Out of Asia Proven Fact

[JTEM]

Well, "Eurasia."

Well, either "Out of Eurasia" or "Out of Melanesia."

One of these is correct, "Out of Africa" is false. It's
falsified.

Ever hear of Mungo Man!

Actually it has nothing to do with Mungo Man except
for one slight controversy over his mtDNA.

Okay, so if you know anything about Mungo Man he's
what they call an "Anatomically Modern Man," found
in Australia, and an examination of his DNA found a
VERY old mtDNA line. This mtDNA line is so old that
it has long since gone extinct. It only exists today as
a freak mutation within the Chromosome 11 of some
billions of people

This is what upsets everyone. Because that mtDNA,
the line that only exists as a freak mutation on the
Chromosome 11 of billions of people, is so old. It's
older than an "Mitochondrial Eve" in the Out of Africa
purity myth. It's MUCH older than any African
Mitochondrial Eve. Much older.

AND IT'S EURASIAN! or possibly Melanesian.

It's not African.

So this means that if there was an Out of Africa
migration, those who migrated were descended from
an even earlier Eurasian population that had migrated
into Africa.

This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on
billions of people: It's found primarily OUTSIDE of
Africa. It's Eurasian. And by any and every means for
evaluating where mtDNA comes from, it's Eurasian.
If it was primarily found in Africa then nobody from the
peanut gallery would so much as question it's origins.

THEY WOULD INSIST THAT IT HAS TO BE AFRICAN!

But it's not. It's Eurasian. Or possibly Melanesian.

"Nooooo! Saying that an African population traces it's
ancestry to Eurasia is RACIST! It's RACIST, I tell you!
Exactly the same way saying that an Eurasian
population traces it's origins to Africa is not."

Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/25145388699

[John Harshman]

Apparently not: Heupink TH et al. 2016. Ancient mtDNA sequeces from the
first Australians revisited. PNAS 113(25):6892–6897.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922152/

You should also realize that in accordance with coalescent theory, there
should be many haplotypes from 10s of thousands of years ago that are
outside the range of mtEve determined from modern sequences, though
Mungo Man appears not to have such a sequence.

I'd be interested to know more about the numt you mention. Can you cite
something?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> > This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on
> > billions of people:
> >

> > Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...

> Apparently not: Heupink TH et al. 2016. Ancient mtDNA sequeces from the
> first Australians revisited. PNAS 113(25):6892–6897.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922152/

Hmm. It's not denying that this mtDNA was copied over to Chromosome
11 and is now carried by billions of people. It's claiming that Mungo Man
doesn't carry the line.

So you're completely batshit crazy there.

Secondly, if you try to read your cite for comprehension, the exact same
way you did NOT read my post, you will see that it's not making a good
case at all.

For starters, it's pretending that their objections to the original findings
only exist because of some later testing. This is not true at all. They
have never NOT attacked the original findings.

Secondly, even though the Mungo Man results are the only ones that
matter here, they test a great many other samples.

Why?

They also confuse the matter by intermixing samples to the point where
you can't even keep track of which one they are speaking of in any
particular line. You can't. YOU can't.

The original Mungo Man results can not be the result of contamination.

It's impossible.

"Oh, that extinct mtDNA that only exists on Chromosome 11 in some
people? That mtDNA was contamination."

No it wasn't. Nobody has that mtDNA. And the Mungo Man mtDNA is
a little different, as it would have to be because mtDNA is subject to a
great deal of selective pressure.

Nobody has access to the remains for resampling. It's illegal. If they
are performing tests it's on materials that remained within the labs
all this time: Samples taken back then.

Finally, IT'S IRRELEVANT!

Even if you need to pretend that your "Cite" is accurate and you both
read it and understood it, it's irrelevant. Because the mtDNA exists
on Chromosome 11 within BILLIONS of people alive right now. So your
"Cite," as per your usual, is utterly irrelevant.

You remain the faker.

> You should also realize that in accordance with coalescent theory, there
> should be many haplotypes from 10s of thousands of years ago that are
> outside the range of mtEve determined from modern sequences

That means nothing.

It's gibberish.

The fact is that the "Mitochondrial Eve" at the heart of Out of Africa purity
is descended from an Eurasian population.

Possibly Melanesian.

