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

Australopith.sediba

Expand Messages
  • Marc Verhaegen
    A famous ancestor may be ousted from the human family. Ann Gibbons 23.4.17 A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as the best candidate for the
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 26, 2017
      A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
      Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

      A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
      for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
      Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
      on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
      AAPA).


      When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
      cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
      in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
      australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
      But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
      dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
      roughly the
      right time to be the ancestor.
      Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
      famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
      australopithecine.

      With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
      ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
      But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
      that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
      the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
      fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
      appeared 1.8 Ma.

      Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
      shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
      the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
      still developing.
      Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
      most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
      Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
      changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
      the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
      early Homo,
      but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
      of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
      Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
      he'd grown up to be an adult.
      The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
      Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
      long-lost human relative:
      "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
      genus Homo."


      Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
      ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
      Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
      Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
      - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
      - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


      But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
      graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
      computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
      matured:
      "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
      have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
      it appear
      like Au.africanus":
      the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
      like is to find one:
      "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
      recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
      <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
      <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

      doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
      (see also my comment there --marc)
    • Jack
      Ha! It s about time. Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern humans. There is little that is remarkably human. Foot is primitive, phalanges are
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 26, 2017
        Ha! It's about time.  Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern humans.  There is little that is remarkably human.  Foot is primitive, phalanges are curved, tiny stature with no nasal bone or cranial vault and keel.  All at 1.9mya.  Well after Homo is fully formed.

        So 100% not a human.  Especially since simple human tools arrive in China around 2.5mya.  

        On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Marc Verhaegen m_verhaegen@... [AAT] <AAT@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

         

        A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
        Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

        A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
        for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
        Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
        on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
        AAPA).

        When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
        cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
        in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
        australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
        But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
        dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
        roughly the
        right time to be the ancestor.
        Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
        famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
        australopithecine.

        With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
        ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
        But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
        that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
        the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
        fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
        appeared 1.8 Ma.

        Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
        shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
        the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
        still developing.
        Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
        most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
        Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
        changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
        the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
        early Homo,
        but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
        of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
        Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
        he'd grown up to be an adult.
        The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
        Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
        long-lost human relative:
        "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
        genus Homo."


        Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
        ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
        Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
        Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
        - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
        - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


        But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
        graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
        computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
        matured:
        "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
        have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
        it appear
        like Au.africanus":
        the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
        like is to find one:
        "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
        recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
        <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
        <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

        doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
        (see also my comment there --marc)

      • Marc Verhaegen
        Hi Jack, humans are not neotenous IMO, e.g. our very long legs are the opposite of neoteny. Is our foot primitive ? It s derived vs most primates. C.Coon
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 26, 2017
          Hi Jack, humans are not neotenous IMO, e.g. our very long legs are the
          opposite of neoteny.

          Is our foot "primitive"? It's derived vs most primates.
          C.Coon ("Story of Man") said that chimp feturses at on stage have
          humanlike feet (adducted big toes) which near birth become hand-like",
          but I lack independent confirmation of this, and is it also the case for
          gorilla fetuses?

          We don't have curved phalanges.

          --marc

          ________



          Jack:
          Ha! It's about time. Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern
          humans. There is little that is remarkably human. Foot is primitive,
          phalanges are curved, tiny stature with no nasal bone or cranial vault and
          keel. All at 1.9 Ma. Well after Homo is fully formed.
          So 100% not a human. Especially since simple human tools arrive in China
          around 2.5 Ma.


          ________



          A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
          Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

          A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
          for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
          Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
          on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
          AAPA).

          When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
          cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
          in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
          australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
          But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
          dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
          roughly the right time to be the ancestor.
          Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
          famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
          australopithecine.

          With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
          ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
          But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
          that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
          the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
          fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
          appeared 1.8 Ma.

          Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
          shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
          the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
          still developing.
          Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
          most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
          Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
          changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
          the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
          early Homo,
          but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
          of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
          Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
          he'd grown up to be an adult.
          The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
          Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
          long-lost human relative:
          "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
          genus Homo."


          Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
          ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
          Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
          Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
          - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
          - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


          But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
          graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
          computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
          matured:
          "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
          have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
          it appear like Au.africanus":
          the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
          like is to find one:
          "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
          recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
          <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
          <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

          doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
          (see also my comment there --marc)
        • Jack
          Marc, I was unclear. I should have said Modern humans have many neotenized traits compared to archaic humans. Young chimps, gorilla and Orangs look very
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 26, 2017
            Marc,
            I was unclear.  I should have said Modern humans have many neotenized traits compared to archaic humans.  Young chimps, gorilla and Orangs look very human like. 

