info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can a whole science be so wrong??
154 views
Skip to first unread message
marc verhaegen
Mar 24, 2023, 6:45:37 AM3/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
-- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
-- apiths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
-All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
-We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
-Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but "Out of Africa" is nonsense.
-Endurance-running = afro+anthropocentrical fantasy.
-Etc.
See my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL, or google
- "aquarboreal",
- "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
- "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
-- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
-- apiths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
-All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
-We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
-Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but "Out of Africa" is nonsense.
-Endurance-running = afro+anthropocentrical fantasy.
-Etc.
See my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL, or google
- "aquarboreal",
- "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
- "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
marc verhaegen
Mar 24, 2023, 7:15:37 AM3/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Can a whole science be so wrong??
-- Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
-- Now we see this in paleo-anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
Many paleo-anthropologists are incredibly afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
-All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
-Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors waded-climbed upright in Red Sea forests.
-"Endurance-running" = afro+anthropo-centric fantasy, anatomically & physiologically impossible.
-- Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
-- Now we see this in paleo-anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
Many paleo-anthropologists are incredibly afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
-- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
-- australopiths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
-All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
-We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
-Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but there was no "Out of Africa".
-"Endurance-running" = afro+anthropo-centric fantasy, anatomically & physiologically impossible.
peter2...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2023, 9:15:37 AM3/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science", and bold claims
like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
> Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
> -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
>
> -All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
Now you are hypothesizing that the near ancestors of orangutans were bipedal. Why?
> -We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
I forget: what does BP stand for in this context?
> -Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but "Out of Africa" is nonsense.
> -Endurance-running = afro+anthropocentrical fantasy.
Yes. Popular science articles base this fantasy on the feats of ultramarathoners.
I've spoken personally with one, and she said that before the 50 mile mark,
she has to keep moving almost constantly to avoid having her legs seize up.
And then continue in this way to the 100 mile mark.
About four decades ago, there was an article in "Discover" magazine that compared
humans to animals on physical abilities, and for endurance we were ranked with
camels and elephants as being among the very best!
> -Etc.
> See my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL, or google
> - "aquarboreal",
Doesn't help much. You need to overcome the language barrier. I can read German,
but Dutch is "like Greek to me." Cognates are difficult to guess.
> - "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> - "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
Don't expect the regulars here to wade through this. Post your evidence here, and
pray that some of them take the trouble to read what you serve up to them
on a silver platter. You aren't even using a leaden platter here.
Good luck,
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science", and bold claims
like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
> Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
> -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
>
> -All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
> -We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
> -Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but "Out of Africa" is nonsense.
> -Endurance-running = afro+anthropocentrical fantasy.
I've spoken personally with one, and she said that before the 50 mile mark,
she has to keep moving almost constantly to avoid having her legs seize up.
And then continue in this way to the 100 mile mark.
About four decades ago, there was an article in "Discover" magazine that compared
humans to animals on physical abilities, and for endurance we were ranked with
camels and elephants as being among the very best!
> -Etc.
> See my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL, or google
> - "aquarboreal",
but Dutch is "like Greek to me." Cognates are difficult to guess.
> - "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> - "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
pray that some of them take the trouble to read what you serve up to them
on a silver platter. You aren't even using a leaden platter here.
Good luck,
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
marc verhaegen
Mar 24, 2023, 4:10:38 PM3/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Op vrijdag 24 maart 2023 om 14:15:37 UTC+1 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
> Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
> I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science",
No, Peter, that's one of the problems.
The savanna idea is nonsense: they reason: in Africa you have rainforst & savanna: apes=QP in forest, human=BP on savanna.
But Pliocene Homo wasn't even in Africa! They lived along S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.H.erectus on Java. Etc.
> and bold claims
> like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
That's true.
> NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
> and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
> with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
No, not from aquatic apes!: from aquarboreal "apes".
Google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
> In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
Yes, indeed.
> For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
> > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
> This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
OK.
> > Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> > -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
> This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
See refs below, but it's obvious, e.g.
early-Pleistocene H.erectus (Mojokerto Java) was pachyosteosclerotic (POS):
POS is exlusively seen slow+shallow-diving tetrapod spp.
> > -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
> This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
> evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
> that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
> I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
This was not heterodox: all early discoverers of australopiths thought they had found fossil "apes".
