Only idiots oppose Aquatic Ape

[JTEM is my hero]

DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.

"Oh they ate bugs! That's how they stood upright and
landed in China!"

So what bugs? Sure bugs have Omega-3s but do they
have the right Omega-3s?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1744-7917.12669

No, NOT a good source!

"Their bodies synthesized DHA from ALA!"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308783

So THAT'S a problem, too...

So it's NOT a problem for Aquatic Ape, it is a massive error
for savanna idiocy.

"Wait, there's more!"

Our ancestors were everywhere from China (and beyond) to
southern Africa, already making tools, more than 2 million
years ago. How does eating bugs on a savanna manage this?

(Psst. It doesn't)

That's right, children, savanna idiocy is no model what so ever...

"They carried a savanna around with them, on their backs!"

No they didn't.

Another concept you need to figure out, one that even Out of
Africa purists have no issues with, insist must be true, is...

Coastal Dispersal.

So how does eating bugs on a savanna get them on that coast?
And, once there, why are they walking to Australia?

"They heard that bugs taste really good there!"

Wrong. Again.

Aquatic Ape provides and answer. Savanna idiocy can't while
Aquatic Ape does: That's where they lived! That's where they
ate. That's all they were doing: Picking up stuff & eating it.

That's it. As the pickings grew slim, they moved on, eventually
winding up everywhere they could reach.

Bigger brains? No problem! Not for Aquatic Ape. By simply
picking up stuff & eating it they were inundating themselves
with brain building Omega-3s. So if any mutations were to
arise, allowing for larger brains, larger brains there were!

No magic, unlike savanna idiocy....

In the mean time they didn't need anything more
sophistication then is seen in some monkeys! Nope. They
didn't need to craft tools and they certainly didn't need fire.

Raw seafood is popular even now!

Occasionally groups would have peeled off from the Aquatic
Ape population, moved inland. Lakes often drain into rivers,
rivers into the sea. If they found food in these outlets, or even
just food that they liked more, some might follow them inland.
And of course they could always have been driven inland by
natural disasters (Tsunamis) bad weather (Google: Storm
Surge), disease (Red Tide) or even competition/conflict.

Once groups were settled within their new inland environments
who are open to things like "The Founder Effect."

Multi Regionalism.

Regional Continuity.

You'd expect to see DIFFERENT populations, DISTINCT groups.

Exactly as we do see.

How does savanna idiocy provide this?

(Psst. It doesn't)

AND, Aquatic Ape serves as the conduit, moving genes back
and forth between groups, between conduits...

Aquatic Ape is a comprehensive model, one that not only
tells us the "How" but the "Why."

Humans don't come from a place, not a geographical point,
but an environment: Waterside!

Look. I have ancestors that sub saharan Africans do not have,
as they have ancestors which are not shared with me. But the
one population that all the human race is descended from is
the Aquatic Ape population. They are what ties us together,
makes us all human.






-- --

[marc verhaegen]

Op zondag 1 januari 2023 om 22:45:37 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is my hero:

> DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
> evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.

Yes, of course:
the savanna hypothesis is not even a hypothesis, it's ridiculous nonsense:

Adaptive Evolution of the FADS Gene Cluster within Africa
Rasika A Mathias cs 2012 PLoS ONE 7(9):e44926
doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0044926
Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs) are essential for brain structure, development & function,
adequate dietary quantities of LC-PUFAs are thought to have been necessary for brain expansion & the increase in brain complexity observed during modern human evolution.
Previous studies conducted in largely European populations suggest:
humans have limited capacity to synthesize brain LC-PUFAs (e.g. DHA) from plant-based medium-chain-PUFAs, due to limited desaturase activity.
Population-based differences in LC-PUFA levels & their product-to-substrate ratios can (in part) be explained by polymorphisms in the fatty acid desaturase (FADS) gene-cluster, ass.x increased conversion of MC- to LC-PUFAs.
Here, we show:
these high efficiency converter alleles in the FADS gene cluster were likely driven to near-fixation in African populations by positive selection ∼85 ka:
did selection at FADS variants, which increase LC-PUFA synthesis from plant-based MC-PUFAs, allow African populations, obligatorily tethered to marine sources for LC-PUFAs in isolated geographic regions, to rapidly expand throughout Africa 60-80 ka?

