Remember that in science, in REAL science, facts
are consistent. Facts remain true no matter what.
If water boils under a given temperature/conditions
then it always does. No, not just some of the time or
during months with an 'R' in their name but all of the
time...
Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
in the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
Camels!
See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
the middle east but the Americas.
Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,
you're all so jealous, but I keep pointing out things like
how all the conditions that allowed mammoths and
humans to cross between Asia and North America occurred
more than once.
Mammoths crossed over to the Americas, evolved, and
eventually crossed back over to Eurasia!
And Camels are nothing more than turbo charged Llamas.
And monkeys? The absolute oldest monkey fossils, BY
FAR, are found in the Americas. The first PRIMATE is found
in the Americas, monkeys were already diversified maybe
10 or 15 million years before the oldest monkey fossil in
Africa...
This does support the Asian origin of apes theory that some
have kicked around these parts. After all, these primates
were already quite old, had already traveled a great distance,
had already encountered new environments with lots of new
SELECTIVE PRESSURES (i.e. "evolution") by the time they
reached the Arabian peninsular.
Plate techtonics?
As we all know, paleo anthropology is a farce. Amongst it's
many jokes is a fixation on "Origins" when what we all know
drives evolution is CHANGE. Got a monkey? Fine. But if it's
doing alright -- adapted well to it's environment -- all the
selective pressures are going to be on it staying pretty much
the same. If you want it to evolve into an ape, you need
change. You need to remove it from it's environment, give
it a new one... new resources... new challenges... new selective
pressures. So what isn't important is origins.
"It's the journey that matters, not the starting point."
The so called "Origins" only matter if we're trying to trace
it's journey.
Monkeys started in the Americas. Did apes arise in Eurasia?
-- --Drugs.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344
...
Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
in the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
Camels!
See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
the middle east but the Americas.
Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,
From the link you provided:
"The family diversified and prospered, but remained confined to the
North American continent until only about two to three million years
ago, when representatives arrived in Asia
Monkeys are older than two to three million years.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
[---Didn't take his meds again---]
When you have nothing to say, try to say nothing.
-- --Cod liver oil and drugs will cure jermy.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681683323967373312
Remember that in science, in REAL science, facts
are consistent. Facts remain true no matter what.
If water boils under a given temperature/conditions
then it always does.
during months with an 'R' in their name but all of the
time...
Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
in the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
Camels!
See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
the middle east but the Americas.
Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,
you're all so jealous, but I keep pointing out things like
how all the conditions that allowed mammoths and
humans to cross between Asia and North America occurred
more than once.
Mammoths crossed over to the Americas, evolved, and
eventually crossed back over to Eurasia!
And Camels are nothing more than turbo charged Llamas.
And monkeys? The absolute oldest monkey fossils, BY
FAR, are found in the Americas. The first PRIMATE is found
in the Americas, monkeys were already diversified maybe
10 or 15 million years before the oldest monkey fossil in
Africa...
This does support the Asian origin of apes theory that some
have kicked around these parts. After all, these primates
were already quite old, had already traveled a great distance,
had already encountered new environments with lots of new
SELECTIVE PRESSURES (i.e. "evolution") by the time they
reached the Arabian peninsular.
Plate techtonics?
As we all know, paleo anthropology is a farce. Amongst it's
many jokes is a fixation on "Origins" when what we all know
drives evolution is CHANGE. Got a monkey? Fine. But if it's
doing alright -- adapted well to it's environment -- all the
selective pressures are going to be on it staying pretty much
the same. If you want it to evolve into an ape, you need
change. You need to remove it from it's environment, give
it a new one... new resources... new challenges... new selective
pressures. So what isn't important is origins.
"It's the journey that matters, not the starting point."
The so called "Origins" only matter if we're trying to trace
it's journey.
Monkeys started in the Americas. Did apes arise in Eurasia?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
[...]
Again, they've made some remarkable advances in the treatment
of mental illness. You really should give it another try.
-- --Jermy needs some jermicide.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/682028612895064064
Primum Sapienti wrote:
From the link you provided:
"The family diversified and prospered, but remained confined to the
North American continent until only about two to three million years
ago, when representatives arrived in Asia
So the dating is the furthest thing from exact and is openture. to a migration BEFORE the Quaternary Period, BEFORE the present Glacial/Interglacial cycle that allowed things like Clovis Culture...
Or are you pretending to read something else?
Monkeys are older than two to three million years.
And 3 million years is too old for the glaciers creating a path, as they
did with Clovis Culture.
And monkeys in the Americas are older than any found in Africa or
anywhere else.
You're trying to "Get" me instead of discuss issues, which makes you
look like an idiot and not just a dick.
If you don't like the dating reported there then why did you rely on it?
