Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

Regarding Turkana boy which is a Homo Erectus, the upright skeleton structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Concerning it, American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human."(Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post, November 19, 1984)Even evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:"One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time."(Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62)The fact that Homo erectus is a superfluous classification, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different to Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species has recently been heard more often in the scientific community. American Scientist magazine summarized the discussions over this issue, and a conference was held on this subject in 2000:Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo Sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus didn't exist.(Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491.)Saying "Homo erectus didn't exist" means "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens, but a species within Homo sapiens."There is, on the other hand, a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and right away without any evolutionary history. There can be no clearer indication of their being created.Regards,
Ahmad

Differences in cranial capacity does not prove anything. It is a fact that there are modern humans with small brains who are nevertheless of normal intelligence and of full humanity.Evolutionists are also belatedly recognizing the limitations of neuro-anatomical features, although from a different angle:"The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic, because absolute cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance." (Martin, R.D., Human Brain Evolution in an Ecological Context, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1983.)Likewise there is [/b]"compelling evidence that language function cannot be reliably inferred from the gross appearance of the brain, and that the language-related parts of the brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied."[/b] (Galaburda, A.M. and Pandya, D.N., In Primate Brain Evolution, Armstrong, E. and Falk, D., eds., Plenum, New York, pp. 203—216; Gannon, P.J., et al., Asymmetry of chimpanzee planum temporale: humanlike pattern of Wernicke’s brain language area homolog, Science 279(5348):220—222, 1998.)Regarding cranial capacity of Turkana Boy, "As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely that the adult ECV (EndoCranial Volume) of WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would be no more than about l000-1050cc, which is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc."(Jue, D. S., 1990. Cranial capacity and endocranial casts. EN Tech. J., 4:56-65.)"The resemblances between WT 15000 and the two controversial Asian erectus forms are clear and decisive. The Turkana Boy possessed the same heavy supraorbital ridges, the same type of receding forehead, and other cranial features as Java and Peking. With an estimated age of about 11 years old at death, and a cranial capacity (EndoCranial Volume) of about 900cc, WT 15000 is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features. Radiodated at about 1.6 mya (million years ago), this lad stood and walked as fully erect as do humans today."(Leakey, R. and Lewin, R., 1992. Origins Reconsidered, Abacus Books, London, pp. 58-64.)Salam,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Harun Yahya said that Pygmies and Homo erectus had the same brain size. Astonishingly, the small-brained Pygmy (estimated brain size from Harun Yahya (2001: 96, quote: 'The primary reason for evolutionists in defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1100 cc)However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies)'), body mass data (30kg) from McHenry & Berger 1998) is even brainier (30cc/kg) than the average modern human (25cc/kg)!

---

I don't recall mentioning anything about the pygmies. And besides brother Harun Yahya is right.In his book Man and his Ancestors, Beasley cites Broderick who reported a measurement as low as 830cc for a modern Wedda pygmy in Sri Lanka (page 84). Now the Wedda pygmies are human beings, aren't they? Keep in mind that the modern human cranial range is within 800- 2000cc as I pointed out earlier. Both Homo Erectus (turkana boy) and the Wedda pygmies come within this range to be qualified as HUMANS.

quote:

---

Members of the African pygmy tribe, with brains smaller than Turkana Boy's, do have normal intelligence and full humanity. Because they are on average brainier than me (a Malay) or you (presumably an Arab). In contrast, Turkana Boy, had he lived to adulthood, he'd make a great NBA player but I wouldn't rely on his wits. His brain is small but his body is large, and what directly matters is brain size vs body size, not absolute brain size. Brain size by itself is nothing. An elephant has a brain four times larger than ours but I can safely assume that we are still smarter (no offence to local hairy proboscideans of course ) Your (Harun Yahya) quote of R.D. Martin is correct.

---

So what exactly is your argument? Irregular body and cranial size? There are many who have this irregularity but what does that prove? I agree with you that Turkana Boy was close to adulthood. And where in brother Harun Yahya's website does he quote R.D Martin?

quote:

---

Anyway, of course that Turkana Boy is a human being. So are the Neanderthals and the australopiths. The definition of humans, physically, is an upright stance, free hands, broad pelvis, and small canine teeth.

