Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
e.g. already
- 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
"The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
- 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
"The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"

Many questions remain, however, e.g.
did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
See discussions at aat@groups.io.

In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
e.g. already
- 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
"The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
- 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
"The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"

Many questions remain, however, e.g.
did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
See discussions at aat@groups.io.

In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...
Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense?? Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
e.g. already
- 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
"The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
- 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
"The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
Many questions remain, however, e.g.
did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
See discussions at aat@groups.io.
In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

Some kudu runner:

ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

?? If so, so what??
Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish:

ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense?? Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
e.g. already
- 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
"The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
- 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
"The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"

Fast cursorial tetrapods don't have very long extremities.
Many primates have rel. much longer extremities than cursorials. Frequently-wading tetrapods often have rel. very long legs: BP heron, QP moose...
Early hominoids were vertical-bipedal waders-climbers (google "Aquarboreal Ancestors?"),
but archaic Homo (POS) began diving frequently for sessile foods:
although they were still probably parttime wading, they had rel.shorter tibias than H.sapiens,
and during diving they held their upperarms constantly next to their trunk (ill.Med.Hyp.1985-1987).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...
Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
e.g. already
- 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
"The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
- 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
"The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
Many questions remain, however, e.g.
did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
See discussions at aat@groups.io.
In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

Some kudu runner:

ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

?? If so, so what??

We aren't short limbed.

Google

Found those snorkel noses yet?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Found those snorkel noses yet?

Yes, why do think the columella & the philtrum fitted? cf. prognathism:

Oi, Big nose !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities
including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded
and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins
of land and water. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food,
and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the
coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know
whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

My only complaint is that shellfish generally allow you to forgo diving.

You've got to remember: We have nearly depleted the oceans at this point.

What we see today is a tiny fraction of what once was.

AND, we know that they consumed resources then moved on. It's how they
spanned the continents. It's not just how they migrated but why they
migrated.

So they didn't necessarily have to dive for anything until much, much later.

It's one of the reasons why I like to say that our evolution doesn't start with erectus, it ends there. Erectus appears to be the first "Modern," quite literally
if you follow the rather loose application of the term "Modern" by paleo anthropology which seems to think "Moderns" were around 300,000 years
ago at this point.

That's what the social program is saying.

Brow ridges? Low sloping forehead? MODERN!

And it's not entirely wrong. I mean it is wrong, just not entirely wrong.

Genetically they were probably so close to us that interbreeding is very likely. But they weren't modern at all in the sense that their features fell outside the normally accept range of humans today.

You could pick one out of a crowd.

Is that really so important? Well it's enough to show that they were a very different POPULATION, one that doesn't exist today, but there is an argument that they were actually the same species... we are THAT close.

So I tend to see erectus NOT as Aquatic Ape but what Aquatic Ape resulted
in... arrived at... produced.






-- --

https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op woensdag 2 februari 2022 om 13:19:14 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

My only complaint is that shellfish generally allow you to forgo diving. You've got to remember: We have nearly depleted the oceans at this point. What we see today is a tiny fraction of what once was.

Yes, most of our Pleistocene ancestors were waterside omnivores,
but at some (short?) times they might have been almost full-time shellfish-(& seaweed?-)divers:
pachyosteosclosis (H.erectus) in other animals is *exclusively *seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods.
This coincides with the Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal of erectus cs (incl. islands, e.g. Flores).
I wonder: did shellfish become more abundant at (sub)tropical coasts when (Pleistocene) temperatures dropped?

AND, we know that they consumed resources then moved on. It's how they spanned the continents. It's not just how they migrated but why they migrated.

Neandertals had C & N isotopes between salt & freshwater foods:
presumably they seasonally followed the river to the sea (salmon?).

Traditional PAs suggested Neandertals were "super-carnivores" because their C+N isotopes were "more carnivorous" than in pure carnivores.
But they were so prejudiced that they didn't even consider aquatic foods!
How can an animal be more carnivorous than felids?? :-D
The imbeciles!

