Mechanisms of selection in hominoids

41 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jul 27, 2022, 7:14:32 AMJul 27
to
These quotes are from the topic
Do monogamous spp live longer than related pylygynous spp?

They are entirely typical of the exchanges
in this newsgroup, not just from the two
posters quoted, but from nearly everyone.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
>> On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 5:08:44 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
>> Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (goolge) "aquarboreal":
>> this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
>> more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.

> Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense. Crab-eating macaques
> and brazzas monkeys show that aquarboreal traits are fantasy-based, not biology-based.

Have you noticed that in these 'evolutionary
theories' there's never the slightest attempt
to set out the selective pressures?

So the wet-ape theorist says that early
hominins (or pre-hominin?) walked along
water-courses (or such-like) and each
generation got a little better at it, and so,
and so (very vaguely) they changed their
entire anatomy. No reason is ever
proposed as to why those with (say) a
more centralised spine would have been
selected over those with the standard
primate body plan. Likewise for all the
other truly drastic alterations. It seems
that evolution would have gone in the
way the theorist wants, just because
that's what the theorist wants.

It's the same with his critic, Daud
Deden here. Daud envisages a very
different evolutionary scenario, but
with the same total absence of any kind
of selective pressure. In his view in each
generation the taxon moved in the
direction he imagines, just because
that's what he wants to imagine.

Neither has the beginnings of a grasp
of the degree of intense competition
between individuals (and sometimes
groups) that is always present. It usually
operates as a conserving force, keeping
individuals tightly bound to the niche
that their species currently occupies.

Very rarely this competition enforces
revolutionary changes, nearly always
when a population finds a new niche
which requires different behaviours
and, over generations, changes in
morphology. Evolutionary theorists
should be able to outline the selective
mechanisms. For example, how were
individuals with more centralised
spines better suited than their fellows.

Since some find it difficult to grasp the
basic principles of selection as they
operate in nature consider instead the
'evolution' of WW2 fighter planes. They
got better and better, with new versions
at least every year. This was forced,
because the enemy was doing the same
and new 'generations' of planes could
readily shoot down earlier ones. Speed
was nearly always a crucial factor.

It was much the same when one small
isolated group of monkeys began to
brachiate. Those, that could do it best,
were faster in the trees, and could escape
the attacks and threats of larger, clumsier
conspecifics. They could exploit food
resouces (effectively barred to others)
and get more mating opportunities.
Over many generations selection would
have altered their body shape,
centralising their spines, shifting their
scapulas, and losing their tails.

As soon as their isolation ended, they
occupied the gibbon niche throughout
the forests of South-East Asia. They
gave rise to larger versions (akin to the
siamang) and then to orangutans and
other apes. These occupied niches lower
down in the canopy.

To argue against this you need to specify
the _selective_advantages_ in your own
scenario -- how wading in streams (or
slow brachiation or whatever) would,
over many generations, centralise the
spine, lose the tail, and bring about all
the other major morphological changes.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 27, 2022, 10:23:33 AMJul 27
to
...

> >> Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
> >> Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (google) "aquarboreal":
> >> this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
> >> more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.

> > Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.

My little little boy, it's not difficult, even for you:
Miocene Hominoidea were originally vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,
their descendants followed different ways:
-knuckle-walkers on the forest floor,
-shallow-water divers,
-fast brachiators,
-slow branch-hangers,
-vertical bipeds on land.

Only incredible imbeciles believe their ancestors ran after antelopes on the African savannas.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,
Jul 27, 2022, 4:32:38 PMJul 27
to
Fantasy fiction time, kiddies:

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,
Jul 27, 2022, 4:33:50 PMJul 27
to
On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:23:33 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> > >> Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
> > >> Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (google) "aquarboreal":
> > >> this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
> > >> more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
>
> > > Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.
> My little little

Storytime! More fantasy about mermaids!

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 6:15:55 AMJul 28
to
On Wednesday 27 July 2022 at 15:23:33 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.

> My little little boy, it's not difficult, even for you:

You haven't got the point. Mere bald
assertions are not good enough. You
need to present evolutionary arguments
showing how selection worked (or was
likely to have worked).

> Miocene Hominoidea were originally vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,

WHY did some more-or-less standard
monkey (something like a baboon?)
BECOME a vertical wader-climber in a
swamp forest? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the costs?

> their descendants followed different ways:
> -knuckle-walkers on the forest floor,

WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a knuckle-walker on
the forest floor? When? What were
the selective pressures? The benefits?
And the costs?

> -shallow-water divers,

WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a shallow-water diver?
When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the
costs?