---

Oh so you do admit that Turkana Boy was a human being? I thought you were holding on to the contrary.I agree that Neanderthals were human beings but surely not Australopithecus (AUST). AUST is neither a human being nor a transitional form. AUST is quadripedal ape! Its a fact. Even recent fossil records of AUST proves this:http://www.exn.ca/Templates/Story.cfm?ID=2000032251Did Lucy walk on her knuckles?Excerpt: Richmond's team examined the wrist bones of two Australopithecus species: anamensis and afarensis. They found that the wrist joints of these ancestors were stable and resembled the wrist joints of modern chimpanzees and gorillas, the only living mammals that walk on their knuckles.This contradicts what you said on your website:http://liquid2k.com/traduza/humevol3.htmExcerpt: Can we at least give some sympathy to Harun Yahya? At least he was correct in saying that australopiths were extinct apes. They are, after all, extinct now. But they were not 'typical' apes like the chimpanzee or gorilla of today; they are bipedal, and their spatial and temporal context put them right on the road to humanity.Also see:http://abcnews.go.com/...ce/DailyNews/knucklewalk000322.htmlBrian G. Richmond and David S. Strait, Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776), 23rd March, 2000.Looks like brother Harun Yahya beat you again..... Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

The second article says exactly the same thing. Lucy was BIPEDAL but retained knuckle walking features from her ancestry. So do we, I understand.

---

I don't recall mentioning anything about the quadripedality of Lucy but australopithecines(AUST). So did australopithecines like Lucy walk upright? Careful study of the skeletal anatomy of australopithecine fossils indicates a stooped gait, probably similar to the ‘rolling’ knuckle-walk of chimps. Doesn't sound [/i]humane[/i] to me

quote:

---

You're going to have to do better than that. Like read and find out whether the articles you are citing actually say what you want them to say.

---

I do know the contents of the article I cite. Even though the sites maintain their evolutionary heritage, they prove my point. It's a sort of a paradox. They admit that Lucy had knuckle-walking characteristics but deny she walked on her knuckle. They say that these characteristics were passed down from lucy's knuckle-walking ancestors. But ,as usual, they don't have any evidence for that. Johanson, an evolutionist, too didn't have any evidence to show that Lucy was bipedal. Same goes for AUST.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Now, the australopith problem. Given the fact that they are upright and they keep their heads atop their spine, not hanging from it like chimps' heads, their short pelvis, and their human-like foot, is it plausible that they are quadrupedal?

---

Firstly, they are not upright. They walked like chimps of today because of their knuckle-walking characteristics. Secondly, multivariate analysis show that that the fossil australopithecine pelvis is not intermediate between the pelves of ape and Man but is in fact uniquely different from the pelves of both living forms (J.T. Robinson, Nature, Vol. 205, p. 121). And besides naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis was based on supposition.(The Extraordinary Story of Human Origins, p.62). Thirdly, multivariate analysis (done by Oxnard) also show that the big toe of the so-called the "human-like" foot actually sticks out as in chimpanzees. There is no evidence that their foot resembled the foot of humans.Furthermore, Brian Richmond & David Strait discovered that Lucy's distal radii (the ends of the arm bones nearest to the wrist) had traits analogous to ones found in chimpanzees and gorillas associated with knuckle-walking (as I indicated by the sites).Now you tell me: Does it make sense to say that Lucy (an australopith) had two separate ways of moving on the ground (bipedalism and knuckle-walking)??

quote:

---

Crompton & co. had shown that AL 288-1, aka Lucy, might not walk like chimps, but more like humans.

---

Crompton's essay is dated (1998). The latest discovery by Richmond and Strait blows away this myth (2000).

quote:

---

Anyway, Karl's right, you should read the full Richmond & Strait article. You should also read the title (Evidence that humans evolved from knuckle-walking ancestors).

---

I have read the article. No doubt Richmond and Strait are evolutionists. I cited them to lend credence to my point, i.e, Lucy was a knucke-walker, even though evolutionists might not acknowledge this.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Erm - are you confused? You seem to be dividing Lucy from other Australopithecines. Lucy was an Australopithecine.

