Humans sweat a lot. Presumably their ancestors have
been much the same, possibly going right back to the
origin of the bipedal taxon after the split from chimps.
Replenishing the various salts in sweat would not have
been a problem for a coastal-living species. But where
would they have got their fresh water? No species
would evolve sweating (especially heavy sweating)
without a constant supply of fresh water.
Google "water table" "sea water", or go to https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-showing-the-relationship-between-freshwater-and-saltwater_fig1_329337045
They would have dug down (preferring to do so in
loose sandy soils) and found the water table.
On 21.4.2022. 11:49, Paul Crowley wrote:
Humans sweat a lot. Presumably their ancestors have
been much the same, possibly going right back to the
origin of the bipedal taxon after the split from chimps.
Replenishing the various salts in sweat would not have
been a problem for a coastal-living species. But where
would they have got their fresh water? No species
would evolve sweating (especially heavy sweating)
without a constant supply of fresh water.
Google "water table" "sea water", or go to
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-showing-the-relationship-between-freshwater-and-saltwater_fig1_329337045
They would have dug down (preferring to do so in
loose sandy soils) and found the water table.
You didn't see this properly. Notice how water table is high deeper inland. Well, there is no reason why this water table shouldn't
be as high on the coast. The reason why it is lower is because at the
coast it goes out of the cliff, in the form of springs. Yes, right at
the coastline there are a lot of fresh water springs. [Notice, it isn't
sea that feeds fresh water with water, it is rain, from above that feeds
it, the larger the mountain, the more water it collects.]
In Croatia we have a lot of islands. If island doesn't have high mountain, it has droughts. But those with high mountains don't have droughts. I believe if mountain is something like 500 m high, then you
have a lot of springs.
Once I spent whole spring (of course, this word again, I wander
if I could make a whole sentence in English using only one word, like
"Two to two.", :). ) on some remote beach (with my friends). The shop
was, like, half an hour away, and I thought, we have everything on that beach, there's actually no need to go to the shop. Figs were abundant
around (figs are the staple primate food, because they grow all year
round), and we had a spring of fresh water emerging out from the
cliffside right at 1 meter height, just ideal for humans to drink it.
Cool, filtered (it went through rocks, so it was filtered) fresh water,
just ideal for humans. We could just eat figs all day long, and drink
that water, and that's it.
BTW, I wrote about this something like 10 times, and nobody cares. I believe I wrote it in discussion with you something like 3 times.
On 21.4.2022. 15:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 21.4.2022. 11:49, Paul Crowley wrote:
Humans sweat a lot. Presumably their ancestors have
been much the same, possibly going right back to the
origin of the bipedal taxon after the split from chimps.
Replenishing the various salts in sweat would not have
been a problem for a coastal-living species. But where
would they have got their fresh water? No species
would evolve sweating (especially heavy sweating)
without a constant supply of fresh water.
Google "water table" "sea water", or go to
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-showing-the-relationship-between-freshwater-and-saltwater_fig1_329337045
They would have dug down (preferring to do so in
loose sandy soils) and found the water table.
You didn't see this properly. Notice how water table is high deeper inland. Well, there is is no reason why this water table shouldn't be as high on the coast. The reason why it is lower is because at the coast it goes out of the cliff, in the form of springs. Yes, right athttps://youtu.be/tdO3HZLDUcQ
the coastline there are a lot of fresh water springs. [Notice, it isn't sea that feeds fresh water with water, it is rain, from above that feeds it, the larger the mountain, the more water it collects.]
In Croatia we have a lot of islands. If island doesn't have
high mountain, it has droughts. But those with high mountains don't have droughts. I believe if mountain is something like 500 m high, then you have a lot of springs.
Once I spent whole spring (of course, this word again, I wander
if I could make a whole sentence in English using only one word, like
"Two to two.", :). ) on some remote beach (with my friends). The shop
was, like, half an hour away, and I thought, we have everything on that beach, there's actually no need to go to the shop. Figs were abundant around (figs are the staple primate food, because they grow all year round), and we had a spring of fresh water emerging out from the
cliffside right at 1 meter height, just ideal for humans to drink it. Cool, filtered (it went through rocks, so it was filtered) fresh water, just ideal for humans. We could just eat figs all day long, and drink
that water, and that's it.
BTW, I wrote about this something like 10 times, and nobody
cares. I believe I wrote it in discussion with you something like 3 times.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:24:00 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:shores of south-eastern France and in Kefalonia (Greece), we propose a working model that explains...
