It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
Habilis.
Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.
Right?
Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
see an unambiguous increase in brain size.
So habilis.
Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.
Not erectus.
Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
product thereof.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
Habilis.
Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.
Right?
No.
There aer few habilis finds, none of them are near the coast.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
Habilis.
Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.
Right?
No.You don't think, you feel. You experience emotions and then
rationalize them with thoughts, instead of thinking FIRST
and then getting excited (emotional) about ideas.
You're backwards.
What I said is literally true: A jump in brain sign is a prediction
of Aquatic Ape. AA says that out ancestors turned to the sea
for sustenance, a diet rich in brain building Omega-3s. This
meant our ancestors already had all they needed to get larger
(and smarter, one presumes) brains just as soon as genetics
allowed for it.
Everything was in place. Brains were as big as genetics would
allow. All they needed was a mutation to crop up, one allowing
for larger brains, and the revolution was on!
Anyway, that's one plausible model but it works regardless of
model: Seafood provides an abundance of brain building
Omega-3s so a prediction of AA is a leap in brain size. We look
for that leap and we see habilis.
Perfect.
There aer few habilis finds, none of them are near the coast.Seeing how nobody looks, that is expected.
It's a long standing complain about the social program masquerading
as a science: They look where it's easiest to look, then pretend that whatever they find is representative of our ancestral population.
Here's me describing you & your "argument" <sic> back in 2012:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
It all comes down to reading comprehension AND retention.
Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated
and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
them, much less respond.
You religious types are like that.
-- --Suck up that cod liver oil like a big boy, lil Jerm.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
Habilis.
Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.
Right?
Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
see an unambiguous increase in brain size.
So habilis.
Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.
Not erectus.
Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
product thereof.
- Larger brains are very often seen in (semi)aquatic mammals, but not necessarily,
it's not impossible that erectus' immediate ancestors were even more aquatic, but we lack fossils:
- Larger brains are very often seen in (semi)aquatic mammals, but not necessarily,
The point is, Aquatic Ape is an explanation for how our brains got larger.
Larger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. We should see a jump in brain size
after Aquatic Ape begins. And we see that jump in the case of Habilis.
This suggests that erectus was more of an arrival point (destination of Aquatic Ape)
rather than a beginning.
it's not impossible that erectus' immediate ancestors were even more aquatic, but we lack fossils:
Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.
Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.
-"habilis" = apith?? Homo?
Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.
:-) I fully agree.
But when we see early-Pleistocene He with pachyosteosclerosis, we know:
He were slow-shallow divers, likely mostly for shellfish.
Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.
"just"?
-"habilis" = apith?? Homo?
Habilis is conventionally labelled first amongst Homos. And they are considered Homo precisely because of their larger brains and, yes,
their association with tool making.
But they are called the first Homo, and they do have larger brains.
Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.
:-) I fully agree.
But when we see early-Pleistocene He with pachyosteosclerosis, we know:
He were slow-shallow divers, likely mostly for shellfish.
It's indirect evidence.
But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.
It's not that anatomically moderns arose because erectus was aquatic, it's that
erectus arose because their ancestors had turned to the sea coast.
Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.
"just"?
Speaking of species or sub species... as if either terms is properly defined.
But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.
We're no sure when exactly they began frequent diving, erectus or pre-erectus, Plio- (no Homo fossils) or early-Pleistocene?
But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.
We're no sure when exactly they began frequent diving, erectus or pre-erectus, Plio- (no Homo fossils) or early-Pleistocene?
Aquatic Ape, sea side, waterside -- whatever we want to call it -- began absolutely
positively no later than habilis. It's entirely possible and one may argue likely that
it began before then but it goes at least as far back as habilis.
It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
Habilis.
Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.
Right?
Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
see an unambiguous increase in brain size.
So habilis.
Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.
Not erectus.
Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
product thereof.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673305954924822528
Biggest brains
It's not about "Biggest brains," it's about a perceptible increase in brain size across
a population (or "Species").
A prediction of AA is that the seafood diet, rich in DHA, would allow brains to grow
to their maximum potential in size, thus AA will result in an observable bump in
brain size within the fossil record.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html Biggest brains
On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:05:53 PM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:
Suck up that cod liver oil like a big boy, lil Jerm.
The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...
Primum Sapienti wrote:
The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...
More to the point is that it's the only hominin
fossil of that time. In other words, it's as rare
as a toothed hen; showing that the hominin
population was around one hundred thousandth
of that of local sabre-tooth cats.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html Biggest brains
The paper is here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248421001718 February 2022
Evolution of cranial capacity revisited: A view from the late Middle Pleistocene cranium from Xujiayao, China
Abstract
The Late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Xujiayao site in northern
China have been closely studied in light of their morphological variability. However, all previous studies have focused on separated cranial fragments. Here,
we report the first reconstruction of a fairly complete posterior cranium, Xujiayao 6 (XJY 6), confidently dated to ∼200–160 ka, which facilitated an
assessment of its overall cranial size. XJY 6 was reconstructed from three of the
original fragments—the PA1486 (No.7/XJY 6a) occipital bone, PA1490 (No.10/XJY 6b) right parietal bone, and PA1498 (No.17/XJY 15) left temporal bone—which originated from the same young adult individual. The XJY 6 endocranial capacity, estimated by measuring endocranial volume, was estimated using multiple regression formulae derived from ectocranial and endocranial measurements on select samples of Pleistocene hominins and recent modern humans. The results indicate that the larger pooled sample of both Pleistocene and recent modern humans was more robust for the endocranial capacity estimate. Based on the pooled sample using the ectocranial and endocranial measurements, we conservatively estimate the
XJY 6 endocranial volume to be ∼1700 cm3 with a 95% confidence interval
of 1555–1781 cm3. This is close to Xuchang 1, which dates to 125–105 ka and whose endocranial volume is ∼1800 cm3. Thus, XJY 6 provides the earliest evidence of a brain size that falls in the upper range of Neanderthals
and modern Homo sapiens. XJY 6, together with Xuchang 1, Homo floresiensis, Homo luzonensis, and Homo naledi, challenge the general pattern that brain size gradually increases over geological time. This study also finds that hominin brain size expansion occurred at different rates across time and space.
The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...
On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 12:47:57 AM UTC-5, Primum Sapienti wrote:
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html
Biggest brains
The paper is here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248421001718 February 2022
Evolution of cranial capacity revisited: A view from the late Middle Pleistocene cranium from Xujiayao, China
Abstract
The Late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Xujiayao site in northern
China have been closely studied in light of their morphological variability.
However, all previous studies have focused on separated cranial fragments. Here,
we report the first reconstruction of a fairly complete posterior cranium, Xujiayao 6 (XJY 6), confidently dated to ∼200–160 ka, which facilitated an
assessment of its overall cranial size. XJY 6 was reconstructed from three of the
original fragments—the PA1486 (No.7/XJY 6a) occipital bone, PA1490 (No.10/XJY 6b) right parietal bone, and PA1498 (No.17/XJY 15) left temporal
bone—which originated from the same young adult individual. The XJY 6 endocranial capacity, estimated by measuring endocranial volume, was estimated using multiple regression formulae derived from ectocranial and endocranial measurements on select samples of Pleistocene hominins and recent modern humans. The results indicate that the larger pooled sample of
both Pleistocene and recent modern humans was more robust for the endocranial capacity estimate. Based on the pooled sample using the ectocranial and endocranial measurements, we conservatively estimate the XJY 6 endocranial volume to be ∼1700 cm3 with a 95% confidence interval of 1555–1781 cm3. This is close to Xuchang 1, which dates to 125–105 ka
and whose endocranial volume is ∼1800 cm3. Thus, XJY 6 provides the earliest evidence of a brain size that falls in the upper range of Neanderthals
and modern Homo sapiens. XJY 6, together with Xuchang 1, Homo floresiensis,
Homo luzonensis, and Homo naledi, challenge the general pattern that brain size gradually increases over geological time. This study also finds that hominin brain size expansion occurred at different rates across time and space.
The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...Thanks, isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size? They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its comfort food or something!
isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size?
They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its
comfort food or something!
On Tuesday 25 January 2022 at 06:49:13 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size?Humans have absurdly large heads (& large
brains). They're obviously not for 'intelligence'
(in any sense of the word). An important
function is as a store of heat -- when the
hominin finds itself in freezing cold water, with
its head above the waves. That might happen
(on average) less than once a lifetime, but if it
saves the hominin's life, then it will be selected.
This theory is supported by the nature of
ancestral human head hair -- dense folds of thick
insulation. That hair is costly (in terms of bodily
resources) but it loses its insulative power,
stops being 'strong' -- i.e. loses its melanin, and
ceases to be physiological costly as soon as
humans begin to approach the end of their
reproductive capacity. (See images of Obama
when young, as against now.)
They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its comfort food or something!Hominin brains would not have grown if the
resources (e.g. DHA) had not been so readily
available -- Nor if hominins had commonly
needed to run fast (as predators or prey).
H.naledi (and other hominin species) show
how compact modern hominin brains can
be. H.naledi had no access to super-
abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
store that large brains provide.
If we don't understand where we have been,
how can we see where we're going?
On Monday 24 January 2022 at 05:47:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...
More to the point is that it's the only hominin
fossil of that time. In other words, it's as rare
as a toothed hen; showing that the hominin
population was around one hundred thousandth
of that of local sabre-tooth cats.
Hominins might have found some way of
concealing their dead bodies (e.g. avoiding
caves, and normally cremating their dead) but
failing any such explanation, the most likely
theory is that they simply weren't there.
There were NOT a part of the local ecology.
So where did they live?
One possible location are near-coastal low-
lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
would also have provided them with plentiful
salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
which they have such high needs.
Can you think of any other possible locations?
One possible location are near-coastal low-
lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
would also have provided them with plentiful
salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
which they have such high needs.
Can you think of any other possible locations?
All over since they were very adaptable.
The human head does not store heat,
it is primarily an air/water/food intake and sense receptor/data
analyst/data storage container.
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 05:09:25 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
One possible location are near-coastal low-
lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
would also have provided them with plentiful
salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
which they have such high needs.
Can you think of any other possible locations?
All over since they were very adaptable.
Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 00:33:40 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
The human head does not store heat,Take a look at a typical group of swimmers
in the sea. Their bodies are in the cold water,
and their heads are in the air. The head is
necessarily a store of heat.
water, the limbs and trunk in the water will
cool down much more rapidly than the
head out of the water.
it is primarily an air/water/food intake and sense receptor/data analyst/data storage container.It does numerous other things. But here
we are asking why it is so large -- much
larger (proportionately) than for any
other terrestrial mammal.
How do you explain the need for the
insulation provided by Afro-hair?
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is inNo Standard-PA person would claim that
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout.
were getting intense, the massive expansion
in hominin brains began, and the only
remotely likely habitat for hominins was on,
or close to, the coast. It was also the only
remotely likely habitat with plentiful
supplies of DHA, sodium, potassium and
iodine salts --which humans so routinely
(and so exceptionally) wastefully excrete.
Before the Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over".
Hominin fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins
were never a normal part of any generally recognised
ecosystem.
If you deny the fossil record showing that hominins were over much of
Africa prior to 1.8 mya, based on numerous sites, and in Europe and
Asia shortly thereafter then you can't be part of any meaningful
discussion about human evolution.
Take a look at a typical group of swimmers
in the sea. Their bodies are in the cold water,
and their heads are in the air. The head is
necessarily a store of heat.
They are not actively foraging, which requires submerged head.
Human hair does not insulate in water.
The scalp has little subcutaneous fat.
Being in the cold
water, the limbs and trunk in the water will
cool down much more rapidly than the
head out of the water.
Like other terrestrials.
How do you explain the need for the
insulation provided by Afro-hair?
Tightly coiled scalp hair blocks direct sun much better
than straight hair while allowing breezes to remove heat.
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
No Standard-PA person would claim that
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout.
Irrelevant.
Coasts were just another habitat that hominins expanded
into. Deserts have iodine as does the Congo.
Stop being so damned ignorant.
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 18:54:09 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Take a look at a typical group of swimmers
in the sea. Their bodies are in the cold water,
and their heads are in the air. The head is
necessarily a store of heat.
Everything outside your cubicle.They are not actively foraging, which requires submerged head.There's little to forage in most seas. I'm
talking about the swimming that is needed
to get from place to place -- maybe to
cross a river or estuary; to swim to an
island and back; floatation aids would have
been used, probably rafts. But shipwrecks
would have occurred. Crises like these
might only have been, on average, once in
a lifetime, but those with the larger heads
would have survived and left descendants.
Human hair does not insulate in water.Fishing with nets might also have occurred.
The scalp has little subcutaneous fat.
In any case, heads would have been out of
the water.
Being in the cold
water, the limbs and trunk in the water will
cool down much more rapidly than the
head out of the water.
Like other terrestrials.Other terrestrials that get into cold
water regularly already have good
coats of hair, and they evolve fur that
is even more dense and waterproof.
Hominins didn't seem to have that
option.
How do you explain the need for the
insulation provided by Afro-hair?
Tightly coiled scalp hair blocks direct sun much betterA silly argument. Why do hominins
than straight hair while allowing breezes to remove heat.
(of both genders) need to spend so
long out under the sun? In any case,
the rest of the body is naked, and will
suffer if the sun is that strong, and
the hominin has to spend extended
periods under it.
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
No Standard-PA person would claim that
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout.
Irrelevant.Not at all. The occasional trout will not
provide enough DHA for large brains.
Coasts were just another habitat that hominins expandedIodine is a trace element in many locations.
into. Deserts have iodine as does the Congo.
But it's scarce. Similarly (if less acutely) for
sodium and potassium away from coasts.
Terrestrial animals don't sweat and do all
they can to minimise losses of those vital
elements (e.g. with placentophagy). But not
so for the heavily sweating hominins.
Stop being so damned ignorant.Ignorant about what?
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 18:02:48 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Before the Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over".
Hominin fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins
were never a normal part of any generally recognised
ecosystem.
If you deny the fossil record showing that hominins were over much of
Africa prior to 1.8 mya, based on numerous sites, and in Europe and
Asia shortly thereafter then you can't be part of any meaningful
discussion about human evolution.
Google "Lee Berger" "Two teeth"
When Berger began his career he was
warned to avoid East Africa, as worldwide
there were more PA fossil-hunters than
there were hominin fossils (with each
tooth or fractional part of a clavicle being
a separate "fossil"). And in East Africa the
ratio of PA profs to fossils was higher
than elsewhere. So he went to South
Africa, where after 17 years work he
found two teeth. That find hit the
headlines, and he got into National
Geographic.
So he went to South Africa, where
after 17 years work he found two
teeth. That find hit the headlines, and
he got into National Geographic.
Lee likes to launch casual statements when the camera is on. Lately he
seems to have changed his mind:
"We've discovered more hominids, just our teams, in the last seven or
eight years then in the entire history of the field of
paleoanthropology on the whole continent of Africa. What a change!"
In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25: https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
You want to use that as your new dogma?
On Thursday 27 January 2022 at 10:11:14 UTC, Pandora wrote:
So he went to South Africa, where
after 17 years work he found two
teeth. That find hit the headlines, and
he got into National Geographic.
Lee likes to launch casual statements when the camera is on. Lately he
seems to have changed his mind:
He, along with most in the profession,
had decided that 'there was no more
to find' and was in the process of
giving up when he discovered Malapa
and, fairly soon after, H.naledi.
"We've discovered more hominids, just our teams, in the last seven or
eight years then in the entire history of the field of
paleoanthropology on the whole continent of Africa. What a change!"
An enormous change for him. He and
his team more than doubled the number
of African fossils. But that's the point.
Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
tiny number.
In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
(I think) dodgy software, made that bit
of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.
You want to use that as your new dogma?
It's not dogma. It's an observation.
Hominins in Africa were about as rare
as griffon vultures are in Scotland.
They were not a part of the ecosystem
-- unless you've some other explanation
as to why they left so few fossils. Do
you know of any scientific literature
where this issue is discussed?
It's not dogma. It's an observation.
Hominins in Africa were about as rare
as griffon vultures are in Scotland.
They were not a part of the ecosystem
-- unless you've some other explanation
as to why they left so few fossils. Do
you know of any scientific literature
where this issue is discussed?
It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
around an idee fixe
an idiosyncratic fringe theory
and where you
grab at every straw to downgrade real data.
On Thursday 27 January 2022 at 20:09:30 UTC, Pandora wrote:
It's not dogma. It's an observation.
Hominins in Africa were about as rare
as griffon vultures are in Scotland.
They were not a part of the ecosystem
-- unless you've some other explanation
as to why they left so few fossils. Do
you know of any scientific literature
where this issue is discussed?
It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
around an idee fixe
What is the "idee fixe"?
an idiosyncratic fringe theory
What is the 'idiosyncratic fringe theory'?
and where you
grab at every straw to downgrade real data.
Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
abuse, you should say how my observations
are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.
Are hominins as well represented (in terms
of fossils) on the African continent as well
as other roughly comparable taxa? Such as,
say, hyena? Or as omnivores like baboons or
warthogs? Or is there an enormous
difference?
If there is a difference, what accounts for it?
It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
around an idee fixe
What is the "idee fixe"?
That your fantasy on human evolution represents no less than a
paradigm shift in paleoanthropology.
an idiosyncratic fringe theory
What is the 'idiosyncratic fringe theory'?
That only you conceive of the idea that hominins evolved on islands
along the edge (fringe) of the African continent, swimming back and
forth between the mainland, evolving big brains to keep them warm in
the water, eventually settling permanently on the mainland after
killing off all the predators by poisoning them wth hand axes.
It's not just dataless fringe, it's lunatic fringe.
Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
abuse, you should say how my observations
are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
that categorically
denies the existence of transitional fossils, even if you show him a
nearly complete specimen of Archaeopteryx, and who can even quote professional paleontologists to support him:
"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil
record without evidence of transitional forms." - D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley, Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and Co., San
Francisco, 1971, page 306.
Ideology gets in the way of meaningful discussion.
There's a difference, but not nearly as extreme as you suggest.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
There can be more than one reason for the difference in
representation: e.g. ecological (trophic levels, carnivores are rarer
than herbivores),
taxonomic (greater diversity of species in some
higher taxa than in others, e.g. monkeys vs apes), etc.
On Friday 28 January 2022 at 11:47:55 UTC, Pandora wrote:All hominoids and probably nearly all primates eat eggs.
It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
around an idee fixe
What is the "idee fixe"?
That your fantasy on human evolution represents no less than aThat's no "idee fixe". At most it would
paradigm shift in paleoanthropology.
be a vain hope. ('Vain' in every sense.)
Marc V's "idee fixe" is that all human
evolution comes from diving for shellfish.
Perhaps he might also be descrbed as
suffering from the vain fantasy above.
but it's not the same thing.
PA has settled into a non-thinking, non-
functioning rut, where it long ago forgot
what its purpose was meant to be. The
obvious questions, that an intelligent
child would pose, are not answered.
Worse than that, professional PA people
can't even conceive of the possibility of
ever answering them --
Why did we diverge from chimps?
How did we diverge from chimps?
Why and how did bipedalism evolve?
What kind of habitat did early hominins
occupy?
How did early hominins (or ANY pre-
modern hominins) avoid overwhelming
levels of predation?
Where did all those 'handaxes' come
from, and what were they for?
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?
an idiosyncratic fringe theory
What is the 'idiosyncratic fringe theory'?
That only you conceive of the idea that hominins evolved on islandsThese are a number of provisional
along the edge (fringe) of the African continent, swimming back and
forth between the mainland, evolving big brains to keep them warm in
the water, eventually settling permanently on the mainland after
killing off all the predators by poisoning them wth hand axes.
It's not just dataless fringe, it's lunatic fringe.
answers to a set of interrelated
questions, including those above.
