Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What do you think about my theory of the origins of bipedality?
120 views
Skip to first unread message
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 19, 2018, 2:41:59 AM9/19/18
to
What do you, people, think about it? About what I have
presented, that exiting the sea is fine (or, the best) explanation of
our pelvis, of our stiff feet, of our arch?
I wrote to some American and English labs which research
bipedality. Non responded. I mean, could it be so bad? What's wrong with it?
Thanks
yelw...@gmail.com
Sep 20, 2018, 5:57:32 PM9/20/18
to
I have only the vaguest notion of what your theory of
bipedalism is. I'd guess that many around here are in
much the same boat. (Also, many of your posts are
poorly expressed. While that's forgivable, given
you're not writing in your native language, it is still
an obstacle). Something about early hominins
climbing cliffs, and sleeping on them . . . ? Maybe
an AAH aspect somewhere, as well . . . ?
Please set your theory out in as few sentences and
paragraphs as you can manage. Or refer to a website
which already does this.
Paul.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 20, 2018, 6:28:38 PM9/20/18
to
(pelvis, stiff midfoot, longitudinal arch). I posted a post recently,
which definitely is simple and clear, so I will copy it here:
How to turn an ape into a human?
Position: Put an ape into bipedal stance, and give him something to carry.
Action: Push him from behind, and do this a lot.
Two things will happen:
1) Lower leg (foot) - the body will tend to rotate around midtarsal break.
In order to counter this, ape would tend to stiffen its midfoot. When
he stiffens his midfoot, the body would tend to rotate around the ball
of foot. Helpful will be if arch develops, arch pushes ball of foot more
into the ground, and resists rotation.
At that point heel rises up. This dorsiflex toes. Actually, curved
toes can help in this situation by resisting rotation. Short or long
phalanges work well.
2) Upper leg (pelvis) - to stop the rotation of body, gluteal muscles
will pull illiac down. This is the only situation that can create
human-like pelvis.
Where in the nature this situation can occur?
Because of physics, sea waves always run parallel to shore
(http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/edu06nature/ele_beach2_e.htm). In other
words, the force of waves is always perpendicular to the shore. When
exiting sea, waves push you from behind.
Other adaptations (adduction/abduction ability, flexible joints, wide
chest, adducted big toe) are usable in climbing vertical sea cliffs,
which emerged during rifting. Rifting emerged when apes emerged.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 21, 2018, 9:14:02 AM9/21/18
to
figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
definitely not right.
Lol, Jesus Christ.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 21, 2018, 9:15:11 AM9/21/18
to
yelw...@gmail.com
Sep 21, 2018, 6:14:06 PM9/21/18
to
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:28:38 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> My newest idea is about how our characteristic adaptations emerged
> (pelvis, stiff midfoot, longitudinal arch).
Your outlook is based on a variety of errors or false
> My newest idea is about how our characteristic adaptations emerged
> (pelvis, stiff midfoot, longitudinal arch).
assumptions prevalent in Standard PA. One is that
the whole species consists solely of adult males.
Like every other PA 'theorist', you completely
forget babies, infants, other young and mothers.
Yet they are the members that keep the species
going. Adult males are largely irrelevant: i.e.
theoretically the species could get by with only a
few.
> Position: Put an ape into bipedal stance, and give him something to carry.
> Action: Push him from behind, and do this a lot.
go bipedal. Jane Goodall describes a chimp males
who had a paralysed arm, meaning that the usual
quadrupedal gait was difficult for him. Since most
of his walking was along paths in woodland kept
clear by humans, he could walk bipedally most of
the time.
The real problems for which you need to provide
explanations are
(a) why and how did females with infants clinging
on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
(b) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
cease to be able to climb pole-like trees?
(c) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
adopt an extraordinarily slow speed when fleeing
from predators by dashing for those pole-like
trees (or for other safe refuge)?
(d) account for the changes of habitat in your
theory; assuming that they started much like
chimps or other primates, with nests in trees
(i) when, why and how did they switch to
something aquatic?
(ii) when, why and how did they switch to
cliff sides
(iii) when why and how did they switch from
them to something else?
(iv) when why and how did they switch to the
modern (i.e. stone-age human) pattern?
> Because of physics, sea waves always run parallel to shore
Does it appy to the mother/infant dyad?
> Other adaptations (adduction/abduction ability, flexible joints, wide
> chest, adducted big toe) are usable in climbing vertical sea cliffs,
> which emerged during rifting. Rifting emerged when apes emerged.
produce sheer steep cliffs. Even if they are initially
present, they soon erode into gradual slopes.
Goodall talks of her chimps taking a few hours to
walk uphill to the top of their ridge, from where
they had a good view of the surrounding terrain.
Steep cliffs are most often produced by wave
action on coasts, or by rivers (as in the case of
the Grand Canyon).
Secondly, rifting has been in progress on this
planet since its creation.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 21, 2018, 6:58:04 PM9/21/18
to
On 22.9.2018. 0:14, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:28:38 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>> My newest idea is about how our characteristic adaptations emerged
>> (pelvis, stiff midfoot, longitudinal arch).
>
> Your outlook is based on a variety of errors or false
> assumptions prevalent in Standard PA. One is that
> the whole species consists solely of adult males.
> Like every other PA 'theorist', you completely
> forget babies, infants, other young and mothers.
> Yet they are the members that keep the species
> going. Adult males are largely irrelevant: i.e.
> theoretically the species could get by with only a
> few.
>
>> Position: Put an ape into bipedal stance, and give him something to carry.
>> Action: Push him from behind, and do this a lot.
>
> There is no major problem about getting an ape to
> go bipedal. Jane Goodall describes a chimp males
> who had a paralysed arm, meaning that the usual
> quadrupedal gait was difficult for him. Since most
> of his walking was along paths in woodland kept
> clear by humans, he could walk bipedally most of
> the time.
I didn't show any outlook, here. I was just talking about the forces
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:28:38 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>> My newest idea is about how our characteristic adaptations emerged
>> (pelvis, stiff midfoot, longitudinal arch).
>
> Your outlook is based on a variety of errors or false
> assumptions prevalent in Standard PA. One is that
> the whole species consists solely of adult males.
> Like every other PA 'theorist', you completely
> forget babies, infants, other young and mothers.
> Yet they are the members that keep the species
> going. Adult males are largely irrelevant: i.e.
> theoretically the species could get by with only a
> few.
>
>> Position: Put an ape into bipedal stance, and give him something to carry.