IOW, it's probably only after c 80 ka that aquatic foods became not strictly necessary for H.sapiens!

______

[RonO]

On 1/1/2023 3:41 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
> evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.
>
> "Oh they ate bugs! That's how they stood upright and
> landed in China!"
>
> So what bugs? Sure bugs have Omega-3s but do they
> have the right Omega-3s?
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1744-7917.12669

Just to see if you can learn something instead of snipping and running
to remain willfully ignorant you can look up the references cited by
your paper. You should because they admit that the ratio between
omega-6 and omega-3 content of insects is variable (they picked two
commercially raised species with high omeg-6 content, but the paper they
cite listed 4 species in that paper and one of them (grasshoppers) had a
ratio less than 1 when the paper you cite claims that a good ratio would
be less than 5.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861516305052

There has been evidence that hominids ate termites 1.8 million years ago.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320028946_Did_early_humans_consume_insects

Apparently indigenous Africans and Australian aborigines still eat termites.

The 2001 PNAS paper claiming evidence for termites as a food source 1.8
million years ago:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29261/

Termites have an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of around 3.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319619490_Analysis_of_fatty_acids_levels_of_freeze-dried_termite_queen_Macrotermes_gilvus_Hagen_using_gas_chromatography-mass_spectrometry

Table 3 Analysis of fresh termite queens: Linolenic acid 113.85 mg/100 g
and EPA 33.65 mg/100 g. Ratio of 3.38 which is below the ratio of 5
recommended by your paper.

Looks like our ancestors could have and did get Omega-6 and omega-3 from
insects. Some humans still eat termites.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >
> > DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
> > evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.
> >
> > "Oh they ate bugs! That's how they stood upright and
> > landed in China!"
> >
> > So what bugs? Sure bugs have Omega-3s but do they
> > have the right Omega-3s?

> Just to see if you can learn something instead

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861516305052

Zero mentions of DHA. Perhaps reading just isn't your thing?

Seriously. Why do you always do this? Post irrelevant cites that you clearly
never read, cites that do not support your position?

> There has been evidence that hominids ate termites 1.8 million years ago.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320028946_Did_early_humans_consume_insects

Again, zero mentions of DHA. As your mental illness causes you to believe
that you are reacting to a comment about DHA, shouldn't your... your... um...
"Refutation" actually address the topic?

No, wait. I'm serious. As you are pretending to be refuting my statements
about DHA, shouldn't you have restricted yourself to citations that mention
DHA? At all?

> Apparently indigenous Africans and Australian aborigines still eat termites.
>
> The 2001 PNAS paper claiming evidence for termites as a food source 1.8
> million years ago:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29261/

No mention of DHA.

Again, and by all means, please take this personal but, as your mental illness
causes you to believe that you are "Refuting" my comments about DHA,
shouldn't you post a cite that's actually relevant? One that MENTIONS DHA?

> Termites have an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of around 3.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319619490_Analysis_of_fatty_acids_levels_of_freeze-dried_termite_queen_Macrotermes_gilvus_Hagen_using_gas_chromatography-mass_spectrometry

No mention what so ever of DHA.

It does mention EPA, of course, so maybe you're just an incredibly bad speller?

Is that it?

I mean, *I* am a terrible speller and I hate to resort to a spelling flame but,
seriously, you're fucked up...

> Table 3 Analysis of fresh termite queens: Linolenic acid 113.85 mg/100 g
> and EPA 33.65 mg/100 g. Ratio of 3.38 which is below the ratio of 5
> recommended by your paper.

EPA isn't an alternative spelling of DHA. Honest. I am not making that up.

And you are a faker. I am not making THAT up, either.

Do you think this works? That you fool people?

