Only incredible idiots believe our Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 20, 2022, 5:35:15 AM11/20/22

to

"Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery site near Perning, East Java" OF Huffman cs J.hum.Evol.50:431-451

The fossil calvaria "Mojokerto child’s" was discovered in 1936,
but uncertainties have persisted about its paleo-environmental context & geological age, cf difﬁculties in re-locating the discovery site.

Past relocation efforts were hindered by
- inaccuracies in old base maps,
- intensive post-1930s agricultural terracing,
- new tree & brush growth.

Fortunately, geologic cross-sections & site photographs 1936-38 (not fully utilized in past relocation ﬁeldwork) closely circumscribe site geography & geology.
These documents match the conditions at just 1 sand-stone outcrop:
it is situated on the southern margin of a topographic nose at the upper end of a c 18 m-wide gully ( 0663760 m E, 9183430 m N, UTM Zone 49M), c 15 m SE of the Kumai cs (1985) relocation.

The relocated discovery bed is c 3.3 m of fossiliferous pebbly sand-stone, a river-channel deposit cut into tuffaceous mud-stone.
The sand- & mud-stone beds correspond to original site descriptions.
Pebbly sandstone is also found within the skull.
The calvaria is well-preserved, taphonomically similar to large & fragile spms found among several 100 vertebrate fossils excavated from the sand-stone in 2001-02.
No well-preserved fossils were found intact at the surface of the sand stone: Mojokerto's good condition suggests it was buried fully when discovered.
The relocated hominin bed is the uppermost ﬂuvial sandstone of a marine-deltaic sequence in the upper Pucangan Fm.
The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient sea-coast, judging from
- the large extent of the deltaic facies,
- evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport.

The relocated discovery bed is c 20 m stratigraphically above the horizon from which the widely cited 1.81 +- 0.04 Ma 40/39Ar-date for the skull (Swishercs 1994) was obtained.
Additional ﬁeld & lab results will be required to determine the skull’s age.

Pandora

unread,

Nov 20, 2022, 9:19:12 AM11/20/22

to

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 02:35:14 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery site near Perning, East Java" OF Huffman cs J.hum.Evol.50:431-451

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.002

>The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient sea-coast, judging from
>- the large extent of the deltaic facies,
>- evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338691956

"The broader Perning palaeo-landscape within the confines of the
Perning catchment (Figure 1b) would have provided a diverse suite
of foraging opportunities for H. erectus (Huffman, 2001a; Huffman &
Zaim, 2003). This study clearly defines four major landscape
components that should be considered in evaluating the palaeoecology
of the hominin species in Java: muddy deltas with widespread Nypa
swamps; a poorly vegetated sandy delta with localized Avicennia; away
from the coast, an extensive river valley with open savanna
grasslands; and in the upper reaches of the catchment, perhumid
forests on volcanoes at least 1,500 m, and possibly 3,000 m, high
(Figure 8)."

And of course, one should not constrict the paleoecology of such a
wide ranging taxon like Homo erectus to that of a single site.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 20, 2022, 3:09:34 PM11/20/22

to

Op zondag 20 november 2022 om 15:19:12 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

Thanks for confirming our view:
Only incredible idiots believe our Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes!

"muddy deltas ... river valleys ... swamps ..."

> >"Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery site near Perning, East Java" OF Huffman cs J.hum.Evol.50:431-451
> > https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.002
> >The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient sea-coast, judging from
> >- the large extent of the deltaic facies,
> >- evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport.

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338691956
> "The broader Perning palaeo-landscape within the confines of the
> Perning catchment (Figure 1b) would have provided a diverse suite
> of foraging opportunities for H. erectus (Huffman, 2001a; Huffman &

> Zaim, 2003). This study clearly defines 4 major landscape

> components that should be considered in evaluating the palaeoecology

> of the hominin spp in Java: muddy deltas with widespread Nypa

> swamps; a poorly vegetated sandy delta with localized Avicennia; away
> from the coast, an extensive river valley with open savanna
> grasslands; and in the upper reaches of the catchment, perhumid

> forests on volcanoes at least 1500 m, and possibly 3000 m, high

> (Figure 8)."

> And of course, one should not constrict the paleoecology of such a
> wide ranging taxon like Homo erectus to that of a single site.

Yes, everything shows H.erectus was littoral:
google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Thanks, my boy.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,

Nov 20, 2022, 6:29:03 PM11/20/22

to

Drowning in a river does not an aquamariner make.

