2 interesting papers (JHE), but (like all papers with words like "hominin" & "primitive" & "derived") typically anthropocentrically biased:
they still assume that ape-like = "primitive", and bipedalism = "derived".
Gorillas, chimps-bonobos & humans: all are not primitive: they're all derived, of course, in different directions.
Note that early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal", google "aquarboreal"!

An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus sediba
CS Mongle, DS Strait & FE Grine 2023 JHE 175, 103311
doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

The discovery & description of Au.sediba has re-ignited the debate over the evol.history of the australopiths & Homo:
-Was A.sediba an ancestor of Homo, because it possesses a mosaic of derived Homo-like & primitive australopith-like traits?
-Or can most of the purported Homo-like cranio-dental characters be attributed to the juvenile status of the type spm MH1?
We conducted an independent character assessment of sediba's cranio-dental morphology, e.g.
did the ontogenetic status of MH1 affect its purported Homo-like characteristics?
We have also expanded fossil hypodigms, to incorporate
- the new Au.anamensis cranium Woranso-Mille MRD-VP-1/1,
- recently described Par.robustus cranial remains from Drimolen DNH-7 & -155.
Morphol.character data were analyzed, using standard parsimony & Bayesian techniques.
We conducted a series of Bayesian analyses constrained to evaluate:
are Au.africanus & sediba are sister taxa?

Based on the results of the parsimony & Bayesian analyses, we could not reject the hypothesis that Au.sediba shares its closest phylogenetic affinities with the genus Homo:
based on currently available cranio-dental evidence, we conclude:
Au.sediba is plausibly the terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor with the earliest representatives of Homo.
But the discovery of new Au.sediba fossils preserving adult cranial morphology, or the inclusion of post-cranial characters may ultimately necessitate a re-evaluation.

____

Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
CS Mongle, DS Strait & FE Grine 2019
JHE 131:28-39 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

Phylogen.relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
- many accept that it is most likely the sister taxon to all later hominins,
- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former,
but available evidence permitted only 26% of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78% of the matrix.

Here, we incorporate these new character-data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
we have revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
This updated matrix was analyzed, using parsimony & Bayesian techniques:
a sequence of 4 iterative steps independently evaluated the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
- the sister taxon of all later hominins.
These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.

____

IOW, these papers nowhere contradict the retroviral evidence that human Pliocene ancestors were not in Africa,
google "gondwanatalks verhaegen bonne" + refs therein.

They nowhere contradict our hypothesis that the Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors lived in Red Sea forests, google "aquarboreal".

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:33:15 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>2 interesting papers (JHE), but (like all papers with words like "hominin" & "primitive" & "derived") typically anthropocentrically biased:
>they still assume that ape-like = "primitive", and bipedalism = "derived".

They assume no such thing. All they assume, on a firm molecular
phylogenetic basis, is that Cercopithecoidea is the sistertaxon of
Hominoidea and "Papio and Colobus were constrained as outgroup taxa".

Learn something about phylogenetic methods.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/inferring-phylogenies-9780878931774

https://www.routledge.com/From-Observations-to-Optimal-Phylogenetic-Trees-Phylogenetic-Analysis-of/Goloboff/p/book/9781032114859

Op vrijdag 14 juli 2023 om 11:41:09 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:33:15 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >2 interesting papers (JHE), but (like all papers with words like "hominin" & "primitive" & "derived") typically anthropocentrically biased:
> >they still assume that ape-like = "primitive", and bipedalism = "derived".

> They assume no such thing.

They do, my little boy: they assume:
Homo + australopiths = hominin.
Got it??

______

> All they assume, on a firm molecular
> phylogenetic basis, is that Cercopithecoidea is the sistertaxon of
> Hominoidea and "Papio and Colobus were constrained as outgroup taxa".
>
> Learn something about phylogenetic methods.
> https://global.oup.com/academic/product/inferring-phylogenies-9780878931774
>
> https://www.routledge.com/From-Observations-to-Optimal-Phylogenetic-Trees-Phylogenetic-Analysis-of/Goloboff/p/book/9781032114859

Pandora wrote:

> Learn something about phylogenetic methods.