            Why do we have juvenile features is the question?   The only answer is domestication.  A wild human shaped ape capable of swimming, running spread throughout Europe, Asia and Africa crossing thousands of rivers millions of times.  All features we all share.  Then...

            A domestication event and population boom happened somewhere.  Likely in Africa and the new modern human body plan swept through the archaic humans in Eurasia.   Archaic features diminished and became neotenized. 

            That's what I meant by neoteny.

            On Apr 26, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Marc Verhaegen m_verhaegen@... [AAT] <AAT@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

             

            Hi Jack, humans are not neotenous IMO, e.g. our very long legs are the
            opposite of neoteny.

            Is our foot "primitive"? It's derived vs most primates.
            C.Coon ("Story of Man") said that chimp feturses at on stage have
            humanlike feet (adducted big toes) which near birth become hand-like",
            but I lack independent confirmation of this, and is it also the case for
            gorilla fetuses?

            We don't have curved phalanges.

            --marc

            ________

            Jack:
            Ha! It's about time. Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern
            humans. There is little that is remarkably human. Foot is primitive,
            phalanges are curved, tiny stature with no nasal bone or cranial vault and
            keel. All at 1.9 Ma. Well after Homo is fully formed.
            So 100% not a human. Especially since simple human tools arrive in China
            around 2.5 Ma.

            ________

            A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
            Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

            A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
            for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
            Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
            on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
            AAPA).

            When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
            cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
            in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
            australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
            But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
            dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
            roughly the right time to be the ancestor.
            Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
            famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
            australopithecine.

            With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
            ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
            But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
            that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
            the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
            fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
            appeared 1.8 Ma.

            Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
            shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
            the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
            still developing.
            Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
            most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
            Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
            changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
            the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
            early Homo,
            but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
            of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
            Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
            he'd grown up to be an adult.
            The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
            Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
            long-lost human relative:
            "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
            genus Homo."


            Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
            ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
            Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
            Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
            - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
            - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


            But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
            graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
            computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
            matured:
            "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
            have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
            it appear like Au.africanus":
            the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
            like is to find one:
            "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
            recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
            <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
            <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

            doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
            (see also my comment there --marc)

          • Marc Verhaegen
            Marc, I was unclear. I should have said Modern humans have many neotenized traits compared to archaic humans. Young chimps, gorilla and Orangs look very human
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 28, 2017
              Marc, I was unclear. I should have said Modern humans have many neotenized
              traits compared to archaic humans. Young chimps, gorilla and Orangs look
              very human like.

              Yes, they look more humanlike than adults (although human babies have e.g.
              much larger brains), but IMO words like "neotenous", "foetalised",
              "derived", "more primitive", "less specialised" etc. to characterise
              H.sapiens are too vague & confusing. Better not to use these.





              Why do we have juvenile features is the question? The only answer is
              domestication. A wild human shaped ape capable of swimming, running spread
              throughout Europe, Asia and Africa crossing thousands of rivers millions
              of times. All features we all share. Then...

              IMO domestication is less important, e.g. domesticated animals have
              smaller brains than wild relatives, but Hs has much larger brains than He.
              Archaic Homo dived a lot & probably waded frequently, but they did not run
              or climb much, they didn't cross rivers, but followed rivers & coasts.







              A domestication event and population boom happened somewhere. Likely in
              Africa and the new modern human body plan swept through the archaic humans
              in Eurasia. Archaic features diminished and became neotenized. That's what
              I meant by neoteny.

              - Our very long legs (Hs>Hn) are the opposite of what we typically seen in
              domesticated animals.
              - Same with our large brains (Hs>He).
              - Our small mouths are more due to our ancestors' littoral diet (suction)
              than to "domestication" (= fire? = stone use?).
              - Etc.
              But perhaps some sort of domestication can help explain why we have
              somewhat smaller brains than Cro-Magnons.

              FWIW, IMO the evolution from "archaic" (He) to "modern" (Hs) schematically
              = diving...-> more wading...
              = shellfish...-> more fish...
              This probably happened somewhere in Africa, c 300 ka or so? presumably
              freshwater: Chad-Rift cf.linguistic data??
              Did Hs make water basins & dams?? cf wading + longer tibiae, longer & more
              vertical mid-thoracal vertebrae.

              --marc

              _________



              Hi Jack, humans are not neotenous IMO, e.g. our very long legs are the
              opposite of neoteny.

