Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
Chris T Yohn cs 2005

RV infections of the germ-line have the potential to episodically alter gene function & genome structure during the course of evolution.
Horizontal transmissions between spp have been proposed, but little evidence exists for such events in the human/gr.ape lineage of evolution.
Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee-genome sequence, we characterize a RV element (P.troglodytes endogenous PTERV1) that has become integrated in the germ-line of Afr.gr.ape & Old World Monkey spp, but is absent from Hs & Asian ape genomes.
We unambiguously map 287 RV integration sites: c 95.8 % of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related spp.
Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous RV reveals:
- the Gorilla & Pan elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the OWM RV elements,
- but the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule.
Within the Pan, there is a significant integration bias against genes, with only 14 of these insertions mapping within intronic regions.
6 out of 10 of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between Hs & Pan.
Our data are consistent with a RV infection that bombarded the genomes of Pan & Gorilla independently & concurrently, 3–4 Ma.
We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of Hs & gr.apes.

_____

Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian origin of man
Raoul E Benveniste & George J Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101–8 doi org/10.1038/261101a0

OWMs & apes incl. man possess (as a normal component of their cell.DNA) gene sequences (virogenes) related to the RNA of a vims isolated from baboons.
A comparison of the viral gene sequences & the other cell.sequences distinguishes those OWMs & apes that have evolved in Africa from those in Asia.
Among the apes, only Gorilla & Pan seem by these criteria to be African:
gibbon, orang & man are identified as Asian, leading us to conclude:
most of man's evolution has occurred outside Africa.

____

:-)

Of course:
although there are still idiots who believe their Plio-Pleistocene ancestros ran after antelopes, Pliocene Homo simply followed the S.Asian coasts, and Pleistocene Homo followed Eurasian & African coasts & rivers:
google
- Mio-Pliocene hominoid evolution, google "aquarboreal",
- Plio-Pleistocene Homo, google "human evolution Verhaegen".

Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343

"The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,
given the abundance of grazing species and lack of arboreal taxa,
although the presence of Deinotherium bozasi and tragelphins probably
indicates a gallery forest":
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415

Sigh... some kudu runner is making a complete fool of himself:
the poor boy
(1) doesn't understand that Pan & Homo & Gorilla ancestors 3 Ma still resembled each other,
(2) doesn't know that hippos & crocs live in water,
(3) hasn't even read the comments: "Hawks cs argue that ... LD 350-1 cannot be distinguished from ... Australopithecus."
IOW, LD-350-1 is called "early Homo"(anthropocentrism), but was simply an australopith (i.c. a fossil Gorilla relative IMO) that lived near water + hippos & crocs!

Already caught your kudu, my boy?? :-DDD

Grow up, and waste your own time!

_____

> Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
>
> "The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
> the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,
> given the abundance of grazing species and lack of arboreal taxa,
> although the presence of Deinotherium bozasi and tragelphins probably
> indicates a gallery forest":
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:19:35 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Sigh... some kudu runner is making a complete fool of himself:
>the poor boy
>(1) doesn't understand that Pan & Homo & Gorilla ancestors 3 Ma still resembled each other,

Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.
>(2) doesn't know that hippos & crocs live in water,

And that's why hominins do not.

>(3) hasn't even read the comments: "Hawks cs argue that ... LD 350-1 cannot be distinguished from ... Australopithecus."

I've read it, and also response to comment:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aab1122

>IOW, LD-350-1 is called "early Homo"(anthropocentrism), but was simply an australopith (i.c. a fossil Gorilla relative IMO) that lived near water + hippos & crocs!

Next oldest Homo (A.L. 666-1), securely dated at 2.33 Ma, would still
be from inland Africa, not S.Asian coast:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216209873

<https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199706)103:2%3C235::AID-AJPA8%3E3.0.CO;2-S>

>> Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
>>
>> "The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
>> the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,
>> given the abundance of grazing species and lack of arboreal taxa,
>> although the presence of Deinotherium bozasi and tragelphins probably
>> indicates a gallery forest":
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415

Pandora wrote:

> Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ethiopia

Ethiopia is precisely where a species migrating into Africa,
from Asia, would cross into. It is NOT inconsistent with an
Asian origins.