There's no 'theory' -- other than the
general evolutionary ones, accepted
by non-PA naturalists:
a) species occupy distinct ecological niches;
b) they are generally subject to predation;
c) species do not lose critical survival
capacities (such as escape speed and
an ability to climb trees) except in
special circumstances requiring isolation;
d) if they are to re-integrate afterwards
those abilities have to be replaced or
made unnecessary in some way
Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
abuse, you should say how my observations
are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationistNote your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no. You just you leap
straight back into (wholly misplaced)
ad hominem abuse.
that categorically
denies the existence of transitional fossils, even if you show him a
nearly complete specimen of Archaeopteryx, and who can even quote professional paleontologists to support him:
"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms." - D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley, Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and Co., SanI'm seeking to find answers -- e.g. to how
Francisco, 1971, page 306.
and why bipedalism evolved. Or how early
hominins coped with predation. You (and
PA generally) are the ones claiming that
it's all an insoluable mystery, best left to
God or to some far-removed Posterity --
or, best of all, just issues to be forgotten
and never discussed in polite company
Ideology gets in the way of meaningful discussion.Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.
Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.
There's a difference, but not nearly as extreme as you suggest.You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out. The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?
It's a museum selection. Says nothing
about being representative. It's whatever
-- at various times -- took the fancy of
the collectors, the conservators, and
the curator.
There can be more than one reason for the difference inNo one claims that hominins were more
representation: e.g. ecological (trophic levels, carnivores are rarer
than herbivores),
than fractionally carnivorous.
taxonomic (greater diversity of species in someNone of which begin to account for the
higher taxa than in others, e.g. monkeys vs apes), etc.
difference.
Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
by the massive quantities of bifaces found
in paleo lakes and rivers.
No explanations, let alone theories, from
Standard PA that begin to touch the sides
of any of the problems. You might as well
try to discuss the Big Bang with a pre-
Copernican astronomer. The difference is
that, at some point in the long-distant
past, PA people knew what the subject
was for.
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 00:33:40 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
The human head does not store heat,
Take a look at a typical group of swimmers
in the sea. Their bodies are in the cold water,
and their heads are in the air. The head is
necessarily a store of heat. Being in the cold
water, the limbs and trunk in the water will
cool down much more rapidly than the
head out of the water.
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 05:09:25 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
One possible location are near-coastal low-
lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
would also have provided them with plentiful
salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
which they have such high needs.
Can you think of any other possible locations?
All over since they were very adaptable.
Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.
On Thursday 27 January 2022 at 10:11:14 UTC, Pandora wrote:
"We've discovered more hominids, just our teams, in the last seven or
eight years then in the entire history of the field of
paleoanthropology on the whole continent of Africa. What a change!"
An enormous change for him. He and
his team more than doubled the number
of African fossils. But that's the point.
Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
tiny number.
In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
(I think) dodgy software, made that bit
of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
Habilis.
Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.
Right?
No.
You don't think, you feel. You experience emotions and then
rationalize them with thoughts, instead of thinking FIRST
and then getting excited (emotional) about ideas.
You're backwards.
What I said is literally true: A jump in brain sign is a prediction
of Aquatic Ape. AA says that out ancestors turned to the sea
for sustenance, a diet rich in brain building Omega-3s. This
meant our ancestors already had all they needed to get larger
(and smarter, one presumes) brains just as soon as genetics
allowed for it.
Everything was in place. Brains were as big as genetics would
allow. All they needed was a mutation to crop up, one allowing
for larger brains, and the revolution was on!
Anyway, that's one plausible model but it works regardless of
model: Seafood provides an abundance of brain building
Omega-3s so a prediction of AA is a leap in brain size. We look
for that leap and we see habilis.
Perfect.
There aer few habilis finds, none of them are near the coast.
Seeing how nobody looks, that is expected.
It's a long standing complain about the social program masquerading
as a science: They look where it's easiest to look, then pretend that whatever they find is representative of our ancestral population.
Here's me describing you & your "argument" <sic> back in 2012:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
It all comes down to reading comprehension AND retention.
Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated
and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
them, much less respond.
You religious types are like that.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
You're not clever or funny. Best advice is if you have nothing to say you should try saying nothing.
Irony anyone?
Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
them, much less respond.
You religious types are like that.
Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large quantities of fish
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 00:33:40 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
The human head does not store heat,Take a look at a typical group of swimmers
in the sea. Their bodies are in the cold water,
and their heads are in the air. The head is
necessarily a store of heat. Being in the cold
water, the limbs and trunk in the water will
cool down much more rapidly than the
head out of the water.
it is primarily an air/water/food intake and sense receptor/data analyst/data storage container.It does numerous other things. But here
we are asking why it is so large -- much
larger (proportionately) than for any
other terrestrial mammal.
How do you explain the need for the
insulation provided by Afro-hair?
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is inNo Standard-PA person would claim that
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout. That was when ice ages
were getting intense,
the massive expansion-
in hominin brains began
remotely likely habitat for hominins was on,
or close to, the coast. It was also the only
remotely likely habitat with plentiful
supplies of DHA, sodium, potassium and
iodine salts --which humans so routinely
(and so exceptionally) wastefully excrete.
On Tuesday 25 January 2022 at 06:49:13 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size?Humans have absurdly large heads (& large
brains). They're obviously not for 'intelligence'
(in any sense of the word). An important
function is as a store of heat -- when the
hominin finds itself in freezing cold water, with
its head above the waves. That might happen
(on average) less than once a lifetime, but if it
saves the hominin's life, then it will be selected.
This theory is supported by the nature of
ancestral human head hair -- dense folds of thick
insulation. That hair is costly (in terms of bodily
resources) but it loses its insulative power,
stops being 'strong' -- i.e. loses its melanin, and
ceases to be physiological costly as soon as
humans begin to approach the end of their
reproductive capacity. (See images of Obama
when young, as against now.)
They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its comfort food or something!Hominin brains would not have grown if the
resources (e.g. DHA) had not been so readily
available -- Nor if hominins had commonly
needed to run fast (as predators or prey).
H.naledi (and other hominin species) show
how compact modern hominin brains can
be. H.naledi had no access to super-
abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
store that large brains provide.
If we don't understand where we have been,
how can we see where we're going?
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large
quantities of fish etc and have large brains.
An enormous change for him. He and
his team more than doubled the number
of African fossils. But that's the point.
Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
tiny number.
In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
(I think) dodgy software, made that bit
of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.
Yes, it does matter. You didn't try very hard. Berger
speaks in English and there was no problem with
moving the slider over.
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
No Standard-PA person would claim that
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout. That was when ice ages
were getting intense,
Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,
but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...
thus leading to...
the massive expansion
in hominin brains began
Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.
Australopithecines et al ranged form East Africa to South Africa
to Chad in Central Africa. Consider
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg
H.naledi had no access to super-
abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
store that large brains provide.
Lions, wolves, hyenas hunt in *groups* by chasing herds in
the open selecting the weakest/unluckiest individual prey.
Tigers & leopards & bears hunt as stealthy loners in
woodlands and forests, they can be surrounded and driven
away by *groups*.
A group of 12 - 20 adult Homo with
shields and sharp sticks and stones would be avoided by a
lone predator, with rare exception (sick/wounded/aged).
On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 06:09:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Billions of people on the planet do not have access to largeOnce the genetic bauplan (the genotype) is
quantities of fish etc and have large brains.
set,
environment. The organism cannot re-arrange
its organs. It may starve if some or all don't
get sustenance. Billions of humans have
starved.
There has been (over the past 30 kyr) strong
selection against bigger brains in humans,
which suggests that large size is unnecessary,
-- set against the costs of finding the resources
it needs.
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:41:24 PM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
H.naledi had no access to super-
abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
store that large brains provide.
Lions, wolves, hyenas hunt in *groups* by chasing herds inWe don't know how the large omnivores
the open selecting the weakest/unluckiest individual prey.
Tigers & leopards & bears hunt as stealthy loners in
woodlands and forests, they can be surrounded and driven
away by *groups*.
in Africa before ~2 ma hunted prey.
I'd accept your broad categories.
A group of 12 - 20 adult Homo withYou forget
shields and sharp sticks and stones would be avoided by a
lone predator, with rare exception (sick/wounded/aged).
A) That chimps and female gorillas (and
their young stayed up in trees to keep
away from these predators -- even
though they'd have have far better
suited than early homo to cope with
them -- they could run much faster
and scoot up the nearest tree with
their infants attached;
B) Most predatory attacks are at night
and hominins have almost no night-
sight.
C) It's inconceivable that hominins
would ever allow their young on the
ground when such predators were
in the vicinity. And, given the wooded
habitat you envisage, even in daylight
they'd rarely be seen until it was too
late.
On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 14:26:56 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
No Standard-PA person would claim that
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout. That was when ice ages
were getting intense,
Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,Imaginative nonsense -- a theory for which
but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...
you have no evidence.
Trout occupy waters in temperate regions
They cannot take excessive cold in winters,
nor excessive heat in summers.
That climate would have moved closer to
the equator during ice ages, but there is no
good reason to think temperate regions
grew in size.
continental life-forms generally suffered.
Everywhere was much drier (water
accumulated at the poles) and more windy.
Deserts abounded. Not good for vegetation
nor the insects on which trout feed.
thus leading to...
Bad thinking in many ways.the massive expansion
in hominin brains began
be rapidly fished out from streams.
Lakes would have been better, butCrocs...
hard for early hominins to fish.
Also, IF early hominins had fished in the
streams you envisage, they'd have
drowned in them,
and left more fossils than the vanishingly
few we have today.
Ice-age wind blew dust into the oceans
fertilising life-forms there (the limiting
factor is usually iron). Most DHA comes
from krill and the phytoplanton on
which it feeds.
On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 14:26:56 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.
No Standard-PA person would claim that
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout. That was when ice ages
were getting intense,
Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,
but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...
Imaginative nonsense -- a theory for which
you have no evidence.
On Friday 28 January 2022 at 11:47:55 UTC, Pandora wrote:
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?
Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
abuse, you should say how my observations
are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
Note your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no.
You just you leap straight back into (wholly misplaced)
ad hominem abuse.
that categorically
denies the existence of transitional fossils, even if you show him a
nearly complete specimen of Archaeopteryx, and who can even quote
professional paleontologists to support him:
"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in
mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil
record without evidence of transitional forms." - D. M. Raup and S. M.
Stanley, Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and Co., San
Francisco, 1971, page 306.
I'm seeking to find answers -- e.g. to how
and why bipedalism evolved. Or how early
hominins coped with predation. You (and
PA generally) are the ones claiming that
it's all an insoluable mystery, best left to
God or to some far-removed Posterity --
or, best of all, just issues to be forgotten
and never discussed in polite company
Ideology gets in the way of meaningful discussion.
Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.
Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.
There's a difference, but not nearly as extreme as you suggest.
You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out.
The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?
It's a museum selection. Says nothing
about being representative. It's whatever
-- at various times -- took the fancy of
the collectors, the conservators, and
the curator.
There can be more than one reason for the difference in
representation: e.g. ecological (trophic levels, carnivores are rarer
than herbivores),
No one claims that hominins were more
than fractionally carnivorous.
taxonomic (greater diversity of species in some
higher taxa than in others, e.g. monkeys vs apes), etc.
None of which begin to account for the
difference.
Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
by the massive quantities of bifaces found
in paleo lakes and rivers.
Once the genetic bauplan (the genotype) is
set, it's not going to be altered for the
environment. The organism cannot re-arrange
its organs. It may starve if some or all don't
get sustenance. Billions of humans have
starved.
There has been (over the past 30 kyr) strong
selection against bigger brains in humans,
which suggests that large size is unnecessary,
-- set against the costs of finding the resources
it needs.
it's been LESS than 30k years since brains jumped up in
size in places like Africa, and part of Asia. But you're
right: This is now a matter of genetics.
First, looking at diet https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2014/02/07/Omega-3-rich-diet-linked-to-more-developed-brain-networks-Monkey-data#
It's likely that our ancestors had an unrealized (or rarely
achieved) CAPACITY for smarter and/or larger brains,
to some limits, and Aquatic Ape brought them to these
limits.
They lived at the extreme limits of their physical (genetic)
capacity, just from being Aquatic Ape.
Then, any advantageous mutations that allowed for bigger
and/or smarter brains could be immediately exploited,
because of their diet. They never would have been realized
on a different diet, without the DHA, while they would have
been fully exploited by Aquatic Ape just from eating.
It's really all about potential. Genetics allows for a potential.
The Aquatic Ape diet provides the fastest/easiest/most
effective means for achieving that potential.
Why do many aquatic mammals have larger brains than equally large terrestrials?
Is it only about diet? certain nutrients: DHA etc.? or °varied° nutrients? Neandertals had larger brain than erectus, and were probably less aquatic than erectus.
Sirenia have rel.small brains: poor diet? slow & shallow diving? monotomous lifestyle?
They don't have to *find* their food, only have to eat & digest.
Are the costs of carrying a heavy brain lower in the water?
Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,
but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...
Imaginative nonsense -- a theory for which
you have no evidence.
Hear, hear, the kettle!
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?
We don't even agree on the premise in that question.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
Note your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no.
Don't pretend that your ideas have never been addressed in this forum. Together with others I've done so ad nauseam.
The comparison with creationism is based on the conclusion that we
also do not even agree on the hinges on which the door of meaningful discussion much turn. And you probably know what Wittgenstein said
about principles that cannot be reconciled.
And you and I think
principly different about the nature of the hominin fossil record.
Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.
Do you consider yourself an intelligent layperson?
I guess such a person would seek out a book such as:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/processes-in-human-evolution-9780198739913
Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative), systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy
(Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.
You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out.
That may be the case at some very rich sites that sample a specific paleoenvironment, but you'll never find a real Plio-Pleistocene
formation anywhere in Africa where a million bovid specimens are
exposed for every hominin.
And then there are also single sites such
as A.L.333 ("First Family"), that have produced dozens of hominins.
The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.
Again, you and I think principly different about that matter.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?
Is that so impossible?
Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
by the massive quantities of bifaces found
in paleo lakes and rivers.
Isn't that an indication that the makers were not so rare either?
On Monday 31 January 2022 at 13:01:34 UTC, Pandora wrote:
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?
We don't even agree on the premise in that question.Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
A similar claim about any other terrestrial
taxa is close to unimaginable.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
Note your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no.
Don't pretend that your ideas have never been addressed in this forum. Together with others I've done so ad nauseam.Almost entirely just with abuse. I'm
seeking to explain the extraordinary
nature of the fossil record. You
prefer to forget all that and look at
each tiny item, as though it was just
part of more-or-less normal fossil
collection.
The comparison with creationism is based on the conclusion that weWe're talking about counting. There's
also do not even agree on the hinges on which the door of meaningful discussion much turn. And you probably know what Wittgenstein said
about principles that cannot be reconciled.
not a lot conceptual involved in that.
I refer you (again) to Farther Dougal ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Wittgenstein was talking about much
more complex issues.
And you and I thinkBig piles and and tiny, little piles.
principly different about the nature of the hominin fossil record.
Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.
Do you consider yourself an intelligent layperson?
I guess such a person would seek out a book such as:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/processes-in-human-evolution-9780198739913Ducking again. A vague wave akin to
"It's somewhere on the Internet".
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
Disciplines lose their way. Or they
experience a kind of trauma, such as
that involving racism in the first half
of the 20th century, and just stop
functioning.
Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative), systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy (Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.There are plenty of specialist PAs who
don't accept Ardi was a biped, or that
Sahelanthropus was a basal hominin.
You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out.
That may be the case at some very rich sites that sample a specific paleoenvironment, but you'll never find a real Plio-PleistoceneI don't get what you're saying. This does
formation anywhere in Africa where a million bovid specimens are
exposed for every hominin.
appear (very roughly) to be the pattern
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoedjiespunt
And then there are also single sites suchBadlands where amid the tens of
as A.L.333 ("First Family"), that have produced dozens of hominins.
thousands of fossils that litter the land-
scape, the occasional hominin (or, in
this case, a group of hominin fossils)
have been found.
The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.
Again, you and I think principly different about that matter.It's not 'thinking'. It's just counting.
I have a tiny pile of small pebbles;
You have a Giza pyramid. It's where
the quantitative difference becomes
a qualitative one.
OR -- IF you have an explanation
that could explain the difference,
let's hear it.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?
Is that so impossible?It IS impossible -- in effect.
Hyena have long been a part of the
African ecology. Their fossils are
representative. Hominins have not
been a part of that ecology.
Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
by the massive quantities of bifaces found
in paleo lakes and rivers.
Isn't that an indication that the makers were not so rare either?It's all a most peculiar story. Every part
of it far beyond the grasp of any Standard
PA practitioner. But worse than that -- far
beyond the ambition of any PA person.
No, even worse -- far beyond the capacity
to realise that there's a problem.
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:41:09 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Monday 31 January 2022 at 13:01:34 UTC, Pandora wrote:
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?
We don't even agree on the premise in that question.Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
A similar claim about any other terrestrial
taxa is close to unimaginable.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
Note your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no.
Don't pretend that your ideas have never been addressed in this forum. Together with others I've done so ad nauseam.Almost entirely just with abuse. I'm
seeking to explain the extraordinary
nature of the fossil record. You
prefer to forget all that and look at
each tiny item, as though it was just
part of more-or-less normal fossil
collection.
The comparison with creationism is based on the conclusion that weWe're talking about counting. There's
also do not even agree on the hinges on which the door of meaningful discussion much turn. And you probably know what Wittgenstein said
about principles that cannot be reconciled.
not a lot conceptual involved in that.
I refer you (again) to Farther Dougal ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Wittgenstein was talking about much
more complex issues.
And you and I thinkBig piles and and tiny, little piles.
principly different about the nature of the hominin fossil record.
Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.
Do you consider yourself an intelligent layperson?
I guess such a person would seek out a book such as:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/processes-in-human-evolution-9780198739913Ducking again. A vague wave akin to
"It's somewhere on the Internet".
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
Disciplines lose their way. Or they
experience a kind of trauma, such as
that involving racism in the first half
of the 20th century, and just stop
functioning.
Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative), systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy (Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.There are plenty of specialist PAs who
don't accept Ardi was a biped, or that
Sahelanthropus was a basal hominin.
You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out.
That may be the case at some very rich sites that sample a specific paleoenvironment, but you'll never find a real Plio-Pleistocene formation anywhere in Africa where a million bovid specimens areI don't get what you're saying. This does
exposed for every hominin.
appear (very roughly) to be the pattern
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoedjiespunt
And then there are also single sites suchBadlands where amid the tens of
as A.L.333 ("First Family"), that have produced dozens of hominins.
thousands of fossils that litter the land-
scape, the occasional hominin (or, in
this case, a group of hominin fossils)
have been found.
The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.
Again, you and I think principly different about that matter.It's not 'thinking'. It's just counting.
I have a tiny pile of small pebbles;
You have a Giza pyramid. It's where
the quantitative difference becomes
a qualitative one.
OR -- IF you have an explanation
that could explain the difference,
let's hear it.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?
Is that so impossible?It IS impossible -- in effect.
Hyena have long been a part of the
African ecology. Their fossils are
representative. Hominins have not
been a part of that ecology.
Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
by the massive quantities of bifaces found
in paleo lakes and rivers.
No mystery, Homo got recycled in forests, stones accumulated.Isn't that an indication that the makers were not so rare either?It's all a most peculiar story. Every part
of it far beyond the grasp of any Standard
PA practitioner. But worse than that -- far
beyond the ambition of any PA person.
No, even worse -- far beyond the capacity
to realise that there's a problem.
Homo, being nomadic, moved their camps along a stream, then moved to the next stream, etc. If they had been sedentary, their middens would have accumulated.
On Monday 31 January 2022 at 13:01:34 UTC, Pandora wrote:
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?