On 21.4.2022. 15:16, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 21.4.2022. 11:49, Paul Crowley wrote:
Humans sweat a lot. Presumably their ancestors have
been much the same, possibly going right back to the
origin of the bipedal taxon after the split from chimps.
Replenishing the various salts in sweat would not have
been a problem for a coastal-living species. But where
would they have got their fresh water? No species
would evolve sweating (especially heavy sweating)
without a constant supply of fresh water.
Google "water table" "sea water", or go to
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-showing-the-relationship-between-freshwater-and-saltwater_fig1_329337045
They would have dug down (preferring to do so in
loose sandy soils) and found the water table.
You didn't see this properly. Notice how water table is high
deeper inland. Well, there is is no reason why this water table shouldn't >>> be as high on the coast. The reason why it is lower is because at the
coast it goes out of the cliff, in the form of springs. Yes, right at
the coastline there are a lot of fresh water springs. [Notice, it isn't
sea that feeds fresh water with water, it is rain, from above that feeds >>> it, the larger the mountain, the more water it collects.]
In Croatia we have a lot of islands. If island doesn't have
high mountain, it has droughts. But those with high mountains don't have >>> droughts. I believe if mountain is something like 500 m high, then you
have a lot of springs.
Once I spent whole spring (of course, this word again, I wander >>> if I could make a whole sentence in English using only one word, like
"Two to two.", :). ) on some remote beach (with my friends). The shop
was, like, half an hour away, and I thought, we have everything on that
beach, there's actually no need to go to the shop. Figs were abundant
around (figs are the staple primate food, because they grow all year
round), and we had a spring of fresh water emerging out from the
cliffside right at 1 meter height, just ideal for humans to drink it.
Cool, filtered (it went through rocks, so it was filtered) fresh water,
just ideal for humans. We could just eat figs all day long, and drink
that water, and that's it.
BTW, I wrote about this something like 10 times, and nobody
cares. I believe I wrote it in discussion with you something like 3 times. >> https://youtu.be/tdO3HZLDUcQ
https://www.vin.com/apputil/content/defaultadv1.aspx?pId=11257&catId=32360&id=3865253&ind=188&objTypeID=17
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Main-submarine-or-coastal-karst-springs-in-the-Mediterranean-Sea-after-Fleury-2005-The_fig5_270580872
Jul 2015
Eric Gilli
On the Mediterranean coast, submarine karst springs are common. Most of them are brackish and various unsuccessful attempts in France, Greece, and Italy indicate that it is impossible to diminish the salinity at the spring. Based on studies on the
Some coastal mountain ranges which accumulate seasonal rainfall/snowfall drain subsurface freshwater towards the sea. Some surfaces as terrestrial spring-fed shallow crystalline streams which feed rivers/lakes/swamps before flowing aboveground into thesea. Others pour into the sea at great depths, plumes 200m below the sea surface, where they mix with seawater. More rarely, some springs flow out of crevices just below or just above the sea surface along the shoreline, where the waters are easily
You didn't see this properly. Notice how water table is high deeper
inland. Well, there is no reason why this water table shouldn't be as
high on the coast. The reason why it is lower is because at the coast it
goes out of the cliff, in the form of springs. Yes, right at the
coastline there are a lot of fresh water springs. [Notice, it isn't sea
that feeds fresh water with water, it is rain, from above that feeds it,
the larger the mountain, the more water it collects.]
On Thursday 21 April 2022 at 14:16:15 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
You didn't see this properly. Notice how water table is high deeper
inland. Well, there is no reason why this water table shouldn't be as
high on the coast. The reason why it is lower is because at the coast it
goes out of the cliff, in the form of springs. Yes, right at the
coastline there are a lot of fresh water springs. [Notice, it isn't sea
that feeds fresh water with water, it is rain, from above that feeds it,
the larger the mountain, the more water it collects.]
We are living in an unusual time when the sea
often butts up against cliffs, and the world has
plenty of rias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ria
That's only applied for the past 12 Kyr or so.
Before seas began to rise (~16 ka), and since
ice-ages began 2.6 ma, most coastal areas were,
for most of the time (i.e. excluding inter-glacials),
relatively flat landscapes, with shallow seas and
low islands, or low mainland margins. (Before
2.6 ma seas were higher but there had been
long periods of stability, with relatively small
changes in sea-level.)
