On ancestry


Gareth Morgan
 

I missed this in Nat Geo at the time.

humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas

 thickly enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.

A hole in the roof of the mouth (The incisive foramen)  that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs

Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands

Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes.

the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.

Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar

Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

I have no opinion.

G.


Pierre-François Puech
 

Le lundi 4 octobre 2021, 14:01:57 UTC+2, Gareth Morgan <garethmorgan@...> a écrit :


I missed this in Nat Geo at the time.

humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas

 thickly enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.

A hole in the roof of the mouth (The incisive foramen)  that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs

Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands

Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes.

the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.

Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar

Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

I have no opinion.

G.


Gareth Morgan
 

you may read:

Thank you, but I make it a point never to pay for information that already exists. The abstract will have to suffice.

I did also manage to access your comments, on Researchgate -- both interesting and informative. 

I think this dispute will run and run. I have no opinion.

G.



From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Pierre-François Puech via groups.io <pfpuech@...>
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:44 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <aat@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
 
Le lundi 4 octobre 2021, 14:01:57 UTC+2, Gareth Morgan <garethmorgan@...> a écrit :


I missed this in Nat Geo at the time.

humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas

 thickly enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.

A hole in the roof of the mouth (The incisive foramen)  that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs

Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands

Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes.

the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.

Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar

Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

I have no opinion.

G.


Marc Verhaegen
 

Thanks, P-F & Gareth.

P-F Puech co-authored 4 papers with me IIRC, e.g. our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?", but some of his co-authors of this paper (Hominoid Evolution... 1984) are/were fanatic anti-AATers.
Yes, orangs & humans have several things in common, e.g. thicker enamel.
That chimps & humans have so few features in common seems to imply that chimps evolved considerably after the H/P split?

_____


------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: garethmorgan@live.com
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: maandag 4 oktober 2021 15:18
Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

you may read:


Thank you, but I make it a point never to pay for information that already exists. The abstract will have to suffice.

I did also manage to access your comments, on Researchgate -- both interesting and informative.

I think this dispute will run and run. I have no opinion.

G.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Pierre-François Puech via groups.io Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:44 PM To: AAT@groups.io <aat@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry


you may read:
Hominoid Evolution: A Review and a Reassessment ...

Le lundi 4 octobre 2021, 14:01:57 UTC+2, Gareth Morgan <garethmorgan@live.com> a écrit :


I missed this in Nat Geo at the time.

humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas

thickly enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the left & right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.
A hole in the roof of the mouth (The incisive foramen) that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs
Humans & orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands

Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes.

the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.

Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans & chimps are so similar

Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

I have no opinion.

G.et.be]


 

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 05:01 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas
This reminds us that DNA is vastly superior to physical characteristics for determining how closely species are related.

It's like comparing books:
A few different books might look similar, judging from the styles of their covers, the lengths of their titles, the presence or absence of an index, the layout of text, the size of the font, etc. But if you can actually read (this is like DNA) the names of the authors, and read what is written in the books, you can better determine how closely related the books actually are. 

When you determine that two books were written by the same author, it is interesting to try to understand why those differences came about.
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

if you can actually read ... you determine that two books were written by the same author

This from Elaine's stalker who was convinced she was posting under a different name from her death bed. Hilarious.





From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:19 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
 
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 05:01 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas
This reminds us that DNA is vastly superior to physical characteristics for determining how closely species are related.

It's like comparing books:
A few different books might look similar, judging from the styles of their covers, the lengths of their titles, the presence or absence of an index, the layout of text, the size of the font, etc. But if you can actually read (this is like DNA) the names of the authors, and read what is written in the books, you can better determine how closely related the books actually are. 

When you determine that two books were written by the same author, it is interesting to try to understand why those differences came about.
 
--
AquaticApe.net


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution. And that human genetics has been riddled with blunders since its inception until today. __________________________________________________________________________________________________Within human genetics, the conclusions are all over the place now, and often strongly disagree with each other. There is also a strong Biblical slant in human genetics, such as searching for the Garden of Eden in Africa (the magical place where human evolution takes place while it does not take place in all other human populations), and Adam and Eve (the missing link / linear evolution / bottle necks which never existed). _________________________________________________________________________________________________Human geneticists show in their publications and conclusions their lack of ability to grasp many basic concepts in modern science. Such that traits (including genes), are often not found today where they originated geographically. That evolution and natural selection are constant forces in all places and times. That higher genetic diversity does not suggest “living fossils” or “ancestral relics” and so on.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Allan Krill
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:20 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

 

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 05:01 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:

humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas

This reminds us that DNA is vastly superior to physical characteristics for determining how closely species are related.

