Is THIS proof that monkeys originate in the Americas?

[I Envy JTEM]

Remember that in science, in REAL science, facts
are consistent. Facts remain true no matter what.

If water boils under a given temperature/conditions
then it always does. No, not just some of the time or
during months with an 'R' in their name but all of the
time...

Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
in the Americas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae

Camels!

See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
the middle east but the Americas.

Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,
you're all so jealous, but I keep pointing out things like
how all the conditions that allowed mammoths and
humans to cross between Asia and North America occurred
more than once.

Mammoths crossed over to the Americas, evolved, and
eventually crossed back over to Eurasia!

And Camels are nothing more than turbo charged Llamas.

And monkeys? The absolute oldest monkey fossils, BY
FAR, are found in the Americas. The first PRIMATE is found
in the Americas, monkeys were already diversified maybe
10 or 15 million years before the oldest monkey fossil in
Africa...

This does support the Asian origin of apes theory that some
have kicked around these parts. After all, these primates
were already quite old, had already traveled a great distance,
had already encountered new environments with lots of new
SELECTIVE PRESSURES (i.e. "evolution") by the time they
reached the Arabian peninsular.

Plate techtonics?

As we all know, paleo anthropology is a farce. Amongst it's
many jokes is a fixation on "Origins" when what we all know
drives evolution is CHANGE. Got a monkey? Fine. But if it's
doing alright -- adapted well to it's environment -- all the
selective pressures are going to be on it staying pretty much
the same. If you want it to evolve into an ape, you need
change. You need to remove it from it's environment, give
it a new one... new resources... new challenges... new selective
pressures. So what isn't important is origins.

"It's the journey that matters, not the starting point."

The so called "Origins" only matter if we're trying to trace
it's journey.

Monkeys started in the Americas. Did apes arise in Eurasia?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Drugs.

[I Envy JTEM]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

[---Didn't take his meds again---]

When you have nothing to say, try to say nothing.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681683323967373312

[Primum Sapienti]

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> ...
> Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
> THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
> in the Americas:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
>
> Camels!
>
> See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
> the middle east but the Americas.
>
> Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,

From the link you provided:

"The family diversified and prospered, but remained confined to the
North American continent until only about two to three million years
ago, when representatives arrived in Asia, and (as part of the Great
American Interchange that followed the formation of the Isthmus of
Panama) South America. A high arctic camel from this time period has
been documented in the far northern reaches of Canada."


Monkeys are older than two to three million years.

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> From the link you provided:
>
> "The family diversified and prospered, but remained confined to the
> North American continent until only about two to three million years
> ago, when representatives arrived in Asia

So the dating is the furthest thing from exact and is openture. to a
migration BEFORE the Quaternary Period, BEFORE the present
Glacial/Interglacial cycle that allowed things like Clovis Culture...

Or are you pretending to read something else?

> Monkeys are older than two to three million years.

And 3 million years is too old for the glaciers creating a path, as they
did with Clovis Culture.

And monkeys in the Americas are older than any found in Africa or
anywhere else.

You're trying to "Get" me instead of discuss issues, which makes you
look like an idiot and not just a dick.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681558557689266176

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> Remember that in science, in REAL science, facts
> are consistent. Facts remain true no matter what.
>
> If water boils under a given temperature/conditions
> then it always does.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#:~:text=A%20liquid%20at%20high%20pressure,will%20boil%20at%20different%20temperatures.
Cod liver oil & drugs.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Cod liver oil and drugs will cure jermy.

[I Envy JTEM]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

[...]

Again, they've made some remarkable advances in the treatment
of mental illness. You really should give it another try.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/682028612895064064

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Jermy needs some jermicide.

[Primum Sapienti]

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> From the link you provided:
>>
>> "The family diversified and prospered, but remained confined to the
>> North American continent until only about two to three million years
>> ago, when representatives arrived in Asia
>
> So the dating is the furthest thing from exact and is openture. to a
> migration BEFORE the Quaternary Period, BEFORE the present
> Glacial/Interglacial cycle that allowed things like Clovis Culture...
>
> Or are you pretending to read something else?

THis is the link YOU posted, Jerm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae

If you don't like the dating reported there then why did you rely on it?

>> Monkeys are older than two to three million years.
>
> And 3 million years is too old for the glaciers creating a path, as they
> did with Clovis Culture.
>
> And monkeys in the Americas are older than any found in Africa or
> anywhere else.
>
> You're trying to "Get" me instead of discuss issues, which makes you
> look like an idiot and not just a dick.

Why did you post the camel link then?