We don't even agree on the premise in that question.
Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
A similar claim about any other terrestrial
taxa is close to unimaginable.
Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
Note your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no.
Don't pretend that your ideas have never been addressed in this forum.
Together with others I've done so ad nauseam.
Almost entirely just with abuse. I'm
seeking to explain the extraordinary
nature of the fossil record. You
prefer to forget all that and look at
each tiny item, as though it was just
part of more-or-less normal fossil
collection.
The comparison with creationism is based on the conclusion that we
also do not even agree on the hinges on which the door of meaningful
discussion much turn. And you probably know what Wittgenstein said
about principles that cannot be reconciled.
We're talking about counting. There's
not a lot conceptual involved in that.
I refer you (again) to Farther Dougal >ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Wittgenstein was talking about much
more complex issues.
And you and I think
principly different about the nature of the hominin fossil record.
Big piles and and tiny, little piles.
Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.
Do you consider yourself an intelligent layperson?
I guess such a person would seek out a book such as:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/processes-in-human-evolution-9780198739913
Ducking again. A vague wave akin to
"It's somewhere on the Internet".
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
Disciplines lose their way. Or they
experience a kind of trauma, such as
that involving racism in the first half
of the 20th century, and just stop
functioning.
Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative),
systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy
(Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.
There are plenty of specialist PAs who
don't accept Ardi was a biped, or that
Sahelanthropus was a basal hominin.
You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out.
That may be the case at some very rich sites that sample a specific
paleoenvironment, but you'll never find a real Plio-Pleistocene
formation anywhere in Africa where a million bovid specimens are
exposed for every hominin.
I don't get what you're saying. This does
appear (very roughly) to be the pattern
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoedjiespunt
And then there are also single sites such
as A.L.333 ("First Family"), that have produced dozens of hominins.
Badlands where amid the tens of
thousands of fossils that litter the land-
scape, the occasional hominin (or, in
this case, a group of hominin fossils)
have been found.
The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.
Again, you and I think principly different about that matter.
It's not 'thinking'. It's just counting.
I have a tiny pile of small pebbles;
You have a Giza pyramid. It's where
the quantitative difference becomes
a qualitative one.
OR -- IF you have an explanation
that could explain the difference,
let's hear it.
The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
Hyaenidae.
https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?
Is that so impossible?
It IS impossible -- in effect.
Hyena have long been a part of the
African ecology.
Their fossils are representative.
Hominins have not been a part of that ecology.
Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
No, I didn't.
What strikes me as odd though is that someone as distrustful of PA's
as you takes his word for gospel.
A similar claim about any other terrestrial
taxa is close to unimaginable.
See how the number of new dinosaur taxa has increased exponentially in
the last few decades:
We're talking about counting. There's
not a lot conceptual involved in that.
I refer you (again) to Farther Dougal
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Wittgenstein was talking about much
more complex issues.
If it's only about counting then I've done my job. I've given you the
numbers from one of the most comprehensive databases,
but you reject
them because they do not fit into your world picture. That's on a
deeper epistemic level than just counting.
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
Sometimes something can be right in front of you, but you don't see it because you have a different search image.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative),
systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy
(Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.
There are plenty of specialist PAs who
don't accept Ardi was a biped, or that
Sahelanthropus was a basal hominin.
Not plenty,
and the point is whether or not you can methodically
reject the hypothesis on the basis of similar data as in Mongle et al
(2019):
and not just on the basis of a single character or preconceptions
about the origins of bipedalism.
Hyena have long been a part of the
African ecology.
So have Aardvarks (Orycteropodidae).
Their fossils are representative.
In the Turkana Basin only 20 specimens of Aardvark have been found.
Hominins have not been a part of that ecology.
You think Aardvarks have not been part of that Ecology?
On Tuesday 1 February 2022 at 11:04:35 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
No, I didn't.You didn't dispute it.
What strikes me as odd though is that someone as distrustful of PA'sHis claim here was a blunt statement --
as you takes his word for gospel.
about numbers. It was highly public
and it's either wrong or right. I've seen
no one contest it. Have you?
A similar claim about any other terrestrial
taxa is close to unimaginable.
See how the number of new dinosaur taxa has increased exponentially inI obviously meant roughly comparable
the last few decades:
taxa. You could find plenty of exceptions
if you go into detail on (say) obscure
suids or rodents.
[..]
We're talking about counting. There's
not a lot conceptual involved in that.
I refer you (again) to Farther Dougal
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Wittgenstein was talking about much
more complex issues.
If it's only about counting then I've done my job. I've given you the numbers from one of the most comprehensive databases,It's misleading to call that list a "database".
It was only 'comprehensive' about the items
they had in their museum. It made no claim
to be representative of the locality.
but you rejectCount the fossil sites listed for Africa here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
them because they do not fit into your world picture. That's on a
deeper epistemic level than just counting.
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
Sometimes something can be right in front of you, but you don't see it because you have a different search image.I was asking YOU for YOUR example.
Seems like you have none.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative),
systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy
(Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.
There are plenty of specialist PAs who
don't accept Ardi was a biped, or that
Sahelanthropus was a basal hominin.
Not plenty,But enough. It's apparently quite hard
to get access to the original fossils
(understandably) but also hard to get
copies or other necessary information.
and the point is whether or not you can methodicallySpecious claims are often made by scientific
reject the hypothesis on the basis of similar data as in Mongle et al (2019):
experts, especially when their conclusions are
self-serving (eg the Piltdown fraud). Non-
specialists are rarely in a position to contest
them. We can only rely on broader issues,
and our assessments of the interests, conduct,
behaviours and reputations of those involved.
and not just on the basis of a single character or preconceptionsA single character is often good enough
about the origins of bipedalism.
to reject a hypothesis.
Hyena have long been a part of the
African ecology.
So have Aardvarks (Orycteropodidae).
Their fossils are representative.
In the Turkana Basin only 20 specimens of Aardvark have been found.You mean that only 20 specimens are
noted or recorded in that museum?
There are probably 1,000 bits of aardvark
on the surface in that area, that nobody
has ever bothered to look at -- just bits of
some unrecognised quadruped.
Hominins have not been a part of that ecology.
You think Aardvarks have not been part of that Ecology?Aardvarks were (& are) a part of that
ecology. Not as integrated as hyena.
They're virtually parasitical on termites.
So never present in large numbers.
Hominins could not have been part of
that ecology since they could not have
raised young in the presence of large
predators (such as hyena).
Surely that's obvious?
Although it's nice to see it confirmed
-- and confirmed for the every site on
the continental mainland -- by the fossil
record, with the one exception, where
the local hominins had a safe place of
retreat: i.e. h.naledi with their caves.
On Tuesday 1 February 2022 at 11:04:35 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
No, I didn't.
You didn't dispute it.
What strikes me as odd though is that someone as distrustful of PA's
as you takes his word for gospel.
His claim here was a blunt statement --
about numbers. It was highly public
and it's either wrong or right. I've seen
no one contest it. Have you?
A similar claim about any other terrestrial
taxa is close to unimaginable.
See how the number of new dinosaur taxa has increased exponentially in
the last few decades:
I obviously meant roughly comparable
taxa. You could find plenty of exceptions
if you go into detail on (say) obscure
suids or rodents.
[..]
We're talking about counting. There's
not a lot conceptual involved in that.
I refer you (again) to Farther Dougal
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Wittgenstein was talking about much
more complex issues.
If it's only about counting then I've done my job. I've given you the
numbers from one of the most comprehensive databases,
It's misleading to call that list a "database".
It was only 'comprehensive' about the items
they had in their museum. It made no claim
to be representative of the locality.
but you reject
them because they do not fit into your world picture. That's on a
deeper epistemic level than just counting.
Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
Sometimes something can be right in front of you, but you don't see it
because you have a different search image.
I was asking YOU for YOUR example.
Seems like you have none.
That might be on the nature of the fossil record (representative),
systematics (Sahelanthropus as the most basal hominin), anatomy
(Ardipithecus as a biped), etc.
There are plenty of specialist PAs who
don't accept Ardi was a biped, or that
Sahelanthropus was a basal hominin.
Not plenty,
But enough. It's apparently quite hard
to get access to the original fossils
(understandably) but also hard to get
copies or other necessary information.
and the point is whether or not you can methodically
reject the hypothesis on the basis of similar data as in Mongle et al
(2019):
Specious claims are often made by scientific
experts, especially when their conclusions are
self-serving (eg the Piltdown fraud).
Non-specialists are rarely in a position to contest
them.
We can only rely on broader issues,
and our assessments of the interests, conduct,
behaviours and reputations of those involved.
and not just on the basis of a single character or preconceptions
about the origins of bipedalism.
A single character is often good enough
to reject a hypothesis.
Hyena have long been a part of the
African ecology.
So have Aardvarks (Orycteropodidae).
Their fossils are representative.
In the Turkana Basin only 20 specimens of Aardvark have been found.
You mean that only 20 specimens are
noted or recorded in that museum?
There are probably 1,000 bits of aardvark
on the surface in that area, that nobody
has ever bothered to look at -- just bits of
some unrecognised quadruped.
Hominins have not been a part of that ecology.
You think Aardvarks have not been part of that Ecology?
Aardvarks were (& are) a part of that
ecology. Not as integrated as hyena.
They're virtually parasitical on termites.
So never present in large numbers.
Hominins could not have been part of
that ecology since they could not have
raised young in the presence of large
predators (such as hyena).
Surely that's obvious?
Although it's nice to see it confirmed
-- and confirmed for the every site on
the continental mainland -- by the fossil
record, with the one exception, where
the local hominins had a safe place of
retreat: i.e. h.naledi with their caves.
On Monday 31 January 2022 at 10:52:04 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,
but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...
Imaginative nonsense -- a theory for which
you have no evidence.
Hear, hear, the kettle!
PA never sees the forest; It doesn't even
see the tree.
I always quote the evidence -- e.g. the
million or more Giza-pyramid-sized
heaps of bifaces,
or the miniscule number of hominin fossils.
Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the >Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 13:39:46 +0100, Pandora <pan...@knoware.nl>-
wrote:
Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the >Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in SouthThe former is a particularly interesting case as it is more than 1000
Africa.
km away from the nearest coast and about as far inland as you can get
on the African continent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
What did it eat?
Where did it sleep?
How did it defend itself against predators?
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 8:36:28 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 13:39:46 +0100, Pandora <pan...@knoware.nl>-
wrote:
The former is a particularly interesting case as it is more than 1000Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the
Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
km away from the nearest coast and about as far inland as you can get
on the African continent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way
through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
What did it eat?
Where did it sleep?
How did it defend itself against predators?
You know my claims, won't repeat them here.
I've been wondering if the inland Levantine corridor was transited seasonally, and the Levantine
coast was transited during the apposite season. The months of R are good for tasty shellfish foraging.
The non-R summer months may have been cooler in the forest/woodland shade.
The earliest Pleistocene record of a large-bodied hominin from the Levant supports two out-of-Africa dispersal events
Alon Barash cs 2022 Scientific Reports 12, 1721
The paucity of early-Pleistocene hominin fossils in Eurasia hinders an in-depth discussion on their paleo-biology & -ecology.
Here we report on the earliest large-bodied hominin remains from the Levantine corridor:
juvenile vertebra UB-10749 from the early-Pleistocene site of Ubeidiya, Israel, discovered during a re-analysis of the faunal remains.
It is a complete lower lumbar vertebral body, with morphological characteristics consistent with Homo sp.
Our analysis indicates:
UB-10749 was a 6- to 12-yr-old child at death, displaying delayed ossification pattern vs Hs.
Its predicted adult size is comparable to other early-Pleistocene large-bodied hominins from Africa.
Paleo-biological differences between UB-10749 & other early Eurasian hominins supports at least 2 distinct out-of-Africa dispersal events.
This observation corresponds with
- variants of lithic traditions (Oldowan, Acheulian),
- various ecological niches across early-Pleistocene sites in Eurasia.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:35:26 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 8:36:28 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 13:39:46 +0100, Pandora <pan...@knoware.nl>-
wrote:
The former is a particularly interesting case as it is more than 1000Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the
Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
km away from the nearest coast and about as far inland as you can get
on the African continent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali
U
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way
through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
What did it eat?
Where did it sleep?
How did it defend itself against predators?
You know my claims, won't repeat them here.
I've been wondering if the inland Levantine corridor was transited seasonally, and the Levantine
coast was transited during the apposite season. The months of R are good for tasty shellfish foraging.
The non-R summer months may have been cooler in the forest/woodland shade.
The earliest Pleistocene record of a large-bodied hominin from the Levant supports two out-of-Africa dispersal events
Alon Barash cs 2022 Scientific Reports 12, 1721
The paucity of early-Pleistocene hominin fossils in Eurasia hinders an in-depth discussion on their paleo-biology & -ecology.Stay focussed D., we're not talking about Pleistocene Homo in the
Here we report on the earliest large-bodied hominin remains from the Levantine corridor:
juvenile vertebra UB-10749 from the early-Pleistocene site of 繕beidiya, Israel, discovered during a re-analysis of the faunal remains.
It is a complete lower lumbar vertebral body, with morphological characteristics consistent with Homo sp.
Our analysis indicates:
UB-10749 was a 6- to 12-yr-old child at death, displaying delayed ossification pattern vs Hs.
Its predicted adult size is comparable to other early-Pleistocene large-bodied hominins from Africa.
Paleo-biological differences between UB-10749 & other early Eurasian hominins supports at least 2 distinct out-of-Africa dispersal events.
This observation corresponds with
- variants of lithic traditions (Oldowan, Acheulian),
- various ecological niches across early-Pleistocene sites in Eurasia.
Levant, but about a less derived Pliocene Australopithecus in the
central Sahara at 3.5 mya, apparently without any lithic tradition.
Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
No, I didn't.
You didn't dispute it.
Because I do not consider it "on record" in a scientifically
appropriate format. I don't deal with wild guesses and gut feelings
dispersed through the popular media (and Lee Berger has a wide gut).
If it's only about counting then I've done my job. I've given you the
numbers from one of the most comprehensive databases,
It's misleading to call that list a "database".
It was only 'comprehensive' about the items
they had in their museum. It made no claim
to be representative of the locality.
I'm not sure if you even understand what a database is.
Every specimen collected in the area has been numbered, identified,
and catalogued with information about year of discovery, area,
horizon, etc.
If protocol is to collect anything identifiable than you may assume
that it's representative.
Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
It really does look as though there are
NO "current 'meaningful discussions' . ."
anywhere in PA.
Sometimes something can be right in front of you, but you don't see it
because you have a different search image.
I was asking YOU for YOUR example.
Seems like you have none.
It doesn't matter, because whatever I would suggest is pissed on by
you.
We can only rely on broader issues,
and our assessments of the interests, conduct,
behaviours and reputations of those involved.
If a non-specialist is someone who knows jack shit about modern
phylogenetic systematics then they have no business in evolutionary
biology. Go find yourself another hobby.
and not just on the basis of a single character or preconceptions
about the origins of bipedalism.
A single character is often good enough
to reject a hypothesis.
Please tell, which one is your favorite?
My guess is that it's the abductable hallux of Ardipithecus, on the premise/preconception that you can't be a biped with a divergent big
toe.
Never mind the derived anatomy of the pelvis or the basicranium. You
can always reject those on the basis of the claim that they are biased
or merely a wild guess.
In the Turkana Basin only 20 specimens of Aardvark have been found.
You mean that only 20 specimens are
noted or recorded in that museum?
There are probably 1,000 bits of aardvark
on the surface in that area, that nobody
has ever bothered to look at -- just bits of
some unrecognised quadruped.
Sure, why not millions?
When you live in fantasyland and talk is cheap
you can make up any number that suits your story. And of course it's
only PA's who are looking for fosslis. Never mind vertebrate
paleontologists who are interested in something other than hominins,
like Lars Werdelin and Margaret Lewis who did the Koobi Fora volume on carnivora (https://www.calacademy.org/scientists/anthropology-publications-koobi-fora7) or Martin Pickford who really likes aardvarks.
Hominins could not have been part of
that ecology since they could not have
raised young in the presence of large
predators (such as hyena).
Surely that's obvious?
That depends on the species. Hominins have little to fear from species
such as Aardwolf, Brown and Striped Hyena. And even Spotted Hyena
rarely hunt hominins.
Although it's nice to see it confirmed
-- and confirmed for the every site on
the continental mainland -- by the fossil
record, with the one exception, where
the local hominins had a safe place of
retreat: i.e. h.naledi with their caves.
Safe? I'm not so sure, they may have died there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
What did it eat?
Where did it sleep?
How did it defend itself against predators?
I always quote the evidence -- e.g. the
million or more Giza-pyramid-sized
heaps of bifaces,
Those require a lot of hominins to manufacture.
On Thursday 3 February 2022 at 13:36:28 UTC, Pandora wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way
through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
Generally following rivers it would have
found USOs, and lived in much the same
way as in its native habitat -- although
as adult adventurers and not as members
of a established population living there.
What did it eat?
Prey animals probably didn't see it as
a predator, and allowed it close enough
for easy kills. Or it might have set
snares.
Where did it sleep?
In whatever shelter it could find.
Probably carried rush matting or
some other covering.
How did it defend itself against predators?
Predators would not have seen it as
prey; much as sharks don't usually
attack humans, except when they
mistake them for seals.
On Thursday 3 February 2022 at 09:45:50 UTC, Pandora wrote:
I always quote the evidence -- e.g. the
million or more Giza-pyramid-sized
heaps of bifaces,
Those require a lot of hominins to manufacture.
Or a huge number of generations --
which is what we have.
On Wednesday 2 February 2022 at 12:39:51 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Eh? You agreed that Lee Berger and his team
more than doubled the African hominin fossil
record with the h.naledi find.
No, I didn't.
You didn't dispute it.
Because I do not consider it "on record" in a scientifically
appropriate format. I don't deal with wild guesses and gut feelings
dispersed through the popular media (and Lee Berger has a wide gut).
This is a political response, well up to
the Boris Johnson 'standard'.
It's NOT a wild guess that before h.naledi
(publ 2015) there were ~2,000 hominin
fossils (each tooth and bit of bone counted
separately) from the whole of Africa. That
is the important number.
A figure of 2,000 -- spread over 4 or 5 Myr
for almost any other terrestrial mammal
taxon would be regarded as a joke -- not
enough to warrant study.
The 'scientific' literature is just not
designed for dealing with these sorts of
questions.
If it's only about counting then I've done my job. I've given you the
numbers from one of the most comprehensive databases,
It's misleading to call that list a "database".
It was only 'comprehensive' about the items
they had in their museum. It made no claim
to be representative of the locality.
I'm not sure if you even understand what a database is.
"A database is an organized collection of structured information, or data"
Every specimen collected in the area has been numbered, identified,
and catalogued with information about year of discovery, area,
horizon, etc.
If protocol is to collect anything identifiable than you may assume
that it's representative.
Sure -- for ONE organised dig in a tightly
delineated area, or for a series of them.
But this is a museum, meant mostly for
education and entertainment.
Not unlike
the Natural History Museum in South
Kensington. You don't use the collections
there as 'a database' on which you base
judgements about the density of a species
population.
Lake Turkana is 270 km in length. A lot
more than 20 aardvarks died and were
fossilised on its banks over the last 7 Myr.
Count the fossil sites listed for Africa here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You'll see that the list is heavily weighted
towards 'hominins'. It would not claim to
be representative of true numbers of fossils
to be seen in Africa. But that's how you
would seem to take it!
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the
Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
It shows that truly remarkably TINY
number of hominins died and were
fossilised on the African continental
highlands over the past 5 Myr.
Until PA recognises that fact, and
seeks an explanation, it's largely a
waste of time.
We can only rely on broader issues,
and our assessments of the interests, conduct,
behaviours and reputations of those involved.
