Biostratigraphic dating is based upon the morphology of the fossil compared to other fossils and sometimes extant forms. As I explained before, in mammalian biostratigraphy for a few decades biostrati

When I write widely accepted that means in peer review journals by persons with advanced educations in the relative area and who are leaders in their fields of study. It is not my fault if some do not

It used to be thought humans evolved from Australopithecus africanus like ancestors. That is no longer accepted by those following the norms of modern paleontology and evolutionary biology. It is now

Usually Homo is he same thing as human. It was thought that Homo was founded by Australopithecus and had a larger brain than Australopithecus from the start. On both points they were wrong. Homo can n

Nailed a fantasy. Of course at 12.5 million years ago it is expected any great ape had close affinities with Dryopithecines. Lufengpithecus was recently considered a dryopithecine. It is a repeating t

There are other direct dating methods now. Some of which are reasonably reliable up to about 300,000 years. And there are methods which can use rock attached to the fossil, such as zircon spin resonan

I miswrote. It was dated by stratigraphic context and biostraigraphy, not by direct dating of the fossil. Of course biostratigraphy is very rough with mammals especially primates. With fossil mammals

I do not think anyone has the Pan Homo initial divergence at 5 my now. 7 million years is the youngest date now for initial divergence, though this has never been supported by anyone well familiar wit

UCD researchers along with others have timed the appearance of ancestral ARHGAP11B at about 3 million years. Which imparted smarter brains, but not bigger ones. Extant ARHGAP11B imparts larger and sma

There is only one Pan tooth, a lower molar, which is quite diagnostic as Pan (it is even closer to bonobos than common chimps). It is from Ngorora. Does not matter that they are using casts for compar

Obvious American fundamentalist propaganda. The dating of Turkana boy is by stratigraphic context and biostratigraphy. How mineralized bone is not related to its age (unless you are an ignorant about

Of course heretics fabricated these teeth to support their heretical beliefs. And everyone who saw the originals or found them is part of the massive conspiracy. ______________________________________

He is showing a new species of Simiolis from the same location. Not the Pan teeth. Yet again demonstrating remarkable ignorance of how to conduct paleontological research. For which he compensates by

Bullying jerk. Big man hiding behind your computer screen, or likely abusing women or children, not men. Your ignorance does not justify cyber bullying of people less ignorant than you are. Sent from

It has been a common fantasy that only African great apes knuckle walk. All extant great apes knuckle walk at times, though not every individual ever knuckle walks. There are a number of potential exp

Human genetics fantasies are so dominant they are required to write “Pan like” to get published. Of course they are Pan and pretty modern already at 12.5 million years. They could have Pan teeth and t

The entire concept if a linear progression in Old World monkeys in terms of locomotion, ending in modern human locomotion, is entirely incorrect. Not only were early Miocene great ape like, or great a

If the proposed phylogenetic relationships within extant hominids are incorrect, then this incorrect fantasy construct does not imply all, or even most, human ancestors ever knuckle walked. If there w

Again in 2008 a number of fantasies were accepted as axioms. IF Pan and Homo share a “common ancestor” with each other that is more recent than any other great ape diverged, then there is still a simp

In 2009 when this paper was published, traits by introgression were still verboten in the West. Thus if we did not come from knuckle walkers, then knuckle walking traits in australopiths did not ever