Figure 11. Distance correlation results using the Rasmussen et al. (2019) characters. Correlations and distance metrics are shown in the diagram. Filled squares indicate significant, positive distance correlation. Open circles indicate significant, negative correlation. Morotopithecus and Turkanapithecus. Despite this consistency, the average silhouette width for the three-cluster medoid partition was only 0.25. The first cluster consisted of all of the hominids: the extant apes plus fossil taxa Sivapithecus, Lufengpithecus, Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, Pierolapithecus, and Hispanopithecus. Medoid partitioning placed Morotopithecus with this hominid cluster. The remaining Proconsulidae were divided into the other two clusters, with Oreopithecus and the two Nyanzapithecus species forming the smaller cluster. Medoid partitioning placed Turkanapithecus with the larger cluster, while distance correlation placed it in the smaller cluster. It might be tempting to identify these clusters as holobaramins, were it not for previous baraminology studies of the hominins that repeatedly show more than one baramin in that subfamily of Hominidae. Finally, restricting our analysis of Rasmussen et al.’s (2019) character matrix to just the Hominoidea reveals clusters that partially agree with our results from the Gilbert et al. (2020) matrix. For Rasmussen et al.’s hominoids, we found all extant apes including Hylobates in a separate cluster from fossil forms; however, Rasmussen et al.’s taxon sample does not include any of Gilbert et al.’s hominids. Instead, the non-hominid taxa of Rasmussen et al. are placed by Gilbert et al. into separate families Dendropithecidae and Proconsulidae. Indeed, we find the species of Nyanzapithecus and Turkanapithecus forming a distinct cluster separate from other fossil hominoids in both the distance correlation and cluster analysis of Rasmussen et al.’s matrix. In that respect then, the results from Rasmussen et al.’s matrix do resemble the results from Gilbert et al.’s matrix. Whether any of these clusters should be called a holobaramin, however, remains unclear. Placing the extant gibbon Hylobates in the same holobaramin as the great apes seems especially unexpected. Looking for consistency among the different cluster analyses from this study also yields uncertain results. While we find some taxa appear consistently in clusters, the exact membership of the clusters varies from analysis to analysis. For example, the fossil hominids Hispanopithecus, Lufengpithecus, Sivapithecus, Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, and Pierolapithecus almost always appear together in a single cluster, but they cluster with gorilla and chimpanzee in only about two thirds of the partitions. Likewise, a group of pliopithecids (Epipliopithecus, Laccopithecus, and Lomorupithecus) almost always cluster with Catopithecus, but they also cluster about two thirds of the time with Proconsul. Overall, these two clusters might at best represent monobaramins, but we would hesitate to propose any of them as holobaramins. If creationist science is superior to evolutionary science, why then BRUMMEL AND WOOD Preliminary Evaluation of Ape Baramins 2023 ICC 160
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=