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> If you don't like the dating reported there then why did you rely on it?

: until only about two to three million years ago, when representatives arrived in Asia,

: and (as part of the Great American Interchange that followed the formation of the
: Isthmus of Panama) South America

So as I pointed out, and your characteristic lack of reading comprehension prevented
you from grasping, 3 million years ago is way too early for any glacial period or "Ice
Age" associated land bridge... by some hundreds of thousands of years.

So the age range does indeed up the possibility of a pre glacial migration.

But you not only have to read these things but comprehend them.

As you know, JTEM is a one-man Benevolence Society. Which means you're in luck. I
can help you:

Now I can't stop you from being a dick, that's on you, but I can help you to not look
like an idiot. The secret here is that you've got to stop trying to "Win" some imaginary
battle. You want to discuss the issues then discuss, and if you don't want to discuss
them then don't hit "Reply."

There. That's it.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/683261073766400000

[littor...@gmail.com]

> Did apes arise in Eurasia?

When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests.
The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids,
google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
When India got further under Eurasia (Himalaya fm), hominoids split c 20 Ma into E (lesser apes) & W (great apes), who followed the coastal forests, E or W.
The great apes colonized the Tethys coastal forests + inland along rivers/lakes -> Dryopith, Morotopith etc.
The Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split the Tethys into the Med.Sea (hominids) & the Ind.Ocean (pongids).
The pongids went East, forcing hylobatids higher into the trees.
The peri-Med.hominids died out (cold?), except those in the Red Sea: HPG.
When the E.Afr.Rift formed, Gorilla c 8 Ma followed it -> Zinjanthropus afarensis.
When the Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean (Zanclean flood c 5 Ma),
- Pliocene Homo followed the S.Asian coasts,
- Pan followed the E.Afr.coastal forests -> inland along rivers/lakes -> Australopithecus.
Late-Pliocene gracile apiths evolved -> early-Pleist.robust apiths:
afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus,
google "ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen".
Early-Pleist.Homo along the Ind.Ocean became shallow divers for shellfish etc.,
google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
Easy, no?

[Paul Crowley]

On Saturday 7 May 2022 at 17:12:16 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests.
> The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids

Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn
ability to swim -- present among ALL other
primates and among almost ALL terrestrial
mammals?

> When India got further under Eurasia (Himalaya fm), hominoids split c 20 Ma into E (lesser apes) & W (great apes), who followed the coastal forests, E or W.
> The great apes colonized the Tethys coastal forests + inland along rivers/lakes -> Dryopith, Morotopith etc.

Lesser apes AND great apes never recovered
that instinctual capacity, even though (in
your scenario) it would have had great
survival potential -- and would have been
selected for.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zondag 8 mei 2022 om 00:39:11 UTC+2 schreef Paul Crowley:

> > When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests.
> > The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids

> Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn
> ability to swim --

No, my boy, they become aquarboreal, of course...
Don't you understand "coastal forests"??

Google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".

[Paul Crowley]

On Sunday 8 May 2022 at 08:37:57 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests.
>>> The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids

> . .

> > Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn
> > ability to swim --

> . .

> No, my boy, they become aquarboreal, of course...
> Don't you understand "coastal forests"??

>. .
When you don't have an answer, admit it.

It's interesting that when you don't have one
(or, at least, an apparently viable hypothesis)
the question does not occur to you.

My answer here is that the first population of
apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
evolved into a gibbon. That's why it acquired
a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
the back (from against the sides) and lost its
tail. This all happened on an island in SE Asia,
surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
swept away. So they evolved a horror of
bodies of water. That's passed on, in
varying degrees, to all its descendants.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:06:23 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 8 May 2022 at 08:37:57 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests.
> >>> The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids
> > . .
> > > Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn
> > > ability to swim --
> > . .
> > No, my boy, they become aquarboreal, of course...
> > Don't you understand "coastal forests"??
> >. .
> When you don't have an answer, admit it.
>
> It's interesting that when you don't have one
> (or, at least, an apparently viable hypothesis)
> the question does not occur to you.
>
> My answer here is that the first population of
> apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
> evolved into a gibbon. That's why

That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.

How did it acquire these traits?

it acquired
> a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
> top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
> the back (from against the sides) and lost its
> tail. This all happened on an island in SE Asia,
> surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
> rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
> swept away. So they evolved a horror of
> bodies of water.

Numerous monkey populations live on river and sea islands, they're monkeys which don't swing like apes, they swim fine. Those lost are quickly replaced, by more monkeys that swim fine.