It's like comparing books:
A few different books might look similar, judging from the styles of their covers, the lengths of their titles, the presence or absence of an index, the layout of text, the size of the font, etc. But if you can actually read (this is like DNA) the names of the authors, and read what is written in the books, you can better determine how closely related the books actually are. 

When you determine that two books were written by the same author, it is interesting to try to understand why those differences came about.
 
--
AquaticApe.net

 


 

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 02:26 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
if you can actually read ... you determine that two books were written by the same author
This from Elaine's stalker who was convinced she was posting under a different name from her death bed. Hilarious.

Gareth,
I guess you are now calling me ‘Elaine’s stalker’, because I have read and made available her published works that she wanted to be available. You are Elaine’s literary executor, but you are acting like some sort of ‘literary executioner’: Pinker’s List (2005) and her autobiography Knock ’Em Cold, Kid (2012) are now dead (unavailable). You tell us what you remember her saying, which often disagrees with what she wrote. 

So who was the mysterious ‘m3dodds’, who signed their posts as ‘m3d’ or ‘Bill’? That person was incredibly knowledgeable in topics Elaine was interested in, and held many (but not all) of Elaine’s published opinions. ‘M3dodds’ posted 2992 messages from 2005 to 2013, whereas no one calling herself Elaine ever posted here. The last message by m3dodds was posted June 30, 2013, two weeks before Elaine died, and then m3d seems to have died as well. I think the odds are good that ‘m3d’ was Elaine’s pseudonym, and someone else did the typing toward the end. Elaine wanted to contribute, with the attention being on her messages and not her name and status. 

--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

I think the odds are good that ‘m3d’ was Elaine’s pseudonym

So when m3dodds was talking to Elaine... https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/37751  ???

Stalkers always feel that they have a "special connection" with the object of their obsession. They believe that they alone are truly able to understand what their victims think and feel and mean and no amount of actual evidence will influence them, however bizarre their delusions are.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:35 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
 
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 02:26 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
if you can actually read ... you determine that two books were written by the same author
This from Elaine's stalker who was convinced she was posting under a different name from her death bed. Hilarious.

Gareth,
I guess you are now calling me ‘Elaine’s stalker’, because I have read and made available her published works that she wanted to be available. You are Elaine’s literary executor, but you are acting like some sort of ‘literary executioner’: Pinker’s List (2005) and her autobiography Knock ’Em Cold, Kid (2012) are now dead (unavailable). You tell us what you remember her saying, which often disagrees with what she wrote. 

So who was the mysterious ‘m3dodds’, who signed their posts as ‘m3d’ or ‘Bill’? That person was incredibly knowledgeable in topics Elaine was interested in, and held many (but not all) of Elaine’s published opinions. ‘M3dodds’ posted 2992 messages from 2005 to 2013, whereas no one calling herself Elaine ever posted here. The last message by m3dodds was posted June 30, 2013, two weeks before Elaine died, and then m3d seems to have died as well. I think the odds are good that ‘m3d’ was Elaine’s pseudonym, and someone else did the typing toward the end. Elaine wanted to contribute, with the attention being on her messages and not her name and status. 

--
AquaticApe.net


 

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:55 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
So when m3dodds was talking to Elaine... https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/37751  ???
M3dodds was not talking to Elaine.  M3dodds simply copied and posted a message that Elaine had written on another site. M3dodds knew what Elaine was posting elsewhere, and thought that this message of Elaine's should appear at both sites.
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

M3dodds simply copied and posted a message that Elaine had written on another site

In which case m3dodds is clearly not Elaine then, is he?


 thought that this message of Elaine's should appear at both sites.

Such an important message that it had to be reposted? Elaine, arguing with herself about pelvises?

I'm glad she agreed with herself about Feynman.


Like I said, evidence means nothing to stalkers compared with their psychic clairvoyance.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:04 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
 
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:55 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
So when m3dodds was talking to Elaine... https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/37751  ???
M3dodds was not talking to Elaine.  M3dodds simply copied and posted a message that Elaine had written on another site. M3dodds knew what Elaine was posting elsewhere, and thought that this message of Elaine's should appear at both sites.
--
AquaticApe.net


 

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution

Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution?? 