DHA.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195329786626048

[RonO]

On 1/1/2023 6:35 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>>
>>> DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
>>> evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.
>>>
>>> "Oh they ate bugs! That's how they stood upright and
>>> landed in China!"
>>>
>>> So what bugs? Sure bugs have Omega-3s but do they
>>> have the right Omega-3s?
>
>> Just to see if you can learn something instead
>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861516305052
>
> Zero mentions of DHA. Perhaps reading just isn't your thing?
>
> Seriously. Why do you always do this? Post irrelevant cites that you clearly
> never read, cites that do not support your position?

Willful ignorance is nuts. Your reference was about the ratio of
omega-6 and omega-3, and the preferred ratio was less than 5. Insects
meet that. It was only the two chosen ones that didn't.

>
>> There has been evidence that hominids ate termites 1.8 million years ago.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320028946_Did_early_humans_consume_insects
>
> Again, zero mentions of DHA. As your mental illness causes you to believe
> that you are reacting to a comment about DHA, shouldn't your... your... um...
> "Refutation" actually address the topic?

DHA isn't an issue if the ratio is right. What is your understanding of
the paper that you put up?

>
> No, wait. I'm serious. As you are pretending to be refuting my statements
> about DHA, shouldn't you have restricted yourself to citations that mention
> DHA? At all?

I obviuosly have because the material refutes your claim about the
ratio's not being right as the source of the problem. Do you even know
what your first reference was about and how it related to your second
reference? It sounds like you just got the references from somewhere
else without understanding what they had to do with each other.

>
>> Apparently indigenous Africans and Australian aborigines still eat termites.
>>
>> The 2001 PNAS paper claiming evidence for termites as a food source 1.8
>> million years ago:
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29261/
>
> No mention of DHA.
>
> Again, and by all means, please take this personal but, as your mental illness
> causes you to believe that you are "Refuting" my comments about DHA,
> shouldn't you post a cite that's actually relevant? One that MENTIONS DHA?

There didn't seem to be a need to mention DHA because it isn't an issue
if the ratio of omega-6 isn't too high. Omega-6 and EPA compete for the
same enzymes that make DHA from EPA. Your cells can take ALA and with a
couple reactions make EPA and then make DHA from EPA. You don't have to
first make EPA if it comes in from the diet. Your first paper was only
concerned with providing EPA without supplying too much omega-6, and
that is what termites would do and likely did for our ancestors.

>
>> Termites have an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of around 3.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319619490_Analysis_of_fatty_acids_levels_of_freeze-dried_termite_queen_Macrotermes_gilvus_Hagen_using_gas_chromatography-mass_spectrometry
>
> No mention what so ever of DHA.

Why should it?

>
> It does mention EPA, of course, so maybe you're just an incredibly bad speller?
>
> Is that it?

No, you just won't believe your own references.

>
> I mean, *I* am a terrible speller and I hate to resort to a spelling flame but,
> seriously, you're fucked up...

You are worse than a terrible speller. You should try to read your
references for comprehension.

>
>> Table 3 Analysis of fresh termite queens: Linolenic acid 113.85 mg/100 g
>> and EPA 33.65 mg/100 g. Ratio of 3.38 which is below the ratio of 5
>> recommended by your paper.
>
> EPA isn't an alternative spelling of DHA. Honest. I am not making that up.

No, what a loser, EPA is one of the essential fatty acids that are
lumped together as omega-3 fatty acids. It is made by the same enzymes
that make EPA and DHA from ALA, but EPA falls a couple of steps further
into the process from ALA. EPA can be produced from ALA, and it is a
precursor for making DHA. It shortcuts making DHA from plant derived ALA.

>
> And you are a faker. I am not making THAT up, either.

You seem to be talking to yourself again.

>
> Do you think this works? That you fool people?
>
> DHA.

What a nut job. No one was trying to fool anyone. I stated just what
is the current reality and used your own reference to pull out the material.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195329786626048
>

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Willful ignorance is nuts.

And you posted four "Cites," none of them so much as mentioning
DHA, all of them posted while believing you were refuting my
statements on DHA.

You were profoundly ignorant of the contents of your own cites!

> Your reference was about the ratio of
> omega-6 and omega-3

No it wasn't. One cite was to demonstrate that your insects are
NOT a good source of DHA, the other cite put a date on our
improved (though still not very good) ability to synthesize DHA
from ALA.

> and the preferred ratio

It's DHA. Nothing about "Ratios." The Aquatic Ape diet provides
a plentiful supply of DHA, a terrestrial diet does not. And as DHA
is the all important one for growing larger brains... well.. why
trouble you with facts you can't comprehend?

> > Again, zero mentions of DHA. As your mental illness causes you to believe
> > that you are reacting to a comment about DHA, shouldn't your... your... um...
> > "Refutation" actually address the topic?

> DHA isn't an issue

It is THE issue and exactly what I raised. It is exactly what you reacted to.

"A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."

Faker. Fraud.

> > No, wait. I'm serious. As you are pretending to be refuting my statements
> > about DHA, shouldn't you have restricted yourself to citations that mention
> > DHA? At all?

> I obviuosly

You posted four cites, none of them mentioning DHA. All of them refuting you.

You refuted yourself. And now you're doubling down, pretending you did
something else.

It can't work. The thread is still here. All the posts are available to read on the
Google archive.

> > No mention of DHA.
> >
> > Again, and by all means, please take this personal but, as your mental illness
> > causes you to believe that you are "Refuting" my comments about DHA,
> > shouldn't you post a cite that's actually relevant? One that MENTIONS DHA?

> There didn't seem

This isn't about how anything "Seems." You posted four cites which never said
anything about DHA, and you posted them thinking you were refuting my
statements on DHA.

You can't hide from this. You are a fraud.

Aquatic Ape has to be right, because of the DHA from the aquatic diet.

Admit your incredibly stupid mistake. Admit that Aquatic Ape is right.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195028242464768

[RonO]

On 1/1/2023 11:07 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Willful ignorance is nuts.
>
> And you posted four "Cites," none of them so much as mentioning
> DHA, all of them posted while believing you were refuting my
> statements on DHA.
>
> You were profoundly ignorant of the contents of your own cites!

Go back to what you snipped out and ran from to determine that it
doesn't matter.

Look how you had to snip up this post. I can't even figure out what you
are responding to. What should that tell you?

>
>> Your reference was about the ratio of
>> omega-6 and omega-3
>
> No it wasn't. One cite was to demonstrate that your insects are
> NOT a good source of DHA, the other cite put a date on our
> improved (though still not very good) ability to synthesize DHA
> from ALA.
>

Your source noted that the insects used in the study did not have DHA,
but they had, or could be fed to have healthy useful levels of EPA.

What was the issue with having too much omega-6 relative to EPA?

>> and the preferred ratio
>
> It's DHA. Nothing about "Ratios." The Aquatic Ape diet provides
> a plentiful supply of DHA, a terrestrial diet does not. And as DHA
> is the all important one for growing larger brains... well.. why
> trouble you with facts you can't comprehend?

You have to be pretty brain dead to not understand that EPA is an
intermediate product to the production of DHA from ALA that we get from
plants. Knock, knock we can more efficiently make DHA when we start
with EPA. Look up the biochemical pathway. One of the issues with too
much omega-6 is that it competes for the same enzymes that are used to
make DHA from EPA. If you can keep the amount of omega-6 in the diet
low, you decrease the inhibition of making DHA from EPA.

That is what I learned from going to the references cited by your reference.

>
>>> Again, zero mentions of DHA. As your mental illness causes you to believe
>>> that you are reacting to a comment about DHA, shouldn't your... your... um...
>>> "Refutation" actually address the topic?
>
>> DHA isn't an issue
>
> It is THE issue and exactly what I raised. It is exactly what you reacted to.
>
> "A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
>
> Faker. Fraud.

