African Paleoecology and Human Evolution

<https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/biological-anthropology-and-primatology/african-paleoecology-and-human-evolution?format=HB&isbn=9781107074033>

Humans evolved in the dynamic landscapes of Africa under conditions of pronounced climatic, geological and environmental change during the
past 7 million years. This book brings together detailed records of
the paleontological and archaeological sites in Africa that provide
the basic evidence for understanding the environments in which we
evolved. Chapters cover specific sites, with comprehensive accounts of
their geology, paleontology, paleobotany, and their ecological
significance for our evolution. Other chapters provide important
regional syntheses of past ecological conditions. This book is unique
in merging a broad geographic scope (all of Africa) and deep time
framework (the past 7 million years) in discussing the geological
context and paleontological records of our evolution and that of
organisms that evolved alongside our ancestors. It will offer
important insights to anyone interested in human evolution, including researchers and graduate students in paleontology, archaeology,
anthropology and geology.

* Provides an overview of paleontological sites across the entire
African continent from the late Miocene to the Recent, allowing
readers to quickly access information about the species present at
different hominin sites.

* Offers numerous examples from multiple sources of environmental
evidence to illustrate the most up-to-date methods of paleoecological
data analysis.

* Integrates data from different regions across Africa, enabling
readers to gain an understanding of the evolving environmental
conditions in Africa over the past 12 million years.

* Presents accurate, georeferenced maps of all the sites in the
various regions.

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

Pandora wrote:

Humans evolved in the dynamic landscapes of Africa

No we didn't.

Humans didn't evolve in any specific place.

We are an amalgam -- "Hybrids" if you prefer. I myself prefer the
distributive computing model were Africa is a single node.

And what do you mean by "Humans" anyway?

Erectus? Habilis? Something earlier?

And how is it possible that humans could be in Asia AT LEAST 2
million years ago, yet all our evolution only ever happened in
southeast Africa?

It's a ridiculous model, this Out of Africa purity. It's a simpleton
model. Worse; it's just plain wrong. It doesn't answer questions,
it ignores them! The physical evidence coming out of China,
for example, the genetic evidence revealed in Australia; all of it
ignored in the preservation of OoA purity...







-- --

Christ, people!

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

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

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:12:20 -0800 (PST), I Envy JTEM
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Pandora wrote:

Humans evolved in the dynamic landscapes of Africa

No we didn't.

Aw, did that trigger your troll button?

Humans didn't evolve in any specific place.

Yes they did, they evolved on planet Earth, an insignificant pale blue
dot: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap200214.html

Within the confines of that tiny place 5 of the 7 million years of
human evolution apparently were exclusively on the African continent,
including the earliest putative members of Homo:

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1343

Also the oldest known member of Homo erectus is from Africa:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

as well the oldest known representatives of Homo sapiens:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04275-8

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335

We are an amalgam -- "Hybrids" if you prefer. I myself prefer the >distributive computing model were Africa is a single node.

And what do you mean by "Humans" anyway?

Sensu lato, everything closer to Homo than to Pan according to recent phylogenetic analyses such as in:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

not the outdated, obsolete bullshit of Verhaegen, to which you have
been sucking up without much comprehension.

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

Pandora wrote:

Humans didn't evolve in any specific place.

Yes they did, they evolved on planet Earth, an insignificant pale blue

Aw, did that trigger your troll button?

You're not interested in discussion, on ever in enforcement of your
dogma.

Within the confines of that tiny place 5 of the 7 million years of
human evolution

Cites?

apparently were exclusively on the African continent,
including the earliest putative members of Homo:

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1343

So they're claiming to find Homo here:

https://goo.gl/maps/savJk3gSZtxPTyzf6

Well that's precisely where Homo would be if it was moving to OR
FROM Asia.

You have to be trained, like on of Pavlov's dogs, to not see it. The
location fits both models.

Also the oldest known member of Homo erectus is from Africa:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

Problem is, and you're proving this, that if you read ONE cite you
think you know, but if you read two or more suddenly you're not
sure anymore:

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/

: the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had previously
: been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others.

And if you add reading comprehension into the mix -- read it in context -- NOBODY saw an erectus skull. Absolutely nobody. A lot of people looked
at it and didn't even see a primate!

AND EVEN IN YOUR OWN CITE, if you had bothered to read it, what it
actually says is:

: The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with Homo erectus

But you think you know. Because you read a cite. Or at least read a
headline but, hey, why go further, right?

"Science!"

as well the oldest known representatives of Homo sapiens:

Homo sapiens heidelbergensis?

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04275-8

Again, exactly where they should be if they were going to OR COMING
FROM Asia...

But you're trained well. Very well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335

This doesn't fit any model that you think you're defending.

We are an amalgam -- "Hybrids" if you prefer. I myself prefer the >distributive computing model were Africa is a single node.

And what do you mean by "Humans" anyway?

Sensu lato, everything closer to Homo than to Pan according to recent phylogenetic analyses such as in:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

Neither are saying anything definitive.

You can claim they are CONSISTENT WITH a favored model... models.

That's the best science -- real science -- can usually offer for any one piece of the evidence.

"Amongst the models this evidence is consistent with would me the one that
I avocate."

Big deal.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/675871863173480448

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