So what should concern us is how hominins
obtained fresh water when living in low-
profile low-elevation landscapes, with few
surface streams and rivers.
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for
digging (says me).
But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete,
5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya (Ouranopithecus).
First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will
be above sea level.
The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance
to have fresh water everywhere.
Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
Are you following me?
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 11:58:16 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for
digging (says me).
"Hand-axes" varied enormously in size. They
are found in vast quantities in water-courses
nearly always with sharp edges, showing
that they had not been used for any kind
of rough handling.
https://twitter.com/MartaMLahr/status/1513573362160840704
But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
Agreed. But IMO they didn't change their
core niche --- which was coastal. They were
often on off-shore islands (the only way to
avoid predation on their slow-growing
children).
You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete,
5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya
(Ouranopithecus).
Dubiously bipedal, Very unlikely to be ancestral.
First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will
be above sea level.
The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance
to have fresh water everywhere.
Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
Are you following me?
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.
But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky coasts
back then.
On 22.4.2022. 22:21, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 11:58:16 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for
digging (says me).
"Hand-axes" varied enormously in size. They
are found in vast quantities in water-courses
nearly always with sharp edges, showing
that they had not been used for any kind
of rough handling.
https://twitter.com/MartaMLahr/status/1513573362160840704
Humans vary in size, too. From little children to strong adults. Digging soil is about the least rough thing a tool can do.
But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
Agreed. But IMO they didn't change their
core niche --- which was coastal. They were
often on off-shore islands (the only way to
avoid predation on their slow-growing
children).
How many times do I have to tell you, humans don't have predators in sea. Sharks don't eat terrestrial flesh, salty crocodiles
need to live near fresh water (for breading). Terrestrial predators are useless in water (except sabre toothed cats, of course, but I wouldn't
say that they are adapted to sea). The only predators should be raptor
birds. We had hyraxes to warn us about them (the alarm call of hyraxes
is about the most scary sound to humans). We also have prominent brow
ridges and eyebrows which help us looking at the sun (those birds attack
from the direction of sun), just like hyraxes have eyes adapted to look
at the sun. Plus, those birds nestle on cliffs, and we are experts in climbing cliffs, our young men are brave, and they prove their bravery
by climbing up on the cliff, destroying raptor bird's nest, and coming
back with a feather of a raptor bird in their hair.
You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete,
5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya
(Ouranopithecus).
Dubiously bipedal, Very unlikely to be ancestral.
First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will
be above sea level.
The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance
to have fresh water everywhere.
Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
Are you following me?
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time. But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky coasts
back then.
On 23.4.2022. 0:58, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 23:13:53 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.
The Adriatic is exactly the kind of space
they lived in -- the land would be fertile
with plenty of trees, shrubs and grassland.
But it would be pretty flat. No hills, few
cliffs, few rocky coasts.
But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky coasts >>> back then.
Rocky coasts were rare --- too rare to provide
a viable habitat for a species.
Go into Google Earth. Select a coastline
that you'd expect to be rocky -- in Greece,
Turkey, Italy, Spain -- go down (or up) so
the scale bar on the left is about 1 km.
Move the cursor along the coast to see
the depth. It will be nearly always be
shallow --indicating sand or mud
Oh, this isn't a good representation. Find in YouTube videos of
sea kayaking. Those sea cliffs form at the coastline, those aren't
cliffs that are formed by tectonics (like rift cliffs), but by action of
sea currents.
For example, see that all those "shallowly" hills are folded, and those folds protrude into sea, so, the coastline isn't like a
straight line, but it is wavy. Well, all those tips which protrude into
sea can be eroded by the force of sea currents, this is how coastline
forms. So, you can have intermittently, cliffs (which are eroded tips),
and shallow coves. So, cliff - shallow cove - cliff - shallow cove.
See Sydney:
https://youtu.be/cO59-P6dXh8
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 23:13:53 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.
The Adriatic is exactly the kind of space
they lived in -- the land would be fertile
with plenty of trees, shrubs and grassland.
But it would be pretty flat. No hills, few
cliffs, few rocky coasts.
But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky coasts
back then.
Rocky coasts were rare --- too rare to provide
a viable habitat for a species.
Go into Google Earth. Select a coastline
that you'd expect to be rocky -- in Greece,
Turkey, Italy, Spain -- go down (or up) so
the scale bar on the left is about 1 km.
