Fossil hunters find 100s of "human ancestors" (australopiths) in Africa, but virtually 0 fossil relatives of bonobos, 0 of common chimps, 0 of highland gorillas, 0 of lowland gorllas... How ridiculous & statistically impossible is this?
Anthropocentric fossil-hunters believe "advanced apelike" is "primitive":

AFAWCS,
- E.Afr.apiths were fossil Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths were fossil Pan:

• “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 spms “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981.
• “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”. 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.
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of A.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees”. Leakey 1981.
• “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 cs 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 A.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.
• “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 incl. 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 and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization
shared by A. farensis 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... 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, one which is in marked
contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988.

quotes from 1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 "Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[email protected] wrote:

Fossil hunters find 100s of "human ancestors" (australopiths) in Africa, but virtually 0 fossil relatives of
bonobos, 0 of common chimps, 0 of highland gorillas, 0 of lowland gorllas... How ridiculous &
statistically impossible is this?

The oldest claimed Chimp fossil is 0.5 million years old!

Half a million years old!

*Way* younger than erectus!

And it's a tooth. Well. A couple of teeth, I guess.

https://www.dinosaurisle.com/iguanodon.html

: The name is derived from 'Iguana' - a type of modern reptile, and 'don'
: meaning tooth.

Quite literally, it was a case where they thought the tooth looked like
an Iguana's tooth so they decided it was a type of giant Iguana.

They decided it looked like this:

https://www.palaeolove.com/news/early-iguanodon-life-reconstructions/

Okay, so that was a dinosaur and nothing like that could ever happen in
the case of hominids...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17115373/

Still. The claim is that Pan branched off like 5 million years ago, which
means we're missing 4.5 million years worth of fossils!

I've always argued that they are NOT missing. We have found them. They
simply do not look the way we want them to look...

I personally argue that the Homo/Pan split occurred far more recently,
probably on the order of 3.7 million years ago, if not more recent. But
even I have to argue that there is a genuinely compelling argument that
such a split never really happened. That, Pan is better grouped under
Homo: They're humans! A different species of Homo but Homo none
the less.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12733395/

i'm open to that idea. Not in love with it. Definitely open.

We don't find Chimp ancestors because they didn't look like Chimps.
They walked upright and I'm guessing that they had to have had larger
brains.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705559606386147328

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

The oldest claimed Chimp fossil is 0.5 million years old!

Half a million years old!

*Way* younger than erectus!

And it's a tooth. Well. A couple of teeth, I guess.

https://www.dinosaurisle.com/iguanodon.html

: The name is derived from 'Iguana' - a type of modern reptile, and 'don'
: meaning tooth.

Quite literally, it was a case where they thought the tooth looked like
an Iguana's tooth so they decided it was a type of giant Iguana.

They decided it looked like this:

https://www.palaeolove.com/news/early-iguanodon-life-reconstructions/

Or this:

https://morethanadodo.com/2021/06/03/tales-of-iguanodon-tails/

The funny thing is, noting the similarity in the teeth and making an
inference about it's life was not a stupid thing to do. They just took
it too far.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/84663014743

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)