Oh. That's right. You're a screeching narcissist. You read a headline
once, so you think you know everything.

The book was published in 2003, before a lot of the newest science
including your proteins of even DNA, according to you.

...only now can science maybe see the DNA of Naledi. As recently
as 2015.. 2017.. 2020.. 2022 it was impossible. Science couldn't do
it. According to you. But in 2003 they weren't just going by looks?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op vrijdag 14 juli 2023 om 11:41:09 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:33:15 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >2 interesting papers (JHE), but (like all papers with words like "hominin" & "primitive" & "derived") typically anthropocentrically biased:
>> >they still assume that ape-like = "primitive", and bipedalism = "derived".
>
>
>> They assume no such thing.
>
>They do, my little boy: they assume:
>Homo + australopiths = hominin.
>Got it??

That's not an assumption but the result of the phylogenetic analysis.
Australopiths turn out to be a paraphyletic group of succesive
stemtaxa to Homo.
Never do afarensis and boisei turn out to be sistertaxa of Gorilla,
and never do africanus and robustus turn out to be sistertaxa of Pan,
which would have to be the case if they are the ancestors of Gorilla
and Pan respectively. Blame the computer.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 20:23:07 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> Learn something about phylogenetic methods.
>
>The book was published in 2003, before a lot of the newest science
>including your proteins of even DNA, according to you.

The book by Felsenstein is about the principles and methods of
phylogenetic inference, which haven't changed since 2003.
It's this area where you and the good Doctor are seriously lacking in
knowledge.

About
-- "An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus sediba"
CS Mongle, DS Strait & FE Grine 2023 JHE 175, 103311 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311
-- "Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin"
CS Mongle, DS Strait & FE Grine 2019

These papers
- nowhere contradict the retroviral evidence that human Pliocene ancestors were NOT in Africa,
e.g. C.T.Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol 3:1-11, and this RV evidence is 100% confirmed by fossil evidence,
- nowhere contradict our hypothesis that the Gorilla-Homo-Pan LCAs lived in Red Sea forests, google "aquarboreal".

> >> >2 interesting papers (JHE), but (like all papers with words like "hominin" & "primitive" & "derived") typically anthropocentrically biased:
> >> >they still assume that ape-like = "primitive", and bipedalism = "derived".

> >> They assume no such thing.

> >They do, my little boy: they assume: Homo + australopiths = hominin. Got it??

> That's not an assumption but the result of the phylogenetic analysis.

:-DDD
In your prejudiced eyes perhaps: it's anthropocentric nonsense à la running after antelopes... :-D

All PAs agree: australopith crania were evolving into the Afr.ape direction, specifically
--E.Afr.apiths-->Gorilla,
--S.Afr.apiths-->Pan, e.g.
• “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis [!! --mv] of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved [also] in the australopithecines ... 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 and also, although at a different rate 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 incl.Taung, “sulcal patterns of seven 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-spm 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 ... 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 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 & 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 apelike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the second year...”. 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 ... in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988.
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The afarensis composite skull (mostly from A.L.333 spms) “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [sic =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 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.
• boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category ... their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, he found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt, 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and.... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman et al., 1978.
• “A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

IOW, all fossil hunters agree 100% on apith evol.directions:
-- afarensis-->boisei-->Gorilla,
-- africanus-->robustus-->Pan.

My hypothesis:
Plio-Pleist.Gorilla evolved in the incipient northern-Rift in // with Plio-Pleist.Pan in the incipient southern-Rift
(meanwhile, as shown by the retroviral DNA, Plio-Pleist.Homo was in S-Asia-->Java, of course),
fully comparable IMO to the late-Miocene hominids s.s. evolving in the incipient Red Sea.