An objective (= non-anthropocentric & non-afrocentric) approach is clear:
-E.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Gorilla > Pan > Homo,
-S.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Pan > Gorilla or Homo:
IOW, E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in parallel from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust":
afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.
See my 1990, 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers.
> > -All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
> Now you are hypothesizing that the near ancestors of orangutans were bipedal. Why?
Miocene Hominoidea were already aquarboreal = upright wading + climbing arms overhed in the branches ove the swamp,
google e.g. "Pongo wading".
> > -We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
> I forget: what does BP stand for in this context?
Sorry, BM=bipedal, QP=quadrupedal.
> > -Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but "Out of Africa" is nonsense.
> > -Endurance-running = afro+anthropocentrical fantasy.
> Yes. Popular science articles base this fantasy on the feats of ultramarathoners.
> I've spoken personally with one, and she said that before the 50 mile mark,
> she has to keep moving almost constantly to avoid having her legs seize up.
> And then continue in this way to the 100 mile mark.
> About 4 decades ago, there was an article in "Discover" magazine that compared
> > -Etc.
> > See my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL, or google
> > - "aquarboreal",
> Doesn't help much. You need to overcome the language barrier. I can read German,
> but Dutch is "like Greek to me." Cognates are difficult to guess.
:-) German is a dialect of Dutch (or v.v.)...
Yes, I'm 71 yrs old, perhaps translating programs + subsequent corrections?
> > - "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> > - "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
> Don't expect the regulars here to wade through this.
They should: it's not too long & very well-written. The author thinks of translating my book, but this is an enormous task.
> Post your evidence here, and
> pray that some of them take the trouble to read what you serve up to them
> on a silver platter. You aren't even using a leaden platter here. Good luck, Peter Nyikos
:-) Thanks, Peter!
They should at least read 2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266
"The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis".
> Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
> I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science",
The savanna idea is nonsense: they reason: in Africa you have rainforst & savanna: apes=QP in forest, human=BP on savanna.
But Pliocene Homo wasn't even in Africa! They lived along S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.H.erectus on Java. Etc.
> and bold claims
> like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
> NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
> and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
> with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
Google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
> On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
> In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
> For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
> > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
> This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> > Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> > -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
> This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
early-Pleistocene H.erectus (Mojokerto Java) was pachyosteosclerotic (POS):
POS is exlusively seen slow+shallow-diving tetrapod spp.
> > -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
> This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
> evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
> that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
> I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
An objective (= non-anthropocentric & non-afrocentric) approach is clear:
-E.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Gorilla > Pan > Homo,
-S.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Pan > Gorilla or Homo:
IOW, E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in parallel from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust":
afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.
See my 1990, 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers.
> > -All Miocene Hominoidea were bipedal (today only hylobatids & humans).
> Now you are hypothesizing that the near ancestors of orangutans were bipedal. Why?
google e.g. "Pongo wading".
> > -We were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests.
> I forget: what does BP stand for in this context?
> > -Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but "Out of Africa" is nonsense.
> > -Endurance-running = afro+anthropocentrical fantasy.
> Yes. Popular science articles base this fantasy on the feats of ultramarathoners.
> I've spoken personally with one, and she said that before the 50 mile mark,
> she has to keep moving almost constantly to avoid having her legs seize up.
> And then continue in this way to the 100 mile mark.
> humans to animals on physical abilities, and for endurance we were ranked with
> camels and elephants as being among the very best!
:-)
> camels and elephants as being among the very best!
> > -Etc.
> > See my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL, or google
> > - "aquarboreal",
> Doesn't help much. You need to overcome the language barrier. I can read German,
> but Dutch is "like Greek to me." Cognates are difficult to guess.
Yes, I'm 71 yrs old, perhaps translating programs + subsequent corrections?
> > - "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> > - "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
> Don't expect the regulars here to wade through this.
> Post your evidence here, and
> pray that some of them take the trouble to read what you serve up to them
> on a silver platter. You aren't even using a leaden platter here. Good luck, Peter Nyikos
They should at least read 2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266
"The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis".
peter2...@gmail.com
Mar 24, 2023, 10:10:38 PM3/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 4:10:38 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op vrijdag 24 maart 2023 om 14:15:37 UTC+1 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
> > Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
> > I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> > to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science",
> No, Peter, that's one of the problems.