>> Action: Push him from behind, and do this a lot.
>
> There is no major problem about getting an ape to
> go bipedal. Jane Goodall describes a chimp males
> who had a paralysed arm, meaning that the usual
> quadrupedal gait was difficult for him. Since most
> of his walking was along paths in woodland kept
> clear by humans, he could walk bipedally most of
> the time.
that produce our type out of the ape type, nothing else.
> The real problems for which you need to provide
> explanations are
> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
belies, in a form similar to this.
https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
See the dorsiflexion of big toe, which prevents baby from sliding off
of mother.
Mothers were floating in sea. This is safe place, since there wasn't
aquatic predators. Land predators are just a floating logs in sea.
Besides, mother could easily swim to the nearest climbable surface,
cliff. It really isn't so hard, believe me.
> (b) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
> cease to be able to climb pole-like trees?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajp.1350030104
> (c) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
> adopt an extraordinarily slow speed when fleeing
> from predators by dashing for those pole-like
> trees (or for other safe refuge)?
> (d) account for the changes of habitat in your
> theory; assuming that they started much like
> chimps or other primates, with nests in trees
non-ape primates of today).
> (i) when, why and how did they switch to
> something aquatic?
> (ii) when, why and how did they switch to
> cliff sides
> (iii) when why and how did they switch from
> them to something else?
> (iv) when why and how did they switch to the
> modern (i.e. stone-age human) pattern?
settle down the first stage.
While you were staring at your ceiling, I was developing all the
stages, I have all the story, up to these days, but now we are
discussing the above stage.
>> Because of physics, sea waves always run parallel to shore
>
> Does this apply to infants, children, and youths of all sizes in a typical hominin population?
> Does it appy to the mother/infant dyad?
some doubts, I can discuss it more thoroughly.
>> Other adaptations (adduction/abduction ability, flexible joints, wide
>> chest, adducted big toe) are usable in climbing vertical sea cliffs,
>> which emerged during rifting. Rifting emerged when apes emerged.
>
> Firstly, rifting does not, over evolutionary time,
> produce sheer steep cliffs. Even if they are initially
> present, they soon erode into gradual slopes.
> Goodall talks of her chimps taking a few hours to
> walk uphill to the top of their ridge, from where
> they had a good view of the surrounding terrain.
> Steep cliffs are most often produced by wave
> action on coasts, or by rivers (as in the case of
> the Grand Canyon).
vertical cliffs, some thousand of them just on one cliff. This cliff is
produced by rifting. You can also see:
"...slow, deliberate locomotion..."
"...enhanced grasping abilities and limb mobility that permitted
careful maneuvering of the body over secure handholds and footholds..."
(after Kelley J. 1997.) ...suggested as a locomotion for first apes
(Proconsul):
https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY
Here you can see the formation of scarps, "hundreds of kilometers
long", many of them, side by side:
https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=26s
On this video you can see how they change to "something aquatic".
There was a strong volcanism, and sometimes apes would be forced to live
solely on aquatic food:
https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
> Secondly, rifting has been in progress on this
> planet since its creation.
maps. Yet, rifting very rarely happens on firm land, often it happens
deep into the ocean (you can see it also on Iceland, on firm land). In
the past, when it did happen on the firm land, there weren't primates to
take the use of cliffs.
yelw...@gmail.com
Sep 22, 2018, 7:24:09 PM9/22/18
to
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 11:58:04 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> The real problems for which you need to provide
>> explanations are
>> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
>> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
>
> Infants didn't cling on their bellies. They were lying on their
> belies, in a form similar to this.
> https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
You need to explain how and why -- specifying the
>> The real problems for which you need to provide
>> explanations are
>> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
>> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
>
> Infants didn't cling on their bellies. They were lying on their
> belies, in a form similar to this.
> https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
selective benefits -- hominin infants dropped the
~50 Myr primate pattern of clinging to their mother
24/7.
You won't ever do this, anymore than any Standard
PA person has attempted to provide a reasonably
plausible explanation within their scenario.
> Mothers were floating in sea. This is safe place, since there wasn't
> aquatic predators.
extended time in the sea without 10s of millions
of years of adaptation. It's too cold. In any
case, human infants cannot cope with any level
of ingested salt. Their ancestors never spent
time (other than the briefest minutes) in the sea.
> Besides, mother could easily swim to the nearest climbable surface,
> cliff. It really isn't so hard, believe me.
would dream of doing anything of the kind?
>> (b) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
>> cease to be able to climb pole-like trees?
>
> Cliffs are safer places for big primates than trees:
>> (c) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
>> adopt an extraordinarily slow speed when fleeing
>> from predators by dashing for those pole-like
>> trees (or for other safe refuge)?
>
> They were extraordinarily fastly swimming.
are extraordinarily slow?
>> (d) account for the changes of habitat in your
>> theory; assuming that they started much like
>> chimps or other primates, with nests in trees
>
> They moved to cliffs, see above. Also, see baboons (the biggest
> non-ape primates of today).
forests -- when it first speciated and became
bipedal. It did NOT change thereafter in this
respect. NO taxon indulges in the rampant
niche-swapping you envisage. It is UNKNOWN
elsewhere in nature. (Never mind that Standard
PA itself has plenty of niche-swapping in its
various scenarios.) Anyone who presents a set
of niche-swapping events in human evolution
merely demonstrates his utter ignorance of
evolution and of nature.
I'm not going to waste any more time on
your wildly unscientific fantasies.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
Sep 22, 2018, 7:41:01 PM9/22/18
to
Mario can supply his responses very well, though probably unsatisfactorily to some.
Regarding this:
The hominin line found a new niche
DD: niche means nest.
-- NOT in forests
DD: No-one knows, but Parsimony indicates a Hominin niche/nest inversion within the rainforest, from arboreal(/cliff?) to terrestrial-aquatic probably coincidentally with the 48=>46 chromosome fusion event.
-- when it first speciated and became
bipedal.
DD: Upright arboreal(cliff?) facultative bipedalism/bimanualism preceded the H/P split.
Regarding this:
The hominin line found a new niche
-- NOT in forests
DD: No-one knows, but Parsimony indicates a Hominin niche/nest inversion within the rainforest, from arboreal(/cliff?) to terrestrial-aquatic probably coincidentally with the 48=>46 chromosome fusion event.
