ape & human evolution made easy?

[littor...@gmail.com]

Plate tectonics: Indian approaching S-Asia first formed island archipels,
plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands, the earliest Hominoidea, were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 8:16:03 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Plate tectonics: Indian approaching S-Asia first formed island archipels,
> plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands, the earliest Hominoidea, were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing

Gibbons never wade(d) or sw(i/a/u)m or d(i/o)ve. Oops.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zaterdag 5 november 2022 om 13:16:03 UTC+1 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

(sorry, wrong button, sent too early)

Genomic data support the hominoid slowdown and an Early Oligocene estimate for the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence
Michael E Steiper cs 2005 PNAS 101:17021-6 doi 10.1073/pnas.0407270101
Several lines of indirect evidence suggest: hominoids & cercopithecoids diverged c 23–25 Ma (h/c).
This range of dates has ... not been critically assessed on its own merits.
Here we test the robusticity of this estimate with ≈150,000 base-pairs of orthologous DNA sequence data from 2 cercopiths & 2 hominoids (quartet analysis). This method incorporates 2 calibration points (one each within cercopithecoids & hominoids) and tests for a statistically appropriate model of molecular evolution.
Most comparisons reject rate constancy, in favor of a model with 2 rates of evolution, supporting the “hominoid slowdown” hypothesis.
This model estimates the h/c divergence to range from 29.2 to 34.5 Ma, significantly older than most previous analyses:
h/c divergence dates of 23–25 Ma fall outside of the confidence intervals estimated:
as much as 1/3 of ape evolution has not been paleontologically sampled.
Identifying stem cercopithecoids or hominoids from this period will be difficult:
derived features that define crown-catarrhines need not be present in early members of these lineages.
More sites that sample primate habitats from the Oligocene of Africa are needed to better understand early ape & OWM evolution.

IMO 34-29 Ma (Oligocene) is OK, but not the place: hylobatids & pongids live in SE.Asia.

Plate tectonics, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr-yjSwQ4E4
India approaching S-Asia (c 40 Ma?) in the Tethys Ocean first formed island archipels, plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands, the earliest Hominoidea IMO, were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing monkey-like + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing arms overhead. This explains the typical ape (vs monkey) body-form, e.g.
- larger size (gibbon gestation period is still longer than expected for its size),
- Hominoidea = Latisternalia ("broad sternum=breast-bone"): very broad thorax, esp.ventrally (sternum): this turns the scapulas from lateral to dorsal = arms (>legs) from ventral to lateral,
- centrally-placed lumbar & cervical spine (vs dorsally- in monkeys & most mammals, A.Schultz) suggests more vertical body-posture (BP wading + climbing),
- tail loss (very unexpected for arboreal mammals, but not for wading).

When India went further under S-Asia, this split lesser (E) & great (W) apes (c 25 Ma?): hylobatids along SE-Asia, great apes along the Tethys Sea-coasts.

Two-step closure of the Miocene Indian Ocean Gateway to the Mediterranean
Or M Bialik cs 2019 Scient.Rep.9,8842
The Tethys Ocean was compartmentalized into the Med.Sea & Indian Ocean early-Miocene, yet the exact nature & timing of this disconnection are not well understood. Here we present 2 new Neodymium*isotope records from isolated carbonate platforms on both sides of the closing seaway (Malta outcrop sampling & the Maldives IODP Site U1468) to constrain the evolution of past water-mass exchange between the present-day Med.Sea & Indian Ocean via the Mesopotamian Seaway. These data + box modeling results indicates: water-mass exchange was reduced by ~90 % in a 1st step at c 20 Ma. The terminal closure of the seaway then co-incided with the sea-level drop caused by the onset of permanent glaciation of Antarctica at c 13.8 Ma. The termination of meridional water-mass exchange through the Tethyan Seaway resulted in a global reorganization of currents, paved the way to the development of upwelling in the Arabian Sea, and possibly led to a strengthening of S.Asian Monsoon.



This hypothesis (incl. the importance of Plate Tectonics) is published in my new book "De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken" ("Human Evolution - why we walk upright and can speak") Acad.Uitg. Utrecht NL 2021.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

-

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Gibbons never wade(d) or sw(i/a/u)m or d(i/o)ve. Oops.

Okay so if we pretend that you're not retarded, that means you are "Arguing" that gibbons are
THE basal ape... which, yeah, kind of means that you are retarded.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/700122004150517760

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

The truth dissolves the nonsense and dilutes the pretense even better than water.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zondag 6 november 2022 om 01:49:02 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > "Genomic data support the hominoid slowdown and an Early Oligocene estimate for the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence"
> > Michael E Steiper cs 2005 PNAS 101:17021-6 doi 10.1073/pnas.0407270101
> > Several lines of indirect evidence suggest: hominoids & cercopithecoids diverged c 23–25 Ma (h/c).
> > This range of dates has ... not been critically assessed on its own merits.

> > Here we test the robusticity of this estimate with ≈150,000 base-pairs of orthologous DNA sequence data from 2 cercopiths & 2 hominoids (quartet analysis: 2 calibration points, one each within cercopithecoids & hominoids, and tests for a statistically appropriate model of molecular evolution).
> > Most comparisons reject rate constancy, in favor of a model with 2 rates of evolution, supporting “hominoid slowdown”.

> > This model estimates the h/c divergence to range from 29.2 to 34.5 Ma, significantly older than most previous analyses:
> > h/c divergence dates of 23–25 Ma fall outside of the confidence intervals estimated:

> > 1/3 of ape evolution has not been paleontologically sampled.

> > Identifying stem-cercopithecoids or hominoids from this period will be difficult:

> > derived features that define crown-catarrhines need not be present in early members of these lineages.

> > More sites that sample primate habitats from Oligocene Africa are needed to better understand early ape & OWM evolution.