> The savanna idea is nonsense: they reason: in Africa you have rainforst & savanna: apes=QP in forest, human=BP on savanna.
> But Pliocene Homo wasn't even in Africa!
Nor anywhere else, it seems. Pliocene ended by 2.58 mya.
> Op vrijdag 24 maart 2023 om 14:15:37 UTC+1 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
> > Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
> > I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> > to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science",
> No, Peter, that's one of the problems.
> The savanna idea is nonsense: they reason: in Africa you have rainforst & savanna: apes=QP in forest, human=BP on savanna.
> But Pliocene Homo wasn't even in Africa!
>They lived along S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.H.erectus on Java. Etc.
Homo erectus erectus (Java Man): est. ca 2.0 mya to 0.7 mya
Where's your Pliocene Homo?
> > and bold claims
> > like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
> That's true.
> > NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
> > and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
> > with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
> No, not from aquatic apes!: from aquarboreal "apes".
> Google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
>
> > > Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
>
> > In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
> Yes, indeed.
> > For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
>
> > > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
>
> > This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> > readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> OK.
> > > Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> > > -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
>
> > This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
> See refs below, but it's obvious, e.g.
> early-Pleistocene H.erectus (Mojokerto Java) was pachyosteosclerotic (POS):
> POS is exlusively seen slow+shallow-diving tetrapod spp.
Reference, other than papers [co]-authored by you?
> > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
>
> > > Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
>
> > In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
> Yes, indeed.
> > For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
>
> > > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
>
> > This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> > readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> OK.
> > > Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> > > -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
>
> > This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
> See refs below, but it's obvious, e.g.
> early-Pleistocene H.erectus (Mojokerto Java) was pachyosteosclerotic (POS):
> POS is exlusively seen slow+shallow-diving tetrapod spp.
The very short Wikipedia entry makes no mention of anthropoids, but it does have some
intriguing examples, especially the last:
Examples of animals showing pachyosteosclerosis are seacows[3] (dugongs and manatees), the extinct Plesiosauria and Mesosauria[2] and extinct aquatic sloths.[4]
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis
Those sloths are the closest to humans in external anatomy on the list, by far.
Have you ever made a comparative study? There is plenty of emphasis
in the long Wikipedia entry about their pachyosteosclerosis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus
Even their temporal span was close to that of hominini: 7-3 mya.
> > > -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
>
> > This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
> > evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
> > that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
> > I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
> This was not heterodox: all early discoverers of australopiths thought they had found fossil "apes".
Java "man" was first called Pithecanthropus, and hence was called an ape.
> An objective (= non-anthropocentric & non-afrocentric) approach is clear:
> -E.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Gorilla > Pan > Homo,
> -S.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Pan > Gorilla or Homo:
> IOW, E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in parallel from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust":
> afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.
Asiatic genus, including Gigantopithecus.
CONCLUDED on Monday. On Saturdays and Sundays, I almost never post to Usenet.
Weekends are family quality & quantity time.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
JTEM is my hero
Mar 24, 2023, 11:30:37 PM3/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
>
> I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science"
> Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
>
> I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science"
> > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
> This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
Um. Wrong.
> This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
Coastal Dispersal *Is* Aquatic Ape.
They weren't following maps. They weren't searching for an all-night Buurger
king. They were eating. They were living there. They were exploiting marine
resources.
Now the fun part here is that this is mainstream! Everyone accepts this. AND
instantly rejects it just as you do here.
So, you accept coastal dispersal WHICH IS AQUATIC APE! They are one and
the same. No boxed lunch, no carrying a savanna on their backs: They were
living there, exploiting marine resources.
Next, once you accept what you already now, is the fact that this wasn't
something that only happened once, and only in late July 60k years ago.
It was constant.
There was always an "Aquatic Ape" population. And, yes, groups were always
peeling away from that population, moving inland and adapting. Which is
how we have all these separate & distinct groups in Africa, Europe and Asia.
This is a process that began almost right away, MILLIONS of years ago, and
continued well into the Holocene with the peopling of the Americas!
Yes, the Americans are now understood to have first been reached by coastal
travelers. Just like everything we see stretching back MILLIONS of years,
groups pushed inland and adapted...
How does savanna idiocy explain Neanderthals, Denisovans or Lucy for that
matter?
I just explained them all wiith Aquatic Ape, using information you have and
agree with: Coastal Dispersal.
