Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [AAT] Re: Bromage's computer reconstruction of ER-1470

Expand Messages
  • Marc Verhaegen
    ... Thanks a lot. I m not so sure. Let s wait a few days or weeks what others have to say. That Hawks is insightful, as claimed in the link, is wrong: people
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 1, 2007
      > Bromage apparently angled the skull a bit:
      > http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconstructi/#m
      > ore

      Thanks a lot.
      I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks what others have to say.
      That Hawks is insightful, as claimed in the link, is wrong: people who
      believe AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and anthropology is part of
      biology!).


      >>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070324133018.htm

      >>>> Thanks, Marc.
      >>>> If you are still interested you can
      >>>> download a PDF copy of the conference
      >>>> poster used in the original news
      >>>> release, from NYU....
      >>>> http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1526
      >>>> Warning: It's a large PDF... ---m3d

      >>> Yes, it's large: I tried to upload it at AAT3, but it
      >>> was too big. Thanks a lot, m3d.
      >>> I have the strong impression that Bromage is right:
      >>> ER-1470 seems to be A.boisei or so, with a brain of
      >>> 500-550 cc instead of 750!

      >> Would agree, Marc...it does appear to be a more
      >> accurate reconstruction. Guess in the '70s it
      >> was deemed to be Homo, an to be Homo it had to
      >> have a good-sized brain and a flat-face.
      >> A brain of 500-550 cc is less than that claimed
      >> for the smaller "habilis"... [590-650 cc]
      >> ---m3d

      No, no: ER-1813 (female?) had +-510cc IIRC, and the 4 OH skulls were so
      badly severed that their CC was hardly measurable (fossil-hunters prefer
      larger CCs...). The mean of 590-650 cc was reached only when ER-1470 with
      750-775 cc was included in "habilis".

      --Marc

      >>> Here's the text:
      >>> Craniofacial architectural constraints resolve
      >>> major quandry of human evolution
      >>> TG Bromage, O Kullmer, F Schrenk, A Rosenberger,
      >>> JF Tackeray & R Hogg 2007
      >>> Objectives:
      >>> Donald H. Enlow and colleagues identified boundary
      >>> conditions and planes of the mid-face in humans and
      >>> other mammal species that are defined on the
      >>> basis of important growth sites and the developmental
      >>> disposition of neural and pharyngeal matrices. We
      >>> apply knowledge of developmental constraints
      >>> characterizing functional growth boundaries to the
      >>> reconstruction of one of the most celebrated earliest
      >>> humans, KNM-ER 1470, a 1.9-Ma Homo rudolfensis
      >>> craniofacial skeleton from east of Lake Turkana,
      >>> northern Kenya, discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972.
      >>> Methods:
      >>> We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470 using three methods: a flexible cast was
      >>> produced, which could be deformed, and virtual models of the 3-part
      >>> cast of
      >>> KNM-ER 1470 were digitally acquired using both laser scanning and
      >>> optical
      >>> topometric technologies. The parts (left and right halves of the
      >>> cranium and the face) have been reassembled according to mammalian
      >>> architectural relationships, which illustrate how the KNM-ER 1470
      >>> craniofacial skeleton was in life.
      >>> Results:
      >>> The face is found to be relatively prognathic and, according to
      >>> previously
      >>> published analyses, the cranial capacity is significantly lower and
      >>> within
      >>> the range of other Late Pliocene Homo. KNM-ER 1470 was once an
      >>> outlier in
      >>> most mensurational investigations, now it can be properly
      >>> remeasured and
      >>> interpreted with other earliest humans.
      >>> Conclusion:
      >>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 is an early representative
      >>> of the
      >>> genus Homo, it was reconstructed with its two quintessential traits:
      >>> a large
      >>> brain and a flat face. The problem is that this reconstruction
      >>> violates
      >>> mammalian architectural relationships and would have been
      >>> incompatible with
      >>> life. Attention to biological principles that govern the design
      >>> of the
      >>> craniofacial skeleton has the potential to provide a major
      >>> contribution to
      >>> studies of human anatomy, development, and, in the case presented
      >>> here, human evolution.
      >>>
      >>> Introduction
      >>>
      >>> Fragments of the craniofacial skeleton KNM-ER 1470 were discovered by
      >>> Richard Leakey¹s team in 1972 from deposits east of Lake Turkana,
      >> northern
      >>> Kenya (Fig.1). Controversy immediately surrounded the specimen,
      >> which has
      >>> been the subject of considerable reflection on scientific conduct and
      >>> demeanor in paleoanthropology. The initial clamor centered around its
      >>> purported age of nearly 3 million years. To this was added
      > disagreement
      >>> amongst its describers about whether the specimen was representative
      >> of the
      >>> genus Australopithecus or of Homo.
      >>> An ancient age contradicted expectations of a small-brained prognathic
      >>> hominid, reconstructed as it was with a relatively large brain and an
      >>> orthognathic face. It wasn¹t long before the age was corrected to
      >> 1.9 Ma,
      >>> but the reconstruction has endured despite a common appreciation
      > for the
      >>> psychosocial circumstances surrounding Richard Leakey¹s
      > reconstruction.
      >>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 was the oldest human,
      >> preconceptions
      >>> led to it being reconstructed with two supposed quintessential
      > traits of
      >>> Homo: a large brain and flat face. However, this reconstruction
      > was not
      >>> based on any biological principles and it violated mammalian
      >> architectural
      >>> relationships to such an extent that it would have been incompatible
      >> with
      >>> life.
      >>> Meanwhile, Donald H. Enlow and coworkers explicitly combined
      >> histological
      >>> interpretations of human facial bone growth remodeling with serial
      >>> radiographic data in order to promote a new cephalometric system. For
      >>> instance, Enlow (1966) noted that only "apparent" growth could be
      >> measured
      >>> using conventional cephalometric methods, but that superimposition
      >> based on
      >>> known growth and remodeling sites permitted "actual" growth to be
      >>> visualized. Enlow (1968) and Enlow & Hunter (1968) subsequently
      >> outlined a
      >>> series of anatomical parts and counterparts which could be evaluated
      >> on the
      >>> basis of growth equivalents and growth compensations between them.
      > This
      >>> approach led to the realization that there existed a common mammalian
      >>> craniofacial architecture, the biological principles of which may be
      >>> employed in the reconstruction of fragmentary fossil cranial remains
      >> such as
      >>> KNM-ER 1470.
      >>>
      >>> Materials and methods
      >>>
      >>> In 1975 Enlow & Azuma investigated the prevalence of certain
      >> architectural
      >>> relationships among a diversity of human and non-human mammalian
      > skulls.
      >>> These authors defined several architectural relationships that
      > depend on
      >>> important growth sites and the developmental disposition of neural and
      >>> pharyngeal matrices as follows (see Fig.2): 1) a Posterior Maxillary
      >> (PM)
      >>> plane passing from the Maxillary Tuberosity (MT) to the junction of
      >> middle
      >>> and anterior cranial fossae (MACF) is close to perpendicular to the
      >> Neutral
      >>> Horizontal Axis (NHA) of the orbit and passing through Orbital
      > Midpoint
      >>> (OM), 2) the base of the brain, Maxillary Tuberosity and Prosthion
      >> are on or
      >>> close to the same plane (IBMP), and 3) an average 45° angle, whose
      >> origin is
      >>> the External Auditory Meatus (EAM), separates the Maxillary
      >> Tuberosity from
      >>> the Orbital Midpoint (the Meatus Angle: MA). These relationships
      >> were found
      >>> to hold for mammals in general. Members of the Anthropoidea,
      >> however, were
      >>> found by Enlow & Azuma (1975) to exhibit a characteristic vertical
      >>> hypoplasia of the anterior maxilla (AMH), meaning that Prosthion lay
      >> above
      >>> the Inferior Brain-to-Maxilla Plane. We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470
      >> using 3
      >>> methods; a topographic method is employed here (Fig.4), in which
      > 3D-data
      >>> acquisition was performed with the topometrical 3D-measurement
      >> system Opto
      >>> Top (Breuckmann, Germany). While OM and EAM are available on KNM-ER
      >> 1470,
      >>> MT was reconstructed by representing the tooth row with other
      > comparable
      >>> early Homo premolars and molars, thus defining its posterior postion
      >>> (Fig.4).
      >>>
      >>> Results
      >>>
      >>> We observe the PM-NHA architectural plane and MA angle on the original
      >>> KNM-ER 1470 reconstruction, noting that neither fall near to an
      >> intersection
      >>> with Maxillary Tuberosity, indicating a severe orthognathic facial
      >> skeleton
      >>> inconsistent with architectural constraints governing mammalian
      >> craniofacial
      >>> anatomy (Fig.5).
      >>> For comparison we observed architectural relationships on a somewhat
      >> younger
      >>> early Homo cranium recovered from Lake Turkana deposits, which was
      >> intact
      >>> and required no reconstructive hafting of the face onto the calvarium
      >>> (Fig.5). The relationships are correct and pose no architectural
      >> conundrum.
      >>> We subsequently repositioned the KNM-ER 1470 facial skeleton in such
      >> a way
      >>> as to bring the reconstructed Maxillary Tuberosity forward until the
      >> Meatus
      >>> Angle, formed by Orbital Midpoint, External Auditory Meatus, and
      >> Maxillary
      >>> Tuberosity, was 45° (Fig. 6, green lines).
      >>> The corrected craniofacial architecture of KNM-ER 1470 also
      > provides the
      >>> opportunity to revise the cranial capacity estimate of 752 cc,
      > which has
      >>> always been an outlier in studies of early human brain size. Based
      >> upon the
      >>> relationships between hominoid and homind prognathism with brain size
      >>> (Thackeray & Monteith 1997), 526 cc ± 49 (± 1SD) is the new
      >>> estimate for KNM-ER 1470 (Fig.6, red lines).
      >>>
      >>> Discussion
      >>>
      >>> No biological principles were initially used to reconstruct KNM-ER
      > 1470,
      >>> thus the extreme orthognathy and cranial capacity posited for this
      >> specimen
      >>> were free to satisfy 1970¹s preconceptions of the shift from more
      >> ape-like
      >>> relationships and proportions, such as represented by the genus
      >>> Australopithecus, to those that were more human-like; that is, ³to
      >> be Homo
      >>> it must have a flat face and large brain².
      >>> A revised reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 according to mammalian
      >> architectural
      >>> constraints outlined by Enlow & Azuma (1975) demonstrates,
      > instead, that
      >>> this early Homo specimen is similar to other earlier and presumed
      >> ancestral
      >>> prognathic hominids. The relationships between hominoid and hominid
      >>> prognathism and brain size permitted also the cranial capacity of
      > KNM-ER
      >>> 1470 to be revised from 752cc to 526cc ± 49cc, which is more
      >> consistent with
      >>> our knowledge of brain size increase
      >>> during the Pliocene.
      >>> KNM-ER 1470, now regarded as representing Homo rudolfensis, the
      > earliest
      >>> representative of the genus Homo, cannot now be considered to be
      >> defined on
      >>> basis of its orthognathy and brain size.
      >>> Other aspects of calvarium and facial morphology that characterize the
      >>> difference between H. rudolfensis and later-occuring H. habilis must
      >> hold,
      >>> as summarized by Wood (1992), or else the genus-species assignment
      >> of KNM-ER
      >>> 1470 will need to be revised as well.
      >>>
      >>> Fig. 1 KNM-ER 1470, Homo rudolfensis.
      >>> Fig. 2 Craniofacial architectural planes illustrated on the lateral
      >> headfilm
      >>> tracing of a chimpanzee skull, Pan troglodytes
      >>> Fig. 3 KNM-ER 1470 optical topograph MT MT
      >>> Fig. 4 KNM-ER 1470 premolars and molars are represented by KNM-ER
      >> 1590 &
      >>> 806a specimens, permitting MT position to be estimated in the arch
      >>> posteriorly.
      >>> Fig. 5 the PM-NHA plane and MA angle are illustrated on the original
      >>> reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 (left) and on the intact cranium of
      > KNM-ER
      >>> 1813 (right).
      >>> Fig. 6 KNM-ER 1470 with corrrected architectural hafting of the facial
      >>> skeleton onto the calvarium.
      >>>
      >>> References
      >>>
      >>> Enlow, D. H. (1966). A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth.
      > Am. J.
      >>> Orthod. 52, 283-299.
      >>> Enlow, D. H. (1968) The Human Face: An Account of the Postnatal Growth
      >>> and Development of the Craniofacial Skeleton. New York: Harper
      >>> and Row.
      >>> Enlow, D. H. & Azuma, M. (1975) Functional growth boundaries in the
      >> human
      >>> and mammalian face. In (J. Langman, Ed.) Morphogenesis and Malfor
      >>> mations of the Face and Brain, pp. 217-230. New York: The Na¹l Fndn.
      >>> Enlow, D. H. & Hunter, W. S. (1968) The growth of the face in
      >> relation to
      >>> the
      >>> cranial base. Eur. Orthod. Soc., Congress Report 44, 321-335.
      >>> Thackeray, J.F., Monteith, B.D. (1997) Relationships between
      >> cranial ca
      >>> pacity and prognathism in Plio-Pleistocene hominids. South
      > African J.
      >>> Sci. 93, 289-291.
      >>> Wood, B (1992) Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature 355,
      >>> 783-790.
    • m3dodds
      ... http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconstructi/#m ... Is 590-650 cc to high a mean for the habilis ? habilis [KNM ER 1813]
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 1, 2007
        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Bromage apparently angled the skull a bit:
        > >
        http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconstructi/#m
        > > ore



