human plantigrady

[marc verhaegen]

I just sent this:

Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,

I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."

IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.

IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

With best wishes --marc verhaegen

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 04:33:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:

You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[marc verhaegen]

Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:

> >I just sent this:
> >Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
> >I just read with interest your article
> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> >"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
> >beginning with
> >"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
> >IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
> >- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
> >- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
> >IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
> >"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
> >google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

> You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
> theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
> objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
> subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
> ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
> the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,

> contradicts your claims. Bob C.

If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":

--For ape evolution (Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea), google "aquarboreal".
--For human evolution s.s. , google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.

>
> --For ape evolution (Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea), google "aquarboreal".
> --For human evolution s.s. , google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:

It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.

[Öö Tiib]

Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. Being
plantigrade (or standing plantigrade on hind legs like kangaroos)
gives advantage for doing things that are not related or specific to
being waterside.

So you just ask others to google for places where you restate your
ungrounded fantasies. But why? Anyone who needs fantasies about
Deep Ones should read H.P. Lovecraft instead as he was better
fantasy writer.

[erik simpson]

Good advice. The Great Old Ones were plantigrade, not sure about Chthulu.

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 18:35:41 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:

> > > >>> I just sent this:
> > > >>> Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
> > > >>> I just read with interest your article
> > > >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> > > >>> "Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
> > > >>> beginning with
> > > >>> "The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
> > > >>> adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
> > > >>> IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
> > > >>> - runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl.
> > > >>> e.g. kangaroos,
> > > >>> - walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g.
> > > >>> humans, sealions.
> > > >>> IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
> > > >>> "The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal

> > > >>> walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past".

...

> Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. ...


Indeed: better were:
The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for BP walking & running, is a consequence of H.erectus' shallow diving:
-- pachyosteosclerosis is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow divers,
-- brain enlargement, cf. shellfish: DHA etc.,
-- flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th digital rays = swimming-feet,
-- shell engravings, google "Joordens Munro",
-- stone tools, cf. sea-otters,
-- island colonizations, e.g. Flores >18 km oversea,
-- Pleistocene coastal dispersal between Flores & Africa,
-- platycephaly, platypelloidy etc.etc.etc.

Only *incredible* imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
Google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

H.erectus regularly dived for shellfish etc.:
"Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
Stephen Munro cs 2011 doi 10.1016/j.jchb.2011.06.002
Fossil skeletons of H.erectus & related spms typically had heavy cranial & postcranial bones,
it has been hypothesised that these represent adaptations, or are responses, to various physical activities, e.g. endurance running, heavy exertion, aggressive behavior.
According to the comparative biological data, skeletons that show a combination of disproportionally large diameters, extremely compact bone cortex & very narrow medullary canals are ass.x aquatic or semi-aquatic tetrapods that wade and/or dive for sessile foods, e.g. hard-shelled invertebrates in shallow waters.
These pachy-osteo-sclerotic bones are less supple & more brittle than non-POS bones,
marine biologists agree that they function as hydrostatic ballast for buoyancy control.
This paper discusses the possibility that heavy skeletons in archaic Homo might be ass.x part-time collection of sessile foods in shallow waters.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:

So you assert. Repeatedly. But I see no reference to any
actual evidence that that is correct, your unsupported
assertions not being evidence.

Your "evidence" seems even less compelling than the Aquatic
Ape Theory (which isn't a theory at all; it's strictly
conjecture). Do you even know what objective evidence *is*?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

From the sketches I've seen Cthulhu wasn't (isn't?) any sort
of "grade"; no legs, feet or (toe)nails. Nice claws,
though... :-)

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Marc is not at his best here. He's spread himself thin by starting
too many threads in short order, and he doesn't understand what
people here expect in the way of answers. He could make an argument
or two here, and then continue to reproduce what he thinks of as evidence in
bits and pieces of later posts.

I've tried to mix criticism and praise carefully in a reply that I did to him on another t.o. thread today:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E8Gn9fl3jo4/m/1w5spVNqAgAJ
Re: Miocene Hominoidea (earliest apes) were already bipedal

> Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. Being
> plantigrade (or standing plantigrade on hind legs like kangaroos)
> gives advantage for doing things that are not related or specific to
> being waterside.

> So you just ask others to google for places where you restate your
> ungrounded fantasies.

On that other thread, he did better:

_____________________________ excerpts from my reply to Marc______________

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 6:40:40 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:

> Bipedal locomotion in zoo apes:
> Revisiting the hylobatian model for bipedal origins
> Kyle H Rosen, Caroline E Jones & Jeremy M DeSilva 2022
> Evol.Hum.Sci. doi org/10.1017/ehs.2022.9

I'm glad to see you using sources besides your own writings, or writings of obvious amateurs
like the fan of yours who authored:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[...]
> Oreo-, Ourano-, Graecopith were probably hominid & aquarboreal,

I was surprised to see that the Wikipedia entry for Oreopithecus favors "aquarboreal".

I was even more surprised to read the following:

"In addition, a meticulous re-description of Graecopithecus specimens in 2017 further evidenced that Graecopithecus is more related to humans than to apes,[19] while Ouranopithecus specimens have strict ape-like characters. Separate genus are therefore continued to be generally adopted.[20][21][22]."

[19] is here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5439669/

It's encouraging to see that you are not one of the co-authors. You need more such
references if you want to be taken seriously here in talk.origins.

Are you familiar with the line, "We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto."?
You are not in sci.anthropology.paleo or sci.bio.paleontology anymore, Marc.

===================== end of excerpts from post linked above ==================

> But why? Anyone who needs fantasies about
> Deep Ones should read H.P. Lovecraft instead as he was better
> fantasy writer.

Fortunately, Marc is not always fantasizing about his version of the Aquatic Ape hypothesis.


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

[marc verhaegen]

Comparative evidence is objective evidence:
- Cursorial tetrapods (bi- & quadrupedal) run on their hooves (many herbivores) or toes (carnivores), mostly of the middle toes, not on their heels.
- Swimming (and/or perhaps wading?) tetrapods swim with flat feet, with rel.long first and/or last digital rays.

Comparatively & objectively, our feet are swimming-feet evolving into walking-feet.
That implies that the transition from swimming to walking was not very long ago, e.g.
-- early-Pleistocene H.erectus was predom.diving (POS, ear exostoses, shell engravings etc.etc.),
-- mid-Pleistocene H.neanderthalensis was already frequently wading (seasonally coast->river?),
-- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens is predom.walking (but still: Moken etc.).

_____

Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 20:30:41 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It is a "theory" in the sense that it brings together a number of unrelated facts
to bear on the same issue. These include the need for DHA/omega-3 fatty acids
for the development and size increase of our brains [1], the evolution of bipedalism
made possible by habitual wading [2], and the density of our bones, shared with
aquatic and semiaquatic amniotes. [3] However, this business about the arch of the feet
is a new one on me, and does not belong to the theory [yet?] inasmuch as Marc
has not given an iota of anatomical explanation of why it is relevant to the "waterside past."


[1] seafood is rich in it, hence the coastal dispersal part of the theory. For our need
for our brains, see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/

[2] gradual evolution in the Darwinian [not Lamarckian] sense, the idea
being that those individuals who spent more time waist-deep (or deeper) in the water
had a better chance of finding seafood than those spending less time,
and had a higher fertility rate.

[3] Technical term: pachyosteosclerosis. Shared with seacows(dugongs and manatees), the extinct Plesiosauria and Mesosauria and extinct aquatic sloths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis

The last example, a semiaquatic sloth is especially intriguing. Not only was it just a bit taller
than a very tall human, but the extensive entry on it includes habits attributed to it by
the Aquatic Ape theorists. Coincidentally, it was contemporary with early hominini: 7-3 mya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus

> Do you even know what objective evidence *is*?

He does, but he has put his worst foot forward on this thread, longitudinal arch and all. :-)


He did a lot better on another thread. I included an excerpt from an evaluation of some ideas of Marc by me
there in reply to Öö Tiib. The whole evaluation, a reply to a post by Marc, can be found here:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E8Gn9fl3jo4/m/1w5spVNqAgAJ
Re: Miocene Hominoidea (earliest apes) were already bipedal

Mar 28, 2023, 4:10:41 PM

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

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

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 7:35:06 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
...

>
> He did a lot better on another thread. I included an excerpt from an evaluation of some ideas of Marc by me
> there in reply to Öö Tiib. The whole evaluation, a reply to a post by Marc, can be found here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E8Gn9fl3jo4/m/1w5spVNqAgAJ
> Re: Miocene Hominoidea (earliest apes) were already bipedal
> Mar 28, 2023, 4:10:41 PM

Why not leave the "littoralist" alone to frolic with his worthy adversaries in sci.paleo.anthropology? His
advice to "google [...] verhaegen" is good. He's a fairly well-known crank of long standing.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 06:35:10 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:

>Comparative evidence is objective evidence:
>- Cursorial tetrapods (bi- & quadrupedal) run on their hooves (many herbivores) or toes (carnivores), mostly of the middle toes, not on their heels.
>- Swimming (and/or perhaps wading?) tetrapods swim with flat feet, with rel.long first and/or last digital rays.
>
>Comparatively & objectively, our feet are swimming-feet evolving into walking-feet.
>That implies that the transition from swimming to walking was not very long ago, e.g.
>-- early-Pleistocene H.erectus was predom.diving (POS, ear exostoses, shell engravings etc.etc.),
>-- mid-Pleistocene H.neanderthalensis was already frequently wading (seasonally coast->river?),
>-- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens is predom.walking (but still: Moken etc.).
>

So basically, you look at a particular piece of anatomy and
conclude that it supports your conjecture, ignoring the
mountains of evidence that Homo evolved in East Africa, the
fact that there are no known examples of either Pan or Homo
who wade/swim more than occasionally, *and* the fact that
our feet are well-adapted (not perfectly; nothing in biology
is "perfectly adapted") for the running/walking life on open
plains, specifically including the arch you trumpet as some
sort of evidence of wading as a primary occupation.

As for the idea that Homo evolved in Asia, that was indeed
the consensus until around 1950, when the evidence began to
accumulate regarding East Africa, and the "out of Asia"
crowd finally conceded.

[marc verhaegen]

Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:

> So basically, you look at a particular piece of anatomy and
> conclude that it supports your conjecture, ignoring the

> mountains of evidence that Homo evolved in East Africa, ...

:-DDD

Sigh...
0 evidence:
google
-"bonobo wading",
-"gorilla wading",
-"Moken diving".

Pan // Gorilla evolved in Africa.
Pliocene Homo followed S.Asian coasts.
"Homo"habilis was probably not Homo. Homo ergaster might have been Homo.

Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 11:10:04 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 7:35:06 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >
> > He did a lot better on another thread. I included an excerpt from an evaluation of some ideas of Marc by me
> > there in reply to Öö Tiib. The whole evaluation, a reply to a post by Marc, can be found here:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E8Gn9fl3jo4/m/1w5spVNqAgAJ
> > Re: Miocene Hominoidea (earliest apes) were already bipedal
> > Mar 28, 2023, 4:10:41 P

> Why not leave the "littoralist" alone to frolic with his worthy adversaries in sci.paleo.anthropology?

You didn't read the linked post, did you? His worthy adversaries over there do not challenge him
the way I did there, nor the way Tiib and Casanova did. At least, not in my experience.
And I have reasons of a scientific nature; see below.