So, once again: The Chromosome 11 insert found in BILLIONS of people,
this mtDNA far older than any Mitochondrial Eve, debunks Out of Africa
purity. The Mitochondrial Eve at the basis for Out of Africa purity was
herself descended from Eurasians.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710293708628803584

[Pandora]

From the paleontological perspective there's Omo Kibish 1, undoubtedly
anatomically modern Homo sapiens, with a prominent bony chin and high
rounded neurocranium:
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10012624701?profile=RESIZE_710x

Recently dated to over 200 kyr:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04275-8

Modern human teeth from Fuyan Cave, southern China, previously
suggested to be over 80 kyr old,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282871950_The_earliest_unequivocally_modern_humans_in_southern_China

are actually much younger:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2019158118

The oldest Homo sapiens outside Africa is a maxilla from Misliya Cave,
Israel, dated to 177,000 to 194,000 years:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322706982_The_earliest_modern_humans_outside_Africa

[John Harshman]

Please cite the source for the Chromosome 11 insert, as I asked once
already and you ignored.

[JTEM]

Pandora wrote:

> The oldest Homo sapiens outside Africa is

Wow. I point to the Chromosome 11 insert and you... don't.

The MitoChondrial Eve nonsense at the heart of Out of Africa
purity was descended from an Eurasian population. She was
descended from a group that migrated into Africa.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710293708628803584

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Please cite the source for the Chromosome 11 insert, as I asked once
> already and you ignored.

Please READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN CITE!

: Importantly, these two sequences fell outside the range of contemporary
: human variation and clustered with a nuclear DNA insert.

If you had read your own goddamn cite, which you now admit that you
hadn't -- like a true faker you auto believe headlines -- you would have
noted many references to a nuclear DNA insert.

I invite you to take your meds, ask your nurse to sit down next to you &
try to read the cite, and read it for comprehension.

Good luck!



P.S. You're own cite! You didn't even read your own cite! AND YOU
ADMITTED IT!






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710311843910041600

[John Harshman]

Thanks to your help, I was able to find the actual reference:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477404/

Zischler H et al. 1995. A nuclear 'fossil' of the mitochondrial D-loop
and the origin of modern humans. Nature 378:489-942

This is quite a short piece, and of D-loop at that, which makes the
hypothesis of long branch attraction highly credible.

[John Harshman]

On 2/26/23 10:47 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
>> The oldest Homo sapiens outside Africa is
>
> Wow. I point to the Chromosome 11 insert and you... don't.
>
> The MitoChondrial Eve nonsense at the heart of Out of Africa
> purity was descended from an Eurasian population. She was
> descended from a group that migrated into Africa.
>

Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with "Out of Africa". It's the
phylogeny constructed from mitochondrial data that does that, as well as
the fossil record. You are confused.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Thanks to your help, I was able to find the actual reference:

YOUR reference referenced it. YOUR cite cited. You asked for a
cite which you yourself had already provided.

You have yet to read much less comprehend your own goddamn
cite!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710311843910041600

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with "Out of Africa"

I can understand why a blithering idiot such as yourself, fresh
from revealing that you never read much less comprehended
your own goddamn cite, would make such a stupid claim.

I know enough not to waste my time with you, especially after
your display here, but it is possible that someone could have
lived thousands even millions of years ago without them being
an ancestor of yours. And as we are talking about ancestors,
nobody else matters to us in this thread.

Again, I know it's a waste of time, that this is "Above your pay
grade" and all, but I have to say it in case any proverbial lurker
stumbles in.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710311843910041600

[John Harshman]

On 2/26/23 10:36 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with "Out of Africa"
>
> I can understand why a blithering idiot such as yourself, fresh
> from revealing that you never read much less comprehended
> your own goddamn cite, would make such a stupid claim.
>
> I know enough not to waste my time with you, especially after
> your display here, but it is possible that someone could have
> lived thousands even millions of years ago without them being
> an ancestor of yours. And as we are talking about ancestors,
> nobody else matters to us in this thread.

Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But,
for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But,
> for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?

For the lurkers, I have.

The "Africans" in the Out of Africa purity model are descended from
Eurasian migrants. Going by the standards imposed by the Out of
Africa purists, going by the accepted way of interpreting mtDNA, such
as in the case of "Mitochondrial Eve," the Chromosome 11 insert is
Eurasian -- possibly Melanesian -- and it's FAR older than any so called
Mitochondrial Eve.

