Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mario Petrinovic Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo Subject: Re: The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric perspective Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:10:01 +0200 Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Lines: 143 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 78-1-152-73.adsl.net.t-com.hr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1722593401 8077 78.1.152.73 (2 Aug 2024 10:10:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:10:01 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8661 On 2.8.2024. 11:58, Mario Petrinovic wrote: > On 2.8.2024. 11:48, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >> On 2.8.2024. 8:58, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-07-31 13:31:42 +0000, Mario Petrinovic said: >>>> On 30.7.2024. 9:38, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-07-29 15:18:31 +0000, Pandora said: >>>>>> Op 29-07-2024 om 07:19 schreef Primum Sapienti: >>>>>>> The paper's date is given at the very bottom as >>>>>>> Manuscript received on June 15, 2023; >>>>>>> accepted for publication on October 20, 2024 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.scielo.br/j/aabc/a/GGPvzpzxZpPccBWzFncgRTG/?format=pdf&lang=en >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Abstract: Sahelanthropus tchadensis has raised >>>>>>> much debate since its initial discovery in Chad >>>>>>> in 2001, given its controversial classification >>>>>>> as the earliest representative of the hominin >>>>>>> lineage. This debate extends beyond the >>>>>>> phylogenetic position of the species, and >>>>>>> includes several aspects of its habitual >>>>>>> behavior, especially in what regards its >>>>>>> locomotion. The combination of ancestral and >>>>>>> derived traits observed in the fossils >>>>>>> associated with the species has been used to >>>>>>> defend different hypotheses related to its >>>>>>> relationship to hominins. Here, the cranial >>>>>>> morphology of Sahelanthropus tchadensis was >>>>>>> assessed through 16 linear craniometric >>>>>>> measurements, and compared to great apes >>>>>>> and hominins through Principal Component >>>>>>> Analysis based on size and shape and shape >>>>>>> information alone. The results show that >>>>>>> S. tchadensis share stronger morphological >>>>>>> affinities with hominins than with apes for >>>>>>> both the analysis that include size >>>>>>> information and the one that evaluates shape >>>>>>> alone. Since TM 266-01-060-1 shows a strong >>>>>>> morphological affinity with the remaining >>>>>>> hominins represented in the analysis, our >>>>>>> results support the initial interpretations >>>>>>> that S. tchadensis represents an early >>>>>>> specimen of our lineage or a stem basal >>>>>>> lineage more closely related to hominins >>>>>>> than to Panini. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Taken together, these two analyses show a >>>>>>> strong morphological affinity of >>>>>>> Sahelanthropus with hominins." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In conclusion, our analyses can safely >>>>>>> reject that the craniofacial morphology of >>>>>>> Sahelanthropus tchadensis is similar to that >>>>>>> of great apes, and in that sense they lend >>>>>>> support to those studies that place this >>>>>>> species within our lineage (Brunet et al. >>>>>>> 2002, Guy et al. 2005, Zollikofer et al. >>>>>>> 2005). However, from the perspective of >>>>>>> overall cranial morphology, Sahelanthropus >>>>>>> shows a bauplan that is significantly >>>>>>> departed from the one observed among apes >>>>>>> and early australopithecine, falling closer >>>>>>> to the morphospace occupied by early Homo >>>>>>> species. " >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the >>>>>> cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is >>>>>> morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the >>>>>> great apes. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to >>>>> climat at >>>>> the time of early Homo than the climat between those times. >>>> >>>>         My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the >>>> past, whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", >>>> just stop reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into >>>> garbage can. Because, those who don't know anything, when they are >>>> asked to explain something, they just use words "climate change". >>>> Climate changes every year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country >>>> (Croatia), we have warm summers and cold winters. Look at that, >>>> "climate change". >>> >>> That climate changes every year is a consequence of the practical >>> definition >>> that climate is a 30 year average. But climate now differes from the >>> climate >>> 20 000 years ago by much more than the short term variations during >>> the last >>> 150 years covered by modern measurements, and the climate 2 million >>> years >>> ago it differed even more. >>> >>          Yes, I know exactly how was the climate when humans lived 20 >> kya, and when humans lived 2 mya. I know that climate changes, and I >> also know that the only thing that climate change isn't the only thing >> that affects life. People mention climate change without even trying >> to define how and why, they just say "climate change". This term is >> used because it *can* be used as an explanation, the only problem is, >> is it the valid explanation? Who is right, me, or somebody who has >> higher degree than me? It could be that he is right, but why and how? >> Just because of the higher degree? Hm, I see the lack of arguments >> here. And this is especially wrong, if you do have arguments, but the >> prevailing idea of people who don't have arguments is this only one >> idea. This is why I said this to you, for whatever there is in our >> past, you will always read the only one explanation, "climate change". >> This is the standard explanation, easily "understood" by every idiot, >> so my arguments cannot compete with something which every idiot >> 'understands". > >         For example, I don't know if you know about "Vallesian crisis". > This is a major shift in characteristics of mammals on a large scale. > The explanation is, "climate change". But, how and why? You see, this > happens all over the Mediterranean, north and south, east and west, > every coast of Mediterranean is completely affected. Yet, the > Tusco-Sardinian island in the very middle of Mediterranean Sea isn't > affected at all. Only when it touches the mainland, only then it becomes > completely affected. I would say that this means that the change goes on > foot, not by air. Yet, I can talk about this for edges, "climate change" > will remain the accepted cause, because every idiot accepts this without > even thinking, and my argument demands the process of thinking. > Scientists didn't earn a degree by the way of thinking, but by the way > of memorizing. Good old copy-paste process. And, BTW, this period is extremely important for our evolution. You know, we had Miocene apes. They all went extinct during Vallesian crisis except us. We emerged out of Vallesian crisis. Now, scientists know that fire is what made the change, and they think that the source of that fire was so-called Monsoon climate. But why? And how? Everybody neglects the solid fact that we are the species that live in symbiosis with fire, and it is exactly this species that emerged out of Vallesian crisis. See, I gave you a ton of arguments, and what is the argument of scientists? "Climate change", plain and simple. Circular argument. They don't know why it happened. At first it was the rise of Himalayas, but later it was found out that Himalayas raised later than this. Ok, no argument for climate change, no evidence. To use Vallesian crisis as "the evidence" is a circular thinking, like, Vallesian crisis is the evidence that climate change causing Vallesian crisis happened, and this is the only evidence. And that's it, goodbye. Nobody listens to real arguments.