-- when it first speciated and became
bipedal.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 22, 2018, 8:37:59 PM9/22/18
to
On 23.9.2018. 1:24, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 11:58:04 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>>> The real problems for which you need to provide
>>> explanations are
>>> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
>>> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
>>
>> Infants didn't cling on their bellies. They were lying on their
>> belies, in a form similar to this.
>> https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
>
> You need to explain how and why -- specifying the
> selective benefits -- hominin infants dropped the
> ~50 Myr primate pattern of clinging to their mother
> 24/7.
>
> You won't ever do this, anymore than any Standard
> PA person has attempted to provide a reasonably
> plausible explanation within their scenario.
I don't have to explain anything. Just like if I would describe the
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 11:58:04 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>>> The real problems for which you need to provide
>>> explanations are
>>> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
>>> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
>>
>> Infants didn't cling on their bellies. They were lying on their
>> belies, in a form similar to this.
>> https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
>
> You need to explain how and why -- specifying the
> selective benefits -- hominin infants dropped the
> ~50 Myr primate pattern of clinging to their mother
> 24/7.
>
> You won't ever do this, anymore than any Standard
> PA person has attempted to provide a reasonably
> plausible explanation within their scenario.
usefulness of fish tail, when I shouldn't describe in which water
exactly this happens, lake, river or sea, at which temperature, and so
on. But, I am doing it anyway, just for fun. And you are insisting on
it, just because you are another nut with his stupid little theory, who
wants to find any fault in any other theory.
>> Mothers were floating in sea. This is safe place, since there wasn't
>> aquatic predators.
>
> Ridiculous fantasy. No mammal spends an
> extended time in the sea without 10s of millions
> of years of adaptation. It's too cold. In any
> case, human infants cannot cope with any level
> of ingested salt. Their ancestors never spent
> time (other than the briefest minutes) in the sea.
known method of extracting salt within animal world. And exactly that is
the prime characteristic of our infants. Hm, what a coincidence, lol.
Right this summer (just like any other summer) sea was full with
humans, and specially human kids. I did it whole day long, and I wasn't
the only one. We even have swimming pools at homes (whoever can afford
it), which mimic that. You are a bloody idiot.
>> Besides, mother could easily swim to the nearest climbable surface,
>> cliff. It really isn't so hard, believe me.
>
> How come no human mother with an infant
> would dream of doing anything of the kind?
>>> (b) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
>>> cease to be able to climb pole-like trees?
>>
>> Cliffs are safer places for big primates than trees:
>
> Not an answer.
>>> (c) why and how did the mother/infant dyad
>>> adopt an extraordinarily slow speed when fleeing
>>> from predators by dashing for those pole-like
>>> trees (or for other safe refuge)?
>>
>> They were extraordinarily fastly swimming.
>
> Ridiculous. How come human mothers with infants
> are extraordinarily slow?
>>> (d) account for the changes of habitat in your
>>> theory; assuming that they started much like
>>> chimps or other primates, with nests in trees
>>
>> They moved to cliffs, see above. Also, see baboons (the biggest
>> non-ape primates of today).
>
> The hominin line found a new niche -- NOT in
> forests -- when it first speciated and became
> bipedal. It did NOT change thereafter in this
> respect. NO taxon indulges in the rampant
> niche-swapping you envisage. It is UNKNOWN
> elsewhere in nature. (Never mind that Standard
> PA itself has plenty of niche-swapping in its
> various scenarios.) Anyone who presents a set
> of niche-swapping events in human evolution
> merely demonstrates his utter ignorance of
> evolution and of nature.
fun. Because if it isn't a fun for you, then it does not have sense to
spend time on this.
yelw...@gmail.com
Sep 23, 2018, 10:00:24 AM9/23/18
to
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 12:41:01 AM UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>> The hominin line found a new niche
>
> DD: niche means nest.
Define Niche at Dictionary.com
>> The hominin line found a new niche
>
> DD: niche means nest.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/niche
1610s, "shallow recess in a wall," from French niche "recess (for a dog), kennel" (14c.), perhaps from Italian nicchia "niche, nook," from nicchio "seashell," said by Klein and Barnhart to be probably from Latin mitulus "mussel," but the change of -m- to -n- is not explained.
Ecology. the position or function of an organism in a community of plants and animals.
The use of 'niche' for the concept of 'ecological niche'
was a pretty random choice. Numerous other words
could have been used, many perhaps more fitting. It
was coined by Roswell Hill Johnson, who represents
a pretty awful phase in anthropology -- eugenics.
But the concept of ecological niche is quite recent,
no more than ninety years old and is still in process
of development. Paleoanthropology was establised
long before, and has yet to come to grips with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
>> -- NOT in forests
>
> DD: No-one knows, but Parsimony indicates a Hominin niche/nest inversion within the rainforest, from arboreal(/cliff?) to terrestrial-aquatic probably coincidentally with the 48=>46 chromosome fusion event.
the natural world -- would indicate ONE shift (and no
more than one) from the forest to a different habitat.
The large primate niche in tropical forests was already
occupied. The principle of 'competitive exclusion'
would have meant that chimps would have competed
with ground-based hominins; common sense tells us
that they would have wiped them out in no time.
>> -- when it first speciated and became bipedal.
>
> DD: Upright arboreal(cliff?) facultative bipedalism/bimanualism preceded the H/P split.
an evolutionary step (or stage). It would have been
as relevant to their life-style as our own 'facultative
quadrupedalism' is to ours.
yelw...@gmail.com
Sep 23, 2018, 10:03:10 AM9/23/18
to
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 1:37:59 AM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I said I wouldn't reply -- but I had left in an ambiguity
which needs clarifying.
>>>> The real problems for which you need to provide
>>>> explanations are
>>>> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
>>>> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
>>>
>>> Infants didn't cling on their bellies. They were lying on their
>>> belies, in a form similar to this.
>>> https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
>>
>> You need to explain how and why -- specifying the
>> selective benefits -- hominin infants dropped the
>> ~50 Myr primate pattern of clinging to their mother
>> 24/7.
>>
>> You won't ever do this, anymore than any Standard
>> PA person has attempted to provide a reasonably
>> plausible explanation within their scenario.
>
> I don't have to explain anything.
You claim to be proposing a theory of human
evolution. If you're serious (which, of course,
you aren't) you should be able to explain major
changes -- how and why the species moved
from one state to another. Infants dropping a
40-50 Myr-old primate adaptation WAS a major
change. It happened at some point (obviously
right at the start of the hominin taxon). Your
inability to account for it means that you don't
have a viable theory.