> > IMO 34-29 Ma (Oligocene) is OK, but not the place: hylobatids & pongids live in SE.Asia.
> > Plate tectonics, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr-yjSwQ4E4

> > India approaching S-Asia (c 40 Ma?) in the Tethys Ocean first formed island archipels, plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands (the earliest Hominoidea IMO) were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing monkey-like + surface-swimming + BP wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing arms overhead. This explains the typical ape (vs monkey) body-form:

> > - larger size (gibbon gestation period is still longer than expected for its size),
> > - Hominoidea = Latisternalia ("broad sternum=breast-bone"): very broad thorax, esp.ventrally (sternum): this turns the scapulas from lateral to dorsal = arms (>legs) from ventral to lateral,
> > - centrally-placed lumbar & cervical spine (vs dorsally- in monkeys & most mammals, A.Schultz) suggests more vertical body-posture (BP wading + climbing),
> > - tail loss (very unexpected for arboreal mammals, but not for wading).
> > When India went further under S-Asia, this split lesser (E) & great (W) apes (c 25 Ma?): hylobatids along SE-Asia, great apes along the Tethys Sea-coasts.

> > "Two-step closure of the Miocene Indian Ocean Gateway to the Mediterranean" Or M Bialik cs 2019 Scient.Rep.9,8842
> > The Tethys Ocean was compartmentalized into the Med.Sea & Indian Ocean early-Miocene, yet the exact nature & timing of this disconnection are not well understood. Here we present 2 new Neodymium*isotope records from isolated carbonate platforms on both sides of the closing seaway (Malta outcrop sampling & the Maldives IODP Site U1468) to constrain the evolution of past water-mass exchange between the present-day Med.Sea & Indian Ocean via the Mesopotamian Seaway. These data + box modeling results indicates: water-mass exchange was reduced by ~90 % in a 1st step at c 20 Ma. The terminal closure of the seaway then co-incided with the sea-level drop caused by the onset of permanent glaciation of Antarctica at c 13.8 Ma. The termination of meridional water-mass exchange through the Tethyan Seaway resulted in a global reorganization of currents, paved the way to the development of upwelling in the Arabian Sea, and possibly led to a strengthening of S.Asian Monsoon.

> > This hypothesis (incl. the importance of Plate Tectonics) is published in my new book "De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken" ("Human Evolution - why we walk upright and can speak") Acad.Uitg. Utrecht NL 2021.

> Gibbons never wade(d) or sw(i/a/u)m or d(i/o)ve.

Of course, thanks, my little boy, for confirming my view: as I said, hylobatids are not aquarboreal any more, forced higher into the trees by Miocene pongids, but they remained vertical (below-branch), no tail, broad thorax, centrally-placed spine, long gestation etc.: only ancestral aquarborealism can explain why this bauplan is unlike monkeys'. :-)

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Fact: Gibbons never wade(d) or sw(i/a/u)m or d(i/o)ve.
MV claims lowland gorillas wade extensively, yet they have thick fur coats, so wading-climbing *couldn't* have resulted in loss of fur.
Only arboreal bowl nests did that, belly fur lost due to sleeping semi-upright seated position, which is why hylobatids that sleep fully exposed on branches never lost their monkey-like thick fur, while Homo obligate-shelter-dwellers, did, but for the thick long piggyback-able scalp hair.

[littor...@gmail.com]

some ridiculous liar:

> MV claims lowland gorillas wade extensively

disgusting liar -
please keep running after your antelopes

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Insults, not answers, from MV, as always.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

The bare chest of the gorilla is an inviting place for a thirsty mosquito.
Gorillas are well known for slapping their chests.
But not while immersed, nor while wading, in bais.
Think about it. Thick leg fur, bare chest = not related to wading. Parsimony!
Algis's hypothesis that humans evolved bare faces due to habitually sticking their faces in the water makes as much (non)sense as bare naked gorillas that wade and climb all day losing the fur coat.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> The truth dissolves the nonsense

If so, you would have evaporated long ago.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/700317866979983360

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Fact: Gibbons never

WHAT on earth can you possibly make you think Gibbons matter?

Seriously. You think Gibbons are a model for human evolution because... ?

You could spend the day inserting popsicle sticks up you butt and it would
make for a more intelligent, better researched "Argument" <cough> <cough>




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/700317866979983360

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Waiting ...

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Here's MV's fiction: "Great apes lack underfur (vs hylobatids?): "

As I've said before, primates never evolved underfur.
MV ignores reality.

[littor...@gmail.com]

some idiot:

> As I've said before, primates never evolved underfur.

:-DDD

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

No answer. MV lies more than a sea otter.

Why did Homo erectus have denser femurs than knucklewalking apes?
Apes seldom walk upright on ground, so little femoral strength is required.
Homo erectus often walked upright on the ground, so much femoral strength is required.
Homo sapiens added running, like in other running fauna, their femurs lost density for better efficiency.
No mermaid tales needed to explain.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 6:48:19 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

"Chimps & gorillas are still born naked, they redevelop upperfur, but still have no underfur." MV
Still born naked??? Redevelop upperfur?? They still have no underfur? Primates never have underfur, but MV anticipates that chimps and gorillas will develop it?!! Why??

[littor...@gmail.com]

some idiot:

> > > As I've said before, primates never evolved underfur.

> > :-DDD

the same idiot:

> "Chimps & gorillas are still born naked, they redevelop upperfur, but still have no underfur." MV
> Still born naked??? Redevelop upperfur?? They still have no underfur? Primates never have underfur, but MV anticipates that chimps and gorillas will develop it?!! Why??

My little little boy, you're becoming more & more childish.
Are you really so stupid that didn't understand??
English is not my mother tongue.
Chimps & gorillas are born naked, they soon grow upperfur, but no underfur.
Okidoki, my little boy??