It is consistent with an Asian origins.

You probably didn't know this because it's been pointed out
to you so many times before, but you didn't like it.

You're supposed to be arguing AGAINST Aquatic Ape, not
against reading comprehension & retention...

> "The landscape was similar to modern African open habitats, such as
> the Serengeti Plains, Kalahari, and other African open grasslands,

And using your Chimps as a model, because you love doing that so
much, we see a DECREASE in population density -- THE GENE POOL
from living in such a habitat.

The forest can support a higher population density, exploiting the
sea higher still...

So it *Is* consistent with Out of Asia, it's not a great environment
for the springing up of mutations which might turn out useful, there
is no way living in such an environment could produce larger brains
but, you love it anyways.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706229766570770432

Pandora wrote:

> Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.

That's an excellent argument AGAINST you.

The most logical, the most conservative answer is that you have
seen them. They just don't look the way your idiotic model says
they should look.

> Next oldest Homo (A.L. 666-1), securely dated at 2.33 Ma, would still
> be from inland Africa, not S.Asian coast:

Of course, if he's wrong about Chimps then you should have zero
difficulties showing him Chimp fossils of that age and (much) older.

Can't you see this?

If you look at a single pixel in an online image, such as this one,
you're just going to see a color... green... maybe white...

https://cdn.britannica.com/68/143568-050-5246474F/Donkey.jpg

That's what you're doing. You're intentionally ripping "Evidence"
away from the big picture, out of any context, just to pretend something
that you already know isn't true.

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216209873

Again: Ethiopia is consistent with an Out of Asia model.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706229766570770432

kudu runner:
> Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.

:-DDD
Do kudu runners really believe Lucy was their grandmother???

The savanna imbeciles find 100s of "human ancestors" ("hominins" they call them),
but virtually
- 0 of fossil relatives of bonobos,
- 0 of fossil relatives of chimps,
- 0 of fossil lowland gorillas,
- 0 of fossil highland gorillas,
- 100s of "hominins".

IOW, 4 Afr.spp of ape have no fossils, but an Asian hominid (H.erectus in Java!) had 100s of fossils in Africa, those idiots believe!
:-DDD
Don't the kudu runners realize how statistically impossible & how prejudiced (in fact racist!) that is??

The descriptions of PAs are clear:
Lucy was a fossil relative of Gorilla, not of Homo-Pan:
- Ryan & Johanson 1989: “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”.
- Johanson & Edey 1981:351: The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A..L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”.
- Walker cs 1986: “Other primitive [= 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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”.
- Kennedy 1991: 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”.
- Robinson 1960: In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. .
- Leakey & Walker 1988: The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”.
- Beynon & Wood 1986: A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”.

Etc.etc.
And early-Pleistocene E.Afr.apiths were even more gorilla-like than Pliocene E.Afr.apiths!

Concl.:
Only complete idiots believe they descend from Lucy!

3 Ma, Homo was not even in Africa (2 Ma H.erectus in Java), e.g.

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
Chris T Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol 3:1-11
- 0 African RV-insertions in Homo, Pongo, hylobatids & Asian monkeys",
- lots of African RV-insertions in Gorilla, Pan & African monkeys.

Don't the kudu runners know that??
or do they just keep this silent??

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:20:23 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>kudu runner:
>> Show me a single specimen of the Gorilla or Pan clade from 3 Ma.
>
>:-DDD
>Do kudu runners really believe Lucy was their grandmother???

