Answer: The term “aquatic ape” is a misnomer perhaps: it’s not about apes or australopiths, it should be “coastal dispersal of Homo” or so, but then there’s no evidence against it at all. However, a lot of PAs & professors are convinced
that what they've been saying for decades is correct: QP apes in forests, BP human ancestors on savannas. That's the only problem. Scientifically it's obvious. H.erectus (more than neandertal) skeletons had extreme pachy-osteo-sclerosis (heavy bones
with very thick cortex & very narrow medulla): this is exclusively seen in slow-shallow diving tetrapods: no doubt archaic Homo often dived, most likely mostly for shellfish, which they opened with stone tools, and which contained a lot of brain-specific
nutrients (e.g. DHA), which explains brain enlargement in erectus & neandertals. Many neandertal skulls have ear exostoses: these are always due to cold water irrigation (colder climate). Most if not all other specific traits of erectus & neandertals can
best be explained by frequent diving: platycephaly & big nose + eye-protecting supra-orbital torus (“brow ridge”, google “Oi, big nose!”), large lungs, very broad body, shorter tibias than sapiens, broad flat feet etc. Apparently, H.erectus
spread intercontinentally (China, Flores, Europe, Africa…) along sea-coasts, and neandertals seasonally ventured inland along rivers. Google “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT”, and for ape & australopith evolution, google “ape human
evolution made easy PPT verhaegen” + references.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Answer: The term “aquatic ape” is a misnomer perhaps: it’s not about apes or australopiths, it should be “coastal dispersal of Homo”
or so, but then there’s no evidence against it at all.

I agree. I even go further:

Coastal Dispersal is the model everyone agrees on, and it can't make sense outside the context
of Aquatic Ape.

They weren't so much "Migrating" as living. They were simply consuming resources then moving on.

Aquatic Ape gives us a reason for this coastal dispersal, this migration.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/672307049568321536

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

Op maandag 3 januari 2022 om 01:09:26 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

Answer: The term “aquatic ape” is a misnomer perhaps: it’s not about apes or australopiths, it should be “coastal dispersal of Homo”
or so, but then there’s no evidence against it at all.

I agree. I even go further:
Coastal Dispersal is the model everyone agrees on,

Everyone?

and it can't make sense outside the context of Aquatic Ape.
They weren't so much "Migrating" as living. They were simply consuming resources then moving on.
Aquatic Ape gives us a reason for this coastal dispersal, this migration.

Indeed.
The biggest question in paleo-anthropology is perhaps:
was our most-aquatic ancestor early-Pleistocene (we know erectus dived regularly)?
or were erectus' Pliocene ancestors even more aquatic? (fossil-poor because of their lifestyle??)
was early-Pleistocene leaving his diving lifestyle because of cooling??

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

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 14:23:39 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Answer: The term "aquatic ape" is a misnomer perhaps: it�s not about apes or australopiths,
it should be "coastal dispersal of Homo" or so, but then there�s no evidence against it at all.

Except that early Homo is not recovered from paleocoastal settings,
with the possible exception of the Mojokerto 1 skull, but
"The marine-coast setting is quite unlike habitats known for
mid-Pleistocene and older hominin populations outside Java."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248405001995

The Mojokerto skull itself was recovered from a fluviatile sandstone
that has also produced a moderate assemblage of terrestrial and
freshwater vertebrates and mollusks.

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

On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 14:51:17 +0100, Pandora <pandora@knoware.nl>
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 14:23:39 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" ><littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Answer: The term "aquatic ape" is a misnomer perhaps: it�s not about apes or australopiths,
it should be "coastal dispersal of Homo" or so, but then there�s no evidence against it at all.

Except that early Homo is not recovered from paleocoastal settings,
with the possible exception of the Mojokerto 1 skull, but
"The marine-coast setting is quite unlike habitats known for
mid-Pleistocene and older hominin populations outside Java."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248405001995

The Mojokerto skull itself was recovered from a fluviatile sandstone
that has also produced a moderate assemblage of terrestrial and
freshwater vertebrates and mollusks.

I mean modest assemblage, including:

Siluridae indet. (freshwater catfish)

Crocodylus sp. (moderately tolerant of salt water)
Gavialis sp. (freshwater crocodylian)
Trionyx sp. (freshwater turtle)

Panthera tigris (tiger)
Proboscidea indet. (elephant)
Sus sp. (wild boar)
Hexaprotodon sivalensis (hippopotamid)
Axis lydekkeri (deer)
Rusa sp. (deer)
Duboisia santeng (large bodied bovid)

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

Op maandag 3 januari 2022 om 16:08:06 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

-- Archaeology shows archaic Homo can probably also be found inland.
-- Comparative anatomy shows archaic Homo frequently dived: ear exostoses, pachyosteosclerosis, large brain, large lungs etc.
IOW, archaic Homo (at least H.neand.?) probably seasonally followed the river inland.

_______

Answer: The term "aquatic ape" is a misnomer perhaps: it’s not about apes or australopiths,
it should be "coastal dispersal of Homo" or so, but then there’s no evidence against it at all.