If a non-specialist is someone who knows jack shit about modern
phylogenetic systematics then they have no business in evolutionary
biology. Go find yourself another hobby.
That might be sound advice -- if PA people
could count. Until they master that skill,
we can't rely on their judgements on a
range of important topics.
and not just on the basis of a single character or preconceptions
about the origins of bipedalism.
A single character is often good enough
to reject a hypothesis.
Please tell, which one is your favorite?
My guess is that it's the abductable hallux of Ardipithecus, on the
premise/preconception that you can't be a biped with a divergent big
toe.
Never mind the derived anatomy of the pelvis or the basicranium. You
can always reject those on the basis of the claim that they are biased
or merely a wild guess.
I would have been nice if we could have
seen the actual 'derived anatomies' of the
pelvis and basicranium -- but they came
in squashed distorted fragments. Those
who 'reconstructed' them took a very
long time, and numerous attempts before
they 'got them right'.
The concept of 'double blind' -- as seen
throughout science, especially in medicine,
is so far removed from PA, that it might
as well have been on the other side of the
Big Bang.
Accuse them of unconscious bias?
They'd see that as libelous.
In the Turkana Basin only 20 specimens of Aardvark have been found.
You mean that only 20 specimens are
noted or recorded in that museum?
There are probably 1,000 bits of aardvark
on the surface in that area, that nobody
has ever bothered to look at -- just bits of
some unrecognised quadruped.
Sure, why not millions?
You're probably right. 1,000 bits of
fossilised aardvark in every km2?
When you live in fantasyland and talk is cheap
you can make up any number that suits your story. And of course it's
only PA's who are looking for fosslis. Never mind vertebrate
paleontologists who are interested in something other than hominins,
like Lars Werdelin and Margaret Lewis who did the Koobi Fora volume on
carnivora
(https://www.calacademy.org/scientists/anthropology-publications-koobi-fora7)
or Martin Pickford who really likes aardvarks.
I'm sure that they all did a thorough job
on the small plots under investigation.
Hominins could not have been part of
that ecology since they could not have
raised young in the presence of large
predators (such as hyena).
Surely that's obvious?
That depends on the species. Hominins have little to fear from species
such as Aardwolf, Brown and Striped Hyena. And even Spotted Hyena
rarely hunt hominins.
Note my 'such as'. Infant hominins (and
their mothers) would have good reason
to fear even the smaller carnivores.
You might say that every infant was
carried at all times. But that's a strong
argument against bipedalism (since the
mother can't do much else, including
running & climbing).
Although it's nice to see it confirmed
-- and confirmed for the every site on
the continental mainland -- by the fossil
record, with the one exception, where
the local hominins had a safe place of
retreat: i.e. h.naledi with their caves.
Safe? I'm not so sure, they may have died there.
We all die sometime. The issue is
whether or not we can keep a
population going over numerous
generations. Caves with constricted
entrances are more comfortable
and safer from predators (or even
from hostile hominins) than trees.
I always quote the evidence -- e.g. the
million or more Giza-pyramid-sized
heaps of bifaces,
Those require a lot of hominins to manufacture.
Or a huge number of generations --
which is what we have.
If the total is millions then it doesn't matter whether it's a x b or
b x a, but the presence of thousands of stone artifacts from single
horizons at single sites, such as FwJj20 at Koobi Fora, is evidence
that not many generations were involved in the making of large
artifact accumulations.
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way
through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
Generally following rivers it would have
found USOs, and lived in much the same
way as in its native habitat -- although
as adult adventurers and not as members
of a established population living there.
Going from the coast all the way to Koro Toro in the central Sahara it
would have encountered many different environments with different
unfamiliar species. You are always stressing the concept of niche, but
in this case you are suggesting that it was adaptable to the point
that it didn't have one.
Where did it sleep?
In whatever shelter it could find.
Nice handwaving.
Probably carried rush matting or
some other covering.
We're not talking Late-Pleistocene Homo, but Pliocene
Australopithecus. Suggesting that they could make snares and weave
mats is suggesting that they had the cognitive ability to also make stone-tipped spears and bows and arrows, or that an ape slightly more
derived than a chimp can do all that.
Predators would not have seen it as
prey; much as sharks don't usually
attack humans, except when they
mistake them for seals.
An Australopithecus sleeping on the ground would look very similar to
a chimp.
Because I do not consider it "on record" in a scientifically
appropriate format. I don't deal with wild guesses and gut feelings
dispersed through the popular media (and Lee Berger has a wide gut).
This is a political response, well up to
the Boris Johnson 'standard'.
It's a matter of objectivity, of materials and methods, so that
anybody in your field can check what you've done and how you've
arrived at your conclusions.
It's NOT a wild guess that before h.naledi
(publ 2015) there were ~2,000 hominin
fossils (each tooth and bit of bone counted
separately) from the whole of Africa. That
is the important number.
A figure of 2,000 -- spread over 4 or 5 Myr
for almost any other terrestrial mammal
taxon would be regarded as a joke -- not
enough to warrant study.
Whole monographs have been written about taxa represented in the
fossil record by less than 20 specimens:
https://pfeil-verlag.de/publikationen/archaeopteryx-the-icon-of-evolution/
The 'scientific' literature is just not
designed for dealing with these sorts of
questions.
It's exactly designed for these kind of questions, applied to
materials such as the Turkana Database and appropriate statistical
methods. It's not designed for telling fancy stories.
Lake Turkana is 270 km in length. A lot
more than 20 aardvarks died and were
fossilised on its banks over the last 7 Myr.
The same goes for hominins, all still buried under tons of sediment,
never to be exposed and discovered.
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the
Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
It shows that truly remarkably TINY
number of hominins died and were
fossilised on the African continental
highlands over the past 5 Myr.
It says nothing about the number of hominins, it only says something
about their distribution across the continent.
For Australopithecus and Paranthropus something like this:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg>
More widespread than chimpanzees, for which we have virtually no
fossil record.
I would have been nice if we could have
seen the actual 'derived anatomies' of the
pelvis and basicranium -- but they came
in squashed distorted fragments. Those
who 'reconstructed' them took a very
long time, and numerous attempts before
they 'got them right'.
You may doubt the result if you have similar or even superior
knowledge of primate anatomy and experience with reconstructing
specimens from fragmentary remains, when you think parts have been misidentified and/or additional parts have been discovered since.
This was the case for example with the rib cage of the Turkana Boy,
which leads to a different interpretation tof he evolution of human
body shape:
Doubt has it's place in the scientific language-game, but yours is a
priori of any empirical content. Your kind of doubt undermines the
possibilty of even playing this language-game.
I'm sure that they all did a thorough job
on the small plots under investigation.
That's how it works. Much more efficient/thorough/productive than
digging at random here and there in an area of a few hundred square kilometers in the hope of finding something of interest.
Note my 'such as'. Infant hominins (and
their mothers) would have good reason
to fear even the smaller carnivores.
You might say that every infant was
carried at all times. But that's a strong
argument against bipedalism (since the
mother can't do much else, including
running & climbing).
She may have to drop whatever she carries in her hands: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIrasWBUQAAUDhh?format=jpg&name=small
We all die sometime. The issue is
whether or not we can keep a
population going over numerous
generations. Caves with constricted
entrances are more comfortable
and safer from predators (or even
from hostile hominins) than trees.
Tell that to the chimps.
A cave might just as well be a leopard den.
On Saturday 5 February 2022 at 11:19:17 UTC, Pandora wrote:
I always quote the evidence -- e.g. the
million or more Giza-pyramid-sized
heaps of bifaces,
Those require a lot of hominins to manufacture.
Or a huge number of generations --
which is what we have.
If the total is millions then it doesn't matter whether it's a x b or
b x a, but the presence of thousands of stone artifacts from single
horizons at single sites, such as FwJj20 at Koobi Fora, is evidence
that not many generations were involved in the making of large
artifact accumulations.
Only 2,633 artefacts in that horizon
-- as far as I can see.
One season's work for a group of hominins. Maybe ten year's work for a small group,
keeping the local predators at bay; killing and eating some.
On Saturday 5 February 2022 at 10:29:11 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Assuming that it came from an island population somewhere along the
African coast and came to Koro Toro more or less through a random
walk, it must have taken years to reach the location. While on its way >>>> through several different ecozones, how did it survive?
Generally following rivers it would have
found USOs, and lived in much the same
way as in its native habitat -- although
as adult adventurers and not as members
of a established population living there.
Going from the coast all the way to Koro Toro in the central Sahara it
would have encountered many different environments with different
unfamiliar species. You are always stressing the concept of niche, but
in this case you are suggesting that it was adaptable to the point
that it didn't have one.
It's species that occupy niches. Vagrants
are usually in the wrong place, but could
be looking for a similar habitat.
For hominins that was somewhere females
could come (willingly or otherwise) and
raise young. The hominin failure rate
would have been around 99.999%
Where did it sleep?
In whatever shelter it could find.
Nice handwaving.
Silly question.
Probably carried rush matting or
some other covering.
We're not talking Late-Pleistocene Homo, but Pliocene
Australopithecus. Suggesting that they could make snares and weave
mats is suggesting that they had the cognitive ability to also make
stone-tipped spears and bows and arrows, or that an ape slightly more
derived than a chimp can do all that.
This is really bad (if traditional) PA
'thinking'. What is the ONE advantage
that hominins have over other taxa?
It's their intelligence and adaptability.
That's WHY they went bipedal. It was
NOT the other way around.
Brain size is a hopelessly inappropriate
guide. H.naledi (with brains close to
chimp size) had ropes and candles,
and practised funerary ceremonies.
Mat weaving was probably one of the
earliest of ground-living technologies.
It took only ONE bright hominin to
develop it, and the rest copied.
Minimal 'cognitive capacity'.
Predators would not have seen it as
prey; much as sharks don't usually
attack humans, except when they
mistake them for seals.
An Australopithecus sleeping on the ground would look very similar to
a chimp.
Few potential predators would have seen
a chimp (They were in distant forests).
But it's the very different behaviour that
would have bemused them. Hominins
didn't run away -- no point, since they
were so slow.
(But the predators would
not have realised that for a while.) Their
rock-throwing was also probably fairly
good.
Of course, having small children
around was out of the question.
Why do many aquatic mammals have larger brains than equally large terrestrials?
Is it only about diet? certain nutrients: DHA etc.? or °varied° nutrients?
Neandertals had larger brain than erectus, and were probably less aquatic than erectus.
Sirenia have rel.small brains: poor diet? slow & shallow diving? monotomous lifestyle?
They don't have to *find* their food, only have to eat & digest.
Are the costs of carrying a heavy brain lower in the water?
Omega-3s sealed the deal for me. https://omegaquant.com/this-is-your-brain-on-omega-3s/
We had to be eating seafood.
They had to work a lot harder for their calories, spend more time eating but by turning
to the sea the found an abundance of proteins AND the Omega-3s they needed for
their brains.
Before Aquatic Ape, a mutation allowing for larger or smarter brains might've cropped
up dozens of times only to go extinct. BECAUSE there wasn't the nutrients they needed
to form these brains/connections.
On Saturday 5 February 2022 at 14:20:06 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Because I do not consider it "on record" in a scientifically
appropriate format. I don't deal with wild guesses and gut feelings
dispersed through the popular media (and Lee Berger has a wide gut).
This is a political response, well up to
the Boris Johnson 'standard'.
It's a matter of objectivity, of materials and methods, so that
anybody in your field can check what you've done and how you've
arrived at your conclusions.
It's NOT a wild guess that before h.naledi
(publ 2015) there were ~2,000 hominin
fossils (each tooth and bit of bone counted
separately) from the whole of Africa. That
is the important number.
A figure of 2,000 -- spread over 4 or 5 Myr
for almost any other terrestrial mammal
taxon would be regarded as a joke -- not
enough to warrant study.
Whole monographs have been written about taxa represented in the
fossil record by less than 20 specimens:
https://pfeil-verlag.de/publikationen/archaeopteryx-the-icon-of-evolution/
I did say 'terrestrial mammal'. If archaeopteryx
had been found in the usual mammalian
pattern -- small random bits -- it would
also have been ignored.
The 'scientific' literature is just not
designed for dealing with these sorts of
questions.
It's exactly designed for these kind of questions, applied to
materials such as the Turkana Database and appropriate statistical
methods. It's not designed for telling fancy stories.
Classic missing of the wood for the trees.
Which 'scientific' journal has published a
paper on the ENORMOUS discrepancy
between the number of hominin fossils
and non-hominin fossils in Africa?
Lake Turkana is 270 km in length. A lot
more than 20 aardvarks died and were
fossilised on its banks over the last 7 Myr.
The same goes for hominins, all still buried under tons of sediment,
never to be exposed and discovered.
The same does NOT go. For about every
100K of aardvark fossils, you'll get one
hominin -- a tooth or the like. Aardvark
lived there. They were endemic. Hominins
were rare vagrants.
One thing it shows is that hominins were all over Africa during the
Plio-Pleistocene, from Koro Toro in Chad to Sterkfontein in South
Africa.
It shows that truly remarkably TINY
number of hominins died and were
fossilised on the African continental
highlands over the past 5 Myr.
It says nothing about the number of hominins, it only says something
about their distribution across the continent.
For Australopithecus and Paranthropus something like this:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg>
An intelligent reading of any such 'database'
would inform you that hominins were rare --
far too rare to be part of the local ecology.
More widespread than chimpanzees, for which we have virtually no
fossil record.
Chimps live (feed and sleep) in trees
thereby avoiding floods and they keep
well away from bodies of water. So they
rarely get fossilised. No one claims that
hominins were similar, nor anything
like it.
I would have been nice if we could have
seen the actual 'derived anatomies' of the
pelvis and basicranium -- but they came
in squashed distorted fragments. Those
who 'reconstructed' them took a very
long time, and numerous attempts before
they 'got them right'.
You may doubt the result if you have similar or even superior
knowledge of primate anatomy and experience with reconstructing
specimens from fragmentary remains, when you think parts have been
misidentified and/or additional parts have been discovered since.
This was the case for example with the rib cage of the Turkana Boy,
which leads to a different interpretation tof he evolution of human
body shape:
Doubt has it's place in the scientific language-game, but yours is a
priori of any empirical content. Your kind of doubt undermines the
possibilty of even playing this language-game.
That's nonsense. Would you let candidates
for university places (e.g. in medicine) mark
their own exam papers? Would you trust
the result of a US Presidential election run
by Donald Trump? Is Tim White more
trustworthy than Trump? I don't know,
but science should not depend on trust.
Here, you expect us to trust the 'science'
of a group of people, every one of whom
knows what they are all hoping for -- the
only desirable result.
Expertise is to be respected. But you
should never trust an expert who cannot
(or is unwilling to) explain the basis of
their reasoning -- ESPECIALLY when their
conclusions are self-serving.
If they had shown some humility,
acknowledged the problem, and made
some slight effort to mitigate it, then
I'd be more inclined to give them the
benefit of the doubt.
I'm sure that they all did a thorough job
on the small plots under investigation.
That's how it works. Much more efficient/thorough/productive than
digging at random here and there in an area of a few hundred square
kilometers in the hope of finding something of interest.
How it works is that they found some
hominin fossils on (or very close to) the
surface, and then did a thorough
investigation of the surrounding area --
maybe within 100 metres of the original
find. Any similar area, picked at random,
would (99.999% of the time) reveal
ZERO hominin fossils.
Their exercise was well worth doing --
but it's not to be taken as an objective
measure of the density of hominins
present at that location at any time.
Note my 'such as'. Infant hominins (and
their mothers) would have good reason
to fear even the smaller carnivores.
You might say that every infant was
carried at all times. But that's a strong
argument against bipedalism (since the
mother can't do much else, including
running & climbing).
She may have to drop whatever she carries in her hands:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIrasWBUQAAUDhh?format=jpg&name=small
An image that comes from the Daily Mail
School of Science.
We all die sometime. The issue is
whether or not we can keep a
population going over numerous
generations. Caves with constricted
entrances are more comfortable
and safer from predators (or even
from hostile hominins) than trees.
Tell that to the chimps.
A cave might just as well be a leopard den.
Proposed habitations must always be
checked out first. Then, at night, or
when leaving it empty, the door must
be shut (i.e. a boulder or a thorn bush
is jammed in the entrance hole).
Omega-3s sealed the deal for me. https://omegaquant.com/this-is-your-brain-on-omega-3s/
We had to be eating seafood.
Yes, no doubt, but why exactly? Sirenia also eat sea-food.
Why were larger brains advantageous for slow-shallow-diving erectus?
Why did neandertals (probably more wading than erectus, and more fresh-water) had even larger brains?
It's species that occupy niches. Vagrants
are usually in the wrong place, but could
be looking for a similar habitat.
For hominins that was somewhere females
could come (willingly or otherwise) and
raise young. The hominin failure rate
would have been around 99.999%
So the probablity of a hominin like "Abel" (KT12/H1) ever reaching
Koro Toro in the central Sahara would be practically zero.
Multiply by
the probabilty of this rare individual becoming a fossil and the
probability of us finding it exposed on the surface 3.5 million years
later would indeed make the total probability astronomically small.
The fact that we have "Abel" is evidence that your story doesn't make
any sense, at all.
Where did it sleep?
In whatever shelter it could find.
Nice handwaving.
Silly question.
You've asked it many times.
Mat weaving was probably one of the
earliest of ground-living technologies.
It took only ONE bright hominin to
develop it, and the rest copied.
Minimal 'cognitive capacity'.
Those neurons are not there to generate heat. Any neuroscientist will
tell you that they are organized in delicate networks that underly perception, affection, cognition, and action.
Pick up a copy of that big book by Kandel et al.: https://www.mhprofessional.com/9781259642234-usa-principles-of-neural-science-sixth-edition-group
Chimps and humans are not much different when it comes to raw
perception, emotion, and action. The big difference is in cognition.
It's those higher-order integrative cortical association areas
involved in cognitive processing that make up the bulk of the bulbous
human brain. Chimps and Australopithecus have/had much less of that:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729
Weaving a mat from fiber is a multistage proces that in humans
requires significant cognitive processing, from selecting appropriate
raw materials to preparing them for the purpose of weaving and the
weaving process itself. It's not a programmed instinctive behaviour
like nest-building in birds.
(But the predators would
not have realised that for a while.) Their
rock-throwing was also probably fairly
good.
So they DO have a means of defending themselves.
Never accepted when I suggest it.
horizons at single sites, such as FwJj20 at Koobi Fora, is evidence
that not many generations were involved in the making of large
artifact accumulations.
Only 2,633 artefacts in that horizon
-- as far as I can see.
Only 2,633?
50 of such sites throughout the basin could easily produce 100,000 or
more artifacts within the time of a single horizon. Multiply by dozens
of horizons.
One season's work for a group of hominins. Maybe ten year's work for a small group,
keeping the local predators at bay; killing and eating some.
Obviously not the work of a vagrant, an ephemeral passerby hanging
around for a few days or weeks. More like the central place of a group
with intimate knowledge of the environment, occupied for at least a
season.
Classic missing of the wood for the trees.
Which 'scientific' journal has published a
paper on the ENORMOUS discrepancy
between the number of hominin fossils
and non-hominin fossils in Africa?
Because hominins constitute only a single tribe (Hominini), while non-hominins constitute everything else. It's trivial that a taxon at
the level of tribus is dwarfed by the rest of the animal kingdom.
Chimps live (feed and sleep) in trees
thereby avoiding floods and they keep
well away from bodies of water. So they
rarely get fossilised. No one claims that
hominins were similar, nor anything
like it.