With "Lucy" I presume you mean A.L.288-1. This specimen is part of the
hypodigm of Australopithecus afarensis as per Johanson, White &
Coppens 1978:
https://archive.org/details/biostor-193077

Wherever A. afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer
related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.
See for example:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

With regard to material and methods these analyses are way superior to
yours from 1994 and 1996. Yours have been superseded and made obsolete
by these more recent analyses.
You've got no case, you only have faith in your own idiocy.
>3 Ma, Homo was not even in Africa (2 Ma H.erectus in Java),

2 Ma H. erectus in South-Africa,
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

not in Java:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau8556

"the hominin dispersal into Java is resolved to
be <1.5 Ma."

On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:43:54 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> Pliocene Homo lived in Africa:
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343
>
>https://www.britannica.com/place/Ethiopia
>
>Ethiopia is precisely where a species migrating into Africa,
>from Asia, would cross into. It is NOT inconsistent with an
>Asian origins.

All migration in and out of Africa had to pass through the Levant or
Bab-el-Mandeb, wherever the origin of the migrating taxon. As such it
is also consistent with an Antarctic origin.
But origins can only be tested with the hard evidence of securely
dated FAD's (first appearance datum). With regard to the FAD of Homo
Africa wins.

kudu runner:

> Wherever A.afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
> in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
> and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer
> related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.

:-D Yes, yes, yes, my little little boy, it's time you grow up!

What the kudu runners anthropocentrically believe is "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
don't you read the literature, my boy??
e.g.
• “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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious and 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.

IOW, only incredible imbeciles believe they descend from Lucy.
:-DDD

The kudu runners still believe apes are primitive... sigh...
don't they know apes live today??

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 06:03:54 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>kudu runner:
>
>> Wherever A.afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
>> in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
>> and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer
>> related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.
>
>:-D Yes, yes, yes, my little little boy, it's time you grow up!
>
>What the kudu runners anthropocentrically believe is "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
>don't you read the literature, my boy??
>e.g.
> “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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
> In O.H.5, “the curious and 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.

That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
phylogenetically informative. It's not a systematic, methodical
examination and comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic
context.

We now know , for example, from specimens DNH 7, DNH 8 and DNH 155
from Drimolen, South Africa that body size dimorphism in P. robustus
was similar to P. boisei (but canine sexual dimorphism in these taxa
was absent, as in Homo).

See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102913

"The DNH 7 measurements (Table 2) are much smaller than those of SK
48, with an estimated biorbital breadth of 100 mm (24% larger) and a
maximum bizygomatic breadth of 148 mm (14% larger; Fig. 9). A
similarly large distance separates the large (presumed male)
A. boisei specimens OH 5 and KNM-ER 406 from what is commonly
considered a female specimen, KNM-ER 732."

And yet in your 1994 paper you consider A. robustus ancestral to Pan,
a taxon with only slight body size dimorphism, comparable to humans.

>IOW, only incredible imbeciles believe they descend from Lucy.
>:-DDD
>
>The kudu runners still believe apes are primitive... sigh...
>don't they know apes live today??

Yeah, and also 20 Ma (e.g. Proconsul).
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316180938

What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":

> > “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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
> > In O.H.5, “the curious and 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.

(from Hum.Evol.9:121-139, 1994 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?).

Kudu runner:

> That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
> phylogenetically informative.

:-DDD
Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??

> It's not a systematic, methodical
> examination and comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic
> context.

Don't you realize how ridiculous you are??

Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
"Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
a very systematic, methodical examination & comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic context:

"This comparison of 37 craniodental characters of fossil and living apes and humans yields no indication that any of the australopithecine species has evolved in the human direction.
South African australopithecine skulls are morphologically closest to the chimpanzee among the living hominoids,
and A. boisei is closest to the gorilla among the living hominoids. ..."

Grow up, little child!

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:18:18 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
>
>> > “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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
>> > In O.H.5, “the curious and 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.
>
>(from Hum.Evol.9:121-139, 1994 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?).
>
>Kudu runner:
>
>> That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
>> phylogenetically informative.
>
>:-DDD
>Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??

I worry about your misinterpretation of what they say.