Everything is backwards. The generations of bullshit that characterized
the fake science which is paleo anthropology -- "Neanderthals were a
dead end that left no descendants! There was no interbreeding!" -- has
never stopped. It continues today.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710311843910041600

[John Harshman]

Sorry. I forgot that you never actually explain anything.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Sorry. I forgot

You forgot how your lack of reading comprehension & retention
can only get you so far? Again?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710425976700649472

[oot...@hot.ee]

Hard to tell the relevance but scientists researching those things seem
to draw connections:
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036973/>
For my taste it looks too lot of ideas and conclusions from few dozen
data points.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 3:52:58 AM UTC-5, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Monday, 27 February 2023 at 22:33:40 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 2/27/23 9:32 AM, JTEM wrote:
> > > John Harshman wrote:
> > >
> > >> Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But,
> > >> for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?
> > >
> > > For the lurkers, I have.
> > >
> > > The "Africans" in the Out of Africa purity model are descended from
> > > Eurasian migrants. Going by the standards imposed by the Out of
> > > Africa purists, going by the accepted way of interpreting mtDNA, such
> > > as in the case of "Mitochondrial Eve," the Chromosome 11 insert is
> > > Eurasian -- possibly Melanesian -- and it's FAR older than any so called
> > > Mitochondrial Eve.
> > >
> > > Everything is backwards. The generations of bullshit that characterized
> > > the fake science which is paleo anthropology -- "Neanderthals were a
> > > dead end that left no descendants! There was no interbreeding!" -- has
> > > never stopped. It continues today.
> >
> > Sorry. I forgot that you never actually explain anything.

Harshman is exaggerating. And he still hasn't cottoned onto the fact that
when JTEM says "out of Africa" he means "out of a lineage that never was
out of Africa on the matrilineal line." Once you see that, everything falls into place.

We lurkers have to wade through a plethora of some people not being able to
put themselves in another's shoes. I've finally stopped lurking to end a
stalemate that coalesced over a week ago [note the dates].

> Hard to tell the relevance but scientists researching those things seem
> to draw connections:
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036973/>
> For my taste it looks too lot of ideas and conclusions from few dozen
> data points.

It's a separate issue, but this paper seems to interpret "out of Africa" to mean,
"the immediate ancestors left Africa -- never mind whether the remote ancestors
were elsewhere at some point."

And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes. [1] Dubos thought otherwise, but no professional
paleontologist agrees with his hypothesis.

[1] Would Harshman prefer "Homo is an African ape"? that would
probably follow from his penchant for saying things like "Birds are dinosaurs"
and "Humans are fish."


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

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
> African apes.

Oh, I do. It's not at all established. It's an assumption. There's data, what you call
"Evidence," and then there's models that explain HOW that data came to be:

A hypothesis.

There is more than one hypothesis to explain the data,

Secondly, there is a genuine issue with the data itself. Yes, never mind the
interpretation, I'm speaking of the collecting.

IF, for example, IF you were doing a study on the sex life of the average woman,
and your study subjects are all patients at the nearest VD clinic, your "Data" is
invalid. It really can't show what you claim it to show.

Understand?

There is a sample bias, a selection bias. There's even a preservation bias!

Well, I know; "There's nothing we can do about a preservation bias! That's
nature for you, and try as we might nature is going to do what it wants and
not what makes things simple for us."

Correct... if you pardon the straw man. But efforts can be made. Perhaps more
so in theory than in reality, given costs and hardship but, how many billions of
dollars -- billions of Euros -- was spent on the search for the Higgs Boson
particle?

How many, many billions was spent on that search?

Don't you think the search for human origins, where we came from, how we
evolved is worth AT LEAST as much?

> [1] Would Harshman prefer "Homo is an African ape"? that would
> probably follow from his penchant for saying things like "Birds are dinosaurs"
> and "Humans are fish."

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

"The truth is out there," and by that I mean in here.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711356336312582144

[Popping Mad]

On 2/26/23 03:48, JTEM wrote:
> So you're completely batshit crazy there.

/dev/null crack addict

i'm sick of bullshot annonymous crackpots like "JTTEM"

talk to the mirror

[Popping Mad]

On 3/8/23 11:55, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
> African apes. [1]

then it is a troll

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
> > African apes.

> Oh, I do. It's not at all established. It's an assumption.