Pandora

unread,

Nov 21, 2022, 9:21:58 AM11/21/22

to

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:09:33 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op zondag 20 november 2022 om 15:19:12 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:
>
>Thanks for confirming our view:
>Only incredible idiots believe our Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes!
>
>"muddy deltas ... river valleys ... swamps ..."

Apparently you missed the line where it says "an extensive river
valley with open savanna grasslands".
A eurytopic taxon like H. erectus is unlikely to have been confined to
a to any one of these habitats.

>> >"Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery site near Perning, East Java" OF Huffman cs J.hum.Evol.50:431-451
>> > https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.002
>> >The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient sea-coast, judging from
>> >- the large extent of the deltaic facies,
>> >- evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport.
>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338691956
>> "The broader Perning palaeo-landscape within the confines of the
>> Perning catchment (Figure 1b) would have provided a diverse suite
>> of foraging opportunities for H. erectus (Huffman, 2001a; Huffman &
>> Zaim, 2003). This study clearly defines 4 major landscape
>> components that should be considered in evaluating the palaeoecology
>> of the hominin spp in Java: muddy deltas with widespread Nypa
>> swamps; a poorly vegetated sandy delta with localized Avicennia; away
>> from the coast, an extensive river valley with open savanna
>> grasslands; and in the upper reaches of the catchment, perhumid
>> forests on volcanoes at least 1500 m, and possibly 3000 m, high
>> (Figure 8)."
>
>> And of course, one should not constrict the paleoecology of such a
>> wide ranging taxon like Homo erectus to that of a single site.
>
>Yes, everything shows H.erectus was littoral:
>google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

Drimolen, Swartkrans, Olduvai Gorge, Nariokotome, Koobi Fora, Daka,
Dmanisi, Zhoukoudian, all these H. erectus/ergaster sites are not
coastal or sea side.

JTEM is so reasonable

unread,

Nov 21, 2022, 11:31:27 AM11/21/22

to

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient sea-coast, judging from
> - the large extent of the deltaic facies,
> - evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport.
>
> The relocated discovery bed is c 20 m stratigraphically above the horizon from which the
> widely cited 1.81 +- 0.04 Ma 40/39Ar-date for the skull (Swishercs 1994) was obtained.
> Additional ﬁeld & lab results will be required to determine the skull’s age.

Well there's clearly no shortage of incredible idiots... unfortunately.

Apart from a natural inclination of the Believers to defend dogma, what
on earth did they ever see in savanna nonsense?

We were taught it. Or, at least I was. Millions were. Tens of millions. Probably
hundreds of millions were taught savanna nonsense... maybe billions.

The documentary on TV said it. In school, the teacher preached it, the book
presented it as gospel and you regurgitated verbatim on the test or you
flunked the class. We were quite literally trained to think "Savanna" idiocy so
we could be forgiven. But, the so called "Academics," on the other hand. The
people who actually study this stuff, see first hand how all the pieces never
fit together... hear better ideas that actually account for all the observations...

How the hell can they mindlessly cling to savanna idiocy?

-- --

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

JTEM is so reasonable

unread,

Nov 21, 2022, 11:44:03 AM11/21/22

to

Pandora wrote:

> A eurytopic taxon like H. erectus is unlikely to have been confined to
> a to any one of these habitats.

You're a creationist. You see populations -- whole species -- tumbling out of
the sky, fully formed, and adapted to.. to.. whatever. If you instead look at
some obscure (to you) idea like, oh, "Punctuated Equilibrium," you have this
model where a new population/species arises, radiates out from it's niche,
entering new environments, "Evolving" as it reaches new places either due
to local conditions/selective pressures or interbreeding with older stalk.

Aquatic Ape does this, fits the evidence -- all the DIFFERENT populations of
Homo we find -- while savanna idiocy can't even account for them entering
much less leaving the savanna!

You approach this topic with a childlike simplicity, at best, and a determined
myopic view that is comparable to the worst religions.

Stop that. No, wait. I'm serious. You really should stop that.

-- --

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

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 21, 2022, 3:39:23 PM11/21/22

to

> Drimolen, Swartkrans, Olduvai Gorge, Nariokotome, Koobi Fora, Daka,

> Dmanisi, Zhoukoudian, all these H.erectus/ergaster sites are not
> coastal or sea side.

