Asking you to explain your demonstrated dishonesty is a ploy to incite?
Funny.
How does it differ? What do you mean? Oh, right - you are running off as usual.
So thanks for clarifying that you have a rather shallow understanding of a topic you have boasted about studying for 30 years.
That is NOT what a cladogram indicates, at all.
Here you go, fella - a nice concise overview for how the truly informed can interpret these pesky cladograms:
Interpreting Cladograms
It is from 2002, or thereabouts, so it has been around long enough that you could have come acrss it years ago in your in-depth study of the subject.
Reading through you wall-o-quotes (obvious attempt to avoid having to admit that you are clueless), all I saw was desperation. I DON'T CARE that you do not share my opinion on these matters since you have proven over and over that you are completely incompetent when it comes to these issues. You apparently spent more time learning how to obfuscate and dodge in your 30 years of study than you did learning the material.
Now, are you going to explain why - even after having your dishonesty exposed - you keep referring to the Stern and Susman paper?
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.
I mean, it indicates nearly the OPPOSITE of what you claimed. Did you think nobody would look it up?
By the way - the "quote" you provide from p. 280 of the paper does not appear on p. 280 of the paper. It appears in the abstract on the previous page.
" “
It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). "
View attachment 242122
Keep it up, Pauly - you do our side a great service.
Oh - actually one more thing - I think I caught you plagiarizing again. Your Stern and Susman quote? The one that does not actually appear where you claim it does? Yeah, found that
here:
"Not only have Lucy's wrists and arm-bones been called into question, but there also is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates this fossil was better adapted for swinging through trees, like modern-day chimps. After thoroughly examining A. afarensis fossils, Stern and Susman noted: "It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees" (1983, 60:280). They went on to comment: "The AL 333-91 [designation for specific A. afarensis fossil - BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand - BH/BT] is 'elongate and rod shaped' and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys" (60:281). Stern and Susmanís research details the fact that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are void of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet."
You had written:
""Stern and Susman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983) remarked: “
It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). They went on to comment: “
The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”."
I'm thinking it pretty unlikely that 2 different creationists reading the same source would come up with the exact same misquote..
How about you?