Why didn't your reference think that it wasn't that much of an issue
when omega-6/EPA ratios were lower than 5? You are the one that needs
to read your own reference for comprehension and you can go to the
papers they cite to get more information.

>
>>> No, wait. I'm serious. As you are pretending to be refuting my statements
>>> about DHA, shouldn't you have restricted yourself to citations that mention
>>> DHA? At all?
>
>> I obviuosly
>
> You posted four cites, none of them mentioning DHA. All of them refuting you.

Why did you have to snip out what I wrote to lie about it?

None of them had to mention DHA because the issue in your first
reference was about the ratio of the fatty acids that were present. The
cites only had to demonstrate that there were insects used as food that
you did not have to feed differently to get the ratio of omega-6/EPA
below 5. One of the cites had grasshoppers less than 1. The termite
cites had them around 3. Both below 5 that your first reference wanted
the ratios to be below.

>
> You refuted yourself. And now you're doubling down, pretending you did
> something else.
>
> It can't work. The thread is still here. All the posts are available to read on the
> Google archive.

My citations did just what I wanted them to do. That seems to be
obvious by what you had to snip and run from.

>
>>> No mention of DHA.
>>>
>>> Again, and by all means, please take this personal but, as your mental illness
>>> causes you to believe that you are "Refuting" my comments about DHA,
>>> shouldn't you post a cite that's actually relevant? One that MENTIONS DHA?
>
>> There didn't seem
>
> This isn't about how anything "Seems." You posted four cites which never said
> anything about DHA, and you posted them thinking you were refuting my
> statements on DHA.
>
> You can't hide from this. You are a fraud.
>
> Aquatic Ape has to be right, because of the DHA from the aquatic diet.
>
> Admit your incredibly stupid mistake. Admit that Aquatic Ape is right.

Again why snip and run? Can you counter what was written?

Just as some exercise in seeing if you have any rational idea of what
you are claiming. What is your scenario for your aquatic ape phase.
Did it occur before or after our ancestors started bipedal locomotion?
Did it occur when our ancestors still had ape-like limb proportions (up
until Homo habilis). Chimps have a brain volume of less than 500 cc.
Lucy's relatives (A. afarensis) had brain size around the size of a
chimp, but some of them had brains larger than 500 cc. Homo habilis had
a brain size of around 600 cc and still had limbs that were more
ape-like in proportions so it is thought to have still been arboreal in
it's life style, at least, more arboreal than Homo erectus that had
modern human proportioned limbs and a brain size of less than 1,000 cc
(some early representatives from over a million years ago were around
700-800 cc) but some later representatives had brains larger than 1,000
cc and overlapped the range found in modern humans.

So when did we have this aquatic phase happen, and which of our
ancestors were involved? The Javanese H. erectus samples likely had
access to sea food, and would have had to cross some ocean expanse to
get to the islands less than a million years ago, had a brain size on
the small side for H. erectus (around 790 cc). More importantly, why
did this phase in our evolution end? Why did we go back to a
terrestrial life style and have to depend on plants and insects to get
enough omega-3 fatty acids to produce what we needed? Why did it take
so long for the modern humans evolving in Africa to evolve the ability
to more efficiently make DHA from what was in their diet? Did the
aquatic ape phase only happen in the modern humans that left Africa and
now depend mostly on aquatic lifeforms and plants (some still eat a lot
of insects) to get the EPA and DHA that they need? Did it only happen
with H. habilis, or H. erectus when our brains were getting larger, and
it took us a long time for modern humans in Africa to better adapt to a
more terrestrial lifestyle? Neanderthals likely didn't have the more
efficient production of EPA and DHA that is now found among modern
humans that remained in Africa because their ancestors left Africa
around 500,000 to 800,000 years ago. Did they leave Africa before or
after the aquatic ape phase?

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195028242464768
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/1/23 1:41 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
> evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.

Okay, I know you're a troll, but some serious people will read this
thread, too, so, having just come from the shower, I must ask . . .

Are humans still aquatic apes?

