Human & ape evolution

[marc verhaegen]

4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.

Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.

Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 13:58:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> 3) were savanna-dwellers???

That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

> 4) had australopithecine ancestors??

And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.

> These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>

Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
geocentrists and deep one worshipers.

> Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.

> 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,

Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
capability to climb?

> 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> But
> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
that crow did dive.

> 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
>
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
>
> Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
> c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
> c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
> c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
> c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
> c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
> c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
> – Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
> – Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
> mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
>
> Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
> but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most
animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find
seashells in swamp. Good luck.

The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> marc verhaegen wrote:
> > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> That is not that popular hypothesis.

Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...

> You typically use it as straw man.

It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.

> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?

You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.

The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
bipedalism was most useful.

There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."

> > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

> Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> more than hundred years ago.

Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.

Is it a straw man or are you insane?

> > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

> Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> trap or ambush.

Lol!

"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"

> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

> Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.

Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.

I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.

> Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid

Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:

Coastal dispersal.

And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.

So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...

It fits.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
>
> > That is not that popular hypothesis.
>
> Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
>

Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.

> > You typically use it as straw man.
>
> It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> and idiotic.
>

It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.

> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
>
> Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
>
> You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
>
> The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> bipedalism was most useful.
>
> There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> a number of environments is "Popular."
>

Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
by evidence.

> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago.
> Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
>
> Is it a straw man or are you insane?
>

What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.

> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
>
> > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush.
> Lol!
>
> "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
>

Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
not read books?

> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
>
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
>
> I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
>
> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
>

So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
that forest inhibits brain development.
>
> Coastal dispersal.
>
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.

> And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> using terrestrial ALA.
>
> So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
>
> It fits.
>

It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
IMO
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,
2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr.apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,
3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),
4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

_____

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 14:53:18 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
>
> Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
> IMO
>

Hard to do it you outright spam your nonsense. And what you write are
just "IMO"... barely even worth to call hypothesis.

> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
Name the findings, genes what have you. Note that it takes quite a stretch to
conclude "bipedal" from few teeth or skull fragments.

> 2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr.apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,

That "showed" should read "expressed opinion". And most of your
opinion is based on none of evidence just on your discarding
contradicting evidence of others without much ground.

> 3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),

Again Miocene? Where are the fossils, tools whatever of Miocene?
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin (late Miocene) were in Africa.

> 4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>

What means "never"? Tens of millions of people of Africa live in savanna
right now. It is just your favorite straw-man that ape in savanna should
imagine being cheetah and to chase antelopes and gazelles around there.
I did no misrepresentations whatsoever.

[marc verhaegen]

...

> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

troll:

> Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?

Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??

It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
innovations:
- Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
- centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
- reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
- broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
- tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
(cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> savanna to chase antelopes?

Why? Are you a child? You were never exposed to such an idea?

I'm calling you a liar. I'm denouncing you as a lying troll.

I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
You're a raging narcissist.

Fuck off.

> > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > and idiotic.

> It is Marcs favorite straw man.

No. It's idiocy that he argues against.

> > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > bipedalism was most useful.
> >
> > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > a number of environments is "Popular."

> Yes

"Environments" is plural.... more than one environment.

> What? I do read scientific articles

I doubt that. And you can't read usenet posts for comprehension, there's
no point is pretending you read & understand scientific papers.

> So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?

No. None. They contain radioactive isotopes that destroy DHA.

If you want to make a case for your terrestrial DHA,. make it. STOP
asking me or anyone else to make it for you.

> > Coastal dispersal.

> Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> lot better and safer.

So they were dead on the coast. "Coastal Dispersal," is in your mind
when dead ancestors walked everywhere from Sundaland to South
Africa, and every point in between... dead.

And certainly not eating!

I mean, how can dead ancestors eat?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 18:52:28 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> ...
> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,
> troll:
> > Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
> Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
> Why do you need fossils????
> Never heard of comparative anatomy??
> When do you think lesser & great apes split??
>

We obviously need fossils for to see where and how the animals did live and
if they had such properties and activities like you describe. Didn't you notice
that you reject out of Africa? So need location of fossils. Didn't you notice that
you mentioned bipedal? So need at least some body bones. etc. Otherwise all
your stories are groundless fiction. Didn't you notice that you post to
sci.bio.paleontology? Paleontology is not about fiction, it deals with fossils.
For fiction there are other groups.

> It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
> Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
> innovations:
> - Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
> - centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
> - reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
> - broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
> - tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
> AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
> (cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy". With what
"aquarboereal" animals you compare? List them. AFAIK it is terminology
invented by you and meaning whatever you want to mean. Hmm ...
sea lions? Those do not climb trees. Some fat people indeed look like
caricature of sea lion ... but also do not climb trees and if to throw them
into water then also swim like pile of excrement. Those people are
product of handful of last decades, not Miocene.

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 07:00:49 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> > savanna to chase antelopes?
> Why? Are you a child? You were never exposed to such an idea?
>
> I'm calling you a liar. I'm denouncing you as a lying troll.
>

Yes, I had read of that idiotic idea only from trolls like JTEM
and Marc. And indeed if then to search I found that some bearded
guys lot of decades ago had such "hypothesis". So show me the textbooks.
Oh? You cant? Huge surprise. And you need that garbage only to
push similarly idiotic and ungrounded deep diving ape hypothesis.

> I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
> You're a raging narcissist.
>
> Fuck off.
>

Why you demonstrate of being immature and obscene?
We all know it. No need to underline that after each sentence.

> > > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > > and idiotic.
>
> > It is Marcs favorite straw man.
>
> No. It's idiocy that he argues against.
>

Idiocy he himself has dug out. It is called straw man argument and
false dichotomy. Did not chase gazelles therefore did deep dive.
How does that follow? So does not follow and so has been pointlessly
brought up.

> > > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > > bipedalism was most useful.
> > >
> > > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > > a number of environments is "Popular."
>
> > Yes
> "Environments" is plural.... more than one environment.

How does it matter? Ape is not nailed to ground like a tree. I am in
urban region of city with about half millon people. It is 15 minutes
walk to nearest coast and hour walk to nearest forest. Totally
different environments.

> > What? I do read scientific articles
>
> I doubt that. And you can't read usenet posts for comprehension, there's
> no point is pretending you read & understand scientific papers.
>

Do not mirror, I'm not you.

> > So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?
> No. None. They contain radioactive isotopes that destroy DHA.
>
> If you want to make a case for your terrestrial DHA,. make it. STOP
> asking me or anyone else to make it for you.
>

If you write that Elvis is alive or that DHA rich foods do not contain
it then what I can say. Just take your meds.

> > > Coastal dispersal.
>
> > Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> > of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> > lot better and safer.
>
> So they were dead on the coast. "Coastal Dispersal," is in your mind
> when dead ancestors walked everywhere from Sundaland to South
> Africa, and every point in between... dead.
>
> And certainly not eating!
>
> I mean, how can dead ancestors eat?
>

Yes take your meds. You are talking to yourself and arguing about
some kind of nonsense that was not said out with yourself.

[marc verhaegen]

> > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

troll:
> > > Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?

> > Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
> > Why do you need fossils????
> > Never heard of comparative anatomy??
> > When do you think lesser & great apes split??

troll:
> We obviously need fossils

Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??

> > It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
> > Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
> > innovations:
> > - Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
> > - centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
> > - reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
> > - broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
> > - tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
> > AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
> > (cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".

Yes, it's obvious you don't see it. :-DDD

[oot...@hot.ee]

Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

[erik simpson]

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:35:58 AM UTC-7, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
> If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

<snip rubbish>

They're here because Peter invited them. Marc is a crank of long standing, originally
deriving from the "aquatic ape" cult. He's inherited much of the cult, and added a few
other cranks and frolls, such as JTEM. Unfortunatly they'll probably be here indefinitely.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/17/23 3:58 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
> But
> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).

1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

2. (Anticipating the answer to 1...) Why not?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Popping Mad]

On 4/27/23 06:35, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? J

if you would STOP answering them, my filters would work better,

[JTEM]

erik simpson wrote:

> They're

Right. You're a totally "Normal" and "Different" person who
never heard of the idea of bipedalism evolving on the
savanna... sure... that's the ticket.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[JTEM]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

Here you go:

https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html

https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature

Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
what to think.

And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
can not control is always apparent.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 20:18:23 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?
> Here you go:

> the

> https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html
>
> https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature
>

These links demonstrate that disinformation and bullshit in
those journals is filtered so well that event of garbage passing
the filters is worth talking about. In our world where nothing
works 100% it is indication of remarkable quality.

> Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
> or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
> what to think.
>

You talk to mirror there. He asked cites of articles.

> And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
> the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
> compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
> can not control is always apparent.
>

Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
arguments.

[marc verhaegen]

troll:

> Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
> arguments.

"actual arguments"??? :-DDD

[oot...@hot.ee]

I explained that we need fossils for to know location, properties
and genes of your "hypothetical" "aquarboereal" deep ones. Also
I explained that we need something to compare with to claim
"comparative anatomy" of your animals. If life style of those is
however unique and never heard of and we see no fossils then
it must be obvious to yourself that you are talking about fantasy
monsters.
Perhaps that is why you snip and run with insults? It is obvious
to yourself?

[marc verhaegen]

troll:
> > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.

> > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

troll:
> I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...

No, troll, we don't:
never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 21:44:07 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:
> > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
>
> > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD
> troll:
> > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
>

> No, troll, we don't.

Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
without any fossil.

> never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?

Whose physiology? Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Dobhar-chú? Existence
of your animal has no evidence.

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> These links demonstrate

Your demand for cites, as if you ever read much less understand any,
was obfuscation. You were trying to BLOCK an exchange of ideas,
put one down. You are still attempting to do this.

THE SAME with you pretending that the savanna hypothesis on the
origins of bipedalism & modern man is something that nobody ever
put forward much less was taught...

It's all your severe personality disorder at work.

Pretending bipedalism arose on a savanna is idiocy. Pretending
bipedalism arose in trees is idiocy. Pretending that there's the
slightest truth to Out of Africa purity is idiocy.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
> without any fossil.

Why? Are you pretending that you're not supporting Out of Africa
and an African LCA in that date range -- ALL WITHOUT FOSSILS?

You're PROVING that you're mentally ill here -- DEMANDING "Cites"
to establish what YOU are claiming!







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

> > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.

It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.

> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

Of course: google "aquarboreal"!

> > 4) had australopithecine ancestors??

> And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.

Yes, of course:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

> Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
> people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
> geocentrists and deep one worshipers.

Worshipers?

> > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

> Where you concluded that we left forests?

I??
Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.

> Why? Forest is full
> of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
> forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.

??
Lots of trees in my garden...

> > 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> > 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,

> Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
> capability to climb?

I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.

> > 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> > But
> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

> Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
> where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
> that crow did dive.

You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.

> > 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> > 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> > 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> > Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
> > Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
> > c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
> > c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
> > c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
> > c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
> > c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
> > c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
> > – Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
> > – Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
> > mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
> > Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
> > but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

> Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
> these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
> into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most
> animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find
> seashells in swamp. Good luck.

You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.

aqua=water, arbor=tree

> The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
> divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.

?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??
?? *deep*divers??

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:44:07 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:

I'm ashamed of you, Marc, calling a Mr. Tiib a "troll" in a post where
he is acting in a perfectly reasonable fashion.

He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
all too typical of JTEM:

> > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
>
> > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

Your loyalty to JTEM is badly misplaced here.

> troll:
> > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
>
> No, troll, we don't:

Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
of the environment of Asia and Africa explaining
how the comparative anatomy of animals millions of years
in the future is foreshadowed by differences in the paleoenvironment
of those huge continents. Or ten million years in the future, where DNA is concerned.

> never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Is this your idea of a joke? Can you tell me where in this oft-regurgitated article of yours
any relevance is explained of these things to the Africa v. Asia dispute?

ANYWHERE AT ALL?

Before you answer, take a look at the following excerpt from the article you linked:

"The most intense phase would have occurred later, probably in the early to middle Pleistocene (1.8 to 0.126 Ma), according to Marc Verhaegen. Therefore, Waterside Hypothesis is a more appropriate name."

This seems to badly undermine your assertion.


When I first saw you here in s.b.p. in March, I was very glad, because there had been
little activity here at the time you joined, and my scanty memories from
s.a.p. of you over the years had been favorable. But now I am coming
to think that you are making s.b.p. a worse place than before, and
it would be better for everyone if you confined yourself to sci.anthropology.paleo
for the rest of 2023.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
> of

This is a discussion group, not a book club. And neither is it a
classroom where you're a student.

People express ideas. If you are interested and not a mangled
sock puppet acting out his disorder,. Google it. If and only if
you can't find the information, ask for help.

REMEMBER: You're pretending to be an academic. Research
is supposed to come second nature... to the character you're
playing.

Supposed to.

But clearly it does not.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716847865999360000

[Peter Nyikos]

JTEM shows below just how appropriate it was for Öö Tiib to post
the following statement about him:

"Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments."

When Marc quoted this, he hid the fact that Tiib was saying
this to his faithful shill JTEM, and I let people know this, and how true it was:

"He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
all too typical of JTEM"

As if on cue, JTEM shows how very typical it is below.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
> > of

That is everything that you, JTEM, left in from the post where all of
the above was documented.

> This is a discussion group,

Then why are you so unwilling to discuss anything we talk about?
Why do you leave in meaningless sentence fragments and then
go into monologues that do not address the points that the person made?

> not a book club.

The main studies that were necessary for Marc to be able to cite
are far more likely to be found in scholarly journals than in books.
Had you left in the rest of my sentence, this would have been
clear to anyone who knows how science is disseminated.

> And neither is it a
> classroom where you're a student.
>
> People express ideas.

> If you are interested

I am interested in seeing true support by Marc for his innumerable
hypotheses, instead of FALSELY alleging that support is to be found in the article,
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
which is what he did this time. You snipped it, because you can't face the truth about Marc.

Support for other claims consists of telling us to google other articles that Marc is too cowardly to post information from,
lest it be found out that his support is laughably inadequate.

>and not a mangled
> sock puppet acting out his disorder,. Google it.

See above. Our time is too precious for us to go looking in
huge haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.
We need assurance that Marc is not bluffing about the things he tells us to google.
He's cried "Wolf!" too many times with that waterside article.


Peter Nyikos

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> "Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping

You never had any balls to snip, and you should trim replies,
quote only what you are reacting you, idiot.

> That is everything that

Shut up.

> Then why are you so unwilling to discuss anything we talk about?

I'm pretty sure that, if you try, even you might find a contradiction
there.

> The main studies that were necessary for Marc to be able to cite
> are

it's not necessary for him to cite anything. This is a discussion group,
and you have never once shown any willingness much less abilty
to read cites for comprehension. You generally cower behind sock
puppets, posting random cites that you never read past a title or
headline, rarely ever pertaining to the topic under discussion and
NEVER supporting your position.

> I am interested in seeing true

No you're not. Again, this is a discussion group.

Admit it: Back before usenet died you made up a lot of stupid
things, probably being so deranged you had no idea you were
making it all up, and were shut down by demands for cites. Of
course, you being an idiot, you misread all this to mean that a
demand for cites is a powerful weapon that shuts down people,
instead of an indication that you aren't fooling anyone.

Try to deconstruct arguments, figure out WHAT precisely you
feel you need to dispute, and why. State those things as
clearly as your mental state will allow.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716884097016971264

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 9 mei 2023 om 03:11:45 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:44:07 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > troll:

> I'm ashamed of you, Marc, calling a Mr. Tiib a "troll"

I have no idea who this "Tiib" is, Peter, but everybody who believes his Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas is a *ridiculous* troll: we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:
- "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
- "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are?? (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)
Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene), not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.

How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!?
We'll (should) know that the Homo-Pan LCA c 5 Ma lived in swamp forests (google "aquarboreal"), frequently wading bipedally & climbing vertically (arms overhead) in the branches above the water, most likely in coastal forests along the Gulf of Aden, google "WHATtalk verhaegen"):
- Pan followed the E.Afr.coasts, e.g. Au.africanus->robustus->naledi etc. (google "naledi verhaegen"),
- Pliocene Homo followed the S.Asian coasts, e.g. H.erectus early-Pleistocene, see my book, google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen".

______

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 9 mei 2023 om 03:11:45 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:44:07 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > troll:
>
> > I'm ashamed of you, Marc, calling a Mr. Tiib a "troll"

> I have no idea who this "Tiib" is, Peter,

He is Öö Tiib, and if you had read further than where you ended your post, you would
recognize him as the main person you and JTEM have been arguing with on this thread.

> but everybody who believes his Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas is a *ridiculous* troll:

Öö Tiib is an Estonian, and he grew up under a Communist system, where he never heard
of this "antelope" hypothesis. Your shill JTEM refused to believe that Tiib had never seen
that hypothesis supported in any scientific paper, but both of you refused to provide him
with a reference to such a paper.

Tiib NEVER showed any sign of sympathy towards the "antelope" hypothesis,
yet you call him a troll.

WHY??

> we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:

Aren't lots of African monkeys free from the viral genes?
IIRC baboons do carry them. Am I remembering wrong?

> - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments
with JTEM so far, and that JTEM has not provided him with references.
Instead he has just stated conclusions.

I will remedy that problem today, by showing John these references.

> Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
> fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD

You speak of comparative anatomy and DNA and physiology in reply to Tiib
(see below where you stopped responding to me)
but this is the basis for their conclusion that these are human ancestors.

Have you ever tried to show that these comparative analyses are flawed?

> Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are??

They can't unless you refute their comparative analyses.

> (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)

They call australopiths human ancestors, and "ape" is an informal term
covering all tailless monkeys including a macaque called the Barbary ape.
It is a polyphylectic assemblage, and even non-cladists have nothing to do with polyphyletic taxa.

> Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene),

This ignores the possibility that human ancestors and gibbon ancestors
developed BP independently after their ancestors split from their LCA.
This would make BP polyphyletic within Hominoidea.

> not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.

> How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!?

Mr. Tiib has not encountered any of them, and I have never seen a
scientific treatise alleging these activities. The last time I have seen anything
like this in popular science books and articles was over three decades ago.

> We'll (should) know that the Homo-Pan LCA c 5 Ma lived in swamp forests (google "aquarboreal"), frequently wading bipedally & climbing vertically (arms overhead) in the branches above the water, most likely in coastal forests along the Gulf of Aden, google "WHATtalk verhaegen"):
> - Pan followed the E.Afr.coasts, e.g. Au.africanus->robustus->naledi etc. (google "naledi verhaegen"),
> - Pliocene Homo followed the S.Asian coasts, e.g. H.erectus early-Pleistocene, see my book, google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen".

We've been over this before. Now kindly start addressing the things you
are ignoring below.

> ______
> in a post where
> > he is acting in a perfectly reasonable fashion.

Do you deny this?

> > He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
> > all too typical of JTEM:

Do you deny this? You obscured the fact that he was describing
JTEM and let casual readers think that he was describing you.
I had to scroll way back to the post where the following was written
to see who Mr. Tiib was referring to.

> > > > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
> > >
> > > > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

> > Your loyalty to JTEM is badly misplaced here.

> > > troll:
> > > > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
> > >
> > > No, troll, we don't:

Then SHOW IT by finding scientific articles that begin to do what I said:

> > Yes, Marc, we do, until you [cite] a tremendous array of studies

> > of the environment of Asia and Africa explaining
> > how the comparative anatomy of animals millions of years
> > in the future is foreshadowed by differences in the paleoenvironment
> > of those huge continents. Or ten million years in the future, where DNA is concerned.

That's about where the human - African ape split took place, by your hypothesis, isn't it?

>

> > > never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> > Is this your idea of a joke? Can you tell me where in this oft-regurgitated article of yours
> > any relevance is explained of these things to the Africa v. Asia dispute?
> >
> > ANYWHERE AT ALL?
> >
> > Before you answer, take a look at the following excerpt from the article you linked:
> >
> > "The most intense phase would have occurred later, probably in the early to middle Pleistocene (1.8 to 0.126 Ma), according to Marc Verhaegen. Therefore, Waterside Hypothesis is a more appropriate name."
> >
> > This seems to badly undermine your assertion.

And now came the conclusion:

> > When I first saw you here in s.b.p. in March, I was very glad, because there had been
> > little activity here at the time you joined, and my scanty memories from
> > s.a.p. of you over the years had been favorable. But now I am coming
> > to think that you are making s.b.p. a worse place than before, and
> > it would be better for everyone if you confined yourself to sci.anthropology.paleo
> > for the rest of 2023.

