Op woensdag 10 mei 2023 om 06:36:02 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
marc verhaegen wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@whattalks5937
I really thought you made a killer point about australopithecus
NOT displaying human traits but basal traits.
We have discern australopiths into
- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus, robustus etc. in S.Africa (IOW, closer relatives of Homo than of Gorilla!),
- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis, boisei etc. in E.Africa,
who evolved often in parallel in S- vs N-Rift swamp forests.
For decades I've been arguing against nimrods pretending to
see "Bird like" dinosaurs... "It's the other way around!" I tell
these degenerates. "The birds display dinosaur like traits!"
And this is a vitally important distinction. Rarely do distinctions
ever get any more important. Get things backwards and you
completely misunderstand the data!
Australopithecus, as you pointed out, displays basal traits.
Bipedalism is FAR older. The human hand is LESS derived than
that of the chimp, not more. The teeth of Ardi and
Australopithecus weren't evolving into human teeth, they were
a near perfect match to 10 million year old teeth found un
Europe!
So the conclusion that australopithecus was a human ancestor
is actually based on idiocy.
Yes (if we replace "australopithecus" by "australopiths").
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)