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:45:48 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> some idiot:
>
> > > > As I've said before, primates never evolved underfur.
>
> > > :-DDD
> the same idiot:
> > "Chimps & gorillas are still born naked, they redevelop upperfur, but still have no underfur." MV
> > Still born naked??? Redevelop upperfur?? They still have no underfur? Primates never have underfur, but MV anticipates that chimps and gorillas will develop it?!! Why??
> My little little boy, you're becoming more & more childish.
> Are you really so stupid that didn't understand??

> English is not my mother tongue. https://www.zooborns.com/.a/6a010535647bf3970b019b00bb427b970d-popup

> Chimps & gorillas are born naked, they soon grow upperfur, but no underfur.
> Okidoki, my little boy??

https://www-abcactionnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/zoo-welcomes-newborn-chimp?_amp=true&amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16680690324978&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
https://twitter.com/CincinnatiZoo/status/722521420035702785?s=20&t=wkF0G0T-FtR1PLuEmk2Mew
https://images.app.goo.gl/pnWUCe3sdgdXEmqV8
https://blog.zoo.org/2021/02/hello-little-one-western-lowland.html?m=1
https://youtu.be/uMKhocaKFAw
Primates never develop upperfur & underfur, which are seasonal specialized arctic traits.
30 years preaching ignorance??

[littor...@gmail.com]

> > some ridiculous liar:
> > > MV claims lowland gorillas wade extensively

> > disgusting liar -
> > please keep running after your antelopes

> Insults, not answers, from MV, as always.

2x disgusting liar.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

More insults, no knowledge, no logic.
Wading gorillas retain typical primate furred legs.
Same with other hominoids, except the sheltered ape.
Primates have no underfur.
Biology is disgusting to some people.
As a biologist, I'm not surprised.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op dinsdag 15 november 2022 om 04:53:30 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> As a biologist, I ...

:-DDD

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Graduated: '86 Bsc.
Employed: Phys lab UWisc.
Occupation: Naturalist, Forester (ret'd)

MV Biologist? Not on this planet?
MV Anthropologist? Not on this planet?
MV seems to prefer trolling more than researching?

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op woensdag 16 november 2022 om 01:05:30 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > > As a biologist, I ...

> > :-DDD

> Graduated: '86 Bsc.
> Employed: Phys lab UWisc.
> Occupation: Naturalist, Forester (ret'd)

> MV Biologist? Not on this planet?
> MV Anthropologist? Not on this planet?
> MV seems to prefer trolling more than researching?

Grow up, my little little child.
Your biological insight = 0.
Your medical insight even less.

Please keep running after your kudus
(IOW, stop wasting our time).

:-DDD

[Pandora]

MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.
His so-called "Study Center for Anthropology" is a figment of the
imagination. It's not a research/scientific nor an
academic/educational institution in any formal sense.
MV is a fraud.

[littor...@gmail.com]

somebody:

> MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
> anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.
> His so-called "Study Center for Anthropology" is a figment of the
> imagination. It's not a research/scientific nor an
> academic/educational institution in any formal sense.
> MV is a fraud.

:-DDD
Pathetic: the *only* "agument" the kudu runners have...

My little little boy, grow up & think a *little* bit:
we have flat feet, no fur, thick SC fat, salty sweat, huge brains etc.etc.
Only complete idiots believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas!

Have you published >40 papers, in spite of boycotts by prejudiced (kudu running :-DDD) peer reviewers, in Hum.Evol., New Scientist, Nature, Trends Ecol.Evol., Med.Hypoth. etc.??
Show us your publications, my little boy!
You're no less ridiculous as the retarded fools who believed in flat earths, or suns turning around the earth, or who denied plate tectonics.

[Pandora]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:29:40 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>somebody:
>
>> MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
>> anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.
>> His so-called "Study Center for Anthropology" is a figment of the
>> imagination. It's not a research/scientific nor an
>> academic/educational institution in any formal sense.
>> MV is a fraud.
>
>:-DDD
>Pathetic: the *only* "agument" the kudu runners have...
>
>My little little boy, grow up & think a *little* bit:
>we have flat feet, no fur, thick SC fat, salty sweat, huge brains etc.etc.
>Only complete idiots believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas!

Do you think Harvard University would give tenure to a complete idiot,
as a Professor of Biological Sciences?
https://scholar.harvard.edu/dlieberman/publications/endurance-running-and-evolution-homo

>Have you published >40 papers, in spite of boycotts by prejudiced (kudu running :-DDD) peer
>reviewers, in Hum.Evol., New Scientist, Nature, Trends Ecol.Evol., Med.Hypoth. etc.??

The only thing you ever published in Nature was a very short piece of
scientific correspondence in response to a paper by Sinclair et al. in
1987, no original research.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/325305d0

The rest of your publications are marginal, with low impact/citation.

[littor...@gmail.com]

somebody:

> >> MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
> >> anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.
> >> His so-called "Study Center for Anthropology" is a figment of the
> >> imagination. It's not a research/scientific nor an
> >> academic/educational institution in any formal sense.
> >> MV is a fraud.

> >:-DDD Pathetic: the *only* "agument" the kudu runners have...
> >My little little boy, grow up & think a *little* bit:
> >we have flat feet, no fur, thick SC fat, salty sweat, huge brains etc.etc.
> >Only complete idiots believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas!

> Do you think Harvard University would give tenure to a complete idiot,
> as a Professor of Biological Sciences?

Universities once thought the Earth was flat...
Some universities still believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes... :-DDD

> https://scholar.harvard.edu/dlieberman/publications/endurance-running-and-evolution-homo

Ah, Lieberman?

> >Have you published >40 papers, in spite of boycotts by prejudiced (kudu running :-DDD) peer
> >reviewers, in Hum.Evol., New Scientist, Nature, Trends Ecol.Evol., Med.Hypoth. etc.??

> The only thing you ever published in Nature was a very short piece of
> scientific correspondence in response to a paper by Sinclair et al. in
> 1987, no original research.
> https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/325305d0

Good boy! Your first +-sensible sentence!