Sigh, our kudu runner
- believes that all these are closer relatives of us than of apiths,
- doesn't even know the difference between waterside & coastal...

Running after your antelopes, my little boy, .

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,

Nov 21, 2022, 9:41:01 PM11/21/22

to

-
Carnivore Diet
Best against immunological diseases, non-allergenic
Molluscivore Diet
Allergenic
Piscivore Diet
Allergenic
Vegan Diet
Allergenic
Dairy Diet
Allergenic
https://youtu.be/IfBlM3HfHKs

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,

Nov 21, 2022, 10:50:13 PM11/21/22

to

> Dairy Diet (cows)
> Allergenic
> https://youtu.be/IfBlM3HfHKs

Protein intake efficiency with least insulin reaction:
Whole eggs half converted to tissue, half fuel
All animal & plant products are much lower

https://youtu.be/jNpwxgfihiA

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 1:53:13 AM11/22/22

to

Somebdy:

> Carnivore Diet
> Best against immunological diseases, non-allergenic
> Molluscivore Diet
> Allergenic
> Piscivore Diet
> Allergenic
> Vegan Diet
> Allergenic
> Dairy Diet
> Allergenic

:-DDD
The *only* "argument" of the kudu runners!
:-DDD

Pandora

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 10:10:49 AM11/22/22

to

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:39:22 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Drimolen, Swartkrans, Olduvai Gorge, Nariokotome, Koobi Fora, Daka,
>> Dmanisi, Zhoukoudian, all these H.erectus/ergaster sites are not
>> coastal or sea side.
>
>Sigh, our kudu runner
>- believes that all these are closer relatives of us than of apiths,

Everything from those sites that has been assigned to Homo
erectus/ergaster is obviously closer to us than to apiths.

E.g. no one has ever expressed any doubt that OH 9 is H. erectus.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/oh-9

>- doesn't even know the difference between waterside & coastal...

Elsewhere you say "H.erectus was initially a coastal wader-diver", and
that the emphasis is on coastal dispersal.

The earliest known H. erectus "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the
Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in overall cranial shape", but at 1.95 -
2.04 Ma Drimolen is not exactly a coastal site.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aaw7293

All African and most Eurasien H. erectus sites are inland. Mojokerto
is a possible exception, but that does not exactly support your
hypothesis of Homo erectus as a overwhelmingly coastal taxon.
It's cherry-picking.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 10:20:10 AM11/22/22

to

Op dinsdag 22 november 2022 om 16:10:49 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:39:22 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Drimolen, Swartkrans, Olduvai Gorge, Nariokotome, Koobi Fora, Daka,
> >> Dmanisi, Zhoukoudian, all these H.erectus/ergaster sites are not
> >> coastal or sea side.

> >Sigh, our kudu runner
> >- believes that all these are closer relatives of us than of apiths,

> Everything from those sites that has been assigned to Homo
> erectus/ergaster is obviously closer to us than to apiths.

:-D Don't you understand the difference between "assigned" & "is"??

> E.g. no one has ever expressed any doubt that OH 9 is H. erectus.
> https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/oh-9

Never heard of parallel evolution??
PAs even thought that Lucy was their ancestor! :-DDD

> >- doesn't even know the difference between waterside & coastal...

> Elsewhere you say "H.erectus was initially a coastal wader-diver", and
> that the emphasis is on coastal dispersal.

Of course, my little boy: how else do you reach Flores?? flying??

> The earliest known H. erectus "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the
> Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in overall cranial shape", but at 1.95 -
> 2.04 Ma Drimolen is not exactly a coastal site.
> https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aaw7293

A.robustus & boisei are also strikingly similar.
Pan & Gorilla are also strikingly similar compared to you,
but Pan is a much closer relative of you than Gorilla is.
Got it a bit??

> All African and most Eurasien H. erectus sites are inland. Mojokerto
> is a possible exception, but that does not exactly support your
> hypothesis of Homo erectus as a overwhelmingly coastal taxon.

It's cherry-picking: never heard of shell engravings??
Google "Joordens Munro shell engravings" or so.

Pandora

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 12:12:34 PM11/22/22

to

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:20:08 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"

<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op dinsdag 22 november 2022 om 16:10:49 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:39:22 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Drimolen, Swartkrans, Olduvai Gorge, Nariokotome, Koobi Fora, Daka,
>> >> Dmanisi, Zhoukoudian, all these H.erectus/ergaster sites are not
>> >> coastal or sea side.
>
>> >Sigh, our kudu runner
>> >- believes that all these are closer relatives of us than of apiths,
>
>> Everything from those sites that has been assigned to Homo
>> erectus/ergaster is obviously closer to us than to apiths.
>
>:-D Don't you understand the difference between "assigned" & "is"??