> -fast brachiators,

WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a fast brachiator?
When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the
costs?

> -slow branch-hangers,

WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a slow branch hanger?
When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the
costs?

> -vertical bipeds on land.

WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a vertical biped on
land? When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the
costs?


littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 8:07:17 AMJul 28
to
Op donderdag 28 juli 2022 om 12:15:55 UTC+2 schreef yelw...@gmail.com:

> > > Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.

> > My little little boy, it's not difficult, even for you:

> You haven't got the point. Mere bald
> assertions are not good enough.

Yes, you have to inform a bit before talking.

> You need to present evolutionary arguments
> showing how selection worked (or was
> likely to have worked).

Simple:
Plate Tectonics:
1) India approaching Eurasia: fm of island archipels, full of coastal forests:
cercopithecoid/hominoid split:
catarrhines reaching these became vertical waders-climbers: Hominoidea:
larger size, vertical spine, very broad pelvis, thorax & sternum (Hominoidea=Latisternalia), tail loss etc.
for wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead.
2) India furter under Eurasia = split great/lesser apes = W/E:
great apes colonized W-Tethys coastal forests.
3) Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma = split hominids/pongids = W/E:
hominids colonized Med.Sea coastal forests.
4) Med.drying: only Red Sea hominids survived.
5) E.Afr.Rift fm c 8 Ma = split G/HP:
-Gorilla followed Rift -> Pliocene "gracile" afarensis -> early-Pleist."robust" boisei.
6) Zanclean flood c 5 Ma: Red Sea opened into Ind.Ocean:
-Pan went right -> Pliocene "gracile" africanus -> early-Pleist."robust" robustus (P//G).
-Homo went left -> Ind.Ocean coasts.
Pongids forced hylobatids higher into the trees, and kept Homo at the coasts.
7) Ice Ages: cooling: different shellfish...
-early-Pleist.H.erectus Java etc. coastal diving for shellfish etc.
-mid-Pleist.H.neand. diving-wading seasonally along rivers,
-late-Pleist.H.sapiens: wading-walking.
CC Hn>Hs>>He>>apiths-apes
POS He>>Hn>>Hs-apiths-apes
PNSs Hn>Hs>He



> > Miocene Hominoidea were originally vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,

> WHY did some more-or-less standard
> monkey (something like a baboon?)
> BECOME a vertical wader-climber in a
> swamp forest? What were the selective
> pressures? The benefits? And the costs?

See above 1).

> > their descendants followed different ways:
> > -knuckle-walkers on the forest floor,

> WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
> climber BECOME a knuckle-walker on
> the forest floor? When? What were
> the selective pressures? The benefits?
> And the costs?

See above 7) P//G:
earliest KWing features appeared in robust apiths (P//G).

Initially geographical isolation:
-G in central-Afr.forest Kongo etc. //
-P in E.Afr.coastal forest Mozambique etc.

> > -shallow-water divers,

> WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
> climber BECOME a shallow-water diver?
> When? What were the selective
> pressures? The benefits? And the costs?

See above 7) early-Pleist.Homo: Ice Age shellfish.

> > -fast brachiators,

> WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
> climber BECOME a fast brachiator?
> When? What were the selective
> pressures? The benefits? And the costs?

See above:
sivapiths-pongids along the Ind.Ocean forced hylobatids higher into the trees.

> > -slow branch-hangers,

> WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
> climber BECOME a slow branch hanger?
> When? What were the selective
> pressures? The benefits? And the costs?

Idem, see above 7) pongids

> > -vertical bipeds on land.

> WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
> climber BECOME a vertical biped on
> land? When? What were the selective
> pressures? The benefits? And the costs?

See above 7): diver->wader-walker:
shellfish->salmon->technology.

IOW, only incredible idiots believe their ancestors ran after kudus.
:-DDD

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 11:06:45 AMJul 28
to
On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 4:32:38 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 7:14:32 AM UTC-4, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > These quotes are from the topic
> > Do monogamous spp live longer than related pylygynous spp?
> >
> > They are entirely typical of the exchanges
> > in this newsgroup, not just from the two
> > posters quoted, but from nearly everyone.
> >
> > DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
> > >> On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 5:08:44 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
> > >> Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (goolge) "aquarboreal":
> > >> this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
> > >> more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
> >
> > > Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense. Crab-eating macaques
> > > and brazzas monkeys show that aquarboreal traits are fantasy-based, not biology-based.

Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.
Gibbon ancestors brachiation changed their skeletal breadth.

Simple biology. Fantasies merely detour away from reality.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 11:13:15 AMJul 28
to


> Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.