So they didn't necessarily have to dive for anything until much, much later. It's one of the reasons why I like to say that our evolution doesn't start with
erectus, it ends there. Erectus appears to be the first "Modern," quite literally
if you follow the rather loose application of the term "Modern" by paleo anthropology which seems to think "Moderns" were around 300,000 years
ago at this point.
That's what the social program is saying.
Brow ridges? Low sloping forehead? MODERN!
And it's not entirely wrong. I mean it is wrong, just not entirely wrong. Genetically they were probably so close to us that interbreeding is very likely. But they weren't modern at all in the sense that their features fell outside the normally accept range of humans today.
You could pick one out of a crowd.
Is that really so important? Well it's enough to show that they were a very different POPULATION, one that doesn't exist today, but there is an argument that they were actually the same species... we are THAT close.
So I tend to see erectus NOT as Aquatic Ape but what Aquatic Ape resulted in... arrived at... produced.

I'll (try to) answer these problems in my WHAT talk next sunday.
If you contact me at m_verhaegen@skynet.be, I'll send the PPT.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op woensdag 2 februari 2022 om 13:19:14 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

My only complaint is that shellfish generally allow you to forgo diving. You've got to remember: We have nearly depleted the oceans at this point. What we see today is a tiny fraction of what once was.

Yes, most of our Pleistocene ancestors were waterside omnivores,
but at some (short?) times they might have been almost full-time shellfish-(& seaweed?-)divers:
pachyosteosclosis (H.erectus) in other animals is *exclusively *seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods.
This coincides with the Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal of erectus cs (incl. islands, e.g. Flores).
I wonder: did shellfish become more abundant at (sub)tropical coasts when (Pleistocene) temperatures dropped?

AND, we know that they consumed resources then moved on. It's how they spanned the continents. It's not just how they migrated but why they migrated.

Neandertals had C & N isotopes between salt & freshwater foods:
presumably they seasonally followed the river to the sea (salmon?).

Traditional PAs suggested Neandertals were "super-carnivores" because their C+N isotopes were "more carnivorous" than in pure carnivores.
But they were so prejudiced that they didn't even consider aquatic foods!
How can an animal be more carnivorous than felids?? :-D
The imbeciles!

So they didn't necessarily have to dive for anything until much, much later.
It's one of the reasons why I like to say that our evolution doesn't start with
erectus, it ends there. Erectus appears to be the first "Modern," quite literally
if you follow the rather loose application of the term "Modern" by paleo anthropology which seems to think "Moderns" were around 300,000 years
ago at this point.
That's what the social program is saying.
Brow ridges? Low sloping forehead? MODERN!
And it's not entirely wrong. I mean it is wrong, just not entirely wrong. Genetically they were probably so close to us that interbreeding is very likely. But they weren't modern at all in the sense that their features fell
outside the normally accept range of humans today.
You could pick one out of a crowd.
Is that really so important? Well it's enough to show that they were a very different POPULATION, one that doesn't exist today, but there is an argument
that they were actually the same species... we are THAT close.
So I tend to see erectus NOT as Aquatic Ape but what Aquatic Ape resulted in... arrived at... produced.

I'll (try to) answer these problems in my WHAT talk next sunday.
If you contact me at m_ver...@skynet.be, I'll send the PPT.

Neandertals hunted eagles. Hypercarnivores.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Neandertals had C & N isotopes between salt & freshwater foods:
presumably they seasonally followed the river to the sea (salmon?).

Traditional PAs suggested Neandertals were "super-carnivores" because their C+N isotopes were "more carnivorous" than in pure carnivores.
But they were so prejudiced that they didn't even consider aquatic foods!
How can an animal be more carnivorous than felids?? :-D
The imbeciles!

It's actually quite easy to fool the tests. Practicing cannibalism is one way. Do that and you're absorbing all the isotopes of another human. Or you can
eat carnivores like wolves and lions. Then you absorb their isotopes.