That applies even more to JTEM. I am boycotting him on this thread
until one or both of you deals with the majority of points I raise above.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Öö Tiib is an Estonian, and he grew up under a Communist system, where he never heard
> of this "antelope" hypothesis.

So a know-nothing that was raised to believe evolution was a western,
capitalist, colonialist ruse used to justify the exploitation of people
along class & racial lines.

Big whoop.

> You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments

Well then. Switch sock puppets & touch it! What are you waiting for?

> Have you ever

You're wetting your pants, screaming about how other people aren't making an
argument for you.

This is a discussion group. Discuss.

Quit your whining and discuss.

BETTER YET: Detail your counter proposal.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716884097016971264

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 14:50:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:

> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
>

From the cited by you article ...

"First, there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon, making it unlikely that endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and then became subsequently deleted in the human lineage and orangutan lineage. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor."

... and ...

"Using neutral estimates of primate LTR divergence [8], we estimate that a contemporaneous infection occurred in these ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee lineages 3–4 million years ago (see Materials and Methods). LTR divergence among baboon and macaque was significantly less (0.051% and 0.058%, respectively; p < 0.007, one-tailed t test), corresponding to a much more recent origin (approximately 1.5 million years ago)."

What you talk about is therefore retrovirus that infected those apes separately
and anyway after human ancestors had already split/stopped hybridising with
ancestors of those apes. Why are the viruses relevant?

> Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
> fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are?? (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)

The cited article mentions australopiths in precisely zero places so it is unclear from
where you even took them in. By other publications australopiths appeared 4.2 mya
well before of those retroviruses entered genomes of said apes. If australopiths did
not make 3.3 mya stone tools in Kenya or 2.6 mya in Ethiopia then someone anyway
did. Those places are in Africa and those tools weren't likely made by chimpanzee or
gorilla. Instead you are discussing 2.2 mya or younger stuff from time when tools are
all over the place:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
Particularly you cherry-pick Java with findings 1.8 mya old. Why?

> Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene), not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.
>
> How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!?

And again your straw-man without source. What is the source of that antelope chasing
garbage? You never tell. Yet your whole "aquarboreal" theory is built on false dichotomy
between those unknown "cheetah men" and your unknown "deep ones". Without cites in
scientific publications so both are most likely wrong.

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 19:44:31 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Öö Tiib is an Estonian, and he grew up under a Communist system, where he never heard
> > of this "antelope" hypothesis.
> So a know-nothing that was raised to believe evolution was a western,
> capitalist, colonialist ruse used to justify the exploitation of people
> along class & racial lines.
>
> Big whoop.

You are still incapable of giving cites to your textbooks claiming
that "antelope" hypothesis. Nothing to talk of scientific papers. Perhaps these do not
exist outside of straw-man arguments of yours.

> > You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments
> Well then. Switch sock puppets & touch it! What are you waiting for?
>
> > Have you ever
>
> You're wetting your pants, screaming about how other people aren't making an
> argument for you.
>

Don't mirror, don't scream here pointlessly, and if your pants are wet, exchange
your pants, then discuss. John Harshman and Peter Nyikos are sock puppets
of each other? Yet one is actual doctor of evolutionary biology and other is
actual mathematics professor. Or are you accusing them of identity theft?
That is crime in lot of jurisdictions.

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> You are still incapable of giving cites to your textbooks claiming
> that "antelope" hypothesis. Nothing

I haven't offered any cites establishing that the sun rises in the east
and sets in the west.

Of course I haven't.

savanna idiocy, "Endurance running" was spoon fed to the public for
decades.

Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.

You're pretending to agree with him. Right now. Here. In this thread.
You have REPEATEDLY "argued" that you agree with him, that the
savanna idiocy is idiocy.

AND you are pretending to not be a massively disordered narcissist
trying to obfuscate...

Don't have a nice day.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 20:28:26 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > You are still incapable of giving cites to your textbooks claiming
> > that "antelope" hypothesis. Nothing
> I haven't offered any cites establishing that the sun rises in the east
> and sets in the west.
>
> Of course I haven't.
>
> savanna idiocy, "Endurance running" was spoon fed to the public for
> decades.
>

I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis>
Where are links to textbooks and decades of spoon-feeding?
Nowhere. Whole article seems as skeptical as I am. So you
can't provide what does not exist. How is it sun raising from east?

> Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
>

Misrepresentation. I am saying that he brings up that clearly
unpopular hypothesis as false dichotomy of his even worse
"swamp ape" hypothesis.

> You're pretending to agree with him. Right now. Here. In this thread.
> You have REPEATEDLY "argued" that you agree with him, that the
> savanna idiocy is idiocy.
>

Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.
Our ancestors were supposed to be clever animals. So if our ancestors
actually hunted some grazers or browsers (where is evidence?) then
probably by trapping or ambushing, not by chasing like idiots. Only thing
that feels even more dumb idea is diving into some tropical swamp
(why? where is evidence of that?). And no one can imagine why you think
that those were the only two choices available for upright walking ape.
Can you explain?

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:

Wiki isn't a cite. It's controlled by nimrods, including a number of
usenet trolls.

> > Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> > literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> > Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.

> Misrepresentation.

No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
saying that it's idiocy.

> Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.

Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
proposal.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

[John Harshman]

On 5/10/23 8:48 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:
>
> Aren't lots of African monkeys free from the viral genes?
> IIRC baboons do carry them. Am I remembering wrong?


>> - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
>> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
>
>
> You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments
> with JTEM so far, and that JTEM has not provided him with references.
> Instead he has just stated conclusions.
>
> I will remedy that problem today, by showing John these references.

No need. I see them. I can see only the abstracts, though. The obvious
question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion. There's no
particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
exact same set of infections. In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions while humans did
not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia unless one
shows that such infections had a very high probability of happening to
any primate living in Africa. What we have there is only two data points
out of three examined. How likely would that be if all three had been
African? Nobody considers the question.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> The obvious
> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.

Not really.

Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.

> There's no
> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
> exact same set of infections.

It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.

> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions while humans did
> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia

That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.

Evidence is evidence. Period.

Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.

There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.

Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
are, and we can and do exchange viruses...

> unless one
> shows

It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
evidence and there is no counter evidence.

It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."

This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

[John Harshman]

On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> The obvious
>> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
>> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
>
> Not really.
>
> Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.

That's in no way obvious. I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
you won't whether I ask or not.

>> There's no
>> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
>> exact same set of infections.
>
> It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
> which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
> rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.

Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
that don't?

>> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
>> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions while humans did
>> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
>
> That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
>
> Evidence is evidence. Period.

Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.

> Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
> have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
> years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.

That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning. Note
that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently, so
the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.

> There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
> vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
>
> Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
> are, and we can and do exchange viruses...

We do, sometimes. But not every time.

>> unless one
>> shows
>
> It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
> to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
> quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
> that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
> evidence and there is no counter evidence.

It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
failing to have the virus. You could support that by showing that all
African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as
relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.

It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't
do much to differentiate them.

> It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."
>
> This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.

It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to
improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to
find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.

Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided
to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> > Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.

> That's in no way obvious.

That is a lie.

> Is there one specific species only?

That gave rise to humans? In this context, yes. absolutely.

> > That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
> >
> > Evidence is evidence. Period.

> Not true.

No. You're lying. We have evidence for an Asian origins of Homo:

The retrovirus evidence.

It exists. It's real. You have no counter.

> Evidence can have many degrees of quality.

You have nothing to counter it. Nothing.

> > Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
> > have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
> > years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.

> That's an assertion without supporting evidence

No it's not. It's the furthest thing from unsupported. The retrovirus
event is currently placed back 3 to 4 million years ago. So erase the
last 3 to 4 million years of divergence. We were THAT much closer to
Chimps back then.

> Note
> that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently, so
> the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.

Chimps and humans are closer than are Chimps and Gorillas.

Again, this is NOT a "Six of one, half dozen of the other" situation.

> > It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
> > to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
> > quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
> > that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
> > evidence and there is no counter evidence.

> It's extremely weak evidence.

"Extremely weak" is a pathetic attempt at you to attach a value to the
evidence. It's SUBJECTIVE. What is objectively true, on the other hand,
is that it is evidence.

> It would be strong evidence only if we

It's strong evidence with no counter.

> It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
> hypotheses that need to be differentiated.

We have supporting evidence for Out of Asia in the retrovirus.

> > This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.

> It's evidence, true.

It's objectively true. Your value judgments are not.

You have no counter.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 01:53:28 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:
> Wiki isn't a cite. It's controlled by nimrods, including a number of
> usenet trolls.

Wiki is source of reliable references to actual scientific literature
not troll spam to his own name and own-invented terminology
of marc.

> > > Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> > > literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> > > Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
>
> > Misrepresentation.
>
> No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
> in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
> saying that it's idiocy.
>

Misrepresentation. I'm arguing that majority of people, (me included) being
very sceptical about the savanna hypothesis does not make that swamp
ape hypothesis anyhow better. It is anyway even worse. But marc verhaegen
discusses nothing else but solely bashes that unpopular savanna hypothesis.
This clear false dichotomy is therefore his main "evidence".

> > Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.
> Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
> proposal.
>

What is the point? You anyway snip it, misrepresent and run away with
insults. You do not discuss.
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings. Apes have learned to
also use inanimate objects as weapons. Most animals and apes ignored a tool
or weapon after what they planned to do with it was done. Some apes learned
to improve those tools and weapons. So these had lasting value and were worth
to carry with starting around 3.5 mya. But that is inconvenient to when walking
on four feet or climbing from tree to tree. So 3.5 - 2.2 mya that was the most
likely pressure for walking on two feet and to climb tree only when needed. Marc
talks about h.erectus on Java 1.8 mya while by that time all evidence
shows that tool and weapon-using (and possibly also making clothes and controlling
fire) pack animals had already spread all over the place.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
But marc does not discuss that picture nor provide any evidence about his
aquatic apes ... instead runs away with insults, misrepresentation and denial
like JTEM.

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 14:40:13 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
As example of non-discussion.

> Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
>
> > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
>
> It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.
>

What is PA? One can improve obfuscation of TLA about 40 times by
"improving" it to "two letter abbreviation".
I do not see (despite searching) and you do not provide any evidence of
savanna hypothesis popularity. The lot simpler reasons of bipedality
is improved tool/weapon/armor carrying and usage convenience ... but
from obvious arguments you snip and run away.

> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> Of course: google "aquarboreal"!
>

That is self-referencing spam. Go dive into some tropic swamp then tell
us if it was good idea on case you manage to survive.

> > > 4) had australopithecine ancestors??
>
> > And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.
> Yes, of course:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>

There is point to wade only when carrying something. Otherwise swimming
is lot more energy efficient. But same is about bipedal movement in any
environment. Our ancestors possibly did wade as occasionally as humans
do now.

> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
> > people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
> > geocentrists and deep one worshipers.
>
> Worshipers?
>

Zero links to proof of popularity of savanna hypothesis. That is your
false dichotomy straw man argument. But limitless number of kooks can
be wrong about same thing, each in its own way and so there are no
such dichotomy.

> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
>
> > Where you concluded that we left forests?
>
> I??
> Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.
>

Still no idea what is your PA, and still no evidence besides some
kind of hostile stance towards that PA. Whatever PA can not add
any evidence that you do not have to you. Something happened,
rest of limitless possibilities did not. What happened happened
anyway in past and past is outside of sphere of influence of kooks.

> > Why? Forest is full
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
> > forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.
> ??
> Lots of trees in my garden...
>

Attempt to dodge with joke ... agriculture is likely only about 30K years
old so references to it are irrelevant. Benefit of forest for hunter and
gatherer however was left undiscussed.

> > > 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> > > 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
>
> > Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
> > capability to climb?
>
> I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.
>

So you have no idea about that PA but still claim it. What is the point?

> > > 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> > > But
> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
>
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
> > where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
> > that crow did dive.
>
> You're still confusing
> - Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
> - early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.
>

Genetic evidence shows that we are farther from orangutans and
gibbons than from African apes. There are no fossils or tool findings of
your early Pliocene aquatic ape in Asia. There are enough fossils
and tool findings of non-aquatic ape in Africa from that time. By late
Pliocene however our tool using ancestors were all over the place.
So everybody conclude that these came out of Africa and spread
during late Pliocene. You never discuss that. What have few seashells
from early Pleistocene Java to do with any of it? Untold explanation
of yours. I repeat, even crow can find seashells there.

Lot of animals can swim noticeable distances when needed and that does
not make them aquatic enough to be worth mentioning. We find lot of
h.erectus tools in non-coastal locations. Who carried those there and
why? So tell us story of your version of Pliocene that fits with evidence.
Do not run away with insults.

> > The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
> > divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.
>
> ?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??
> ?? *deep*divers??
>

I do not know who is sponsoring that savanna hypothesis. You never identify
them. You only use it as false dichotomy with your swamp ape.

[John Harshman]

I see you're back to snipping out relevant text and hurling feces. Well,
it was encouraging while it lasted.

[Peter Nyikos]

You did so well against Marc here that he has been letting JTEM do all the talking since you posted this.
I told Marc that I am boycotting JTEM until one or both of them deals with a majority of the points
I make in my last reply to him.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:46:49 PM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 14:50:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
>
> > - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
> >
> From the cited by you article ...
>
> "First, there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon, making it unlikely that endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and then became subsequently deleted in the human lineage and orangutan lineage. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor."

Yes, I think horizontal transmission is far more common in mammals than most
phylogenetic theorists think it is. Retroviruses aren't the only culprits; bornaviruses are
also suspected of inserting their genes in the genomes of many animals, including us and
some birds.

> ... and ...
>
> "Using neutral estimates of primate LTR divergence [8], we estimate that a contemporaneous infection occurred in these ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee lineages 3–4 million years ago (see Materials and Methods). LTR divergence among baboon and macaque was significantly less (0.051% and 0.058%, respectively; p < 0.007, one-tailed t test), corresponding to a much more recent origin (approximately 1.5 million years ago)."
>
> What you talk about is therefore retrovirus that infected those apes separately
> and anyway after human ancestors had already split/stopped hybridising with
> ancestors of those apes. Why are the viruses relevant?

> > Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
> > fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are?? (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)

I countered this argument in my own reply to this post of Marc's. Did you see it?

> The cited article mentions australopiths in precisely zero places so it is unclear from
> where you even took them in. By other publications australopiths appeared 4.2 mya
> well before of those retroviruses entered genomes of said apes. If australopiths did
> not make 3.3 mya stone tools in Kenya or 2.6 mya in Ethiopia then someone anyway
> did. Those places are in Africa and those tools weren't likely made by chimpanzee or
> gorilla. Instead you are discussing 2.2 mya or younger stuff from time when tools are
> all over the place:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
> Particularly you cherry-pick Java with findings 1.8 mya old. Why?

> > Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene), not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.

I didn't comment on this long sentence in my reply to Marc either, but it seems strange that he
is here talking about swamp forests when his big pitch for BP earlier had them
wading in coastal waters for shellfish. His "aquatic ape" hypothesis is a patchwork
of sub-hypotheses with no cohesive attempt to show what the relationship between them should be,
or how good the evidence for each separate one is.

> > How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!

> And again your straw-man without source. What is the source of that antelope chasing
> garbage? You never tell. Yet your whole "aquarboreal" theory is built on false dichotomy
> between those unknown "cheetah men" and your unknown "deep ones". Without cites in
> scientific publications so both are most likely wrong.

This was such a good post that even JTEM hasn't dared to answer it. Instead, both you and
Harshman have been led on a fruitless argument with JTEM about his cherry-picking
of a tiny bit of my reply to Marc. I suggest you follow my lead and insist that Marc
either start dealing with our arguments or return to sci.anthropology.paleo for the rest of 2023.

HIs presence in s.b.p. has become counterproductive, since it leads to so much
noise pollution by JTEM, with no real discussion any more from Marc.


Peter Nyikos

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Wiki is source of reliable references

No it's not. No half-decent high school teacher would accept Wiki
as a reference. It's simply NOT a reference.

> > No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
> > in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
> > saying that it's idiocy.

> Misrepresentation.

No. You have nothing to say here, no rebuttal, so instead you're being
an idiot and acting out.

The good doctor says the savanna thing is idiocy, you insist that he's
right, it's so idiotic that nobody believes in it, and that the good Doctor
is wrong.

> I'm arguing that majority of people

You never took a poll.

On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.

> > Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
> > proposal.

> What is the point?

You clearly want to disagree with the good Doctor so make a counter
proposal.

> Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.

No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717051628437585920

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> I see you're back to snipping

It's so awful of me to only quote your idiocy that I am
responding to... instead of all your idiocy.

You're a disordered cowered with no dick, no balls to
snip off.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717051628437585920

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> You

You were already pathetic enough before you decided to brown-nose
yourself...

"The evidence isn't evidence because even though Chimps are more
closely related to humans than Gorillas, and even though this all
happened when humans and Chimps were significantly closer, humans
were too distant from Chimps to catch the virus and you didn't prove
that they weren't."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717051628437585920

[marc verhaegen]

... Peter:

"it seems strange that he is here talking about swamp forests when his big pitch for BP earlier had them wading in coastal waters for shellfish."

?? Apparently you haven't even read my view!?
Please inform properly before talking.
Again, for the Xth time, schematically:
1) Most Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were *aquarboreal*(google!), dispersing mostly in coastal forests (Tethys Ocean -> Tethys Sea etc.) + everywhere side-branches inland, of course. Diet: mostly fruits etc.? shellfish (+-no brain enlargement!)??
2) Pliocene Homo followed the Ind.Ocean coastal forests e.g. Java early-Pleist. + frequent shallow-diving for mostly shellfish (H.erectus pachy-osteo-sclerosis, brain enlargement, island colonizations etc.), e.g. *shell engravings*: google "Joordens Munro"!

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 23:54:44 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
>

> On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.
>

You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.

> > > Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
> > > proposal.
>
> > What is the point?
> You clearly want to disagree with the good Doctor so make a counter
> proposal.
>
> > Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.
> No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.
>

What a odd dodge. Your ancestors were animals and so are you.
Some humans are like some other animals capable to make and to
use some tools and to build something, some other humans are
not ... anyway all are animals.

Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence. Meanwhile
plenty of evidence has been found about tool-using and bipedal woodland
apes and none about those aquatic apes. Those are still missing.

You can only run with insults as you have nothing else.

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.

> You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.

i don't provide support that the sun rises in the east and sets in the
west, either. "Madness," I know.

> > > Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.
> >
> > No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.

> What a odd dodge.

It's not a dodge, you blithering idiot. You simply lack a grasp of
rudimentary English.

> Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
> more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence.

Who cares? This isn't 50 years ago. The Out of Africa purity is nonsense.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717065307257176065

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:52:41 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen emerged from hiding just
long enough to post a few lines that avoid the main point of what he is responding to.

.

> ... Peter:
> "it seems strange that he is here talking about swamp forests when his big pitch for BP earlier had them wading in coastal waters for shellfish."

Marc, you are ignoring BP in the few lines you do write below.

> ?? Apparently you haven't even read my view!?

You have so many views on so many things, and they are so under-supported,
it's hard to keep track of them all.

In stunning contrast, you are fleeing headlong from innumerable holes Mr. Tiib and
I have poked in various other "views" of yours on this thread. Are you doing this out of admiration for the way
JTEM is running away from them and insulting people who try to make him discuss them like a responsible adult?

> Please inform properly before talking.

If I had, I would have poked holes in these views sooner, rather than here. See below.

> Again, for the Xth time, schematically:
> 1) Most Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were *aquarboreal*(google!),

Google you spouting more unevidenced information from which Afro-Asian fossils of human
ancestors (Sivapithecus isn't one, even by your standards) are completely missing by your standards?
[Your standards have reassigned all those hominin fossils to the ancestry of gorillas and chimps.]

As for Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus and other European apes, where is your evidence that they were aquarboreal?

> dispersing mostly in coastal forests (Tethys Ocean -> Tethys Sea etc.) + everywhere side-branches inland, of course.

No fossils, so your "of course" is empty bravado.

> Diet: mostly fruits etc.? shellfish (+-no brain enlargement!)??

Why the question marks? don't you believe your own hypotheses?

> 2) Pliocene Homo followed the Ind.Ocean coastal forests e.g. Java early-Pleist.