              Is our foot "primitive"? It's derived vs most primates.
              C.Coon ("Story of Man") said that chimp feturses at on stage have
              humanlike feet (adducted big toes) which near birth become hand-like",
              but I lack independent confirmation of this, and is it also the case for
              gorilla fetuses?

              We don't have curved phalanges.

              --marc

              ________

              Jack:
              Ha! It's about time. Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern
              humans. There is little that is remarkably human. Foot is primitive,
              phalanges are curved, tiny stature with no nasal bone or cranial vault and
              keel. All at 1.9 Ma. Well after Homo is fully formed.
              So 100% not a human. Especially since simple human tools arrive in China
              around 2.5 Ma.

              ________

              A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
              Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

              A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
              for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
              Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
              on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
              AAPA).

              When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
              cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
              in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
              australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
              But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
              dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
              roughly the right time to be the ancestor.
              Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
              famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
              australopithecine.

              With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
              ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
              But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
              that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
              the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
              fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
              appeared 1.8 Ma.

              Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
              shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
              the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
              still developing.
              Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
              most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
              Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
              changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
              the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
              early Homo,
              but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
              of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
              Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
              he'd grown up to be an adult.
              The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
              Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
              long-lost human relative:
              "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
              genus Homo."


              Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
              ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
              Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
              Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
              - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
              - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


              But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
              graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
              computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
              matured:
              "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
              have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
              it appear like Au.africanus":
              the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
              like is to find one:
              "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
              recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
              <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
              <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

              doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
              (see also my comment there --marc)
            • Jack
              Marc, Yes all domesticated animals do have smaller brains and diminished sensory features (nose, eyes, ears etc.) compared to the wild progenitors. A 40%
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 28, 2017
                Marc,
                Yes all domesticated animals do have smaller brains and diminished sensory features (nose, eyes, ears etc.) compared to the wild progenitors.  A 40% reduction in the size of these features as the threshold to domestication, likely creating a pacification to large group living.  

                I am saying our wild host was bigger, stronger, smarter and much more capable than modern humans.  Take our top 2% of males in height, weight, strength and we get a glimpse of this now extinct creature.  

                I am talking about a creature capable to survive winters without clothes or tools, hunting with hands.  7 feet tall, 400 lbs, massively strong, 400x brain genes (CNV of duf1220), every morphological feature we all share, nose, fat layer, feet, long twisting lumbar section, straight finger/toes, descended larynx... even odd things like Vemix en utero, 100x oil glands on back. 

                Our wild ancestor was something kick ass, when we arrive 2.5 mya we were an invasive species.

                The idea that creature australipithicus or naledi or ardipithecus or some other African ape is an insult to common sense.  Just mindless scientists who are ignorant of the massive genetic/viral record and our many morphological features which allow us to swim.  They are just following the "ascent of man"

                To paraphrase Stephen J Gould. "There is a neoteny of features in populations as they reach carrying capacity."  Modern Human Europeans are domesticated Neanderthals.  Cromagnon was just an intermediary.

                Our ability to suck on littoral foods happened between 20mya and 2.5mya, when we learned to swim. 

                Fire and stone use happened as we slowly adapted via domestication in the last 2.5mya.

                 Jack

                On Apr 28, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Marc Verhaegen m_verhaegen@... [AAT] <AAT@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                 

                Marc, I was unclear. I should have said Modern humans have many neotenized
                traits compared to archaic humans. Young chimps, gorilla and Orangs look
                very human like.

                Yes, they look more humanlike than adults (although human babies have e.g.
                much larger brains), but IMO words like "neotenous", "foetalised",
                "derived", "more primitive", "less specialised" etc. to characterise
                H.sapiens are too vague & confusing. Better not to use these.

                Why do we have juvenile features is the question? The only answer is
                domestication. A wild human shaped ape capable of swimming, running spread
                throughout Europe, Asia and Africa crossing thousands of rivers millions
                of times. All features we all share. Then...

                IMO domestication is less important, e.g. domesticated animals have
                smaller brains than wild relatives, but Hs has much larger brains than He.
                Archaic Homo dived a lot & probably waded frequently, but they did not run
                or climb much, they didn't cross rivers, but followed rivers & coasts.

                A domestication event and population boom happened somewhere. Likely in
                Africa and the new modern human body plan swept through the archaic humans
                in Eurasia. Archaic features diminished and became neotenized. That's what
                I meant by neoteny.