How do you know?

If no, what caused the change? If yes, what prevented the change?

What does it imply that I need to ask?

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

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Go back to

You posted four cites -- four -- NOT ONE OF THEM so much
as mentioning DHA, all while believing you were refuted my
comments about DHA.

STOP it. You've been exposed. You are a fraud.

Give it up. Use a different sock puppet. Everyone knows this
one is a troll.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195028242464768

[JTEM is my hero]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >
> > DHA all alone is powerful evidence for Aquatic Ape,
> > evidence with no answer with savanna nonsense.

> Okay, I know you're a troll

You're saying this to me, not the "Totally different person" than
you who posted four cites "Debunking" what I said about DHA,
only not one of the cites even mentions DHA...

Fascinating.

I have to believe that you're just the exact same sick, twisted
fuck posting with a different handle, and you're not really this
emotionally damaged.

> Are humans still aquatic apes?

#1.

Hypocrisy isn't an argument so, are humans "Apes?"

Go on. Answer; are humans "Apes?"

#2.

What do you think "Aquatic Ape" means?

Go on. Splash your ignorance across my screen. Let me make
fun of you.

What do YOU think "Aquatic Ape" means?

HINT: It's okay to cheat and dig up 50-year-old Morgan cites,
if that helps.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195028242464768

[RonO]

On 1/2/2023 1:09 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> Go back to
>
> You posted four cites -- four -- NOT ONE OF THEM so much
> as mentioning DHA, all while believing you were refuted my
> comments about DHA.
>
> STOP it. You've been exposed. You are a fraud.
>
> Give it up. Use a different sock puppet. Everyone knows this
> one is a troll.

All four cites back up what you are running from. What a loser.

Why snip and run?

Can you state what your aquatic ape junk is in a rational fashion. Give
us a time line and what species were supposed to be involved.

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> All four cites back up what you are running from.

It's shocking how your disorder always causes you to do this: Double
down on your stupidity!

It's all about the DHA. I even specifically named DHA. You posted
four cites, PRETENDING TO BE REFUTING ME, not a one so much
as mentioning DHA.

> Why snip

https://dictionary.apa.org/castration-complex

It doesn't specifically state it here but, didn't Freud say it was your dad,
not me, who was supposed to snip you?

And you've castrated yourself here, metaphorically, by exposing the
fact that you are a fraud and then doubling down on it, painting yourself
as an emotionally disturbed idiot.

But you are a fraud. You did post not one but four cites -- FOUR CITES --
none of which you read much less understood, not one supporting you
in the least... and you didn't know it!

Wow, *That's* ignorance!

You fraud!







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705359496037515264

[RonO]

On 1/2/2023 3:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> All four cites back up what you are running from.
>
> It's shocking how your disorder always causes you to do this: Double
> down on your stupidity!
>
> It's all about the DHA. I even specifically named DHA. You posted
> four cites, PRETENDING TO BE REFUTING ME, not a one so much
> as mentioning DHA.

You seem to be posting to yourself again. Snipping and running seems to
be all that you can do.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> You

It's not about me. It's about DHA.

What's weird here is that we're pretending that you didn't Google
"DHA" and "Brain," trying to figure out what the significance was.
All you cared about was being right. All that mattered to you was
that your stupid comments about eating bugs were right. So
instead of "DHA" and "Brain," knowing that was the topic, you
Googled "Omega-3s" and "Insects."

You're a fraud. You know you're wrong. You know you're fucked
up. You know you're a goddamn idiot.

None of this is news to you.

You're a fraud. You're so ashamed of yourself that you have to
pretend your other people, and then in turn you tell yourself that
this makes you clever...






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705359496037515264

[Pro Plyd]

RonO wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 3:26 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>   Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> All four cites back up what you are running from.
>>
>> It's shocking how your disorder always causes you to do this:  Double
>> down on your stupidity!
>>
>> It's all about the DHA. I even specifically named DHA. You posted
>> four cites, PRETENDING TO BE REFUTING ME, not a one so much
>> as mentioning DHA.
>
> You seem to be posting to yourself again.  Snipping and running seems to
> be all that you can do.

