H.erectus Java 1.5 Ma shellfish collection

[marc verhaegen]

Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins:
a case study from Trinil (Java, Indonesia)
JCA Joordens cs 2009 J Hum Evol 57:656-671
doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.06.003
... diet influences body proportions, brain size, cognition & habitat preference ... we provide ecological context for the current debate on modernity (or not) of aquatic resource exploitation by hominins ... the H.erectus site of Trinil as a case study ...
Faunal & geochemical analysis of aquatic fossils from Trinil Hauptknochenschicht (HK) fauna demonstrate: Trinil c 1.5 Ma contained near-coastal rivers, lakes, swamp forests, lagoons & marshes with minor marine influence, laterally grading into grasslands. Trinil HK environments yielded at least 11 edible mollusc spp & 4 edible fish spp, that could be procured with no or minimal technology. We demonstrate:
from an ecological point of view, the default assumption should be that omnivorous hominins in coastal habitats with catchable aquatic fauna could have consumed aquatic resources.
The hypothesis of aquatic exploitation can be tested with taphonomic analysis of aquatic fossils ass.x with hominin fossils. We show:
midden-like characteristics of large bivalve shell assemblages containing Pseudodon & Elongaria from Trinil HK indicate deliberate collection by a selective agent, possibly hominin.

[Öö Tiib]

Was Turkana Boy coastal aquarboreal? Variety of Acheulean stone tools found
nearby indicate efficient hunter on higher technological advancement than your
seashell collector from Java ("with no or minimal technology").

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> Was Turkana Boy coastal aquarboreal? Variety of Acheulean stone tools found
> nearby indicate efficient hunter on higher technological advancement than your
> seashell collector from Java ("with no or minimal technology").

There were many, many different populations, many of what you might call
"Species." But the only one that is ancestor to us all, the only one we all have
in common is the Aquatic Ape population.

Going back more than half a century, initially an "Aquatic Phase" was proposed,
so if anyone was truly as ignorant as you portray yourself, and assuming they
are not a troll, could be forgiven if they asked something like "Was Turkana Boy
before or after this coastal phase?"

Again: There were many populations, many unique groups. But, the only one
that everyone shares as an ancestor is the Aquatic Ape population.

The model I argue, which is based a great deal on the good Doctor's teachings,
but quite different in interpretation, has this "Aquatic Phase" more or less
permanent for at least some populations, while others peeled away, pushed inland
and adapted to their new environments.

One didn't replace the other. It's not like Aquatic Ape gave up on the waterside
and decided to go live in trees, or a savanna. Waterside was waterside. But the
groups that peeled off following freshwater outlets upstream, and following
transitional wetland into the interior, also existed. And they all became nodes in
a distributive computer program. They all worked on a separate, unique piece
of the evolutionary puzzle, and shared their DNA with each other mostly through
the Aquatic Ape populations.

Aquatic Ape, following the coastline, was the conduit through which DNA could
move back & forth across the continents.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717534927004057600

[marc verhaegen]

> > Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins:
> > a case study from Trinil (Java, Indonesia)
> > JCA Joordens cs 2009 J Hum Evol 57:656-671
> > doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.06.003
> > "... diet influences body proportions, brain size, cognition & habitat preference ... we provide ecological context for the current debate on modernity (or not) of aquatic resource exploitation by hominins ... the H.erectus site of Trinil as a case study ... Faunal & geochemical analysis of aquatic fossils from Trinil Hauptknochenschicht (HK) fauna demonstrate: Trinil c 1.5 Ma contained near-coastal rivers, lakes, swamp forests, lagoons & marshes with minor marine influence, laterally grading into grasslands. Trinil HK environments yielded at least 11 edible mollusc spp & 4 edible fish spp, that could be procured with no or minimal technology. We demonstrate:
> > from an ecological point of view, the default assumption should be that omnivorous hominins in coastal habitats with catchable aquatic fauna could have consumed aquatic resources.
> > The hypothesis of aquatic exploitation can be tested with taphonomic analysis of aquatic fossils ass.x with hominin fossils. We show:
> > midden-like characteristics of large bivalve shell assemblages containing Pseudodon & Elongaria from Trinil HK indicate deliberate collection by a selective agent, possibly hominin."

Hunter fool:

> Was Turkana Boy coastal aquarboreal? Variety of Acheulean stone tools found
> nearby indicate efficient hunter on higher technological advancement than your
> seashell collector from Java ("with no or minimal technology").

:-DDD
My little little boy, nobody ever said Turkana Boy was aquarboreal!!! nor that he was coastal! Grow up! Inform a *little* bit before trying to say something, e.g. from my book: WT15k ~1,6 Ma fossilized between reeds, swamp snail, catfish, turtle, varane, hippo footprints...
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[marc verhaegen]

Op maandag 29 mei 2023 om 21:27:30 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

Thanks, JTEM.
Early-Pleist.Homo (not aquarboreal any more, of course!!) followed the Ind.Ocean coasts + rivers inland.

[Öö Tiib]

Please write something coherent. You know ... with full sentences. Leave that confused
giggling. Answer like man.

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

Nothing about Turkana Boy there either.

[Öö Tiib]

Yet all he has about that aquatic ape are these seashells, contemporary with
Turkana Boy. Rest of story is "comparable anatomy". But if to ask with what waterside
animal he compares ... platypus, otter, beaver? He only giggles mindlessly. So
fruit of fantasy.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> Please write something coherent. You know ... with full

How is it others can devour Gigabytes of his information, dissect it, tweek it
and spill out so much in response that they are often accused of being long
winded, but you can't follow so much as a sentence?

Seems the problem is you... and sometimes things are exactly as they seem.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718514359723229184

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> Yet all he has about that aquatic ape are these seashells, contemporary with
> Turkana Boy.

The Omo-Turkana Basin has a very lengthy and complicated history where even
whale fossils can be found. Turkana Boy, like so many other finds we pretend
are proof of Out of Africa, is 100% consistent with a coastal group pushing
inland, following fresh water sources...

I personally doubt that Turkana Boy was a member of the Aquatic Ape
population but it remains a possibility that he was. The Rift Valley is exactly
where groups would have been entering the interior for millions of years.

...I would suspect he belonged to a hybrid population, one comprised
of the descendants of very ancient arrivals who've been interbreeding with
each new group to push inland.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718514359723229184

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 08:20:36 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > Yet all he has about that aquatic ape are these seashells, contemporary with
> > Turkana Boy.
> The Omo-Turkana Basin has a very lengthy and complicated history where even
> whale fossils can be found. Turkana Boy, like so many other finds we pretend
> are proof of Out of Africa, is 100% consistent with a coastal group pushing
> inland, following fresh water sources...
>

So why is Turkana Boy worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child?
Technology of Turkana Boy looks more advanced.

> I personally doubt that Turkana Boy was a member of the Aquatic Ape
> population but it remains a possibility that he was. The Rift Valley is exactly
> where groups would have been entering the interior for millions of years.
>

Some of the Acheulean tools nearby are estimated two hundred thousands
yeas older than Turkana Boy fossil, roughly between 1.72 and 1.81 mya.
No extant birds or animals (besides humans) do make so advanced tools.

> ...I would suspect he belonged to a hybrid population, one comprised
> of the descendants of very ancient arrivals who've been interbreeding with
> each new group to push inland.
>

Most animals need to drink fresh water as it is about 60% of their body
mass. That need does make us to classify all animals as "aquatic". Tools
indicate hunting and butchering large game, not eating shellfish for what
such tools are not needed.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> So why is Turkana Boy worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child?
> Technology of Turkana Boy looks more advanced.

So I talked about "Populations" and you are now saying "Ancestors."

Do you not know the difference?

I have ancestors that a sub Saharan African does not, and vice versa. Not
everything that lived a million years ago is an ancestor. In fact, the claim
is that, statistically, you only have to go back a few thousand years and
everyone either has zero descendants today or is EVERYONE'S ancestor.

Statistically. But you get the point, speaking rhetorically.

Now go back and read what I had previously stated. You clearly didn't
before. Or, maybe you just need someone to help with the comprehension,
I don't know, but when it comes to evolution there were fewer ancestors
than populations. And, even the populations which have living
descendants are not the ancestors of everyone.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718317969351000064

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > So why is Turkana Boy worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child?
> > Technology of Turkana Boy looks more advanced.
>
> So I talked about "Populations" and you are now saying "Ancestors."
>
> Do you not know the difference?
>

OK. "Our ancestor" I meant not in direct sense but as member of population.
The kids obviously had no offspring as individuals.
More culturally and technologically advanced human populations were
only recently quite harsh with "aboriginals", ensuring that numbers of those
did shrink drastically and quickly. So you do not say why is Turkana Boy's
population worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child's population?

> I have ancestors that a sub Saharan African does not, and vice versa. Not
> everything that lived a million years ago is an ancestor. In fact, the claim
> is that, statistically, you only have to go back a few thousand years and
> everyone either has zero descendants today or is EVERYONE'S ancestor.
>
> Statistically. But you get the point, speaking rhetorically.
>
> Now go back and read what I had previously stated. You clearly didn't
> before. Or, maybe you just need someone to help with the comprehension,
> I don't know, but when it comes to evolution there were fewer ancestors
> than populations. And, even the populations which have living
> descendants are not the ancestors of everyone.
>

That does not help as there are no answer to the question. Tools
of Turkana Boy's population indicate hunting and butchering large game,
hundreds of thousands years before Mojokerto Child.

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 30 mei 2023 om 19:00:38 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:

> On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Öö Tiib wrote:

> > > So why is Turkana Boy worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child?
> > > Technology of Turkana Boy looks more advanced.

> > So I talked about "Populations" and you are now saying "Ancestors."
> > Do you not know the difference?

> OK. "Our ancestor" I meant not in direct sense but as member of population.
> The kids obviously had no offspring as individuals.
> More culturally and technologically advanced human populations were
> only recently quite harsh with "aboriginals", ensuring that numbers of those
> did shrink drastically and quickly. So you do not say why is Turkana Boy's
> population worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child's population?

What we (I at least) know is e.g.
- humans were semi-aquatic not very long ago: brain & DHA, voluntary breathing, poor olfaction, fur loss, SC fat, etc.
- Pliocene human ancestors were not in Africa: no African Pliocene retroviral DNA,
- detailed anat.comparisons show early E.Afr.australopiths were fossil Gorilla, S.Afr.australopiths were fossil Pan,
- early-Pleist.Homo erectus (Java) dived frequently for shellfish, e.g. pachyosteosclerosis (POS), larger brain (DHA) etc.
What is less certain IMO: our most-aquatic past was early-Pleistocene? were we then in SE.Asia??

Human semi-aquatic evolution is called our "aquatic ape" evolution, but his term is psychologically & otherwise not preferable I'd think:
I'd prefer "littoral Homo" or "coastal dispersal theory" or so.
Before that, Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were "aquarboreal"(google): living in swamp forests.

> > I have ancestors that a sub Saharan African does not, and vice versa. Not
> > everything that lived a million years ago is an ancestor. In fact, the claim
> > is that, statistically, you only have to go back a few thousand years and
> > everyone either has zero descendants today or is EVERYONE'S ancestor.
> > Statistically. But you get the point, speaking rhetorically.
> > Now go back and read what I had previously stated. You clearly didn't
> > before. Or, maybe you just need someone to help with the comprehension,
> > I don't know, but when it comes to evolution there were fewer ancestors
> > than populations. And, even the populations which have living
> > descendants are not the ancestors of everyone.

> That does not help as there are no answer to the question. Tools
> of Turkana Boy's population indicate hunting and butchering large game,

:-D That's the traditional just-so fantasy: scientifically completely wrong!!
Consider only our atrophied olfaction! our sweating water+salt! our fur loss! erectus' POS! etc.etc.
Please inform first, google e.g. "WHATtalk verhaegen" or "gondwana bonne verhaegen"
...

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 21:25:37 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 30 mei 2023 om 19:00:38 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:
> > On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 18:35:37 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > > > So why is Turkana Boy worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child?
> > > > Technology of Turkana Boy looks more advanced.
>
> > > So I talked about "Populations" and you are now saying "Ancestors."
> > > Do you not know the difference?
>
> > OK. "Our ancestor" I meant not in direct sense but as member of population.
> > The kids obviously had no offspring as individuals.
> > More culturally and technologically advanced human populations were
> > only recently quite harsh with "aboriginals", ensuring that numbers of those
> > did shrink drastically and quickly. So you do not say why is Turkana Boy's
> > population worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child's population?
>
> What we (I at least) know is e.g.
> - humans were semi-aquatic not very long ago: brain & DHA, voluntary breathing, poor olfaction, fur loss, SC fat, etc.
> - Pliocene human ancestors were not in Africa: no African Pliocene retroviral DNA,
> - detailed anat.comparisons show early E.Afr.australopiths were fossil Gorilla, S.Afr.australopiths were fossil Pan,
> - early-Pleist.Homo erectus (Java) dived frequently for shellfish, e.g. pachyosteosclerosis (POS), larger brain (DHA) etc.
> What is less certain IMO: our most-aquatic past was early-Pleistocene? were we then in SE.Asia??
>
> Human semi-aquatic evolution is called our "aquatic ape" evolution, but his term is psychologically & otherwise not preferable I'd think:
> I'd prefer "littoral Homo" or "coastal dispersal theory" or so.
> Before that, Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were "aquarboreal"(google): living in swamp forests.
>

So only reason is that Turkana Boy should have somehow caught retroviral DNA?
The retrovirus infected African apes 1.5 - 2.5 millions years before Turkana Boy.
You just avoided answering by talking about something else? Thanks anyway.

> > > I have ancestors that a sub Saharan African does not, and vice versa. Not
> > > everything that lived a million years ago is an ancestor. In fact, the claim
> > > is that, statistically, you only have to go back a few thousand years and
> > > everyone either has zero descendants today or is EVERYONE'S ancestor.
> > > Statistically. But you get the point, speaking rhetorically.
> > > Now go back and read what I had previously stated. You clearly didn't
> > > before. Or, maybe you just need someone to help with the comprehension,
> > > I don't know, but when it comes to evolution there were fewer ancestors
> > > than populations. And, even the populations which have living
> > > descendants are not the ancestors of everyone.
>
> > That does not help as there are no answer to the question. Tools
> > of Turkana Boy's population indicate hunting and butchering large game,
>
> :-D That's the traditional just-so fantasy: scientifically completely wrong!!
> Consider only our atrophied olfaction! our sweating water+salt! our fur loss! erectus' POS! etc.etc.
> Please inform first, google e.g. "WHATtalk verhaegen" or "gondwana bonne verhaegen"
> ...

And again no answer.

I can address your stories but these are even irrelevant to question asked.
How useful is our primary sense sight under water? Have you tried?
No need for sharp olfaction when hunting in group in forest.
Breath control is needed for complex communication using voice. Complex
communication is needed for to better manage complex group activities.
Did platypus and beaver lose fur? Is elephant aquatic animal? Does otter
grow large brain? Can't the salt sweating be recent development because of
using salt for food preserving? You start from wrong side, you have answer
and then see everything and anything as supporting it. And you avoid
questions asked.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> OK. "Our ancestor" I meant not in direct sense but as member of population.
> The kids obviously had no offspring as individuals.
> More culturally and technologically advanced human populations were
> only recently quite harsh with "aboriginals", ensuring that numbers of those
> did shrink drastically and quickly.

Actually, the claim is that the Australian aboriginal population was
"Sustainable" at around 750,000 people. That was an upward limit,
pre contact. Today it is more than 100,000 beyond that number.

> So you do not say why is Turkana Boy's
> population worse candidate of our ancestor than Mojokerto child's population?

Actually, I did.

The location is precisely where migrating "Waterside" groups would
be found if they pushed inland... if they were so inclined. The Waterside
population would be the ancestor.

We'd have no way of telling if the group that Turkana Boy came from
has a single living ancestor today -- not without a wide sampling of
DNA from his period, not just from him or his group -- but we would all
share that Aquatic Ape population as ancestors.

> when it comes to evolution there were fewer ancestors
> > than populations. And, even the populations which have living
> > descendants are not the ancestors of everyone.

> That does not help as there are no answer to the question.

You're looking for religion and not science.

> Tools
> of Turkana Boy's population indicate hunting and butchering large game

Which, if true, and not yet another product of circular reasoning
where you first conclude they were hunting & butchering large
game, would imply that they were long adapted to the interior.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> So only reason is that Turkana Boy should have somehow caught retroviral DNA?

As has been explained to you, but your disorder prevents you from
accepting, the only ancestor common to everyone is the Aquatic
Ape group. So even if his group was an ancestor to ANYBODY it
would be ancestral to less than 100% of the people... while the
Aquatic Ape group would be the ancestor to everybody.

So now you're in a position where either Turkana Boy is not an
ancestor to anybody or the racial divide is actually MORE
significant than is currently accepted, not less so, with very deep
roots already clear 1.5 million years ago.

But you see what I'm doing here, speaking rhetorically. I'm placing
a claim NOT in isolation, where it can be rationalized, but actually
within the context of all the other information we have.

This is why I keep insisting that it's about constructing a model.
The good Doctor's model works, nothing outside some flavor or
Aquatic Ape survives the slightest scrutiny.

You can focus like a laser beam on Turkana Boy, blind to all the
evolution & migrations before and since, and if you do that he
may actually seem to make sense. But it's a view from ignorance.

> The retrovirus infected African apes 1.5 - 2.5 millions years before Turkana Boy.

So his ancestors were not in Africa at that time.

They arrived from somewhere else. In the good Doctor's model
we know where they came from and we know why. In your
argument from ignorance, where we have no information on
evidence for anything both before or after Turkana Boy, there's
no way to explain where he came from.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718766392127750144

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 31 mei 2023 om 21:25:38 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

...

> We'd have no way of telling if the group that Turkana Boy came from
> has a single living ancestor today -- not without a wide sampling of
> DNA from his period, not just from him or his group -- but we would all
> share that Aquatic Ape population as ancestors.

Yes, obvious (only, I'd replace "aq.ape" by "littoral Homo" or so: they were not very apelike).

...

Somebody:

> > Tools
> > of Turkana Boy's population indicate hunting and butchering large game

:-DDD
Human olfactory atrophy alone already proves that only incredible fools believe that their Pleistocene ancestors were hunters.

> Which, if true, and not yet another product of circular reasoning
> where you first conclude they were hunting & butchering large
> game, would imply that they were long adapted to the interior.

Yes, of course, but I'm afraid they'll never learn, JTEM...