[Paul Crowley]

On Monday 9 May 2022 at 04:59:19 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> My answer here is that the first population of
>> apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
>> evolved into a gibbon. That's why
>
> That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.

> . .
Where did you get that idea?
The question "Why?" could hardly
be more basic, e.g. :
Why are there two tides every day?
Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?

> How did it acquire these traits?

>. .
The monkey began to brachiate. It wasn't
much good at it to begin with, having a
monkey anatomy. But, over many
generations, it got much better. There
was selection for each of the following:
>. .

>> it acquired
>> a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
>> top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
>> the back (from against the sides) and lost its
>> tail.

>. .
Of course, as it became more gibbon-
like, it lost some standard monkey
capabilities -- climbing fast vertically,
jumping from tree to tree, etc.. A
less-isolated population would not
have been able to cope with the
competition from standard monkeys,
especially while going through its
initial adaptions to its new niche.
>. .

>> This all happened on an island in SE Asia,
>> surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
>> rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
>> swept away. So they evolved a horror of
>> bodies of water.

> . .

> Numerous monkey populations live on river and sea islands,
> they're monkeys which don't swing like apes, they swim fine.
> Those lost are quickly replaced, by more monkeys that swim
> fine.

>. .
The first gibbon population found a new
niche; it radically changed its morphology
and -- when its isolation ended -- ceased
to be capable of interbreeding with its
monkey ancestors (or cousins). This
wasn't just genetic. Any gibbon-monkey
half-breeds were pretty useless as either
gibbons or monkeys.

There were undoubtedly populations of
monkeys isolated for long periods on
islands. Many probably acquired a fear
of bodies of water. But they did not find
a new niche. When their isolation ended,
they could probably interbreed with their
ancestors (or cousins) and their water-
fear trait would be swamped out of
existence. If they couldn't interbreed,
they'd lose out (over generations) to
their mainland water-trusting relatives.
Those water-trusting monkeys could
swim across rivers, and get all the
benefits of water-trusting possessed
by all non-ape primates and by nearly
every other terrestrial mammal.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 6:59:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Monday 9 May 2022 at 04:59:19 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> My answer here is that the first population of
> >> apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
> >> evolved into a gibbon. That's why
> >
> > That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.
> > . .
> Where did you get that idea?

From Science. All scientists know this.

> The question "Why?" could hardly
> be more basic, e.g. :
> Why are there two tides every day?

Science explains how there are 2 tides, the natural processes involved, not why.

> Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?

Science explains how dinosaurs went extinct, not why.

> > How did it acquire these traits?
> >. .
> The monkey began to brachiate.

Since other primates don't, how did it's niche change to give advantage to brachiating rather than the usual monkeyb locomotion?

It wasn't
> much good at it to begin with, having a
> monkey anatomy. But, over many
> generations, it got much better. There
> was selection for each of the following:
> >. .
> >> it acquired
> >> a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
> >> top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
> >> the back (from against the sides) and lost its
> >> tail.
> >. .
> Of course, as it became more gibbon-
> like, it lost some standard monkey
> capabilities -- climbing fast vertically,

Long arms allow them to climb rapidly vertically.

> jumping from tree to tree, etc.

Gibbons are very good jumpers.

. A
> less-isolated population would not
> have been able to cope with the
> competition from standard monkeys,

Monkeys en masse displace gibbons, eg. 60 macaques vs 2 gibbons, food is stripped, macaques move onward, gibbons are stuck. Gibbons live near shallow clear streams, macaques along big murky rivers.

> especially while going through its
> initial adaptions to its new niche.
> >. .
> >> This all happened on an island in SE Asia,
> >> surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
> >> rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
> >> swept away. So they evolved a horror of
> >> bodies of water.
> > . .
> > Numerous monkey populations live on river and sea islands,
> > they're monkeys which don't swing like apes, they swim fine.
> > Those lost are quickly replaced, by more monkeys that swim
> > fine.
> >. .
> The first gibbon population found a new
> niche;

What was this new niche and why was brachiation advantageous?

it radically changed its morphology
> and -- when its isolation ended -- ceased
> to be capable of interbreeding with its
> monkey ancestors (or cousins). This
> wasn't just genetic. Any gibbon-monkey
> half-breeds were pretty useless as either
> gibbons or monkeys.

Sounds like typical creationist's talk.

> There were undoubtedly populations of
> monkeys isolated for long periods on
> islands. Many probably acquired a fear
> of bodies of water. But they did not find
> a new niche. When their isolation ended,
> they could probably interbreed with their
> ancestors (or cousins) and their water-
> fear trait would be swamped out of
> existence. If they couldn't interbreed,
> they'd lose out (over generations) to
> their mainland water-trusting relatives.
> Those water-trusting monkeys could
> swim across rivers, and get all the
> benefits of water-trusting possessed
> by all non-ape primates and by nearly
> every other terrestrial mammal.

