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Australia are a
nice refutation of the conjecture that skeletal robusticity in Homo
has anything to do with diving or other habitual aquatic activities.

>> because it depends very much on what comparative
>> sample of H. sapiens you use and where on the skull you measure
>> thickness. For example, Late Pleistocene H. sapiens from Australia
>> (Kow Swamp, Nacurrie, Coobol Creek, Keilor, Cohuna) from 14,000 to
>> 9000 years BP have skull thickness at some points as thick or even
>> thicker than Homo erectus, or at least statistically not significantly
>> different, with the exception of the parietal eminence.
>> See table 3 in:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285087555_Cranial_vault_thickness_in_Asian_Homo_erectus_and_Homo_sapiens

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 5:12:44 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> some kudu runner:
> > >mm skull thickness
> > >gorilla 3.6
> > >chimp 5.3
> > >australopith 5.6
> > >H.sapiens 5.6
> > >H.erectus 10.6
> > >H.neanderth. 8.1
>
> > This is misleading,
> Liar.
> It only shows that the Kow Swamp people dived a lot.
> Grow up!
> because it depends very much on what comparative
> > sample of H. sapiens you use and where on the skull you measure
> > thickness. For example, Late Pleistocene H. sapiens from Australia
> > (Kow Swamp, Nacurrie, Coobol Creek, Keilor, Cohuna) from 14,000 to
> > 9000 years BP have skull thickness at some points as thick or even
> > thicker than Homo erectus, or at least statistically not significantly
> > different, with the exception of the parietal eminence.
> > See table 3 in:
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285087555_Cranial_vault_thickness_in_Asian_Homo_erectus_and_Homo_sapiens

"This is a quantitative scientific claim for which he still provides no supporting data. This is how pseudoscience works: it sounds scientific, but the real data is still missing." HoM

Op vrijdag 11 november 2022 om 04:14:51 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> "This is a quantitative scientific claim for which he still provides no supporting data. This is how pseudoscience works: it sounds scientific, but the real data is still missing." HoM

:-) Thanks, my little boy, yes, there's 0 evidence that your Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes. :-DDD
Only incredible imbeciles pseudo-scientifically believe to have run after antelopes.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331432412_Coastal_Dispersal_of_Pleistocene_Homo