                - Our very long legs (Hs>Hn) are the opposite of what we typically seen in
                domesticated animals.
                - Same with our large brains (Hs>He).
                - Our small mouths are more due to our ancestors' littoral diet (suction)
                than to "domestication" (= fire? = stone use?).
                - Etc.
                But perhaps some sort of domestication can help explain why we have
                somewhat smaller brains than Cro-Magnons.

                FWIW, IMO the evolution from "archaic" (He) to "modern" (Hs) schematically
                = diving...-> more wading...
                = shellfish...-> more fish...
                This probably happened somewhere in Africa, c 300 ka or so? presumably
                freshwater: Chad-Rift cf.linguistic data??
                Did Hs make water basins & dams?? cf wading + longer tibiae, longer & more
                vertical mid-thoracal vertebrae.

                --marc

                _________

                Hi Jack, humans are not neotenous IMO, e.g. our very long legs are the
                opposite of neoteny.

                Is our foot "primitive"? It's derived vs most primates.
                C.Coon ("Story of Man") said that chimp feturses at on stage have
                humanlike feet (adducted big toes) which near birth become hand-like",
                but I lack independent confirmation of this, and is it also the case for
                gorilla fetuses?

                We don't have curved phalanges.

                --marc

                ________

                Jack:
                Ha! It's about time. Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern
                humans. There is little that is remarkably human. Foot is primitive,
                phalanges are curved, tiny stature with no nasal bone or cranial vault and
                keel. All at 1.9 Ma. Well after Homo is fully formed.
                So 100% not a human. Especially since simple human tools arrive in China
                around 2.5 Ma.

                ________

                A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
                Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

                A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
                for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
                Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
                on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
                AAPA).

                When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
                cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
                in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
                australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
                But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
                dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
                roughly the right time to be the ancestor.
                Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
                famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
                australopithecine.

                With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
                ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
                But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
                that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
                the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
                fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
                appeared 1.8 Ma.

                Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
                shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
                the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
                still developing.
                Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
                most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
                Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
                changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
                the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
                early Homo,
                but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
                of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
                Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
                he'd grown up to be an adult.
                The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
                Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
                long-lost human relative:
                "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
                genus Homo."


                Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
                ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
                Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
                Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
                - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
                - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


                But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
                graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
                computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
                matured:
                "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
                have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
                it appear like Au.africanus":
                the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
                like is to find one:
                "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
                recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
                <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
                <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

                doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
                (see also my comment there --marc)

              • Marc Verhaegen
                Marc, Yes all domesticated animals do have smaller brains and diminished sensory features (nose, eyes, ears etc.) compared to the wild progenitors. A 40%
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 29, 2017
                  Marc,
                  Yes all domesticated animals do have smaller brains and diminished sensory
                  features (nose, eyes, ears etc.) compared to the wild progenitors. A 40%
                  reduction in the size of these features as the threshold to domestication,
                  likely creating a pacification to large group living.
                  I am saying our wild host was bigger, stronger, smarter and much more
                  capable than modern humans. Take our top 2% of males in height, weight,
                  strength and we get a glimpse of this now extinct creature.
                  I am talking about a creature capable to survive winters without clothes
                  or tools, hunting with hands. 7 feet tall, 400 lbs, massively strong,
                  400x brain genes (CNV of duf1220), every morphological feature we all
                  share, nose, fat layer, feet, long twisting lumbar section, straight
                  finger/toes, descended larynx... even odd things like Vemix en utero, 100x
                  oil glands on back.
                  Our wild ancestor was something kick ass, when we arrive 2.5 mya we were
                  an invasive species.
                  The idea that creature australopithecus or naledi or ardipithecus or some
                  other African ape is an insult to common sense. Just mindless scientists
                  who are ignorant of the massive genetic/viral record and our many
                  morphological features which allow us to swim. They are just following
                  the "ascent of man"
                  To paraphrase Stephen J Gould. "There is a neoteny of features in
                  populations as they reach carrying capacity." Modern Human Europeans are
                  domesticated Neanderthals. Cromagnon was just an intermediary.
                  Our ability to suck on littoral foods happened between 20mya and 2.5mya,
                  when we learned to swim.
                  Fire and stone use happened as we slowly adapted via domestication in the
                  last 2.5mya. Jack

                  Jack,

                  -humanlike feet also in prenatal chimp,
                  -lumbar lordosis also in Gorilla & Pan standing,
                  -what is "Vemix en utero"??
                  -australopiths = not our ancestors IMO,
                  -naledi = S.Afr.australopith? Pan?
                  -Ardipith.= not even hominid??
                  -Hs = not domesticated Hn.