>>> Mothers were floating in sea. This is safe place, since there wasn't
>>> aquatic predators.
>>
>> Ridiculous fantasy. No mammal spends an
>> extended time in the sea without 10s of millions
>> of years of adaptation. It's too cold. In any
>> case, human infants cannot cope with any level
>> of ingested salt. Their ancestors never spent
>> time (other than the briefest minutes) in the sea.
everyone knows that babies cannot handle any
amount of salt. Their kidneys are not up to it.
(Ignorant parents sometimes kill their babies by
giving them adult food.) This is clear proof that
humans never had an episode in their evolution
when mothers and their babies swam in sea-
water.
I said I wouldn't reply -- but I had left in an ambiguity
which needs clarifying.
>>>> The real problems for which you need to provide
>>>> explanations are
>>>> (a) why and how did females with infants clinging
>>>> on to their bellies switch to a bipedal stance?
>>>
>>> Infants didn't cling on their bellies. They were lying on their
>>> belies, in a form similar to this.
>>> https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4
>>
>> You need to explain how and why -- specifying the
>> selective benefits -- hominin infants dropped the
>> ~50 Myr primate pattern of clinging to their mother
>> 24/7.
>>
>> You won't ever do this, anymore than any Standard
>> PA person has attempted to provide a reasonably
>> plausible explanation within their scenario.
>
> I don't have to explain anything.
evolution. If you're serious (which, of course,
you aren't) you should be able to explain major
changes -- how and why the species moved
from one state to another. Infants dropping a
40-50 Myr-old primate adaptation WAS a major
change. It happened at some point (obviously
right at the start of the hominin taxon). Your
inability to account for it means that you don't
have a viable theory.
>>> Mothers were floating in sea. This is safe place, since there wasn't
>>> aquatic predators.
>>
>> Ridiculous fantasy. No mammal spends an
>> extended time in the sea without 10s of millions
>> of years of adaptation. It's too cold. In any
>> case, human infants cannot cope with any level
>> of ingested salt. Their ancestors never spent
>> time (other than the briefest minutes) in the sea.
> Right this summer (just like any other summer) sea was full with
> humans, and specially human kids. I did it whole day long, and I wasn't
> the only one. We even have swimming pools at homes (whoever can afford
> it), which mimic that. You are a bloody idiot.
I meant 'babies' rather than 'infants'. Almost
> humans, and specially human kids. I did it whole day long, and I wasn't
> the only one. We even have swimming pools at homes (whoever can afford
> it), which mimic that. You are a bloody idiot.
everyone knows that babies cannot handle any
amount of salt. Their kidneys are not up to it.
(Ignorant parents sometimes kill their babies by
giving them adult food.) This is clear proof that
humans never had an episode in their evolution
when mothers and their babies swam in sea-
water.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 23, 2018, 10:30:11 AM9/23/18
to
were two kinds, breast and bottle. The bottle was better for me. Why?
Because bottle had some ingredient that had some sharp taste in it,
which I liked very much. Later in life I realized that it was the taste
of salt that I like.
But, it looks like I will have to find out where do these claims about
salt and babies come from? You claim that babies were given adult food,
and their kidneys couldn't deal with it. You meant, adult milk? Or what?
Did those babies had teeth? I don't know about much salt beverages.
Maybe soup? With spoon?
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 23, 2018, 11:06:41 AM9/23/18
to
based on simple "evidence" by simple people, transmitted by stupid
"parents" magazines. One year they claim that you mustn't eat fat, the
other year you must eat a lot of fat, and so on.
They simply measured the amount of salt in mother's milk, they saw
that it is low, and then they concluded that babies have to eat food
with low amount of salt. Idiots.
BTW, Red Sea, where I put our ancestors, is the saltiest sea in the world.
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 23, 2018, 11:11:16 AM9/23/18
to
blood, but by too small water intake. Swallowing sea water wouldn't
cause that.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
Sep 23, 2018, 3:40:19 PM9/23/18
to
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-4, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 12:41:01 AM UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> The hominin line found a new niche
> >
> > DD: niche means nest.
>
> Define Niche at Dictionary.com
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/niche
>
> 1610s, "shallow recess in a wall," from French niche "recess (for a dog), kennel" (14c.), perhaps from Italian nicchia "niche, nook," from nicchio "seashell," said by Klein and Barnhart to be probably from Latin mitulus "mussel," but the change of -m- to -n- is not explained.
of course you omit the rest, which show the link to nest.
> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 12:41:01 AM UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> The hominin line found a new niche
> >
> > DD: niche means nest.
>
> Define Niche at Dictionary.com
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/niche
>
> 1610s, "shallow recess in a wall," from French niche "recess (for a dog), kennel" (14c.), perhaps from Italian nicchia "niche, nook," from nicchio "seashell," said by Klein and Barnhart to be probably from Latin mitulus "mussel," but the change of -m- to -n- is not explained.
nahyati @ Sanskrit: woven fish basket
nidus @ Latin: nest
nicheire @ French: to nest
Originally huts had no nooks, they WERE nooks (inverted bowl nests)
>
> Ecology. the position or function of an organism in a community of plants and animals.
>
> The use of 'niche' for the concept of 'ecological niche'
> was a pretty random choice. Numerous other words
> could have been used, many perhaps more fitting. It
> was coined by Roswell Hill Johnson, who represents
> a pretty awful phase in anthropology -- eugenics.
> But the concept of ecological niche is quite recent,
> no more than ninety years old and is still in process
> of development. Paleoanthropology was establised
> long before, and has yet to come to grips with it.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
>
> >> -- NOT in forests
> >
> > DD: No-one knows, but Parsimony indicates a Hominin niche/nest inversion within the rainforest, from arboreal(/cliff?) to terrestrial-aquatic probably coincidentally with the 48=>46 chromosome fusion event.
>
> Parsimony -- informed by an elementary knowledge of
> the natural world -- would indicate ONE shift (and no
> more than one) from the forest
a different habitat.
> The large primate niche in tropical forests was already
> occupied. The principle of 'competitive exclusion'
> would have meant that chimps would have competed
> with ground-based hominins;
common sense tells us
> that they would have wiped them out in no time.
>
> >> -- when it first speciated and became bipedal.
> >
> > DD: Upright arboreal(cliff?) facultative bipedalism/bimanualism preceded the H/P split.