>> It's not a systematic, methodical
>> examination and comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic
>> context.
>
>Don't you realize how ridiculous you are??
>
>Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
>"Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
>a very systematic, methodical examination & comparative analysis of taxa in a phylogenetic context:
>
>"This comparison of 37 craniodental characters of fossil and living apes and humans yields no indication that any of the australopithecine species has evolved in the human direction.
>South African australopithecine skulls are morphologically closest to the chimpanzee among the living hominoids,
>and A. boisei is closest to the gorilla among the living hominoids. ..."

Mongle, Strait, and Grine (2019) used 107 craniodental characters,
almost 3x as many as you. They used 20 operational taxonomic units,
including Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, A. anamensis, A. afarensis, A.
garhi, Kenyanthropus, Homo habilis, H. rudolfensis, and H. ergaster,
all taxa that were not used in your paper. They also examined much
more specimens of their respectives fossil collections, while you
derived your data from a paper by Wood & Chamberlain from 1986 when
all those specimens that have been discovered since were not
available. Mongle et al. also used much more sophisticated statistical
methods (maximum parsimony, Bayesian Inference).

In other words, Mongle et al. are much more comprehensive and
up-to-date than you in 1994/1996.
I suggest you submit your updated analysis to JHE, or get a life.

> >What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":

> >> > “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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
> >> > In O.H.5, “the curious and 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.

Quotes before 1994!
Confirmed byall discoveries after that time.

Kudu runner:

> >> That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
> >> phylogenetically informative.

> >:-DDD Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??

> I worry about your misinterpretation of what they say.

????
Please don't become more ridiculous than you already are:
quotes, little boy, quotes!!!!

Run after your kudus, but don't waste our time!!!!

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:10:40 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> >What the kudu runners anthropocentrically call "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
>
>> >> > “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 frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral 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 and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
>> >> > In O.H.5, “the curious and 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.
>
>Quotes before 1994!
>Confirmed byall discoveries after that time.
>
>Kudu runner:
>
>> >> That's a list of only few "characters" that may or may not be
>> >> phylogenetically informative.
>
>> >:-DDD Yes, what Johanson & Walker & Kennedy & Robinson etc. say is nonsense IYO??
>
>> I worry about your misinterpretation of what they say.
>
>????
>Please don't become more ridiculous than you already are:
>quotes, little boy, quotes!!!!

Quote mining!
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

"the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to
make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint, to make
the comments of an opponent seem more extreme, or to make it seem that
the opponent holds positions they don't in order to make their
positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying"

"This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in an
attempt to discredit evolution", and by MV to discredit anyone who
disagrees with his dogmatic view of human evolution.

kudu runner:
> "the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context

:-DDD
And what kept our little boy from reading these papers??
Why not inform a little bit instead of producing nonsense??
Grow up, miserable kudu runner.

Here a few other quotes from traditional PAs that show that apiths were fossil Afr.apes, more related to Gorilla or Pan than to Homo:
• “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’”. 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 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, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985.
• In the S.African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and 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 third 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 and females. Moreover, 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 & 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 cs 1984
• “... the fact that two 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 1954
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and 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 nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988

Pandora wrote:

> Wherever A. afarensis has been used as an operational taxonomic unit
> in phylogenetic analyses in the last two decades, with Pan, Gorilla
> and Homo as ingroup taxa, it has been consistently recovered as closer
> related to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla.

Whatever date you pick for divergence, Chimps (and gorillas) have been
evolving *away* from that all these years.

> See for example:
>
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008
>
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

Yeah, turns out Naledi is 912,000 years old:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248416300100

Gosh this is fun.

> >3 Ma, Homo was not even in Africa (2 Ma H.erectus in Java),
> 2 Ma H. erectus in South-Africa,
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

You're dishonest, genuinely deceptive, and you know that this is far
from conclusive. It's bullshit. NOBODY thought they were looking at
an erectus skull. Nobody.

Everyone who first saw it, were doing the field work never believed they
were looking at erectus. Instead, they thought it was...