He lives in his mom's basement and makes videos about
space aliens...

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:
> RonO wrote:

"Yes, Mr Right Hand, I instinctively agree with everything I.. no I mean
YOU said."

"Of course, Mr Left Hand, and I agree with everything you I mean I no
I meant YOU.. i agree with everything you say. Before you say it."

Anyway, if you get around to taking your lithium you can address the
massive elephant in the room: Big brains require LOTS of DHA, and
they never could have got it on a savanna. And this means Aquatic
Ape it right.

Humans aren't great at synthesizing DHA now, even after mutations
finally arose "Improving" our ability. Not a fan of molecular dating but,
as you are, they place that mutation at a little over 80k years ago.

And if you ever figure out that Google thing, and develop some actual
curiosity, human brain size has actually SHRUNK since the advent of
civilization.

Agriculture? You know, plants... domesticated animals... great
sources of ALA but not DHA.

Of course, in your defense, you do have one big ass personality
disorder there, so maybe that "Refutes" the facts. And if not you can
always dredge up more sock puppets to agree with you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705359496037515264

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Is that what your space aliens told you?

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Is that what your space aliens told you?

I was going to complement you on your thoroughly
researched, well articulated, impressively cited
response on DHA and it's pointing to Aquatic Ape,
but instead...

Lol! I have space aliens?

I'M RICH! I'M RICH!

I can charge anything -- ANYTHING! -- to the media, or
take them on tour for live shows... WATCH THE CASH
FLOWING LIKE WATERS IN A FLOODED RIVER!

This is AWESOME!

And don't worry. Nobody noticed that you're cowering
behind another sock puppet, spewing brainless (f)Lames
in order to distract from your incredibly stupid mistakes
here in this thread...

You're a fraud. And you just made yourself out to be an
even bigger one than I described!

Congratulations.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705405424857497600

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 22:12:04 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>:

....and listens for footsteps on the bridge over his head...
>
--

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]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> ....and listens for

What's your most intelligent reply in any thread?

Let's make this easy: Stick to the last three or four
months.

So, what is the most intelligent reply you've posted
in the last three to four months? Post a link to it
on the Google archive.

The point of course is that you're a goddamn retard
on the best of days, an emotionally disturbed retard
on all the others.

You have to cower behind sock puppets, you have
to respond to yourself. You have no choice. It's the
only way you can get away with your idiocy.





-- --

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

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 27 mei 2023 om 22:12:54 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

Yes, thanks, JTEM.
This "discussion"(??) began with:

Adaptive Evolution of the FADS Gene Cluster within Africa
Rasika A Mathias cs 2012 PLoS ONE 7(9):e44926
doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0044926
Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs) are essential for brain structure, development & function,
adequate dietary quantities of LC-PUFAs are thought to have been necessary for brain expansion & the increase in brain complexity observed during modern human evolution.
Previous studies conducted in largely European populations suggest:

humans have limited capacity to synthesize brain LC-PUFAs (e.g. DHA) from plant-based medium-chain-PUFAs, due to limited de-saturase activity.

Population-based differences in LC-PUFA levels & their product-to-substrate ratios can (in part) be explained by polymorphisms in the fatty acid desaturase (FADS) gene-cluster, ass.x increased conversion of MC- to LC-PUFAs.
Here, we show:
these high efficiency converter alleles in the FADS gene cluster were likely driven to near-fixation in African populations by positive selection ∼85 ka:

did selection at FADS variants, which increase LC-PUFA synthesis from plant-based MC-PUFAs, allow African populations (obligatorily tethered to marine sources for LC-PUFAs in isolated geographic regions) to rapidly expand throughout Africa 60-80 ka?

IOW,
- out-of-Africa = empty slogan?
- only after c 80 ka, aquatic foods became not strictly necessary for African H.sapiens?

Google "aquarboreal" & see my 2022 book
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/