"Origin of hominid bipedalism" 1987 Nature 325:305-6

Sinclair et al.1 believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating savanna ungulates, but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid ancestors. Not only vultures, but also canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses. Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion – whether fast or slow – is inefficient and costly2,3.
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur4, but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment5. Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal6. We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time7-8. The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for bipedalism, while they should know there are much better explanations9-11.

1. Sinclair, A. R. E., Leakey, M. D. & Norton, M. Nature 324, 307 (1986).
2. Washburn, S. L. & Moore, R. Ape Into Human, 77-78 (Little, Brow and Company, Boston, 1980).
3. Wheeler, P. E. J. Hum. Evol. 13, 91 (1984).
4. Macfarlane, W. V. in Adaptations of Domestic Animals (ed. Hafez, E.) 164-182 (Lea and Febifer, Philadelphia, 1968).
5. Montagna, W. in Biological Anthropology (ed. Katz, S. H.) 341-351 (Freeman, San Francisco, 1975).
6. McFarland, W.N., Pough, F.H., Cade, T.J. & Heiser, J. B. Vertebrate Life, 674 (Collier Macmillan, London,1979).
7. McFarland, D. Animal Behaviour, 267 (Pitman, London, 1985).
8. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Desert Animals, 67 (Dover Publications, New York, 1979).
9. Hardy, A. C. New Scient. 7, 642 (1960).
10. Morgan, E. The Aquatic Ape (Souvenir, London, 1982).
11. Verhaegen, M. Med. Hypotheses 16, 17 (1985).


And this was my answer to your imbecilic (flat earth: you couldn't even answer...) paper in 2003 in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052#article-comments
Nobody doubts that there are a few human populations today where adult men sometimes run prey to exhaustion on African plains, but it's not because there are a few people today who use this hunting method that our ancestors must have endurance-run a few million years ago.
The authors didn't even include the possibility of wading or swimming vs running in their comparisons. IMO it's difficult to understand that Nature published this biased paper. Comparative anatomy shows that plantigrady is maladaptive to cursorialism, but is typically seen in wading or swimming animals. Different independent lines of evidence suggest that early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally, not running over open plains, but initially simply following the African and Eurasian coasts (and later from the coasts ventured inland along the rivers, or OTOH even reached overseas islands such as Flores, Luzon, Cyprus etc.). For an update of this littoral theory of human evolution, google e.g. "coastal dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism".

> The rest of your publications are marginal, with low impact/citation.

If low impact: thanks to kudu runners like you... :-DDD
Google "verhaegen human evolution".

Grow up, Lieberman:
simply admit that your antelope running ideas were as wrong as the flat earth ideas long ago.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 8:16:03 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Plate tectonics: Indian approaching S-Asia first formed island archipels,
> plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands, the earliest Hominoidea, were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing

Such fantasies!!
-

Danuvius, Rudapithecus, Graecopithecus, Oranopithecus each had a unique trait shared with hominins. I think of them as a superspecies with local variations.
-
If you place Danuvius half-way between fast brachiating bipedal long backed long achilles tendon hylobatids and bipedal Homo with long back and long achilles tendon, it fits perfectly.

Wiki:
Danuvius is thought to have had a broad chest. It is the first recorded Miocene great ape to have had the diaphragm located in the lower chest cavity, as in Homo, indicating an extended lower back and a greater number of functional lumbar vertebrae. This may have caused lordosis (the normal curvature of the human spine) and moved the center of mass over the hips and legs, which implies some habitual bipedal activity.

The robust finger and hypertrophied wrist and elbow bones indicate a strong grip and load bearing adaptations for the arms. The legs also show adaptations for load-bearing, especially at the hypertrophied knee joint. There was likely limited ankle loading, and the ankle would have had a hinge-like function, being most stable if positioned perpendicularly to the leg as opposed to at an angle in apes. Danuvius was likely able to achieve a strong grip with its big toes, unlike modern African great apes, which would have allowed it to grasp onto thinner trees. The limb proportions are most similar to those of bonobos.

[littor...@gmail.com]

> > Plate tectonics: Indian approaching S-Asia first formed island archipels,
> > plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands, the earliest Hominoidea, were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing

somebody:

> Such fantasies!!

Yes, thanks, my boy, based on firm evidence:
- India is between hylobatids & pongids & early H.erectus in SE.Asia vs Pan & Gorilla in Africa,
- India was approaching Eurasia c 40 Ma = archipelagoes full of coastal forests,
- early Hominoida = aquarboreal (central spine = vertical body, tail loss, broad sternum & thorax, dorsal scapulae, long & lateral arms),
google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".

> Danuvius, Rudapithecus, Graecopithecus, Oranopithecus each had a unique trait shared with hominins. I think of them as a superspecies with local variations.

:-DDD
Who cares what *you* think???
Of course these early great apes along the Tethys coasts were more humanlike e.g. vertical bipedally wading than later apes:
orthogrady, central spine, tail loss, broad sternum & thorax, dorsal scapulae, long & lateral arms.

Grow up. Your anthropocentrism is ridiculous.

[Pandora]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:06:04 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>somebody:
>
>> >> MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
>> >> anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.
>> >> His so-called "Study Center for Anthropology" is a figment of the
>> >> imagination. It's not a research/scientific nor an
>> >> academic/educational institution in any formal sense.
>> >> MV is a fraud.
>
>> >:-DDD Pathetic: the *only* "agument" the kudu runners have...
>> >My little little boy, grow up & think a *little* bit:
>> >we have flat feet, no fur, thick SC fat, salty sweat, huge brains etc.etc.
>> >Only complete idiots believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas!
>
>> Do you think Harvard University would give tenure to a complete idiot,
>> as a Professor of Biological Sciences?
>
>Universities once thought the Earth was flat...
>Some universities still believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes... :-DDD
>
>> https://scholar.harvard.edu/dlieberman/publications/endurance-running-and-evolution-homo
>
>Ah, Lieberman?