> His advice to "google [...] verhaegen" is good. He's a fairly well-known crank of long standing.

That may well be true. But you are just going on hearsay without ever having looked seriously
at his posts, aren't you? You dismissed his fellow littorialist JTEM as a troll without realizing that he is only
a part-time troll, just like you and Harshman.

All the information which I gave Casanova and which you snipped [science seems to have lost interest for you],
I got from them and from googling things like pachyosteosclerosis, which they talked about on another thread.
If it were not for them, I still wouldn't know about it nor what it is good for.

It was JTEM who came through with the reference to the research article on DHA that I linked for
Tiib and Casanova:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/

I had asked him how much DHA a person needs each day and he provided the link.

I did this in response to a post which was at least as well written as anything I have seen
from you. Here is a hefty chunk it:

###########################################

The human brain does require DHA. That DHA is plentiful in seafoods. Even
seafoods that aren't particularly rich in DHA far exceed terrestrial sources.
There's no model you can think of where our ancestors could go so
dependent upon DHA living on a savanna.

NOTE: I said "Model." Not "They ate bugs." Because if you want to claim that
then tell us which bugs. How much DHA they have. Etc.

There's studies that tell us even today, even after we evolved improved
capabilities in the synthesizing DHA department, that there are measurable
beneficial changes to the human brain on a DHA rich diet.

https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/omega-3s-associated-with-larger-brain-volume

*Tons* more out there.

So you and everyone else find yourself "Arguing" something that is well
established. You're arguing dogma here!

There is no model that you or anyone else has ever proposed that allows
us to become so dependent upon DHA without Aquatic Ape.

That's it. Aquatic Ape explains human origins, because in the end it's our
brains that separate us from the apes.

Just put ancestors on a beach, picking up shellfish and you've explained it
all.

Coastal dispersal? That's them picking a stretch of beach clean then
moving on.

Aquatic Ape.

Multiregionalism/Regional Continuity or even Punctuated Equilibrium.
Occasionally groups pushed inland -- escaping conflict, natural disaster,
climate change or even disease. Maybe it was just the ease of following
a freshwater outlet to the sea backwards into the interior...

#########################################

When was the last time you wrote such an articulate post on a scientific subject?
I can't recall anything like that from you since you instigated the
destruction of the oasis of civilization that you and I and Harshman
had going in sci.bio.paleontology from mid-2015 to early 2018, when
the destruction began.

Since I returned from my long posting break at the beginning of this month,
all the posts I've seen from you (except for a pair of one-liners which turned out to be incorrect)
were 100% personal, and ca. 95% nasty.

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

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:27:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:

>Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
>

<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>

>
>>So basically, you look at a particular piece of anatomy and
>>conclude that it supports your conjecture, ignoring the

>>mountains of evidence that Homo evolved in East Africa, the
>>fact that there are no known examples of either Pan or Homo
>>who wade/swim more than occasionally, *and* the fact that
>>our feet are well-adapted (not perfectly; nothing in biology
>>is "perfectly adapted") for the running/walking life on open
>>plains, specifically including the arch you trumpet as some
>>sort of evidence of wading as a primary occupation.
>>
>>As for the idea that Homo evolved in Asia, that was indeed
>>the consensus until around 1950, when the evidence began to
>>accumulate regarding East Africa, and the "out of Asia"
>>crowd finally conceded.
>

>Sigh...
>0 evidence:
>google
>-"bonobo wading",
>-"gorilla wading",
>-"Moken diving".
>

Do they offer any objective evidence, or is it all more
conjecture such as you've been posting? Somehow I suspect
the latter.

>
>Pan // Gorilla evolved in Africa.
>Pliocene Homo followed S.Asian coasts.
>

Have any Homo fossils predating Homo erectus from Asia? No?
What a shame; there are plenty from East Africa.

>
>"Homo"habilis was probably not Homo.
>

And yet the fossils indicate they were...

>
> Homo ergaster might have been Homo.
>

And since they evolved in Africa, and are considered a
probable erectus variant...

Denial is not a river in Egypt (although I suppose you think
Egyptians lived in it).

Your "evidence" is opinion, and is not supported by the
*actual* objective evidence noted above, accumulated for the
past 70+ years.

>
>Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.
>

I don't have flat feet, due to evolution bequeathing me
arches to enable better running on the veldt.

I'll leave the time-wasting to you. But hey, it keeps you
off the streets.

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:

> >Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:

> <snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
> material you wish to ignore>

Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 03:42:37 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:

Your "logic" is as faulty as your alleged "science".

Enjoy your delusions.

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
> theirs.

Omg, you're such a fucking idiot!

"Failing to exactly mirror the status quo is exactly like claiming
the earth is flat!"

Do you honestly believe that? Are you genuinely THAT stupid?
Or do you admit to resorting to pathetic smears rather than
try and form an argument?

> Just curious; do you have any actual physical
> objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all

Ironically, you not only lack physical evidence but have plenty
that debunks your idiotic views.

There's the Chromosome 11 insert, vastly older than any supposed
"Mitochondrial Eve," establishing a Eurasian origins of modern
man. There's "Coastal Dispersal" which *Is* Aquatic Ape by a
different name.

Oo! DHA! We need it. Yet, supposedly the genes that allow us to
synthesize it as well as we do -- which isn't very good at all -- is
only 80k years old. So, where else BUT "Aquatic Ape" were we
getting it?

Can't answer? But you're still certain you know everything? Of
course you are! That's how the rest of us know you're such a
waste product...





-- --

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

[Öö Tiib]

You are wasting our time. I said "Majority of plantigrade animals
do not live waterside life." You snipped it because it does not fit
with your boneheaded dogmas. You can not address facts but
that is somehow fault of others.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.

On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.

You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so
he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.

Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.

My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
knowing about it in the first place.

Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.


Peter Nyikos

PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidence
to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:55:06 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
> > theirs.

> Omg, you're such a fucking idiot!

Not on this thread. See my reply to Marc about half an hour ago for why
Casanova has no reason to expect anything better.

> "Failing to exactly mirror the status quo is exactly like claiming
> the earth is flat!"

>
> Do you honestly believe that?

Obviously not, given the way you framed the comment.

> Are you genuinely THAT stupid?
> Or do you admit to resorting to pathetic smears rather than
> try and form an argument?

He's made a feeble attempt at it in his latest reply to Marc.
He's killfiled you, so don't expect any answers from him.

> > Just curious; do you have any actual physical
> > objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all

It's too bad that Marc hasn't done that for his hypotheses
about the longitudinal arch, and that you haven't helped him with it.

> Ironically, you not only lack physical evidence but have plenty
> that debunks your idiotic views.
>
> There's the Chromosome 11 insert, vastly older than any supposed
> "Mitochondrial Eve," establishing a Eurasian origins of modern
> man.

Why do you think the Chromosome 11 insert did not take place in Africa?
or that it had anything to do with the waterside hypothesis?

> There's "Coastal Dispersal" which *Is* Aquatic Ape by a
> different name.

Coastal dispersal could have been accompanied by only gathering
shellfish off rocks exposed at low tide.

You would do well to separate this into two different hypotheses.

> Oo! DHA! We need it. Yet, supposedly the genes that allow us to
> synthesize it as well as we do -- which isn't very good at all -- is
> only 80k years old.

Why don't you include a reference to where this is shown?

>So, where else BUT "Aquatic Ape" were we getting it?

See above about Coastal Dispersal.


> Can't answer?

He indeed can't, but not for the reason you think.
Thanks to his killfile, you are off his radar screen.

>But you're still certain you know everything? Of
> course you are! That's how the rest of us know you're such a
> waste product...

You are counting your chickens before the eggs are laid.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:50:06 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 13:45:06 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
> > > >Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
> >
> > > <snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
> > > material you wish to ignore>
> > Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.

Less than an hour ago, I told Marc that HE is primarily to blame for them being
uninformed about the topics on this thread.

> You are wasting our time.

I hope I am not. Did you read my reply to Bob Casanova two days ago?

And why did you not respond to my reply to you on March 28, 2023, 9:35:41 PM EDT?
I hope you don't have me killfiled. Bob has, so everything I told him has been
a waste of time until now.

> I said "Majority of plantigrade animals
> do not live waterside life." You snipped it because it does not fit
> with your boneheaded dogmas. You can not address facts but
> that is somehow fault of others.

It's his fault that he is spouting dogmas instead of giving scientific support
for his hypotheses. He's done better in sci.anthropology.paleo where he has
posted for years. He's only recently started posting in sci.bio.paleontology
and now, talk.origins.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation by
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.

[Burkhard]

Surely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)

[broger...@gmail.com]

I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.

[erik simpson]

I'm definitely an old fart, and sometimes pretty cranky to boot. There are just lots more interesting things to
do, things to read and interesting people to talk to than some of the present contributors.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It’s not so much GG users as the crappy interface. I had used DejaNews back
in the day and Google went and ruined that idea.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 21:13:28 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
>>
>>>> Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG,
>>>> but I'll make a good imitation by
>>>> promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time.
>>>> When in the future I check back,
>>>> if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
>>> Surely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern
>>> times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of
>>> systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the
>>> other way round :o)
>>
>> I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the
>> illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.
>>
>It’s not so much GG users as the crappy interface. I had used DejaNews back
>in the day and Google went and ruined that idea.
>

ES as a server (once DIG approves you on it :-) ) and Agent
as a client work fine. And there *may* still be free clients
available.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:04:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:

>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:25:06?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.

It's a one-way progression, like phones; whatever existed
prior to the current latest-and-greatest is only used by
troglodytes. Like my flip phone, which only <gasp> makes
*phone calls*! :-)

[erik simpson]

Once upon a time you could read usenet stuff in emacs. Haven't tried that in a long time.

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 12:51:28 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
>
>> > Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation by
>> > promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
>> > if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
>> Surely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)
>
>I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.

Based on GG's UI history, my impression is Google uses GG to
discourage Usenet, much as international corporations and expansionist
despots use the law to discourage native human rights.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[erik simpson]

Once upon another time, Google had a motto "Don't be Evil". I think that went by
the boards some tome back.

[marc verhaegen]

Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
-> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

____

Op vrijdag 31 maart 2023 om 15:25:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
> cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
> flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
> Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
> no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
> - shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
> - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
> - island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
> - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
> - fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
> - H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
> - archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
> - flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
> - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
> - etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 17:43:50 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

The fossil and associated evidence which shows that Homo
evolved in East Africa, perhaps? And the lack of same
indicating that evolution in Asia? Of course, that will be
ignored or denied...

[marc verhaegen]

Op maandag 3 april 2023 om 02:45:09 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

> On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
> > cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> > they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
> > flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
> > Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> > -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
> > no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
> > - shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
> > - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
> > - island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
> > - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
> > - fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
> > - H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
> > - archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
> > - flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
> > - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
> > - etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

> It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
> any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.

??
Very wrong IMO: the usual, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies (gorilla+chimp=forest=QP >< human=savanna=bipedal) are easily falsified, e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no sea-shells in the savanna!,
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- etc.etc.:
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,

google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"

or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

[Öö Tiib]

So you suggest that on Java it was difficult to find sea-shells?

> - stone tools, used by archaic Homo,

Only Deep Ones use stone tools? Wrong. Even crows (birds) do sometimes.

> - Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),

Boars sometimes swim 80 km, Elephants 40 km, 18 km is doable for deer.

> - Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),

Maybe "huge" ... but clearly stupid, dogmatic and bone-headed to this day as
you demonstrate. Incapable to discuss, incapable to address facts.

> - Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,

Again that Java?

> - pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,

That is what you say that humans have massive pachyosteosclerosis.

> - etc.etc.:

These so far were "best"?

> human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
> google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

Zero doubt == bone headed dogma.

[marc verhaegen]

Op maandag 3 april 2023 om 13:45:09 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:

> On Monday, 3 April 2023 at 13:55:09 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:

> > > > Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
> > > > cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> > > > they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
> > > > flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
> > > > Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> > > > -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
> > > > no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
> > > > - shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
> > > > - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
> > > > - island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
> > > > - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
> > > > - fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
> > > > - H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
> > > > - archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
> > > > - flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
> > > > - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
> > > > - etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

> > > It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
> > > any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.

> > Very wrong IMO: the usual, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies (gorilla+chimp=forest=QP >< human=savanna=bipedal) are easily falsified, e.g.
> > - shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no sea-shells in the savanna!,

> So you suggest that on Java it was difficult to find sea-shells?

No, to the contrary: did you mis-read?

> > - stone tools, used by archaic Homo,

> Only Deep Ones use stone tools? Wrong. Even crows (birds) do sometimes.

OK.

> > - Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),

> Boars sometimes swim 80 km, Elephants 40 km, 18 km is doable for deer.

OK.
And for a chimp?

> > - Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),

> Maybe "huge" ... but clearly stupid, dogmatic and bone-headed to this day as
> you demonstrate. Incapable to discuss, incapable to address facts.

???

> > - Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,

> Again that Java?

Never heard of Mojokerto??

> > - pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,

> That is what you say that humans have massive pachyosteosclerosis.

?? H.erectus: H.sapiens are +-not semi-aquatic any more, as you might know?

> > - etc.etc.:

> These so far were "best"?

??
This is only fossil evidence, of course.

> > human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
> > google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> > or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

> Zero doubt == bone headed dogma.

Yes, clearly: the savanna = incredible nonsense.
Thanks for confirming our view...
:-DDD

[Öö Tiib]

So where did we find those engraved sea-shells of H.erectus if not
on Java?

> > > - stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
>
> > Only Deep Ones use stone tools? Wrong. Even crows (birds) do sometimes.
> OK.
> > > - Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
>
> > Boars sometimes swim 80 km, Elephants 40 km, 18 km is doable for deer.
>
> OK.
> And for a chimp?
>

Chimp lives in forest, so swims rarely. But it does not hate water either:
<https://www.science.org/content/article/video-swimming-apes-caught-tape>

> > > - Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),
>
> > Maybe "huge" ... but clearly stupid, dogmatic and bone-headed to this day as
> > you demonstrate. Incapable to discuss, incapable to address facts.
> ???
> > > - Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
>
> > Again that Java?
> Never heard of Mojokerto??
>

I mean that is what scientists suggest to be the distribution:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
You seem to focus narrowly on Java second time. Like elsewhere was nothing found.

> > > - pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
>
> > That is what you say that humans have massive pachyosteosclerosis.
>
> ?? H.erectus: H.sapiens are +-not semi-aquatic any more, as you might know?
>

Wherever I read it is said that especially East Asian populations, especially males had
thickened cortex. Can be result of whatever cultural practice or adaptation. It is
you who push that the thickened bones are "pachyosteosclerotic".

> > > - etc.etc.:
>
> > These so far were "best"?
> ??
> This is only fossil evidence, of course.
> > > human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
> > > google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> > > or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
>
> > Zero doubt == bone headed dogma.
>
> Yes, clearly: the savanna = incredible nonsense.
> Thanks for confirming our view...
> :-DDD
>

I do not know what you mean by savanna? There was H. habilis before.
It seemingly coexisted with H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H.erectus.
H. habilis apparently made stone tools and was at least partially arboreal.
Most plausible explanation that others split from it and H.erectus was
most successful and spread out. Can be that H.erectus evolved on Java
from unknown aquatic apes instead and spread from there but where is
the evidence of it? Besides that you lack doubt? It is least convincing when
someone lacks doubt without any evidence to back it up.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:15:06 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote to erik simpson:

> >> You are such a child of modern times
> >> that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of
> >> systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the
> >> other way round :o)
> >
> > I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the
> > illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.

Before that, it was snarky comments about the illiterati who used "nn" instead of "rn" or "trn" or "Tin".

"nn," which stood for "network news" and "no news (is good news),"
was provided for free by the universities for a while, even encouraged back in 1992.

[I wonder whether this has anything to do with the term "newsgroups,"
a term which has suited talk.origins less than "social media," at least since the mid-90s.
Now it is clearly one of the very small social media, more so than ever.]


Towards the end of its useful life, "nn" was expiring posts within less than a day,
with no way to retrieve them. Fortunately, Deja News had become well established
before then, and I gladly made the switch.

> It’s not so much GG users as the crappy interface. I had used DejaNews back
> in the day and Google went and ruined that idea.

Hear, hear! When Google took it over, it did keep many of the good features,
but each change marked a new deterioration. The last was the worst, and
the announcements about "keeping all your favorite features" rubbed salt in the wound
with their reminders of how many of them they were throwing away.

Google is a huge bureaucracy, and at one point, it took months of people trying to get
through to them that an awful deterioration had taken place before they finally fixed it.

I'm referring to the months when the software was adding a blank line between every pair of lines
left in from the post being replied to, EVEN BETWEEN EVERY PAIR OF BLANK LINES!
Several Usenet regulars who had avidly posted for years quit in disgust before GG fixed this.


It was the only time I can recall that GG ever improved on their offerings.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 9:25:08 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions",

You don't get any sympathy from me on this: I tried to warn you that talk.origins
is a very different place from sci.bio.paleontology and sci.anthropology.paleo.
Just look at all the things I told you in the preceding post which you are ignoring.

> but the case is crystal-clear:

In your opinion, which I don't share. But perhaps you can provide more evidence than what you have shared so far.

I've answered a post of yours in sci.bio.paleontology today which duplicates a lot of what you posted below.
I've only kept the ones I did not answer in that post:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/uO6JXQPrs7c/m/4T36PUQ1AwAJ
Re: The savanna "hypothesis" of human evolution is outdated.

> cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:

Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.

> flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.

Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:

"The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]"
[...]
"The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60  with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.[2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 ."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

> Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:

That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.

[...]

> - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,

Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.

[...]

> - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,

Weak connection.


[...]

> - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,

Another weak connection.

> - etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

Sorry, you have to give me incentive to look. Read on, and see more reasons for my
lack of incentive.

> Op vrijdag 31 maart 2023 om 15:25:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
> > Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
> > > > >Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
> > >
> > > > <snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
> > > > material you wish to ignore>
> >
> > > Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.

Why didn't the following comment by me have any effect on you?

> > On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.

You've paid NO HEED to my suggestions below. I'm beginning to think I am
wasting my time with YOU.

> > You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
> > But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so
> > he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.
> >
> > Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
> > posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
> > and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.
> >
> > My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
> > in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
> > knowing about it in the first place.
> >
> > Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
> > It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidence
> > to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.

It's nice to see that you made no mention of the longitudinal arch this time around. Maybe your
two things I labeled "weak connection" are no better.


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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The regulars here don't seem to like it when I insert comments to
earlier text, but in this case there is an extenuating circumstance:
Marc posted a big fraction of the same list of claims in sci.bio.paleontology,
and I am reposting my reactions here so you can also see them, Mark.

I'll try and make the transition to your new text obvious for all to see.
I'm not addressing Marc directly anywhere, only making comments
to the general readership.

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 8:45:09 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:

> > Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions",

Marc brought this on himself by starting over half a dozen of
these "Aquatic Ape" threads in short order, spread over t.o., s.b.p., and s.a.p.

[snip of things dealt with in direct reply to Marc a few minutes ago]

> no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:

Or gathered shellfish, crabs, etc. from exposed rocks during low tide. Crabs can also climb
rocks at high tide. When I was twelve (12) years old, three of us caught half a dozen crabs from
crevices in a high rock. We didn't do any diving.

> > - shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",

I am a busy man, and I wish Marc would provide us with urls.

[snip for same reason as above]

> > - island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),

Easily explained by lowered sea level during ice ages.
Recent example: Tasmanian aborigines losing the know-how to
navigate the Bass Strait, and those on the Australian mainland also losing it.

> > - fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,

In that order? How about some dates?

And before that? Somewhere further back, there was Africa: Proconsul, etc.

And the African Sahelantrhopus was early *Pliocene*.

> > - H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,

Wikipedia does not support "only" and even if it did, it is not a reliable source for such a strong word.
We need peer reviewed professional literature.

By the way, why "archaic" Homo? Don't WE have pachy-osteo-sclerosis?
If we do have it, why doesn't the wikipedia entry mention us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis

> > - archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
> > - flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
> > - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
> > - etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

Now we come to your response, Mark:

> It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
> any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Marc did even worse: his list includes things where the connection with
"aquatic ape" is obscure, like "back floating" and "flat feet" and the "longitudinal arch"
in the "flat" feet where he never tried to make a connection even when pressed for one.

> What evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?

Evidence that African game and/or African termites are rich in DHA;
evidence that Java Man migrated inland, from Africa. I made the former
suggestion to JTEM in one of the sci. groups, and he couldn't deal with it rationally,
and started insulting me after having been unusually polite and helpful to me for several posts.

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

Marc has yet to fully understand this, alas, and the same goes for JTEM.


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

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
> any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
> evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?

It's already refuted the alternative.

Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.

We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.

Seafood is "Brain food."

Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.

When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already
ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
probably began long before that.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713613768636137472

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> The fossil and associated evidence which shows that Homo
> evolved in East Africa, perhaps?

Lol! You are SUCH a goddamn idiot!

How do you account for the Retro Virus evidence? You know,
the evidence for a 3 to 4 million year old Retro Virus that
spread through AFRICAN apes but not asian... not humans.

The human ancestor hadn't fell from the sky yet? Is that it?

So we can falsify your claim. We did falsify it. It's gone. Doesn't
matter HOW you want to interpret a fossil, it doesn't fit. It can't
explain human origins.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713613768636137472

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
> Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.

So?

It's about a convergence of evidence, not any one single piece. It's pure
dishonestly to pretend otherwise.

Fact is humans were already found across continents 2 million years ago. It
was already a done deal. And those moved around, got to all those places
by way of something called "Coastal Dispersal." Now this "Coastal Dispersal"
is literally "Aquatic Ape" by another name: Ancestors living waterside,
exploiting marine resources.

So our ancestors were EVERYWHERE some 2 million years ago, but they
weren't EVERYTHING 3 to 4 million years ago. That's when a Retro Virus
ripped through African apes but not Asian apes. And not Homo.

So they were NOT in Africa 3 to 4 million years ago and they were
EVERYWHERE by 2+ million years ago, including Africa... AND they way
they moved was via Aquatic Ape i.e. Coastal Dispersal.. and..

And our brains had to evolve under circumstances where DHA was found
in abundance. We're not great at synthesizing it NOW, and we picked up a
lucky mutation that made us BETTER at synthesizing it like 80k years ago,
so pror to 80k we were pretty reliant on marine resources to grow larger
brains. Yes, that IS Aquatic Ape.