        > Thanks a lot.
        > I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks
        > what others have to say.That Hawks is insightful,
        > as claimed in the link, is wrong: people who believe
        > AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and
        > anthropology is part of biology!).
        >
        >


        > >>>> Thanks, Marc.
        > >>>> If you are still interested you can
        > >>>> download a PDF copy of the conference
        > >>>> poster used in the original news
        > >>>> release, from NYU....
        > >>>> http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1526
        > >>>> Warning: It's a large PDF... ---m3d
        >
        > >>> Yes, it's large: I tried to upload it at AAT3, but it
        > >>> was too big. Thanks a lot, m3d.
        > >>> I have the strong impression that Bromage is right:
        > >>> ER-1470 seems to be A.boisei or so, with a brain of
        > >>> 500-550 cc instead of 750!
        >
        > >> Would agree, Marc...it does appear to be a more
        > >> accurate reconstruction. Guess in the '70s it
        > >> was deemed to be Homo, an to be Homo it had to
        > >> have a good-sized brain and a flat-face.
        > >> A brain of 500-550 cc is less than that claimed
        > >> for the smaller "habilis"... [590-650 cc]
        > >> ---m3d
        >
        > No, no: ER-1813 (female?) had +-510cc IIRC, and the
        > 4 OH skulls were so badly severed that their CC was
        > hardly measurable (fossil-hunters prefer larger CCs...).
        > The mean of 590-650 cc was reached only when ER-1470
        > with 750-775 cc was included in "habilis".
        >
        > --Marc



        Is 590-650 cc to high a mean for
        the "habilis"?


        "habilis" [KNM ER 1813]
        http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

        KNM ER 1470
        http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html


        ____________________


        LIVE SCIENCE.COM
        Controversial Human Ancestor
        Gets Major Facelift



        An ancient member of the human family has
        gotten a digital facelift, and the new mug
        looks more ape-like than scientists
        previously thought.

        The new reconstruction suggests the large
        brains and flatter faces characteristic
        of modern humans did not appear in our
        lineage until much later in our history.

        "For how many years now, people have been
        using this [skull] and the numbers may not
        be very meaningful," said Timothy Bromage,
        an anthropologist at New York University
        who led the new reconstruction effort.