You think I'm Lieberman?
I'm flattered.

So, which one of these do you think is the better walker/runner and
which one the better swimmer/diver?
https://ibb.co/ZcXHWjb

And of course we don't have flat feet, but uniquely double-arched
feet, with a medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and tranverse tarsal arch
(TTA) which provides stifness to the foot, so that it can function as
a lever during walking and running in both Australopithecus and Homo,
and unlike apes.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41586-020-2053-y

And then there's the elongated achilles tendon that stores elastic
energy.
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24387

All adaptations to walking/running rather than swimming/diving.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 10:31:44 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Plate tectonics: Indian approaching S-Asia first formed island archipels,
> > > plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these islands, the earliest Hominoidea, were/became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree): climbing + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing
> somebody:
>
> > Such fantasies!!
>
> Yes,

climbing + surface-swimming + bipedal wading between trees (mangroves?) + climbing

Climbing + climbing?
Hylobatids surface swimming & wading between trees?!?!?! Don't you even realize that hylobatids brachiate between trees???

thanks, my boy, based on firm evidence:
> - India is between hylobatids & pongids & early H.erectus in SE.Asia vs Pan & Gorilla in Africa,
> - India was approaching Eurasia c 40 Ma = archipelagoes full of coastal forests,
> - early Hominoida = aquarboreal (central spine = vertical body, tail loss, broad sternum & thorax, dorsal scapulae, long & lateral arms),
> google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
> > Danuvius, Rudapithecus, Graecopithecus, Oranopithecus each had a unique trait shared with hominins. I think of them as a superspecies with local variations.
> :-DDD
> Who cares what *you* think???

Who thinks what you *think*??? Nobody!!!

> Of course these early great apes along the Tethys coasts were more humanlike e.g. vertical bipedally wading than later apes:
> orthogrady, central spine, tail loss, broad sternum & thorax, dorsal scapulae, long & lateral arms.

Initially their arms were not so long, more monkey-like (legs = arms length). Due to slow brachiation chest broadened, arms & digits gradually lengthened, tails lost. Due to arboreal bowl nesting (not hylobatids nor Homo) legs shortened, achilles shortened, lower back shortened.

> Grow up. Your anthropocentrism is ridiculous.

???

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Gibbons & Homo indicate that great apes shortened their achilles, lower backs, legs due to arboreal bowl nesting. Long achilles are plesiomorphic in hominoids. Chimps can run faster than humans. Gibbons can walk bipedally and swing bimanually faster than chimps or gorillas.

[Pandora]

See:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2018.0859

I disagree with the authors that a short-fibred gastrocnemius muscle
with a long Achilles tendon is ancestral for the Hominidae (great apes
+ Homo) and that "it seems most parsimonious that this ancestral
morphology was retained rather than re-acquired in the evolutionary
lineage leading to the habitually bipedal, terrestrial modern humans."
This hypothesis requires three independent convergent evolutionary
changes to a long-fibered gastrocnemius with a short Achilles tendon
in Pongo, Gorilla and Pan, whereas loss of the long Achilles tendon in
the common ancestor of Hominidae and subsequent re-acquirement in the
lineage leading to Homo requires only two (one loss at the base of
Hominidae, one re-acquirement after the split of Pan and Homo)
Two evolutionary character changes is more parsimonious than three.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Waiting ...

For what?

Nobody has ever claimed that Aquatic Ape is based entirely on naked
faces, and if they can't be associated with submerging them under the
water then Aquatic Ape is defeated.

Honestly, why the hell would I need to point this out to you?

Secondly, gorillas are apes. If apes arose in the first place because of
aquatic adaptations -- adapting to exploit resources in the water --
you're defeating yourself, arguing yourself into another corner.

So just move on. Stop.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701137037768753152

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

[...]


https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/41c0d8e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1024x678+0+0/resize/1760x1166!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Flegacy%2Fsites%2Fkcur%2Ffiles%2F201702%2Fruw_kczoo-chimpanzee-ruw-name-release-6-of-9-1024x678.jpg

Lack of hair is a neo natal trait. As creepy as it sounds, neo natal traits
are considered attractive even now, amongst modern humans. This is
why western women as far back as Roman times would yank out their
armpit hair, or pluck their lip.

Woman frequently shave their legs... remove hair all over their bodies!

Men do too. There are creams and electric razors marketed to men, for
trimming body hair.

So there is an excellent argument that a sexually selected population
would naturally gravitate towards hairlessness. AND, hairlessness may
well have been an advantage for a waterside population. If you hate
linear models as I do, putting the two together makes for powerful
scenario...

The real point here is that you honestly don't know WHAT to argue. If
hairlessness isn't linked to waterside Homo that doesn't debunk waterside
Homo. It can't. At the same time you did NOT debunk hairless as a
consequence of waterside Homo...

So just stop. Move on. Ask an adult to help you figure this stuff out --
what is and is not critical to Aquatic Ape.

Good luck with that.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701137037768753152

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Pandora wrote:

> MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
> anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.

So he doesn't have a degree in a fake science? He's not a pseudo
intellectual? Wow. That's why he has more credibility than the ass
clowns with their savanna nonsense...

Oh! Almost forgot: Do the Google on "Fallacious Arguments." Try
to figure out which one(s) you just posted.

And don't be embarrassed. Sure you couldn't make the grade on a
high school debating team, not with a massive error like that, but
you're amongst friends. We won't think any less of you, and we
certainly won't admit it if we do.

Kisses.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701137037768753152

[littor...@gmail.com]

somebody:

> And of course we don't have flat feet, but uniquely double-arched
> feet, with a medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and tranverse tarsal arch
> (TTA) which provides stifness to the foot, so that it can function as
> a lever during walking and running in both Australopithecus and Homo,
> and unlike apes.