These incipient rifts were very rich in swamp forests, where early hominids had to
- wade bipedally in the swallow water between the trees &
- climb vertically in the branches above the water, arms overhead
(explaining the transition from above-branch monkeys to brachiating apes).

Pandora wrote:

> The book by Felsenstein is about the principles and methods of
> phylogenetic inference, which haven't changed since 2003.

You are literally pretending that you've got all the answers, and have
had them since 2003...

Look. No, seriously, look. That's all anyone is going by in the
overwhelming number of cases: Looking. The rule is that people
are just looking, the exception is that they have anything other
than eyeballing to go by.

But, EVEN WORSE, you're ignoring facts in order to remain
faithful to a book, your gospels.

The human hand is the less derived. Which means... go one, it
means... what?

HINT: It means the hand of the frigging LCA looked like Homo
and not Pan.

Bipedalism is older than the LCA. Which means... what?

HINT: The LCA was bipedal. Chimps evolved from a bipedal
ancestor.

So if you find something that's roughly the age of the LCA, and
it doesn't appear to group or "Cluster" or whatever word they
taught you at Ed's School of Paleoanthropology & Small Engine
Repair, then it's not a Chimp. It's not a Chimp ancestor.

AND YOU'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS!

How many times has this been pointed out to you? How many
times as the good Doctor said it or I said it, and how many
different ways has it been explained to you already?

Parading your disorder, like you keep doing, is not convincing
anyone that you're right... or sane... or can count to 11 without
unzipping your fly. it paints you as dogmatic. Religious. Stupid.

The good Doctor is right: If you're looking for the ancestor of
Chimps then you're looking for something like Homo or
Australopithecus.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

Op maandag 17 juli 2023 om 21:35:38 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

:-D
Thanks, JTEM, but this "pandora" fool is hopeless
(IOW, your writings are "parels voor de zwijnen", we say in Dutch: pearls for the swines).

-- Ape & human evolution, google "aquarboreal" (yes, we have more primitive hands than most or all apes),
-- Homo s.s. evolution, google "pachyosteosclerotic erectus".

pandora fool:
> > The book by Felsenstein is about the principles and methods of
> > phylogenetic inference, which haven't changed since 2003.

JTEM:
> You are literally pretending that you've got all the answers, and have
> had them since 2003...
> Look. No, seriously, look. That's all anyone is going by in the
> overwhelming number of cases: Looking. The rule is that people
> are just looking, the exception is that they have anything other
> than eyeballing to go by.
> But, EVEN WORSE, you're ignoring facts in order to remain
> faithful to a book, your gospels.

> The human hand is the less derived. Which means... go one, it
> means... what?
> HINT: It means the hand of the frigging LCA looked like Homo
> and not Pan.

> Bipedalism is older than the LCA. Which means... what?
> HINT: The LCA was bipedal. Chimps evolved from a bipedal
> ancestor.

> So if you find something that's roughly the age of the LCA, and
> it doesn't appear to group or "Cluster" or whatever word they
> taught you at Ed's School of Paleoanthropology & Small Engine
> Repair, then it's not a Chimp. It's not a Chimp ancestor.
> AND YOU'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS!
> How many times has this been pointed out to you? How many
> times as the good Doctor said it or I said it, and how many
> different ways has it been explained to you already?
> Parading your disorder, like you keep doing, is not convincing
> anyone that you're right... or sane... or can count to 11 without
> unzipping your fly. it paints you as dogmatic. Religious. Stupid.
> The good Doctor is right: If you're looking for the ancestor of
> Chimps then you're looking for something like Homo or
> Australopithecus.

Like australopiths.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> The book by Felsenstein is about the principles and methods of
>> phylogenetic inference, which haven't changed since 2003.
>
>You are literally pretending that you've got all the answers, and have
>had them since 2003...

You're barking up the wrong tree. Verhaegen is your guy, since 1985.

Pandora wrote:

> You're

Your testing follows the LCA by a significant margin. The LCA did
not appear anything like a chimp.

It's stupid to think it's proteins had to look like a Chimps.

It's baseless.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two