                  In the fossil & archeol.record, all indications of a littoral lifestyle
                  (Homo) are 1.8 Ma or less.
                  I don't know whether this is due to fossilisation chances, e.g. high
                  sea-level at 1.8 Ma?
                  Probably our littoral adaptations (incl.diving for shellfish & seaweeds)
                  did not begin before the Pleistocene: cf sea-level lowerings after c 2.6
                  Ma?

                  Clear suction adaptations are probably all Pleistocene: small mouth,
                  closed tooth-row, descended hyoid, MYH16 inactivation.
                  Idem intercontinental=coastal dispersal.

                  2.5 Ma our ancestors were not "invasive": archaic Homo was
                  coastal-deltaic, e.g. pachyosteosclerosis (POS) is only seen in littoral
                  animals (salt or possibly brackish water). Probably they later gradually
                  followed the rivers inland (seasonally initially?).
                  Most likely (anatomy etc.), archaic spp (incl.Hn) were still not
                  "invasive": they were confined to the waterside.
                  Loss of POS (diving->wading) is only seen in Omo & Herto 190-160 ka AFAIK.
                  IMO, only Hs (*after* 200 ka, possibly *long after* 200 ka) left the
                  waterside.
                  (They could leave the waterside with the protection of dogs = domesticated
                  "water-wolves"?? = cooperation between hunters from the water (Hs) &
                  hunters from the land (wolves), e.g. hunting prey in reeds etc.: ducks
                  etc.?? not yet in Africa??)

                  My view on archaic->modern=sapiens now FWIW:
                  - archaic = incl. frequent diving: POS etc.
                  - floating huts etc.?? (also H.heidelb.?? e.g.Schöningen=lake)
                  - diving->wading: fish-traps, water basins etc.?? Chad-Rift??
                  - early sapiens c 200 ka = loss of POS, very long legs = wading?
                  - out of Africa-Arabia along coasts + boats??
                  - initially only (sub)tropical? S.Asian coasts etc.
                  - Gulf marshes = dog domestication?? 50-60 ka???
                  - invasion of terra firma (wading->walking) after c 60 ka??
                  - invasion of temperate regions after c 50 ka??

                  --marc

                  ______

                  Marc, I was unclear. I should have said Modern humans have many neotenized
                  traits compared to archaic humans. Young chimps, gorilla and Orangs look
                  very human like.

                  Yes, they look more humanlike than adults (although human babies have e.g.
                  much larger brains), but IMO words like "neotenous", "foetalised",
                  "derived", "more primitive", "less specialised" etc. to characterise
                  H.sapiens are too vague & confusing. Better not to use these.

                  Why do we have juvenile features is the question? The only answer is
                  domestication. A wild human shaped ape capable of swimming, running spread
                  throughout Europe, Asia and Africa crossing thousands of rivers millions
                  of times. All features we all share. Then...

                  IMO domestication is less important, e.g. domesticated animals have
                  smaller brains than wild relatives, but Hs has much larger brains than He.
                  Archaic Homo dived a lot & probably waded frequently, but they did not run
                  or climb much, they didn't cross rivers, but followed rivers & coasts.

                  A domestication event and population boom happened somewhere. Likely in
                  Africa and the new modern human body plan swept through the archaic humans
                  in Eurasia. Archaic features diminished and became neotenized. That's what
                  I meant by neoteny.

                  - Our very long legs (Hs>Hn) are the opposite of what we typically seen in
                  domesticated animals.
                  - Same with our large brains (Hs>He).
                  - Our small mouths are more due to our ancestors' littoral diet (suction)
                  than to "domestication" (= fire? = stone use?).
                  - Etc.
                  But perhaps some sort of domestication can help explain why we have
                  somewhat smaller brains than Cro-Magnons.

                  FWIW, IMO the evolution from "archaic" (He) to "modern" (Hs) schematically
                  = diving...-> more wading...
                  = shellfish...-> more fish...
                  This probably happened somewhere in Africa, c 300 ka or so? presumably
                  freshwater: Chad-Rift cf.linguistic data??
                  Did Hs make water basins & dams?? cf wading + longer tibiae, longer & more
                  vertical mid-thoracal vertebrae.

                  --marc

                  _________

                  Hi Jack, humans are not neotenous IMO, e.g. our very long legs are the
                  opposite of neoteny.