And such idiots call themselves "anthropologist"... :-DDD

Only incredible imbeciles believe human feet were originally made for running:
Cursorial mammals, my little boy, are unguli- (herbivores) or digitigrade (carnivores).
Fatigue fractures are most frequently seen in metatarsal 3!
Flat feet = swimming. Rel.long 1st or last digital rays = swimming.
Newborn human feet are even more swimming-feet: rel.longer 1st+last dig.rays.
Chimp fetuses have more humanlike feet, which later become more hand-like.

Obviously,
- early hominids (& hominoids?) were wading-climbing, google "aquarboreal",
- our feet evolved: grasping-climbing -> wading-swimming -> walking.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

OWMonkeys, gibbons and Homo share a singular trait: none sleep in arboreal bowl nests. That is why all retain the long achilles tendon. Modern great apes share a singular trait, all sleep in constructed arboreal bowl nests. That is why all independently evolved shortened achilles tendon.
The article cited, and your claim, both ignore this reality, as blindly as the mermaids and marathoners that never sleep but just keep going and going and going like Energizer bunnies.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

GIGO.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

GIGO.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> GIGO.

I won't embarrass you by asking what you think you mean by
that, and what precisely you are referring to -- as if you know
-- so instead I'll just remind you to take you meds.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701137037768753152

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

GIGO.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

So it's done! He explains it! Gibbons are relevant here -- ALL IMPORTANT --
for the following reasons:

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> > DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > > GIGO.
>

> GIGO.

You read it here, first!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701137037768753152

[Pandora]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:24:36 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> MV pretends to be an anthropologist (cultural or physical/biological
>> anthropology?), but doesn't have any degree in that field.
>
>So he doesn't have a degree in a fake science? He's not a pseudo
>intellectual?

That too, but first and foremost he's a fraud. And claiming an
academic title for which you have no proper degree may also constitute
a crime in his country when such titles are protected by law. Claiming
to be an anthropologist without the proper degree is just as wrong as
claiming to be a physician without a degree in medicine. You may
consider yourself to be a healer, shaman, medicine man or witch doctor
in such a case, but not a physician.

[Pandora]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 15:07:06 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>somebody:
>
>> And of course we don't have flat feet, but uniquely double-arched
>> feet, with a medial longitudinal arch (MLA) and tranverse tarsal arch
>> (TTA) which provides stifness to the foot, so that it can function as
>> a lever during walking and running in both Australopithecus and Homo,
>> and unlike apes.
>
>And such idiots call themselves "anthropologist"... :-DDD
>
>Only incredible imbeciles believe human feet were originally made for running:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2053-y

Do you think Yale University would give tenure to incredible
imbeciles, as Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering & Materials
Science?

https://seas.yale.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/madhusudhan-venkadesan

[Pandora]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 15:11:48 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka

Don't mistake a causal hypothesis for a phylogenetic one.
It could well be that arboreal nest construction was acquired once at
the base of Hominidae and later lost in Homo. One gain and one loss is
still more parsimonious than three times independent origin in Pongo,
Gorilla, and Pan.

>The article cited, and your claim, both ignore this reality, as blindly as the mermaids and marathoners
>that never sleep but just keep going and going and going like Energizer bunnies.

You're comparing me to the mermaids, while all I do is propose an
alternative, more parsimonious, hypothesis based on a well-established
phylogeny? Thanks.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

> >That is why all retain the long achilles tendon. Modern [*arboreal*] great apes share a singular trait, all
> >sleep in constructed arboreal bowl nests. That is why [*how*] all independently evolved shortened achilles tendon.

> Don't mistake a causal hypothesis for a phylogenetic one.

Arboreal birds build arboreal bowl nests.

> It could well be that arboreal nest construction was acquired once at
> the base of Hominidae and later lost in Homo.

Not lost, but ground-adapted, portable & invertable. Homo never evolved the shortened lower back, short achilles short-leg long-arm form of all extant arboreal bowl-constructing great apes, which * the LCA P/H could not have had *.

One gain and one loss is
> still more parsimonious than three times independent origin in Pongo,
> Gorilla, and Pan.

No, cf lower back shortening *independently* in each, while Homo, hylobatids & OWMonkeys retain long lower back.

Arboreal great apes preferentially inhabit swamp forests & murky river forests; hylobatids & Homo preferentially inhabit uplands with moving and/or clear water.

> >The article cited, and your claim, both ignore this reality, as blindly as the mermaids and marathoners
> >that never sleep but just keep going and going and going like Energizer bunnies.
> You're comparing me to the mermaids, while all I do is propose an
> alternative, more parsimonious, hypothesis based on a well-established
> phylogeny? Thanks.

Comparing strawman to strawman. All extant Homo sleep in constructed shelters (barring the few that wish they could), none sleep in arboreal bowl nests common to their closest hominoid kin (all of which have short legs etc.).
(Lieberman apparently didn't study hylobatids.)

[Pandora]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 04:33:43 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka

Irrelevant. Birds are not even primates and build nests in many forms.
https://www.birdnote.org/sites/default/files/pileated_woodpecker_at_nest_hole_-_may_5_2016_1446-resize.jpg

>> It could well be that arboreal nest construction was acquired once at
>> the base of Hominidae and later lost in Homo.
>
>Not lost, but ground-adapted, portable & invertable. Homo never evolved the shortened lower back,
>short achilles short-leg long-arm form of all extant arboreal bowl-constructing great apes, which * the LCA P/H could not have had *.
>
> One gain and one loss is
>> still more parsimonious than three times independent origin in Pongo,
>> Gorilla, and Pan.
>
>No, cf lower back shortening *independently* in each, while Homo, hylobatids & OWMonkeys retain long lower back.

Phylogenetically a shortened lower back could have been acquired once
at the base of Hominidae and later lost in Homo. One gain and one loss
is still more parsimonious than three times independent origin.