So we falsified Out of Africa, we falsified the savanna idiocy and the only
theory left standing is Aquatic Ape.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713613768636137472

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/3/23 11:08 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
>> any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
>> evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?
>
> It's already refuted the alternative.

So neither you nor Marc have an answer to my question. Noted.

> Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
> sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
> a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
> we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.

Hmm. We don't get enough DHA, and we're thriving. Maybe ancient
hominids could thrive without getting the optimum amount, either.

> We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
> circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
>
> Seafood is "Brain food."

Even granting the need for DHA, harvesting seafood does not imply
Aquatic Ape.

> Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
> is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
> out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
> were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
> along.

So since I have walked along a seashore myself, I must be an aquatic
animal. Humans, by the standards you require for an aquatic ape, are
semiaquatic, contrary to what either you or Marc said in another post.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 2:10:10 AM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
> > any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
> > evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?

> It's already refuted the alternative.

Failure to answer the question noted.

> Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
> sources!

Vegans beware! :-)

But do cite some of those sources, please. Government officials
don't qualify as scientific sources without presenting extensive evidence.
The pandemic should have taught us that much.

>We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
> a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
> we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.

The capitalization would be in order if the genetic mutation
had gone the OTHER way. 80k is a very short time ago:
by that time, Homo erectus, the supposed beneficiary
of all that coastal shellfish gathering and [allegedly!] diving,
was extinct, wasn't it?

>
> We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
> circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
>
> Seafood is "Brain food."

So are other sources of DHA. See here:

"The three types of omega−3 fatty acids involved in human physiology are α-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). ALA can be found in plants, while DHA and EPA are found in algae and fish. Marine algae and phytoplankton are primary sources of omega−3 fatty acids.[5] DHA and EPA accumulate in fish that eat these algae.[6] Common sources of plant oils containing ALA include walnuts, edible seeds, and flaxseeds as well as hempseed oil, while sources of EPA and DHA include fish and fish oils,[1] and algae oil.

"Mammals are unable to synthesize the essential omega−3 fatty acid ALA and can only obtain it through diet. However, they can use ALA, when available, to form EPA and DHA, by creating additional double bonds along its carbon chain (desaturation) and extending it (elongation). Namely, ALA (18 carbons and 3 double bonds) is used to make EPA (20 carbons and 5 double bonds), which is then used to make DHA (22 carbons and 6 double bonds).[1][2]"

--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid

By the way, where is the evidence that ALA isn't a good substitute for DHA where our brains are concerned?

>
> Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
> is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name!

Show us some research or peer-reviewed articles without Marc as a co-author accepting Coastal Dispersal.

"Aquatic Ape" is a big package deal. Among other things, it says bipedality in Homo arose
with extensive wading in water that is chest deep. The crabs I told Marc about were caught
when the water was not even waist deep. So if you are right, "Coastal Dispersal" is a misnomer.

I also gathered edible algae, "sea lettuce", from water less than a foot deep.
Boiled gently, it reminded me of the taste of boiled collard greens.

> They didn't set
> out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
> were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
> along.

Without necessarily going in chest deep.

>
> When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already
> ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
> probably began long before that.

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

PS I don't know how many t.o. regulars are reading your posts on this thread.
Casanova has you killfiled, so your next post here, in follow-up to him, fell on deaf ears.
And I wonder whether anyone but Marc and Mark [who replied less than half an hour ago
to the same post I'm replying to here] or me is "eavesdropping".

You have an slightly undeserved reputation in t.o. of being a troll, but that's my estimation.
You are no more a troll than Erik Simpson or his absent mentor, but these two
may have poisoned the well about you in t.o. long ago.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> So neither you nor Marc have an answer to my question. Noted.

Lol! I just pointed out that your precious savanna nonsense is
falsified! It's debunked!

> > Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
> > sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
> > a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
> > we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.

> Hmm. We don't get enough DHA, and we're thriving.

Did you Google it?

https://www.thorne.com/take-5-daily/article/what-does-dha-do-for-your-brain

Honestly, you look like a goddamn idiot. You're trying to dispute things
which are WELL established. Because they threaten your precious
narrative.

Accept science. Accept reality. Then move on with your life.

> Maybe ancient
> hominids could thrive without getting the optimum amount, either.

I'll try again, and later I could explain it yet again but, the mutation
that allows us to synthesize DHA as well as we do, which isn't all
that good, just plain isn't that old. Your "Molecular Clock" nutters
put it at 80k years.

> Even granting the need for DHA, harvesting seafood does not imply
> Aquatic Ape.

No. It does. It is Aquatic Ape.

Nutters insist that one toe hit a savanna and a chimp was transformed
into a man. At the same time, MILLIONS of years exploiting the sea,
living waterside had precisely ZERO impact on human development.

You're crazy.

> > Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
> > is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
> > out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
> > were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
> > along.

> So since I have walked along a seashore myself

Wait. You don't know what "Coastal Dispersal" is? You're honestly THAT
ignorant? You are devoid of knowledge on the topic of human origins,
and you're proud of this fact?

Wow. You're crazy.


-- --

https://www.thorne.com/take-5-daily/article/what-does-dha-do-for-your-brain

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > It's already refuted the alternative.

> Failure to answer the question noted.

Stop being an idiot. "The Process of Elimination." It's scientifically
valid.

Here. You love Wiki:

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

> > Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
> > sources!

> Vegans beware! :-)

You know, if you weren't a troll you probably would have just Googled
"DHA" and "Brain" long before now, and educated yourself.

Vegans:

https://chriskresser.com/why-vegetarians-and-vegans-should-supplement-with-dha/

> But do cite some of those sources

Honest to God, you have NO scientific interests what so ever? You're
not the least bit curious? Because you have internet access so just
frigging GOOGLE this stuff.

You're PROVING that you're a worthless sock puppet, a useless troll here.

The human brain REQUIRES DHA and we're not getting a lot of the stuff
RIGHT NOW, AFTER we evolved the means to synthesize it ourselves.

It's a no brainer, quite literally: Aquatic Ape is the answer. It's required
because without it humans could never have evolved.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713714006743973888

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 29 maart 2023 om 16:35:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:30:41 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
> > <littor...@gmail.com>:
> > >Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:


> > >> >I just sent this:
> > >> >Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
> > >> >I just read with interest your article
> > >> >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> > >> >"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
> > >> >beginning with
> > >> >"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
> > >> >IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
> > >> >- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
> > >> >- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
> > >> >IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
> > >> >"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
> > >> >google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

flat-earther:
> > >> You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
> > >> theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
> > >> objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
> > >> subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
> > >> ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
> > >> the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
> > >> contradicts your claims. Bob C.

> > >If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
> > >"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":

flat-earther, still uninformed:
> > So you assert. Repeatedly. But I see no reference to any
> > actual evidence that that is correct, your unsupported
> > assertions not being evidence.
> > Your "evidence" seems even less compelling than the Aquatic
> > Ape Theory (which isn't a theory at all; it's strictly
> > conjecture).

Peter:
> It is a "theory" in the sense that it brings together a number of unrelated facts
> to bear on the same issue. These include the need for DHA/omega-3 fatty acids
> for the development and size increase of our brains [1], the evolution of bipedalism
> made possible by habitual wading [2], and the density of our bones, shared with
> aquatic and semiaquatic amniotes. [3] However, this business about the arch of the feet
> is a new one on me, and does not belong to the theory [yet?] inasmuch as Marc
> has not given an iota of anatomical explanation of why it is relevant to the "waterside past."

> [1] seafood is rich in it, hence the coastal dispersal part of the theory. For our need
> for our brains, see:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/

> [2] gradual evolution in the Darwinian [not Lamarckian] sense, the idea
> being that those individuals who spent more time waist-deep (or deeper) in the water
> had a better chance of finding seafood than those spending less time,
> and had a higher fertility rate.

Early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" waist-deep wading+climbing in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal",
but only Homo becgan diving for shellfish, probably early-Pleist., e.g. H.erectus (very POS) at Java Mojokerto etc.

> [3] Technical term: pachyosteosclerosis. Shared with seacows (dugongs and manatees), the extinct Plesiosauria and Mesosauria and extinct aquatic sloths.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis

The earliest Cetacea & Pinnipedia were also POS (pachy=thick, osteo=bone, sclerotic=dense),
vs present-day whales & pinnipeds (fast swimming) are lightly-boned,
but bottom-feeding walrus Odobenus still?again is POS.
Sirenia (bottom-feeding) have always been POS, AFAIK:

> The last example, a semiaquatic sloth is especially intriguing. Not only was it just a bit taller
> than a very tall human, but the extensive entry on it includes habits attributed to it by
> the Aquatic Ape theorists. Coincidentally, it was contemporary with early hominini: 7-3 mya.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus

H.erectus (only early-Pleist. AFAWK!) was very POS (He>Hn>Hs=ape-apith).

...

[Mark Isaak]

If people here are ignorant of the subject, it's because you *want* them
to be ignorant of it. Obviously, your main (only?) attraction to the
hypothesis is as a vehicle allowing you to ridicule people who disagree
with you.

Don't bother replying to me. It's obvious you have nothing to say, so
I'm back to not reading your posts.

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 03:55:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

...

> > cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> > they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:

> Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
> Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.

- kangaroos hop = ex-arboreal? very unlike human BPism,
- bears also spend?spent much time in water (salmon!? cf.H.neand.?), but don't have our flat feet.

> > flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.

> Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
> and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
> and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
> no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:
> "The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]"
> [...]
> "The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60  with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.[2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 ."
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

Yes, that conforms our view: we were at best only very beginning (semi?)aquatics, still POS etc.

> > Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> > -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:

> That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.

:-DDD Not my problem!
Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...

> > - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,

> Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.

Relatively.
They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.

...

> > - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,

> Weak connection.

Stone tools & handiness: convergence.

> > - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,

> Another weak connection.

Not "weak" IMO: convergence:
e.g. Stephen Munro proposed this diving-cycle, probably early-Pleist.
cf human breathing rhythm (in hyperventilation + in nasal mucosa) of c 90 seconds:
- back-floating, nose up (cf. POS occiput), opening shellfish + hyperventilating,
- strongly exhaling -> diving head first, nostrils closed by prognathism,
- squatting?kneeling on bottom, collecting shellfish,
- pushing-off -> ascending nose-first -> back-floating.

Google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

...

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 08:10:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

...

> Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
> sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
> a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
> we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
> We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
> circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
> Seafood is "Brain food."
> Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
> is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
> out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
> were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
> along.
> When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already
> ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
> probably began long before that.

Our waterside past had at least 2 rather different phases:
aquarboreal -> shallow-diving:
schematically (very short):
0) ancestral Primates & Catarrhini = arboreal,
1) at least early-Miocene S-Asia: Hominoidea -> aquarboreal (google),
2) only?early-Pleist. S-Asia: archaic Homo + shallow-diving + shellfish collection,

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

You're confusing continental drift with plate tectonics. By the time
plate tectonics came along around 1960 (J. Tuzo Wilson and others) the
world was ready it andit was accepted fairly easily.

>
>>> - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
>
>> Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.
> Relatively.
> They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.
>
> ...

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:45:11 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 03:55:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
>
> ...
> > > cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> > > they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
>
> > Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
> > Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.