Did apes arise in Eurasia?
When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests. The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids
Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn
ability to swim --
When you don't have an answer, admit it.. .When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests. >>> The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids
Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn. .
ability to swim --
No, my boy, they become aquarboreal, of course...
Don't you understand "coastal forests"??
. .
On Sunday 8 May 2022 at 08:37:57 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
When you don't have an answer, admit it.. .When India approached Eurasia, island arcs were formed = coastal forests. >>> The catarrhines that reached these islands became the first hominoids
Why did those catarrhines LOSE the inborn. .
ability to swim --
No, my boy, they become aquarboreal, of course...
Don't you understand "coastal forests"??
. .
It's interesting that when you don't have one
(or, at least, an apparently viable hypothesis)
the question does not occur to you.
My answer here is that the first population of
apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
evolved into a gibbon. That's why
a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
the back (from against the sides) and lost its
tail. This all happened on an island in SE Asia,
surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
swept away. So they evolved a horror of
bodies of water.
varying degrees, to all its descendants.
Where did you get that idea?My answer here is that the first population of
apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
evolved into a gibbon. That's why
That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.
. .
How did it acquire these traits?The monkey began to brachiate. It wasn't
. .
. .Of course, as it became more gibbon-
it acquired. .
a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
the back (from against the sides) and lost its
tail.
. .The first gibbon population found a new
This all happened on an island in SE Asia,. .
surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
swept away. So they evolved a horror of
bodies of water.
Numerous monkey populations live on river and sea islands,
they're monkeys which don't swing like apes, they swim fine.
Those lost are quickly replaced, by more monkeys that swim
fine.
. .
On Monday 9 May 2022 at 04:59:19 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
My answer here is that the first population of
apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
evolved into a gibbon. That's why
That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.Where did you get that idea?
. .
The question "Why?" could hardly
be more basic, e.g. :
Why are there two tides every day?
Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?
How did it acquire these traits?The monkey began to brachiate.
. .
much good at it to begin with, having a
monkey anatomy. But, over many
generations, it got much better. There
was selection for each of the following:
. .Of course, as it became more gibbon-
it acquired. .
a centralised spine, a flat chest, arms at the
top corners of the chest, scapulae moving to
the back (from against the sides) and lost its
tail.
like, it lost some standard monkey
capabilities -- climbing fast vertically,
jumping from tree to tree, etc.
less-isolated population would not
have been able to cope with the
competition from standard monkeys,
especially while going through its
initial adaptions to its new niche.
. .The first gibbon population found a new
This all happened on an island in SE Asia,. .
surrounded by fast rivers. Swimming in the
rivers was often fatal -- the primate got
swept away. So they evolved a horror of
bodies of water.
Numerous monkey populations live on river and sea islands,
they're monkeys which don't swing like apes, they swim fine.
Those lost are quickly replaced, by more monkeys that swim
fine.
. .
niche;
and -- when its isolation ended -- ceased
to be capable of interbreeding with its
monkey ancestors (or cousins). This
wasn't just genetic. Any gibbon-monkey
half-breeds were pretty useless as either
gibbons or monkeys.
There were undoubtedly populations of
monkeys isolated for long periods on
islands. Many probably acquired a fear
of bodies of water. But they did not find
a new niche. When their isolation ended,
they could probably interbreed with their
ancestors (or cousins) and their water-
fear trait would be swamped out of
existence. If they couldn't interbreed,
they'd lose out (over generations) to
their mainland water-trusting relatives.
Those water-trusting monkeys could
swim across rivers, and get all the
benefits of water-trusting possessed
by all non-ape primates and by nearly
every other terrestrial mammal.
Quote some good authority for this.. .That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.Where did you get that idea?
. .
From Science. All scientists know this.
. .
. .How did it acquire these traits?The monkey began to brachiate.
. .
Since other primates don't, how did it's niche change to give advantage
to brachiating rather than the usual monkeyb locomotion?
Of course, as it became more gibbon-. .
like, it lost some standard monkey
capabilities -- climbing fast vertically,
Long arms allow them to climb rapidly vertically.
jumping from tree to tree, etc.. .
Gibbons are very good jumpers.
A less-isolated population would not have. .
been able to cope with the competition from
standard monkeys,
Monkeys en masse displace gibbons, eg. 60 macaques vs 2
gibbons, food is stripped, macaques move onward, gibbons are
stuck. Gibbons live near shallow clear streams, macaques along big
murky rivers.
The first gibbon population found a new
niche;
What was this new niche and why was brachiation advantageous?
What is creationist about it?it radically changed its morphology
and -- when its isolation ended -- ceased
to be capable of interbreeding with its
monkey ancestors (or cousins). This
wasn't just genetic. Any gibbon-monkey
half-breeds were pretty useless as either
gibbons or monkeys.