>Arboreal great apes preferentially inhabit swamp forests & murky river forests; hylobatids
>& Homo preferentially inhabit uplands with moving and/or clear water.

Rather sweeping generalizations. The 20 species of hylobatids range
from sea level to 2900 m a.s.l., including swamp forest.
See Family Hylobatidae in:
https://www.lynxeds.com/product/handbook-of-the-mammals-of-the-world-volume-3/

And then there's mountain gorillas and savanna chimps.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/evan.21924

>> >The article cited, and your claim, both ignore this reality, as blindly as the mermaids and marathoners
>> >that never sleep but just keep going and going and going like Energizer bunnies.
>> You're comparing me to the mermaids, while all I do is propose an
>> alternative, more parsimonious, hypothesis based on a well-established
>> phylogeny? Thanks.
>
>Comparing strawman to strawman.

There's no straw in tracing the most parsimonious character
distribution on a phylogenetic tree.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

There certainly are exceptions, as would be expected of such a vast group. However sapsuckers and woodpeckers are anomalous in that they get their food by boring holes into trees seeking woodboring grubs, so nesting in tree holes is not unexpected. Most songbirds nest in the twig zone, which is where they get much of their food. Apes tend to nest near fruiting/masting trees.
Likely the LCA H/P slept at treeforks with a few branches bent/broken for more support, sitting almost upright, head tilted forward, with infants on mother's laps, based on body hair tracts of chimps & humans. Hylobatids sleep at treeforks when family, and on far branches when single afaict. Female dominant bonobos sleep highest in the tree. Male great apes sleep lowest normally, some adjacent on the ground.

> >> It could well be that arboreal nest construction was acquired once at
> >> the base of Hominidae and later lost in Homo.
> >
> >Not lost, but ground-adapted, portable & invertable. Homo never evolved the shortened lower back,
> >short achilles short-leg long-arm form of all extant arboreal bowl-constructing great apes, which * the LCA P/H could not have had *.
> >
> > One gain and one loss is
> >> still more parsimonious than three times independent origin in Pongo,
> >> Gorilla, and Pan.
> >
> >No, cf lower back shortening *independently* in each, while Homo, hylobatids & OWMonkeys retain long lower back.
> Phylogenetically a shortened lower back could have been acquired once
> at the base of Hominidae and later lost in Homo.

Each has a uniquely derived short back, no commonality. Google it, lots of pictures.

One gain and one loss
> is still more parsimonious than three times independent origin.
> >Arboreal great apes preferentially inhabit swamp forests & murky river forests; hylobatids
> >& Homo preferentially inhabit uplands with moving and/or clear water.
> Rather sweeping generalizations. The 20 species of hylobatids range
> from sea level to 2900 m a.s.l., including swamp forest.

The incursion of H sapiens has devastated hylobatid ecology. They can be found where they can't be hunted or logged out.
Formerly orangs dominated swamp forests, macaque troops & proboscids dominated river forests, hylobatids dominated stream forests, now Hs has it all.

> See Family Hylobatidae in:
> https://www.lynxeds.com/product/handbook-of-the-mammals-of-the-world-volume-3/
>
> And then there's mountain gorillas and savanna chimps.
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/evan.21924

Very derived from original environments, due to climate drying and competition from Homo.

> >> >The article cited, and your claim, both ignore this reality, as blindly as the mermaids and marathoners
> >> >that never sleep but just keep going and going and going like Energizer bunnies.
> >> You're comparing me to the mermaids, while all I do is propose an
> >> alternative, more parsimonious, hypothesis based on a well-established
> >> phylogeny? Thanks.
> >
> >Comparing strawman to strawman.
> There's no straw in tracing the most parsimonious character
> distribution on a phylogenetic tree.

That tree needs work, obviously.

Simple question: how many proponents of that phylogenetic tree have ever lived in a jungle? I have.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Dr. Sten Ekberg video shows the human ribs, vertebrae-spine, and muscles attaching here: https://youtu.be/0GgqQBoe5ts?t=218

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Pandora wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable

> >So he doesn't have a degree in a fake science? He's not a pseudo
> >intellectual?

> That too

"Out of Africa" purity is sheer nonsense. Savanna idiocy just multiplies
the stupidity.

> And claiming an academic title

Lol! You're not talking about academics, child. You're talking politics,
a social program, not to mention a thickly stratified social class
system where the jackwads at the top dictate to the plebs at the
bottom...

I actually had a paleo anthropology student, over in Australia, bitching
about multiregionalism "Because white supremacists!" Not because of
facts, not because of a logical interpretation of evidence, but because
their superiors dictated them the fantasy that multiregionalism is
associated with white supremacists.

Bitch, the Chinese have been preaching it for years -- decades!

Look. It would be bad enough if the people you mistakenly identify as
"Academics" limited themselves to colorful "Interpretations" of the
evidence, but look at the wholesale idiocy they preach in examples
such as Naledi!

People are actually made MORE ignorant by listening to these so called
"Academics." And you may be crazy, truly insane, or you don't have
room for MADE UP SHIT in academics.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701231935675121664

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Chinese? Like SW China, far from any coast, the oldest known gibbon
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2022/september/earliest-gibbon-fossil-found-in-southwest-china.html
Silk Road, Babyertle!

scientists estimate that Yuanmoupithecus was similar in size to today’s gibbons, with a body weight of about 6 kilograms—or about 13 pounds.
“The teeth and the lower face of Yuanmoupithecus are very similar to those of modern-day gibbons, but in a few features the fossil species was more primitive and points to it being the ancestor of all the living species,” observes Harrison, part of NYU’s Center for the Study of Human Origins.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

Another Miocene ape from SW China, far from any coast.
Lufengpithecus lufengensis is from the Late Miocene found in China,[2] named after the Lufeng site[2] and dated around 6.2 Ma.[3] It is the latest Miocene fossil ape that has been discovered in the entire world.
Silk Road, Babyertle!