        http://tinyurl.com/393k9o

        _____________________


        ---m3d










        > >>> Here's the text:
        > >>> Craniofacial architectural constraints resolve
        > >>> major quandry of human evolution
        > >>> TG Bromage, O Kullmer, F Schrenk, A Rosenberger,
        > >>> JF Tackeray & R Hogg 2007
        > >>> Objectives:
        > >>> Donald H. Enlow and colleagues identified boundary
        > >>> conditions and planes of the mid-face in humans and
        > >>> other mammal species that are defined on the
        > >>> basis of important growth sites and the developmental
        > >>> disposition of neural and pharyngeal matrices. We
        > >>> apply knowledge of developmental constraints
        > >>> characterizing functional growth boundaries to the
        > >>> reconstruction of one of the most celebrated earliest
        > >>> humans, KNM-ER 1470, a 1.9-Ma Homo rudolfensis
        > >>> craniofacial skeleton from east of Lake Turkana,
        > >>> northern Kenya, discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972.
        > >>> Methods:
        > >>> We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470 using three methods: a flexible
        cast was
        > >>> produced, which could be deformed, and virtual models of the 3-part
        > >>> cast of
        > >>> KNM-ER 1470 were digitally acquired using both laser scanning and
        > >>> optical
        > >>> topometric technologies. The parts (left and right halves of the
        > >>> cranium and the face) have been reassembled according to mammalian
        > >>> architectural relationships, which illustrate how the KNM-ER 1470
        > >>> craniofacial skeleton was in life.
        > >>> Results:
        > >>> The face is found to be relatively prognathic and, according to
        > >>> previously
        > >>> published analyses, the cranial capacity is significantly lower and
        > >>> within
        > >>> the range of other Late Pliocene Homo. KNM-ER 1470 was once an
        > >>> outlier in
        > >>> most mensurational investigations, now it can be properly
        > >>> remeasured and
        > >>> interpreted with other earliest humans.
        > >>> Conclusion:
        > >>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 is an early representative
        > >>> of the
        > >>> genus Homo, it was reconstructed with its two quintessential traits:
        > >>> a large
        > >>> brain and a flat face. The problem is that this reconstruction
        > >>> violates
        > >>> mammalian architectural relationships and would have been
        > >>> incompatible with
        > >>> life. Attention to biological principles that govern the design
        > >>> of the
        > >>> craniofacial skeleton has the potential to provide a major
        > >>> contribution to
        > >>> studies of human anatomy, development, and, in the case presented
        > >>> here, human evolution.
        > >>>
        > >>> Introduction
        > >>>
        > >>> Fragments of the craniofacial skeleton KNM-ER 1470 were
        discovered by
        > >>> Richard Leakey¹s team in 1972 from deposits east of Lake Turkana,
        > >> northern
        > >>> Kenya (Fig.1). Controversy immediately surrounded the specimen,
        > >> which has
        > >>> been the subject of considerable reflection on scientific
        conduct and
        > >>> demeanor in paleoanthropology. The initial clamor centered
        around its
        > >>> purported age of nearly 3 million years. To this was added
        > > disagreement
        > >>> amongst its describers about whether the specimen was representative
        > >> of the
        > >>> genus Australopithecus or of Homo.
        > >>> An ancient age contradicted expectations of a small-brained
        prognathic
        > >>> hominid, reconstructed as it was with a relatively large brain
        and an
        > >>> orthognathic face. It wasn¹t long before the age was corrected to
        > >> 1.9 Ma,
        > >>> but the reconstruction has endured despite a common appreciation
        > > for the
        > >>> psychosocial circumstances surrounding Richard Leakey¹s
        > > reconstruction.
        > >>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 was the oldest human,
        > >> preconceptions
        > >>> led to it being reconstructed with two supposed quintessential
        > > traits of
        > >>> Homo: a large brain and flat face. However, this reconstruction
        > > was not
        > >>> based on any biological principles and it violated mammalian
        > >> architectural
        > >>> relationships to such an extent that it would have been incompatible
        > >> with
        > >>> life.
        > >>> Meanwhile, Donald H. Enlow and coworkers explicitly combined
        > >> histological
        > >>> interpretations of human facial bone growth remodeling with serial
        > >>> radiographic data in order to promote a new cephalometric
        system. For
        > >>> instance, Enlow (1966) noted that only "apparent" growth could be
        > >> measured
        > >>> using conventional cephalometric methods, but that superimposition
        > >> based on
        > >>> known growth and remodeling sites permitted "actual" growth to be
        > >>> visualized. Enlow (1968) and Enlow & Hunter (1968) subsequently
        > >> outlined a
        > >>> series of anatomical parts and counterparts which could be evaluated
        > >> on the
        > >>> basis of growth equivalents and growth compensations between them.
        > > This
        > >>> approach led to the realization that there existed a common
        mammalian
        > >>> craniofacial architecture, the biological principles of which may be
        > >>> employed in the reconstruction of fragmentary fossil cranial remains
        > >> such as
        > >>> KNM-ER 1470.
        > >>>
        > >>> Materials and methods
        > >>>
        > >>> In 1975 Enlow & Azuma investigated the prevalence of certain
        > >> architectural
        > >>> relationships among a diversity of human and non-human mammalian
        > > skulls.
        > >>> These authors defined several architectural relationships that
        > > depend on
        > >>> important growth sites and the developmental disposition of
        neural and
        > >>> pharyngeal matrices as follows (see Fig.2): 1) a Posterior Maxillary
        > >> (PM)
        > >>> plane passing from the Maxillary Tuberosity (MT) to the junction of
        > >> middle
        > >>> and anterior cranial fossae (MACF) is close to perpendicular to the
        > >> Neutral
        > >>> Horizontal Axis (NHA) of the orbit and passing through Orbital
        > > Midpoint
        > >>> (OM), 2) the base of the brain, Maxillary Tuberosity and Prosthion
        > >> are on or
        > >>> close to the same plane (IBMP), and 3) an average 45° angle, whose
        > >> origin is
        > >>> the External Auditory Meatus (EAM), separates the Maxillary
        > >> Tuberosity from
        > >>> the Orbital Midpoint (the Meatus Angle: MA). These relationships
        > >> were found
        > >>> to hold for mammals in general. Members of the Anthropoidea,
        > >> however, were
        > >>> found by Enlow & Azuma (1975) to exhibit a characteristic vertical
        > >>> hypoplasia of the anterior maxilla (AMH), meaning that Prosthion lay
        > >> above
        > >>> the Inferior Brain-to-Maxilla Plane. We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470
        > >> using 3
        > >>> methods; a topographic method is employed here (Fig.4), in which
        > > 3D-data
        > >>> acquisition was performed with the topometrical 3D-measurement
        > >> system Opto
        > >>> Top (Breuckmann, Germany). While OM and EAM are available on KNM-ER
        > >> 1470,
        > >>> MT was reconstructed by representing the tooth row with other
        > > comparable
        > >>> early Homo premolars and molars, thus defining its posterior postion
        > >>> (Fig.4).
        > >>>
        > >>> Results
        > >>>
        > >>> We observe the PM-NHA architectural plane and MA angle on the
        original
        > >>> KNM-ER 1470 reconstruction, noting that neither fall near to an
        > >> intersection
        > >>> with Maxillary Tuberosity, indicating a severe orthognathic facial
        > >> skeleton
        > >>> inconsistent with architectural constraints governing mammalian
        > >> craniofacial
        > >>> anatomy (Fig.5).
        > >>> For comparison we observed architectural relationships on a somewhat
        > >> younger
        > >>> early Homo cranium recovered from Lake Turkana deposits, which was
        > >> intact
        > >>> and required no reconstructive hafting of the face onto the
        calvarium
        > >>> (Fig.5). The relationships are correct and pose no architectural
        > >> conundrum.
        > >>> We subsequently repositioned the KNM-ER 1470 facial skeleton in such
        > >> a way
        > >>> as to bring the reconstructed Maxillary Tuberosity forward until the
        > >> Meatus
        > >>> Angle, formed by Orbital Midpoint, External Auditory Meatus, and
        > >> Maxillary
        > >>> Tuberosity, was 45° (Fig. 6, green lines).
        > >>> The corrected craniofacial architecture of KNM-ER 1470 also
        > > provides the
        > >>> opportunity to revise the cranial capacity estimate of 752 cc,
        > > which has
        > >>> always been an outlier in studies of early human brain size. Based
        > >> upon the
        > >>> relationships between hominoid and homind prognathism with brain
        size
        > >>> (Thackeray & Monteith 1997), 526 cc ± 49 (± 1SD) is the new
        > >>> estimate for KNM-ER 1470 (Fig.6, red lines).
        > >>>
        > >>> Discussion
        > >>>
        > >>> No biological principles were initially used to reconstruct KNM-ER
        > > 1470,
        > >>> thus the extreme orthognathy and cranial capacity posited for this
        > >> specimen
        > >>> were free to satisfy 1970¹s preconceptions of the shift from more
        > >> ape-like
        > >>> relationships and proportions, such as represented by the genus
        > >>> Australopithecus, to those that were more human-like; that is, ³to
        > >> be Homo
        > >>> it must have a flat face and large brain².
        > >>> A revised reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 according to mammalian
        > >> architectural
        > >>> constraints outlined by Enlow & Azuma (1975) demonstrates,
        > > instead, that
        > >>> this early Homo specimen is similar to other earlier and presumed
        > >> ancestral
        > >>> prognathic hominids. The relationships between hominoid and hominid
        > >>> prognathism and brain size permitted also the cranial capacity of
        > > KNM-ER
        > >>> 1470 to be revised from 752cc to 526cc ± 49cc, which is more
        > >> consistent with
        > >>> our knowledge of brain size increase
        > >>> during the Pliocene.
        > >>> KNM-ER 1470, now regarded as representing Homo rudolfensis, the
        > > earliest
        > >>> representative of the genus Homo, cannot now be considered to be
        > >> defined on
        > >>> basis of its orthognathy and brain size.
        > >>> Other aspects of calvarium and facial morphology that
        characterize the
        > >>> difference between H. rudolfensis and later-occuring H. habilis must
        > >> hold,
        > >>> as summarized by Wood (1992), or else the genus-species assignment
        > >> of KNM-ER
        > >>> 1470 will need to be revised as well.
        > >>>
        > >>> Fig. 1 KNM-ER 1470, Homo rudolfensis.
        > >>> Fig. 2 Craniofacial architectural planes illustrated on the lateral
        > >> headfilm
        > >>> tracing of a chimpanzee skull, Pan troglodytes
        > >>> Fig. 3 KNM-ER 1470 optical topograph MT MT
        > >>> Fig. 4 KNM-ER 1470 premolars and molars are represented by KNM-ER
        > >> 1590 &
        > >>> 806a specimens, permitting MT position to be estimated in the arch
        > >>> posteriorly.
        > >>> Fig. 5 the PM-NHA plane and MA angle are illustrated on the original
        > >>> reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 (left) and on the intact cranium of
        > > KNM-ER
        > >>> 1813 (right).
        > >>> Fig. 6 KNM-ER 1470 with corrrected architectural hafting of the
        facial
        > >>> skeleton onto the calvarium.
        > >>>
        > >>> References
        > >>>
        > >>> Enlow, D. H. (1966). A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth.
        > > Am. J.
        > >>> Orthod. 52, 283-299.
        > >>> Enlow, D. H. (1968) The Human Face: An Account of the Postnatal
        Growth
        > >>> and Development of the Craniofacial Skeleton. New York: Harper
        > >>> and Row.
        > >>> Enlow, D. H. & Azuma, M. (1975) Functional growth boundaries in the
        > >> human
        > >>> and mammalian face. In (J. Langman, Ed.) Morphogenesis and Malfor
        > >>> mations of the Face and Brain, pp. 217-230. New York: The Na¹l
        Fndn.
        > >>> Enlow, D. H. & Hunter, W. S. (1968) The growth of the face in
        > >> relation to
        > >>> the
        > >>> cranial base. Eur. Orthod. Soc., Congress Report 44, 321-335.
        > >>> Thackeray, J.F., Monteith, B.D. (1997) Relationships between
        > >> cranial ca
        > >>> pacity and prognathism in Plio-Pleistocene hominids. South
        > > African J.
        > >>> Sci. 93, 289-291.
        > >>> Wood, B (1992) Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature 355,
        > >>> 783-790.
        >
      • Mario Petrinovich
        ... who ... Ther was a big fuzz recently, around that blog. I started to read, but didn t find absolutely anything interesting. This Hawks doen t look
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 1, 2007
          Marc Verhaegen:
          > I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks what others have to
          > say.
          > That Hawks is insightful, as claimed in the link, is wrong: people
          who
          > believe AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and anthropology is
          > part of biology!).