>
> 'Facultative bipedalism' is next to meaningless
yelw...@gmail.com
Sep 23, 2018, 7:06:08 PM9/23/18
to
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 8:40:19 PM UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>> Parsimony -- informed by an elementary knowledge of
>> the natural world -- would indicate ONE shift (and no
>> more than one) from the forest
>
> < canopy to the ground floor which is >
>
>> a different habitat.
The ground can be a different habitat from the
>> Parsimony -- informed by an elementary knowledge of
>> the natural world -- would indicate ONE shift (and no
>> more than one) from the forest
>
> < canopy to the ground floor which is >
>
>> a different habitat.
canopy. Up to 3.5 ma there were many species
of large omnivore ranging on the ground in
African tropical forests. Their presence made it
very different, especially at night. That's why
chimps (and all other primates) slept high up in
the trees at night. There was no conceiveable
way that a population of primates would
attempt to sleep on the ground. Nor would
they stay on the ground for other than a quick
visit during the day. The presence of those
large omnivores (as well as even larger
herbivores) is one very obvious reason why
your evolutionary scenario could not possibly
work.
>> The large primate niche in tropical forests was already
>> occupied. The principle of 'competitive exclusion'
>> would have meant that chimps would have competed
>> with ground-based hominins;
>
> Chimps remained primarily arboreal (fresh hanging fruit), hominins became primarily terrestrial (ripe fallen fruit).
driven into extinction. Chimps could often
spend a lot of time on the ground. They
would never have tolerated the presence of
hominins in their territory. Nor would they
have done so at any point earlier.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
Sep 23, 2018, 8:04:40 PM9/23/18
to
Gigo.
JTEM is lucky in love AND money
Sep 28, 2018, 12:36:25 AM9/28/18
to
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> definitely not right.
> Lol, Jesus Christ.
That's not true.
> Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> definitely not right.
> Lol, Jesus Christ.
I believe that, many times, I pointed out that Chimps
are secondarily knuckle walkers, that the LCA was
undoubtedly an upright walker.
...so you have the tail wagging the dog!
It's likely this is true for gorillas as well, though
perhaps to a lesser extent.
Look. People are *Still* religiously throwing around
the human/chimp split at 6 million years, even though
more than a decade ago a comparison of y chromosomes
erased more than a million years off that figure. And
they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
time that this meant that humans & chimps were
recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
than a clean split. But...
But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
selective pressure...
There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
more changes than other areas of the genome...
Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
years... and as recent as 3.7 million. And as all the
"Dating" is pretty much based on that split, you
have to knock it all down by millions of years.
...if the old dating of humans/chimp is off by
2 million years or more, that places the human/gorilla
split well within the range of Ardipithecus.
But it's not necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
See, even Sahelanthropus, who is already within the
lower end estimates of human/gorilla divergence,
has a foramen magnum *Way* more centralized than
that of a chimp. Thus, ancestor of Chimps was and
the ancestor of gorillas was most likely far
better adapted to upright walking than their living
descendants.
Perhaps this is the part I left out:
Your "Theory" is regarding how to turn the great
apes from knuckle walkers to upright walkers, but
the best evidence says you have things backwards,
that they happened the other way around.
Of course I've only been pointing this out for a
decade or more, across three groups (plus
crossposting) so maybe you just haven't had time
to catch up yet...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178519532680
Mario Petrinovic
Sep 28, 2018, 3:31:52 AM9/28/18
to
No, I am not talking about knuckle walking at all. I am talking about
how to turn Proconsul into a human.
All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW, I am talking about how to
produce human-like pelvis, stiff feet, longitudinal arch, I am not even
talking about the bipedality of humans (although the name of thread may
be misleading, :) ).
JTEM is lucky in love AND money
Sep 28, 2018, 1:16:31 PM9/28/18
to
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW
I agree, though perhaps for different reasons... I dunno.
> All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178523634625
littor...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2018, 8:09:04 AM10/2/18
to
Op vrijdag 28 september 2018 09:31:52 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> Marc Verheagen is claiming this for more than 15 years.
> No, I am not talking about knuckle walking at all. I am talking about
> how to turn Proconsul into a human.
> All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW, I am talking about how to
> produce human-like pelvis, stiff feet, longitudinal arch, I am not even
> talking about the bipedality of humans (although the name of thread may
> be misleading, :) ).
Mario,
1) Please write my name correctly.
2) All your problems are answered when you google:
"Ape and Human Evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism".
> Marc Verheagen is claiming this for more than 15 years.
> No, I am not talking about knuckle walking at all. I am talking about
> how to turn Proconsul into a human.
> All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW, I am talking about how to
> produce human-like pelvis, stiff feet, longitudinal arch, I am not even
> talking about the bipedality of humans (although the name of thread may
> be misleading, :) ).
1) Please write my name correctly.
2) All your problems are answered when you google:
"Ape and Human Evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism".
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 2, 2018, 9:33:13 AM10/2/18
to
Before I get into the theme of your post, JTEM, I have some interesting
news about John Harshman. He made the mistake of calling "Mickey Mortimer"
a "real paleontologist" whereas a Google search "Mickey Mortimer
paleontologist" showed right on the first page of the search the statement
by Mickey that he (Harshman had used the word "she") is an *amateur*
paleontologist.
More about that designation at the end. Mario and Deden
will profit greatly from reading about it, and you may too.
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> > Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> > figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> > there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> > definitely not right.
> > Lol, Jesus Christ.
Mario is wrong about some things, and the reason I have a hard time
figuring out where he is right is that I haven't seen him do sustained
reasoning on one issue. He rambles a great deal.
>
> That's not true.
>
> I believe that, many times, I pointed out that Chimps
> are secondarily knuckle walkers, that the LCA was
> undoubtedly an upright walker.
>
> ...so you have the tail wagging the dog!
>
> It's likely this is true for gorillas as well, though
> perhaps to a lesser extent.
I haven't seen you reasoning for these things, but that may be
because I've seen so little of you.
> Look. People are *Still* religiously throwing around
> the human/chimp split at 6 million years, even though
> more than a decade ago a comparison of y chromosomes
> erased more than a million years off that figure.
The amount of genetic material in a y chromosome is small.
Do you know the ratio of it to the genetic material in mitochondria?
> And they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
> put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
> time that this meant that humans & chimps were
> recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
> than a clean split. But...
Who is "they"? how widely have these conclusions been
accepted? My guess is "about as widely as the conclusion that
birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs."
> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
> selective pressure...
>
> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
pressures.
> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>
> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?
> And as all the
> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.