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Chinese? Like SW China, far from any coast, the oldest known gibbon

Lol! Are there no effective treatments for OCD?

The oldest Gibbon is still younger than evidence for bipedalism.

It's simply NOT what you want to pretend it is.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701231935675121664

[littor...@gmail.com]

somebody:

> Another Miocene ape from SW China, far from any coast.
> Lufengpithecus lufengensis is from the Late Miocene found in China,[2] named after the Lufeng site[2] and dated around 6.2 Ma.[3] It is the latest Miocene fossil ape that has been discovered in the entire world.

:-)
Thanks for confirming my view:

Hominoid Evolution & Plate Tectonics hypothesis:
-India appraching Eurasia->archipelago fm in Tethys Ocean,
-first Catarrhini reaching these islands c?30 Ma + coastal forests became gradually aquarboreal:
Latisternalia=Hominoidea:
larger body, tail loss, central=upright spine, broad sternum->lateral arms, broad trx & pelvis etc.
Google "aquarboreal".
-India further underneath Eurasia split lesser (E) & great (W) apes c?25 Ma, still aquarboreal & vertically=bipedally wading-climbing:
-great apes colonizing Tethys Sea:
Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids-sivapiths incl.Lufengpith.(E) & hominids-dryopiths (W), incl.
some hominids in Red Sea coastal forests, still aquarboreal: HPG,
-E.Afr.Rift fm after 8 Ma split HP (still Read Sea) & Gorilla->afarensis->boisei-gorillas (Rift)
-Zanclean flood c 5.3 Ma killed Med.Sea but not (all) Red Sea hominids, and also opened Red Sea into Gulf?:
--Homo went left along Ind.Ocean->Java, Flores etc.->google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo",
--Pan went right along Ind.Ocean->S.Africa // Gorilla: africanus->robustus->bonobo/chimp,
schematically:
Gorilla//Pan: from late-Pliocene "gracile" afarensis//africanus -> early-Pleist."robust" boisei//robustus.

IOW,
- bipedalism is much much older than many PAs believe (ego=anthropocentrism) and
- only incredible idiots believe anthropocentrically that there are lots & lots of Plio-Pleist.relatives of us in Africa, but Pan or Gorilla had 0 fossil relatives.

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

MV still profoundly confused.

Gestation period of Hominoidae gives no indication that Hylobatids shrank. MV continues to make false claims, despite being proved wrong by 8ma Yuanmoupithecus!!
Human: 280 days, Bornean orangutan: 259 days, Western gorilla: 257 days, Chimpanzee: 243 days, Bonobo: 240 days, Siamang 231 days

[JTEM is so reasonable]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Gestation period of Hominoidae gives no indication that Hylobatids shrank.

And? Go on, finish it; what is it you think you're saying?

Quite frankly if you think the above is even half an argument then you sorely
miscounted....

What do you think you're establishing and how does it, exactly, contradict
ANYTHING to do with Aquatic Ape?

Go on. Try. You'll fail as always but go ahead and try just the same.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701569038790377472

[littor...@gmail.com]

Hominoid Evolution & Plate Tectonics:

>30 Ma:
India appraching Eurasia->archipelago fm in Tethys Ocean.
The first Catarrhini reaching these islands (full of coastal forests) became gradually aquarboreal:
vertical=bipedal wading + climbing arms overhead in swamp-forests:
this eplains why apes differ from monkeys:

Latisternalia=Hominoidea: larger body, tail loss, central=upright spine, broad sternum->lateral arms, broad trx & pelvis etc.
Google "aquarboreal".

c.25 Ma:
India further underneath Eurasia split lesser (E) & great (W) apes, still aquarboreal & vertically=bipedally wading-climbing.
Miocene great apes colonized Tethys (= later Med.) Sea coastal forests.

15 Ma:
The Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids-sivapiths (E: Ind.Ocean) & hominids-dryopiths (W: Med+Red Sea).
Hominids s.s. (HPG) lived around the Red Sea.

c.8 Ma:
E.Afr.Rift fm after 8 Ma split HP (still Read Sea) & Gorilla->afarensis->boisei->gorillas (Rift).

5.3 Ma:
The Zanclean flood killed Med.Sea hominids, but not (all) Red Sea hominids,
the Red Sea opened into the Gulf:
-- Homo went left along Ind.Ocean->Java, Flores etc.->google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo",
-- Pan went right along Ind.Ocean->S.Africa // Gorilla: africanus->robustus->bonobo/chimp,
schematically: Gorilla//Pan:
-from late-Pliocene "gracile" afarensis//africanus
-> early-Pleist."robust" boisei//robustus
-> today knuckle-walking gorillas//chimp+bonobo.

IOW,
- bipedalism is much much older than many PAs anthropocentrically believe,
- it's incredibly stupid to assume that we had lots & lots of Plio-Pleist.relatives in Africa (australopiths = so-called "hominins"), and that Pan or Gorilla had 0 fossil relatives.

In fact, we know alreadysince 1976 that Pliocene Homo ancestors were *not* in Africa!!
Raoul Benveniste & George Todaro 1976
"Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian origin of man"
Nature 261:101-8 doi org/10.1038/261101a0
Old World monkeys & apes incl.man possess (as a normal component of their cellular DNA) gene sequences (viro-genes) related to the RNA of a vims isolated from baboons.
A comparison of the viral gene sequences & the other cellular sequences distinguishes
- those OWMs & apes that have evolved in Africa
- from those that have evolved in Asia.
Among the apes,
- only gorilla & chimp seem by these criteria to be African,
- gibbon, orang-utan & man are identified as Asian:
most of man's evolution has occurred outside Africa.

Only incredible idiots believe we had African Pliocene ancestors running after antelopes!!

These misconceptions are due to
- afrocentrism (already since Darwin: P & G live in Africa) &
- anthropocentrism (e.g. believing that BPism is derived).

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]