          Ther was a big fuzz recently, around that blog. I started
          to read, but didn't find absolutely anything interesting. This
          Hawks doen't look interesting to me. He is just floating around,
          trying to accomodate himself to surrounding conditions. He has
          nothing interesting to say, and he is just trying to give people
          what they need, so that this way he earns their acceptance.
          This article of his is a perfect example. He is not even
          trying too hard (he very well knows that it is sooo easy to give
          people what they want, if they really want it BADLY). He simply
          uses Photoshop (or whatever) to put "things into their place", and
          this means to "prove" the view which is in tune with the level on
          which he is living, and that view says that we are the intelligent
          ones, and that our "intelligence" is the cause of tool use,
          language, fire, and everything else. A stupid view, which can be
          proved only with Photoshop. Somebody will call him John "Piltdown"
          Hawks. Only someone who is DESPERATE to "prove" that we are
          something "special" can fall on such stories, and call
          Hawks "insightful". -- Mario
        • Marc Verhaegen
          ... http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconstructi/ #more ... ER-1813 (generally included into habilis ) is about 510 cc, ER-1470
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 1, 2007
            >>> Bromage apparently angled the skull a bit:
            http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconstructi/
            #more

            >> Thanks a lot.
            >> I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks
            >> what others have to say.That Hawks is insightful,
            >> as claimed in the link, is wrong: people who believe
            >> AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and
            >> anthropology is part of biology!).

            >>>>>> Thanks, Marc.
            >>>>>> If you are still interested you can
            >>>>>> download a PDF copy of the conference
            >>>>>> poster used in the original news
            >>>>>> release, from NYU....
            >>>>>> http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1526
            >>>>>> Warning: It's a large PDF... ---m3d

            >>>>> Yes, it's large: I tried to upload it at AAT3, but it
            >>>>> was too big. Thanks a lot, m3d.
            >>>>> I have the strong impression that Bromage is right:
            >>>>> ER-1470 seems to be A.boisei or so, with a brain of
            >>>>> 500-550 cc instead of 750!

            >>>> Would agree, Marc...it does appear to be a more
            >>>> accurate reconstruction. Guess in the '70s it
            >>>> was deemed to be Homo, an to be Homo it had to
            >>>> have a good-sized brain and a flat-face.
            >>>> A brain of 500-550 cc is less than that claimed
            >>>> for the smaller "habilis"... [590-650 cc]
            >>>> ---m3d

            >> No, no: ER-1813 (female?) had +-510cc IIRC, and the
            >> 4 OH skulls were so badly severed that their CC was
            >> hardly measurable (fossil-hunters prefer larger CCs...).
            >> The mean of 590-650 cc was reached only when ER-1470
            >> with 750-775 cc was included in "habilis". --Marc

            > Is 590-650 cc to high a mean for
            > the "habilis"?

            ER-1813 (generally included into "habilis") is about 510 cc, ER-1470
            (boisei?? "habilis"?) is now thought to be about 525 cc. The OH skulls were
            probably larger, but the braincases were difficult to reconstruct.
            I guess "habilis" needs to be redefined. What fossils belong to it? To what
            genus did "habilis" belong? Pan? Homo??
            H & P split about 4 Ma (recent paper), so we may assume that at first H & P
            were hardly discernable. The probably very long arms of OH-62 suggest
            frequent arm-hanging.

            It's estimated that H.modjokertensis (probably 1.8 Ma) would have had 800 or
            900 cc as an adult!

            > "habilis" [KNM ER 1813]
            > http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
            > KNM ER 1470
            > http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html

            > LIVE SCIENCE.COM
            > Controversial Human Ancestor
            > Gets Major Facelift
            > An ancient member of the human family has
            > gotten a digital facelift, and the new mug
            > looks more ape-like than scientists
            > previously thought.
            > The new reconstruction suggests the large
            > brains and flatter faces characteristic
            > of modern humans did not appear in our
            > lineage until much later in our history.
            > "For how many years now, people have been
            > using this [skull] and the numbers may not
            > be very meaningful," said Timothy Bromage,
            > an anthropologist at New York University
            > who led the new reconstruction effort.
            > http://tinyurl.com/393k9o

            Thanks, m3d.

            "³It doesn¹t matter if you¹re a rat, a kangaroo, an elephant, a human or a
            dog ‹ their [facial features] are all organized to a very specific
            architectural plan,² Bromage said. For example, Bromage said, take any
            mammal and draw an imaginary line from the last permanent molar in its jaw
            that extends towards the opening of the ear and out the center of the eye
            socket. The angle of that line should be around 45 degrees."

            (What about, eg, Cetacea in this respect?)