So you dismiss Crocs as a factor, despite them being the number one predator of "aquarboreal" proboscis monkeys?

[Paul Crowley]

On Monday 9 May 2022 at 13:42:01 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>>> That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.
>>> . .
>> Where did you get that idea?

>. .

> From Science. All scientists know this.

> . .
Quote some good authority for this.
If it was true, you would have quotes
from the greats.

>>> How did it acquire these traits?
>>>. .
>> The monkey began to brachiate.

>. .

> Since other primates don't, how did it's niche change to give advantage
> to brachiating rather than the usual monkeyb locomotion?

I wasn't there (some 25 ma) so I have
to speculate. Maybe this island had a
lot of fairly horizontal lianas.

The habitat probably didn't change
much. It was more that a change in
the course of a river isolated one
monkey population, allowing it
(over many generations) to develop
a new and highly effective mode
of locomotion.

>> Of course, as it became more gibbon-
>> like, it lost some standard monkey
>> capabilities -- climbing fast vertically,

> . .

> Long arms allow them to climb rapidly vertically.

The point is that gibbons don't climb
the same way as monkeys. A quasi-
gibbon (halfway from being a monkey)
would not be good at climbing
vertically in either manner.

> > jumping from tree to tree, etc.

> . .

> Gibbons are very good jumpers.

As above only for jumping.

>> A less-isolated population would not have
>> been able to cope with the competition from
>> standard monkeys,

> . .

> Monkeys en masse displace gibbons, eg. 60 macaques vs 2
> gibbons, food is stripped, macaques move onward, gibbons are
> stuck. Gibbons live near shallow clear streams, macaques along big
> murky rivers.

Gibbons are so high up, and can get
their water from fruit, that they
probably barely know about any
streams on the ground. Much the
same would apply to many monkey
populations.

>> The first gibbon population found a new
>> niche;
>
> What was this new niche and why was brachiation advantageous?

Probably an island with a lot of fairly
horizontal lianas.

>> it radically changed its morphology
>> and -- when its isolation ended -- ceased
>> to be capable of interbreeding with its
>> monkey ancestors (or cousins). This
>> wasn't just genetic. Any gibbon-monkey
>> half-breeds were pretty useless as either
>> gibbons or monkeys.
>
> Sounds like typical creationist's talk.

>. .
What is creationist about it?

>. .

>> Those water-trusting monkeys could
>> swim across rivers, and get all the
>> benefits of water-trusting possessed
>> by all non-ape primates and by nearly
>> every other terrestrial mammal.

> . .

> So you dismiss Crocs as a factor, despite them being the number
> one predator of "aquarboreal" proboscis monkeys?

Predation would certainly get some of
them. But I'm mainly talking of the
once-in-a-lifetime (or less) swimming
journey of a near-adult monkey seeking
new territory. If successful, it might be
the ancestor of thousands. Water-
fearing primates (i.e. all apes) don't
have that option, and local populations
can go extinct more easily.

[I Envy JTEM]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Lesser apes AND great apes never recovered
> that instinctual capacity, even though (in
> your scenario) it would have had great
> survival potential -- and would have been
> selected for.

It's kind of like "Arguing" that flightless birds can't exist because flying
is so awesome.

Flightless birds do exist. Humans are the Aquatic Ape. Even the Out of
Africa purists admit it -- even if they sometimes realize what that means
and deny it -- because everyone agrees with "Coastal Dispersal." Our
ancestors, the ones that are common to all humans, lived on the beach.
They followed that coastline. It's how they traveled the globe, and
everyone agrees with it.

...and because they weren't stopping to eat at McDonalds, that
means they were eating on that same coast.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/683605167873146880

[I Envy JTEM]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> My answer here is that the first population of
> >> apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
> >> evolved into a gibbon. That's why
> >
> > That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.

> Where did you get that idea?

It's necessary when one rejects "Intelligent Design."

If evolution is not directed, if aliens or a divine being do not decide
evolution then attributing motives as you demand is stupid.

It really is stupid.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/683605167873146880

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

https://youtu.be/WNL9Jp9oeYA

NA primates

[Paul Crowley]

On Wednesday 11 May 2022 at 04:49:01 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

I wouldn't usually be bothered replying
to your posts. But there's an interesting
point below.