Share & enjoy!
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712626036266926080/jj-foleys
israel socratus
Mar 26, 2023, 6:00:39 AM3/26/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Can a whole science be so wrong?
-----
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”
/ Richard Feynman /
#
''Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.''
/Michael Talbot/
---------
marc verhaegen
Mar 26, 2023, 6:20:40 PM3/26/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Op zaterdag 25 maart 2023 om 03:10:38 UTC+1 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
> > > Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
> > > I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> > > to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science",
> > No, Peter, that's one of the problems.
> > The savanna idea is nonsense: they reason: in Africa you have rainforst & savanna: apes=QP in forest, human=BP on savanna.
> > But Pliocene Homo wasn't even in Africa!
> Nor anywhere else, it seems. Pliocene ended by 2.58 mya.
IMO, Pliocene Homo followed the S-Asian coasts (where fossilisation chances were low??) ->early-Pleist.Java Mojokerto.
Less sure IMO is that late-Miocene hominids (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) lived in swamp forests of the (then incipient) Red Sea.
Francesca Mansfield thinks the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma opened the Red Sea into the Gulf:
-Pan went right ->E.Afr.coastal forests ->southern Rift ->Transvaal ->late-Pliocene africanus ->early-Pleist.robustus,
-Homo went left ->S.Asian coast ->early-Pleist.Java etc.
Gorilla 8 or 7 Ma followed the (incipient) northern Rift ->Afar ->Pliocene afarensis ->early-Pleist.boisei,
IOW, Pan & Gorilla evolved partly in parallel, e.g. knuckle-walking,
see e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers
--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"
IOW,
- African australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla,
- there was no "Out of Africa"!
> >They lived along S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.H.erectus on Java. Etc.
> Homo habilis in Africa: 2.31 mya to 1.65 mya.
> Homo erectus erectus (Java Man): est. ca 2.0 mya to 0.7 mya
> Where's your Pliocene Homo?
Not found (yet??): low coastal fossilisation chances?
> > > and bold claims
> > > like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
> > That's true.
> > > NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
> > > and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
> > > with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
> > No, not from aquatic apes!: from aquarboreal "apes".
> The "aqua" part is a controversial minority opinion; arboreal is "practically settled science."
Unforunately, yes:
the majority opinion is still that our Pleistocene ancestors ran after antilopes over Afr.plains... :-D
Aquarboreal Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea = no doubt IMO: it explains e.g.
- very broad sternum & thorax & pelvis,
- tail loss,
- shorter lumbar spine, not dorsally but centrally-placed:
they were already bipedal (today only Hylobatidae & Homo still are) for
--wading upright,
--climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water:
google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
_____
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
> > > In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
> > Yes, indeed.
> > > For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
> > > > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
> > > This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> > > readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> > OK.
> > > > Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> > > > -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
> > > This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
> > See refs below, but it's obvious, e.g.
> > early-Pleistocene H.erectus (Mojokerto Java) was pachyosteosclerotic (POS):
> > POS is exlusively seen slow+shallow-diving tetrapod spp.
> Reference, other than papers [co]-authored by you?
Probably the early PAs Dubois etc.?
> The very short Wikipedia entry makes no mention of anthropoids, but it does have some
> intriguing examples, especially the last:
> Examples of animals showing pachyosteosclerosis are seacows[3] (dugongs and manatees), the extinct Plesiosauria and Mesosauria[2] and extinct aquatic sloths.[4]
> --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis
> Those sloths are the closest to humans in external anatomy on the list, by far.
> Have you ever made a comparative study? There is plenty of emphasis
> in the long Wikipedia entry about their pachyosteosclerosis.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus
It's difficult to compare POS quantitatively, but qualitatively there's no doubt,
even early Pinnipedia & Cetacea were POS:
pachy-osteo-sclerotic "thick bone dense", no doubt for facilitating diving, also seen in aquatic reptiles etc.
> Even their temporal span was close to that of hominini: 7-3 mya.
> > > > -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
> > > This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
> > > evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
> > > that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
> > > I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
Once again AFAIK only my own publications (esp. 1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 & 1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41)
+ the opinion of the early discoverers, e.g. "-pithecus" = monkey/ape.
Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" (wading-climbing, google "aquarboreal"):
IOW, there's nothing in apiths that's closer to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla
> > This was not heterodox: all early discoverers of australopiths thought they had found fossil "apes".