Fossils don't come with labels attached that say what they are, so in
practice there is no difference. You name a type specimen (e.g. Trinil
2) and on the basis of comparison you add other specimens to the
hypodigm of that taxon.
As an anthropologist you would have known this, as a fraud you don't.

>> E.g. no one has ever expressed any doubt that OH 9 is H. erectus.
>> https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/oh-9
>
>Never heard of parallel evolution??

What do you think OH 9 is?

>PAs even thought that Lucy was their ancestor! :-DDD

She might be. As part of the hypodigm of Australopithecus afarensis
she is phylogenetically a stem taxon of Hominini.
See figure 2 and 3 in:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

As a anthropologist you would understand this, as a fraud you don't.

>> >- doesn't even know the difference between waterside & coastal...
>
>> Elsewhere you say "H.erectus was initially a coastal wader-diver", and
>> that the emphasis is on coastal dispersal.
>
>Of course, my little boy: how else do you reach Flores?? flying??

Accidental, through rafting?
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.05.013

Don't try swimming.

>> The earliest known H. erectus "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the
>> Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in overall cranial shape", but at 1.95 -
>> 2.04 Ma Drimolen is not exactly a coastal site.
>> https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aaw7293
>
>A.robustus & boisei are also strikingly similar.
>Pan & Gorilla are also strikingly similar compared to you,
>but Pan is a much closer relative of you than Gorilla is.
>Got it a bit??

"The specimen preserves characters that align it morphologically with
H. erectus sensu lato (including Homo ergaster): Its profile is
"teardrop" shaped in superior view; its squamosal suture is nearly
straight; sagittal keeling is present on the frontal and parietals;
the cranial vault is long and low,with strong sagittal occipital
curvature and lambdoidal flattening; and although the anterior aspect
of the foramen magnum is missing, it is evident that a
basion-bregma chord would have been short. These traits together
distinguish DNH 134 from A. africanus, P. robustus (as preserved in
DNH 7), Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo naledi. Individually,
none of these traits is fully diagnostic of H. erectus s.l., which is
morphologically variable across time and space, yet collectively, they
strongly suggest an affinity with that species."

What else do you think DNH 134 is?

>> All African and most Eurasien H. erectus sites are inland. Mojokerto
>> is a possible exception, but that does not exactly support your
>> hypothesis of Homo erectus as a overwhelmingly coastal taxon.
>
>It's cherry-picking: never heard of shell engravings??
>Google "Joordens Munro shell engravings" or so.

Freshwater shell at Trinil, not marine:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269102248_Homo_Erectus_at_Trinil_on_Java_Used_Shells_for_Tool_Production_and_Engraving

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 3:38:46 PM11/22/22

to

> >PAs even thought that Lucy was their ancestor! :-DDD

> She might be.

:-DDD
Waste your own time, my little boy: *think* a bit:

we did not evolve from ape->apith->Homo as still often assumed,
but Gorilla evolved from the HPG-LCA->E.Afr.apiths->gorillas, of course,
like Pan evolved from the HP-LCA->S.Afr.apiths->bonobo+chimp:

Gorilla-like features in large E.African australopith crania (only until 1994 - confirmed by all later publications):
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981 p.351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like --MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth & the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991 (see also his fig.1).
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A. boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
• A. boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.

Chimp+bonobo-like features in S.African australopith crania (only until 1994 - confirmed by all later publications):
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981 pp.74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

Lucy = FOSSIL GORILLA!

E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in parallel:
-from late-Pliocene "gracile"
-to early-Pleistocene "robust"
-to today's Afr.apes.

Okidoki??