                  Is our foot "primitive"? It's derived vs most primates.
                  C.Coon ("Story of Man") said that chimp feturses at on stage have
                  humanlike feet (adducted big toes) which near birth become hand-like",
                  but I lack independent confirmation of this, and is it also the case for
                  gorilla fetuses?

                  We don't have curved phalanges.

                  --marc

                  ________

                  Jack:
                  Ha! It's about time. Juvenile apes have a neoteny that relates to modern
                  humans. There is little that is remarkably human. Foot is primitive,
                  phalanges are curved, tiny stature with no nasal bone or cranial vault and
                  keel. All at 1.9 Ma. Well after Homo is fully formed.
                  So 100% not a human. Especially since simple human tools arrive in China
                  around 2.5 Ma.

                  ________

                  A famous 'ancestor' may be ousted from the human family.
                  Ann Gibbons 23.4.17

                  A remarkably complete skeleton, introduced in 2010 as "the best candidate"
                  for the immediate ancestor of our genus Homo, may just be a pretender:
                  Au.sediba is more closely related to other hominins from S.Africa that are
                  on a side-branch of the human family tree (Bill Kimbel & Yoel Rak 2017
                  AAPA).

                  When fossils from several individuals' skeletons were found in a collapsed
                  cave in Malapa in 2008, Lee Berger noted that they helped fill a key gap
                  in the fossil record 2 to 3 Ma, when some upright-walking
                  australopithecine evolved into the earliest member of Homo.
                  But the oldest Homo fossils (at 2.4 to 2.9 Ma) are scrappy, and a half
                  dozen more primitive hominins may have been walking around Africa at
                  roughly the right time to be the ancestor.
                  Researchers have hotly debated whether their direct ancestor was the
                  famous 3.2-Ma Lucy & her kind Au.afarensis from Ethiopia, or another
                  australopithecine.

                  With its fossils dated to 1.98 Ma, Au.sediba is too young to be directly
                  ancestral to all members of the genus Homo.
                  But Berger cs proposed in 2010 (and again in 2013 in 6 papers in Science)
                  that given the many humanlike traits in Au.sediba's face, teeth & body,
                  the Malapa fossils were a better candidate than Lucy or other E.African
                  fossils to be ancestral to H.erectus, a direct human ancestor that
                  appeared 1.8 Ma.

                  Kimbel analyzed the most complete skull of Au.sediba, and systematically
                  shot down the features claimed to link it to early Homo:
                  the skull was that of a juvenil (a "7th grader") whose face & skull were
                  still developing.
                  Kimbel & Rak concluded that the child already showed traits that linked it
                  most closely to the S.African australopithecine Au.africanus 3 to 2.3 Ma.
                  Had it survived to adulthood, its humanlike facial traits would have
                  changed to become even more like those of Au.africanus, e.g.
                  the breadth of the young Au.sediba's cheek-bones appears narrow, as in
                  early Homo,
                  but by studying other australopith, ape & Homo fossils to see how features
                  of the cheekbones change as individuals grow & chewing muscles develop,
                  Kimbel & Rak could predict how the boy's face & skull would have looked if
                  he'd grown up to be an adult.
                  The resemblance to Au.africanus is so striking that Kimbel thinks
                  Au.sediba is a closely related "sister species" of Au.africanus, and not a
                  long-lost human relative:
                  "We don't believe ... that Au.sediba has a unique relationship to the
                  genus Homo."


                  Other researchers who have long been skeptical that Au.sediba was an
                  ancestor of Homo found Kimbel's talk persuasive.
                  Bernard Wood: "Spot on."
                  Ian Tattersall agrees with Kimbel:
                  - Au.sediba is most closely related to Au.africanus,
                  - neither species is ancestral to early Homo.


                  But Darryl de Ruiter (co-author with Berger 2013) says he & his former
                  graduate student reached "the opposite conclusion" when they used
                  computational methods to project how the skull would have changed as it
                  matured:
                  "I disagree with his impression that the changes that [the skull] would
                  have undergone had it lived to adulthood would be so extensive as to make
                  it appear like Au.africanus":
                  the only way to know what an adult Au.sediba's skull & face really looked
                  like is to find one:
                  "The ultimate resolution of the question must await the long-hoped-for
                  recovery of the adult cranium of Au.sediba."
                  <http://www.sciencemag.org/category/africa>
                  <http://www.sciencemag.org/tags/anthropology>

                  doi 10.1126/science.aal1099
                  (see also my comment there --marc)
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.