Comparative hallucinations (was Re: Lucy = fossil Gorilla species?)

On Aug 16, 2:55 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
R+S apparently don't know the history of PA.
Just read Washburn+Moore "Ape into human" many years ago.
Then come back.

Did you have a point other than lip service?


_____

Op 16-08-2007 17:24, in artikel
1187277875.512833.107...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:



"A growing number of researchers (Marzke
et al., 1994; Begun, 1993, 1994; Sarmiento,
1994; Gebo, 1996; Pilbeam, 1996;
Richmond & Strait, 2000; Corruccini &
McHenry, 2001) are seriously considering
the possibility that humans evolved from
knuckle-walking ancestors. Corruccini &
McHenry have uncovered many aspects of
wrist morphology that are shared between
African apes and humans, and now add
support to our recent finding (Richmond &
Strait, 2000) that fossil hominids also retain

Read: retain=evolved.

Says who, the clown who doesn't know the difference between a mountain
beaver and a capybara?

knuckle-walking features. Additional support
for the knuckle-walking hypothesis
comes from parsimony (Washburn, 1967),
and other anatomical aspects of the wrist
and hand (Begun, 1993)."
Brian G. Richmond and David S. Strait
Knuckle-walking hominid ancestor: a reply to
Corruccini & McHenry
Journal of Human Evolution (2001) 40, 513-520

The issue really is, who do you believe, learned professionals who
publish in credible journals or an amateur who
claims mountain beavers are semi-aquaric, published in an obscure
journal?

Only people who don't know what hey're talking about call the Trends
journals obscure.

Maybe they were just short handed when the accepted you sloppy paper.


"Both these semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."




Marc Verhaegen, Pierre-François Puech and
Stephen Munro
Aquarboreal ancestors?
TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution Vol.17 No.5 May 2002

On Aug 14, 2:55 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 14-08-2007 06:58, in artikel 46C13672.A2D4C...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rich
Travsky <traRvE...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op 21-07-2007 03:43, in artikel 46A164B3.23865...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rich
Travsky <traRvE...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op 07-07-2007 07:10, in artikel 468F202C.A58E7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rich
Travsky <traRvE...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

Yes, every evidence suggests Lucy was a fossil species belonging to
Gorilla
rather than to Pan or Homo:

Except for being an obligate biped, which is an immediate exclusion from
gorilla or pan...

Don't be silly:
1) obligate biped??
- Lucy had curved phalanges = branch-hanging.
- It had a few KWing features.
Don't be silly little boy. Are you denying australopiths are obligate
bipeds?
Only fools believe that primates with curved phalanges are "obligate
bipeds": my little boy, the curvatures indicate branches. Got it??
Obligate biped:
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/pelvis3.gif

Thanks, Travsky. :-)
Got it?
- Short iliac blades = ancestral condition (as in monkeys & humans).
- Iliac orientation as in apes (unlike humans).
Fully confirms that apiths were bipeds in forest swamps where all early
apiths have been found: just think of Ndoki gorillas: they wade on 2 legs,
climb arms overhead in the branches above & walk on their knuckles on land.
What more do you want?? Isotopic evidence,

Liar.

dentitional evidence, microwear
evidence etc.etc.

Liar, your own data shows no relationship between tooth polish and
where an animal lives.

everything suggest they were predom.forest swamp & later
wetland feeders on sedges & waterside foods.

Blah blah wet-ape bias that is contradicted by your own work (TREE
2002).

Point is, my little boy: they feed on succulent plants.

Verhaegen et al. (2002)
Page 213 Were australopiths wetland waders?
"Our extensive survey of the literature [17] suggests
that most hominids might have dwelt in 'wet' rather
than 'dry' habitats, and this has been confirmed
by recent discoveries [14,18,19]."

IOW, most Hominids = wet.

Page 213-14Tooth microwear
"Tooth microwear studies indicate that
Australopithecus afarensis molar enamel had a
glossy polished surface that is typical of the molars
of capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."

A.afarensis polish (typical) ='s
1) capybaras polish
2) mountain beaver polish
Conclusion: A.afarensis ='s "swamp herbs (polishing)"

Page 214 "Apparently, an early
australopith diet of fruits (larger front teeth) and
swamp herbs (polishing) was supplemented with
woody plants in the robust australopiths (more
wear)."

The authors based the conclusion on the fact that they thought,
at the time, mountain beavers = semi-aquatic = swamp herbs =
typical-afarensis polish.
Since mountain beavers are not semi-aquatic, this means they got
that "typical polish" somewhere else. That somewhere else is not
swamps, riverside or wet lands. If somewhere else will yield the same
typical polish, then it cannot be concluded
that afarensis polish was obtained riverside, but more likely
somewhere else also.


Mark: "Point is, my little boy: they feed on succulent plants."

The fallacy with "succulent plants" is that they not only grow
riverside, but also in deserts and in every habitat inbetween.
http://www.livingdesert.org/plants/default.asp
Even cactus is succulent compared to the gritty salal roots and gritty
rhododendron roots.
that mountain beavers also eat. Did the authors use savanna-prairie
dogs for a control group
for tooth wear, since they also eat "grasses" as the capybara/mountain
beaver ?
No?
Therefore, this statement has no meaning:
"Our extensive survey of the literature [17] suggests
that most hominids might have dwelt in 'wet' rather
than 'dry' habitats, and this has been confirmed
by recent discoveries [14,18,19]."

Eating desert, savanna or any other habitat inbetween could give the
same tooth wear polish as riverside habitats. "Swamp herbs" have
nothing to do with typical polish.

The authors first mistake was to claim:
"Our extensive survey of the literature [17]"
Had they actually done an extensive survey, they would have known
mountain beavers are not semi-aquatic.
Had they actually did an extensive survey, they would have known
succulent plants grow in habitats other than riverside or wet.
Another problem with the tooth wear data cited, is the fact that
mountain beavers do not just
"feed mainly on riverside herbs, grasses and the bark of young trees."
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/mtn_beavers.htm
But "below-ground parts of ferns, salal, nettles, fireweed,
bleeding heart, salmonberry, brambles, dogwoods, vine maples, willows,
alders, and conifers. Mountain beavers
also eat rhododendrons and other ornamental perennials, shrubs, and
trees."
The "below ground" soil is sand that these roots grow in. I question
how a root eating animal like the mountain beaver
has polished teeth like a capybara, when it spends much of its time
eating dirt in roots. Sand wreaks havic with teeth,
as Lewis and Clark observed with the NAs of Washington, most had
teeth worn down to the gums by middle age
from eating sand in camas roots and other grit from wind blown into
foods.

Another laughable error in this amateur paper is on page 215:
"Eating hard-shelled foods, such as shellfish and
nuts, generally requires thick enamel, which is
typically seen in sea otters [27],..."
Sea otters of course do not eat the shells, so one does not need
thick enamal. In fact, one does not need teeth at all to process
oysters and clams after they are broken. After all, why does the sea
otter
use a rock to break open the shell, if not to get at the soft as liver
insides?

Only a second-rate journal would allow this kind of trash to be
published in it.












.

Relevant Pages