>
> ...if the old dating of humans/chimp is off by
> 2 million years or more, that places the human/gorilla
> split well within the range of Ardipithecus.
>
> But it's not necessary.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
>
> See, even Sahelanthropus, who is already within the
> lower end estimates of human/gorilla divergence,
> has a foramen magnum *Way* more centralized than
> that of a chimp. Thus, ancestor of Chimps was and
> the ancestor of gorillas was most likely far
> better adapted to upright walking than their living
> descendants.
What makes you think either gorilla or chimp is descended
from Sahelanthropus?
>
> Perhaps this is the part I left out:
>
> Your "Theory" is regarding how to turn the great
> apes from knuckle walkers to upright walkers, but
> the best evidence says you have things backwards,
> that they happened the other way around.
Why the great apes? Somewhere along the line there was
a quadrupedal ancestor, and one does not have to subscribe
to the conjecture that it was a knuckle walker to make
sense of Mario's hypotheses.
Now, back to that "amateur paleontologist" designation.
For one thing, Mickey Mortimer seems more like an amateur systematist,
but of course that is a lot less glamorous than "amateur paleontologist".
More importantly, there are no standards for calling oneself
an amateur paleontologist. There is such a thing as a "licensed geologist"
in South Carolina, and it isn't confined to professionals.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as a licensed paleontologist,
whether amateur or professional.
Harshman has displayed blatant favoritism in sci.bio.paleontology
towards a poseur who calls her/himself Oxyaena and "a paleontologist",
but thanks to Harshman's stupidity, and Erik Simpson's clumsiness
in covering for Harshman, I have outed Oxyaena as a rank amateur.
This is relevant because Oxyaena keeps puking all over Mario and Deden,
and wishes they would stop posting to sci.bio.paleontology.
I on the other hand welcome them there, because s.b.p. has so few
participants -- about like sci.anthropology.paleo --
and intellectual inbreeding is bad for the survival of any
such group.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu
news about John Harshman. He made the mistake of calling "Mickey Mortimer"
a "real paleontologist" whereas a Google search "Mickey Mortimer
paleontologist" showed right on the first page of the search the statement
by Mickey that he (Harshman had used the word "she") is an *amateur*
paleontologist.
More about that designation at the end. Mario and Deden
will profit greatly from reading about it, and you may too.
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> > Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> > figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> > there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> > definitely not right.
> > Lol, Jesus Christ.
figuring out where he is right is that I haven't seen him do sustained
reasoning on one issue. He rambles a great deal.
>
> That's not true.
>
> I believe that, many times, I pointed out that Chimps
> are secondarily knuckle walkers, that the LCA was
> undoubtedly an upright walker.
>
> ...so you have the tail wagging the dog!
>
> It's likely this is true for gorillas as well, though
> perhaps to a lesser extent.
because I've seen so little of you.
> Look. People are *Still* religiously throwing around
> the human/chimp split at 6 million years, even though
> more than a decade ago a comparison of y chromosomes
> erased more than a million years off that figure.
Do you know the ratio of it to the genetic material in mitochondria?
> And they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
> put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
> time that this meant that humans & chimps were
> recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
> than a clean split. But...
accepted? My guess is "about as widely as the conclusion that
birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs."
> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
> selective pressure...
>
> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
pressures.
> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>
> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
> And as all the
> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.
>
> ...if the old dating of humans/chimp is off by
> 2 million years or more, that places the human/gorilla
> split well within the range of Ardipithecus.
>
> But it's not necessary.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
>
> See, even Sahelanthropus, who is already within the
> lower end estimates of human/gorilla divergence,
> has a foramen magnum *Way* more centralized than
> that of a chimp. Thus, ancestor of Chimps was and
> the ancestor of gorillas was most likely far
> better adapted to upright walking than their living
> descendants.
from Sahelanthropus?
>
> Perhaps this is the part I left out:
>
> Your "Theory" is regarding how to turn the great
> apes from knuckle walkers to upright walkers, but
> the best evidence says you have things backwards,
> that they happened the other way around.
a quadrupedal ancestor, and one does not have to subscribe
to the conjecture that it was a knuckle walker to make
sense of Mario's hypotheses.
Now, back to that "amateur paleontologist" designation.
For one thing, Mickey Mortimer seems more like an amateur systematist,
but of course that is a lot less glamorous than "amateur paleontologist".
More importantly, there are no standards for calling oneself
an amateur paleontologist. There is such a thing as a "licensed geologist"
in South Carolina, and it isn't confined to professionals.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as a licensed paleontologist,
whether amateur or professional.
Harshman has displayed blatant favoritism in sci.bio.paleontology
towards a poseur who calls her/himself Oxyaena and "a paleontologist",
but thanks to Harshman's stupidity, and Erik Simpson's clumsiness
in covering for Harshman, I have outed Oxyaena as a rank amateur.
This is relevant because Oxyaena keeps puking all over Mario and Deden,
and wishes they would stop posting to sci.bio.paleontology.
I on the other hand welcome them there, because s.b.p. has so few
participants -- about like sci.anthropology.paleo --
and intellectual inbreeding is bad for the survival of any
such group.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu
eastsi...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2018, 12:07:11 PM10/2/18
to
left almost speechless by this behavior of yours. "Telling on" people behind
their backs is something most people learn BEFORE they're 12. And to JTEM, of
all people. This isn't amusing anymore, it's just sick. I know I've said this
before, but that's enough. I'm done with you.
Mario Petrinovic
Oct 2, 2018, 12:38:20 PM10/2/18
to
On 2.10.2018. 14:09, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op vrijdag 28 september 2018 09:31:52 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>> Marc Verheagen is claiming this for more than 15 years.
>> No, I am not talking about knuckle walking at all. I am talking about
>> how to turn Proconsul into a human.
>> All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW, I am talking about how to
>> produce human-like pelvis, stiff feet, longitudinal arch, I am not even
>> talking about the bipedality of humans (although the name of thread may
>> be misleading, :) ).
>
> Mario,
>
> 1) Please write my name correctly.
I hope it'll be better the next time.
> Op vrijdag 28 september 2018 09:31:52 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>> Marc Verheagen is claiming this for more than 15 years.
>> No, I am not talking about knuckle walking at all. I am talking about
>> how to turn Proconsul into a human.
>> All those genetic dates are wrong. BTW, I am talking about how to
>> produce human-like pelvis, stiff feet, longitudinal arch, I am not even
>> talking about the bipedality of humans (although the name of thread may
>> be misleading, :) ).