> - kangaroos hop = ex-arboreal? very unlike human BPism,

And very unlike orangutan rudimentary semi-BPism. You have no evidence that
they devolved from true BPism. Nothing like that is evident in Sivapithecus, is there?

But if they did not devolve, then what are doing closer to humans than to hylobatids?

> - bears also spend?spent much time in water (salmon!? cf.H.neand.?), but don't have our flat feet.

Do you deny that they are plantigrade?

Also, when they run, they are quadrupedal. So spending much time in water is irrelevant.

By the way, how much is your "much time in water" supposed to encompass? 10%? For brown bears,
including grizzly bears, I would say it is closer to 1%.

> > > flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
>
> > Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
> > and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
> > and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
> > no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:
> > "The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]"
> > [...]
> > "The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60  with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.[2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 ."
> > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

> Yes, that conforms our view: we were at best only very beginning (semi?)aquatics, still POS etc.

No, it does not conform: Ambulocetus's 1st toes (halluxes), and UNLIKE OURS, are relatively short, not relatively long.
And its 5th toes don't look to be only "slightly" shorter in the following Jpeg:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Ambulocetus_natans_hindlimb.JPG

The one preserved bone from the 5th toe is much shorter than the corresponding bones from the fourth and third.

It isn't the first time that I've seen text clash with pictures in an article about long-extinct animals.

> > > Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> > > -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
>
> > That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.
> :-DDD Not my problem!

Yes, it is; if ever you want to convince open-minded people about how your hypothesis is better,
you need to make better use of your evidence than you are doing here

> Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...

Wegener and DuToit had VASTLY better evidence for continental drift [1]
than you and JTEM have for your "Out of Asia" hypothesis; moreover, "endorsed"
is misleading. [2]

[1] "plate tectonics" is an anachronism. NOBODY thought it existed until
evidence accumulated in the late 1950's about sea floor spreading
and subduction.

[2] It is precisely because Wegener and DuToit hadn't a clue about
plate tectonics that they were at a loss for a convincing *mechanism*
for continental drift. Once geologists understood the evidence for
plate tectonics, they were won over to continental drift *en* *masse*.

> > > - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
>
> > Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.

> Relatively.

But you are saying that they required aquatic foods. And more than we do,
thanks to absolute (not relative) largeness.

You need to think more like a medical researcher and less like a general practitioner
with little insight into the difference between "absolute" and "relative."

Unlike a notorious "Dr. Dr." in talk.origins, you do not have a Ph.D.
in addition to your MD.

> They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.

The ancestors were herbivores; be prepared to go against the
dominant conventional wisdom if you disagree.

The fact that sirenians are pure herbivores does little for your cause.

> ...
>
> > > - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
>
> > Weak connection.

> Stone tools & handiness: convergence.

Part of the weakness is that sea otters don't make stone TOOLS. They take
stones as they come; nor do they need to do more than that, given their diet.

> > > - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
>
> > Another weak connection.

> Not "weak" IMO: convergence:

Turtles and oysters converge on being shelled. Very weak.

Hey, here's an idea: show that coast-following humans got DHA from sea turtles. :)
Seriously, you have no evidence that sea turtles are rich in DHA, do you?

> e.g. Stephen Munro proposed this diving-cycle, probably early-Pleist.

If you want me to take claims like this seriously, you need to provide references.

> cf human breathing rhythm (in hyperventilation + in nasal mucosa) of c 90 seconds:
> - back-floating, nose up (cf. POS occiput), opening shellfish + hyperventilating,

You drag all kinds of disconnected things into your theory with no rhyme or reason.
Where do you get the idea that we hyperventilate when we open oysters?

> - strongly exhaling -> diving head first, nostrils closed by prognathism,

Very experienced divers are able to coordinate closing of nostrils with strong
exhalation while diving. I never could do it.

Also, shellfish are typically on rocky shores. Diving head first is suicidal in such places.

> - squatting?kneeling on bottom, collecting shellfish,

After having EXHALED, to keep from floating up. How long do you
estimate they could keep underwater with flat lungs?

> - pushing-off -> ascending nose-first -> back-floating.
>
> Google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

After seeing how scattershot you are here, I want text that
I can ARGUE with. When will you start providing some from these
precious articles of yours that you are too lazy to quote from?


Peter Nyikos

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

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

[Mark Isaak]

Okay, I did that, and I keep finding articles such as Boivin et al.,
"Human dispersal across diverse environments of Asia during the Upper
Pleistocene", _Quaternary International_ 300 (2013): 32-47. None of
which give a great deal of support to your view. The consensus re
Pleistocene Homo dispersal seems to be that it is complicated, and it is
uncertain. Two things I have *not* noticed you saying.

[JTEM is my hero]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> You're confusing continental drift with plate tectonics.

The latter is an explanation of the former.

So they're the same thing.

it would be fascinating, however, to hear you defend your
comments...



-- --

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:55:11 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > You're confusing continental drift with plate tectonics.
> The latter is an explanation of the former.
>
> So they're the same thing.

Wrong. They are an example of cause and effect. And I told Marc more about the cause; see excerpt below.

> it would be fascinating, however, to hear you defend your
> comments...

My knowledge of science is much broader (and deeper in many places) than Athel's.
Watch what I wrote in reply to Marc's confusing the two things.

___________________________ excerpt from reply to Marc ____________________

> Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...

Wegener and DuToit had VASTLY better evidence for continental drift [1]
than you and JTEM have for your "Out of Asia" hypothesis; moreover, "endorsed"
is misleading. [2]

[1] "plate tectonics" is an anachronism. NOBODY thought it existed until
evidence accumulated in the late 1950's about sea floor spreading
and subduction.

[2] It is precisely because Wegener and DuToit hadn't a clue about
plate tectonics that they were at a loss for a convincing *mechanism*
for continental drift. Once geologists understood the evidence for
plate tectonics, they were won over to continental drift *en* *masse*.

++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt +++++++++++++++++++++++++

By the way, opening gambits like Marc's create a very bad impression.
For every successful "badly underendorsed" theory, there are
a dozen unsuccessful ones. One was the "marsupionta" hypothesis,
which claimed that marsupials diverged from placentals AND monotremes
before placentals diverged from monotremes. Another was that
fruit bats and microchiropterans independently arose from different wingless ancestors.
Yet another was that seals and sea lions independently arose from mustelids
and arctoids, respectively.

There: I just now posted solidly on-topic items on vertebrate paleontology,
on three very different topics. Marc starts numerous on-topic threads on pretty much
the same subject.


By the way, I use four-line virtual .sigs to signal a post that has at least some
on-topic material. If it has none, I just sign my name electronically.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

No. The continents are moving because they are the above-water
portion of a plate. The plate is in motion. These are not separate
entities.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713809263307472896

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 00:00:12 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:45:11 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 03:55:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

...
> > > > cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
> > > > they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:

> > > Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
> > > Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.

> > - kangaroos hop = ex-arboreal? very unlike human BPism,

> And very unlike orangutan rudimentary semi-BPism. You have no evidence that
> they devolved from true BPism. Nothing like that is evident in Sivapithecus, is there?

What is "true" BPism, Peter?? ostrich? kangaroo? aquarboreal?

> But if they did not devolve, then what are doing closer to humans than to hylobatids?

"devolve"?? orangs?
Pongo was aquarboreal: broad sternum, tail loss, centrally-placed spine etc.

You know my view(?), see my 2022 book p.299-300:
- c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = full of coastal forests:
Catarrhini reaching these forests became aquarboreal Hominoidea:
broad build, vertical posture, BP wading, tail loss, climbing arms overhead etc.
- c 20 Ma India underneath Eurasia split hylobatids (E) & other hominids (W) in Tethys Ocean coastal forests,
- c 15 Ma the Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-drypoths (W):
pongids forced hylobatids shigher into the trees brachating,
hominids of Medit.-Black...Sea died out except in Red Sea Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors:
- c 8 Ma Gorilla followed incipient northern Rift -> Afar -> Lucy etc.
- ?5.33 Ma (Zanclean mega-flood cf. Francesca Mansfield) the Red Sea opened into the Gulf:
Pan went right -> E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift -> Transvaal -> Taung etc.
Homo went left -> S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.H.erectus shallow-diving for shellfish. :-)

...

> > - bears also spend?spent much time in water (salmon!? cf.H.neand.?), but don't have our flat feet.

> Do you deny that they are plantigrade?

To the contrary, of course. But they lack our long flat feet ("devolved" after becoming less aquatic??).

> Also, when they run, they are quadrupedal. So spending much time in water is irrelevant.

Today, yes. IMO, ursids (Pliocene?) might have been semi-aquatic (cf polar bear still),
but although they sometimes climb, they were probably never as arboreal as hominoid Oligocene ancestors (before aquarborealism) were.

> By the way, how much is your "much time in water" supposed to encompass? 10%? For brown bears,
> including grizzly bears, I would say it is closer to 1%.

Thalassarctos: when did they split?

> > > > flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.

> > > Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
> > > and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
> > > and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
> > > no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:
> > > "The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]" ...
> > > "The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60  with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.[2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 ."
> > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

> > Yes, that conforms our view: we were at best only very beginning (semi?)aquatics, still POS etc.

> No, it does not conform: Ambulocetus's 1st toes (halluxes), and UNLIKE OURS, are relatively short, not relatively long.
> And its 5th toes don't look to be only "slightly" shorter in the following Jpeg:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Ambulocetus_natans_hindlimb.JPG
> The one preserved bone from the 5th toe is much shorter than the corresponding bones from the fourth and third.
> It isn't the first time that I've seen text clash with pictures in an article about long-extinct animals.

Ambulocetus was probably a fast, QP carnivore.
Early-Pleist.H.erectus were slow+shallow shellfish-divers, descending from BP aquarboreals.

> > > > Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
> > > > -> Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:

> > > That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.

> > :-DDD Not my problem!

> Yes, it is; if ever you want to convince open-minded people about how your hypothesis is better,

> you need to make better use of your evidence than you are doing here.

How? The savanna maniacs refuese to inform.

> > Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...

> Wegener and DuToit had VASTLY better evidence for continental drift [1]
> than you and JTEM have for your "Out of Asia" hypothesis;

- Not so: our evidence is perfect, 100 % clear (except for people who don't know anything on human anatomy or refuse to inform or...).
- "Out of Asia" is not my hypothesis, I'd prefer "out of Red Sea" :-D

> moreover, "endorsed" is misleading. [2]

?? English is the 5th language I had to study... (after Dutch, Latin, French, German).

> [1] "plate tectonics" is an anachronism. NOBODY thought it existed until
> evidence accumulated in the late 1950's about sea floor spreading
> and subduction.
> [2] It is precisely because Wegener and DuToit hadn't a clue about
> plate tectonics that they were at a loss for a convincing *mechanism*
> for continental drift. Once geologists understood the evidence for
> plate tectonics, they were won over to continental drift *en* *masse*.

Yes, possible.

> > > > - Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,

> > > Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.

> > Relatively.

> But you are saying that they required aquatic foods.

I said: aquatic mammals often (except Sirenia?) evolve larger brains;
That's what we see in H.erectus.

> And more than we do,
> thanks to absolute (not relative) largeness.
> You need to think more like a medical researcher and less like a general practitioner
> with little insight into the difference between "absolute" and "relative."

:-D

> Unlike a notorious "Dr. Dr." in talk.origins, you do not have a Ph.D.
> in addition to your MD.

??

> > They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.

> The ancestors were herbivores; be prepared to go against the
> dominant conventional wisdom if you disagree.

Not sure what you want to say, but our ancestors were insecti->frugivores.

> The fact that sirenians are pure herbivores does little for your cause.

OK.

...

> > > > - Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,

> > > Weak connection.

> > Stone tools & handiness: convergence.

> Part of the weakness is that sea otters don't make stone TOOLS. They take
> stones as they come; nor do they need to do more than that, given their diet.

Yes. Which animals use stones? Which animals make tools? Which animals back-float?

> > > > - external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,

> > > Another weak connection.

> > Not "weak" IMO: convergence:

> Turtles and oysters converge on being shelled. Very weak.

Archaic Homo: heavy occiput, light paranasal region.

> Hey, here's an idea: show that coast-following humans got DHA from sea turtles. :)
> Seriously, you have no evidence that sea turtles are rich in DHA, do you?

Mussels are sedimentary. Turtles swim.

> > e.g. Stephen Munro proposed this diving-cycle, probably early-Pleist.

> If you want me to take claims like this seriously, you need to provide references.

Our correspondence: excellent idea of Stephen!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222684445_Aquarboreal_ancestors
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21741646/

> > cf human breathing rhythm (in hyperventilation + in nasal mucosa) of c 90 seconds:
> > - back-floating, nose up (cf. POS occiput), opening shellfish + hyperventilating,

> You drag all kinds of disconnected things into your theory with no rhyme or reason.
> Where do you get the idea that we hyperventilate when we open oysters?

??
Diving tetrapods hyperventilate when they surface.
Hyperventilation is a typically-human "disease".

> > - strongly exhaling -> diving head first, nostrils closed by prognathism,

> Very experienced divers are able to coordinate closing of nostrils with strong
> exhalation while diving. I never could do it.

OK.

> Also, shellfish are typically on rocky shores. Diving head first is suicidal in such places.

Interesting thought, thanks.

> > - squatting?kneeling on bottom, collecting shellfish,

> After having EXHALED, to keep from floating up. How long do you
> estimate they could keep underwater with flat lungs?

Hyperventilation cycle = c 90 seconds: 50" under, 40" above?

> > - pushing-off -> ascending nose-first -> back-floating.
> > Google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".

> After seeing how scattershot you are here, I want text that
> I can ARGUE with. When will you start providing some from these
> precious articles of yours that you are too lazy to quote from?

Yes...: time!
My publications 1985–2023
Human & Ape evolution = Littoral & Aquarboreal theories
1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32 The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario
1986 Marswin 7:64-69 Een korte inleiding tot de waterapentheorie
1987 Nature 325:305-6 Origin of hominid bipedalism
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?
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 African ape ancestry
1991 Med Hypoth 35:108-114 Aquatic ape theory and fossil hominids
1991 1:75-112 Aquatic features in fossil hominids?
1991 1:182-192 Human regulation of body temperature and water balance
1992 Hum Evol 7:63-64 Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of Gramineae?
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?
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls
1997 R Bender, --, 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 2:128-9 Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?
1998 --, P-F Puech 2:47 Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet
1999 --, N McPhail, S Munro EES 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
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?
2007 --, S Munro 4:1-4 New directions in palaeoanthropology
2007 --, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser 4:155-186 google econiche Homo The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?
2009 --, S Munro 5:37-38 Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?
2009 S Munro, -- 5:28-29 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 S Munro, -- 6:82-105 Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?
2011 --, S Munro, P-F Puech, M Vaneechoutte 6:67-81 Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, -- HOMO – 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 et al. google Schagatay Brenna reply A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why...

Speech origins
1986 E Morgan, -- New Scient 1498:62-63 In the beginning was the water
1987 Hum Evol 2:381 Speech origins
1988 Specul Sci Technol 11:165-171 Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis
1992 Language Origins Society Forum 15:17-18 KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts
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
1998 2:131 Human/ape brain differences and speech origins
1999 --, S Munro Mother Tongue V:161-168 Bipeds, tools and speech
2000 --, S Munro 3:236-240 The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory
2004 --, S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, -- 6:181-9 Seafood, diving, song and speech

1 M Roede, J Wind, J Patrick, V Reynolds eds 1991 The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? Souvenir London
2 MA Raath, H Soodyall, D Barkhan, KL Kuykendall, PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg abstracts
3 J-L Dessalles, L Ghadakpour eds 2000 The Evolution of Language Ecole Nat Sup Télécommunications Paris proceedings
4 SI Muñoz ed 2007 Ecology Research Progress Nova NY
5 NI Xirotiris, A Matala, N Galanidou, KN Zafeiris, C Papageorgopoulou eds 2009 Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives 28th ICAF Conference Kamilari Crete abstracts
6 M Vaneechoutte, A Kuliukas, M Verhaegen eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution

books:
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens
2022 Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp De Evolutie van de Mens – waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken – Medisch–biologische Inzichten en Recente Fossiele Vondsten

David Attenborough BBC 15.9.16 2x 42’ The Waterside Ape https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b07v2ysg
Kathelijne Bonne Gondwana talks 27.1.23 https://twitter.com/GondwanaTalks https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[marc verhaegen]

Sorry, I just noticed a small but relevant mistake:
> You know(?) my view, see my 2022 book p.299-300:

> - c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = full of coastal forests:
> Catarrhini reaching these forests became aquarboreal Hominoidea:

> broad build, vertical posture, bipedal wading, tail loss, climbing arms overhead etc.

> - c 20 Ma India underneath Eurasia split hylobatids (E) & other hominids (W) in Tethys Ocean coastal forests,

> - c 15 Ma the Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W):
> pongids forced hylobatids higher into the trees -> brachiating,

> hominids of Medit.-Black...Sea died out except in Red Sea Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors:
> - c 8 Ma Gorilla followed incipient northern Rift -> Afar -> Lucy etc.
> - ?5.33 Ma (Zanclean mega-flood cf. Francesca Mansfield) the Red Sea opened into the Gulf:
> Pan went right -> E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift -> Transvaal -> Taung etc.
> Homo went left -> S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.H.erectus shallow-diving for shellfish. :-)

- c 20 Ma: should be: "hominoids" instead of "hominids":
India underneath Eurasia split hylobatids (siamang-gibbon) & other hominOids, of course:
-hominoids = apes+humans
-hominids (sometimes wrongly=afrocentrically called "African apes") = Gorilla, Homo, Pan + fossil relatives.

I also mistyped several other words, sorry, becoming old - I should have re-read it before sending,
already corrected above, e.g. "drypoths" -> "dryopiths" (Miocene Dryopithecus & relatives).

Notice the (apparent IMO but rather unexpected) importance of plate tectonics on hominoid splittings!!
:-)
https://twitter.com/GondwanaTalks https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:05:12 PM UTC-4, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]

JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"
on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.


> No.

JTEM isn't saying "No" to anything to which the following is
supposed to be a correction. This is the hallmark of a dirty debating tactic
to which I had already given the name of "Phantom Error Correction Scam"
back in 1993 [or 1994 at the latest].

> The continents are moving because they are the above-water
> portion of a plate.

That is not the geological definition of "continents."
Of course, this being talk.origins, JTEM feels free to
pretend that everyone who reads this wouldn't notice that.

>The plate is in motion.

I gave the scientific reasons continental drift takes place:
seafloor spreading and subduction.

If you look at it from one perspective, plates aren't in motion,
they are growing on one side and/or shrinking on another side,
when the plate isn't just plain static.

> These are not separate entities.

Nobody said they were separate entities.

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

PS I notice that Marc has not yet replied to Mark, and if he refrains from doing so,
I will NOT reply to any of Marc's posts or any of JTEM's posts on this thread until well into next week.

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"
> on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.

Oh, stop it.. "I didn't mean what I said and you're wrong to hold me to it."

> JTEM isn't saying "No" to anything to which

Your characterization was incorrect, hence "No."

> > The continents are moving because they are the above-water
> > portion of a plate.

> That is not the geological definition of "continents."

Who cares? I wasn't offering a "Geological Definition" I was
explaining the situation.

I have no use for language police. I'm no more interested in your
"Distinctions" now than I am with the children who insist that
"Transgendered" is hideously offensive while "Transgender" is
not.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713809263307472896

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 00:55:11 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

> uncertain. Two things I have *not* noticed you saying.-- Mark Isaak

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

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

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 18:15:12 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

...
> JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"
> on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.

...
??
And what is a "tangent"?

[jillery]

GIYF

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[JTEM is my hero]

Autistic, emotionally unhinged, jillery wrote:

[...]

Lenin was wrong. "Quantity" does not possess a "Quality" all
on it's own. At least not when it comes to usenet posts.

Prove you're an unstable idiot by refusing to name specifics.
You want to contradict, you want to disagree but about what?

Be quite specific.

You can't. Because you're a bundle of useless emotions. You're
not thinking, you're reacting.

*Hugs*!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Marc, you made no attempt to answer the following comment by Mark:

> > The consensus re
> > Pleistocene Homo dispersal seems to be that it is complicated, and it is
> > uncertain. Two things I have *not* noticed you saying.-- Mark Isaak
> > "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
> > doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

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

This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of which Mark wrote.
The whole linked article does not give one reason why early Homo could not have
had a waterside past/coastal dispersal in Africa instead of Asia.

If that was your best shot at "Out of Asia" then you have to contend with African apes
closer to us biochemically than orangutans. You have to argue that Sahelantropus,
Ardipithecus and Australopithecus ONLY gave rise to chimps and gorillas and
NOT to Homo. If you were to jettison this "Out of Asia" hypothesis, then you could
argue that these gave rise to and chimps and gorillas "and perhaps Homo," and find
a less hostile audience for the other parts of your theory -- and much less hostile
if you leave out "perhaps".


Think about it: you could still hang on to most of your highly heterogeneous
theory and jettison a few features at the same time.

And think about this too: there is hardly any surer turnoff for someone than
to be given an article to look at and to discover that it does not answer his question.
You would be well advised to take a look at the article first and to try and find a part
that does answer it. And if you succeed in finding one, QUOTE IT.


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

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 7 april 2023 om 20:50:13 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

Not so: my book shows that Pliocene Homo followed S-Asian coasts, e.g. early-Pleist.Homo at Mojokerto.
When the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (5.33 Ma? caused by the Zanclean mega-flood, Francesca Mansfield),
- Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal etc. (in parallel with Gorilla N-Rift -> Afar: Lucy etc.),
- Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java H.erectus was *very* different from Afr.apes-apiths.

> The whole linked article does not give one reason why early Homo could not have
> had a waterside past/coastal dispersal in Africa instead of Asia.

https://www.academia.edu/8732353/Marc_Verhaegens_papers_in_Human_Evolution
Morphological comparisons show:
- E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla more than Pan, and much more than Homo,
- S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan more than Gorilla & Homo:
Pliocene Homo was not in Africa.

> If that was your best shot at "Out of Asia" then you have to contend with African apes
> closer to us biochemically than orangutans.

Of course! Who doubts that??
Again: Miocene Hominoidea lived in Tethys coastal forests, hylobatids E, others W,
the Mesopotamian Seaway Closure c 15 Ma split pongids-sivapiths E = Ind.Ocean, hominids-dryopiths W = Med.Sea,
hominids (e.g. Trachilos footprints Creta) died out except in the (then incipient) Red Sea:
- Gorilla c 8 Ma followed the incipient N-Rift,
- Homo-Pan (5.33 Ma? Zanclean mega-flood) went to the Gulf: Pan right, Homo left.

> You have to argue that Sahelantropus,
> Ardipithecus and Australopithecus ONLY gave rise to chimps and gorillas and

https://www.academia.edu/8732353/Marc_Verhaegens_papers_in_Human_Evolution
- Ardipithecus & Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei to Gorilla,
- Australopthecus s.s. africanus->robustus (// Gorilla) to Pan.

> NOT to Homo. If you were to jettison this "Out of Asia" hypothesis, then you could
> argue that these gave rise to and chimps and gorillas "and perhaps Homo," and find
> a less hostile audience for the other parts of your theory -- and much less hostile
> if you leave out "perhaps".

This has nothing to do with hostility (??), everything with morphol.comparisons, see my Hum.Evol.papers & book.
It's the "Out of the Red Sea" hypothesis of hominid origins: swamp forests between Africa & Arabia :-)

> Think about it: you could still hang on to most of your highly heterogeneous
> theory and jettison a few features at the same time.

?? I can't follow, Peter.

> And think about this too: there is hardly any surer turnoff for someone than
> to be given an article to look at and to discover that it does not answer his question.
> You would be well advised to take a look at the article first and to try and find a part
> that does answer it. And if you succeed in finding one, QUOTE IT.

Bijlage 16. Hypothese: Platentektoniek en Hominoïde Opdelingen
Diersoorten splitsen in 2 aparte soorten vaak door geografische soortvorming (allopatrische speciatie), in ons geval o.a. door botsende of scheurende continenten.
Een ‘gewone’ continentsnelheid is ~5 cm/jaar, maar Indië dook, en duikt nog, van zuid naar noord onder/tegen Azië met wel ~20 cm/jaar, de Himalaya opstuwend.
Toen Indië Azië naderde (~30–25 Ma?), ontstonden daar eerst eilandbogen (plooien of ‘rimpels’ in de aardkorst) vol lage, hete, natte kustbossen (vgl. bv. Indonesië?).
Geleken de smalneusapen (Catarrhini) die die eilanden bereikten, wat op de huidige neusapen (Nasalis) in de mangroves? Eilandbewoners evolueren soms wat speciaal.
De oermensapen gingen in die waterbossen tweebenig waden, soms zwemmen, en klommen, armen omhoog, in de takken boven het water, ze werden groter, kregen een erg breed borstbeen, borstkas en bekken, lange armen en benen die makkelijk op- en zijwaarts bewogen, en een korte, verticale, centraal gelegen lendenwervelzuil, en verloren in het water hun staart
(google "aquarboreal").
Toen Indië onder Azië drong, verdeelde dat hen in kleine- en grote-mensapen (~20 Ma?), die de Oost-, resp. West-Euraziatische Tethys-oceaankusten volgden. ...
En de Mesopotamische Zeewegsluiting (~15 Ma? Bialik 2019) verdeelde de grote-mensapen: sivapitheken–pongiden Oost, dryopitheken–hominiden West?
• De pongiden volgden in Zuid-Azië oostwaarts de kustbossen (along the Ind.Ocean) ...
• De hominiden volgden de Tethys-zee, thans de Middellandse Zee: o.a. de tweebenige voetafdrukken op Trachilos (Kreta ~6 Ma? Gierliński 2017, Kirscher 2021), Graeco- en Oreopithecus, en veel andere die via waterwegen Europa binnentrokken (Hdst 3). De Mediterrane hominiden stierven uit (mega-vloed? droogte? hitte? afkoeling?), alleen die in de Rode Zee overleefden:
De beginnende Grote Slenk (East-African Rift System EARS, ~8 Ma?) werd o.a. bevolkt door Praeanthropus–Gorilla-australopitheken via waterbossen aan de noordkant (Afar, Turkana-meer enz.), bv. laat-Pliocene graciele afarensis (Lucy) -> vroeg-Pleistocene robuuste boisei.
Toen de Rode Zee zich opende in de Golf (exact 5,33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield’s Zanclean Flood–Red Sea-hypothese), volgde Pan rechts de Oost-Afrikaanse kusten, ze trokken dan als Australopithecus aan de zuidkant van de Slenk (EARS Malawi-meer enz.) Zuid-Afrika binnen, in parallel met Praeanthropus aan de noordkant: laat-Pliocene graciele africanus (Taung) -> vroeg-Pleistocene robuuste robustus. ...

--marc verhaegen
"De evolutie van de mens" p.299-300 Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of which Mark wrote.
> The whole linked article does not give one reason why early Homo could not have
> had a waterside past/coastal dispersal in Africa instead of Asia.

But your narcissism is causing you to pretend that these subject have never been
touched on. They have. And it's sheer dishonesty to pretend that every facet has
to be rehashed with every post.

You're a troll. I can prove it.

Here's two days ago:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/os5qbdFmXvs/m/vX9vceyFBAAJ

Oo!

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/os5qbdFmXvs/m/vX9vceyFBAAJ

It was in reply to this peter alter and you replied using it.

> If that was your best shot at "Out of Asia" then

You're trolling. You're a typical narcissist.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[marc verhaegen]

Some netloon:

> You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
> theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
> objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
> subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
> ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
> the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
> contradicts your claims.

Sigh.
Grow up, little boy.
I have no idea what netloons like you read... :-D

Everything from paleontology to genetics to comparative anatomy, physiology, evol.theory etc.etc. shows:
late-Miocene hominids (Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors) lived in swamp forests of the (then incipient) Red Sea, e.g.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[Pro Plyd]

marc verhaegen wrote:
> I just sent this:
>
> Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
>
> I just read with interest your article
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
> "Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
> beginning with
> "The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
>
> IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:

Confusing only to you.

> - runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
> - walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
>
> IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
> "The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",

There is no evidence that.

> With best wishes --marc verhaegen
>

[Pro Plyd]

Basically changing the topic to something unrelated

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> But your narcissism is causing you to pretend that these subject have never been

Someone who calls themself "my hero" claims that someone else is
narcissistic?

[Pro Plyd]

marc verhaegen wrote:

>
> Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.
>

What flat feet? That's a pathological condition.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evolving-arch-across-foot-width-helped-hominids-walk-upright

FEBRUARY 26, 2020 AT 11:00 AM

The arch running across the width of the human foot might
be a big part of the reason that people can walk and run
upright, a new study suggests.

People have a prominent arch along the insides of their
feet from ball to heel — a structure that helps make feet
stiff to withstand forces on the foot caused by walking
and running. But there’s another, less obvious arch. Bones
in the middle of the foot, called metatarsals, are arranged
in a curve across the foot’s width. This bend, called the
transverse tarsal arch, stiffens the foot lengthwise and
may have evolved more than 3.4 million years ago, a step
toward ancient hominids gaining the ability to walk and
run on two feet unlike other primates, researchers report
February 26 in Nature.
...




https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2053-y.epdf?sharing_token=8fdNcdSoqcNmQjgfx3xYodRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NVMPezm1RfOIjZtVfh8mUr4C00OQMCMXXfQblN4-IlqhoONQ-k7dS2CGzWUhaoUXADruPjjfesHR7Lc0pSqyPfL4DIZgySR9JN3LlM2rtI0syrVMZhIHC6aggXW9iTOeCfvMveG6J6O0SnJJTirScmMUfk7bvVEHFslo95j0KmPv7Gmb0BVbBNuddxan9GuX8%3D&tracking_referrer=www.sciencenews.org

Stiffness of the human foot and evolution of the
transverse arch
Published: 26 February 2020

The stiff human foot enables an efficient push-off
when walking or running, and was critical for the
evolution of bipedalism. The uniquely arched
morphology of the human midfoot is thought to stiffen
it, whereas other primates have flat feet that bend
severely in the midfoot. However, the relationship
between midfoot geometry and stiffness remains debated
in foot biomechanics, podiatry and palaeontology.
These debates centre on the medial longitudinal arch
and have not considered whether stiffness is affected
by the second, transverse tarsal arch of the human
foot. Here we show that the transverse tarsal arch,
acting through the inter-metatarsal tissues, is
responsible for more than 40% of the longitudinal
stiffness of the foot. The underlying principle
resembles a floppy currency note that stiffens
considerably when it curls transversally. We derive a
dimensionless curvature parameter that governs the
stiffness contribution of the transverse tarsal arch,
demonstrate its predictive power using mechanical
models of the foot and find its skeletal correlate in
hominin feet. In the foot, the material properties of
the inter-metatarsal tissues and the mobility of the
metatarsals may additionally influence the longitudinal
stiffness of the foot and thus the curvature-stiffness
relationship of the transverse tarsal arch. By analysing
fossils, we track the evolution of the curvature
parameter among extinct hominins and show that a
human-like transverse arch was a key step in the
evolution of human bipedalism that predates the genus
Homo by at least 1.5 million years. This renewed
understanding of the foot may improve the clinical
treatment of flatfoot disorders, the design of robotic
feet and the study of foot function in locomotion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 22:56:13 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:

>marc verhaegen wrote:
>
>>
>> Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.
>>
>
>What flat feet? That's a pathological condition.
>
>https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evolving-arch-across-foot-width-helped-hominids-walk-upright
>
>FEBRUARY 26, 2020 AT 11:00 AM
>
>The arch running across the width of the human foot might
>be a big part of the reason that people can walk and run
>upright, a new study suggests.
>
>People have a prominent arch along the insides of their
>feet from ball to heel — a structure that helps make feet
>stiff to withstand forces on the foot caused by walking
>and running. But there’s another, less obvious arch. Bones
>in the middle of the foot, called metatarsals, are arranged
>in a curve across the foot’s width. This bend, called the
>transverse tarsal arch, stiffens the foot lengthwise and
>may have evolved more than 3.4 million years ago, a step
>toward ancient hominids gaining the ability to walk and
>run on two feet unlike other primates, researchers report
>February 26 in Nature.
>...
>

Just a note: The above idiocy by marc was in response to my
post to him regarding the same thing, although with much
less detail. That resulted in a permanent "time out" for
him.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Basically changing the topic to something unrelated

Ironically, shit for brains, it's YOU that can't focus. Like in the thread
where I talked about the Silurian hypothesis your mental disease
had you screeching about WHO believes it, what their names are,
instead of a goddamn thing that I actually said.

You're MAJOR fucked in the head!



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Someone who

What is the topic of this thread? What is the good Doctor's position? What is my
view on this topic?

You have no idea. You're nym shifting troll and a stupid one at that.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> The arch running across the width of the human foot might

Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.

If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?

Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
status quo, refuted as it were.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Just a note:

You're a fucking pussy who cowers behind sock puppets, certain of his
own idiocy, terrified of anyone knowing who is really responsible for all
the stupid shit you spew...

Bipedal locomotion did not result in the human foot. It's just a stupid,
unsupportable claim. Bipedalism came first. So either our ancestors
spent a million or two years going extinct, because they couldn't
escape any dangers or eat for that matter, or you're just a goddamn
mouth breathing jackoff.

You know what gets my vote, jackoff.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714617157062983680

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 15 april 2023 om 22:05:21 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

> Pro Plyd wrote:

> > The arch running across the width of the human foot might

> Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
> If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
> result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
> Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
> different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
> status quo, refuted as it were.