Java was near the end of the line. Where are your examples from elsewhere along the line?
Why would the super-eruption you and JTEM conveniently blame for their lack
bury the whole route but not the Java part, despite your "everywhere side-branches inland, of course".??

+ frequent shallow-diving for mostly shellfish (H.erectus pachy-osteo-sclerosis, brain enlargement, island colonizations etc.), e.g. *shell engravings*: google "Joordens Munro"!

Will I find photos of engravings if I do the googling? That aside...

How is it that you banish Homo naledi to the chimp and gorilla line, but not Homo erectus?
There is some speculation that *erectus* and *naledi* are in direct line of descent one with the other.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:52:09 PM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 23:54:44 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.
> >
> You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.

You are being too kind to him. He PRIDES himself on childish
talk about sun rising in the east, and on the way he thereby insults anyone
who wants some sign that he knows what he is talking about.

He's like a little child chanting "I know something you don't know! I know something you don't know!

Marc, on the other hand, is a coward who only shows his face at fleeting
intervals these last two days. I handily took care of his little foray
a few minutes ago

[For the record, I give the url:]
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/3S-5EpiWkmg/m/bOWE1WcJBQAJ

> > > > Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
> > > > proposal.
> >
> > > What is the point?

> > You clearly want to disagree with the good Doctor so make a counter
> > proposal.
> >
> > > Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.

> > No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.
> >
> What a odd dodge. Your ancestors were animals and so are you.
> Some humans are like some other animals capable to make and to
> use some tools and to build something, some other humans are
> not ... anyway all are animals.
>
> Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
> more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence. Meanwhile
> plenty of evidence has been found about tool-using and bipedal woodland
> apes and none about those aquatic apes. Those are still missing.
>
> You can only run with insults as you have nothing else.

As if on cue, JTEM did exactly that in reply.


Peter Nyikos

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> You have so many views on so many things, and they are so under-supported,

What are you pretending is the better supported model?

And I do mean "Model."

Aquatic Ape is a model that fits the evidence and makes predictions. What
you do have to offer that competes with it?

How and why were Homo in China more than 2 million years ago if our
ancestors were evolving on an African savanna?

How did we evolve such a need for DHA PRIOR to any genetic adaptation
that allows us to synthesize it as well as we do -- which isn't great -- when
your claimed environment is near devoid of the stuff?

Bipedalism predates the LCA by a strong margin. How did adapting to
the forest lead to evolving AWAY from bipedalism when you now claim
it is where & how bipedalism arose in the first place?

> JTEM is running away

You are a severely mentally ill troll. We're looking at numerous
personality disorders here, starting with D.I.D.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717065307257176065

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 12 mei 2023 om 04:03:47 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:

> Marc, on the other hand, is a coward

??? Unworthy!

> who only shows his face at fleeting
> intervals these last two days. I handily took care of his little foray
> a few minutes ago

I have other things to do than talking with uninformed persons.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

> On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 13:58:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:

> > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.

> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

of course:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 08:24:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:

> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > marc verhaegen wrote:

> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> > That is not that popular hypothesis.

> Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> other so called "Ape" is bipedal...

> > You typically use it as straw man.

> It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> and idiotic.

> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

> Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
> You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
> The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquarboreal," I see it as
> evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> bipedalism was most useful.
> There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> a number of environments is "Popular."

> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago.

> Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
> Is it a straw man or are you insane?

> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

> > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full

> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush.

> Lol!
> "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"

> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.

:-DDD
brain size, stone tools, occipital pachy-osteo-sclerosis, large paranasal air sinuses, external nose, shell engravings, etc.

> Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquarboreal. I'm not complaining
> about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.

1) primates = arboreal (arbor=tree),
2) humans = ex-semi-aquatic (aqua=water),
3) evolution = gradual:
c 1990, I "predicted" aquarboreal ancestors (swamp?mangrove?coastal?...forest),
c 1995, the Ndoki wading gorillas were described, later followed by wading bonobos, orangs & now even chimps AFAIK.
:-)

> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid

> Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
> Coastal dispersal.
> And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> using terrestrial ALA.
> So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
> It fits.

I can only agree with JTEM:
only incredible idiots believe their Plio-Pleistocene ancestors lived in African savannas...
:-DDD

[oot...@hot.ee]

You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by Alister
Hardy and Elaine Morgan from two human generations ago. Back then it
was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. You have already shown
that you got none evidence and avoid all evidence of others.

It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya. Oldowan
tools elsewhere are all after 2 mya so some homo spread out with those.
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
mya.
So all Mode I and Mode II "technology" came from Africa and spread slowly
elsewhere. Also everything indicates that inventors preferred eating medium
to large game to harvesting seashores.

There are no evidence that anything came from unknown Java homos
evolved from unknown Ponginae. Ponginae are genetically too far from homo
so hybrids are unlikely. But African Oldowan tools we find on Java
1.8 mya, carried by h.erectus, descendant of African woodland apes more
than million years after Africans butchered hippos with tools of that type.
Someone of them then engraved few seashells and that is all your evidence.

[marc verhaegen]

me:
> > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

somebody uninformed:

> > > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
> > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

me:
> > of course:
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

imbecile:

> You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by Alister
> Hardy and Elaine Morgan from two human generations ago. Back then it
> was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook

> theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...

:-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD
Google:
-aquarboreal
-WHATtalk verhaegen
-GondwanaTalk Verhaegen

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 23:04:41 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> me:
> > > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
> somebody uninformed:
> > > > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
> > > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> me:
> > > of course:
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> imbecile:

> > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it

> > was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> > sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> > theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
>

Yes you are parroting there what Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan wrote.

> :-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD

The current scientific evidence of outside of your imaginary kook universe is is that,
let me restore:

[marc verhaegen]

me:
> > > > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

somebody uninformed:
> > > > > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
> > > > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

me:
> > > > of course:
> > > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

imbecile:
> > > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
> > > was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> > > sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> > > theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...

:-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD

same imbecile:

> It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

"we"see?? :-DDD
Even if so, my little little boy, never heard of chimp tool use??
Grow up:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 02:03:13 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> me:
> > > > > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
>
> somebody uninformed:
> > > > > > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
> > > > > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > > > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
>
> me:
> > > > > of course:
> > > > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> imbecile:
> > > > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
> > > > was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> > > > sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> > > > theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
>

Yes you are simply parroting there what Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan wrote.
They were refuted by new finds and genetic analysis, you simply run from it.

> :-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD
>
> same imbecile:
> > It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
> "we"see?? :-DDD
>

Oh yes, even liar like you can't deny that both of us see the publications. So we see
and you wiggle.

> Even if so, my little little boy, never heard of chimp tool use??
>

Sure it was closer to apes, like I said, and like also time tells. It was smarter than chimp.
There we have pre-Oldovan stone tools manfactured. Chimps manufacture wooden
tools sometimes.

Let me restore what you run from:

Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya. Oldowan
tools elsewhere are all after 2 mya so some homo spread out with those.
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
mya.
So all Mode I and Mode II "technology" came from Africa and spread slowly
elsewhere. Also everything indicates that inventors preferred eating medium
to large game to harvesting seashores.

African Oldowan tools we find on Java
1.8 mya, carried by h.erectus, descendant of African woodland apes more
than million years after Africans butchered hippos with tools of that type.

But at that time Africans started to switch to Acheulean tools.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> The obvious
> >> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
> >> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.

> That's in no way obvious.

It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via chimps,
and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

> I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
> you won't whether I ask or not.

You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.

For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in no way obvious"
even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist.

I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reasoning.

> >> There's no
> >> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
> >> exact same set of infections.

Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same locus
of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?

> > It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
> > which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
> > rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.

> Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
> that don't?

> >> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
> >> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions

How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
mean by "independent," anyway?

> > > while humans did
> >> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
> >
> > That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.

> > Evidence is evidence. Period.
> Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
> particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.

That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?

> > Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
> > have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
> > years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.


> That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.

So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for
reasoning, as above.

> Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,

What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.

> so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.

I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."

> > There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
> > vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
> >
> > Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
> > are, and we can and do exchange viruses...

> We do, sometimes. But not every time.

That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural
question, but pretended superiority.

> >> unless one
> >> shows
> >
> > It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
> > to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
> > quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
> > that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
> > evidence and there is no counter evidence.

> It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
> knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
> failing to have the virus.

Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."


What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight.
I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/12/23 7:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> The obvious
>>>> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
>>>> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
>
>> That's in no way obvious.
>
> It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via chimps,
> and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally.
> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

One datum results in a conclusion?

>> I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
>> you won't whether I ask or not.
>
> You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
> and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.
>
> For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in no way obvious"
> even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist.
>
> I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
> NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reasoning.

You should know by now that your suspicions about other people's motives
are so unreliable as to be useless. And you waste much effort away from
the subject.

>>>> There's no
>>>> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
>>>> exact same set of infections.
>
> Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same locus
> of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?

No, quite the contrary. But that isn't what I meant. I mean the same set
of viruses inserting in the species's genomes.

>>> It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
>>> which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
>>> rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
>
>> Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
>> that don't?
>
>>>> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
>>>> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions
>
> How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
> mean by "independent," anyway?

I mean that they were separate events.

>>>> while humans did
>>>> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
>>>
>>> That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
>
>>> Evidence is evidence. Period.
>> Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
>> particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.
>
> That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?

It's not very good evidence for humans not being in Africa because there
are many other possible explanations for the failure of humans to pick
up this virus.

>>> Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
>>> have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
>>> years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
>
>
>> That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.
>
> So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for
> reasoning, as above.

>> Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,
>
> What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.

It's the clear conclusion from the insertion sites being different. The
phylogeny of the virus doesn't show that chimps got it from gorillas or
vice versa. They both got it from another source, likely a monkey.

>> so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
>
> I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."

The point is that there is no reason to suppose that humans, if they got
this virus, would have got it from chimps, just as chimps and gorillas
didn't get it from each other.

>>> There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
>>> vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
>>>
>>> Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
>>> are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
>
>> We do, sometimes. But not every time.
>
> That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
> post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural
> question, but pretended superiority.

Another poor attribution of motive, another abandonment of the subject
in favor of gratuitous insult. Stop.

Again, this virus was not, that we can tell, exchanged among closest
relatives, so the fact that chimps are our closest relatives is not
relevant.