: baboon, as had previously been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others.

It also says, and you'll like this:

: Thereafter, the skull was entrusted to Jesse Martin, now a PhD candidate at La
: Trobe University in Melbourne Australia.

So he wasn't a PhD candidate at the time.

Here's the cite. Grab your crayons because there's pictures... You like pictures!

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/

It actually looks a lot like the Paranthropus robustus skull, except for the
sagittal crest. But it's a juvenile, and as we know from other species, we can't
expect juveniles to have a sadittal crest. We're not talking modern humans
here, it would hardly be surprising to find morphological distinctions from adults
in juveniles.

But who cares? You're using paleo anthropology to prove paleo anthropology,
and you can't even see this, not even with me pointing it out.

"You're disputing what my religion says, but HERE'S THE PROOF that my
religion says something else!"

And THAT, my delicious honey drops, is your first and biggest mistake.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706300143603007488

Pandora wrote:

> All migration in and out of Africa had to pass through the Levant or
> Bab-el-Mandeb, wherever the origin of the migrating taxon. As such it
> is also consistent with an Antarctic origin.

So you're "Arguing" that your cite is no less indicative of an Antarctic
origins than an African... and you believe this is an effective defense
of savanna idiocy. Wow. You really are ruled by your emotions.

> But origins can only be tested with the hard evidence of securely
> dated FAD's (first appearance datum). With regard to the FAD of Homo
> Africa wins.

No it doesn't. You interpret highly fragmentary "Evidence" always within
the context of your conclusions, and thus they always fit your pre
conceived conclusions.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706300143603007488

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> What the kudu runners anthropocentrically believe is "primitive" is scientifically simply advanced "gorilla-like":
> don't you read the literature, my boy??

You're wasting your time. What you are being subjected to is a defense of the
status quo using the status quo to defend the status quo...

"Well THE WESTERN status quo says THIS, and you don't, so that proves you
wrong."

I didn't come to Aquatic Ape directly. The fissures in Out of Africa purity first
appeared for me when I discovered that there was no consensus. That,
everything from interbreeding to Out of Asia were popular and even taught
in places. Just not here.

Mungo Man, with his vastly more ancient mtDNA than any "Mitochondrial
Eve," sharing an ancestor with BILLIONS of people alive today! The status
quo dismisses him with INSANE excuses. The brushed it off as
contamination. I mean, they "Revisited" the evidence -- even though nobody
on the planet carries that mtDNA line, and whatever of it that attached itself
to Chromosome 11 within many living humans is distinct and could not be
the source of any contamination.

But they called it contamination anyway!

Literally IMPOSSIBLE for it to be contamination, and they dismissed it as
contamination...

Anyway, so Mungo Man proved all by itself that not only s Out of Africa
purity nonsense, but nobody was interpreting DNA "Evidence" correctly,
especially mtDNA.

If it weren't for that lucky copying to Chromosome 11, there would be
NOTHING to stop the owners of paleo anthropology from claiming that
ZERO percent of the human population has any ancestry in Asia or
Oceania.

But even knowing this, knowing that BILLIONS in fact can trace their
lineages back to an ancestor *Far* more ancient than any Mitochondrial
Eve, over in southeast Asia or Oceania, THEY STILL DENY IT!

"Oh, sure, we find the mtDNA copied over into Chromosome 11. But it's
not there or it's magic and, um, and other stuff I can't tell you cus it's a
secret."

NOTHING in savanna idiocy allows them to acknowledge this. Yet they
can see Homo Erectus in southern most Africa more than 2 million years
ago... they see it clear as day.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706300143603007488

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 19:47:50 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> All migration in and out of Africa had to pass through the Levant or
>> Bab-el-Mandeb, wherever the origin of the migrating taxon. As such it
>> is also consistent with an Antarctic origin.
>
>So you're "Arguing" that your cite is no less indicative of an Antarctic
>origins than an African... and you believe this is an effective defense
>of savanna idiocy. Wow. You really are ruled by your emotions.