Study has shown that chimpanzee remains do accumulate on the forest
floor and may occasionally get washed into nearby drainage channels.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248483710638
Wittgenstein: "I really want to say that a language-game is only
possible if one trusts something ("I did not say "can trust
something"). (OC 509)
In the case of the scientific language-game this trust concerns the assumption that your collegues have been as objective as possible,
have done a thorough job, etc. That's the a priori of this
language-game, its foundation, its rules. (sometimes it's violated, as
in the case of fraud).
You may contest their results and conclusions, but as rule not on
grounds of lack of expertise, lack of objectivity, lack of
trustworthyness, etc.
That's exactly where you go wrong. Your lack of trust is based on
paranoia, prejudice, your own presumptions about human evolution,
bitterness, frustration, disrespect, etc.
How it works is that they found some
hominin fossils on (or very close to) the
surface, and then did a thorough
investigation of the surrounding area --
maybe within 100 metres of the original
find. Any similar area, picked at random,
would (99.999% of the time) reveal
ZERO hominin fossils.
Yes, and probably also zero hyenas, elephants and aardvarks.
She may have to drop whatever she carries in her hands:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIrasWBUQAAUDhh?format=jpg&name=small
An image that comes from the Daily Mail
School of Science.
You think she's an actrice?
Proposed habitations must always be
checked out first. Then, at night, or
when leaving it empty, the door must
be shut (i.e. a boulder or a thorn bush
is jammed in the entrance hole).
Home sweet home, almost like a house.
On Monday 7 February 2022 at 11:57:08 UTC, Pandora wrote:
It's species that occupy niches. Vagrants
are usually in the wrong place, but could
be looking for a similar habitat.
For hominins that was somewhere females
could come (willingly or otherwise) and
raise young. The hominin failure rate
would have been around 99.999%
So the probablity of a hominin like "Abel" (KT12/H1) ever reachingDoesn't follow at all. Refugee bands could
Koro Toro in the central Sahara would be practically zero.
well keep travelling for a decade or more,
hoping to find a place they could settle.
At the time of 'Abel' some of the predators
they encountered might have begun to
recognise the vulnerability of hominins,
meaning they had to move on.
Multiply byNo logic here at all. Hominin bands would
the probabilty of this rare individual becoming a fossil and the probability of us finding it exposed on the surface 3.5 million years
later would indeed make the total probability astronomically small.
The fact that we have "Abel" is evidence that your story doesn't make
any sense, at all.
have spread out from their homelands
(presumably on the East African coast) more
or less indefinitely. Nothing to stop them.
Where did it sleep?
In whatever shelter it could find.
Nice handwaving.
Silly question.
You've asked it many times.I ask it about hominins supposedly settled
on the savanna (or the like), raising infants
and children, while surrounded by large
predators. You are asking me about what
were (at any one time) a band of transient
males, not seen as likely prey by local
predators.
Mat weaving was probably one of the
earliest of ground-living technologies.
It took only ONE bright hominin to
develop it, and the rest copied.
Minimal 'cognitive capacity'.
Those neurons are not there to generate heat. Any neuroscientist willOrgans often have more than one function.
tell you that they are organized in delicate networks that underly perception, affection, cognition, and action.
Pick up a copy of that big book by Kandel et al.: https://www.mhprofessional.com/9781259642234-usa-principles-of-neural-science-sixth-edition-group
Brains were originally for what you say -- as
in nearly all animals. But they also act as a
store of heat. In some marine animals they
have evolved great size specifically for that
purpose. No good reason that should not
also apply to huminins.
Chimps and humans are not much different when it comes to raw
perception, emotion, and action. The big difference is in cognition.
It's those higher-order integrative cortical association areas
involved in cognitive processing that make up the bulk of the bulbous
human brain. Chimps and Australopithecus have/had much less of that:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729There's next to nothing in such material.
Empty verbiage. Is there one meaningful
(i.e. testable) proposition in any text ever
written on the subject of "cognition"?
Weaving a mat from fiber is a multistage proces that in humans
requires significant cognitive processing, from selecting appropriate
raw materials to preparing them for the purpose of weaving and the
weaving process itself. It's not a programmed instinctive behaviour
like nest-building in birds.
Google images of "palm fronds". The leaves
fall off and litter the ground.
sleeping hominins making beds, would
collect a lot and lay them down, one layer
North-South, the next East-West. The
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
All other hominins would copy.
(But the predators would
not have realised that for a while.) Their
rock-throwing was also probably fairly
good.
So they DO have a means of defending themselves.I'm talking about naive predators, running
Never accepted when I suggest it.
into a band of male hominins, not knowing
what they were. They'd take a few weeks or
months to realise that hominins were easy
prey -- especially at night. Whereas you
always talk of hominins living, sleeping,
and raising children in the same habitat
as those predators.
On Monday 7 February 2022 at 13:59:13 UTC, Pandora wrote:
Classic missing of the wood for the trees.
Which 'scientific' journal has published a
paper on the ENORMOUS discrepancy
between the number of hominin fossils
and non-hominin fossils in Africa?
Because hominins constitute only a single tribe (Hominini), while non-hominins constitute everything else. It's trivial that a taxon atIf hominins had been living in East Africa,
the level of tribus is dwarfed by the rest of the animal kingdom.
and were a part of the ecosystem, then
there should have left many more than
2,000 findable fossils -- at least 1,000
times that number.
Chimps live (feed and sleep) in trees
thereby avoiding floods and they keep
well away from bodies of water. So they
rarely get fossilised. No one claims that
hominins were similar, nor anything
like it.
Study has shown that chimpanzee remains do accumulate on the forest
floor and may occasionally get washed into nearby drainage channels.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248483710638The Kibale forest over that past 10 or
20 years is very different from that before
1900 AD, or that around 1 ma. Humans
have drastically reduced the numbers
and diversity of carnivores (and of
omnivores).
Wittgenstein: "I really want to say that a language-game is onlyYour reading of Wittgenstein is shallow.
possible if one trusts something ("I did not say "can trust
something"). (OC 509)
“How can I know that I mean something when I speak”
In the case of the scientific language-game this trust concerns the assumption that your collegues have been as objective as possible,“The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing.” (19692166)
have done a thorough job, etc. That's the a priori of this
language-game, its foundation, its rules. (sometimes it's violated, as
in the case of fraud).
A top-class modern medical researcher
will have a very different conception of
what "being as objective as possible" is,
as opposed to that of a typical 19th
century (or earlier) one, or a poor modern
one. The best scientists know that the
easiest person to fool is yourself and the
next most easiest people are those in
your own team.
You may contest their results and conclusions, but as rule not onYou've heard of the "Replication Crisis"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
grounds of lack of expertise, lack of objectivity, lack of trustworthyness, etc.
It's merely a recent example of the "lack
of objectivity" that most educated adults
know is likely to be prevalent in any field
of human activity. Yet I'm not surprised
that you seem ignorant of it -- since PA
is your field -- one where, in a most
peculiar manner, credulousness is the
rule.
Partly this comes from regarding any kind
of 'speculation' with an atavistic horror
while working, without the slightest
question, under the superstition known
as the 'Biblical assumption'. Under this
everything is assumed to be as late as
possible and can only be given an
earlier date when it has near-cast-iron
evidence.
That's exactly where you go wrong. Your lack of trust is based on paranoia, prejudice, your own presumptions about human evolution, bitterness, frustration, disrespect, etc.PA should operate like other sciences
with passionate efforts made to test all
hypotheses with as much objectivity
as can be devised. Maybe copies of
the Ardi fossils should have been made,
along with similar ones for a modern
chimp and an australopith, squashed
and distorted in a similar way. These
then given to teams of cranial & other
surgeons who were asked to arrange
them as best they could.
I'm not saying that such an exercise
was practical, but the investigators
should have looked into a whole
variety of possible devices to check
that their thinking was objective.
But such an idea didn't occur to
them,
No one should trust the efforts of
those whose interests were so
intertwined with the outcomes.
That's show-business -- not science.
How it works is that they found some
hominin fossils on (or very close to) the
surface, and then did a thorough
investigation of the surrounding area --
maybe within 100 metres of the original
find. Any similar area, picked at random,
would (99.999% of the time) reveal
ZERO hominin fossils.
Yes, and probably also zero hyenas, elephants and aardvarks.Nonsense. You'll never see a fossil-
hunter interested in hyenas, elephants
or aardvarks complaining about the
scarcity of fossils. The notion that he
or she (and colleagues) would have to
live with only 2,000 (painfully collected
over 100 years) from the whole of
Africa would be unimaginable. More
like 2 billion for each taxon.
PA must first learn to count -- if it's
ever to make progress.
She may have to drop whatever she carries in her hands:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIrasWBUQAAUDhh?format=jpg&name=small
An image that comes from the Daily Mail
School of Science.
You think she's an actrice?In effect -- a perfectly flat stage (in a
zoo) that she has walked 10,000 times.
Given highly desirable food in a form
that occupies all her fingers. The
camera-person patiently waiting
through numerous 'takes'.
Proposed habitations must always be
checked out first. Then, at night, or
when leaving it empty, the door must
be shut (i.e. a boulder or a thorn bush
is jammed in the entrance hole).
Home sweet home, almost like a house.
Hominins have not changed their
fundamental behaviour since they
first occupied their ground-living
niche. They've always had 'a home'
-- as can readily be seen from their
infants and children.
On Monday 7 February 2022 at 11:57:08 UTC, Pandora wrote:
It's species that occupy niches. Vagrants
are usually in the wrong place, but could
be looking for a similar habitat.
For hominins that was somewhere females
could come (willingly or otherwise) and
raise young. The hominin failure rate
would have been around 99.999%
So the probablity of a hominin like "Abel" (KT12/H1) ever reaching
Koro Toro in the central Sahara would be practically zero.
Doesn't follow at all. Refugee bands could
well keep travelling for a decade or more,
hoping to find a place they could settle.
At the time of 'Abel' some of the predators
they encountered might have begun to
recognise the vulnerability of hominins,
meaning they had to move on.
Multiply by
the probabilty of this rare individual becoming a fossil and the
probability of us finding it exposed on the surface 3.5 million years
later would indeed make the total probability astronomically small.
The fact that we have "Abel" is evidence that your story doesn't make
any sense, at all.
No logic here at all. Hominin bands would
have spread out from their homelands
(presumably on the East African coast) more
or less indefinitely.
Nothing to stop them.
Mat weaving was probably one of the
earliest of ground-living technologies.
It took only ONE bright hominin to
develop it, and the rest copied.
Minimal 'cognitive capacity'.
Those neurons are not there to generate heat. Any neuroscientist will
tell you that they are organized in delicate networks that underly
perception, affection, cognition, and action.
Pick up a copy of that big book by Kandel et al.:
https://www.mhprofessional.com/9781259642234-usa-principles-of-neural-science-sixth-edition-group
Organs often have more than one function.
Brains were originally for what you say -- as
in nearly all animals. But they also act as a
store of heat. In some marine animals they
have evolved great size specifically for that
purpose.
No good reason that should not
also apply to huminins.
Chimps and humans are not much different when it comes to raw
perception, emotion, and action. The big difference is in cognition.
It's those higher-order integrative cortical association areas
involved in cognitive processing that make up the bulk of the bulbous
human brain. Chimps and Australopithecus have/had much less of that:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729
There's next to nothing in such material.
Empty verbiage.
Is there one meaningful (i.e. testable) proposition in any text ever
written on the subject of "cognition"?
Weaving a mat from fiber is a multistage proces that in humans
requires significant cognitive processing, from selecting appropriate
raw materials to preparing them for the purpose of weaving and the
weaving process itself. It's not a programmed instinctive behaviour
like nest-building in birds.
Google images of "palm fronds". The leaves
fall off and litter the ground. Early ground-
sleeping hominins making beds, would
collect a lot and lay them down, one layer
North-South, the next East-West. The
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
All other hominins would copy.
(But the predators would
not have realised that for a while.) Their
rock-throwing was also probably fairly
good.
So they DO have a means of defending themselves.
Never accepted when I suggest it.
I'm talking about naive predators, running
into a band of male hominins, not knowing
what they were. They'd take a few weeks or
months to realise that hominins were easy
prey -- especially at night. Whereas you
always talk of hominins living, sleeping,
and raising children in the same habitat
as those predators.
Wittgenstein: "I really want to say that a language-game is only
possible if one trusts something ("I did not say "can trust
something"). (OC 509)
Your reading of Wittgenstein is shallow.
How can I know that I mean something when I speak
In the case of the scientific language-game this trust concerns the
assumption that your collegues have been as objective as possible,
have done a thorough job, etc. That's the a priori of this
language-game, its foundation, its rules. (sometimes it's violated, as
in the case of fraud).
The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing. >(19692166)
A top-class modern medical researcher
will have a very different conception of
what "being as objective as possible" is,
as opposed to that of a typical 19th
century (or earlier) one, or a poor modern
one. The best scientists know that the
easiest person to fool is yourself and the
next most easiest people are those in
your own team.
You may contest their results and conclusions, but as rule not on
grounds of lack of expertise, lack of objectivity, lack of
trustworthyness, etc.
You've heard of the "Replication Crisis"? >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
It's merely a recent example of the "lack
of objectivity" that most educated adults
know is likely to be prevalent in any field
of human activity. Yet I'm not surprised
that you seem ignorant of it -- since PA
is your field -- one where, in a most
peculiar manner, credulousness is the
rule.
Partly this comes from regarding any kind
of 'speculation' with an atavistic horror
while working, without the slightest
question, under the superstition known
as the 'Biblical assumption'. Under this
everything is assumed to be as late as
possible and can only be given an
earlier date when it has near-cast-iron
evidence.
That's exactly where you go wrong. Your lack of trust is based on
paranoia, prejudice, your own presumptions about human evolution,
bitterness, frustration, disrespect, etc.
PA should operate like other sciences
with passionate efforts made to test all
hypotheses with as much objectivity
as can be devised. Maybe copies of
the Ardi fossils should have been made,
along with similar ones for a modern
chimp and an australopith, squashed
and distorted in a similar way. These
then given to teams of cranial & other
surgeons who were asked to arrange
them as best they could.
I'm not saying that such an exercise
was practical, but the investigators
should have looked into a whole
variety of possible devices to check
that their thinking was objective.
But such an idea didn't occur to
them,
No one should trust the efforts of
those whose interests were so
intertwined with the outcomes.
That's show-business -- not science.
How it works is that they found some
hominin fossils on (or very close to) the
surface, and then did a thorough
investigation of the surrounding area --
maybe within 100 metres of the original
find. Any similar area, picked at random,
would (99.999% of the time) reveal
ZERO hominin fossils.
Yes, and probably also zero hyenas, elephants and aardvarks.
Nonsense. You'll never see a fossil-
hunter interested in hyenas, elephants
or aardvarks complaining about the
scarcity of fossils.
The notion that he
or she (and colleagues) would have to
live with only 2,000 (painfully collected
over 100 years) from the whole of
Africa would be unimaginable. More
like 2 billion for each taxon.
Proposed habitations must always be
checked out first. Then, at night, or
when leaving it empty, the door must
be shut (i.e. a boulder or a thorn bush
is jammed in the entrance hole).
Home sweet home, almost like a house.
Hominins have not changed their
fundamental behaviour since they
first occupied their ground-living
niche. They've always had 'a home'
-- as can readily be seen from their
infants and children.
You've heard of the "Replication Crisis"? >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
It's merely a recent example of the "lack
of objectivity" that most educated adults
know is likely to be prevalent in any field
of human activity. Yet I'm not surprised
that you seem ignorant of it -- since PA
is your field -- one where, in a most
peculiar manner, credulousness is the
rule.
"The replication crisis may be triggered by the "generation of new >data/publications at an unprecedented rate" that leads to a failure to
adhere to good scientific practice and the "desperation to publish or
perish"
I would hardly think that applies to PA, since it doesn't have the
luxury of big data and they generally take their time to publish
(often many years between discovery and publication).
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 7:14:30 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Monday 7 February 2022 at 11:57:08 UTC, Pandora wrote:
It's species that occupy niches. Vagrants
are usually in the wrong place, but could
be looking for a similar habitat.
For hominins that was somewhere females
could come (willingly or otherwise) and
raise young. The hominin failure rate
would have been around 99.999%
So the probablity of a hominin like "Abel" (KT12/H1) ever reachingDoesn't follow at all. Refugee bands could
Koro Toro in the central Sahara would be practically zero.
well keep travelling for a decade or more,
hoping to find a place they could settle.
At the time of 'Abel' some of the predators
they encountered might have begun to
recognise the vulnerability of hominins,
meaning they had to move on.
Multiply byNo logic here at all. Hominin bands would
the probabilty of this rare individual becoming a fossil and the probability of us finding it exposed on the surface 3.5 million years later would indeed make the total probability astronomically small.
The fact that we have "Abel" is evidence that your story doesn't make
any sense, at all.
have spread out from their homelands
(presumably on the East African coast) more
or less indefinitely. Nothing to stop them.
Where did it sleep?
In whatever shelter it could find.
Nice handwaving.
Silly question.
You've asked it many times.I ask it about hominins supposedly settled
on the savanna (or the like), raising infants
and children, while surrounded by large
predators. You are asking me about what
were (at any one time) a band of transient
males, not seen as likely prey by local
predators.
Mat weaving was probably one of the
earliest of ground-living technologies.
It took only ONE bright hominin to
develop it, and the rest copied.
Minimal 'cognitive capacity'.
Those neurons are not there to generate heat. Any neuroscientist will tell you that they are organized in delicate networks that underly perception, affection, cognition, and action.Organs often have more than one function.
Pick up a copy of that big book by Kandel et al.: https://www.mhprofessional.com/9781259642234-usa-principles-of-neural-science-sixth-edition-group
Brains were originally for what you say -- as
in nearly all animals. But they also act as a
store of heat. In some marine animals they
have evolved great size specifically for that
purpose. No good reason that should not
also apply to huminins.
Chimps and humans are not much different when it comes to raw
perception, emotion, and action. The big difference is in cognition.
It's those higher-order integrative cortical association areas
involved in cognitive processing that make up the bulk of the bulbous human brain. Chimps and Australopithecus have/had much less of that:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729There's next to nothing in such material.
Empty verbiage. Is there one meaningful
(i.e. testable) proposition in any text ever
written on the subject of "cognition"?
Weaving a mat from fiber is a multistage proces that in humans
requires significant cognitive processing, from selecting appropriate
raw materials to preparing them for the purpose of weaving and the weaving process itself. It's not a programmed instinctive behaviour
like nest-building in birds.
Google images of "palm fronds". The leavesCite?
fall off and litter the ground.
Only after hurricanes. They hang and dry and root, [I meant rot!]few land on the ground in usable condition.
Early ground-
sleeping hominins making beds, wouldPC fantasy 47.
collect a lot and lay them down, one layer
North-South, the next East-West. The
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
All other hominins would copy.
(But the predators would
not have realised that for a while.) Their
rock-throwing was also probably fairly
good.
So they DO have a means of defending themselves.I'm talking about naive predators, running
Never accepted when I suggest it.
into a band of male hominins, not knowing
what they were. They'd take a few weeks or
months to realise that hominins were easy
prey -- especially at night. Whereas you
always talk of hominins living, sleeping,
and raising children in the same habitat
as those predators.
On Monday 7 February 2022 at 11:53:52 UTC, Pandora wrote:
horizons at single sites, such as FwJj20 at Koobi Fora, is evidence
that not many generations were involved in the making of large
artifact accumulations.
Only 2,633 artefacts in that horizon
-- as far as I can see.
Only 2,633?
That's the figure in the paper -- all in one
shallow layer, and all sharp, showing no
signs of wear or of use.
50 of such sites throughout the basin could easily produce 100,000 or
more artifacts within the time of a single horizon. Multiply by dozens
of horizons.