>>>> unless one
>>>> shows
>>>
>>> It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
>>> to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
>>> quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
>>> that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
>>> evidence and there is no counter evidence.
>
>> It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
>> knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
>> failing to have the virus.
>
> Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is of course a continuum. You have, apparently, a different
estimate of the place of this evidence along that continuum. It isn't
clear why, because you don't say.

> What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight.
> I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.

So basically, you wasted most of your time by attacking my motives and
had no time to get to the actual meat of the matter. This is not
productive use of your time.

[marc verhaegen]

savanna fool's only "argument":
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
> If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

:-DDD

[marc verhaegen]

Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
-- S.Afr.australopiths = fossil relatives of Pan, E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not Homo,
-- "out of S-Asia" & "out of the Red Sea" are more correct than "out of Africa",
-- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.

Google e.g.
– aquarboreal
– GondwanaTalks verhaegen
– WHATtalk verhaegen

[marc verhaegen]

savanna fool:
> 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32 "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario"
1986 E.Morgan & MV New Scient 1498:62-63 "In the beginning was the water"
1986 Marswin 7:64-69 "Een korte inleiding tot de waterapentheorie"
1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
1987 Hum Evol 2:381 "Speech origins"
1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9 "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
1987 Marswin 8:142-151 "Vertonen de fossiele hominiden tekens van wateraanpassing?"
1988 Specul Sci Technol 11:165-171 "Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis"
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African ape ancestry"
1991 Med Hypoth 35:108-114 "Aquatic ape theory and fossil hominids"
1991 M Roede cs eds 1991 "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" Souvenir London :75-112 "Aquatic features in fossil hominids?"
1991 ib.:182-192 "Human regulation of body temperature and water balance"
1992 Hum Evol 7:63-64 "Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of Gramineae?"
1992 Language Origins Society Forum 15:17-18 "KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts"
1993 Nutr Health 9:165-191 "Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence"
1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1995 Med Hypoth 44:409-413 "Aquatic ape theory, speech origins, and brain differences with apes and monkeys"
1995 ReVision 18:34-38 "Aquatic ape theory, the brain cortex, and language origins"
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
1997 R Bender, MV, N Oser Anthropol Anz 55:1-14 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht der Aquatic Ape Theory"
1997 New Scient 2091:53 "Sweaty humans"
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens
1998 in MA Raath ... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg :128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?"
1998 + P-F Puech ib.:47 "Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet"
1999 + S Munro Mother Tongue 5:161-168 "Bipeds, Tools and Speech"
1999 + N McPhail, S Munro Eur.Sociobiol.Society Newsletter 50:4-12 "Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla forebears"
1999 + S Munro Water & Human Evolution Symposium Univ Gent :11-23 "Australopiths wading? Homo diving?"
2000 + P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2000 + Munro in J-L Dessalles cs eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat Sup Télécomm.Paris:236-240 "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory"
2002 + S Munro Nutr Health 16:25-27 "The continental shelf hypothesis"
2002 + P-F Puech, S Munro Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7 (google aquarboreal) "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
2004 + S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2007 + S Munro in SI Muñoz ed 2007 "Ecology Research Progress" Nova NY:1-4 "New directions in palaeoanthropology"
2007 + S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser ib.:155-186 (google econiche Homo) "The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?"
2009 + S Munro in NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Confer.Kamilari Crete:37-38 "Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?"
2009 S Munro, MV ib.:28-29 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods"
2010 New Scient 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10 "Oi, big nose!"
2011 + S Munro HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
2011 + Munro, Puech, Vaneechoutte in M Vaneechoutte, Kuliukas, MV eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" :67-81 "Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?"
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV ib.:181-9 "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech" (google)
2011 S Munro, MV ib.:82-105 "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?"
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV J compar hum Biol 63:496-503 "Book review: Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" Bentham Sci Publ
2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
2016 E Schagatay cs "A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why..."
2022 Acad.Uitg. Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken

[oot...@hot.ee]

It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything and then ran with
empty insults like JTEM. You can not identify anyone who supports
savanna, so you are liar. It is your false dichotomy: did not
chase antelopes therefore did dive into swamps and/or oceans (unclear
where). No one understands how that nonsense is supposed to
follow ... but that is your sole actual argument posted here.

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 13:58:56 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",

You have no fossils. The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
neither looks like aquatic.

> -- S.Afr.australopiths = fossil relatives of Pan, E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not Homo,

It is unclear who made the 2.9 mya Oldovan tools and butchered hippos in
Kenya but they were most likely related to humans.

> -- "out of S-Asia" & "out of the Red Sea" are more correct than "out of Africa",

Why? By what evidence? Kenya is not too near to Red Sea and the Ethiopia
is near Red Sea but in Africa.

> -- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.
>

Kenya and Ethiopia were forest ... big to medium game is indeed easier to ambush
and slay near water bodies not in open savanna.

[marc verhaegen]

savanna fool:

> It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything

I read these posts only until the first nonsense...
:-)

[oot...@hot.ee]

You still can not identify anyone who supports savanna, so you are liar.
And you post nothing but those idiotic lies so why you do it at all? :D

[marc verhaegen]

> > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",

savanna fool:
> You have no fossils.

We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.

> The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,

3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
??

> neither looks like aquatic.

Sigh.
Even so, so what??
1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:
more in detail (my 2022 book):
• Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?

2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??

Sigh.
Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 16:20:46 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
> savanna fool:

> > You have no fossils.
>
> We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
> but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.
>

We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.

> > The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
> 3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
> ??
>
> > neither looks like aquatic.
>
> Sigh.
> Even so, so what??
> 1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:

Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.

> more in detail (my 2022 book):
> • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
> • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?
>

I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:

| • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously coarse eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teeth smaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real two-legged man, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, when a palm-rich freshwater area with fish, water turtles, monitor lizards, pythons, crocodiles, peacocks, swans, herons and snake-necked birds, various otters, porcupines and porcupines, slim monkeys, antelopes and giraffes, three-toed horses, and pachyderms of all kinds, the anthracothere 'hippopotamus' Lybicosaurus emerged from the shallow seas of the Lybian Sirt Basin (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).

What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
aquatic.

• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas and swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers and water pygmy deer, three-toed horses and chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars and elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal and other rodents, lagomorphs and rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish and freshwater mussels. Orrorin appeared more human- and chimp-like than Sahelanthropus, says Professor Pickford, and had climbing and bipedal features: a vertical vertebral column? The large femoral head appeared more human-like than in australopithekes and apes. The long thighbone helped move the leg sideways but hindered running. Femoral neck and thigh bone were flattened anterior-backward as in fossil humans and australopithics (but less than in seals), not round as in apes, certainly not laterally flattened as in animals that run a lot. The terminal phalanx of the thumb was wider than in chimps, as in us, but not as wide as in boisei. A hand bone was clearly curved: hanging climbing? The face was short, the molars seemed rather small, the tooth enamel - with wear as in us, unlike in chimps - was thicker than in Sahelanthropus and certainly Ardipithecus. Isotopes in tooth enamel indicated a hippopotamus or boar-like diet (Roche 2013). The primeval hominids Sahelanthropus and Orrorin mainly ate fruit and aquatic (edge) plants, I suspect, often climbed overarms, walked and waded more often than lowland gorillas on two legs in wetlands, or sometimes floated in shallow water, head and arms above. Aquaboreal?

Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even
chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.

> 2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??
>

You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>
It is still preserved above as your quote.
I brought two examples of fossils from *late* Miocene (note, not early) that were only moving
towards bipedality of h.erectus You deny these are our ancestors of Miocene but fail to give
cite to any better fossils. But now you even complain that these predate early
Pleistocene? We discussed Miocene, remember ???

> Sigh.
> Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!

Learn to behave in non-demented manner. Try to add some level of coherence
to what you write, also take notes to keep track what you are discussing. Or just
snip and run if you can't.
Are you from savanna? Is the dementia because of sunstroke?

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by

You sound like an idiot trying very hard not to sound like an idiot.

> It started from African woodland apes.

That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."

Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.

> We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.

They do not have a good record here...

> Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.

Not associated with Homo, if the claims hold up.

It's not a fact that they even are tools.

Oldowan

> The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
> Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
> mya.

They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
first-generation tools.

And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
Asia and beyond?

Where did they get the DHA their brains needed?

Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
ago?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717246477475430400

[marc verhaegen]

> > > > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > > > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",

savanna fool:
> > > You have no fossils.

> > We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
> > but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.

savanna fool:

> We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
> early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.

:-DDD
Even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more detailed, but we have several fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!), e.g. all sivapiths = probably pongids (Ankarapithecus, Sivapith., Khoratpith., Lufengpith., Gigantopith., Indo.pithecus) & all dryopiths = hominids: Pierolapith., Anoiapith., Danuvius, Dryo-, Ruda-, Bodva-, Hispano-pith., Oreopith., Trachilos footprints, Ourano-, Graeco-pith.etc.

savanna fool:

> > > The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,

> > 3 misspelling in 1 short sentence... ??

savanna fool:

> > > neither looks like aquatic.

> > Sigh. Even so, so what??
> > 1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:

> Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.

:-DDD Our savanna fool fails to see.

> > more in detail (my 2022 book):
> > • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
> > • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?

> I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:

:-) Thanks, my boy. Some *explanations/corrections* by me:

> • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously *heavy* eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teeth smaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real *biped*, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, *at the time* a palm-rich freshwater area with fish, water turtles, monitor lizards, pythons, crocodiles, peacocks, swans, herons & snake-necked birds, various otters, porcupines & porcupines, slim monkeys, antelopes & giraffes, three-toed horses, pachyderms of all kinds, the anthracothere 'hippopotamus' Lybicosaurus emerged from the shallow seas of the Lybian Sirt Basin (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).

> What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
> Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
> It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
> aquatic.

My little little boy (grow up!! inform a bit!!), again, for the Xth time: IMO
-Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were "aquarboreal"(google!!): BP wading-climbing in swamp/coastal forest,
-early-Pleist.H.erectus frequently dived (you can call that "semi-aquatic"): brain++, pachyosteosclerosis, shell engravings, stone tools, island colonizations etc.,
okidoki??


> • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas & swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers & water pygmy deer, three-toed horses & chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars & elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal & other rodents, lagomorphs & rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish & freshwater mussels. Orrorin appeared more human- & chimp-like than Sahelanthropus, says Professor Pickford, and had climbing & bipedal features: a vertical vertebral column? The large femoral head appeared more human-like than in australopiths & apes. The long thigh-bone helped the leg move sideways, but hindered running. Femoral neck & thigh-bone were flattened anterior-backward as in fossil humans & australopiths (but less than in seals), not round as in apes, certainly not laterally flattened as in animals that run a lot. The terminal phalanx of the thumb was wider than in chimps, as in us, but not as wide as in boisei. A hand-bone was clearly curved: hanging climbing? The face was short, the molars seemed rather small, the tooth-enamel (with wear as in us, unlike in chimps) was thicker than in Sahelanthropus & certainly Ardipithecus. Isotopes in tooth enamel indicated a hippo- or boar-like diet (Roche 2013).
The primeval hominids Sahelanthropus & Orrorin mainly ate fruits & *water(side)* plants, I suspect, often climbed overarms, walked & waded more often than lowland gorillas on 2 legs in wetlands, or sometimes floated in shallow water, head & arms above. Aquaboreal?

> Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even
> chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
> carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.

Yes, my boy, indeed: you talk incoherent word salad.

> > 2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??

> You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>

Google "aquarboreal", my boy, and then come back!
Rest of your salad snipped.

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Sunday, 14 May 2023 at 08:49:46 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by
> You sound like an idiot trying very hard not to sound like an idiot.
>

Do not mirror.

> > It started from African woodland apes.
> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
>
> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>

The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated. We do not discuss origins of
ape, but origins of Homo. Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
likely closer to our ancestors than Orangutang and clearly not Homo nor
there's nothing aquatic about it. Theory of marc that Homo somehow
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.

> > We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
> Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
>
> They do not have a good record here...
>

No idea what rocks you mean here. Just random denial?

> > Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.
> Not associated with Homo, if the claims hold up.
>
> It's not a fact that they even are tools.
>
> Oldowan
>

But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya. It was likely ancestor
of Homo as lot of Homo kept using very similar tools more than million years
later in parallel with Acheulean tools.
That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
those. And before you ask, no, no one claims that it ate only hippos and
nothing else.

> > The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
> > Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
> > mya.
> They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> first-generation tools.
>

Nope, there no so old Acheulean tools in China. Oldest are 2.1mya Oldowan
tools in the southern Chinese Loess plateau. The favorite of marc Java had
Oldowan tools 1.8 mya. Oldest Acheulean tools in Asia are from South India
1.5 mya.

> And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> Asia and beyond?
>

But what is the problem? There were likely forests everywhere. If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees. The
h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
long distances. Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low. But it clearly spread relatively quickly all
over the warm climate woodlands on both continents ~2 mya.

> Where did they get the DHA their brains needed?
>

Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and corn syrup
eaters. Our ancestors did not eat such garbage. They ate meat, eggs,
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit. For catching spawning fish in some
forest brook there was no need to be aquatic nor very wise. Bear, cat and
fox do it why not ape with spears and traps? Otter and seal eat fish all the
time do they have large brain? One grows bigger brain for when there is
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.

> Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> ago?
>

No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya. Genetic
evidence, fossils and findings of tools show that Homo evolved from African
apes. Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.

Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
mya or later, I do not know, and it is not even discussed here. Homo evolved
about ten millions years later. The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense
"aquarboreal" apes but forest apes. That "aquarboreal" seems to mean
someone who either wades in water or climbs trees but for undisclosed
reasons avoids walking on dry land? Do you buy that? I may be mistaken
as marc verhaegen's bullshit is mostly in Dutch, is jumping between events that
are several millions of years apart. Word salad about not running in savanna.
Homo were likely never half as fast runners as bear (who hates to run). Do
bears run in savanna? No. But if bear does not run in savanna then it likely
dives and wades? Also no. How it survives without using neither of "two allowed"
options of marc verhaegen?

[marc verhaegen]

...
> options of marc verhaegen?

Again, in short:

Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:

-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal"(google),
-- S.Afr.australopiths = fossil relatives of Pan, and E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not Homo,
-- it’s not "out of Africa”, but "out of southern Asia" and "out of the Red Sea”,
-- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna-hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.

Google e.g. – aquarboreal – GondwanaTalks verhaegen – WHATtalk verhaegen

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Hypothesis: ape & human evolution:
plate tectonics & hominoid splittings (my 2022 book p.299-300):
c 25 Ma India approached S-Asia, formed island archipelagoes & peninsulas full of coastal forests,
Catarrhini reaching these became aquarboreal Hominoidea, frugivorous + incipiently molluscivorous??
c 20 Ma Indian further underneath Eurasia split lesser (E) & great apes (W) along Tethys Ocean coasts,
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W),
Medit.hominids died out late-Miocene, only hominids s.s. (HPG) in incipient Red Sea survived:
c 8 Ma Gorilla followed incipient N-Rift->Afar->afarensis->boisei->gorillas, HP remained in Red Sea,
c 5 Ma Red Sea opened into Gulf (exactly 5.33 Ma?? Zanclean flood):
-Pan went right->E.Afr.coasts (+ stone tools??)->S-Rift->Transvaal->africanus->robustus->Pan // Gorilla,
-Pliocene Homo left->S.Asian coast: early-Pleist.shallow-diving "aq.ape": brain++ pachyosteosclerosis etc.
mid-Pleist.Homo evolved diving -> + wading (initially seasonally?) -> today walking...

There are still a lot of uncertainties, of course, but I'm pretty sure:
- E.Afr.apiths->Gorilla // S.Afr.apiths->Pan,
- late-Miocene Homo-Pan LCA were still aquarboreal in Red Sea swamp forests.
:-)

In any case:
“The nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains ("endurance running", "dogged pursuit of swifter animals", "born to run", "le singe coureur", "Savannahstan") are among the worst scientific hypotheses ever proposed.”
:-D

[JTEM]

Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > > It started from African woodland apes.
> > That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
> >
> > Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> > so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> > most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> > are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.

> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.

The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.

> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.

The line between the two is blurry at best.

> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang

Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.

Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.

> likely closer

Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.

>Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.

I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
ancestor lived further back than Chimps. In other words, FIRST we
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.

So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
humans...

Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.

> > > We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

> > Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> > that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
> >
> > They do not have a good record here...

> No idea what rocks you mean here.

You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
back to 2013.

Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.

> But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.

And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.

> That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
> those.

Not a fact.

> > They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> > first-generation tools.

> Nope

Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ

> > And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> > Asia and beyond?

> But what is the problem?

So answer.

> There were likely forests everywhere.

Why? Are there forests everywhere today?

> If not
> always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
> grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.

So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...

Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.

> Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.

No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
Gorillas.

> The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> long distances.

So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
do it?

> Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> of fire but evidence of it is low.

What purpose would these technologies serve?

> Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> corn syrup eaters.

Dead wrong.

> They ate meat, eggs,
> nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.

Where?

The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?

> One grows bigger brain for when there is
> need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.

You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
Intelligent Design.

And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?

You're rationalizing. Cheaply.

> > Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> > ago?

> No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.

That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?

> Genetic evidence

There is none.

> fossils

None what so ever.

> and findings of tools

You can't find what you don't look for.

> Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.

Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
person chose.

> Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
> mya or later, I do not know

Define Homo.

If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?

> Homo evolved about ten millions years later.

It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.

I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not about
geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.

>The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apes
> but forest apes.

So where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717282714287521792

[oot...@hot.ee]

On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > > > It started from African woodland apes.
> > > That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
> > >
> > > Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> > > so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> > > most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> > > are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>
> > The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
>
> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
>
> > We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
>
> The line between the two is blurry at best.
>

Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
little subset of that clade.

> > Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
> more recent than that.
>
> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
>

Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
is that clade Hominoidea (apes).

> > likely closer
>
> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
>

When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
that contradict with evidence.

> >Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> > evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
>

He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.

> In other words, FIRST we
> split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
>

Yes, so it seems.

> So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
> Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
> humans...
>

Yes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of
millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
years ago.

> Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.
>

What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.

> > > > We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > > > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
>
> > > Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> > > that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
> > >
> > > They do not have a good record here...
>
> > No idea what rocks you mean here.
> You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
> back to 2013.
>
> Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
>

If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?

> > But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
>
> And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
>

Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas
used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.

> > That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
> > those.
> Not a fact.
> > > They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> > > first-generation tools.
>
> > Nope
> Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
>

You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were
Acheulean tools?

> > > And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> > > Asia and beyond?
>
> > But what is the problem?
> So answer.
> > There were likely forests everywhere.
> Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
>

Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber for
metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.

> > If not
> > always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
> > grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> > talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
>
> So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
>
> Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
>

It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows
relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few
thousand years ago.

> > Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.
> No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
> Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
> Gorillas.
> > The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> > long distances.
> So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
> do it?
>

Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
who did not participate in hunt.

> > Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> > of fire but evidence of it is low.
>
> What purpose would these technologies serve?
>

Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try to
catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
your mouth.

> > Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> > corn syrup eaters.
> Dead wrong.
>

Medicine literature says so, argue with them.

> > They ate meat, eggs,
> > nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
> Where?
>

In forest.

> The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
> from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
> is that?
>

Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already
generalists back then.

> > One grows bigger brain for when there is
> > need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
> You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
> Intelligent Design.
>
> And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
> Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
>
> You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
>

Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weapons
for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building
and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
for survival?
Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes
make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that
do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with
few thousands years of breeding.

> > > Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> > > ago?
>
> > No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
> That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
> Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
>
> > Genetic evidence
>
> There is none.
>

Genes can be sequenced.

> > fossils
>
> None what so ever.
>

Odd denial.

> > and findings of tools
>
> You can't find what you don't look for.
>

If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.

> > Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.
> Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
> person chose.
> > Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
> > mya or later, I do not know
> Define Homo.
>

It is not up to me to redefine a term that others are already defined,
I explained its meaning above.

> If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
> evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
>

It is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
have gone extinct meanwhile.

> > Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
> It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
> you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
> Africa.
>

Yep so it seems it happened. You can't change past in a way
that something else happened. You can just lie or deny it, but what
is the point?

> I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not about
> geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
> >The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apes
> > but forest apes.
> So where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
>

There are only few teeth found from half millions years ago.
Perhaps chimp did live in environments where everything was
eaten or did decay too quickly, or we haven't been lucky. That is
common about complex and diverse biomes like forests. The
occasions need luck like something drowned into swamp and
then was later covered with some mudslide. But why is chimp
important? With gorilla fossils there is more luck. Gorilla also
uses tools to open nuts and such.

[marc verhaegen]

netloon:

> > > > It started from African woodland apes.

:-DDD
What is "it"??

Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea forests, as well all know... :-D
Of the c 20 lesser & 8 great apes, 5 spp of gr.apes live in African trop.forests.
All other live in SE.Asian trop.forests.

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[JTEM]

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
> sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.

There's no such thing as "genetic distance" for the overwhelming
majority of human evolution.

This is already 20 years old:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092615.htm

> > > Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang

> > Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
> > and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
> > more recent than that.
> >
> > Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.

> Monkeys are

Pay attention. The point was that you can't go by the fossils, BECAUSE
you were going by the fossils.

It's also noteworthy that you lack any model that incorporates ALL the
fossil evidence...

> > Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.

> When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
> with other fossils and extant apes.

Such assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.

> > >Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> > > evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
> >
> > I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
> > share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
> > ancestor lived further back than Chimps.

> He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
> Orangutans.

So what?

Look. We share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs. We do. It
makes as much sense to claim that common ancestor belonged to
THIS genus as THAT genus... or even NEITHER genus.

We're making this stuff up. It's a convention. It's just an agreed
upon way of speaking about these things, not a "Truth" etched in
stone. He's communicating a relationship that does exist. That's
all.

> He avoids making clear full sentences

It's not him that lacks clarity here.

> > In other words, FIRST we
> > split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.

> Yes, so it seems.

So he's right. The good Doctor is right. We share a common ancestor
with the greatest living Asian ape and that ancestor predates any
known African ancestor.

> > So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
> > Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
> > humans...

> Yes

So you agree with the good Doctor, yet are actively attempting to
disagree.

> and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys

Which was a monkey. The common ancestor to humans and monkeys,
or apes and monkeys if you prefer, was a monkey.

> and even more first with penguins.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

> > Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
> > stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
> > zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.

> If you care

Go over to sci.anthropology.paleo and search.

> > And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.

> Even

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

> > > > They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> > > > first-generation tools.
> >
> > > Nope
> >
> > Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ

> You

Spell out your model that accounts for these Asian finds.

> Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and

Where?

> > > Sahara was
> > > grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> > > talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
> >
> > So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...

> It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods

So are you back to forests again or are you still on your grasslands?

Those are two different environments.

> > > The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> > > long distances.
> >
> > So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
> > do it?

> Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
> managed to kill it.

You're not inspiring a lot of confidence in your views.

> > > Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> > > of fire but evidence of it is low.
> >
> > What purpose would these technologies serve?

> Technologies make life easier

That's not an answer.

> > > Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> > > corn syrup eaters.
> >
> > Dead wrong.

> Medicine literature says so, argue with them.

#1. It doesn't.

#2. There is no "medicine literature" on pre Homo or early Homo or
even fairly recent Homo ancestors.

You're simply making things up,

> > > They ate meat, eggs,
> > > nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
> >
> > Where?

> In forest.

Tools preserve well. Fish require water so if they're mucking about
in that then we have fossils only we don't.

> > The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
> > from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
> > is that?

> Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
> farther relative Gorilla is herbivore.

They are also adapted to the forest. They evolved AWAY from bipedalism
and into knuckle walking, in adaptation to the forest.

> > > One grows bigger brain for when there is
> > > need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
> >
> > You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
> > Intelligent Design.
> >
> > And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
> > Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?

> Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools

Go back far enough and neither did our ancestors. So the question
is HOW and WHY.

You can't even begin to speculate here.

> Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools

Of course not.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

> > > Genetic evidence
> >
> > There is none.

> Genes can be sequenced.

Not if they don't exist.

> > > fossils
> >
> > None what so ever.

> Odd denial.

Show us the early Chimp fossils, the ones within a million years
of the LCA.

> > > and findings of tools
> >
> > You can't find what you don't look for.

> If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.

So Pan is out, entirely, and they magically pop up no later than half
a million years ago.

> > Define Homo.

> It is not up to me to redefine

I didn't ask you to redefine, I asked you to define it. And no point did
I so much as imply that you should invent a definition. Simply provide
the definition you are employing here. After that we can worry about
the source.

> > If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
> > evolving larger... where is the line, and why?

> It is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
> have gone extinct meanwhile.

That is not an answer.

> > > Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
> >
> > It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
> > you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
> > Africa.

> Yep

Stop that.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

[John Harshman]

On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
>> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>
>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>>>> It started from African woodland apes.
>>>> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
>>>>
>>>> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
>>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
>>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
>>>> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>>
>>> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
>>
>> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
>>
>>> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
>>
>> The line between the two is blurry at best.
>>
> Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
> sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
> So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
> little subset of that clade.

In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide
taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
But in practice, ranks are arbitrary. The only rule is that lower ranks
must nest within higher ones.

[marc verhaegen]

some netloon:

> > > >Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> > > > evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.

???
:-DDD
Again, for the Xth time, read it carefully:
orang-utans Pongo (2 or 3 spp: Po.pygmaeus, Po.tapanulienis on Borneo, Po.abelii on Sumatra) are pongids if you didn't know:
AFAICS, the Mesopotamian Seaway Closure c 15 ma split hominids-dryopiths (along the Med.Sea + rivers) & pongids-sivapiths (along the Ind.Ocean + rivers):
in coastal/swamp...forests, they frequently waded bipedally (upright, vertically) & climbed arms overhead in the branches above, google "aquarboreal".
Most hominids died out (cooling? drying? Messinian Salinity Crisis? Zanclean Mega-flood?), but some Red Sea hominids survived:
- Gorilla subgenus Praeanthropus followed c 8 Ma the northern Rift formation: afarensis->boisei cs,
- when de Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood? Francesca Mansfield):
-- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus went right + followed the E.African coastal forests -> southern Rift fm -> africanus->robustus cs (in // afarensis->boisei),
-- Pliocene Homo followed the S-Asian coasts -> e.g. Java early-Pleistocene H.erectus brain++ (DHA), pachyosteosclerosis (shallow-diving), stone tools (opening shells), shell engravings (google: Joordens Munro), island colonizations (e.g. Flores) etc. & back to Africa & Europe: H.neand.etc.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:18:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> >> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >>
> >>> JTEM wrote:
> >>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >>>>> It started from African woodland apes.
> >>>> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> >>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> >>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> >>>> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
> >>
> >>> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
> >>
> >> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
> >>
> >>> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
> >>
> >> The line between the two is blurry at best.
> >>
> > Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
> > sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
> > So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
> > little subset of that clade.

> In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide
> taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
> But in practice, ranks are arbitrary.

They are only "arbitrary" to a limited extent. If anyone tried to make
a class out of Hominidae, he'd be suspected of being a creationist.
Especially if he tried to make Homo the sole member of a subclass.

You really need to stop misleading people with your ideology-driven
use of the word "arbitrary."

> The only rule is that lower ranks
> must nest within higher ones.

It's the only *official* rule, but there are lots of rules of thumb
over which you are riding roughshod. One is that taxonomists
specializing within classes of Vertebrata need to be fairly consistent,
but they are free to disregard established custom for other classes.
Thus what counts as an order in Aves based on morphological
distance would only count as a family in Mammalia, according to Romer.
Is that true also of genetic distance?

> >>> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
> >> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
> >> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
> >> more recent than that.
> >>
> >> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
> >>
> > Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
> > is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
> >
> >>> likely closer
> >>
> >> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
> >>
> > When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
> > with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
> > is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
> > that contradict with evidence.
> >
> >>> Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> >>> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
> >> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
> >> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
> >> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
> >>
> > He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
> > Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
> > that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.

How come you didn't mention Schwartz here, John?
You could have been *constructive* for a change.

As it was, with me returning to this thread only after almost a month,
this thread died with Marc Verhaegen posting another one of his
pseudo-communicative spiels in direct response to this post of yours.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS I left in the rest below. I think you could have commented
constructively in one or more places, were you so inclined.
I'm holding off commenting on it until I hear from one of
{Mr. Tiib, yourself}.

[John Harshman]

Ranks are arbitrary. You could try to make Hominidae a class, but you
would have to change its name and you would have to elevate all the
higher taxa to which it belongs, as per the rule mentioned below.

So very unlikely that any such thing could happen. Too much disruption.

>> The only rule is that lower ranks
>> must nest within higher ones.
>
> It's the only *official* rule, but there are lots of rules of thumb
> over which you are riding roughshod. One is that taxonomists
> specializing within classes of Vertebrata need to be fairly consistent,
> but they are free to disregard established custom for other classes.
> Thus what counts as an order in Aves based on morphological
> distance would only count as a family in Mammalia, according to Romer.
> Is that true also of genetic distance?

There is no consistency, because that's not a rule anyone actually
follows. Orders in birds and mammals don't depend on morphological
distance now, if they ever did. Perhaps you refer not to actual,
computed distance but to some vague feeling of a distancy sort? I don't
think Romer had any clear idea of how to judge such distances and
neither do you.

>>>>> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
>>>> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
>>>> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
>>>> more recent than that.
>>>>
>>>> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
>>>>
>>> Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
>>> is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
>>>
>>>>> likely closer
>>>>
>>>> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
>>>>
>>> When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
>>> with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
>>> is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
>>> that contradict with evidence.
>>>
>>>>> Theory of marc that Homo somehow
>>>>> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
>>>> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
>>>> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
>>>> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
>>>>
>>> He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
>>> Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
>>> that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.
>
> How come you didn't mention Schwartz here, John?
> You could have been *constructive* for a change.

Why would I mention Schwartz? The point was that this supposed theory
was not anything Verhaegen proposes or believes, and it's not even
Schwartz's.

> As it was, with me returning to this thread only after almost a month,
> this thread died with Marc Verhaegen posting another one of his
> pseudo-communicative spiels in direct response to this post of yours.

No reason it shouldn't die. Spam kills.

> PS I left in the rest below. I think you could have commented
> constructively in one or more places, were you so inclined.
> I'm holding off commenting on it until I hear from one of
> {Mr. Tiib, yourself}.

I saw nothing worthy of comment. What did you have in mind?

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 13 juni 2023 om 22:23:07 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:
nothing of interest:
the poor man doesn't know anything on paleo-anthropology... :-(
= a waste of time