            --Marc




            >>>>> Here's the text:
            >>>>> Craniofacial architectural constraints resolve
            >>>>> major quandry of human evolution
            >>>>> TG Bromage, O Kullmer, F Schrenk, A Rosenberger,
            >>>>> JF Tackeray & R Hogg 2007
            >>>>> Objectives:
            >>>>> Donald H. Enlow and colleagues identified boundary
            >>>>> conditions and planes of the mid-face in humans and
            >>>>> other mammal species that are defined on the
            >>>>> basis of important growth sites and the developmental
            >>>>> disposition of neural and pharyngeal matrices. We
            >>>>> apply knowledge of developmental constraints
            >>>>> characterizing functional growth boundaries to the
            >>>>> reconstruction of one of the most celebrated earliest
            >>>>> humans, KNM-ER 1470, a 1.9-Ma Homo rudolfensis
            >>>>> craniofacial skeleton from east of Lake Turkana,
            >>>>> northern Kenya, discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972.
            >>>>> Methods:
            >>>>> We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470 using three methods: a flexible
            > cast was
            >>>>> produced, which could be deformed, and virtual models of the 3-part
            >>>>> cast of
            >>>>> KNM-ER 1470 were digitally acquired using both laser scanning and
            >>>>> optical
            >>>>> topometric technologies. The parts (left and right halves of the
            >>>>> cranium and the face) have been reassembled according to mammalian
            >>>>> architectural relationships, which illustrate how the KNM-ER 1470
            >>>>> craniofacial skeleton was in life.
            >>>>> Results:
            >>>>> The face is found to be relatively prognathic and, according to
            >>>>> previously
            >>>>> published analyses, the cranial capacity is significantly lower and
            >>>>> within
            >>>>> the range of other Late Pliocene Homo. KNM-ER 1470 was once an
            >>>>> outlier in
            >>>>> most mensurational investigations, now it can be properly
            >>>>> remeasured and
            >>>>> interpreted with other earliest humans.
            >>>>> Conclusion:
            >>>>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 is an early representative
            >>>>> of the
            >>>>> genus Homo, it was reconstructed with its two quintessential traits:
            >>>>> a large
            >>>>> brain and a flat face. The problem is that this reconstruction
            >>>>> violates
            >>>>> mammalian architectural relationships and would have been
            >>>>> incompatible with
            >>>>> life. Attention to biological principles that govern the design
            >>>>> of the
            >>>>> craniofacial skeleton has the potential to provide a major
            >>>>> contribution to
            >>>>> studies of human anatomy, development, and, in the case presented
            >>>>> here, human evolution.
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Introduction
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Fragments of the craniofacial skeleton KNM-ER 1470 were
            > discovered by
            >>>>> Richard Leakey¹s team in 1972 from deposits east of Lake Turkana,
            >>>> northern
            >>>>> Kenya (Fig.1). Controversy immediately surrounded the specimen,
            >>>> which has
            >>>>> been the subject of considerable reflection on scientific
            > conduct and
            >>>>> demeanor in paleoanthropology. The initial clamor centered
            > around its
            >>>>> purported age of nearly 3 million years. To this was added
            >>> disagreement
            >>>>> amongst its describers about whether the specimen was representative
            >>>> of the
            >>>>> genus Australopithecus or of Homo.
            >>>>> An ancient age contradicted expectations of a small-brained
            > prognathic
            >>>>> hominid, reconstructed as it was with a relatively large brain
            > and an
            >>>>> orthognathic face. It wasn¹t long before the age was corrected to
            >>>> 1.9 Ma,
            >>>>> but the reconstruction has endured despite a common appreciation
            >>> for the
            >>>>> psychosocial circumstances surrounding Richard Leakey¹s
            >>> reconstruction.
            >>>>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 was the oldest human,
            >>>> preconceptions
            >>>>> led to it being reconstructed with two supposed quintessential
            >>> traits of
            >>>>> Homo: a large brain and flat face. However, this reconstruction
            >>> was not
            >>>>> based on any biological principles and it violated mammalian
            >>>> architectural
            >>>>> relationships to such an extent that it would have been incompatible
            >>>> with
            >>>>> life.
            >>>>> Meanwhile, Donald H. Enlow and coworkers explicitly combined
            >>>> histological
            >>>>> interpretations of human facial bone growth remodeling with serial
            >>>>> radiographic data in order to promote a new cephalometric
            > system. For
            >>>>> instance, Enlow (1966) noted that only "apparent" growth could be
            >>>> measured
            >>>>> using conventional cephalometric methods, but that superimposition
            >>>> based on
            >>>>> known growth and remodeling sites permitted "actual" growth to be
            >>>>> visualized. Enlow (1968) and Enlow & Hunter (1968) subsequently
            >>>> outlined a
            >>>>> series of anatomical parts and counterparts which could be evaluated
            >>>> on the
            >>>>> basis of growth equivalents and growth compensations between them.
            >>> This
            >>>>> approach led to the realization that there existed a common
            > mammalian
            >>>>> craniofacial architecture, the biological principles of which may be
            >>>>> employed in the reconstruction of fragmentary fossil cranial remains
            >>>> such as
            >>>>> KNM-ER 1470.
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Materials and methods
            >>>>>
            >>>>> In 1975 Enlow & Azuma investigated the prevalence of certain
            >>>> architectural
            >>>>> relationships among a diversity of human and non-human mammalian
            >>> skulls.
            >>>>> These authors defined several architectural relationships that
            >>> depend on
            >>>>> important growth sites and the developmental disposition of
            > neural and
            >>>>> pharyngeal matrices as follows (see Fig.2): 1) a Posterior Maxillary
            >>>> (PM)
            >>>>> plane passing from the Maxillary Tuberosity (MT) to the junction of
            >>>> middle
            >>>>> and anterior cranial fossae (MACF) is close to perpendicular to the
            >>>> Neutral
            >>>>> Horizontal Axis (NHA) of the orbit and passing through Orbital
            >>> Midpoint
            >>>>> (OM), 2) the base of the brain, Maxillary Tuberosity and Prosthion
            >>>> are on or
            >>>>> close to the same plane (IBMP), and 3) an average 45° angle, whose
            >>>> origin is
            >>>>> the External Auditory Meatus (EAM), separates the Maxillary
            >>>> Tuberosity from
            >>>>> the Orbital Midpoint (the Meatus Angle: MA). These relationships
            >>>> were found
            >>>>> to hold for mammals in general. Members of the Anthropoidea,
            >>>> however, were
            >>>>> found by Enlow & Azuma (1975) to exhibit a characteristic vertical
            >>>>> hypoplasia of the anterior maxilla (AMH), meaning that Prosthion lay
            >>>> above
            >>>>> the Inferior Brain-to-Maxilla Plane. We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470
            >>>> using 3
            >>>>> methods; a topographic method is employed here (Fig.4), in which
            >>> 3D-data
            >>>>> acquisition was performed with the topometrical 3D-measurement
            >>>> system Opto
            >>>>> Top (Breuckmann, Germany). While OM and EAM are available on KNM-ER
            >>>> 1470,
            >>>>> MT was reconstructed by representing the tooth row with other
            >>> comparable
            >>>>> early Homo premolars and molars, thus defining its posterior postion
            >>>>> (Fig.4).
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Results
            >>>>>
            >>>>> We observe the PM-NHA architectural plane and MA angle on the
            > original
            >>>>> KNM-ER 1470 reconstruction, noting that neither fall near to an
            >>>> intersection
            >>>>> with Maxillary Tuberosity, indicating a severe orthognathic facial
            >>>> skeleton
            >>>>> inconsistent with architectural constraints governing mammalian
            >>>> craniofacial
            >>>>> anatomy (Fig.5).
            >>>>> For comparison we observed architectural relationships on a somewhat
            >>>> younger
            >>>>> early Homo cranium recovered from Lake Turkana deposits, which was
            >>>> intact
            >>>>> and required no reconstructive hafting of the face onto the
            > calvarium
            >>>>> (Fig.5). The relationships are correct and pose no architectural
            >>>> conundrum.
            >>>>> We subsequently repositioned the KNM-ER 1470 facial skeleton in such
            >>>> a way
            >>>>> as to bring the reconstructed Maxillary Tuberosity forward until the
            >>>> Meatus
            >>>>> Angle, formed by Orbital Midpoint, External Auditory Meatus, and
            >>>> Maxillary
            >>>>> Tuberosity, was 45° (Fig. 6, green lines).
            >>>>> The corrected craniofacial architecture of KNM-ER 1470 also
            >>> provides the
            >>>>> opportunity to revise the cranial capacity estimate of 752 cc,
            >>> which has
            >>>>> always been an outlier in studies of early human brain size. Based
            >>>> upon the
            >>>>> relationships between hominoid and homind prognathism with brain
            > size
            >>>>> (Thackeray & Monteith 1997), 526 cc ± 49 (± 1SD) is the new
            >>>>> estimate for KNM-ER 1470 (Fig.6, red lines).
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Discussion
            >>>>>
            >>>>> No biological principles were initially used to reconstruct KNM-ER
            >>> 1470,
            >>>>> thus the extreme orthognathy and cranial capacity posited for this
            >>>> specimen
            >>>>> were free to satisfy 1970¹s preconceptions of the shift from more
            >>>> ape-like
            >>>>> relationships and proportions, such as represented by the genus
            >>>>> Australopithecus, to those that were more human-like; that is, ³to
            >>>> be Homo
            >>>>> it must have a flat face and large brain².
            >>>>> A revised reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 according to mammalian
            >>>> architectural
            >>>>> constraints outlined by Enlow & Azuma (1975) demonstrates,
            >>> instead, that
            >>>>> this early Homo specimen is similar to other earlier and presumed
            >>>> ancestral
            >>>>> prognathic hominids. The relationships between hominoid and hominid
            >>>>> prognathism and brain size permitted also the cranial capacity of
            >>> KNM-ER
            >>>>> 1470 to be revised from 752cc to 526cc ± 49cc, which is more
            >>>> consistent with
            >>>>> our knowledge of brain size increase
            >>>>> during the Pliocene.
            >>>>> KNM-ER 1470, now regarded as representing Homo rudolfensis, the
            >>> earliest
            >>>>> representative of the genus Homo, cannot now be considered to be
            >>>> defined on
            >>>>> basis of its orthognathy and brain size.
            >>>>> Other aspects of calvarium and facial morphology that
            > characterize the
            >>>>> difference between H. rudolfensis and later-occuring H. habilis must
            >>>> hold,
            >>>>> as summarized by Wood (1992), or else the genus-species assignment
            >>>> of KNM-ER
            >>>>> 1470 will need to be revised as well.
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Fig. 1 KNM-ER 1470, Homo rudolfensis.
            >>>>> Fig. 2 Craniofacial architectural planes illustrated on the lateral
            >>>> headfilm
            >>>>> tracing of a chimpanzee skull, Pan troglodytes
            >>>>> Fig. 3 KNM-ER 1470 optical topograph MT MT
            >>>>> Fig. 4 KNM-ER 1470 premolars and molars are represented by KNM-ER
            >>>> 1590 &
            >>>>> 806a specimens, permitting MT position to be estimated in the arch
            >>>>> posteriorly.
            >>>>> Fig. 5 the PM-NHA plane and MA angle are illustrated on the original
            >>>>> reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 (left) and on the intact cranium of
            >>> KNM-ER
            >>>>> 1813 (right).
            >>>>> Fig. 6 KNM-ER 1470 with corrrected architectural hafting of the
            > facial
            >>>>> skeleton onto the calvarium.
            >>>>>
            >>>>> References
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Enlow, D. H. (1966). A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth.
            >>> Am. J.
            >>>>> Orthod. 52, 283-299.
            >>>>> Enlow, D. H. (1968) The Human Face: An Account of the Postnatal
            > Growth
            >>>>> and Development of the Craniofacial Skeleton. New York: Harper
            >>>>> and Row.
            >>>>> Enlow, D. H. & Azuma, M. (1975) Functional growth boundaries in the
            >>>> human
            >>>>> and mammalian face. In (J. Langman, Ed.) Morphogenesis and Malfor
            >>>>> mations of the Face and Brain, pp. 217-230. New York: The Na¹l
            > Fndn.
            >>>>> Enlow, D. H. & Hunter, W. S. (1968) The growth of the face in
            >>>> relation to
            >>>>> the
            >>>>> cranial base. Eur. Orthod. Soc., Congress Report 44, 321-335.
            >>>>> Thackeray, J.F., Monteith, B.D. (1997) Relationships between
            >>>> cranial ca
            >>>>> pacity and prognathism in Plio-Pleistocene hominids. South
            >>> African J.
            >>>>> Sci. 93, 289-291.
            >>>>> Wood, B (1992) Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature 355,
            >>>>> 783-790.
          • Gerard Michael Burns
            ... From: Marc Verhaegen ... Thanks a lot. I m not so sure. Let s wait a few days or weeks what others have to say. That
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 2, 2007
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@...>


              > Bromage apparently angled the skull a bit:
              > http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconstructi/#m
              > ore

              Thanks a lot.
              I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks what others have to say.
              That Hawks is insightful, as claimed in the link, is wrong: people who
              believe AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and anthropology is part of
              biology!).
              --------------------------------------------

              I would suggest modifying the above to; "...people who are certain AAT is
              wrong demonstrate no insight in biology."

              I think we make a mistake in insisting on positive belief. I mean that not
              only as a tactic (though it is important for that reason), but also in
              justice. There is no better explanation for many human traits that I can
              imagine, but there is always a chance we are mistaken. I think many people
              in PA have become more open to AAT, but they must do so by inches, in part
              because our greatest evidence (Hs physiology) is outside their science's
              accepted techniques involving old bones, and partly because the structure of
              employment and funding in the field makes rebellion outside accepted lines
              difficult and professionally costly.

              Not everyone has it in them to be a hero, so I suggest we be patient, even
              generous, with those who have much to lose. I realize that is a lot to ask
              for from those such as yourself who have been so grossly mistreated for
              being right too soon (as we believe, anyway), but I think you will find it
              also gives the best results in practical terms.