>
> Mario,
>
> 1) Please write my name correctly.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 2, 2018, 2:54:23 PM10/2/18
to
know about it today.
On the other hand, Harshman and (especially) Oxyaena often
begin new threads about me in sci.bio.paleontology without notifying me.
Sometimes days go by with them swapping demeaning comments about me,
without me knowing that the thread exists.
> And to JTEM, of
> all people.
like a loose cannon, and I'm hoping this news will make JTEM a little more
incisive.
> This isn't amusing anymore, it's just sick. I know I've said this
> before,
less replied to anything by you.
> but that's enough. I'm done with you.
they find that they are not done with me after all.
Peter Nyikos
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
Oct 2, 2018, 4:15:50 PM10/2/18
to
The Apennine Peninsula
"Except for the well-preserved Ceprano calvarium, all of the early MP hominin specimens from Italy are highly fragmentary. At Castel di Guido, dated to 442 ±7 ka to 250-170 ka ( Michel et al., 2001), the occipital and postcranial elements show a combination of primitive traits that set it apart from Neanderthals, and some traits that resemble the Arago specimens. In particular, the temporal bone (Mallegni and Radmilli, 1988) shows a flat articular eminence - a trait considered to be distinctly Neanderthal (Martínez and Arsuaga, 1997; Martínez et al., 2006). According to Mallegni et al. (1983: 273), of the two femoral fragments, CdG-1 is comparable to the massive specimens from East Africa such as KNM-ER 999, ER 803, ER 737; they note, however, that the marked cortical thickness is a feature of all Homo material."
http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com/2018/10/revising-hypodigm-of-homo.html
littor...@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2018, 6:06:34 AM10/3/18
to
Op dinsdag 2 oktober 2018 22:15:50 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
...
> > > 2) All your problems are answered when you google:
> > > "Ape and Human Evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism".
> Page 8: The Apennine Peninsula
> "Except for the well-preserved Ceprano calvarium, all of the early MP hominin specimens from Italy are highly fragmentary. At Castel di Guido, dated to 442 ±7 ka to 250-170 ka ( Michel et al., 2001), the occipital and postcranial elements show a combination of primitive traits that set it apart from Neanderthals, and some traits that resemble the Arago specimens. In particular, the temporal bone (Mallegni and Radmilli, 1988) shows a flat articular eminence - a trait considered to be distinctly Neanderthal (Martínez and Arsuaga, 1997; Martínez et al., 2006). According to Mallegni et al. (1983: 273), of the two femoral fragments, CdG-1 is comparable to the massive specimens from East Africa such as KNM-ER 999, ER 803, ER 737; they note, however, that the marked cortical thickness is a feature of all Homo material."
> http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com/2018/10/revising-hypodigm-of-homo.html
Hi DD, I'm not sure why you post this here?
In any case, the comparative biology is clear. Early-Pleistocene archaic Homo followed the African & Eurasian coasts (probably also over the continental shelves during glacials), where they evolved as typical littoral animals: heavy skeletons, larger lungs, broader & larger bodies, much larger brains, platycephaly etc. From the coasts, they then followed the rivers inland (initially seasonally), or OTOH reached overseas islands: Flores, Sulawesi, Luzon, Crete, Cyprus, Dodekanesos etc. The inland populations reduced some littoral adaptations (esp. pachyosteosclerosis POS etc.) and developed wetland adaptations (e.g. projecting nostrils, larger paranasal sinuses, very large lungs). Some island (e.g. Flores) & perhaps also inland populations (some "habilis") partly reverted to more australopith-like lifestyles.
So we see different combinations of littoral & wetland adaptations in parallel in different Homo populations. Many Pleistocene Homo populations seasonally followed the river to the sea, e.g. European neandertals were biologically wetland dwellers who probably once a year trekked to the Atlantic or Mediterranean coast. Google "Coastal Dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism". The Ceprano calvarium was no exception to this scenario.
Possibly only sapiens (late-Pleistocene) lost most of these semi-aquatic adaptations. We strongly reduced POS, lost platycephaly, lost platymeria, reduced platypelloidy & long femoral necks & valgus knees, got very long legs, developed strong basi-cranial flexion, reduced full plantigrady etc. This shows reduction of diving & elaboration of wading & walking.
...
> > > 2) All your problems are answered when you google:
> > > "Ape and Human Evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism".
> Page 8: The Apennine Peninsula
> "Except for the well-preserved Ceprano calvarium, all of the early MP hominin specimens from Italy are highly fragmentary. At Castel di Guido, dated to 442 ±7 ka to 250-170 ka ( Michel et al., 2001), the occipital and postcranial elements show a combination of primitive traits that set it apart from Neanderthals, and some traits that resemble the Arago specimens. In particular, the temporal bone (Mallegni and Radmilli, 1988) shows a flat articular eminence - a trait considered to be distinctly Neanderthal (Martínez and Arsuaga, 1997; Martínez et al., 2006). According to Mallegni et al. (1983: 273), of the two femoral fragments, CdG-1 is comparable to the massive specimens from East Africa such as KNM-ER 999, ER 803, ER 737; they note, however, that the marked cortical thickness is a feature of all Homo material."
> http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com/2018/10/revising-hypodigm-of-homo.html
In any case, the comparative biology is clear. Early-Pleistocene archaic Homo followed the African & Eurasian coasts (probably also over the continental shelves during glacials), where they evolved as typical littoral animals: heavy skeletons, larger lungs, broader & larger bodies, much larger brains, platycephaly etc. From the coasts, they then followed the rivers inland (initially seasonally), or OTOH reached overseas islands: Flores, Sulawesi, Luzon, Crete, Cyprus, Dodekanesos etc. The inland populations reduced some littoral adaptations (esp. pachyosteosclerosis POS etc.) and developed wetland adaptations (e.g. projecting nostrils, larger paranasal sinuses, very large lungs). Some island (e.g. Flores) & perhaps also inland populations (some "habilis") partly reverted to more australopith-like lifestyles.
So we see different combinations of littoral & wetland adaptations in parallel in different Homo populations. Many Pleistocene Homo populations seasonally followed the river to the sea, e.g. European neandertals were biologically wetland dwellers who probably once a year trekked to the Atlantic or Mediterranean coast. Google "Coastal Dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism". The Ceprano calvarium was no exception to this scenario.
