How we both know that you're saying something stupid:
#1.
Did you just randomly choose this Turkana Basin? No? It's a preservation
bias, which in turn is a selection bias.
You don't form a hypothesis then search for evidence. You go to where
the fossils are most likely to have formed and then base everything on
what you find there.
It's the opposite of science.
#2. Didn't matter where Hominins lived, there were dangers and those
dangers included crocs. There were predators. Period.
Evidence for bipedalism goes back further than the last common
ancestor with chimps. Where ever they lived they were traveling on
the ground, facing whatever predators were out there.
#3. Turkana Basin is exactly the kind of place where Aquatic Ape
predicts you will find them.
It's not all that far from the coast & the middle east today, it was a
lot closer in the past with many, many periods of direct links to the
ocean. Good God, they've found a frigging whale fossil there!
"Biogeographic34 and sedimentary patterns suggest that up to the
Middle Pleistocene reorganization, the Turkana Basin preserved
elements of the CARS hydrography, including an outlet to the Indian
Ocean."
https://eps.rutgers.edu/images/stories/faculty/feibel_craig_s/csfpdfs/Feibel_2011b.pdf
So if you have a coastal species with elements periodically moving
inland -- for any number of reasons -- the Turkana Basis is precisely
where you'd expect to find them. And we do. And you look at this
expected outcome and want to pretend it's somehow not expected?
This is not at all inconsistent with Aquatic Ape.
The lived along the sure, yes, but we also know that groups pushed
inland, adapted to local conditions -- a new niche -- only to later come
back into contact with the waterside groups...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com