              Michael Burns
              P.S. I certainly agree with waiting a bit to form opinions on the current
              matter.


              >>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070324133018.htm

              >>>> Thanks, Marc.
              >>>> If you are still interested you can
              >>>> download a PDF copy of the conference
              >>>> poster used in the original news
              >>>> release, from NYU....
              >>>> http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1526
              >>>> Warning: It's a large PDF... ---m3d

              >>> Yes, it's large: I tried to upload it at AAT3, but it
              >>> was too big. Thanks a lot, m3d.
              >>> I have the strong impression that Bromage is right:
              >>> ER-1470 seems to be A.boisei or so, with a brain of
              >>> 500-550 cc instead of 750!

              >> Would agree, Marc...it does appear to be a more
              >> accurate reconstruction. Guess in the '70s it
              >> was deemed to be Homo, an to be Homo it had to
              >> have a good-sized brain and a flat-face.
              >> A brain of 500-550 cc is less than that claimed
              >> for the smaller "habilis"... [590-650 cc]
              >> ---m3d

              No, no: ER-1813 (female?) had +-510cc IIRC, and the 4 OH skulls were so
              badly severed that their CC was hardly measurable (fossil-hunters prefer
              larger CCs...). The mean of 590-650 cc was reached only when ER-1470 with
              750-775 cc was included in "habilis".

              --Marc

              >>> Here's the text:
              >>> Craniofacial architectural constraints resolve
              >>> major quandry of human evolution
              >>> TG Bromage, O Kullmer, F Schrenk, A Rosenberger,
              >>> JF Tackeray & R Hogg 2007
              >>> Objectives:
              >>> Donald H. Enlow and colleagues identified boundary
              >>> conditions and planes of the mid-face in humans and
              >>> other mammal species that are defined on the
              >>> basis of important growth sites and the developmental
              >>> disposition of neural and pharyngeal matrices. We
              >>> apply knowledge of developmental constraints
              >>> characterizing functional growth boundaries to the
              >>> reconstruction of one of the most celebrated earliest
              >>> humans, KNM-ER 1470, a 1.9-Ma Homo rudolfensis
              >>> craniofacial skeleton from east of Lake Turkana,
              >>> northern Kenya, discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972.
              >>> Methods:
              >>> We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470 using three methods: a flexible cast was
              >>> produced, which could be deformed, and virtual models of the 3-part
              >>> cast of
              >>> KNM-ER 1470 were digitally acquired using both laser scanning and
              >>> optical
              >>> topometric technologies. The parts (left and right halves of the
              >>> cranium and the face) have been reassembled according to mammalian
              >>> architectural relationships, which illustrate how the KNM-ER 1470
              >>> craniofacial skeleton was in life.
              >>> Results:
              >>> The face is found to be relatively prognathic and, according to
              >>> previously
              >>> published analyses, the cranial capacity is significantly lower and
              >>> within
              >>> the range of other Late Pliocene Homo. KNM-ER 1470 was once an
              >>> outlier in
              >>> most mensurational investigations, now it can be properly
              >>> remeasured and
              >>> interpreted with other earliest humans.
              >>> Conclusion:
              >>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 is an early representative
              >>> of the
              >>> genus Homo, it was reconstructed with its two quintessential traits:
              >>> a large
              >>> brain and a flat face. The problem is that this reconstruction
              >>> violates
              >>> mammalian architectural relationships and would have been
              >>> incompatible with
              >>> life. Attention to biological principles that govern the design
              >>> of the
              >>> craniofacial skeleton has the potential to provide a major
              >>> contribution to
              >>> studies of human anatomy, development, and, in the case presented
              >>> here, human evolution.
              >>>
              >>> Introduction
              >>>
              >>> Fragments of the craniofacial skeleton KNM-ER 1470 were discovered by
              >>> Richard Leakey�s team in 1972 from deposits east of Lake Turkana,
              >> northern
              >>> Kenya (Fig.1). Controversy immediately surrounded the specimen,
              >> which has
              >>> been the subject of considerable reflection on scientific conduct and
              >>> demeanor in paleoanthropology. The initial clamor centered around its
              >>> purported age of nearly 3 million years. To this was added
              > disagreement
              >>> amongst its describers about whether the specimen was representative
              >> of the
              >>> genus Australopithecus or of Homo.
              >>> An ancient age contradicted expectations of a small-brained prognathic
              >>> hominid, reconstructed as it was with a relatively large brain and an
              >>> orthognathic face. It wasn�t long before the age was corrected to
              >> 1.9 Ma,
              >>> but the reconstruction has endured despite a common appreciation
              > for the
              >>> psychosocial circumstances surrounding Richard Leakey�s
              > reconstruction.
              >>> Based upon the premise that KNM-ER 1470 was the oldest human,
              >> preconceptions
              >>> led to it being reconstructed with two supposed quintessential
              > traits of
              >>> Homo: a large brain and flat face. However, this reconstruction
              > was not
              >>> based on any biological principles and it violated mammalian
              >> architectural
              >>> relationships to such an extent that it would have been incompatible
              >> with
              >>> life.
              >>> Meanwhile, Donald H. Enlow and coworkers explicitly combined
              >> histological
              >>> interpretations of human facial bone growth remodeling with serial
              >>> radiographic data in order to promote a new cephalometric system. For
              >>> instance, Enlow (1966) noted that only "apparent" growth could be
              >> measured
              >>> using conventional cephalometric methods, but that superimposition
              >> based on
              >>> known growth and remodeling sites permitted "actual" growth to be
              >>> visualized. Enlow (1968) and Enlow & Hunter (1968) subsequently
              >> outlined a
              >>> series of anatomical parts and counterparts which could be evaluated
              >> on the
              >>> basis of growth equivalents and growth compensations between them.
              > This
              >>> approach led to the realization that there existed a common mammalian
              >>> craniofacial architecture, the biological principles of which may be
              >>> employed in the reconstruction of fragmentary fossil cranial remains
              >> such as
              >>> KNM-ER 1470.
              >>>
              >>> Materials and methods
              >>>
              >>> In 1975 Enlow & Azuma investigated the prevalence of certain
              >> architectural
              >>> relationships among a diversity of human and non-human mammalian
              > skulls.
              >>> These authors defined several architectural relationships that
              > depend on
              >>> important growth sites and the developmental disposition of neural and
              >>> pharyngeal matrices as follows (see Fig.2): 1) a Posterior Maxillary
              >> (PM)
              >>> plane passing from the Maxillary Tuberosity (MT) to the junction of
              >> middle
              >>> and anterior cranial fossae (MACF) is close to perpendicular to the
              >> Neutral
              >>> Horizontal Axis (NHA) of the orbit and passing through Orbital
              > Midpoint
              >>> (OM), 2) the base of the brain, Maxillary Tuberosity and Prosthion
              >> are on or
              >>> close to the same plane (IBMP), and 3) an average 45� angle, whose
              >> origin is
              >>> the External Auditory Meatus (EAM), separates the Maxillary
              >> Tuberosity from
              >>> the Orbital Midpoint (the Meatus Angle: MA). These relationships
              >> were found
              >>> to hold for mammals in general. Members of the Anthropoidea,
              >> however, were
              >>> found by Enlow & Azuma (1975) to exhibit a characteristic vertical
              >>> hypoplasia of the anterior maxilla (AMH), meaning that Prosthion lay
              >> above
              >>> the Inferior Brain-to-Maxilla Plane. We reconstructed KNM-ER 1470
              >> using 3
              >>> methods; a topographic method is employed here (Fig.4), in which
              > 3D-data
              >>> acquisition was performed with the topometrical 3D-measurement
              >> system Opto
              >>> Top (Breuckmann, Germany). While OM and EAM are available on KNM-ER
              >> 1470,
              >>> MT was reconstructed by representing the tooth row with other
              > comparable
              >>> early Homo premolars and molars, thus defining its posterior postion
              >>> (Fig.4).
              >>>
              >>> Results
              >>>
              >>> We observe the PM-NHA architectural plane and MA angle on the original
              >>> KNM-ER 1470 reconstruction, noting that neither fall near to an
              >> intersection
              >>> with Maxillary Tuberosity, indicating a severe orthognathic facial
              >> skeleton
              >>> inconsistent with architectural constraints governing mammalian
              >> craniofacial
              >>> anatomy (Fig.5).
              >>> For comparison we observed architectural relationships on a somewhat
              >> younger
              >>> early Homo cranium recovered from Lake Turkana deposits, which was
              >> intact
              >>> and required no reconstructive hafting of the face onto the calvarium
              >>> (Fig.5). The relationships are correct and pose no architectural
              >> conundrum.
              >>> We subsequently repositioned the KNM-ER 1470 facial skeleton in such
              >> a way
              >>> as to bring the reconstructed Maxillary Tuberosity forward until the
              >> Meatus
              >>> Angle, formed by Orbital Midpoint, External Auditory Meatus, and
              >> Maxillary
              >>> Tuberosity, was 45� (Fig. 6, green lines).
              >>> The corrected craniofacial architecture of KNM-ER 1470 also
              > provides the
              >>> opportunity to revise the cranial capacity estimate of 752 cc,
              > which has
              >>> always been an outlier in studies of early human brain size. Based
              >> upon the
              >>> relationships between hominoid and homind prognathism with brain size
              >>> (Thackeray & Monteith 1997), 526 cc � 49 (� 1SD) is the new
              >>> estimate for KNM-ER 1470 (Fig.6, red lines).
              >>>
              >>> Discussion
              >>>
              >>> No biological principles were initially used to reconstruct KNM-ER
              > 1470,
              >>> thus the extreme orthognathy and cranial capacity posited for this
              >> specimen
              >>> were free to satisfy 1970�s preconceptions of the shift from more
              >> ape-like
              >>> relationships and proportions, such as represented by the genus
              >>> Australopithecus, to those that were more human-like; that is, �to
              >> be Homo
              >>> it must have a flat face and large brain�.
              >>> A revised reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 according to mammalian
              >> architectural
              >>> constraints outlined by Enlow & Azuma (1975) demonstrates,
              > instead, that
              >>> this early Homo specimen is similar to other earlier and presumed
              >> ancestral
              >>> prognathic hominids. The relationships between hominoid and hominid
              >>> prognathism and brain size permitted also the cranial capacity of
              > KNM-ER
              >>> 1470 to be revised from 752cc to 526cc � 49cc, which is more
              >> consistent with
              >>> our knowledge of brain size increase
              >>> during the Pliocene.
              >>> KNM-ER 1470, now regarded as representing Homo rudolfensis, the
              > earliest
              >>> representative of the genus Homo, cannot now be considered to be
              >> defined on
              >>> basis of its orthognathy and brain size.
              >>> Other aspects of calvarium and facial morphology that characterize the
              >>> difference between H. rudolfensis and later-occuring H. habilis must
              >> hold,
              >>> as summarized by Wood (1992), or else the genus-species assignment
              >> of KNM-ER
              >>> 1470 will need to be revised as well.
              >>>
              >>> Fig. 1 KNM-ER 1470, Homo rudolfensis.
              >>> Fig. 2 Craniofacial architectural planes illustrated on the lateral
              >> headfilm
              >>> tracing of a chimpanzee skull, Pan troglodytes
              >>> Fig. 3 KNM-ER 1470 optical topograph MT MT
              >>> Fig. 4 KNM-ER 1470 premolars and molars are represented by KNM-ER
              >> 1590 &
              >>> 806a specimens, permitting MT position to be estimated in the arch
              >>> posteriorly.
              >>> Fig. 5 the PM-NHA plane and MA angle are illustrated on the original
              >>> reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 (left) and on the intact cranium of
              > KNM-ER
              >>> 1813 (right).
              >>> Fig. 6 KNM-ER 1470 with corrrected architectural hafting of the facial
              >>> skeleton onto the calvarium.
              >>>
              >>> References
              >>>
              >>> Enlow, D. H. (1966). A morphogenetic analysis of facial growth.
              > Am. J.
              >>> Orthod. 52, 283-299.
              >>> Enlow, D. H. (1968) The Human Face: An Account of the Postnatal Growth
              >>> and Development of the Craniofacial Skeleton. New York: Harper
              >>> and Row.
              >>> Enlow, D. H. & Azuma, M. (1975) Functional growth boundaries in the
              >> human
              >>> and mammalian face. In (J. Langman, Ed.) Morphogenesis and Malfor
              >>> mations of the Face and Brain, pp. 217-230. New York: The Na�l Fndn.
              >>> Enlow, D. H. & Hunter, W. S. (1968) The growth of the face in
              >> relation to
              >>> the
              >>> cranial base. Eur. Orthod. Soc., Congress Report 44, 321-335.
              >>> Thackeray, J.F., Monteith, B.D. (1997) Relationships between
              >> cranial ca
              >>> pacity and prognathism in Plio-Pleistocene hominids. South
              > African J.
              >>> Sci. 93, 289-291.
              >>> Wood, B (1992) Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature 355,
              >>> 783-790.