Did you notice a hint of sarcasm when I opposed an Antarctic vs an
Asian origin of Homo, both compatible with migration into Africa?

>> But origins can only be tested with the hard evidence of securely
>> dated FAD's (first appearance datum). With regard to the FAD of Homo
>> Africa wins.
>
>No it doesn't. You interpret highly fragmentary "Evidence" always within
>the context of your conclusions, and thus they always fit your pre
>conceived conclusions.

The question is whether or not a fragment preserves enough diagnostic
features to assign it to one or another taxon with any confidence.
You should read the systematic assessment of A.L. 666-1 by Kimbel et
al.:
<https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199706)103:2%3C235::AID-AJPA8%3E3.0.CO;2-S>

"We assign the new Hadar maxilla A.L. 666-1 to the genus Homo based on
the following combination of characters: 1) relatively broad palate;
2) mild subnasal prognathism; 3) flat nasoalveolar clivus sharply
angled to floor of nasal cavity; 4) intranasal platform horizontally
separating anterior nasal spine from vomeral insertion and incisive
fossa; 5) anterior division of the maxillary sinus floor; 6) deep,
square anterior midfacial profile; 7) anteroposterior compression
of upper facial coronal planes related to aggressive maxillary sinus;
8) mesiodistally elongate M1; 9) rhomboidal shape of M2; and
10) thin postcanine tooth enamel."

"The Hadar maxilla A.L. 666-1 clearly belongs in the Homo clade"

If your assessment is different than you should make that explicit
with a different set of characters.
I'm waiting...

> I'm waiting...

Yes, here it is:

• “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’”. 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 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, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985.
• In the S.African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and 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 third 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 and females. Moreover, 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 & 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 cs 1984
• “... the fact that two 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 1954
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and 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 nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988

Pandora wrote:

> The question is whether or not a fragment preserves enough diagnostic
> features to assign it to one or another taxon with any confidence.

That's not the question. i explained it here:

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/632157970568986624

So that's not the question.

You never get that far, because your "fragment" wasn't collected in any
scientifically valid way. You go where it's easiest to find fossils and then
merely "Decide" that anything you dig up has significance here.

Go dredge.

Go dig up the old river deltas.

Find the old coastlines. Try to identify the most likely habitation sites
and dig... dredge if you have to.

Go chart the course of the old waterways -- somebody has probably
already done that in a lot of cases -- and go dig up where the bends
were.

Don't look where it's "Easy," look for our ancestors.

This is basic stuff.

The very same concepts were tackled by that great video I cited a
while ago on the people of the Americas. It pointed out that the
continental shelf on the east coast of the U.S. extends WAY off shore,
while it's much shorter on the west coast. So people go looking on
the west coast, even though most early sites are over on the other side
of the country... they look where it's easier to look. AND, they assume
that this bias isn't a bias but reflective of migrations, populations... etc.

> If your assessment is different than

My or your "Assessment" of any find is about as relevant as a single
pixel is to what appears on your screen. It's about a model, one that
explains the evidence we have, all the evidence, but starting with the
DHA.

You can't get around that. You can't.

The good Doctor has a model that explains where the DHA came from.
It doesn't stop there, it goes on, while savanna idiocy never even gets
out of the Starting Gate.

"That horse is dead!"

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/632157970568986624

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 13:55:22 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> The question is whether or not a fragment preserves enough diagnostic
>> features to assign it to one or another taxon with any confidence.
>
>That's not the question.

It is, but you are evading the question because you don't have the
knowledge and the skills to make a different assessment of the
specimen.

And then you start rambling about:

>You never get that far, because your "fragment" wasn't collected in any
>scientifically valid way. You go where it's easiest to find fossils and then
>merely "Decide" that anything you dig up has significance here.