Vast quantities were laid down. Whether
or not they are around Koobi Fora and FwJj20
I don't know. But there is no shortage of
geological time.
One season's work for a group of hominins. Maybe ten year's work for a small group,
keeping the local predators at bay; killing and eating some.
Obviously not the work of a vagrant, an ephemeral passerby hanging
around for a few days or weeks. More like the central place of a group
with intimate knowledge of the environment, occupied for at least a
season.
Modern refugee camps can be in place for
decades. Their equivalents ~1.0 ma would
have been occupied by a succession of
different people, but all with the same
predator-suppression technology. At the
time the hominins made those bifaces
they saw predators as a threat, and were
keeping them at bay.
Google images of "palm fronds". The leaves
fall off and litter the ground.
Cite?
Only after hurricanes. They hang and dry and root, few land on the ground in usable condition.
Early ground-
sleeping hominins making beds, would
collect a lot and lay them down, one layer
North-South, the next East-West. The
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
PC fantasy 47.
Probably a photo taken at the Wamba forest reserve or similar,
Japanese research stations on chimps & bonobos.
Clue:
In 1973, a 35-year-old Japanese researcher named Takayoshi Kano,
the first scientist to study bonobos extensively in the wild, spent
months trudging through the dank forests of what was then Zaire
You've heard of the "Replication Crisis"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
It's merely a recent example of the "lack
of objectivity" that most educated adults
know is likely to be prevalent in any field
of human activity. Yet I'm not surprised
that you seem ignorant of it -- since PA
is your field -- one where, in a most
peculiar manner, credulousness is the
rule.
"The replication crisis may be triggered by the "generation of new data/publications at an unprecedented rate" that leads to a failure to
adhere to good scientific practice and the "desperation to publish or
perish"
I would hardly think that applies to PA, since it doesn't have the
luxury of big data and they generally take their time to publish
(often many years between discovery and publication).
Partly this comes from regarding any kind
of 'speculation' with an atavistic horror
while working, without the slightest
question, under the superstition known
as the 'Biblical assumption'. Under this
everything is assumed to be as late as
possible and can only be given an
earlier date when it has near-cast-iron
evidence.
I think that's just good empirical practice.
As such we have good reason to believe that bipedalism arose much
earlier than big brains and the use of bifaces.
We don't know the infants and children of most hominins, and those
that we do know (e.g. "Selam") are different from modern humans:
Besides, even when PA is dealing with something approaching big data,
e.g. phylogenetic analysis on a datamatix of multiple taxa and
characters, one team was perfectly capable of reproducing the results
of another team. That is, this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8
independently got the same topology as this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
Conclusion: Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus are basal hominins.
No logic here at all. Hominin bands would
have spread out from their homelands
(presumably on the East African coast) more
or less indefinitely.
It's ecologically unviable for a population of at most a few thousand individuals on an island with limited resources to generate such a
surplus for millions of years.
More likely the population would crash
when the carrying capacity of the island was exceeded.
Besides, you have a blind spot for Paranthropus, a small-brained taxon
that was contemporary with Homo from about 2.5 mya through 1.4 mya,
that obviously could not have evolved on the same islands, within a
similar niche.
Nothing to stop them.
Except that 99.999% failure rate that would have stopped them dead in
their tracks. You sure know how to contradict yourself.
Organs often have more than one function.
Brains were originally for what you say -- as
in nearly all animals. But they also act as a
store of heat. In some marine animals they
have evolved great size specifically for that
purpose.
Really, can you quote a marine biologist on that?
No good reason that should not
also apply to huminins.
One good reason why it wouldn't apply in hominins is because they lack
the other aquatic adaptations of marine mammals.
Chimps and humans are not much different when it comes to raw
perception, emotion, and action. The big difference is in cognition.
Is there one meaningful (i.e. testable) proposition in any text ever
written on the subject of "cognition"?
You may want to check a vast literature on the subject with regard to primates, or aliens like this:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058964
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
All other hominins would copy.
Chimps have been tugging in vegetation from all directions for
millions of years in tree nests and in day nests on the ground.
Weaving mats has never occured to them.
Whereas you
always talk of hominins living, sleeping,
and raising children in the same habitat
as those predators.
That's what the fossil record says, contemporaneity and sympatry of
hominins and carnivores, from as early as Sahelanthropus all the way
to Homo sapiens.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:41:32 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Google images of "palm fronds". The leaves
fall off and litter the ground.
Cite?
Only after hurricanes. They hang and dry and rot, few land on the ground in usable condition.Around here there are a few cordyline trees,
the palm-like leaves of which litter the
ground.
North America.
Whether dried or pulled from living plants,
such leaves are common and readily available.
They're better than trying to sleep on damp
or dusty ground.
https://shop.catholicsupply.com/store/p/29274-Jerusalem-Palm.aspx
Early ground-
sleeping hominins making beds, would
collect a lot and lay them down, one layer
North-South, the next East-West. The
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
PC fantasy 47.Try to be a little more articulate.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 2:34:28 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Probably a photo taken at the Wamba forest reserve or similar,
Japanese research stations on chimps & bonobos.
Clue:
In 1973, a 35-year-old Japanese researcher named Takayoshi Kano,Got to grant you that one. I was too hasty
the first scientist to study bonobos extensively in the wild, spent
months trudging through the dank forests of what was then Zaire
with my scepticism.
Nevertheless, it is close to a circus act.
Bonobo females would rarely go bipedal.
Here the mother with infants needs to
carry bunches of sugar-cane in her hands
and can't use her usual pronograde
locomotion.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:24:27 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
No logic here at all. Hominin bands would
have spread out from their homelands
(presumably on the East African coast) more
or less indefinitely.
It's ecologically unviable for a population of at most a few thousand individuals on an island with limited resources to generate such aAfter 2.6 ma, when sea-levels fell, it would
surplus for millions of years.
have been a variety of islands, perhaps
mostly off the western coast of Africa.
Before 2.6 ma it was probably Zanzibar and
Pemba, or Danakil, as well as other large
islands, archipelagos & peninsulas. A 'few
thousand' might have been possible during
some bad periods, but it would have to
have been a few tens of thousands in good
times.
More likely the population would crashI don't get the logic here at all. Whenever
when the carrying capacity of the island was exceeded.
there was an excess, it would leave, be
told to leave, or have wars and be forced
to leave. Treks by bands of males into the
mainland would have been normal, so
flights by larger groups were predictable.
Besides, you have a blind spot for Paranthropus, a small-brained taxonMy 'blind spot' is no bigger than that of
that was contemporary with Homo from about 2.5 mya through 1.4 mya,
that obviously could not have evolved on the same islands, within a
similar niche.
the whole of PA with the difference that
I know it exists.
Paranthropus fossils are most commonly
found in the same places as those of other
hominins: Turkana, Koobi Fora, Ethiopia,
Swartkrans -- which makes no sense --
especially for the "East African Highway"
through the Rift Valley. Clearly they were
all travelling through those locations --
most on 'highways' with good supplies of
fresh water.
It is the height of folly to argue that they
all lived and co-evolved in such places at
much the same times (among all the
predators) AND that they all shared the
same habitats.
Nothing to stop them.
Except that 99.999% failure rate that would have stopped them dead inThey nearly all died after travelling a
their tracks. You sure know how to contradict yourself.
few hundred or a few thousand miles
-- leaving no descendants. There's no
contradiction.
Organs often have more than one function.
Brains were originally for what you say -- as
in nearly all animals. But they also act as a
store of heat. In some marine animals they
have evolved great size specifically for that
purpose.
Really, can you quote a marine biologist on that?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84762-0
Amplification of potential thermogenetic mechanisms in cetacean brains compared to artiodactyl brains
No good reason that should not
also apply to huminins.
One good reason why it wouldn't apply in hominins is because they lackThey were not marine mammals , but
the other aquatic adaptations of marine mammals.
they had roughly similar pressures
(needing to endure intense cold) and
had similar resources -- plentiful
supplies of fish.
Chimps and humans are not much different when it comes to raw
perception, emotion, and action. The big difference is in cognition.
Is there one meaningful (i.e. testable) proposition in any text ever
written on the subject of "cognition"?
You may want to check a vast literature on the subject with regard to primates, or aliens like this:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058964The 'vast literature' is about simple tests,
such as "Does the animal recognise itself in
a mirror?". It's a bit like the tests on fusion
reactors: "Does the experiment produce
more heat than it consumes?" But the
latter has real science behind it. The
former has none.
notion of interweaving them (so that they
didn't clump) would occur around Week 2.
All other hominins would copy.
Chimps have been tugging in vegetation from all directions forChimp nests are complicated.
millions of years in tree nests and in day nests on the ground.
Weaving mats has never occured to them.
take young chimps many years of
practice to learn.
a transition to learn how to emulate
them on the ground -- with reeds and
the like -- but, I guess, that need has
never been pressing.
did learn how to do it, didn't pass it
on. Chimp cultures rarely spread.
Whereas you
always talk of hominins living, sleeping,
and raising children in the same habitat
as those predators.
That's what the fossil record says, contemporaneity and sympatry of hominins and carnivores, from as early as Sahelanthropus all the wayIt's NOT what the fossil record says. Learn
to Homo sapiens.
to count. The record says that hominins
were not part of the ecology. They were
as rare as vultures in Scandinavia.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:24:27 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
No logic here at all. Hominin bands would
have spread out from their homelands
(presumably on the East African coast) more
or less indefinitely.
It's ecologically unviable for a population of at most a few thousand
individuals on an island with limited resources to generate such a
surplus for millions of years.
After 2.6 ma, when sea-levels fell, it would
have been a variety of islands, perhaps
mostly off the western coast of Africa.
Before 2.6 ma it was probably Zanzibar and
Pemba, or Danakil, as well as other large
islands, archipelagos & peninsulas. A 'few
thousand' might have been possible during
some bad periods, but it would have to
have been a few tens of thousands in good
times.
More likely the population would crash
when the carrying capacity of the island was exceeded.
I don't get the logic here at all. Whenever
there was an excess, it would leave, be
told to leave, or have wars and be forced
to leave. Treks by bands of males into the
mainland would have been normal, so
flights by larger groups were predictable.
Besides, you have a blind spot for Paranthropus, a small-brained taxon
that was contemporary with Homo from about 2.5 mya through 1.4 mya,
that obviously could not have evolved on the same islands, within a
similar niche.
My 'blind spot' is no bigger than that of
the whole of PA with the difference that
I know it exists.
Paranthropus fossils are most commonly
found in the same places as those of other
hominins: Turkana, Koobi Fora, Ethiopia,
Swartkrans -- which makes no sense --
especially for the "East African Highway"
through the Rift Valley. Clearly they were
all travelling through those locations --
most on 'highways' with good supplies of
fresh water.
It is the height of folly to argue that they
all lived and co-evolved in such places at
much the same times (among all the
predators) AND that they all shared the
same habitats.
Organs often have more than one function.
Brains were originally for what you say -- as
in nearly all animals. But they also act as a
store of heat. In some marine animals they
have evolved great size specifically for that
purpose.
Really, can you quote a marine biologist on that?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84762-0
Amplification of potential thermogenetic mechanisms in cetacean brains compared to artiodactyl brains
No good reason that should not
also apply to huminins.
One good reason why it wouldn't apply in hominins is because they lack
the other aquatic adaptations of marine mammals.
They were not marine mammals , but
they had roughly similar pressures
(needing to endure intense cold)
and had similar resources -- plentiful
supplies of fish.
Chimps have been tugging in vegetation from all directions for
millions of years in tree nests and in day nests on the ground.
Weaving mats has never occured to them.
Chimp nests are complicated.
Whereas you
always talk of hominins living, sleeping,
and raising children in the same habitat
as those predators.
That's what the fossil record says, contemporaneity and sympatry of
hominins and carnivores, from as early as Sahelanthropus all the way
to Homo sapiens.
It's NOT what the fossil record says. Learn
to count. The record says that hominins
were not part of the ecology. They were
as rare as vultures in Scandinavia.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:19:17 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
As such we have good reason to believe that bipedalism arose much
earlier than big brains and the use of bifaces.
But, in consequence (of the adoption of
an irrational assumption) you have fallen
into the appalling error or assuming that
'intelligence' and bipedalism are
unrelated.
So two events -- as rare as
death from lightening strikes -- just
happened to occur in the same taxon,
one soon after the other.
We don't know the infants and children of most hominins, and those
that we do know (e.g. "Selam") are different from modern humans:
At some point, hominin babies evolved --
fat, useless, slippery lumps of lard, that
have to be carried everywhere, and which
make a perfect meal for almost any predator.
This 'problem' -- when, why and how --
should be central in the discipline. Yet it's
completely ignored.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 3:41:52 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
Besides, even when PA is dealing with something approaching big data,
e.g. phylogenetic analysis on a datamatix of multiple taxa and
characters, one team was perfectly capable of reproducing the results
of another team. That is, this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8
independently got the same topology as this one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X
Conclusion: Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus are basal hominins.
"Independently" . . ? This is a discussion
that has been going on for decades. Each
team knows exactly where the other has
come from, and in which direction it
wants to go .
Nevertheless, it is close to a circus act.
Nope.
Bonobo females would rarely go bipedal.
Bonobos are the 3rd most upright bipedal hominoid after Homo & Hylobatids.
Around here there are a few cordyline trees,
Those are small houseplants, ti plants, nothing like palm trees.
No idea what you are trying to say. These plants have narrow long
leaves, not palm frond.
https://shop.catholicsupply.com/store/p/29274-Jerusalem-Palm.aspx
Actual palm fronds can be used, but apes never use them below the
tree, nor have I read of them using fronds for nests anywhere.
An open bowl ground nest invites mosquitoes, midges
predators and defends against nothing.
But, in consequence (of the adoption of
an irrational assumption) you have fallen
into the appalling error or assuming that
'intelligence' and bipedalism are
unrelated.
I don't see why the null-hypothesis is so appalling to you.
Being emotional about it interferes with objectivity.
So two events -- as rare as
death from lightening strikes -- just
happened to occur in the same taxon,
one soon after the other.
If brain organization/size has anything to do with it then we have no
reason to believe that much has changed in the 3 million years between Sahelanthropus and Australopithecus anamensis, both with a cranial
capacity of 370 cc, within the range of Pan.
What other empirical data can inform us about intelligence in early
hominins?
At some point, hominin babies evolved --
fat, useless, slippery lumps of lard, that
have to be carried everywhere, and which
make a perfect meal for almost any predator.
This 'problem' -- when, why and how --
should be central in the discipline. Yet it's
completely ignored.
Not completely, but the subject is difficult to study when it has no
soft tissue and genetic correllates in fossil taxa: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(1998)107:27+%3C177::AID-AJPA7%3E3.0.CO;2-B>
The logic is that of primates that don't just jump into the sea when the going gets tough.
Your problem is that you've proposed an evolutionary scenario of human evolution that pretends to explain all uniquely human features, from
the origin of bipedalism to big brains,
When you put KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 3733 next to each other it's
obvious that these two could not have followed the same evolutionary trajectory:
It is the height of folly to argue that they
all lived and co-evolved in such places at
much the same times (among all the
predators) AND that they all shared the
same habitats.
Considering how different Paranthropus and Homo are craniodentally
it's reasonable to infer that they were also ecologically distinct.
Niche partitioning is a common feature of closely related taxa. See
the many bovine species in Africa today.
They were not marine mammals , but
they had roughly similar pressures
(needing to endure intense cold)
Those pressures would then also apply to the rest of the body,
but apart from brainsize the human body shows little convergence
toward cetaceans or other marine mammals.
On the contrary, the human body has
several adaptations for rapid heat dissipation (e.g. large numbers of
eccrine sweat glands in the skin and emissary veins in the skull. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissary_veins)
Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem in
human evolution.
Besides, brain size really took off with Homo after about 2 mya, not
at the origin of hominins: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0168010219304882-gr1.jpg
Sahelanthropus at 7 mya had a cranial capacity of only 370 cc, Australopithecus anamensis at 4 mya still had a cranial capacity of
370 cc. No change in the first 3 million years of hominins.
and had similar resources -- plentiful
supplies of fish.
If you can catch them.
All piscivorous marine mammals are fast swimmers.
Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
It's NOT what the fossil record says. Learn
to count. The record says that hominins
were not part of the ecology. They were
as rare as vultures in Scandinavia.
I've done the count. When I search the Turkana Database for all
entries of Hominidae I get 671 (5%). When I do the same for Carnivora
I get 608 (4.5%).
But you will always concoct some lame excuse to reject results you
don't like. Such behaviour doesn't constitute a move in the scientific language-game.
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 1:10:44 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Around here there are a few cordyline trees,
Those are small houseplants, ti plants, nothing like palm trees.Around here, outside & typically 4-7 metres tall.
https://www.architecturalplants.com/product/cordyline-australis/
No idea what you are trying to say. These plants have narrow longLong narrow leaves litter the ground.
leaves, not palm frond.
https://shop.catholicsupply.com/store/p/29274-Jerusalem-Palm.aspx
Actual palm fronds can be used, but apes never use them below theI wouldn't expect that either. They sleep
tree, nor have I read of them using fronds for nests anywhere.
in ordinary trees. Their near-ground-nests
would follow the same pattern.
If you're going to sleep on the ground,
you use whatever material is to hand to
cover it and make some 'bedding'. Palm
fronds (or cordyline leaves) are readily
stripped from trees.
An open bowl ground nest invites mosquitoes, midgesAs I'm sure you know, midges, mosquitoes
and other bugs are much more common
around trees.
predators and defends against nothing.Chimps nest high up in a tree. The main
reason it's high up is to avoid ground predators.
No hominoid (especially a mother with infant)
is going to sleep on the ground when there are
large predators around.
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:03:00 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
The logic is that of primates that don't just jump into the sea when the going gets tough.At some point out ancestors stopped being
like other primates (in this respect). I can
see them remaining on an over-crowded
island when it's truly remote. But if they
can see the mainland, or the next island,
there will be a strong incentive get a raft
or flotation aid and head towards it.
Your problem is that you've proposed an evolutionary scenario of human evolution that pretends to explain all uniquely human features, fromAn ambition -- as it should be for all who
the origin of bipedalism to big brains,
have an interest in this subject. NOT a
claim.
When you put KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 3733 next to each other it'sSure. The robusts went off in some
obvious that these two could not have followed the same evolutionary trajectory:
weird direction.
It is the height of folly to argue that they
all lived and co-evolved in such places at
much the same times (among all the
predators) AND that they all shared the
same habitats.
Considering how different Paranthropus and Homo are craniodentallyHominins are very different from bovids
it's reasonable to infer that they were also ecologically distinct.
Niche partitioning is a common feature of closely related taxa. See
the many bovine species in Africa today.
-- being carnivorous for a start. No one
(with any sense) would suggest that two
competing hominin species could share
the same habitat.
They were not marine mammals , but
they had roughly similar pressures
(needing to endure intense cold)
Those pressures would then also apply to the rest of the body,Hominins usually swim (in survival
mode or otherwise) with their heads
out of the water (very different from
marine mammals). That drastically
changes the dynamics of heat-loss,
and the physiology that can best
survive the cold.
but apart from brainsize the human body shows little convergenceSure. Marine mammals are in cold water
toward cetaceans or other marine mammals.
all the time. Hominins were in it only
occasionally, and maybe only rarely --
but enough (may be less than once in a
lifetime) for the cold to exercise selective
effects.
On the contrary, the human body hasNot a contradiction.
several adaptations for rapid heat dissipation (e.g. large numbers of eccrine sweat glands in the skin and emissary veins in the skull. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissary_veins)
Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem inOne does not rule out the other.
human evolution.
Besides, brain size really took off with Homo after about 2 mya, notBrain size took off at about the same time
at the origin of hominins: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0168010219304882-gr1.jpg
as ice-ages commenced.