Possibly only sapiens (late-Pleistocene) lost most of these semi-aquatic adaptations. We strongly reduced POS, lost platycephaly, lost platymeria, reduced platypelloidy & long femoral necks & valgus knees, got very long legs, developed strong basi-cranial flexion, reduced full plantigrady etc. This shows reduction of diving & elaboration of wading & walking.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 8, 2018, 1:21:37 PM10/8/18
to
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 12:07:11 PM UTC-4, eastsi...@gmail.com wrote:
IOW, you are as anonymous as they come, and do not wish to let
people know where else you have posted.
<snip remainder, having been replied to on October 2>
Peter Nyikos
erik simpson
Oct 8, 2018, 2:38:18 PM10/8/18
to
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:21:37 AM UTC-7, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
<snip of onerous whining>
recognized my email address. You have replied to me many times, rarely
politely. My remarks above remain my intentions. Have fun with your new
friends.
<snip of onerous whining>
>
> ...nor do you give a nym for yourself, let alone your legal name.
> IOW, you are as anonymous as they come, and do not wish to let
> people know where else you have posted.
>
> <snip remainder, having been replied to on October 2>
>
> Peter Nyikos
I'm not a member here, so my name didn't appear, but even you might have
> ...nor do you give a nym for yourself, let alone your legal name.
> IOW, you are as anonymous as they come, and do not wish to let
> people know where else you have posted.
>
> <snip remainder, having been replied to on October 2>
>
> Peter Nyikos
recognized my email address. You have replied to me many times, rarely
politely. My remarks above remain my intentions. Have fun with your new
friends.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Oct 10, 2018, 4:10:18 PM10/10/18
to
the word "friends" indiscriminately for people I am only just
beginning to know.
Harshman is trying to get me to believe that JTEM is a bigger
troll than Oxyaena. But he already has had to back off, partly
in wake of my firm reply:
If JTEM is even one-tenth as dishonest or one-tenth as hypocritical
as Oxyaena, he'll be hearing plenty from me about it. Unlike you and
Oxyaena and Simpson, I play no favorites as far as treatment of
blackguards goes.
Watch how gingerly Harshman treated that, while still persisting
in his own inimitable way:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/pDsL99-nBQAJ
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <62cb7fc7-b460-4ef2...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae
On the same thread, Oxyaena has all but destroyed her credibility,
and it's all her doing -- the foot in mouth syndrome at work.
And so, I am not the least bit surprised that you are staying
away from that thread.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Jan 25, 2019, 1:01:10 PM1/25/19
to
Back when I was posting very sporadically to sci.anthropology.paleo
I knew very little about the "aquatic ape" and "cliff climber"
ideas that are a staple here, and wrote very little on Mario's
thread. Now that I've participated on the thread linked below,
I have something to say that nobody seems to have said on this thread.
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:41:59 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> What do you, people, think about it?
What I think is that you should have mentioned that Marc Verhaegen
is a huge proponent of the "aquatic ape" hypothesis in sci.anthropology.paleo
and that you are either championing his hypothesis or embellishing it here.
Did you know how far out of favor the "aquatic ape" hypothesis is?
You can find Pandora giving a very detailed critique of it in
reply first to Marc and then to Deden in the thread documented below,
after having gone to some detail in reply to me. Here's Pandora's
next to latest post there:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.anthropology.paleo/Nc49-LB4VnY/HGpEtSS8FgAJ
Subject: Re: Naledi: Dome Huts and something else
Message-ID: <91rl4elqm5jl74sk3...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:04:50 +0100
> About what I have
> presented, that exiting the sea is fine (or, the best) explanation of
> our pelvis, of our stiff feet, of our arch?
>
> I wrote to some American and English labs which research
> bipedality. Non responded. I mean, could it be so bad? What's wrong with it?
>
> Thanks
If you didn't mention Verhaegen, who has some publications
about it, they probably didn't think it worth their time
to educate you from square one.
Have you ever tried to float your idea by Verhaegen,
to see what he has to say about it?
In case the name doesn't ring a bell, he is the one who posts as
littor...@gmail.com
He even posted on this thread once, but gave no sign that
he was aware of your hypothesis. Did he killfile you?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
I knew very little about the "aquatic ape" and "cliff climber"
ideas that are a staple here, and wrote very little on Mario's
thread. Now that I've participated on the thread linked below,
I have something to say that nobody seems to have said on this thread.
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:41:59 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> What do you, people, think about it?
What I think is that you should have mentioned that Marc Verhaegen
is a huge proponent of the "aquatic ape" hypothesis in sci.anthropology.paleo
and that you are either championing his hypothesis or embellishing it here.
Did you know how far out of favor the "aquatic ape" hypothesis is?
You can find Pandora giving a very detailed critique of it in
reply first to Marc and then to Deden in the thread documented below,
after having gone to some detail in reply to me. Here's Pandora's
next to latest post there:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.anthropology.paleo/Nc49-LB4VnY/HGpEtSS8FgAJ
Subject: Re: Naledi: Dome Huts and something else
Message-ID: <91rl4elqm5jl74sk3...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:04:50 +0100
> About what I have
> presented, that exiting the sea is fine (or, the best) explanation of
> our pelvis, of our stiff feet, of our arch?
>
> I wrote to some American and English labs which research
> bipedality. Non responded. I mean, could it be so bad? What's wrong with it?
>
> Thanks
If you didn't mention Verhaegen, who has some publications
about it, they probably didn't think it worth their time
to educate you from square one.
Have you ever tried to float your idea by Verhaegen,
to see what he has to say about it?
In case the name doesn't ring a bell, he is the one who posts as
littor...@gmail.com
He even posted on this thread once, but gave no sign that
he was aware of your hypothesis. Did he killfile you?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
alouatta....@gmail.com
Jan 25, 2019, 1:47:33 PM1/25/19
to
Mario Petrinovic
Jan 26, 2019, 5:01:58 AM1/26/19
to
Me and Marc know each other very well, and we are good pals. He has
his views, I have mine.
In regards to what paleoanthropologists think of my theory, they have
knowledge, they have eyes, they can read things themselves, they should
have brains, so I don't see where is the problem. Actually, I see (of
course). The problem is in humans, so humans organized a system of
science where you don't have to think much by yourself, and still you
get a credit for doing "good job", and when it ends up badly, you simply
blame everybody else, because everybody else (blindly, without thinking)
accepted the same things that you (blindly) accepted.
Mario Petrinovic
Jan 26, 2019, 5:04:20 AM1/26/19
to
course, you have to question everything.
0 new messages