              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/741 - Release Date: 31/03/2007
              20:54
            • Mario Petrinovich
              ... http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconst ructi/#more ... I did some thinking about those things, and I don t agree. Either
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 4, 2007
                Gerard Michael Burns:
                > Marc Verhaegen
                > > Bromage apparently angled the skull a bit:
                > >
                http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconst
                ructi/#more
                >
                > Thanks a lot.
                > I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks what others have to
                > say.
                > That Hawks is insightful, as claimed in the link, is wrong: people
                > who
                > believe AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and anthropology
                > is part of biology!).
                > --------------------------------------------
                >
                > I would suggest modifying the above to; "...people who are certain
                > AAT is wrong demonstrate no insight in biology."
                >
                > I think we make a mistake in insisting on positive belief. I mean
                > that not
                > only as a tactic (though it is important for that reason), but also
                > in
                > justice. There is no better explanation for many human traits that
                > I can
                > imagine, but there is always a chance we are mistaken. I think many
                > people
                > in PA have become more open to AAT, but they must do so by inches,
                > in part
                > because our greatest evidence (Hs physiology) is outside their
                > science's
                > accepted techniques involving old bones, and partly because the
                > structure of
                > employment and funding in the field makes rebellion outside
                > accepted lines difficult and professionally costly.
                >
                > Not everyone has it in them to be a hero, so I suggest we be
                > patient, even
                > generous, with those who have much to lose. I realize that is a
                > lot to ask
                > for from those such as yourself who have been so grossly mistreated
                > for
                > being right too soon (as we believe, anyway), but I think you will
                > find it also gives the best results in practical terms.
                >
                > Michael Burns
                > P.S. I certainly agree with waiting a bit to form opinions on the
                > current matter.

                I did some thinking about those things, and I don't agree.
                Either they are right, or they are wrong. It is simple as this. If
                they are wrong (or if we/I are/am wrong), there is a reason why
                this is so. By putting things under the carpet, we will make things
                only worse. Some say soft, easy, mild approach is socially good. But
                I say that it slows things down. If you are evolutivly relaxed, you
                have time. But, if you develop in the direction of softness in the
                time of need (when evolution speeds up), you will lose tempo. Also
                the number game (social things) becomes less and less important (if
                yo ask me).
                No, the only thing is to deal with this hard way. I am
                pushing it all the way. Whoever is not affraid to do the same, is
                with me. We will make it work better. We will win or lose, but the
                World after this will be more advanced.
                See what happens. That John Hawks really isn't something (I
                got this impression from reading his blog, not knowing his attitude
                towards AAT). He is getting much more attention that he deserves.
                This is all wrong. -- Mario
              • Marc Verhaegen
                ... Not everything is right or wrong: a lot of things are unknown; and sometimes the truth is somewhere halfway. In this case, it s obvious that AAT is correct
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 4, 2007
                  > http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/03/31/hawks_on_the_1470_reconst
                  > ructi/#more

                  >> Thanks a lot.
                  >> I'm not so sure. Let's wait a few days or weeks what others have to
                  >> say.
                  >> That Hawks is insightful, as claimed in the link, is wrong: people
                  >> who
                  >> believe AAT is wrong have no insight in biology (and anthropology
                  >> is part of biology!).
                  >> --------------------------------------------
                  >> I would suggest modifying the above to; "...people who are certain
                  >> AAT is wrong demonstrate no insight in biology."
                  >>
                  >> I think we make a mistake in insisting on positive belief. I mean
                  >> that not
                  >> only as a tactic (though it is important for that reason), but also
                  >> in
                  >> justice. There is no better explanation for many human traits that
                  >> I can
                  >> imagine, but there is always a chance we are mistaken. I think many
                  >> people
                  >> in PA have become more open to AAT, but they must do so by inches,
                  >> in part
                  >> because our greatest evidence (Hs physiology) is outside their
                  >> science's
                  >> accepted techniques involving old bones, and partly because the
                  >> structure of
                  >> employment and funding in the field makes rebellion outside
                  >> accepted lines difficult and professionally costly.
                  >> Not everyone has it in them to be a hero, so I suggest we be
                  >> patient, even
                  >> generous, with those who have much to lose. I realize that is a
                  >> lot to ask
                  >> for from those such as yourself who have been so grossly mistreated
                  >> for
                  >> being right too soon (as we believe, anyway), but I think you will
                  >> find it also gives the best results in practical terms.
                  >> Michael Burns
                  >> P.S. I certainly agree with waiting a bit to form opinions on the
                  >> current matter.

                  > I did some thinking about those things, and I don't agree.
                  > Either they are right, or they are wrong. It is simple as this. If
                  > they are wrong (or if we/I are/am wrong), there is a reason why
                  > this is so. By putting things under the carpet, we will make things
                  > only worse. Some say soft, easy, mild approach is socially good. But
                  > I say that it slows things down. If you are evolutivly relaxed, you
                  > have time. But, if you develop in the direction of softness in the
                  > time of need (when evolution speeds up), you will lose tempo. Also
                  > the number game (social things) becomes less and less important (if
                  > yo ask me).
                  > No, the only thing is to deal with this hard way. I am
                  > pushing it all the way. Whoever is not afraid to do the same, is
                  > with me. We will make it work better. We will win or lose, but the
                  > World after this will be more advanced.
                  > See what happens. That John Hawks really isn't something (I
                  > got this impression from reading his blog, not knowing his attitude
                  > towards AAT). He is getting much more attention that he deserves.
                  > This is all wrong. -- Mario

                  Not everything is right or wrong: a lot of things are unknown; and sometimes
                  the truth is somewhere halfway. In this case, it's obvious that AAT is
                  correct (human ancestors were more aquatic in the past). But even when
                  things are clear, we can't expect everybody to decide to agree with AAT (I'm
                  undecided in a lot of theories). Nothing wrong with that. But we should not
                  have pity on so-called scientists who are convinced that AAT is wrong.