Sahelanthropus at 7 mya had a cranial capacity of only 370 cc, Australopithecus anamensis at 4 mya still had a cranial capacity ofAnd h.naledi wasn't much more at ~250 ka
370 cc. No change in the first 3 million years of hominins.
and had similar resources -- plentiful
supplies of fish.
If you can catch them.Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
All piscivorous marine mammals are fast swimmers.
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.html
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"
It's NOT what the fossil record says. Learn
to count. The record says that hominins
were not part of the ecology. They were
as rare as vultures in Scandinavia.
I've done the count. When I search the Turkana Database for allI can do a count for the Natural History Museum.
entries of Hominidae I get 671 (5%). When I do the same for Carnivora
I get 608 (4.5%).
My results won't be a guide to the numbers
of wlld animals in South Kensington -- now or
ever. Likewise for the Turkana Museum. It
doesn't claim to be representative.
But you will always concoct some lame excuse to reject results youThe 'PA language-game' re numbers has
don't like. Such behaviour doesn't constitute a move in the scientific language-game.
drifted into some strange territory way
above the ground -- between religion
and myth. Those in the discipline decided
(around 100 years ago) that hominins
evolved in Africa -- AND were a more-or-
less normal element in the ecology. They
never examined this theory with any care
or honesty, because all likely answers are
catastrophic. If hominins 5 ma could cope
with the carnivores, then those of 1.0 ma
or 100 ka would have wiped them out.
And that's still the case. But for the last
20 to 40 years the numbers (based on
the extreme rarity of hominin fossils)
prove that hominins were NEVER a
normal or natural part of any known
African ecology.
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:56:30 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Nevertheless, it is close to a circus act.
Nope.Quadrupeds are (or were) routinely trained
to go bipedal in circuses. They occasionally
do it themselves in the wild -- but rarely.
Bonobo females would rarely go bipedal.
Bonobos are the 3rd most upright bipedal hominoid after Homo & Hylobatids.A nonsense statement.
regard to being similar or not to homo) is
"Are they obligate bipeds?". Being
occasional bipeds has no significance
whatever.
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:52:20 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
But, in consequence (of the adoption of
an irrational assumption) you have fallen
into the appalling error or assuming that
'intelligence' and bipedalism are
unrelated.
I don't see why the null-hypothesis is so appalling to you.The null hypothesis should include
Being emotional about it interferes with objectivity.
the assumption that the bipedal taxon
acquired its distinctive characteristics
at its origin. That's the rule for every
other taxon.
reason, PA assumes that it's the 100
million to one exception.
The distinctive features of the bipedal
taxon include its capacity to develop
technology, and and pass on (from
generation to generation) powerful
adaptive cultures and culturally-
acquired skills.
So two events -- as rare as
death from lightening strikes -- just
happened to occur in the same taxon,
one soon after the other.
If brain organization/size has anything to do with it then we have no reason to believe that much has changed in the 3 million years between Sahelanthropus and Australopithecus anamensis, both with a cranialSurvival is one --
capacity of 370 cc, within the range of Pan.
What other empirical data can inform us about intelligence in early hominins?
predictions -- given that the taxon adopted
a slower form of locomotion and gave up
its capacity to scoot up trees (especially
with young attached).
At some point, hominin babies evolved --
fat, useless, slippery lumps of lard, that
have to be carried everywhere, and which
make a perfect meal for almost any predator.
This 'problem' -- when, why and how --
should be central in the discipline. Yet it's
completely ignored.
Not completely, but the subject is difficult to study when it has noI should have mentioned that these fat,
soft tissue and genetic correllates in fossil taxa: <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(1998)107:27+%3C177::AID-AJPA7%3E3.0.CO;2-B>
useless, slippery lumps of lard are also
extremely noisy, often at night.
characteristics didn't evolve recently,
nor in the presence of predators.
Following the rules that we apply to
every other taxon, we can assume that
they evolved at its origin.
There aren't many realistic possibilities
for a desperately slow, night-blind,
ground-living hominin, incapable of
climbing nearly all trees (especially with
infants attached).
Surely, it's not too much to ask those
who pretend to study the subject to
outline what they are, or might be?
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:52:20 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
But, in consequence (of the adoption of
an irrational assumption) you have fallen
into the appalling error or assuming that
'intelligence' and bipedalism are
unrelated.
I don't see why the null-hypothesis is so appalling to you.
Being emotional about it interferes with objectivity.
The null hypothesis should include
the assumption that the bipedal taxon
acquired its distinctive characteristics
at its origin. That's the rule for every
other taxon. But, for some strange
reason, PA assumes that it's the 100
million to one exception.
The distinctive features of the bipedal
taxon include its capacity to develop
technology, and and pass on (from
generation to generation) powerful
adaptive cultures and culturally-
acquired skills.
So two events -- as rare as
death from lightening strikes -- just
happened to occur in the same taxon,
one soon after the other.
If brain organization/size has anything to do with it then we have no
reason to believe that much has changed in the 3 million years between
Sahelanthropus and Australopithecus anamensis, both with a cranial
capacity of 370 cc, within the range of Pan.
What other empirical data can inform us about intelligence in early
hominins?
Survival is one
At some point, hominin babies evolved --
fat, useless, slippery lumps of lard, that
have to be carried everywhere, and which
make a perfect meal for almost any predator.
This 'problem' -- when, why and how --
should be central in the discipline. Yet it's
completely ignored.
Not completely, but the subject is difficult to study when it has no
soft tissue and genetic correllates in fossil taxa:
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(1998)107:27+%3C177::AID-AJPA7%3E3.0.CO;2-B>
I should have mentioned that these fat,
useless, slippery lumps of lard are also
extremely noisy, often at night. These
characteristics didn't evolve recently,
nor in the presence of predators.
Following the rules that we apply to
every other taxon, we can assume that
they evolved at its origin.
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:03:00 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
The logic is that of primates that don't just jump into the sea when the
going gets tough.
At some point out ancestors stopped being
like other primates (in this respect). I can
see them remaining on an over-crowded
island when it's truly remote. But if they
can see the mainland, or the next island,
there will be a strong incentive get a raft
or flotation aid and head towards it.
Your problem is that you've proposed an evolutionary scenario of human
evolution that pretends to explain all uniquely human features, from
the origin of bipedalism to big brains,
An ambition -- as it should be for all who
have an interest in this subject. NOT a
claim.
When you put KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 3733 next to each other it's
obvious that these two could not have followed the same evolutionary
trajectory:
Sure. The robusts went off in some
weird direction.
It is the height of folly to argue that they
all lived and co-evolved in such places at
much the same times (among all the
predators) AND that they all shared the
same habitats.
Considering how different Paranthropus and Homo are craniodentally
it's reasonable to infer that they were also ecologically distinct.
Niche partitioning is a common feature of closely related taxa. See
the many bovine species in Africa today.
Hominins are very different from bovids
-- being carnivorous for a start.
No one (with any sense) would suggest that two
competing hominin species could share
the same habitat.
They were not marine mammals , but
they had roughly similar pressures
(needing to endure intense cold)
Those pressures would then also apply to the rest of the body,
Hominins usually swim (in survival
mode or otherwise) with their heads
out of the water (very different from
marine mammals). That drastically
changes the dynamics of heat-loss,
and the physiology that can best
survive the cold.
but apart from brainsize the human body shows little convergence
toward cetaceans or other marine mammals.
Sure. Marine mammals are in cold water
all the time. Hominins were in it only
occasionally, and maybe only rarely --
but enough (may be less than once in a
lifetime) for the cold to exercise selective
effects.
On the contrary, the human body has
several adaptations for rapid heat dissipation (e.g. large numbers of
eccrine sweat glands in the skin and emissary veins in the skull.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissary_veins)
Not a contradiction.
Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem in
human evolution.
One does not rule out the other.
Besides, brain size really took off with Homo after about 2 mya, not
at the origin of hominins:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0168010219304882-gr1.jpg
Brain size took off at about the same time
as ice-ages commenced.
Sahelanthropus at 7 mya had a cranial capacity of only 370 cc,
Australopithecus anamensis at 4 mya still had a cranial capacity of
370 cc. No change in the first 3 million years of hominins.
And h.naledi wasn't much more at ~250 ka
and had similar resources -- plentiful
supplies of fish.
If you can catch them.
All piscivorous marine mammals are fast swimmers.
Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.html
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"
It's NOT what the fossil record says. Learn
to count. The record says that hominins
were not part of the ecology. They were
as rare as vultures in Scandinavia.
I've done the count. When I search the Turkana Database for all
entries of Hominidae I get 671 (5%). When I do the same for Carnivora
I get 608 (4.5%).
I can do a count for the Natural History Museum.
My results won't be a guide to the numbers
of wlld animals in South Kensington -- now or
ever. Likewise for the Turkana Museum. It
doesn't claim to be representative.
But you will always concoct some lame excuse to reject results you
don't like. Such behaviour doesn't constitute a move in the scientific
language-game.
The 'PA language-game' re numbers has
drifted into some strange territory way
above the ground -- between religion
and myth. Those in the discipline decided
(around 100 years ago) that hominins
evolved in Africa -- AND were a more-or-
less normal element in the ecology. They
never examined this theory with any care
or honesty, because all likely answers are
catastrophic. If hominins 5 ma could cope
with the carnivores, then those of 1.0 ma
or 100 ka would have wiped them out.
And that's still the case. But for the last
20 to 40 years the numbers (based on
the extreme rarity of hominin fossils)
prove that hominins were NEVER a
normal or natural part of any known
African ecology.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:34:41 -0800 (PST), Paul Crowley
<yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:03:00 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
The logic is that of primates that don't just jump into the sea when the >> going gets tough.
At some point out ancestors stopped beingThat's quite different from going in and swimming a few miles.
like other primates (in this respect). I can
see them remaining on an over-crowded
island when it's truly remote. But if they
can see the mainland, or the next island,
there will be a strong incentive get a raft
or flotation aid and head towards it.
No ape will do that, unless it's a well-trained Homo sapiens.
Your problem is that you've proposed an evolutionary scenario of human
evolution that pretends to explain all uniquely human features, from
the origin of bipedalism to big brains,
An ambition -- as it should be for all who
have an interest in this subject. NOT a
claim.
When you put KNM-ER 406 and KNM-ER 3733 next to each other it's
obvious that these two could not have followed the same evolutionary
trajectory:
Sure. The robusts went off in someThat makes them interesting as a test case for your scenario. They
weird direction.
have their origin at about the same time as Homo, but their brains are
small (410 cc in KNM-WT 17000), while their jaws and teeth are
massive. Quite the opposite of Homo.
They couldn't have come from the same island.
It is the height of folly to argue that they
all lived and co-evolved in such places at
much the same times (among all the
predators) AND that they all shared the
same habitats.
Considering how different Paranthropus and Homo are craniodentally
it's reasonable to infer that they were also ecologically distinct.
Niche partitioning is a common feature of closely related taxa. See
the many bovine species in Africa today.
Hominins are very different from bovidsMore likely omnivorous.
-- being carnivorous for a start.
Besides, we see the same pattern of diversity and niche partitioning
in carnivores such as Felidae. Lion, leopard, cheetah, serval,
caracal, and a host of other cats are sympatric in Africa today.
No one (with any sense) would suggest that twoParanthropus and Homo are distinct enough morphologically to suggest something similar as with felids.
competing hominin species could share
the same habitat.
They were not marine mammals , but
they had roughly similar pressures
(needing to endure intense cold)
Those pressures would then also apply to the rest of the body,
Hominins usually swim (in survivalAll the more reason the believe that the rest of the body was under selection to make them better swimmers, to stay as short in the water
mode or otherwise) with their heads
out of the water (very different from
marine mammals). That drastically
changes the dynamics of heat-loss,
and the physiology that can best
survive the cold.
as possible, but hominins do not even have webbed fingers and are
still much slower than marine predators such as sharks.
but apart from brainsize the human body shows little convergence
toward cetaceans or other marine mammals.
Sure. Marine mammals are in cold waterOnly if they stayed in the water for a prolonged time, long enough to
all the time. Hominins were in it only
occasionally, and maybe only rarely --
but enough (may be less than once in a
lifetime) for the cold to exercise selective
effects.
drown for other reasons. And then, the ones that reached the mainland
had a failure rate of 99.999% there and would leave much less progeny
than their island conspecifics who stayed put. From a Darwinian point
of view that's fatal for your genes.
On the contrary, the human body has
several adaptations for rapid heat dissipation (e.g. large numbers of
eccrine sweat glands in the skin and emissary veins in the skull.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissary_veins)
Not a contradiction.
Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem in
human evolution.
One does not rule out the other.When one of two opposing features is no longer needed than natural
selection will reduce it. On land hominins didn't need such a big
central heater as is useful in the water. Yet their brains grew ever
bigger, culminating in Homo sapiens.
Besides, brain size really took off with Homo after about 2 mya, not
at the origin of hominins:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0168010219304882-gr1.jpg
Brain size took off at about the same timeThose where mostly a feature of higher latitudes, not the
as ice-ages commenced.
(sub)tropics. Besides, we see the smallest brain sizes in early Homo
at the highest latitudes of their range (as low as 546 cc in D4500 at
1.8 mya from Dmanisi, Georgia).
Sahelanthropus at 7 mya had a cranial capacity of only 370 cc,
Australopithecus anamensis at 4 mya still had a cranial capacity of
370 cc. No change in the first 3 million years of hominins.
And h.naledi wasn't much more at ~250 ka
and had similar resources -- plentiful
supplies of fish.
If you can catch them.
All piscivorous marine mammals are fast swimmers.
Humans are still not fast swimmers, butThe oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from about
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
29000 years ago: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.html
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"Almost as complex, but not quite.
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/6873
Sure, it demonstrates technological knowledge and a degree of
cognitive ability beyond that of monkeys, but not to the same degree
as that required to build even a rather simple composite shelter such
as a San dome hut, with a wooden skeleton of detached branches and a covering of different material.
It's NOT what the fossil record says. Learn
to count. The record says that hominins
were not part of the ecology. They were
as rare as vultures in Scandinavia.
I've done the count. When I search the Turkana Database for all
entries of Hominidae I get 671 (5%). When I do the same for Carnivora
I get 608 (4.5%).
I can do a count for the Natural History Museum.There is no Turkana Museum, the Turkana Database is housed in the
My results won't be a guide to the numbers
of wlld animals in South Kensington -- now or
ever. Likewise for the Turkana Museum. It
doesn't claim to be representative.
National Museums of Kenya, and represents a fauna from a specific
area, the Turkana Basin, over a well-dated stratigraphic range. As
such it can be considered representative of that area and time.
But I also mentioned the numbers from Aramis (5.6% hominidae, 5.5% carnivores), different time different place, which you conveniently
snipped.
But you will always concoct some lame excuse to reject results you
don't like. Such behaviour doesn't constitute a move in the scientific
language-game.
The 'PA language-game' re numbers has
drifted into some strange territory way
above the ground -- between religion
and myth. Those in the discipline decided
(around 100 years ago) that hominins
evolved in Africa -- AND were a more-or-
less normal element in the ecology. They
never examined this theory with any care
or honesty, because all likely answers are
catastrophic. If hominins 5 ma could cope
with the carnivores, then those of 1.0 ma
or 100 ka would have wiped them out.
And that's still the case. But for the lastI understand that has become an article of faith from which you will
20 to 40 years the numbers (based on
the extreme rarity of hominin fossils)
prove that hominins were NEVER a
normal or natural part of any known
African ecology.
never part, no matter what genuine count I present, because your whole theory turns on it.
Almost as complex, but not quite.https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.htmlChimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032 >> >
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves
cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/6873
Sure, it demonstrates technological knowledge and a degree of
cognitive ability beyond that of monkeys, but not to the same degree
as that required to build even a rather simple composite shelter such
as a San dome hut, with a wooden skeleton of detached branches and a
covering of different material.
Dome huts have been the main form of shelter of pre-neolithic Homo sapiens around the world,
from far north Eskimo igloos to far south Tierra del Fuego brush domes in the New World and Pygmies
in Queensland banana leaf dome huts and China and Japan dugout dome huts. They were the societal
armor of Homo (sapiens) with occupancy variable between a single individual to an entire family to a whole
hamlet (Andaman Islanders), while great ape bowl nests have remained with maximal occupancy of a
mother and her infant no matter the species or geography.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:25:36 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost as complex, but not quite.Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.html
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves
cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/6873
Sure, it demonstrates technological knowledge and a degree of
cognitive ability beyond that of monkeys, but not to the same degree
as that required to build even a rather simple composite shelter such
as a San dome hut, with a wooden skeleton of detached branches and a
covering of different material.
Dome huts have been the main form of shelter of pre-neolithic Homo sapiens around the world,The grass hut or tshu, such as those of the Ju/wasi ("bushmen") is
from far north Eskimo igloos to far south Tierra del Fuego brush domes in the New World and Pygmies
in Queensland banana leaf dome huts and China and Japan dugout dome huts. They were the societal
armor of Homo (sapiens) with occupancy variable between a single individual to an entire family to a whole
hamlet (Andaman Islanders), while great ape bowl nests have remained with maximal occupancy of a
mother and her infant no matter the species or geography.
probably one of the oldest shelters used by hominins:
<https://books.google.nl/books?id=rtHR8_gK_WwC&lpg=PA164&hl=nl&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false>
https://www.writersvoice.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bushmen-hut.jpg
Still, compared to the nests of apes it's a fairly complicated
composite structure for which suitable raw materials must be selected
and collected from the environment. The question is whether or not
it's an evolutionary novelty or evolved as an extension of ape nests
(i.e. we never stopped building nests, but made them more
complicated).
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:25:36 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost as complex, but not quite.Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1
and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.html
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves
cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/6873
Sure, it demonstrates technological knowledge and a degree of
cognitive ability beyond that of monkeys, but not to the same degree
as that required to build even a rather simple composite shelter such
as a San dome hut, with a wooden skeleton of detached branches and a
covering of different material.
Dome huts have been the main form of shelter of pre-neolithic Homo sapiens around the world,The grass hut or tshu, such as those of the Ju/wasi ("bushmen") is
from far north Eskimo igloos to far south Tierra del Fuego brush domes in the New World and Pygmies
in Queensland banana leaf dome huts and China and Japan dugout dome huts. They were the societal
armor of Homo (sapiens) with occupancy variable between a single individual to an entire family to a whole
hamlet (Andaman Islanders), while great ape bowl nests have remained with maximal occupancy of a
mother and her infant no matter the species or geography.
probably one of the oldest shelters used by hominins:
<https://books.google.nl/books?id=rtHR8_gK_WwC&lpg=PA164&hl=nl&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false>
https://www.writersvoice.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bushmen-hut.jpg
Still, compared to the nests of apes it's a fairly complicated
composite structure for which suitable raw materials must be selected
and collected from the environment. The question is whether or not
it's an evolutionary novelty or evolved as an extension of ape nests
(i.e. we never stopped building nests, but made them more
complicated).
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that
conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated >>> and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
them, much less respond.
You religious types are like that.
Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large quantities of >> fish
Okay. And you think this means... what?
Fish not necessary in the diet.
On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:31:08 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:brand new architectural model on the open plains as soon as he leaped down from the tree top.
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:25:36 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
Almost as complex, but not quite.Chimp nests are complicated.
No, they're not. The construction of a normal nest varies between 1 >> >> and 5 minutes. The technique is described on p. 196-197 in:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0066185668800032
https://www.livescience.com/19708-primates-build-sleeping-nests.html >> >
"When they are ready to snuggle up at the tops of trees, great apes make themselves
cozy "nests" in which to rest for the night. New studies of these one-night nests reveal their incredible complexity."