>> Lesser apes AND great apes never recovered
>> that instinctual capacity, even though (in
>> your scenario) it would have had great
>> survival potential -- and would have been
>> selected for.
>
> It's kind of like "Arguing" that flightless birds can't exist because flying
> is so awesome.

Flight is often disadvantageous to birds
on oceanic islands. They are liable to be
blown away in strong winds, and never
get back. So there is selection against
flight.

> Flightless birds do exist. Humans are the Aquatic Ape. Even the Out of
> Africa purists admit it -- even if they sometimes realize what that means
> and deny it -- because everyone agrees with "Coastal Dispersal." Our
> ancestors, the ones that are common to all humans, lived on the beach.
> They followed that coastline. It's how they traveled the globe, and
> everyone agrees with it.

My scenario is probably much more
coastal than anything you imagine, yet
I accept the obvious fact that humans
never re-evolved the swimming instincts

possessed by all non-ape primates and

by all (or nearly all) terrestrial mammals.

How did this come about?

The answer is 'altricial infants'. They
could never have adapted to swimming
in the ocean -- or not without enormous
difficulty -- for which they would have
needed extraordinary benefits. No such
benefits ever appeared, and hominin
mothers kept their little ones well away
from bodies of water, in much the same
way as they do today.

[I Envy JTEM]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Flight is often disadvantageous to birds
> on oceanic islands. They are liable to be
> blown away in strong winds, and never
> get back. So there is selection against
> flight.

I have often -- and for many years -- argued the opposite. Feather Like
Thingies (which is a technical term) or, if you prefer, proto feathers,
seem to appear as far back as we can ascertain! They predate flight
by an extremely long time.

"Feathers" pre exist birds, plain & simple.

So we have feathers... natural variation eventually finds "Flight Feathers"
or something optimum for that, meaning small dinosaurs would likely
be getting airborne whether they wanted to or not, so the next step was
CONTROLLED flight i.e. steering. Finally they needed POWERED flight, so
they could not only steer in the direction they wanted to go but actually
reach there!

Insects almost certainly evolved flight along similar lines. They were
small & light, easily taken up by the wind, and eventually evolved the
means to steer and keep themselves aloft so when the wind died they
didn't necessarily die...

A good indication that this is true would be pterosaurs. Not only do a
lot of people insist that powered flight would be difficult for even the
smallest, but some of them were so damn large that there is no way they
could have been powered fliers...

Gliders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/argentavis-the-largest-flying-bird-was-a-master-glider

See that? THAT is a large bird!

This actually originates in my head from when I was a kid, watching a
Sea Gull trying to land on a pier, it's wings outstretched, the wind keeping
it aloft. ALL OF THE COMPONENTS that made that happen to the Sea
Gull had already evolved before birds: Feathers... Long arms... small light
"Bird shaped" frame... even the wind!

> The answer is 'altricial infants'. They
> could never have adapted to swimming
> in the ocean -- or not without enormous
> difficulty -- for which they would have
> needed extraordinary benefits. No such
> benefits ever appeared, and hominin
> mothers kept their little ones well away
> from bodies of water, in much the same
> way as they do today.

Fact of the matter is, AS YOU SEEM TO AGREE, the human brain is large. It's
even larger than it needs to be. Really large. And it's composed of a great
deal of DHA. BUT, it's smaller than it used to be? And the shrinkage coincides
greatly with the rise of civilization, the agricultural economy, population
density?

But pretending we live in a vacuum and have no other information, we just look
around and see that we clearly evolved with an abundance of brain-building DHA
in our diets. After all, we suck as synthesizing DHA. Women suck at it, men are
even worse, so evolutionarily speaking we weren't getting it from a savanna,
"Endurance Running" after antelope so where the fluck did it come from besides
the sea?

Nowhere. It came from the sea, because we know for a fact that they were there
and had been for the entirety of our genus.

Pretending it came from anywhere else is like looking at a murder victim, seeing
the knife sticking out of their chest, seeing the homicidal maniac hovering over
the body singing, "I did it! I killed the bastard" only to conclude that the guy isn't
dead, he's probably just taking a nap.








-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/684181309772447744

[Primum Sapienti]

Why did you bring up camels?

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> ...
> Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
> THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
> in the Americas:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
>
> Camels!
>
> See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
> the middle east but the Americas.
>
> Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,

From the link you provided:

"The family diversified and prospered, but remained confined to the

North American continent until only about two to three million years

ago, when representatives arrived in Asia, and (as part of the Great
American Interchange that followed the formation of the Isthmus of

Panama) South America. A high arctic camel from this time period has
been documented in the far northern reaches of Canada."