Move the cursor along the coast to see
the depth. It will be nearly always be
shallow --indicating sand or mud
On 23.4.2022. 1:33, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 23.4.2022. 0:58, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 23:13:53 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually beenOf course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg >>>>
The Adriatic is exactly the kind of space
they lived in -- the land would be fertile
with plenty of trees, shrubs and grassland.
But it would be pretty flat. No hills, few
cliffs, few rocky coasts.
But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky
coasts
back then.
Rocky coasts were rare --- too rare to provide
a viable habitat for a species.
Go into Google Earth. Select a coastline
that you'd expect to be rocky -- in Greece,
Turkey, Italy, Spain -- go down (or up) so
the scale bar on the left is about 1 km.
Move the cursor along the coast to see
the depth. It will be nearly always be
shallow --indicating sand or mud
Oh, this isn't a good representation. Find in YouTube videos
of sea kayaking. Those sea cliffs form at the coastline, those aren't
cliffs that are formed by tectonics (like rift cliffs), but by action
of sea currents.
For example, see that all those "shallowly" hills are folded,
and those folds protrude into sea, so, the coastline isn't like a
straight line, but it is wavy. Well, all those tips which protrude
into sea can be eroded by the force of sea currents, this is how
coastline forms. So, you can have intermittently, cliffs (which are
eroded tips), and shallow coves. So, cliff - shallow cove - cliff -
shallow cove.
See Sydney:
https://youtu.be/cO59-P6dXh8
This picture shows what I am talking about: https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/17-2-landforms-of-coastal-erosion/
On 23.4.2022. 0:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.4.2022. 22:21, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 11:58:16 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for
digging (says me).
"Hand-axes" varied enormously in size. They
are found in vast quantities in water-courses
nearly always with sharp edges, showing
that they had not been used for any kind
of rough handling.
https://twitter.com/MartaMLahr/status/1513573362160840704
Humans vary in size, too. From little children to strong
adults. Digging soil is about the least rough thing a tool can do.
But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
Agreed. But IMO they didn't change their
core niche --- which was coastal. They were
often on off-shore islands (the only way to
avoid predation on their slow-growing
children).
How many times do I have to tell you, humans don't have
predators in sea. Sharks don't eat terrestrial flesh, salty crocodiles
need to live near fresh water (for breading). Terrestrial predators
are useless in water (except sabre toothed cats, of course, but I
wouldn't say that they are adapted to sea). The only predators should
be raptor birds. We had hyraxes to warn us about them (the alarm call
of hyraxes is about the most scary sound to humans). We also have
prominent brow ridges and eyebrows which help us looking at the sun
(those birds attack from the direction of sun), just like hyraxes have
eyes adapted to look at the sun. Plus, those birds nestle on cliffs,
and we are experts in climbing cliffs, our young men are brave, and
they prove their bravery by climbing up on the cliff, destroying
raptor bird's nest, and coming back with a feather of a raptor bird in
their hair.
You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete, >>>> 5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya
(Ouranopithecus).
Dubiously bipedal, Very unlikely to be ancestral.
First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will >>>> be above sea level.
The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance
to have fresh water everywhere.
Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
Are you following me?
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.
But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky
coasts back then.
And regarding Ouranopithecus, it is *very* similar to Graecopithecus, which is in our ancestral line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils#Late_Miocene_(7.2%E2%80%935.5_million_years_old)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus#Re-examination_and_reinterpretation
As far as I know, Ouranopithecus lived in the same ecological niche as Graecopithecus, this niche is different than ape niche, and,
out of all apes, liveable only for humans. This is niche of
"impoverished" ecology, completely unsuitable for other apes, which need
very rich ecology. It isn't strange that it is *very* similar to Graecopithecus, although placed in separate taxon. The placement in
separate taxon doesn't exclude similarity. Plus, it is placed in
separate taxon only after the emergence of Trachilos footprints. So,
there was a strong pressure to place it in different taxon, since
Trachilos footprints undoubtedly place Graecopithecus into our taxon
(which means, after Homo-chimp split), and if Ouranopithecus is the same
as Gaecopithecus, then Homo-chimp split would be much earlier than the popular genetic clock suggests, so, the separation of Graecopithecus
from Ouranopithecus *obviously* was a forced one, one of doubtful
motives (the motive, obviously, was to not place Homo-chimp split too
early, :), which is shameful, just as a lot of things in this science is
also shameful, nothing new).
On 23.4.2022. 1:01, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 23.4.2022. 0:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 22.4.2022. 22:21, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 11:58:16 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for
digging (says me).
