[email protected] wrote:
Beautiful article, but IMO it has more to do with the evolution of Pan (chimp-bonobo) than with human evolution s.s.:
at least 2 independent studies, based on comparative mophology, suggest that the S.African australopiths (africanus->robustus) were fossil relatives of Pan (and E.African afarensis->boisei, of Gorilla):
The massive elephant in the room is that the age of these
specimens excludes any useful determinations.
They're comparing their results to LIVING Pan and Homo, not to
it's contemporaries.
...if for no other reason than there are no other living contemporaries.
They can't compare these can Chimps of the same age, as
there are none, so there's no way of determining if they look
more like Pan or Homo...
It's junk. This is stuff student would flunk out of a class for,
and yet it's not only funded but it passes "Peer Review," gets
published and then treated like gospel. And it's junk.
"Paleoanthropology is NOT a real science."
HERE'S YOUR PROOF. Stare at it. These aren't childish taunts,
it's really not a science. It's a social program on the best of
days, the private property of a self imposed elite on all the
rest.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)