I find your views and statements very confusing. You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in. 

So funny!

Another thing about stalkers is they always accuse others of the faults that they themselves exhibit. It's called 'projection'

 " unconsciously taking traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else."

"If they seem to whip out accusations whenever they are uncomfortable, they may be projecting. Another tell-tale sign is when you talk to someone about their behavior or thoughts, and they immediately re-direct the conversation to you or another person."

Interesting topic, stalking. Don't know if there's a cure.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:07 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
 
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution

Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution?? 

I find your views and statements very confusing. You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


 

I think that Elaine was graciously stepping aside by using the pseudonyms 'm3d' and 'Bill'. Now in her 80's, she was still mentally sharp and keeping up with her reading and writing, but didn't want to be the "Third Father of the House" in this AAT-group.

--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

using the pseudonyms 'm3d' and 'Bill'. 

So, "m3dodds" was Elaine and now "Bill" was Elaine as well!

I wonder who "Elaine" was. Probably Marc, graciously stepping aside. 

The psychosis in stalkers typically makes them more and more detached from reality. It would be tragic if it wasn't so hilarious..

The great thing about stalkers is it doesn't matter how much abuse they get, they keep coming back for more. They just crave any kind of attention. It gives them some kind of validation and makes them feel important. It's the only thing that gives their life any meaning.  


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:51 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
 
I think that Elaine was graciously stepping aside by using the pseudonyms 'm3d' and 'Bill'. Now in her 80's, she was still mentally sharp and keeping up with her reading and writing, but didn't want to be the "Third Father of the House" in this AAT-group.

--
AquaticApe.net


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

It is a fact human geneticists are not trained in evolutionary biology, evolutionary biology, paleoanthropology or paleontology. Their training is in genetics, not life science relative to human evolution. Being ignorant of this fact shows one to be ignorant of what training they do have (formally). The cult of infallibility of human genetics relies upon many things, ignorance of human genetics publications past and present, what their educations are, ignorance of the very high error rate of the field etc…

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:18 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

 

You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in. 

 

So funny!

 

Another thing about stalkers is they always accuse others of the faults that they themselves exhibit. It's called 'projection'

 

 " unconsciously taking traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else."



"If they seem to whip out accusations whenever they are uncomfortable, they may be projecting. Another tell-tale sign is when you talk to someone about their behavior or thoughts, and they immediately re-direct the conversation to you or another person."



Interesting topic, stalking. Don't know if there's a cure.

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:07 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

 

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:

This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution

Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution?? 

I find your views and statements very confusing. You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net

 


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

Many measurements which are not very useful have been used to create highly inaccurate phylogenetic trees. In the past for example for humans, skin color, prognathy, brain size, body size, morphological closeness to Africans (Africans and Sahulians in the recent past being considered the most “primitive” humans and some how ancestral to all other humans). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Whole genomic distances are just one more in a long series of blunders in human phylogeny. For those who understand modern evolutionary biology and natural selection, they know whole genomic distances can be like convergent evolution, and indicate similar niches, and not always accurately predict phylogeny. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Linear evolution is widely thought to be a false concept in evolutionary biology now, and some paleoanthropologists have modern enough education to know this (Fuentes for example). We do not know which extant great ape humans are closest to (had their initial divergence from most recently). Morphologically, we are closest to orangutans (Schwartz et al, who have done the most detailed cladistic studies on this matter). _________________________________________________________________________________________________That we are closer to chimps than other extant great apes is yet another questionable artifact of the failed Out of Africa series of hypothesis (which assume some how Africa is the evolutionary Garden of Eden). The only Out of Africa hypothesis supported by real evidence is at 2.1,mya. All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans). And establish themselves only on the assumption of a both false and magical premise which is to an axiom, and usually not even an hypothesis in all but one case. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________If we diverged from Pan before orangs, and last had strong gene flow with Pan, that does mot mean Pan is our closest relative. What this would suggest is that main human ancestry some how at some time became more geographically in contact with Pan than orangs (which supports OoA at 2.1 million years ago, with a hominin extinction or near extinction in Eurasian some time before 2.1mya). And ‘ or it suggests that of all the derived exotic great apes genes in humans, Pan genes were more favored than others. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It has been known for about five years all great apes today have derived genes from all other great apes, humans being a type of great ape. That means we had gene flow which survived until today, from every type of great ape’s ancestors alive today after they diverged from humans. No way to know why Pan genes are more common, it could be because of a later divergence (which is not supported either by the fossil record or extant morphology). Or it could just mean humans and Pan screwed around more with each other than they did with other great apes, and preferred similar niches favoring each others genes more as exotic genes.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Allan Krill
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:07 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

 

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:

This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution

Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution?? 