"They are almost as complex as a man-made shelter you might make,"
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/6873
Sure, it demonstrates technological knowledge and a degree of
cognitive ability beyond that of monkeys, but not to the same degree
as that required to build even a rather simple composite shelter such >> as a San dome hut, with a wooden skeleton of detached branches and a
covering of different material.
I hope you can see the gap between the standard great ape arboreal bowl nest of wicker and broad leaves and the H&G Hs thatched round hut. Obviously, there was a transitional shelter, unless you think there was an Einstein that magically erected aDome huts have been the main form of shelter of pre-neolithic Homo sapiens around the world,The grass hut or tshu, such as those of the Ju/wasi ("bushmen") is probably one of the oldest shelters used by hominins:
from far north Eskimo igloos to far south Tierra del Fuego brush domes in the New World and Pygmies
in Queensland banana leaf dome huts and China and Japan dugout dome huts. They were the societal
armor of Homo (sapiens) with occupancy variable between a single individual to an entire family to a whole
hamlet (Andaman Islanders), while great ape bowl nests have remained with maximal occupancy of a
mother and her infant no matter the species or geography.
Realistically, the San dome hut is the end product of continuous improvements by Homo, not the beginning.
<https://books.google.nl/books?id=rtHR8_gK_WwC&lpg=PA164&hl=nl&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false>
https://www.writersvoice.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bushmen-hut.jpg
Still, compared to the nests of apes it's a fairly complicatedImagination, plausibility, parsimony, continuity and experience are fine guides for exploring the past existence of our genus.
composite structure for which suitable raw materials must be selected
and collected from the environment. The question is whether or not
it's an evolutionary novelty or evolved as an extension of ape nests
(i.e. we never stopped building nests, but made them more
complicated).
Under my scenario, a population of
chimps became isolated on a large
island (Zanzibar will do as a model)
probably as a result of a rise in sea-
levels -- enough to discourage
carnivores from crossing. In a few
thousand years the local carnivores
would become too inbred and die out.
The proto-hominins would leave the
trees, and roam free. They'd get
used to foraging on coasts, and
swimming between off-shore islets.
Their nature would change as they
evolved into a new form with
wholly new challenges.
At some point out ancestors stopped being
like other primates (in this respect). I can
see them remaining on an over-crowded
island when it's truly remote. But if they
can see the mainland, or the next island,
there will be a strong incentive get a raft
or flotation aid and head towards it.
That's quite different from going in and swimming a few miles.
No ape will do that, unless it's a well-trained Homo sapiens.
Sure. The robusts went off in some
weird direction.
That makes them interesting as a test case for your scenario. They
have their origin at about the same time as Homo, but their brains are
small (410 cc in KNM-WT 17000), while their jaws and teeth are
massive. Quite the opposite of Homo.
They couldn't have come from the same island.
Hominins are very different from bovids
-- being carnivorous for a start.
More likely omnivorous.
Besides, we see the same pattern of diversity and niche partitioning
in carnivores such as Felidae. Lion, leopard, cheetah, serval,
caracal, and a host of other cats are sympatric in Africa today.
No one (with any sense) would suggest that two
competing hominin species could share
the same habitat.
Paranthropus and Homo are distinct enough morphologically to suggest something similar as with felids.
Hominins usually swim (in survival
mode or otherwise) with their heads
out of the water (very different from
marine mammals). That drastically
changes the dynamics of heat-loss,
and the physiology that can best
survive the cold.
All the more reason the believe that the rest of the body was under
selection to make them better swimmers, to stay as short in the water
as possible,
but hominins do not even have webbed fingers and are
still much slower than marine predators such as sharks.
Sure. Marine mammals are in cold water
all the time. Hominins were in it only
occasionally, and maybe only rarely --
but enough (may be less than once in a
lifetime) for the cold to exercise selective
effects.
Only if they stayed in the water for a prolonged time,
long enough to drown for other reasons.
And then, the ones that reached the mainland
had a failure rate of 99.999%
there and would leave much less progeny
than their island conspecifics who stayed put.
Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem in
human evolution.
One does not rule out the other.
When one of two opposing features is no longer needed
than natural
selection will reduce it. On land hominins didn't need such a big
central heater as is useful in the water. Yet their brains grew ever
bigger, culminating in Homo sapiens.
Brain size took off at about the same time
as ice-ages commenced.
Those where mostly a feature of higher latitudes, not the
(sub)tropics. Besides, we see the smallest brain sizes in early Homo
at the highest latitudes of their range (as low as 546 cc in D4500 at
1.8 mya from Dmanisi, Georgia).
Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
The oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from about
29000 years ago: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
But I also mentioned the numbers from Aramis (5.6% hominidae, 5.5% carnivores), different time different place, which you conveniently
snipped.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that
conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated >>> and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
them, much less respond.
You religious types are like that.
Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large quantities of >> fish
Okay. And you think this means... what?
Fish not necessary in the diet.
On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:35:16 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
At some point out ancestors stopped being
like other primates (in this respect). I can
see them remaining on an over-crowded
island when it's truly remote. But if they
can see the mainland, or the next island,
there will be a strong incentive get a raft
or flotation aid and head towards it.
That's quite different from going in and swimming a few miles.Under my scenario, a population of
No ape will do that, unless it's a well-trained Homo sapiens.
chimps became isolated on a large
island (Zanzibar will do as a model)
probably as a result of a rise in sea-
levels -- enough to discourage
carnivores from crossing. In a few
thousand years the local carnivores
would become too inbred and die out.
The proto-hominins would leave the
trees, and roam free. They'd get
used to foraging on coasts, and
swimming between off-shore islets.
Their nature would change as they
evolved into a new form with
wholly new challenges.
Sure. The robusts went off in some
weird direction.
That makes them interesting as a test case for your scenario. TheyThere were several islands. and even
have their origin at about the same time as Homo, but their brains are small (410 cc in KNM-WT 17000), while their jaws and teeth are
massive. Quite the opposite of Homo.
They couldn't have come from the same island.
more as seal-levels went down, with
the inception of ice-ages.
Hominins are very different from bovids
-- being carnivorous for a start.
More likely omnivorous.All those carnivores hate each other,
Besides, we see the same pattern of diversity and niche partitioning
in carnivores such as Felidae. Lion, leopard, cheetah, serval,
caracal, and a host of other cats are sympatric in Africa today.
often fight, and will eat other's young.
much the same would apply to early
hominins.
No one (with any sense) would suggest that two
competing hominin species could share
the same habitat.
Paranthropus and Homo are distinct enough morphologically to suggest something similar as with felids.Felids take much care to hide and
protect their young which, in any case,
grow up rapidly. Felids have many
offspring, so can cope with a high
death rate in their young. Hominins
are very different.
Hominins usually swim (in survival
mode or otherwise) with their heads
out of the water (very different from
marine mammals). That drastically
changes the dynamics of heat-loss,
and the physiology that can best
survive the cold.
All the more reason the believe that the rest of the body was under selection to make them better swimmers, to stay as short in the waterSurvival (and most other forms of)
as possible,
swimming is with the head out of the
water. It's going to be slow at the best
of times. The selective effect of slightly
more webbing between fingers will be
minimal, and greatly outweighed by
the disadvantages during ordinary
life (e.g. more hand injuries).
but hominins do not even have webbed fingers and areWhat's the easiest way to improve
still much slower than marine predators such as sharks.
the swimming speed of something
like an australopith? (Not racing
speed -- just survival speed.)
How about larger hands and larger
feet? And a longer, and more stream-
lined body?
What do we see with h.sap males?
We don't see any of these cold-swiming-
adaptations (including large heads and
brains) with h.naledi -- they were a long
way from the ocean.
Homo males should also develop
strong 'breast-stroke' muscles -- for
moving the arms downwards. These
will be less developed in austral-
opiths and h.naledi (other things
being equal).
Sure. Marine mammals are in cold water
all the time. Hominins were in it only
occasionally, and maybe only rarely --
but enough (may be less than once in a
lifetime) for the cold to exercise selective
effects.
Only if they stayed in the water for a prolonged time,The waters off East and West Africa
during ice-ages were much colder.
However, hope of rescue was probably
small, and it was up to each swimmer
to get to shore themselves.
long enough to drown for other reasons.Drowning often arises from a complex
of reasons; hypothermia is a major
factor.
https://www.hofmannlawfirm.com/faqs/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-hypothermia-in-cold-water.cfm
And then, the ones that reached the mainlandThis was my estimate of the failure
had a failure rate of 99.999%
rate of refugees, lost on the African
mainland.
there and would leave much less progenyDuring ice-ages, sea-levels were (over
than their island conspecifics who stayed put.
evolutionary timescales) much more
variable. New islands came into
existence, and were later drowned.
Hominins on remote islands were
more isolated -- and safer for a time.
But not for long.
Those on islands closer to the main-
land (or to other islands) would come
and go from them, and mount
expeditions to the mainland, lasting
months or years. They'd learn to cope
with mainland predators, and their
populations would be much more
capable of dealing with the radical
changes, when they occurred, than
would isolated populations. They'd
leave progeny. Isolated populations
wouldn't.
Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem in
human evolution.
One does not rule out the other.
When one of two opposing features is no longer neededThere's nothing 'opposing' here. Early
hominins sometimes got too hot and
evolved sweating (for which they needed
good supplies of water and a range of
hard-to-get salts of iodine, potassium
and sodium). Sometimes they were
exposed to hypothermia, and evolved
mechanisms to cope with that.
than naturalBad thinking here. Often one feature
selection will reduce it. On land hominins didn't need such a big
central heater as is useful in the water. Yet their brains grew ever bigger, culminating in Homo sapiens.
or requirement will impose strains on
others, but that's normal.
Brain size took off at about the same time
as ice-ages commenced.
Those where mostly a feature of higher latitudes, not theThe effects of Ice-ages were world-wide.
(sub)tropics. Besides, we see the smallest brain sizes in early Homo
at the highest latitudes of their range (as low as 546 cc in D4500 at
1.8 mya from Dmanisi, Georgia).
Water went to the poles. Everywhere
was drier. Dust everywhere. Continental
uplands very cold at night. Cold antarctic
currents travelled much further north
on both sides of Africa. Plenty of fish in
them but cold -- brrrr!
Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
The oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from aboutOnce you have string, nets are very
29000 years ago: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
easy to make.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vegEIHaWB8g
But I also mentioned the numbers from Aramis (5.6% hominidae, 5.5% carnivores), different time different place, which you conveniently snipped.Embarrassingly bad. Those numbers
come from a thorough investigation of
the Ardi site. It was done to establish,
as far as possible, the habitat in which
(hopefully) Ardi lived. The 110 hominin
fossils are those of Ardi herself (or her
companions). Much the same number
of carnivore fossils were also found
there.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40446786
Locate another 10,000 roughly similar
fossilferous sites in East Africa and,
after a thorough investigation, guess
what you'll find in each?
About the same number (~100) of
carnivore fossils -- but ZERO hominins.
For every hominin fossil, there are
~1,000,000 carnivore fossils.
THAT'S the problem. As every PA field
person knows -- only too well -- you
can spend a lifetime in East Africa and
find NOT ONE hominin fossil.
Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
The oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from about
29000 years ago:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
Once you have string, nets are very
easy to make.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vegEIHaWB8g
Yes, when taught clearly & patiently & safely, yet among thousands of fish-eating fauna,
only Hs makes them, and most Hs never do. No primate but man has ever been observed tying a knot.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:02:05 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
nets came into use.
The oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from about
29000 years ago:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
Once you have string, nets are very
easy to make.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vegEIHaWB8g
Yes, when taught clearly & patiently & safely, yet among thousands of fish-eating fauna,When a chimpanzee in the wild ties a knot, maybe just by accident,
only Hs makes them, and most Hs never do. No primate but man has ever been observed tying a knot.
it's literally Pan Africa News: https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/143363/1/Pan5%281%29_08.pdf
On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 05:54:06 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
An enormous change for him. He and
his team more than doubled the number
of African fossils. But that's the point.
Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
tiny number.
In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
(I think) dodgy software, made that bit
of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.
Yes, it does matter. You didn't try very hard. Berger
speaks in English and there was no problem with
moving the slider over.
Nice to see how you can concentrate on
the essentials.
On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 06:09:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large
quantities of fish etc and have large brains.
Once the genetic bauplan (the genotype) is
set, it's not going to be altered for the
environment. The organism cannot re-arrange
its organs. It may starve if some or all don't
get sustenance. Billions of humans have
starved.
There has been (over the past 30 kyr) strongselection against bigger brains in humans,
which suggests that large size is unnecessary,
-- set against the costs of finding the resources
it needs.
On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 05:45:48 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.
Australopithecines et al ranged form East Africa to South Africa
to Chad in Central Africa. Consider
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg
Try to deal with the argument made, not the
argument you want it to be.
On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 05:09:25 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
One possible location are near-coastal low-
lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
would also have provided them with plentiful
salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
which they have such high needs.
Can you think of any other possible locations?
All over since they were very adaptable.
Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Fish not necessary in the diet.
Cool. And where is the time machine that you imagine, the one that whisks your lack of fish back to aquatic ape, eliminating fish from their diet?
Seriously, can you not grasp this?
You might as well argue that we're not habilis so habilis never existed...
You don't see to understand what is pertinent and what is not.
Are you an economist by any chance? Eew. Hose the place down, get
rid of the stench....
Australopithecines et al ranged form East Africa to South Africa to
Chad in Central Africa. Consider
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg
I wrote the australopithecines were adaptable, you said "categorically false".
Their range says you're wrong.
Fish not necessary in the diet.
Eew. Hose the place down, get rid of the stench....
Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
On Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 04:18:26 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Australopithecines et al ranged form East Africa to South Africa to
Chad in Central Africa. Consider
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg
I wrote the australopithecines were adaptable, you said "categorically false".
Their range says you're wrong.
If you could do a thorough survey of deep
sea floors, you'd find a lot of human fossils.
From that you should not conclude that
the species was clearly marine and ranged
widely over every sea and ocean.
"A species range is an area where a particular species can be found
during its lifetime. Species ranges include areas where individuals or communities may migrate or hibernate."
We know where australopith fossils were
found. We DON'T know where they lived.
Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
their 'range') we can safely conclude that
they were never a part of any local ecology.
Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
even more hypothetical.
Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
their 'range') we can safely conclude that
they were never a part of any local ecology.
So what were those creatures doing there then?
Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
even more hypothetical.
So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
Wait. So you're "Arguing" that they carried spare savannas on their backs to drop & eat when they were hungry? Or are you saying EVERYONE, even the
Out of Africa purists, are wrong and that Coastal Dispersal was never a thing?
You need to learn to look at the big picture. NOT individual statements or pieces of evidence, but how they fit together. If something doesn't fit then either EVERYONE is wrong or the anomalous evidence is being misinterpreted (misrepresented).
...not being able to reach other lands, other continents, unless they didn't
starve to death during this "Coastal Dispersal" is a given. It's understood. And
yet you are presently contending that it is not.
On Thursday 17 March 2022 at 03:21:55 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
their 'range') we can safely conclude that
they were never a part of any local ecology.
So what were those creatures doing there then?
Vagrants -- far from their home range
-- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
never a viable population.
Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
even more hypothetical.
So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
As with most refugees, some died
immediately; some lived a few years,
a few survived several decades,
probably by regularly moving on, so
that the local predators never began
to see them as prey. They could
never settle nor raise children to
adulthood.
....Given their extreme rarity (in every part of..
their 'range') we can safely conclude that
they were never a part of any local ecology.
So what were those creatures doing there then?
Vagrants -- far from their home range
-- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
never a viable population.
And you know this... how?
....Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes..
even more hypothetical.
So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
As with most refugees, some died
Refugees? Refugees from WHAT? Bill collectors? Nazis?
Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
developmental penalty.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood withoutWRONG!
developmental penalty.
: Children who reported eating fish weekly scored 4.8 points higher on the IQ exams
: than those who don't. Kids who eat fish at least once a week sleep better and have
: IQ scores that are 4 points higher, on average, than those who eat fish less frequently
: or not at all, a new study shows
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/eating-fish-is-linked-to-better-sleep-and-a-higher-i-q-for-kids
There's other health benefits. My doctor prescribed them for high triglycerides.
They are shown to not only lower them but are also good for the heart.
Well, the EPA is most closely associated with heart health, the DHA is more associated with a bigger/better brain. BOTH are found in seafood.
I buy kelp/seaweed/whatever when I can (it's prohibitively expensive at the local supermarket), because it's a great source of EPA. I absolutely had it but
if I remember I take a fish oil supplement.
READ THE LABELS!
They tell me that you need at least 1000mgs a day. A lot of the supplements will claim 1000 or even much HIGHER on the front of the label, but if you turn it around & read the "nutritional" information you often need to take at least two, and sometimes four in order to reach 1000mgs of Omega-3s. The
rest of it is just useless oil.
Walmart, of all places, had a great selection. There's not one nearby but if I
do make it there I'm heading straight for the supplements.
They had a number of different brands. The beauty there is that if you like one
better than others, buy that one! Doesn't matter if you have to take four pills a
day to top 1000mgs of actual Omega-3s. Buy supplements you don't like and
you won't use them.
Or just eat seafood.
-- --Trout. It's not just for breakfast. Or jerm's favorite, cod liver oil.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680033542752829440
On Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 05:08:44 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Fish not necessary in the diet.
Eew. Hose the place down, get rid of the stench....
Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?Aparently odiferous materials (and
non-odiferous ones) do not have a
scent in their own right. They smell
strongly (or weakly) to the relevant
species. So humans (and other prey
animals) find that lion pee has a
powerful and unpleasant odour. We
needed to be especially sensitive to
it for much of our evolutionary past.
Rotting feces likewise has a powerful
and unpleasant smell. It must have
been important for our ancestors to
take especial care in avoiding it.
That would suggest that it was a
significant part of our ancestral diet.
On Wednesday 30 March 2022 at 06:05:51 UTC+1, Primum Sapienti wrote:
....Given their extreme rarity (in every part of..
their 'range') we can safely conclude that
they were never a part of any local ecology.
So what were those creatures doing there then?
Vagrants -- far from their home range
-- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
never a viable population.
And you know this... how?
Yellow-bellied sapsuckers (birds) are
occasionally found around here. We know
that they are not part of the local ecology
because they are so rare. The never (or
almost never) find a mate and reproduce.
We can say much the same about
hominins for the great bulk of continental
Africa for nearly all the time up to ~15 ka.
....Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes..
even more hypothetical.
So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
As with most refugees, some died
Refugees? Refugees from WHAT? Bill collectors? Nazis?
It's an analogy to some extent. But parties
of hominins (usually quite small) would have
left their over-crowded native locations --
fleeing for all the usual reasons: starvation,
disease outbreaks, war, natural disasters,
such as hurricanes, volcanoes or tsunami --
and sought to make a life for themselves in
a different region.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
developmental penalty.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
[...]
It's pretty clear that your cognitive development was stunted,
so you should be investing in fish oil instead of embarrassing
yourself by attempting to (f)Lame...
Primum Sapienti wrote:backs to
Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
Wait. So you're "Arguing" that they carried spare savannas on their
drop & eat when they were hungry? Or are you saying EVERYONE, even thething?
Out of Africa purists, are wrong and that Coastal Dispersal was never a
You need to learn to look at the big picture. NOT individual statements or pieces of evidence, but how they fit together. If something doesn't fitthen
either EVERYONE is wrong or the anomalous evidence is being misinterpreted (misrepresented).they didn't
...not being able to reach other lands, other continents, unless
starve to death during this "Coastal Dispersal" is a given. It'sunderstood. And
yet you are presently contending that it is not.
Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have
Awesome! And how many have time machines and pop back to the
evolutionarily significant times we are speaking of?
Because you clearly have no idea what the issues are or how deconstruct
the problems & form pertinent questions.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 235:58:52 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,828 |