We're wasting our time, JTEM.

1) Miocene Hominoidea already waded+climbed bipedally=vertically in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal"
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

2) Humans are plantigrade = flat-footed,
but
- cursorial herbivores = unguligrade,
- cursorial carnivores = digitigrade,
IOW,
only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after African antelopes.

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:02:42 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> The arch running across the width of the human foot might
>
>Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.

The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.
Characteristics of human ancestors are relevant, characteristics of
kangaroo ancestors are not.

>If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
>result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?

Nobody suggested a "sudden change". That's your strawman.

>Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
>different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
>status quo, refuted as it were.

Doctor Who?

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> The arch running across the width of the human foot might
>
> Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
>
> If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
> result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
>
> Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
> different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
> status quo, refuted as it were.

Meanwhile, the quack AA sez wading makes you obligately
bipedal - why, if already obligately bipedal?

[Pro Plyd]

We are not flat footed. If you think we are, then prove it.

Or do you NOT know what flat feet are?

https://ptsdlawyers.com/va-disability-for-flat-feet-pes-planus/


Arches in australopithecus

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evolving-arch-across-foot-width-helped-hominids-walk-upright
FEBRUARY 26, 2020

The arch running across the width of the human foot

might be a big part of the reason that people can walk
and run upright, a new study suggests.

People have a prominent arch along the insides of their
feet from ball to heel — a structure that helps make
feet stiff to withstand forces on the foot caused by
walking and running. But there’s another, less obvious
arch. Bones in the middle of the foot, called metatarsals,
are arranged in a curve across the foot’s width. This
bend, called the transverse tarsal arch, stiffens the
foot lengthwise and may have evolved more than 3.4 million
years ago, a step toward ancient hominids gaining the
ability to walk and run on two feet unlike other primates,
researchers report February 26 in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2053-y
Published: 26 February 2020

Stiffness of the human foot and evolution of the transverse arch

Abstract

The stiff human foot enables an efficient push-off when
walking or running, and was critical for the evolution of
bipedalism. The uniquely arched morphology of the human
midfoot is thought to stiffen it, whereas other primates
have flat feet that bend severely in the midfoot. However,
the relationship between midfoot geometry and stiffness
remains debated in foot biomechanics, podiatry and
palaeontology. These debates centre on the medial
longitudinal arch and have not considered whether
stiffness is affected by the second, transverse tarsal
arch of the human foot. Here we show that the transverse
tarsal arch, acting through the inter-metatarsal
tissues, is responsible for more than 40% of the
longitudinal stiffness of the foot. The underlying
principle resembles a floppy currency note that
stiffens considerably when it curls transversally. We
derive a dimensionless curvature parameter that governs
the stiffness contribution of the transverse tarsal arch,
demonstrate its predictive power using mechanical models
of the foot and find its skeletal correlate in hominin
feet. In the foot, the material properties of the
inter-metatarsal tissues and the mobility of the
metatarsals may additionally influence the longitudinal

stiffness of the foot and thus the curvature–stiffness

relationship of the transverse tarsal arch. By analysing
fossils, we track the evolution of the curvature
parameter among extinct hominins and show that a
human-like transverse arch was a key step in the
evolution of human bipedalism that predates the genus
Homo by at least 1.5 million years.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21311018/
2011 Feb 11
Complete fourth metatarsal and arches in the foot of
Australopithecus afarensis

Abstract
The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is
a hallmark of human evolution. A key correlate of human
bipedalism is the development of longitudinal and
transverse arches of the foot that provide a rigid
propulsive lever and critical shock absorption during
striding bipedal gait. Evidence for arches in the
earliest well-known Australopithecus species, A.
afarensis, has long been debated. A complete fourth
metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at
Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head
relative to the base, a direct correlate of a
transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the
proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a
longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and
tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like
midtarsal break. These features show that the A.
afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern
humans and support the hypothesis that this species
was a committed terrestrial biped.


You got a reply, "doc", back it up. Your pasting in
old stuff over and over only shows the bankruptcy of
your position.

[Pro Plyd]

marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:

>
>>> If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that

>>> "The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal

>>> walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
>
>> That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.
>
> It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.

Again? When was the first time? All you ever do is paste in a bunch
of disconnected odds and ends with no cite.

Just a couple things will do. If you can't, we can only conclude you
have no evidence.

Scientific cites, not links to opinion pieces.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.

Goddamnit, you ALWAYS pull this shit!

It's one and the same. Homo did not evolve on Mars.

Here. Try this. Seriously, try this: "Common Ancestor."

It's not like bipedalism arose separately in Homo. Bipedalism
predates Homo. It existed first, this bipedalism, AND THEN
Homo arose, according to your very own gospels.

> Characteristics of human ancestors are relevant

No. The bipedalism was a done deal. It was set.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714984719263154176

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 19 april 2023 om 08:00:25 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

> > The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.

Yes: comparative anatomy.

> Goddamnit, you ALWAYS pull this shit!
> It's one and the same. Homo did not evolve on Mars.

> Here. Try this. Seriously, try this: "Common Ancestor."
> It's not like bipedalism arose separately in Homo. Bipedalism
> predates Homo. It existed first, this bipedalism, AND THEN
> Homo arose, according to your very own gospels.

Yes, of course:
Miocene Hominoidea were already BP:
google AQUARBOREAL.

Humans & hylobatids still are predom.BP,
and gorillas, bonobos & orangs are still BP when wading,
google BONOBO WADING etc.

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 22:59:35 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>
> jillery wrote:
>
>> The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.
>
>Goddamnit, you ALWAYS pull this shit!

Incorrect. I pull many different kinds of shit.

>It's one and the same. Homo did not evolve on Mars.

You don't specify your "it's". And you deleted the part that did, as
usual.

>Here. Try this. Seriously, try this: "Common Ancestor."
>
>It's not like bipedalism arose separately in Homo. Bipedalism
>predates Homo. It existed first, this bipedalism, AND THEN
>Homo arose, according to your very own gospels.

That's what I said.

>> Characteristics of human ancestors are relevant
>
>No. The bipedalism was a done deal. It was set.

Yes, ancestors of humans set it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 22:14:50 -0600, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>marc verhaegen wrote:
>> Op zaterdag 15 april 2023 om 22:05:21 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>>> The arch running across the width of the human foot might
>>
>>> Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
>>> If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
>>> result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
>>> Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
>>> different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
>>> status quo, refuted as it were.
>>
>>
>> We're wasting our time, JTEM.
>>
>> 1) Miocene Hominoidea already waded+climbed bipedally=vertically in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal"
>> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>>
>> 2) Humans are plantigrade = flat-footed,
>> but
>> - cursorial herbivores = unguligrade,
>> - cursorial carnivores = digitigrade,
>> IOW,
>> only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after African antelopes.
>
>We are not flat footed. If you think we are, then prove it.
>
>Or do you NOT know what flat feet are?
>
>https://ptsdlawyers.com/va-disability-for-flat-feet-pes-planus/

He doesn't know what "plantigrade" means either. Arches, and their
lack aka flat feet, don't apply to that term.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:
[...]

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/4G07sAQ-GXE/m/Kg757gXcAAAJ

It's hilarious but your proof needed Star Trek tech to rule out a bear,
and even then they went with a comparison to the wrong genus of
bear.

So your "Cite" not only doesn't say what you think it says, but the
evidence isn't even concrete.

YOU take it on faith. YOU believe. YOU have faith. YOU are faith based.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715256725101592576

[Pro Plyd]

Still waiting...

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM the film school grad wrote:
> Pro Plyd wrote:
> [...]
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/4G07sAQ-GXE/m/Kg757gXcAAAJ
>
> It's hilarious but your proof needed Star Trek tech to rule out a bear,
> and even then they went with a comparison to the wrong genus of
> bear.

There are no living species of bear in Africa. You know this,
right? Right?

That explains why they had to use a contemporary species.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/science/hominin-footprints-tanzania.html

"The researchers recorded almost 60 hours of video of wild
American black bears. Unsupported bipedal posture and movement
occurred only 0.09 percent of the time, they said. Only once
did a bear take four unassisted bipedal steps, according to
the study."

"There are no bears in the fossil record at Laetoli..."

Forensics have ruled out that the Laetoli prints are ursid.

Let's see YOUR facts/research that the tracks are
from bears ->

<silence>

> So your "Cite" not only doesn't say what you think it says, but the
> evidence isn't even concrete.
>
> YOU take it on faith. YOU believe. YOU have faith. YOU are faith based.

It's called "analysis", something that film school grads like
yourself wouldn't understand. The following is based on the
remains- you know, bones - which IS concrete.

YOUR faith is in quackery like AA.

We eagerly await your ignoring the facts and pasting in
a new batch of grade school insults

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 19 mei 2023 om 18:56:28 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
> > marc verhaegen wrote:
> >> Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> >>>> If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had
> >>>> known that
> >>>> "The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
> >>>> walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":

> >>> That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.

> >> It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.

> > Again? When was the first time? All you ever do is paste in a bunch
> > of disconnected odds and ends with no cite.

I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in scientific evidence.

> > Just a couple things will do. If you can't, we can only conclude you
> > have no evidence.
> > Scientific cites, not links to opinion pieces.

> Still waiting...

Don't wait, use your time to inform a bit:

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

+ refs for 50 scientific papers & 2 books.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> JTEM the most awesome person ever wrote:
> > It's hilarious but your proof needed Star Trek tech to rule out a bear,
> > and even then they went with a comparison to the wrong genus of
> > bear.

> There are no living species of bear in Africa.

And there's no living species that left the footprints in questions.
The culprit is extinct.

> You know this, right? Right?

I know you're a fucking idiot.

You're claiming that the prints were laid down now, or at least very
recently. That, they're not old. Because bears DID exist and not
just in north Africa but all the way down...

> That explains why they had to use a contemporary species.

Wrong genus. There are fossils and as far as I know there's even
prints. But the comparisons were to a different species belonging
to a different genus found on a different continent.

> "The researchers recorded almost 60 hours of video of wild
> American black bears.

You're "Arguing" what we both already know: They insanely made
a comparison with a modern species from a different genus on a
different continent.

You really honestly ARE a fucking idiot. You have no idea what
matters here, HOW to "Argue" or even WHAT you're arguing. It's
all idiocy. You can't grasp the issues at all.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717726670165098497

[Pro Plyd]

marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 19 april 2023 om 08:00:25 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
>
>>> The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.
>
> Yes: comparative anatomy.

Comparative? Ok, why are ALL aquatic mammals short limbed,
or have vestigial limbs?

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 7 juni 2023 om 02:55:45 UTC+2 schreef Pro Plyd:

:-) Excellent question.
- We were never fully aquatic, of course: we evolved from Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea to also frequent diving to late-Pleist.wading-walking.
- In the water, our diving-swimming ancestors held their upper arms next to the trunk, and the legs (except the feet) in the extension.
- H.sapiens' tibias are rel.longer than our ancestors', our femoral necks are less horizontal etc.
Google "aquarboreal" & "gondwanatalks verhaegen".

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Comparative? Ok, why are ALL aquatic mammals short limbed,
> or have vestigial limbs?

Why do you mistakenly believe it matters?

There are those who "Argued" that enormous sauropod dinosaurs
reared up on their hind legs... because their anatomy retained
features of their significantly smaller bipedal ancestors.

Can you read between the lines?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719879056031612929