Op 18-12-2023 om 15:06 schreef Marc Verhaegen:

Have We Been Barking up the Wrong Ancestral Tree?
Australopithecines Are Probably Not Our Ancestors
Mario Vaneechoutte, Frances Mansfield, Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2023 Nature Anthropology 1(1), 10007 open access

And then you would expect a phylogenetic analysis comparable in quality
to these:

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311

But no, these studies are not even mentioned in your letter.
As such it's worthless.
No wonder you couldn't get it published in JHE.

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

Op 18-12-2023 om 18:36 schreef Marc Verhaegen:

Op maandag 18 december 2023 om 15:48:58 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

Have We Been Barking up the Wrong Ancestral Tree?
Australopithecines Are Probably Not Our Ancestors
Mario Vaneechoutte, Frances Mansfield, Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2023 >>> Nature Anthropology 1(1), 10007 open access

And then you would expect a phylogenetic analysis comparable in quality
to these:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311
But no, these studies are not even mentioned in your letter.

Yes, AFAICS, they confirm what we're saying.

Then why does your letter not mention them?
That would have been great support.
But in fact these studies refute your hypothesis, because they show that
apiths are the sistertaxon of Homo, to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla.
The fact that you do not mention these studies is a glaring omission
that makes your letter totally irrelevant with regard to hominid
phylogenetics.

As such it's worthless.
No wonder you couldn't get it published in JHE.

Yes, like you, JHE still lives in the Middle Ages... :-D

I'm afraid that your letter is destined for oblivion.

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

Pandora wrote:

Op 18-12-2023 om 18:36 schreef Marc Verhaegen:

Op maandag 18 december 2023 om 15:48:58 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

Have We Been Barking up the Wrong Ancestral Tree?
Australopithecines Are Probably Not Our Ancestors
Mario Vaneechoutte, Frances Mansfield, Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2023 >>>> Nature Anthropology 1(1), 10007 open access

And then you would expect a phylogenetic analysis comparable in quality
to these:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311
But no, these studies are not even mentioned in your letter.

Yes, AFAICS, they confirm what we're saying.

Then why does your letter not mention them?
That would have been great support.
But in fact these studies refute your hypothesis, because they show that apiths are the sistertaxon of Homo, to the exclusion of Pan and Gorilla.
The fact that you do not mention these studies is a glaring omission that makes your letter totally irrelevant with regard to hominid phylogenetics.

He didn't even look at them. In the abstracts alone:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248404001277 Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny
using craniodental characters: the role of
fossil taxa
December 2004

"Regarding early hominids, the relationships of
Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus ramidus
were relatively unstable. However, there is
tentative support for the hypotheses that S.
tchadensis is the sister taxon of all other
hominids. There is support for the hypothesis that
A. anamensis is the sister taxon of all hominids
except S. tchadensis and Ar. ramidus. There is no
compelling support for the hypothesis that
Kenyanthropus platyops shares especially close
affinities with Homo rudolfensis. Rather, K.
platyops is nested within the Homo + Paranthropus
+ Australopithecus africanus clade. If K. platyops
is a valid species, these relationships suggest
that Homo and Paranthropus are likely to have
diverged from other hominids much earlier than
previously supposed. There is no support for the
hypothesis that A. garhi is either the sister
taxon or direct ancestor of the genus Homo.
Phylogenetic relationships indicate that
Australopithecus is paraphyletic. Thus, A.
anamensis and A. garhi should be allocated to
new genera."



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X Expanded character sampling underscores
phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus
ramidus as a basal hominin
June 2019

" Despite the new data and matrix revisions,
tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new craniodental material has
served to markedly strengthen the support for
the placement of Ar. ramidus as being derived
relative to Sahelanthropus, and as the sister
taxon of all later hominins. These findings
support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally
proposed by White and colleagues in 1994."


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001713
An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with
an emphasis on re-evaluating the phylogenetic
relationships of Australopithecus sediba
February 2023

"Based on the results of the parsimony and
Bayesian analyses, we could not reject the
hypothesis that A. sediba shares its closest
phylogenetic affinities with the genus Homo.
Therefore, based on currently available
craniodental evidence, we conclude that A.
sediba is plausibly the terminal end of a
lineage that shared a common ancestor with
the earliest representatives of Homo."

As such it's worthless.
No wonder you couldn't get it published in JHE.

Yes, like you, JHE still lives in the Middle Ages...  :-D

I'm afraid that your letter is destined for oblivion.

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

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Pandora wrote:

[...]

Chimps pop into existence, more or less out of thin air, about half a

You're pushing the erectus-evolved-in-Asia line and
they'd have to have popped "into existence, more or less
out of thin air".

Unless you can find a set of fossils showing their
development...

million years ago. And even then only if we reinvent reality on the
fly, like Out of Africa purists, and pretend that teeth are definitive.
So teeth are absolutely positively definitive except when they are
not.

...like when we find what looks like 10 million year old
Ardi/Australo teeth in Europe.

So teeth are rock solid. Unambiguous. Except when they're not.
But in the case of teeth they are absolutely positively proof, and
they are not.

So Chimps stretch back half a million years old. UNLESS your
model is incomplete at best, or just plain wrong.

The good Doctor's model works. You can piddle over dates and
specific species, whatever, but whatever you slip in there works. Effectively, and this not even be how he characterizes it but,
effectively, he says that Chimps don't magic into existence half
a million years ago. The ancestors of today's Chimps simply don't
look like our Chimps.

Put short: We have found those early "Chimps." But they don't
look the way we want them to.

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

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You're pushing

I'm pushing

fantasy and kook stuff, like Nostradamus and space aliens.

You ahve the kook trifecta.

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