I find your views and statements very confusing. You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net

 


 

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 06:07 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans).

Thanks for explaining your views. Here are my thoughts on this: 

Only a few creationists still think there was some sort of Garden of Eden (in Africa or elsewhere) where humans originated. And only a few racists still think that black Africans are somehow closer to apes than Eurasians are. Those old beliefs don't have any influence on modern thinking by evolutionists (including geneticists.)

 

Geneticists are not influenced by religion or racism. They are simply reading and interpreting the genomes of living Homo sapiens. They read the genomes to say that all living humans descended from a population of fully evolved Homo sapiens that lived in Africa. It seems clear that there was a population bottleneck in Africa (more like Noah's Ark than the Garden of Eden) about 200,000 years ago and humans who came through that bottleneck then populated the entire planet. The most significant wave of those fully evolved people came out of Africa to Eurasia very recently, only about 70,000- 50,000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans. Genetics can't tell us where people evolved, or where in Africa this wave of people came from, or why there are so few fossils of humans or their stone tools or fireplaces before about 200,000 years ago. 

 

But genetics do tell us that the human-chimp LCA was about 6 million years ago. So humans and chimps had about 6 million years to evolve (between 6,000,000 - 200,000 years), during which time there are no mammal fossils of any kind in the areas where chimps live. And genetics tell us that the chimp-gorilla LCA was about 10 million years ago. Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well suited to their diets and habitats, it is reasonable to think that the chimp-gorilla LCA was similar to them, and not similar to humans. The humans must have had some sort of alternative diets and habitats that made them so morphologically different. And humans must have evolved in an isolated place, with gene flow and without predators. Prehumans without large brains, tools, and weapons could not have survived early stages of their evolution if there were predators. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


Marc Verhaegen
 

"... Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well
suited to their diets and habitats, it is reasonable to think that the
chimp-gorilla LCA was similar to them, ..."


No: P & G evolved largely in // from our LCA:

the anatomical details & the embryology of P & G knuckle-walking are very different.
G is herbivorous, P & H are omnivorous. G is a lot larger, and polygynous. G evolved much thinner enamel. Etc.

From an aquarboreal hominid LCA late-Miocene,
- G & P evolved allopatrically in // from aquarboreal to KWing in wet forests:

longer ilia, much longer arms, longer canines etc.,
- H evolved in a special way: they became shallow-divers for shellfish etc.: indeed an alternative habitat & diet.


______




------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: alandarwinvanarsdale@...
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: donderdag 7 oktober 2021 03:07
Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

Many measurements which are not very useful have been used to create highly inaccurate phylogenetic trees. In the past for example for humans, skin color, prognathy, brain size, body size, morphological closeness to Africans (Africans and Sahulians in the recent past being considered the most “primitive” humans and some how ancestral to all other humans). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Whole genomic distances are just one more in a long series of blunders in human phylogeny. For those who understand modern evolutionary biology and natural selection, they know whole genomic distances can be like convergent evolution, and indicate similar niches, and not always accurately predict phylogeny. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Linear evolution is widely thought to be a false concept in evolutionary biology now, and some paleoanthropologists have modern enough education to know this (Fuentes for example). We do not know which extant great ape humans are closest to (had their initial divergence from most recently). Morphologically, we are closest to orangutans (Schwartz et al, who have done the most detailed cladistic studies on this matter). _________________________________________________________________________________________________That we are closer to chimps than other extant great apes is yet another questionable artifact of the failed Out of Africa series of hypothesis (which assume some how Africa is the evolutionary Garden of Eden). The only Out of Africa hypothesis supported by real evidence is at 2.1,mya. All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans). And establish themselves only on the assumption of a both false and magical premise which is to an axiom, and usually not even an hypothesis in all but one case. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________If we diverged from Pan before orangs, and last had strong gene flow with Pan, that does mot mean Pan is our closest relative. What this would suggest is that main human ancestry some how at some time became more geographically in contact with Pan than orangs (which supports OoA at 2.1 million years ago, with a hominin extinction or near extinction in Eurasian some time before 2.1mya). And ‘ or it suggests that of all the derived exotic great apes genes in humans, Pan genes were more favored than others. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It has been known for about five years all great apes today have derived genes from all other great apes, humans being a type of great ape. That means we had gene flow which survived until today, from every type of great ape’s ancestors alive today after they diverged from humans. No way to know why Pan genes are more common, it could be because of a later divergence (which is not supported either by the fossil record or extant morphology). Or it could just mean humans and Pan screwed around more with each other than they did with other great apes, and preferred similar niches favoring each others genes more as exotic genes.