---

When did I deny that? There are many varieties of australopiths (Australopithecus africanus, afarensis etc). Lucy is australopith afarensis.

quote:

---

A quick search on Google reveals the reasons Australopithecines, including Lucy, are considered to be bipedal. I'm not a hominid evolution expert, so I'd rather leave it to those who are.

---

A quick search on Google with the word "Aliens" also yields thousands of results and reasons to believe why they exist. That doesn't prove anything without valid evidence, now does it?Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

1. Lucy is an Australopithecus afarensis, an AUST if you wish.

---

Right. So?

quote:

---

'Stooped gait'? You mean stooped posture? Cite please. Or check this out.

---

"The Australopithecines were long-armed short-legged knuckle-walkers, similar to existing African apes" (Richard Leakey, Science News of 1971 (100:357) )Latimer's reconstruction of the vertebral column of australopiths is still a reconstruction. Need O remind you much of the errors that happen in reconstruction, very often made to fit biased errors. Boyce Rensberger, writing in Science in 1981 states:Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors.There were many similar reconstructions as Latimer's. One is by artist John Gurche who said in reference to his work on Australopithecus afarensis in the March, 1996, issue of National Geographic, "I wanted to get a human soul into this apelike face, to indicate something about where he was headed."

quote:

---

Where did Johanson say that? Cite source please.

---

Say what? That Australopithecus was bipedal? Are you denying that? Please be clear.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Except that they said that Lucy wasn't a knuckle walker. You can't base a conclusion about an animal's gate on a single piece of evidence. There are knuckle-walking adaptations in the forearm. The rest of the animal is adapted for a form of bipedalism.

---

What features are you talking about? All quadripedal apes have the morphology of the knuckle-walker. Lucy has it too. Then why do you make an exception for her?

quote:

---

Your conjecture about the toe is pointless. We have the footprints - we know the shape of the australopithecine foot.

---

What footprints? The deceptive Lateoli footprints?Regards,
Ahmad

Laetoli footprints resembled exactly the size of a modern foot of the Homo Sapiens. The Australopithecus foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. I will leave it up to you to make the conclusion Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Check its pelvis. Is it "uniquely different"? Looks different to the chimp pelvis, isnt it?

---

I see it and let me tell you that her pelvis was reconstructed by Owen Lovejoy. In the first place, we must remember the words of Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, Similar anatomy does not always indicate evolutionary relationship.(Origins Reconsidered, p. 79). In other words, fossilized skeletal structure can often be a difficult tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces!! Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar (as I quoted before), wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis was based on supposition.(The Extraordinary Story of Human Origins p.62). Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as...the sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum (tail bone) and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.("Ancestors" page 66)In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape!!

quote:

---

OH 8 (Homo habilis) foot. Oh, I forgot, it's supposed to be Australopithecus habilis.

---

The site from which you got the image from makes this statement:"Some researchers suggest that Australopithecus afarensis was fully bipedal, whilst others postulate that the more recent Homo habilis (based on the foot assemblage OH 8) still retained certain arboreal adaptations."So that foot pic shows signs of arboreal adaptations, i.e, climbing up trees and swinging from one tree to another. Sounds like tarzan? Nah, just another ape.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't make sense at all. Lucy does not do knuckle-walking.

---

Then why the knucle-walking characeristics and adaptations recently found by Richmond and Strait? Surely they muct contributed to their function, i.e, knuckle-walking.

quote:

---

I might speculate that she moves like a large gibbon (Hylobates), brachiating on the trees and walking with her legs (not supported by her arms) on the ground.

---

Interesting. Taking in account that these gibbons are nothing but anthropoid apes, I migh agree with you . Yes the gibbons walk with their hind legs but they do usually raise their arms for balance. Nonetheless, its an interesting speculation. Also note that gibbons don't have the knuckle-walking characteristics as the aforementioned Lucy.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Ahmad, I've done a lot of searching for information on A. afarensis' feet. I've come to the conclusion we don't actually have any fossils of them. So I would be interested to know how this 'multivariate analysis' was done that indicated the foot was like that of a chimpanzee.

---

Actally, we do have foot fossils (as I know) of afarensis. You can refer to C.E. Oxnard, in Fossils, Sex and Teeth New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, p. 227, 1987. Oxnard had previously concluded much the same about Australopithecus africanus, Nature 258:389—395, 1975.

quote:

---

However, Australopithecus Afarensis - Modern Human Origins lists the following features that indicate A. afarensis was bipedal:

---

The points are interesting but none of them validly prove afarensis to be bipedal. They are all relating to the proximal femur which has more resemblance to humans. Even the pygmy chimpanzees have all the mentioned points as Lucy does. But I hear no one saying that the pygmy chimpanzee walks full-time on two legs. Yes it does walk on two legs but temporarily. It runs on all its four. Same is the case with Lucy.

quote:

---

Your move.

---

Here are some of the key points about afarensis I collected from here to prove my point:

• General anatomy of Lucy's shoulder blade was characterized as "virtually identical to that of a great ape and had a probability less than 0.001 of coming from the population represented by our modern human sample" (Susman et al, 1984, pp 120-121)
  ​
• Lucy's shoulder blade has a shoulder joint which points upwards (Oxnard 1984, p334-i; Stern and Susman 1983, p284) This would allow "use of the upper limb in elevated positions as would be common during climbing behavior" (Stern and Sussman, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60:279-313 1983, p284).
  ​
• Afarensis wrist bones are apelike. "Thus we may conclude that A. afarensis possessed large and mechanically advantageous wrist flexors, as might be useful in an arboreal setting" (Stern and Susman, 1983, p282).
  ​
• Afarensis metacarpals [the bones in the palm of the hand] "have large heads and bases relative to their parallel sided and somewhat curved shafts an overall pattern shared by chimpanzees". This "might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior" (Stern and Susman 1983, pp 282-3).
  ​
• The finger bones are even more curved than in chimpanzees and are morphologically chimpanzee-like. (Stern and Susman 1983, pp 282-4; Susman et al 1984 p. 117; Marzke 1983, p 198).
  ​
• Afarensis humerus (upper arm bone) has features that are "most likely related to some form of arboreal locomotion" (Oxnard 1984, p.334-1; see also Senut 1981, p.282).
  ​
• One of the long bones in the forearm, the ulna, resembles that of the pygmy chimpanzee (Feldsman 1982b, p.187).
  ​
• Vertebrae show points of attachment for shoulder and back muscles "massive relative to their size in modern humans" (Cook et al 1983, p.86) These would be very useful for arboreal activity (Oxnard 1984, p 334-i).
  ​
• "Recently Schmid (1983) has reconstructed the A.L. 288-1 rib cage as being chimpanzee-like" Susman et al 1984, p 131).
  ​
• Blades of hip oriented as in chimpanzee (Stern and Susman 1983, p.292.) Features of afarensis hip therefore "enable proficient climbing" (Stern and Susman 1983, p. 290).
  ​
• In 1987, Dr. Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) did a computer analysis of australopithecines such as Lucy is classed as. He concluded that they are not ancestral to humans at all, but are instead an extinct form of arboreal ape. (Oxnard, Charles, Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987.)

Ofcourse just like Strait, Stern and Susman, after describing Lucy's arboreal characteristics persist, for the sake of evolution, saying Lucy was bipedal. They practice picking morphological traits that agree with their favored hypothesis and forgetting about the ones that do not agree or even contradict the hypothesis of the day. Nonetheless, the latent truth seems to be that Lucy was an extinct ape species... not a "missing-link" nor man's ancestor.Regards,
Ahmad

Assala Moalaikum brother Primanda,

quote:

---

The australopith brain is the same size as a chimp's brain, so it's no problem for Lucy if she ever gave birth to anyone. Anyway, the character that puts australopiths near to humans is, after all, their erect posture, which implies bipedalism. Check the Lucy fossil again, this time with a ruler. Measure the length of her arm and compare it to her leg. Done that? Then try to get the measurements of a chimp's arms and legs. Lucy's arm is shorter than her feet. Knuckle-walking apes have long arms and short legs. Should Lucy try to knuckle-walk she'd make a ridiculous posture, because her legs are longer than her arms while her face would point downward.

---

Now now brother, don't go onto mere observation of the skeleton. Its a diagrammatic representation. Give me a source (valid) where it shows that Lucy's arm was is shorter than her legs. As I know, its the opposite. Like habilis, lucy too has her arms longer than her legs. She is an ape.

quote:

---

See the data for yourself. Anyway, thanks for reminding me the possibility of Lovejoy bending the data. It made me searching and checking my own position. As I have checked, he's not cheating. And it's still consistent with the idea of australopiths being bipedal.

---

But he did deceive us. I checked the sites.. interesting. Lucy's pelvis was crushed into pieces. I think this site gives a little description that proves my point. The passage explains how forensic pathology does not support Lovejoy's claim:"I spoke with two pathologists at the USC Medical Center about the characteristics of broken bones. One was a friend whom I had been trying to reach with the gospel for years and who knew my wife well, having taught her pathology for a year. He was a senior pathologist who recently committed suicide. I didn't want them to withhold any critical information concerning bone damage, so I asked them if there was any known way to make bones deformable and conformable. They said there wasn't. I asked them if there was any way to compress a bone so that it would change its configuration and look like it was not broken (similar to Lovejoy's claim). My friend said that this could happen but the microfractures would be detectable. Lovejoy did not seem to have tried to see if this was the case. In order for his theory to have any credibility, he must present evidence of compression, which he has not done. He simply made an assumption and continued with his explanation."Go through the website for more evidence. In the second place, Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis must be reconsidered in light of the work done by Peter Schmid. Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, was sent a cast of Lucy’s skeleton and asked to reassemble it for a display. What Schmid found was not what he expected. His reconstruction of Lucy did not resemble the Owen Lovejoy model. Schmid describes what he concluded as he put Lucy’s remains together:"When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes." (Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, pp. 193-194.)Once again the evolutionists had made an assumption which the facts did not support. If one aspect of Lovejoy’s Lucy model did not add up, would it not be reasonable to assume that he might have made a mistake (intentional or unintentional) in piecing together another aspect of her anatomy, namely her pelvis?

quote:

---

About the foot (OH 8): Arboreal adaptations? You mean a hand-like foot like those of chimps? I supplied the picture, now you tell me where the arboreal adaptations are. And you still owe us that multivariate analysis. Show us Oxnard's data. (HINT: Creationist sites usually don't have them).

---

Right. This is the reference, "Kidd, R.S., P. O'Higgins, and C.E. Oxnard 1996. The OH8 foot: a reappraisal of the functional morphology of the hindfoot utilizing a multivariate approach. Journal of Human Evolution 31:269-291."Couldn't find a link, sorry.

quote:

---

Retention of ancestral characters? A knuckle-walking wrist does not obstruct a bipedal walker. If it does not get in the way, then natural selection wouldn't weed it out immediately.

---

But on what basis can you make that claim? There is absolutely no evidence to claim that Lucy evolved from knuckle-walking ancestors and this possessed these knuckle-walking characteristics. If you make such a claim.. you have to show exactly when did this miraculous transformation from quadripedality to bipedality take place. Did she just walk upright from the momnet she was born?? And besides, when examined in terms of mechanics, it is seen that quadropedalism is more "superior" than bipedalim. A living being able to move on all fours can run faster and has more chance to survive. Bipedal stride is both harder and slower. Therefore, a thesis claiming that bipedalism evolved out of quadropedalism cannot be explained by natural selection which is based on the argument of survival of the fittest, now can it?Even if we admit the evolutionary argument, we must assent to the idea that man’s first ancestor split off from the apes and started to walk on its two feet in an upright posture. Yet, since bipedalism is a disadvantage rather than an advantage, natural selection would eliminate this "ancestor of man". This is one of the biggest contradictions within evolution itself, as I see it. As a result of this inconsistency, the French L’Express magazine published several articles stating that apes were superior to men in terms of evolution, so they could have evolved from them. Think about it.Regards,
Ahmad[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-02-2002][This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-02-2002]

quote:

---

Assalamu 'alaikum brother Ahmad, and minal aidin wal faidzin, Happy Idul-Fitri,

---

Walaikum salam wr wb and same to you too brother

quote:

---

Sounds harmless enough to me. Habilis was an australopith (I'm with Bernard Wood's opinion) and australopiths walk and climb.

---

Hey if that's harmless, its fine with me also bro. But I thought you denied OH8 having arboreal adaptations when the data specifically mentions "arboreal and terrestrial" and not completely bipedal. Do you contend with that?Regards
Ahmad