You go where sediments of the right age are exposed and then you do a
systematic survey. Those African badlands are not exactly the easiest
place to find fossils. You would know if you've ever done fieldwork
there.
https://www.turkanabasin.org/2016/04/a-site-tour-around-nariokotome-the-archaeology-of-the-holocene-and-a-bit-of-digging-in-the-dirt/

>Go dig up the old river deltas.

They already do, most hominid fossils derive from waterlaid
(fluviatile/lacustrine) sediments, but most of the time you don't have
to dig because those strata are already exposed by erosion. You only
dig and sieve when a fragment suggests there may be more material in
situ (e.g. in the case of the Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton
(KNM-WT 15000) several tons of overburden were removed during field
seasons from 1984-1988).

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 13:51:43 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> I'm waiting...
>
>Yes, here it is:
>
>• “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’”. 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 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, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985.
>• In the S.African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987
>• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and 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 third 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 and females. Moreover, 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 & 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 cs 1984
>• “... the fact that two 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 1954
>• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and 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 nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988

Totally irrelevant with regard to the issue at hand, namely the status
of A.L. 666-1 as Homo.
Do you disagree with Kimbel et al.?
<https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199706)103:2%3C235::AID-AJPA8%3E3.0.CO;2-S>

If so, on the basis of what anatomical/morphological characters?

Pandora wrote:

> >That's not the question.

> It is, but you are evading the question because you don't have the
> knowledge and the skills to make a different assessment of the
> specimen.

It's not the question.

Do the Google on things like SAMPLE BIAS or SELECTION BIAS and
even PRESERVATION BIAS.

Previously I used the example in a video i once recommended and
cited on the peopling of the Americas. Most if not all the earliest
finds of human remains in North America are found on the west coast,
interpreted as proof of an Asian origins. But most of the evidence for
habitation is over on the east coast. We don't find human remains
though.

One obvious problem that the video points out is that the continental
shelf on the east coast, when sea level was lower, placed the coast
line FAR out to what is now sea. If they did reach the Americas by boat,
and virtually everyone is certain that they would have to, regardless
of which coast they reached, that means nobody is looking for the
east coast population. See, even if they got just as far from the
waterline as the human remains on the west coast did, nearly all
would still remain comfortably under the sea in our present era.

So there's a preservation bias, and there's nothing we can do about
that. Nature can't be argued with. But we can. And it's a sorry ass
excuse for science to say "The light over here is better" then go
dig where it's convenient, pretending that convenience automatically
makes it a representative sample of whatever it is you are trying to
prove.

> And then you start rambling about:
> >You never get that far, because your "fragment" wasn't collected in any
> >scientifically valid way.

"Darn that scientific validity! Who the hell do these people think they are,
expecting scientific methodology from us?

> You go where sediments of the right age are exposed and then you do a
> systematic survey.

Really? We both know that 99.999% of this stuff is walking around, looking
at what's on the ground. Sure, if you find something of interest you can
then start digging... if you're any good you can tell if you're in the right
place, or maybe the bones washed out of a hillside, in which case you'd
probably want to go dig into that hill.

Or maybe not? If THIS bone washed out then I bet others did...

This is how fossils often (or at least sometimes) are discovered in far
younger rock/strata. They weathered out, became exposed, got
reburied, it's new environment fossilized...

Doesn't seem like this was the case for Lucy because there was so much
of her. But she also wasn't "Articulated." She was weathered out. They
discovered her by just walking around, looking at the ground...

> >Go dig up the old river deltas.
> They already do, most hominid fossils derive from waterlaid

Delta's are something special. You're not going to find a skeleton,
the fossils are of limited value. This is the end point of ride down
the river: Broken, disarticulated pieces. But...

But if you're certain that Chimps existed millions of years even
before Lucy, and we just haven't found any, something like a river
delta is the best place to look.

Volcanic actiivity? The right kind of eruption can preserve a
landscape!

If you want to find fossils of Chimps per se, you need to go looking
where it's most likely for Chimp fossils to be, instead of where it's
most likely to find fossils.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706458573430013952