I see I overlooked you. But note, what I wrote is compatible with us ALSO having descended
from Asian apes or European apes. Given that hominids include orangutans, and hominoids
include gibbons [I don't know why siamangs are not included in most lists of gibbons], some
Asian ancestry seems highly probable. And there are European possibilities, including
close relatives of Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus.

However, if one takes either the short view (Sahelanthropus and closely related genera
of Hominini), or the long Hominoidea view you see here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

... then the existence of African ancestors can hardly be doubted. There you see Proconsul, and a bunch
of other Africans in the phylogenetic tree there.

> There's data, what you call "Evidence,"

including that summarized above...

> and then there's models that explain HOW that data came to be:


> A hypothesis.
>
> There is more than one hypothesis to explain the data,
>
> Secondly, there is a genuine issue with the data itself. Yes, never mind the
> interpretation, I'm speaking of the collecting.
>
> IF, for example, IF you were doing a study on the sex life of the average woman,
> and your study subjects are all patients at the nearest VD clinic, your "Data" is
> invalid. It really can't show what you claim it to show.

Your IF is counterfactual.

>
> Understand?

I understand that you were belaboring the obvious, and would have understood that
back in my teen years. [I'm in my seventies.]

> There is a sample bias, a selection bias. There's even a preservation bias!
>
> Well, I know; "There's nothing we can do about a preservation bias! That's
> nature for you, and try as we might nature is going to do what it wants and
> not what makes things simple for us."
>
> Correct... if you pardon the straw man. But efforts can be made. Perhaps more
> so in theory than in reality, given costs and hardship but, how many billions of
> dollars -- billions of Euros -- was spent on the search for the Higgs Boson
> particle?
>
> How many, many billions was spent on that search?
>
> Don't you think the search for human origins, where we came from, how we
> evolved is worth AT LEAST as much?

No. The Higgs boson helps us understand a hell of a lot of what makes
our universe what it is. And then, too, throwing hundreds of millions of Euros
at hominoid/hominid/hominini research is ill-advised unless there are
promising sources of fossils that could change the picture significantly
from what we have.

> > [1] Would Harshman prefer "Homo is an African ape"? that would
> > probably follow from his penchant for saying things like "Birds are dinosaurs"
> > and "Humans are fish."

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

Thanks for filling in the main intermediates between the two things
I said about Harshman. I wonder why he hasn't re-entered this thread yet.

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

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

[JTEM]

Popping Mad wrote:

>JTEM wrote:

> > Hmm. It's not denying that this mtDNA was copied over to Chromosome
> > 11 and is now carried by billions of people. It's claiming that Mungo Man
> > doesn't carry the line.

So using the Harpmen sock puppet, the collective posted a cite that did not
refute what I stated, thinking he was refuting what I stated...

> > So you're completely batshit crazy there.

VERY accurate assessment! It's not unusual for the collective to post seemingly
random cites, pretending to be refuting someone, when it fact the cite does no
such thing. And it's not unusual for me to taunt the collective for being such a
stupid twit. So, it is batshit crazy to continue the behavior knowing the results...

The cite does not refute what I stated. In fact, THE CITE SUPPORTS ME! It
references the nuclear insert -- which is the Chromosome 11 insert that I
spoke about! It CONFIRMS that this now extinct mtDNA line is carried by billions
of people as a freak mutations, and insert within the nuclear DNA.

And if you stopped picking your nose long enough to actually read things, you
might've figured this one out yourself... speaking rhetorically.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711297255484899328

[JTEM]

Off their meds again, Popping Mad wrote:

[...]

What do you think the topic is here? What do you think I said?
Why do you think it's wrong? Be specific.

My point of course is that you are an emotionally unhinged
idiot. You don't under WHAT the topic is, much less any piece
of evidence in favor or against it.

Prove me wrong. I dare you to. Go on; I dare you to try.

Pussy.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711297255484899328

[Ruben Safir]

Troll bait

[JTEM]

Troll, Ruben Safir wrote:

[---trolling mercifully deleted---]

You need to speak to your mental health provider, show them what
you're doing... let them know about your relapse.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/AGW

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 11 maart 2023 om 03:33:10 UTC+1 schreef Peter Nyikos:

> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > > And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
> > > African apes.

No, no: African apes = Gorilla + Pan.
We do NOT descend from them!