Meanwhile, Pliocene Homo lived in S.Asia, as you (should !!) know:

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
Chris T Yohn cs 2005 PLoS open access
RV infections of the germline have the potential to episodically alter gene function & genome structure during the course of evolution.
Horizontal transmissions between spp have been proposed, but little evidence exists for such events in the human/great ape lineage of evolution.
Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a RV element (Pan troglodytes endogenous RV-1 PTERV1) that has become integrated in the germline of African great ape & Old World monkey spp, but is absent from humans & Asian ape genomes.
We unambiguously map 287 RV integration sites: c 95.8 % of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related spp.
Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous RV reveals:
the gorilla & chimpanzee elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the Old World monkey RV elements, but that the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule.
Within the chimpanzee, there is a significant integration bias against genes, with only 14 of these insertions mapping within intronic regions.
6 out of 10 of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human & chimpanzee.
Our data are consistent with a RV infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzees & gorillas independently and concurrently, 3–4 Ma.
We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of humans & great apes.

From my recent book:
Door een Pliocene virusbesmetting kregen Afrikaanse primaten (baviaan, meerkat, gorilla, chimp enz.) in hun DNA een stuk virus-DNA (retroviral element) dat ontbreekt bij Aziatische primaten en de mens, en Chris Yohn’s team besluit dat onze voorouders niét in Afrika waren tijdens die hele besmettelijke periode (tenminste ~4–3 Ma?). Leefden ze toen aan Zuid-Aziatische kusten, hun fossiele sporen weggespoeld door tussenijstijdse stijgingen van de zeespiegel?

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 6:28:33 PM11/22/22

to

South Asia in Central India far from coasts: Narmada Man, Bimbhetka caves. South east Asia Indonesian archipelago has more, far from there.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 6:37:55 PM11/22/22

to

Op woensdag 23 november 2022 om 00:28:33 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > Meanwhile, Pliocene Homo lived in S.Asia, as you (should !!) know:

> > "Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans" Chris T Yohn cs 2005 PLoS open access
> > RV infections of the germline have the potential to episodically alter gene function & genome structure during the course of evolution.
> > Horizontal transmissions between spp have been proposed, but little evidence exists for such events in the human/great ape lineage of evolution.
> > Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a RV element (Pan troglodytes endogenous RV-1 PTERV1) that has become integrated in the germline of African great ape & Old World monkey spp, but is absent from humans & Asian ape genomes.
> > We unambiguously map 287 RV integration sites: c 95.8 % of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related spp.
> > Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous RV reveals:
> > the gorilla & chimpanzee elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the Old World monkey RV elements, but that the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule.
> > Within the chimpanzee, there is a significant integration bias against genes, with only 14 of these insertions mapping within intronic regions.
> > 6 out of 10 of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human & chimpanzee.
> > Our data are consistent with a RV infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzees & gorillas independently and concurrently, 3–4 Ma.
> > We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of humans & great apes.

> > From my recent book:
> > Door een Pliocene virusbesmetting kregen Afrikaanse primaten (baviaan, meerkat, gorilla, chimp enz.) in hun DNA een stuk virus-DNA (retroviral element) dat ontbreekt bij Aziatische primaten en de mens, en Chris Yohn’s team besluit dat onze voorouders niét in Afrika waren tijdens die hele besmettelijke periode (tenminste ~4–3 Ma?). Leefden ze toen aan Zuid-Aziatische kusten, hun fossiele sporen weggespoeld door tussenijstijdse stijgingen van de zeespiegel?

> South Asia in Central India far from coasts: Narmada Man, Bimbhetka caves. South east Asia Indonesian archipelago has more, far from there.

Is that all you could find???
My little little boy, coastal dispersal + inland along rivers. Okidoki?
Too difficult for our kudu runner??? :-DDD

JTEM is so reasonable

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 9:54:38 PM11/22/22

to

Pandora wrote:

> The earliest known H. erectus "DNH 134 is strikingly similar to the
> Mojokerto H. erectus cranium in overall cranial shape", but at 1.95 -
> 2.04 Ma Drimolen is not exactly a coastal site.

Okay. So let's pretend that you got something right, how does savanna idiocy
account for ALL OF THE FIND EVERYWHERE?

Oops. One sentence in and you already failed miserably.

Aquatic Ape accounts for it all. Savanna idiocy doesn't even explain the
goddamn savanna, much less Homo strewn everywhere from Oceania to
south Africa...

Of course this has all been pointed out again & again & again without you
ever once grasping it, and this time is no different.

-- --

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

Pandora

unread,

Nov 23, 2022, 10:14:31 AM11/23/22

to

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:38:45 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >PAs even thought that Lucy was their ancestor! :-DDD
>
>> She might be.
>

>Lucy = FOSSIL GORILLA!