"Hand-axes" varied enormously in size. They
are found in vast quantities in water-courses
nearly always with sharp edges, showing
that they had not been used for any kind
of rough handling.
https://twitter.com/MartaMLahr/status/1513573362160840704
Humans vary in size, too. From little children to strong
adults. Digging soil is about the least rough thing a tool can do.
But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
Agreed. But IMO they didn't change their
core niche --- which was coastal. They were
often on off-shore islands (the only way to
avoid predation on their slow-growing
children).
How many times do I have to tell you, humans don't have
predators in sea. Sharks don't eat terrestrial flesh, salty crocodiles
need to live near fresh water (for breading). Terrestrial predators
are useless in water (except sabre toothed cats, of course, but I
wouldn't say that they are adapted to sea). The only predators should
be raptor birds. We had hyraxes to warn us about them (the alarm call
of hyraxes is about the most scary sound to humans). We also have
prominent brow ridges and eyebrows which help us looking at the sun
(those birds attack from the direction of sun), just like hyraxes have
eyes adapted to look at the sun. Plus, those birds nestle on cliffs,
and we are experts in climbing cliffs, our young men are brave, and
they prove their bravery by climbing up on the cliff, destroying
raptor bird's nest, and coming back with a feather of a raptor bird in
their hair.
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete, >>>> 5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya
(Ouranopithecus).
Dubiously bipedal, Very unlikely to be ancestral.
First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will >>>> be above sea level.
The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance >>>> to have fresh water everywhere.
Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
Are you following me?
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg >>
But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky
coasts back then.
And regarding Ouranopithecus, it is *very* similar to Graecopithecus, which is in our ancestral line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils#Late_Miocene_(7.2%E2%80%935.5_million_years_old)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus#Re-examination_and_reinterpretation
As far as I know, Ouranopithecus lived in the same ecological niche as Graecopithecus, this niche is different than ape niche, and,And also, the "impoverished" environment of Ouranopithecus and Graecopithecus was created after "Vallesian crisis", 9.6 mya, by the way
out of all apes, liveable only for humans. This is niche of
"impoverished" ecology, completely unsuitable for other apes, which need very rich ecology. It isn't strange that it is *very* similar to Graecopithecus, although placed in separate taxon. The placement in separate taxon doesn't exclude similarity. Plus, it is placed in
separate taxon only after the emergence of Trachilos footprints. So,
there was a strong pressure to place it in different taxon, since Trachilos footprints undoubtedly place Graecopithecus into our taxon (which means, after Homo-chimp split), and if Ouranopithecus is the same as Gaecopithecus, then Homo-chimp split would be much earlier than the popular genetic clock suggests, so, the separation of Graecopithecus
from Ouranopithecus *obviously* was a forced one, one of doubtful
motives (the motive, obviously, was to not place Homo-chimp split too early, :), which is shameful, just as a lot of things in this science is also shameful, nothing new).
of fire, at exactly the same places Graecopithecus and Ouranopithecus
were found. And, look at that, humans are the prime users of fire. Now,
who would say so?
Also, the question is, why then, why 9.6 mya? Why not 150 mya, why not
140 mya, why not 40 mya, why not 35 mya, why not 25 mya, why not 265
mya? So, why we have it 9.6 mya? What's wrong with 9.6 mya? Up till then
the whole world was forested, so why 9.6 mya? And humans are the prime
users of fire, and deforestation was made by the way of fire, and ...,
and ...
So, the real question here is how no human scientist can make a
connection here, this is the *real* question. He doesn't even have to
claim that this was because of humans, but, for sure, he has to say that there is a strong possibility that it could be humans. But no, I see no references anywhere, anywhen, by anybody. Not even close to that.
So, the actual question is, not what's wrong with 9.6 mya, but what's
wrong with those bloody *stupid* humans, who think that they are the smartest things in the Universe.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:48:56 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Vallesian, the consequence of a series of extinctions affecting, in priority, forest species.
On 23.4.2022. 1:01, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 23.4.2022. 0:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:And also, the "impoverished" environment of Ouranopithecus and
On 22.4.2022. 22:21, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Friday 22 April 2022 at 11:58:16 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I'm saying that they must have dug down
to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
they had to dig. In many places they could
find soft sandy soil.
By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for >>>>>> digging (says me).