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Allan Krill
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:07 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:

This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution

Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution??

I find your views and statements very confusing. You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in.


--
AquaticApe.net





alandarwinvanarsdale
 

As Homo became more and more dominant great apes became more and more limited on what environments they usually lived in. Aquatic environments are often desirable and great apes were pushed out of them, or assimilated by Homo in more favorable environments for Homo. With gene flow being restricted to the point of Homo being a species different from great apes in Africa around 4-7 million years ago.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 1:25 PM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

 

"... Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well
suited to their diets and habitats, it is reasonable to think that the
chimp-gorilla LCA was similar to them, ..."


No: P & G evolved largely in // from our LCA:

the anatomical details & the embryology of P & G knuckle-walking are very different.
G is herbivorous, P & H are omnivorous. G is a lot larger, and polygynous. G evolved much thinner enamel. Etc.

From an aquarboreal hominid LCA late-Miocene,
- G & P evolved allopatrically in // from aquarboreal to KWing in wet forests:

longer ilia, much longer arms, longer canines etc.,
- H evolved in a special way: they became shallow-divers for shellfish etc.: indeed an alternative habitat & diet.

 

______

 



------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: alandarwinvanarsdale@...
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: donderdag 7 oktober 2021 03:07
Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

Many measurements which are not very useful have been used to create highly inaccurate phylogenetic trees. In the past for example for humans, skin color, prognathy, brain size, body size, morphological closeness to Africans (Africans and Sahulians in the recent past being considered the most “primitive” humans and some how ancestral to all other humans). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Whole genomic distances are just one more in a long series of blunders in human phylogeny. For those who understand modern evolutionary biology and natural selection, they know whole genomic distances can be like convergent evolution, and indicate similar niches, and not always accurately predict phylogeny. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Linear evolution is widely thought to be a false concept in evolutionary biology now, and some paleoanthropologists have modern enough education to know this (Fuentes for example). We do not know which extant great ape humans are closest to (had their initial divergence from most recently). Morphologically, we are closest to orangutans (Schwartz et al, who have done the most detailed cladistic studies on this matter). _________________________________________________________________________________________________That we are closer to chimps than other extant great apes is yet another questionable artifact of the failed Out of Africa series of hypothesis (which assume some how Africa is the evolutionary Garden of Eden). The only Out of Africa hypothesis supported by real evidence is at 2.1,mya. All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans). And establish themselves only on the assumption of a both false and magical premise which is to an axiom, and usually not even an hypothesis in all but one case. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________If we diverged from Pan before orangs, and last had strong gene flow with Pan, that does mot mean Pan is our closest relative. What this would suggest is that main human ancestry some how at some time became more geographically in contact with Pan than orangs (which supports OoA at 2.1 million years ago, with a hominin extinction or near extinction in Eurasian some time before 2.1mya). And ‘ or it suggests that of all the derived exotic great apes genes in humans, Pan genes were more favored than others. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It has been known for about five years all great apes today have derived genes from all other great apes, humans being a type of great ape. That means we had gene flow which survived until today, from every type of great ape’s ancestors alive today after they diverged from humans. No way to know why Pan genes are more common, it could be because of a later divergence (which is not supported either by the fossil record or extant morphology). Or it could just mean humans and Pan screwed around more with each other than they did with other great apes, and preferred similar niches favoring each others genes more as exotic genes.

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Allan Krill
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:07 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:

This reminds us that human genetics is a relatively new science, dominated by just a few European men who are not trained in and do not understand evolution or human evolution

Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution??

I find your views and statements very confusing. You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in.


--
AquaticApe.net