Walter Ferguson (1984) thought she's Homo (H. antiquus) en designated
A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy") as the holotype:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/BF02381673

That would make Homo the ancestor of Gorilla!

>Meanwhile, Pliocene Homo lived in S.Asia, as you (should !!) know:

However, LD 350-1 at 2.8 Ma from Ledi Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia is the
only Pliocene specimen of Genus Homo sofar (exclusive of "Homo"
antiquus), and thus from Africa:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1343

"Vertebrate fossils record a faunal turnover indicative of more open
and probably arid habitats:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415

JTEM is so reasonable

unread,

Nov 23, 2022, 5:04:39 PM11/23/22

to

Pandora wrote:

> That would make Homo the ancestor of Gorilla!

So what?

Homo are the ancestor of Chimps, or so it is argued.

Chimps are so close to Homo, genetically, that there is a compelling
case to be made for discarding "Pan" altogether and grouping them
under Homo... a different species of "Homo" than we are but Homo
none the less.

> >Meanwhile, Pliocene Homo lived in S.Asia, as you (should !!) know:

> However, LD 350-1 at 2.8 Ma from Ledi Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia is the
> only Pliocene specimen of Genus Homo sofar (exclusive of "Homo"
> antiquus), and thus from Africa:

First place, it's exactly where you would predict to find specimens
if there was movement between Asia and Africa GOING IN EITHER
DIRECTION. It's where you'd expect fossils if they were moving from
Africa to Asia and it's where you'd expect fossils if they were moving
from Asia to Africa. It is consistent to both.

Secondly, calling it "Homo" is quite the stretch. It's only a tiny
fragment, it's very small though described as an adult, and it does
share a striking similarity to Australopithecus.

> "Vertebrate fossils record a faunal turnover indicative of more open
> and probably arid habitats:
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1415

How do fossils form? What makes this open, arid habitat so conducive
to fossilization, at least in this one case?

I'll save you some time: Fossils are strongly associated with water. This
is because fossilization primarily depends upon the burial of a specimen,
protecting it from weather and scavenging. In the water, sediments can
cover a specimen, protecting it, allowing it to become fossilized. Rivers
are great for producing fossils, but usually they are quite fragmentary.
The bones get tossed around, broken up and then, say, caught in a bend
where they are buried, eventually fossilized. River deltas are another rich
source of fossils but, again, highly fragmentary.One of the very best
preserved dinosaurs, described as a "Mummy," it's so well preserved, is
believed to have been buried under mud deposited by a river flooding. So
it was on dry land, but the flooding waters covered it over...

But you have this "Homo" in an open, arid environment, dropping dead for
whatever reason and becoming fossilized... how?

Map this out for us.

See, speaking rhetorically, one of the reasons the pseudo science you
worship is such a joke is because it doesn't seek our ancestors, it seeks
the most likely places for fossils to be formed and then bases everything
on the assumption that those fossils are a representative sampling of
all life at a given time, AND that they had to be from/live in that precise
spot it was found it... all of them... the entire species/genus that fossil
represents.

"Ah, science!"

But the location is consistent with an ASIAN origins -- "Out of Asia" --
or at least JUST AS CONSISTENT as with an African origins, and it's
far, Far, FAR too fragmentary to even state that it's Homo at all.

-- --

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

littor...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 24, 2022, 9:05:29 AM11/24/22

to

Kudu runner:

> That would make Homo the ancestor of Gorilla!

:-DDD
These people are even more stupid than I thought.
Incredible!

If you stop running after African antelopes, ape & Homo evolution is not so difficult, e.g.
plate tectonics perfectly explains
- why apes differ from monkeys,
- hominoid splitting-times:

1) India approaching S-Asia 40-30 Ma in the Tethys Ocean formed island archipels = plenty of coastal forests:
the Catarrhini that reached these islands = the earliest Hominoidea,
they gradually became aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree)
= bipedal wading in swamp forests + vertical climbing arms overhead perfectly explains
- complete tail loss,
- larger body size >monkeys,
- very broad sternum & thorax = more dorsal scapulas = more lateral (rather than ventral) arms,
- centrally-placed lumbar spine (vs dorsally in monkeys & most mammals)
= vertical body-posture for BP wading + climbing.

2) India further underneath S-Asia split lesser (E) & great (W) apes c 25 Ma:
- hylobatids followed SE-Asian coastal forests,
- great apes followed the Tethys Sea coasts, still wading-climbing vertically,
google "aquarboreal".