My little little boy (please try to grow up), I can climb a tree, yet I'm no ape.

> Gibbon ancestors brachiation changed their skeletal breadth.

I'm not interested in your confabulations.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 2:02:49 PMJul 28
to
On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 1:07:17 PM UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1) India approaching Eurasia: fm of island archipels, full of coastal forests:
> India had slammed into Eurasia

Himalayas began 47 ma.

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/scientists_date_birth_of_himalayas_from_newly_discovered_microplate

> cercopithecoid/hominoid split:
> catarrhines reaching these became vertical waders-climbers: Hominoidea:
> larger size, vertical spine, very broad pelvis, thorax & sternum (Hominoidea=Latisternalia), tail loss etc.
> for wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead.

These huge changes in morphology are
all for "wading bipedally" and "climbing
arms overhead" . . ?

Baboons can wade. They are quite
happy in water (unlike apes). They can
swim from birth. It would not he hard
for them to go bipedal if they needed.

You have not begun to set out the
selective advantages.

> 2) India further under Eurasia = split great/lesser apes = W/E:

Crazy notion. Orangutans still occupy
the same regions as gibbons. So did
gigantopithecus. Great and lesser apes
are very different. Evolution is not
geography.

You have not begun to set out the
selective advantages that produced
either the greater or the lesser.

> great apes colonized W-Tethys coastal forests.

Apart from orangutans and
gigantopithecus. Apes still can't
swim.

You have not begun to set out the
selective advantages

> 3) Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma = split hominids/pongids = W/E:

Crazy nonsense. Both taxa can readily
migrate. But can't swim.

You have not begun to set out the
selective advantages

> hominids colonized Med.Sea coastal forests.

Still can't swim.
You have not begun to set out the
selective advantages

> 4) Med.drying: only Red Sea hominids survived.

Just getting tedious. You're going
through geological history (I'm not
bothering to check any of it) inventing
'excuses' for various splits. It's not
evolution. Those taxa weren't snails.
They could travel great distances if
they wanted.

What NICHES did these taxa occupy?
How did their anatomy change to fit
them?

"Selection" and "niche" are words foreign
to your thinking. That's pretty much the
norm for modern PA, but it guarantees
hopelessly bad 'science'.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 3:01:43 PMJul 28
to
Op donderdag 28 juli 2022 om 20:02:49 UTC+2 schreef yelw...@gmail.com:


> > 1) India approaching Eurasia: fm of island archipels, full of coastal forests:
> > India had slammed into Eurasia

> Himalayas began 47 Ma.
> https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/scientists_date_birth_of_himalayas_from_newly_discovered_microplate

Yes, perfect.

> > cercopithecoid/hominoid split:
> > catarrhines reaching these became vertical waders-climbers: Hominoidea:
> > larger size, vertical spine, very broad pelvis, thorax & sternum (Hominoidea=Latisternalia), tail loss etc.
> > for wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead.

> These huge changes in morphology are
> all for "wading bipedally" and "climbing
> arms overhead" . . ?

Obvious. Read Schultz.

> Baboons can wade.

I can climb.
You're a prejudiced waste of time, no doubt a kudu runner.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,
Jul 28, 2022, 7:09:53 PMJul 28
to
On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 11:13:15 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.
> My little little boy (please try to grow up), I can climb a tree, yet I'm no ape.

You are, and you have the standard hominoid breadth due to slow brachiating ancestors. All habitual upright waders lack this breadth except humans, indicating that upright wading is irrelevant to breadth.

> > Gibbon ancestors brachiation changed their skeletal breadth.
> I'm not interested in your confabulations.

Nor in reality.

Tropical rainforest antelope: royal antelope, hare sized https://www.britannica.com/animal/royal-antelope
Congo Bongo, but no kudu, no saiga.

littor...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 29, 2022, 11:50:54 AMJul 29
to
Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 om 01:09:53 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:


> > > Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.

> > My little little boy (please try to grow up), I can climb a tree, yet I'm no ape.

> You are, and you have the standard hominoid breadth due to slow brachiating ancestors.

Yes, my little boy, not unlikely:
that's what we're saying for ages:
google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".

Are you *really* too stupid to understand the word "aquarboreal"???
-aqua =wading bipedally,
-arbor = climbing arms overhead
(this is not "brachiation", of course, but simply climbing arms overhead:
brachiating = derived: fast hylobatids).

Google illustrations:
-gorilla bai,
-bonobo waterlilies.



DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

unread,
Jul 30, 2022, 12:15:03 AMJul 30
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages