|
|
Re: Fossil Evidence for AAT
Phillip Bigelow (n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu)
Tue, 27 Dec 1994 21:12:13 GMT
Troy Kelley <tkelley@hel4.brl.mil> writes:
>Subject: Re: Fossil Evidence for AAT
>From: Phillip Bigelow, n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu
>Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 06:36:42 GMT
>In article <1994Dec23.063642.4249@henson.cc.wwu.edu> Phillip Bigelow,
>n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu writes:
>>Troy Kelley <tkelley@hel4.brl.mil> writes:
>
Phillip Bigelow writes:
>
>> According to Wall (the Journal of Paleontology research I cited earlier,
>> only _limb bones_ should be used. The
>>cranial region is not comparative in this case. Homo erectus' limb bones
>>are, indeed, rather thick, however, no density value has been provided,
>as
>>far as I know, so, until such accurate density values are published, I
>would
>>regard this as uncertain data. Further, A. afarensis bones are thin and
>>long ("gracile" in the paleontological term). Even visual inspection of
>the
>>bones indicates that the species had average (or even possibly less
>dense)
>>bones than us. To muddy the waters even further, Homo sapiens
>neanderthalis had
>>even more massive bones that H. erectus, yet neanderthals were clearly
>>terrestrial, and in addition, lived _later_ than H. erectus.
>>
>> <pb>
>Troy Kelley writes:
>The text I sighted from Verheagan included limb bones.
Well, then, please quote from Verhaegan what the density of the hominid limb
bone is. The standard density is measured in gm/cm3. Could you also please
quote from Verhaegan what the ratio of the compact bone thickness/total bone
thickness is in these hominids. If Vergaegan didn't write anything specific
about these values, his statement is meaningless. I doubt that these
important measurements have been taken. We await your reply. :)
<pb>
|