> The word "ape" ranges over Homininae, and only excluded Homo back then by convention.
> Java "man" was first called Pithecanthropus, and hence was called an ape.
Yes, Java Man is no ape, only still a bit apelike (brain c 800 cc).
> > An objective (= non-anthropocentric & non-afrocentric) approach is clear:
> > -E.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Gorilla > Pan > Homo,
> > -S.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Pan > Gorilla or Homo:
> > IOW, E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in parallel from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust":
> > afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.
> But the reigning orthodoxy has them closer to human (Homo) ancestry than any known
> Asiatic genus, including Gigantopithecus.
Yes, "reigning orthodoxy": can a whole schience be wrong? cf. continental drift?
Gigantopithecus was a fossil pongid-sivapith, also aquarboreal?
As you know, my view (hypothetically, very short):
-India approached S-Eurasia 30?25 Ma ->island archipels with coastal forests++
-Catarrhini reaching these island became "aquarboreal": broad build (Latisternalia), upright, tail loss etc.
-India underneath Asia c 20 Ma split Hylobatidae (SE.Asian coasts) & great"apes": W-Tethys coastal forests,
-the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids-sivapith (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W),
-late-Miocene Medit.Sea apes died out (heat? flood? cold?), only Red Sea hominids survived:
-Gorilla 8?7 Ma followed the incipient northern Rift ->Afar swamp forests: Lucy & other apiths,
-Red Sea opened into the Gulf (5.33 Ma?): Pan went right, Homo went left,
-Pan entered the southern Rift ->Transvaal swamp forests: Taung & other apiths (// Gorilla),
-Homo in S-Asia evolved from aquarboreal to frequent shallow-diving early-Pleist.?
--marc
> > > Welcome to talk.origins, Marc!
> > > I should warn you that almost all long-time regulars here are sufficiently savvy about science
> > > to know the difference between hypotheses and "mostly settled science",
> > No, Peter, that's one of the problems.
> > The savanna idea is nonsense: they reason: in Africa you have rainforst & savanna: apes=QP in forest, human=BP on savanna.
> > But Pliocene Homo wasn't even in Africa!
> Nor anywhere else, it seems. Pliocene ended by 2.58 mya.
Less sure IMO is that late-Miocene hominids (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) lived in swamp forests of the (then incipient) Red Sea.
Francesca Mansfield thinks the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma opened the Red Sea into the Gulf:
-Pan went right ->E.Afr.coastal forests ->southern Rift ->Transvaal ->late-Pliocene africanus ->early-Pleist.robustus,
-Homo went left ->S.Asian coast ->early-Pleist.Java etc.
Gorilla 8 or 7 Ma followed the (incipient) northern Rift ->Afar ->Pliocene afarensis ->early-Pleist.boisei,
IOW, Pan & Gorilla evolved partly in parallel, e.g. knuckle-walking,
see e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers
--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"
IOW,
- African australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla,
- there was no "Out of Africa"!
> >They lived along S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.H.erectus on Java. Etc.
> Homo habilis in Africa: 2.31 mya to 1.65 mya.
> Homo erectus erectus (Java Man): est. ca 2.0 mya to 0.7 mya
> Where's your Pliocene Homo?
> > > and bold claims
> > > like the ones you make are enough to turn most of them off on whoever makes them.
> > That's true.
> > > NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Marc is a long-time contributor to sci.anthropology.paleo,
> > > and has started posting to sci.bio.paleontology as well. I've had pleasant discussions
> > > with him about his heterodox theory about us being descended from aquatic apes.
> > No, not from aquatic apes!: from aquarboreal "apes".
> The "aqua" part is a controversial minority opinion; arboreal is "practically settled science."
the majority opinion is still that our Pleistocene ancestors ran after antilopes over Afr.plains... :-D
Aquarboreal Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea = no doubt IMO: it explains e.g.
- very broad sternum & thorax & pelvis,
- tail loss,
- shorter lumbar spine, not dorsally but centrally-placed:
they were already bipedal (today only Hylobatidae & Homo still are) for
--wading upright,
--climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water:
google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
_____
> > > On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:45:37 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > Yes: we've seen this in geology with "plate tectonics".
> > > In light of what you next write, a much better choice of words would be "continental drift."