                  --Marc
                • Mario Petrinovich
                  ... Just a tiny comment. Well, I am living in a country where they relativize everything, so I have some experience with this. As I am absolutely sure that
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 5, 2007
                    Marc Verhaegen:
                    > Not everything is right or wrong: a lot of things are unknown; and
                    > sometimes
                    > the truth is somewhere halfway. In this case, it's obvious that AAT
                    > is
                    > correct (human ancestors were more aquatic in the past). But even
                    > when
                    > things are clear, we can't expect everybody to decide to agree with
                    > AAT (I'm
                    > undecided in a lot of theories). Nothing wrong with that. But we
                    > should not
                    > have pity on so-called scientists who are convinced that AAT is
                    > wrong.

                    Just a tiny comment. Well, I am living in a country where
                    they relativize everything, so I have some experience with this. As
                    I am absolutely sure that nothing can be 100% right or wrong, I am
                    also absolutely sure that nothing is half way between something. It
                    is wrong to accept everything. It is the question of criterion. If
                    things are completly unknown to somebody, then he is, simply, not
                    alive, and has nothing with a position of living organisms in
                    nature (maybe I should study philosophy instead, : )).
                    If trained and selected top scientiests have negative
                    attitude toward the correct solution, then something is deeply
                    wrong in a system. Because these very scientiests have the most
                    complete knowlage about the subject, and these very scentiests are
                    actually the first who MUST realize the rightiness of a solution,
                    once that solution is presented to them. If they didn't do that,
                    then we are talking about a systematic error, which is the
                    fundamental error in criterion, in decision making. This error has
                    to be adressed as soon as possible. -- Mario
                  • Marc Verhaegen
                    ... Light theories of particles vs waves? ... Yes. Tobias & Stringer (= top PAs) are +-open to aquatic possibilities. I can accept that PAs say I m
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 5, 2007
                      >> Not everything is right or wrong: a lot of things are unknown; and
                      >> sometimes
                      >> the truth is somewhere halfway. In this case, it's obvious that AAT
                      >> is
                      >> correct (human ancestors were more aquatic in the past). But even
                      >> when
                      >> things are clear, we can't expect everybody to decide to agree with
                      >> AAT (I'm
                      >> undecided in a lot of theories). Nothing wrong with that. But we
                      >> should not
                      >> have pity on so-called scientists who are convinced that AAT is
                      >> wrong. --Marc

                      > Just a tiny comment. Well, I am living in a country where
                      > they relativize everything, so I have some experience with this. As
                      > I am absolutely sure that nothing can be 100% right or wrong, I am
                      > also absolutely sure that nothing is half way between something.

                      Light theories of particles vs waves?

                      > It
                      > is wrong to accept everything. It is the question of criterion. If
                      > things are completly unknown to somebody, then he is, simply, not
                      > alive, and has nothing with a position of living organisms in
                      > nature (maybe I should study philosophy instead, : )).
                      > If trained and selected top scientists have negative
                      > attitude toward the correct solution, then something is deeply
                      > wrong in a system. Because these very scientists have the most
                      > complete knowledge about the subject, and these very scentists are
                      > actually the first who MUST realize the rightiness of a solution,
                      > once that solution is presented to them. If they didn't do that,
                      > then we are talking about a systematic error, which is the
                      > fundamental error in criterion, in decision making. This error has
                      > to be adressed as soon as possible. -- Mario

                      Yes. Tobias & Stringer (= top PAs) are +-open to "aquatic" possibilities.
                      I can accept that PAs say "I'm undecided whether AAT is correct", but I only
                      feel disgust for fools who think they're experts & say that AAT is wrong.

                      --Marc
                    • DDeden
                      ... Particles: X perceived-measured as units Waves: X perceived-measured as frequencies ? ... possibilities. ... but I only ... wrong.
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 6, 2007
                        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > >> Not everything is right or wrong: a lot of things are unknown; and
                        > >> sometimes
                        > >> the truth is somewhere halfway. In this case, it's obvious that AAT
                        > >> is
                        > >> correct (human ancestors were more aquatic in the past). But even
                        > >> when
                        > >> things are clear, we can't expect everybody to decide to agree with
                        > >> AAT (I'm
                        > >> undecided in a lot of theories). Nothing wrong with that. But we
                        > >> should not
                        > >> have pity on so-called scientists who are convinced that AAT is
                        > >> wrong. --Marc
                        >
                        > > Just a tiny comment. Well, I am living in a country where
                        > > they relativize everything, so I have some experience with this. As
                        > > I am absolutely sure that nothing can be 100% right or wrong, I am
                        > > also absolutely sure that nothing is half way between something.
                        >
                        > Light theories of particles vs waves?

                        Particles: X perceived-measured as units
                        Waves: X perceived-measured as frequencies
                        ?

                        > > It
                        > > is wrong to accept everything. It is the question of criterion. If
                        > > things are completly unknown to somebody, then he is, simply, not
                        > > alive, and has nothing with a position of living organisms in
                        > > nature (maybe I should study philosophy instead, : )).
                        > > If trained and selected top scientists have negative
                        > > attitude toward the correct solution, then something is deeply
                        > > wrong in a system. Because these very scientists have the most
                        > > complete knowledge about the subject, and these very scentists are
                        > > actually the first who MUST realize the rightiness of a solution,
                        > > once that solution is presented to them. If they didn't do that,
                        > > then we are talking about a systematic error, which is the
                        > > fundamental error in criterion, in decision making. This error has
                        > > to be adressed as soon as possible. -- Mario
                        >
                        > Yes. Tobias & Stringer (= top PAs) are +-open to "aquatic"
                        possibilities.
                        > I can accept that PAs say "I'm undecided whether AAT is correct",
                        but I only
                        > feel disgust for fools who think they're experts & say that AAT is
                        wrong.
                        >
                        > --Marc
                        >
                      • Mario Petrinovich
                        ... What I really am trying to achieve is to push things so that somebody is forced to DO something. So far, only Jim Moore did something. And this wan t good
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 7, 2007
                          Marc Verhaegen:
                          > Tobias & Stringer (= top PAs) are +-open to "aquatic" possibilities.
                          > I can accept that PAs say "I'm undecided whether AAT is correct", but
                          > I only
                          > feel disgust for fools who think they're experts & say that AAT is
                          > wrong. --Marc

                          What I really am trying to achieve is to push things so that
                          somebody is forced to DO something. So far, only Jim Moore did
                          something. And this wan't good enough. I simply am trying to PROVOKE
                          some scientific ACTION, some scientific WORK that will be done on AAT.
                          Some scientific EVALUATION. So far, I can only see the placament of
                          AAT amongst the theories about bipedality, always on very last place
                          of accteptance, like some fantasy story.
                          It may be that I look like some Jehova's witness with those
                          provocations, but I simply don't see the other way. I want to see
                          this thing done while I am still alive. -- Mario
                        • Marc Verhaegen
                          ... How old are you, Mario? :-) --Marc
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 7, 2007
                            ...
                            >> Tobias & Stringer (= top PAs) are +-open to "aquatic" possibilities.
                            >> I can accept that PAs say "I'm undecided whether AAT is correct", but
                            >> I only
                            >> feel disgust for fools who think they're experts & say that AAT is
                            >> wrong. --Marc

                            > What I really am trying to achieve is to push things so that
                            > somebody is forced to DO something. So far, only Jim Moore did
                            > something. And this wan't good enough. I simply am trying to PROVOKE
                            > some scientific ACTION, some scientific WORK that will be done on AAT.
                            > Some scientific EVALUATION. So far, I can only see the placament of
                            > AAT amongst the theories about bipedality, always on very last place
                            > of accteptance, like some fantasy story.
                            > It may be that I look like some Jehova's witness with those
                            > provocations, but I simply don't see the other way. I want to see
                            > this thing done while I am still alive. -- Mario

                            How old are you, Mario? :-)

                            --Marc
                          • Mario Petrinovich
                            ... Too old, : ). Well, there was one guy who shouted We want the World and we want it, NOW . He died at the age of 27. I could have kidds at the age of 27 (I
                            Message 13 of 19 , Apr 7, 2007
                              Marc Verhaegen:
                              > >> Tobias & Stringer (= top PAs) are +-open to "aquatic"
                              > >> possibilities.
                              > >> I can accept that PAs say "I'm undecided whether AAT is
                              > >> correct", but I only
                              > >> feel disgust for fools who think they're experts & say that AAT
                              > >> is wrong. --Marc
                              >
                              > > What I really am trying to achieve is to push things so that
                              > > somebody is forced to DO something. So far, only Jim Moore did
                              > > something. And this wan't good enough. I simply am trying to
                              > > PROVOKE
                              > > some scientific ACTION, some scientific WORK that will be done on
                              > > AAT.
                              > > Some scientific EVALUATION. So far, I can only see the placament
                              > > of
                              > > AAT amongst the theories about bipedality, always on very last
                              > > place of accteptance, like some fantasy story.
                              > > It may be that I look like some Jehova's witness with those
                              > > provocations, but I simply don't see the other way. I want to see
                              > > this thing done while I am still alive. -- Mario
                              >
                              > How old are you, Mario? :-) --Marc

                              Too old, : ).
                              Well, there was one guy who shouted "We want the World and
                              we want it, NOW". He died at the age of 27. I could have kidds at
                              the age of 27 (I am 45), now. I am too old, and I don't have nerves
                              for waiting. Those PAs are ought to settle this question NOW, or
                              they will see me, : ). -- Mario
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.