3) The Mesopotamian Seaway closure 15 Ma split
- sivapiths-pongids (E -> SE.Asia) &
- dryopiths-hominids (W -> Tethys=Med.Sea), e.g. BP Trachilos footprints.
In the Tethys-Sea, only the Red Sea hominids survived: HPG.

4) The E.Afr.Rift fm c 8 Ma caused the HP/G split:
Gorilla followed the incipient Rift ->Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei->gorillas.

5) The Zanclean flood 5.3 Ma coincided with (caused?) the Red Sea opening into the Gulf:
- Pan went right, following the E.Afr.coasts->rivers: Australopithecus africanus->robustus->bonobo+chimp // Gorilla,
- Homo went left, following the S.Asian coasts ->H.erectus etc.,

google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

:-) From my book: Academic Publ. Utrecht NL 2022
"De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken".

unread,

Nov 26, 2022, 11:14:34 AM11/26/22

to

Op zaterdag 26 november 2022 om 01:40:52 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> > It's difficult to understand how the savannaists can be so stupid.
> > Perhaps they reason like this:
> > 1) Our nearest relatives P & G live in Africa,
> > hence, H must also have lived in Africa.
> > 2) P & G & other primates are QP in forests,
> > only H is BP outside the forests,
> > hence leaving the forest explains QP->BP,
> > and all hominoids with BP traits are H rather than P or G,
> > hence australopiths ("BP") are our ancestors.
> > Are the savannaists really so stupid that they don't see the flaws in their reasoning??

> They're never going to agree with you but eventually they will accept your
> position as correct.

:-) No doubt (at least in most respects).
But I'm arguing this already >30 years!
I'm 71 (next week retired!) and very much hope to see our views accepted before I die...

I read Elaine's "Descent of Woman" (Dutch transl.) in 1972 (50 yrs ago!), at first I didn't know what to think of it, but after a few years I had no doubt any more, although the exact scenario was very uncertain:
Elaine thought the our becoming more aquatic *caused* the H/P split, whereas I argued that H became more aquatic at some time *after* the split.

Since evolution is gradual, and we're not arboreal any more, there had to be an aquarboreal phase once.

Pandora

unread,

Nov 27, 2022, 4:38:25 AM11/27/22

to

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 08:14:32 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op zaterdag 26 november 2022 om 01:40:52 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
>> > It's difficult to understand how the savannaists can be so stupid.
>> > Perhaps they reason like this:
>> > 1) Our nearest relatives P & G live in Africa,
>> > hence, H must also have lived in Africa.
>> > 2) P & G & other primates are QP in forests,
>> > only H is BP outside the forests,
>> > hence leaving the forest explains QP->BP,
>> > and all hominoids with BP traits are H rather than P or G,
>> > hence australopiths ("BP") are our ancestors.
>> > Are the savannaists really so stupid that they don't see the flaws in their reasoning??
>
>> They're never going to agree with you but eventually they will accept your
>> position as correct.
>
>:-) No doubt (at least in most respects).
>But I'm arguing this already >30 years!
>I'm 71 (next week retired!)

That explains the dementia.

> and very much hope to see our views accepted before I die...

So you can boast about it in the afterlife?
Maybe you should get a degree in anthropology first, because they're
not very fond of frauds in Heaven.

>I read Elaine's "Descent of Woman" (Dutch transl.) in 1972 (50 yrs ago!),
>at first I didn't know what to think of it, but after a few years I had no doubt any more,

A true convert.

>Since evolution is gradual, and we're not arboreal any more, there had to be an aquarboreal phase once.

Had to be?
There's no (logical) imperative here, since you can also go directly
from the trees to the ground.

unread,

Nov 28, 2022, 9:21:25 AM11/28/22

to

some incredible imbecile:

> >> ...since you can also go directly
> >> from the trees to the ground.

> >MONKEYS THAT GO FROM THE TREES TO THE GROUND BECOME BABOON-like!!

> No need to shout.

BIG REASON TO SHOUT!
Go to school, little boy.

JTEM is so reasonable

unread,

Nov 28, 2022, 2:36:46 PM11/28/22

to

Pandora wrote:

> We're not descended from monkeys.

Of course we are. Monkeys go much further back than the oldest
estimate for divergence. The common ancestor of man & monkey
was a monkey.

It could not have happened any other way, short of insisting that
our lines split more than 30 million years ago...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/701970720341770240