> > Yes, indeed.
> > > For half a century it was even more heterodox than the Aquatic Ape theory is now.
> > > > Now we see this in anthropology with "coastal dispersal".
> > > This is a more modest claim than the whole Aquatic Ape theory, and I hope
> > > readers keep this distinction in mind if they respond to your posts.
> > OK.
> > > > Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropo-centrically biased:
> > > > -- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
> > > This is your hypothesis and you need to start supporting it ASAP (As Soon As Possible).
> > See refs below, but it's obvious, e.g.
> > early-Pleistocene H.erectus (Mojokerto Java) was pachyosteosclerotic (POS):
> > POS is exlusively seen slow+shallow-diving tetrapod spp.
> Reference, other than papers [co]-authored by you?
> The very short Wikipedia entry makes no mention of anthropoids, but it does have some
> intriguing examples, especially the last:
> Examples of animals showing pachyosteosclerosis are seacows[3] (dugongs and manatees), the extinct Plesiosauria and Mesosauria[2] and extinct aquatic sloths.[4]
> --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis
> Those sloths are the closest to humans in external anatomy on the list, by far.
> Have you ever made a comparative study? There is plenty of emphasis
> in the long Wikipedia entry about their pachyosteosclerosis.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus
even early Pinnipedia & Cetacea were POS:
pachy-osteo-sclerotic "thick bone dense", no doubt for facilitating diving, also seen in aquatic reptiles etc.
> Even their temporal span was close to that of hominini: 7-3 mya.
> > > > -- a[ustralo]piths were no human ancestors, but fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan.
> > > This hypothesis is extremely heterodox, although there is some circumstantial
> > > evidence supporting it. Do you have any besides the utter dearth of fossils
> > > that are generally recognized to be those of chimp and gorilla relatives?
> > > I mean, of relatives that are closer to chimps and gorillas than to *Homo*?
+ the opinion of the early discoverers, e.g. "-pithecus" = monkey/ape.
Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" (wading-climbing, google "aquarboreal"):
IOW, there's nothing in apiths that's closer to Homo than to Pan or Gorilla
> > This was not heterodox: all early discoverers of australopiths thought they had found fossil "apes".
> The word "ape" ranges over Homininae, and only excluded Homo back then by convention.
> Java "man" was first called Pithecanthropus, and hence was called an ape.
> > An objective (= non-anthropocentric & non-afrocentric) approach is clear:
> > -E.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Gorilla > Pan > Homo,
> > -S.Afr.apiths are morphologically closer to Pan > Gorilla or Homo:
> > IOW, E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in parallel from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust":
> > afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.
> But the reigning orthodoxy has them closer to human (Homo) ancestry than any known
> Asiatic genus, including Gigantopithecus.
Gigantopithecus was a fossil pongid-sivapith, also aquarboreal?
As you know, my view (hypothetically, very short):
-India approached S-Eurasia 30?25 Ma ->island archipels with coastal forests++
-Catarrhini reaching these island became "aquarboreal": broad build (Latisternalia), upright, tail loss etc.
-India underneath Asia c 20 Ma split Hylobatidae (SE.Asian coasts) & great"apes": W-Tethys coastal forests,
-the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids-sivapith (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W),
-late-Miocene Medit.Sea apes died out (heat? flood? cold?), only Red Sea hominids survived:
-Gorilla 8?7 Ma followed the incipient northern Rift ->Afar swamp forests: Lucy & other apiths,
-Red Sea opened into the Gulf (5.33 Ma?): Pan went right, Homo went left,
-Pan entered the southern Rift ->Transvaal swamp forests: Taung & other apiths (// Gorilla),
-Homo in S-Asia evolved from aquarboreal to frequent shallow-diving early-Pleist.?
--marc
Sadovnik Socratus
Mar 27, 2023, 12:40:40 PM3/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Can a whole science be so wrong?
There are in fact two things, science and opinion;
the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” – Hippocrates
“Science is magic that works.” – Kurt Vonnegut
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena,
it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous
centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature.
And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part
of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” – Max Planck
“What I love about science is that as you learn, you don’t really get answers.