Sounds like typical creationist's talk.
. .
. .
Those water-trusting monkeys could. .
swim across rivers, and get all the
benefits of water-trusting possessed
by all non-ape primates and by nearly
every other terrestrial mammal.
So you dismiss Crocs as a factor, despite them being the number
one predator of "aquarboreal" proboscis monkeys?
Lesser apes AND great apes never recovered
that instinctual capacity, even though (in
your scenario) it would have had great
survival potential -- and would have been
selected for.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
My answer here is that the first population of
apes (hominoids) was a small monkey that
evolved into a gibbon. That's why
That's why?? Science explores and tries to explain how, not why.
Where did you get that idea?
Remember that in science, in REAL science, facts
are consistent. Facts remain true no matter what.
If water boils under a given temperature/conditions
then it always does. No, not just some of the time or
during months with an 'R' in their name but all of the
time...
Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
in the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
Camels!
See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
the middle east but the Americas.
Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,
you're all so jealous, but I keep pointing out things like
how all the conditions that allowed mammoths and
humans to cross between Asia and North America occurred
more than once.
Mammoths crossed over to the Americas, evolved, and
eventually crossed back over to Eurasia!
And Camels are nothing more than turbo charged Llamas.
And monkeys? The absolute oldest monkey fossils, BY
FAR, are found in the Americas. The first PRIMATE is found
in the Americas, monkeys were already diversified maybe
10 or 15 million years before the oldest monkey fossil in
Africa...
This does support the Asian origin of apes theory that some
have kicked around these parts. After all, these primates
were already quite old, had already traveled a great distance,
had already encountered new environments with lots of new
SELECTIVE PRESSURES (i.e. "evolution") by the time they
reached the Arabian peninsular.
Plate techtonics?
As we all know, paleo anthropology is a farce. Amongst it's
many jokes is a fixation on "Origins" when what we all know
drives evolution is CHANGE. Got a monkey? Fine. But if it's
doing alright -- adapted well to it's environment -- all the
selective pressures are going to be on it staying pretty much
the same. If you want it to evolve into an ape, you need
change. You need to remove it from it's environment, give
it a new one... new resources... new challenges... new selective
pressures. So what isn't important is origins.
"It's the journey that matters, not the starting point."
The so called "Origins" only matter if we're trying to trace
it's journey.
Monkeys started in the Americas. Did apes arise in Eurasia?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681309289092153344
Lesser apes AND great apes never recovered
that instinctual capacity, even though (in
your scenario) it would have had great
survival potential -- and would have been
selected for.
It's kind of like "Arguing" that flightless birds can't exist because flying is so awesome.
Flightless birds do exist. Humans are the Aquatic Ape. Even the Out of
Africa purists admit it -- even if they sometimes realize what that means
and deny it -- because everyone agrees with "Coastal Dispersal." Our ancestors, the ones that are common to all humans, lived on the beach.
They followed that coastline. It's how they traveled the globe, and
everyone agrees with it.
Flight is often disadvantageous to birds
on oceanic islands. They are liable to be
blown away in strong winds, and never
get back. So there is selection against
flight.
The answer is 'altricial infants'. They
could never have adapted to swimming
in the ocean -- or not without enormous
difficulty -- for which they would have
needed extraordinary benefits. No such
benefits ever appeared, and hominin
mothers kept their little ones well away
from bodies of water, in much the same
way as they do today.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
If you don't like the dating reported there then why did you rely on it?
: until only about two to three million years ago, when representatives arrived in Asia,
: and (as part of the Great American Interchange that followed the formation of the
: Isthmus of Panama) South America
So as I pointed out, and your characteristic lack of reading comprehension prevented
you from grasping, 3 million years ago is way too early for any glacial period or "Ice
Age" associated land bridge... by some hundreds of thousands of years.
So the age range does indeed up the possibility of a pre glacial migration.
But you not only have to read these things but comprehend them.
As you know, JTEM is a one-man Benevolence Society. Which means you're in luck. I
can help you:
Now I can't stop you from being a dick, that's on you, but I can help you to not look
like an idiot. The secret here is that you've got to stop trying to "Win" some imaginary
battle. You want to discuss the issues then discuss, and if you don't want to discuss
them then don't hit "Reply."
There. That's it.
...
Anyway, keeping in mind that facts are consistent, is
THIS proof that monkeys do not originate in Africa but
in the Americas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelidae
Camels!
See, Camels actually originate in the Americas. No, not
the middle east but the Americas.
Now nobody remembers all the truly genius things I say,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 78:12:13 |
| Calls: | 6,805 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,328 |
| Messages: | 5,400,433 |