Most likely (refs in my book p.299-300),
- late-Miocene HPG LCA lived in the (then incipient) Red Sea swamp forests: aquarboreal,
- Gorilla 8-7 Ma followed the incipient northern Rift (HP/Gorilla split) -> Afar apiths,
- probably the Red Sea opened into the Gulf 5.33 Ma (Francesca Mansfield: Zanclean mega-flood):
-- Pan went right -> E.Afr.coastal forests -> entered southern Rift -> Transvaal apiths,
-- Pliocene Homo went left -> S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.Java H.erectus.

> > Oh, I do. It's not at all established. It's an assumption.

> I see I overlooked you. But note, what I wrote is compatible with us ALSO having descended
> from Asian apes or European apes. Given that hominids include orangutans, and hominoids
> include gibbons [I don't know why siamangs are not included in most lists of gibbons], some
> Asian ancestry seems highly probable. And there are European possibilities, including
> close relatives of Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus.

??
Most likely (refs in my book p.299-300),
- Miocene Hominoidea became bipedal=aquarboreal in coastal forests of N-India (approaching S-Eurasia),
- India under Eurasia split hylobatids (East) & other hominoids (West) c 20 Ma along S-Tethys Ocean coasts,
- the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W -> Medit.Sea),
- Medit.hominids (incl.Dryop.-Oreop.etc.) died out (flood? drought? ...?) except in the incipient Red Sea: HPG,
- 8-7 Ma incipient northern Rift: Gorilla: Afar: Sahelanthr., afarensis->boisei etc.,
- 5.33 Ma(?) Red Sea opened into Gulf, see above.

> However, if one takes either the short view (Sahelanthropus and closely related genera
> of Hominini), or the long Hominoidea view you see here...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Never trust Wiki, certainly not here: afro+anthropocentrical prejudices.

> ... then the existence of African ancestors can hardly be doubted. There you see Proconsul, and a bunch
> of other Africans in the phylogenetic tree there.

Hominids = Pan + Homo + Gorilla + (lots of) dead ends.
Apparently, only Red Sea hominids survived: HPG.
I couldn't well follow what follows (I'm also in my 70s, Peter)...

______

[JTEM]

marc verhaegen wrote:

> > > Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
> > > > African apes.

> No, no: African apes = Gorilla + Pan.
> We do NOT descend from them!

The exact genus/species is irrelevant, as if these distinctions
aren't invented by the minds of men, it's how we are related
that counts. And everywhere we look, bipedalism is older than
is any supposed LCA shared with Chimps, and probably older
than gorillas as well.

Hard to gauge when people only ever look for fossils were it's
easy to look, and anything they find can't contradict their
beloved narrative...

I tend to move things MORE recent than is convention.
This is because "Molecular Dating" has a habit of greatly
exaggerating age.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 5 april 2023 om 06:30:02 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:

> marc verhaegen wrote:


Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
> > > > > African apes.

No, we do NOT descend from chimps or gorillas!
The late-Miocene Homo-Pan LCA most likely lved in swamp forests of the Red Sea,
they were not chimp-like: no very long arms, no knuckle-walking, no large canine teeth...:
they were bipedal wading-climbing, google "aquarboreal".

> > No, no: African apes = Gorilla + Pan.
> > We do NOT descend from them!

> The exact genus/species is irrelevant, as if these distinctions
> aren't invented by the minds of men, it's how we are related
> that counts. And everywhere we look, bipedalism is older than
> is any supposed LCA shared with Chimps, and probably older
> than gorillas as well.

Hylobatids (gibbons+siamangs) as well as humans are (still?again) BP,
and bonobos, chimps, lowland gorillas & orangs are always BP when they wade in forest swamp for sedges, waterlilies...,
google e.g. "bonobo wading", "gorilla wading"...
IMO, early-Miocene & probably already late-Oligocene Hominoidea were "bipedal":
vertical waders-climbers (arms overhead in the branches above the water) in swamp (mangrove?) forests,
likely in the islands & peninsulas that were formed when the Indian subcontinent approached S-Eurasia then:
these islands/peninsulas were full of coastal forests:
Catarrhini that reached these swamp forests (30?25 Ma) became Hominoidea:
very broad sternum+thorax & pelvis, tail loss, much larger size, centrally-placed spine, less lumbar vertebrae, rel.longer arms, lateral movements of legs & arms, vertical body: "bipedal" waders-climbers, google "aquarboreal".
Also elsewhere (Med.Sea? Africa?), other (mostly Miocene?) Catarrhini might have become more aquarboreal (developing ape-like features), in parallel with Hominoidea.