You just get better questions.” – John Green
“We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered,
the problems of life have still not been touched at all.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein
“The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers,
he’s one who asks the right questions.” – Claude Levi-Strauss
“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology,
in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” – Carl Sagan
JTEM is my hero
Mar 29, 2023, 10:40:05 PM3/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Sadovnik Socratus wrote:
> Can a whole science be so wrong?
> There are in fact two things, science and opinion;
> the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” – Hippocrates
> “Science is magic that works.” – Kurt Vonnegut
> “The day science begins to
This isn't a hypothetical. Paleo anthropology is wrong. It's not science.
> Can a whole science be so wrong?
> There are in fact two things, science and opinion;
> the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.” – Hippocrates
> “Science is magic that works.” – Kurt Vonnegut
> “The day science begins to
It's circular reasoning that hides behind a very unscientific selection
bias.
Aquatic Ape is a proven fact. After all, humanity spread everywhere from
Australia to southern Africa, and everywhere in between. And everyone
agrees that this was accomplished by way of "Coastal Dispersal."
Well. "Coastal Dispersal" means "Aquatic Ape." It doesn't mean that they
packed a box lunch or stopped at Burger King. And they didn't carry an
African savanna with them, in their backs, to forage for food when they
got hungry. "Coastal Dispersal" means they were living on water's edge,
exploiting marine resources. They picked a stretch of beach clean then
pushed on. Groups would periodically peel off, push inland where they
eventually settled and adapted. Depending on WHEN this happened and
WHERE, this led to the rise of very distinct populations -- Neanderthals,
Denisovans, etc.
The "African" population in the "Out of Africa" purity idiocy was of an
Eurasian descent. We know this thanks to the "Nuclear DNA Insert,"
the chromosome-11 insert. It's significantly older than any so called
Mitochondrial Eve, and it's Eurasian in origins.
How did it get everywhere from Melanesia southern Africa?
"Coastal Dispersal" aka Aquatic Ape.
When did "Aquatic Ape" start? Who knows? It was certainly going strong
more than 2 million years ago, because we find Generation-2 (at least)
stone tools in China.
Modern man is the result of a natural process, an environment -- a diet
and a means of survival... aquatic ape.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712209282631909376
israel socratus
Mar 30, 2023, 2:40:05 AM3/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:40:05 AM UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Modern man is the result of a natural process, an environment -- a diet
> and a means of survival... aquatic ape.
----------
> Modern man is the result of a natural process, an environment -- a diet
> and a means of survival... aquatic ape.
The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
-------------------
JTEM is my hero
Mar 30, 2023, 9:55:06 PM3/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
israel socratus wrote:
> ----------
> The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
> -------------------
Then why did YOU introduce "monkey business?"
> ----------
> The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
> -------------------
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/AGW
israel socratus
Mar 31, 2023, 1:10:06 AM3/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:55:06 AM UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> israel socratus wrote:
>
> > ----------
> > The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
> > ----------
> israel socratus wrote:
>
> > ----------
> > The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
> > ----------
> Then why did YOU introduce "monkey business?"
----------------
Infinite monkey theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
-----------------------
peter2...@gmail.com
Mar 31, 2023, 9:15:07 PM3/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 1:10:06 AM UTC-4, israel socratus wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:55:06 AM UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > israel socratus wrote:
> >
> > > ----------
> > > The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
In other words, random mutation, as your url below shows.
> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:55:06 AM UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > israel socratus wrote:
> >
> > > ----------
> > > The modern man is not result of "Monkey Business"
> > > ----------
> > Then why did YOU introduce "monkey business?"
> ----------------
> Infinite monkey theorem
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
> -----------------------
being needed to produce us from humble prebiotic beginnings. This is routinely dismissed
by almost all talk.origins regulars with several years of experience here
with the following "argument":
Nobody of the Gaps
"Nobody ever said random chance is what produced ______ from humble prebiotic beginnings."
[Various things are put in the blank, one of which is "us".]
Substitute "vertebrates" for "us" and "metazoan" for "prebiotic"
and you have something marginally on-topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
Still, talk.origins is the best venue for this kind of argument. So your post is right where it belongs.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
JTEM is my hero
Mar 31, 2023, 10:45:06 PM3/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
israel socratus wrote:
> Infinite monkey theorem
So you randomly typed out "Monkery business" or are you confused?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Easter/page/4
> Infinite monkey theorem
So you randomly typed out "Monkery business" or are you confused?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Easter/page/4
0 new messages