Except that early Homo is not recovered from paleocoastal settings,
with the possible exception of the Mojokerto 1 skull, but
"The marine-coast setting is quite unlike habitats known for >mid-Pleistocene and older hominin populations outside Java."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248405001995

The Mojokerto skull itself was recovered from a fluviatile sandstone
that has also produced a moderate assemblage of terrestrial and
freshwater vertebrates and mollusks.

I mean modest assemblage, including:

Siluridae indet. (freshwater catfish)

Crocodylus sp. (moderately tolerant of salt water)
Gavialis sp. (freshwater crocodylian)
Trionyx sp. (freshwater turtle)

Panthera tigris (tiger)
Proboscidea indet. (elephant)
Sus sp. (wild boar)
Hexaprotodon sivalensis (hippopotamid)
Axis lydekkeri (deer)
Rusa sp. (deer)
Duboisia santeng (large bodied bovid)

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

The biggest question in paleo-anthropology is perhaps:
was our most-aquatic ancestor early-Pleistocene (we know erectus dived regularly)?
or were erectus' Pliocene ancestors even more aquatic? (fossil-poor because of their lifestyle??)
was early-Pleistocene leaving his diving lifestyle because of cooling??

Good question. Probably the most important question.

I tend to think that it started early but was much more gradual at first, speeding up
around the time attributable to habilis.


-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/672661440253083648/i-wish-we-could-touch-tongues

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

Op vrijdag 7 januari 2022 om 08:12:50 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

The biggest question in paleo-anthropology is perhaps:
was our most-aquatic ancestor early-Pleistocene (we know erectus dived regularly)?
or were erectus' Pliocene ancestors even more aquatic? (fossil-poor because of their lifestyle??)
was early-Pleistocene leaving his diving lifestyle because of cooling??

Good question. Probably the most important question.
I tend to think that it started early but was much more gradual at first, speeding up
around the time attributable to habilis.

What is "habilis"? Some E.African "habilis" were probably boisei, others were probably Homo.

Anatomically there's not the slightest doubt (POS etc.etc.): H.erectus was (semi)aquatic,
but it's not impossible that we lack pre-erectus Homo fossils (late?-Pliocene? even-more-aquatic??) because of poor fossilization: e.g. diving lifestye? changing sea-levels? ...?

Gorilla & Homo-Pan split 8 or 7 Ma, possibly in the Red Sea or Gulf: Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei was more Gorilla- than Pan-like (& much more than Homo-like): did early Gorilla apiths follow the incipient Rift?
Homo & Pan split c 5 Ma, possibly at about the same place: Pan followed the E.African coasts + inland along rivers -> Australopithecus africanus->robustus.
Gracile apiths apparently (my Hum.Evol.papers) evolved into robust apiths in parallel in
- E.Africa (Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei) &
- S.Africa (Pan subgenus Australopithecus s.s. africanus->robustus).

Some at our discussion group (aat@groups.io) think our most-aquatic ancestor was not early-Pleistocene as I used to think, but (late?-)Pliocene, and lived in the Red Sea, or along some island there, e.g. Danakil.

Early hominids (today Gorilla-Homo-Pan) might have lived not only in the Red Sea, but mostly in the Medit.Sea, see e.g. the Trachilos footprints (Crete c 6 Ma).
The Messinian Salinity Crisis c 5 Ma flooded not only the Med.Sea, but also the Red Sea, and might have split Homo (SE.Asia) from Pan (E.Africa)??

There's a lot we don't know yet, but we do know:
-- H.erectus were the most-aquatic hominids known:
early-Pleistocene or even late-Pliocene intercontinental coastal dispersal (incl.along the Indian Ocean coasts),
-- only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

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

Pandora wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 14:51:17 +0100, Pandora <pandora@knoware.nl>
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 14:23:39 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Answer: The term "aquatic ape" is a misnomer perhaps: it’s not about apes or australopiths,
it should be "coastal dispersal of Homo" or so, but then there’s no evidence against it at all.

Except that early Homo is not recovered from paleocoastal settings,
with the possible exception of the Mojokerto 1 skull, but
"The marine-coast setting is quite unlike habitats known for
mid-Pleistocene and older hominin populations outside Java."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248405001995

The Mojokerto skull itself was recovered from a fluviatile sandstone
that has also produced a moderate assemblage of terrestrial and
freshwater vertebrates and mollusks.

I mean modest assemblage, including:

Siluridae indet. (freshwater catfish)

Crocodylus sp. (moderately tolerant of salt water)
Gavialis sp. (freshwater crocodylian)
Trionyx sp. (freshwater turtle)

Panthera tigris (tiger)
Proboscidea indet. (elephant)
Sus sp. (wild boar)
Hexaprotodon sivalensis (hippopotamid)
Axis lydekkeri (deer)
Rusa sp. (deer)
Duboisia santeng (large bodied bovid)

Yeah, those are all aquatic species :=}}

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

What is "habilis"? Some E.African "habilis" were probably boisei, others were probably Homo.

Habilis is where we see an unambiguous jump in brain size. As DHA & the brain are a major
component to Aquatic Ape as an explanation for human evolution, that would be a predicted sign of Aquatic Ape.




-- --

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

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