We have this problem today with fish and toxins. The little fishies muck around,
absorbing all the pollution that lands in the water -- toxins -- and then the big
carnivores eat them. Lots of them. Hundreds. Maybe thousands over a lifetime,
I dunno, I don't keep track. The point is they absorb all the toxins that the little
fish take in... building it up... and then we come along and eat that big fish.

But you get it, right?

If you eat 100 fish then you're absorbing the isotopes from 100 fish... 100x the
isotopes. And if a wolf or a lion eats 10 dear over its lifetime, and you eat the
wolf/lion you're absorbing all their isotopes.

....and if you practice cannibalism, you're absorbing the isotopes that
the person you're eating absorbed over their lifetime.

I'll (try to) answer these problems in my WHAT talk next sunday.
If you contact me at m_ver...@skynet.be, I'll send the PPT.

OMG! I missed this! Sorry. I just noticed your reply now.

I will check out the WHAT talk on Youtube though...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/675134847733448704

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Found those snorkel noses yet?

Yes, why do think the columella & the philtrum fitted? cf. prognathism:

That's not a snorkel. And of course, you have to manually hold the lip
against the nose.
That must make swimming really easy, eh, doing it with ONE hand?

THIS is a definition of snorkel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/snorkel
a hard rubber or plastic tube through which a swimmer can breathe while
moving face down at or just below the surface of the water.

I challenge you to show how"columella & the philtrum" make a snorkel.

You won't, because it can't be shown.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Somebody:

I challenge you to show how"columella & the philtrum" make a snorkel.

Everybody who knows a little bit of erectus' anatomy can:
"what talk you tube verhaegen"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Somebody:

I challenge you to show how"columella & the philtrum" make a snorkel.

Everybody who knows a little bit of erectus' anatomy can:
"what talk you tube verhaegen"

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

The philtrum (Latin: philtrum from Ancient Greek φίλτρον phíltron, lit. "love charm"), or medial cleft, is a vertical indentation in the middle area
of the upper lip, common to many mammals, extending in humans from
the nasal septum to the tubercle of the upper lip. Together with a glandular rhinarium and slit-like nostrils, it is believed to constitute the primitive condition for at least therian mammals."

In most mammals, the philtrum is a narrow groove that may carry dissolved odorants from the rhinarium or nose pad to the vomeronasal organ via ducts inside the mouth.

For humans and most primates, the philtrum survives only as a vestigial
medial depression between the nose and upper lip.

The human philtrum, bordered by ridges, also is known as the infranasal depression, but has no apparent function. That may be because most higher primates rely more on vision than on smell.[4] Strepsirrhine primates, such
as lemurs, still retain the philtrum and the rhinarium, unlike monkeys and apes.


https://advetresearch.com/index.php/AVR/article/view/487/432

The philtrum is a median groove in the upper lip of domestic animals
(Nickelet al.,1979). It usually found in animals that possessed a
rhinarium or a nasalplane (NP) such as carnivores and small ruminants
(Nickelet al., 1979; Evans and Christensen, 1979). The nasal plane is a
wet glabrous skin area, which covers the medial wings of the nostrils
(Nickelet al., 1979). The philtrum in such species is deep and sometimes extends to the nostrils. On the other hand, it’s shallow or absent in
animals that lack NP, a sequine (Nickelet al., 1979). This anatomical association is also indicating functional correlations between the
philtrum and the NP (Hillenius and Rehorek, 2005). The philtrum proposed
to drain the odoront molecules that dissolved in the fluid covering the NP
to reach the incisive papillae and then into the nasopalatine ducts (Wöhrmann-Repenning and Bergmann, 2001). While the nasopalatine ducts or incisive ducts are the oro-nasal passage of the vomeronasal duct system
(VNO), the philtrum thereby is considered the communication canal between
the NP and the VNO (Hillenius and Rehorek, 2005; Eshrah, 2019).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)