"Hand-axes" varied enormously in size. They
are found in vast quantities in water-courses
nearly always with sharp edges, showing
that they had not been used for any kind
of rough handling.
https://twitter.com/MartaMLahr/status/1513573362160840704
Humans vary in size, too. From little children to strong
adults. Digging soil is about the least rough thing a tool can do.
But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
Agreed. But IMO they didn't change their
core niche --- which was coastal. They were
often on off-shore islands (the only way to
avoid predation on their slow-growing
children).
How many times do I have to tell you, humans don't have
predators in sea. Sharks don't eat terrestrial flesh, salty crocodiles >>>> need to live near fresh water (for breading). Terrestrial predators
are useless in water (except sabre toothed cats, of course, but I
wouldn't say that they are adapted to sea). The only predators should
be raptor birds. We had hyraxes to warn us about them (the alarm call
of hyraxes is about the most scary sound to humans). We also have
prominent brow ridges and eyebrows which help us looking at the sun
(those birds attack from the direction of sun), just like hyraxes have >>>> eyes adapted to look at the sun. Plus, those birds nestle on cliffs,
and we are experts in climbing cliffs, our young men are brave, and
they prove their bravery by climbing up on the cliff, destroying
raptor bird's nest, and coming back with a feather of a raptor bird in >>>> their hair.
Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time. >>>> But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete, >>>>>> 5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya
(Ouranopithecus).
Dubiously bipedal, Very unlikely to be ancestral.
First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will >>>>>> be above sea level.
The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance >>>>>> to have fresh water everywhere.
Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
Are you following me?
For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
would have had difficulty getting salt, and
would not have evolved sweating (or they
would have lost the capacity to sweat if
they had it to start with).
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg >>>>
Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky
coasts back then.
And regarding Ouranopithecus, it is *very* similar to
Graecopithecus, which is in our ancestral line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils#Late_Miocene_(7.2%E2%80%935.5_million_years_old)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus#Re-examination_and_reinterpretation
As far as I know, Ouranopithecus lived in the same ecological
niche as Graecopithecus, this niche is different than ape niche, and,
out of all apes, liveable only for humans. This is niche of
"impoverished" ecology, completely unsuitable for other apes, which need >>> very rich ecology. It isn't strange that it is *very* similar to
Graecopithecus, although placed in separate taxon. The placement in
separate taxon doesn't exclude similarity. Plus, it is placed in
separate taxon only after the emergence of Trachilos footprints. So,
there was a strong pressure to place it in different taxon, since
Trachilos footprints undoubtedly place Graecopithecus into our taxon
(which means, after Homo-chimp split), and if Ouranopithecus is the same >>> as Gaecopithecus, then Homo-chimp split would be much earlier than the
popular genetic clock suggests, so, the separation of Graecopithecus
from Ouranopithecus *obviously* was a forced one, one of doubtful
motives (the motive, obviously, was to not place Homo-chimp split too
early, :), which is shameful, just as a lot of things in this science is >>> also shameful, nothing new).
Graecopithecus was created after "Vallesian crisis", 9.6 mya, by the way
of fire, at exactly the same places Graecopithecus and Ouranopithecus
were found. And, look at that, humans are the prime users of fire. Now,
who would say so?
Also, the question is, why then, why 9.6 mya? Why not 150 mya, why not
140 mya, why not 40 mya, why not 35 mya, why not 25 mya, why not 265
mya? So, why we have it 9.6 mya? What's wrong with 9.6 mya? Up till then
the whole world was forested, so why 9.6 mya? And humans are the prime
users of fire, and deforestation was made by the way of fire, and ...,
and ...
So, the real question here is how no human scientist can make a
connection here, this is the *real* question. He doesn't even have to
claim that this was because of humans, but, for sure, he has to say that
there is a strong possibility that it could be humans. But no, I see no
references anywhere, anywhen, by anybody. Not even close to that.
So, the actual question is, not what's wrong with 9.6 mya, but what's
wrong with those bloody *stupid* humans, who think that they are the
smartest things in the Universe.
Unlike previous analyses, which observed an abrupt extinction at the Lower/Upper Vallesian boundary, our results show that this pattern actually results from uneven sampling. We rather propose a slow decrease in taxonomic richness from the Upper
. .For example, see that all those "shallowly" hills are folded,
and those folds protrude into sea, so, the coastline isn't like a
straight line, but it is wavy. Well, all those tips which protrude
into sea can be eroded by the force of sea currents, this is how
coastline forms. So, you can have intermittently, cliffs (which are
eroded tips), and shallow coves. So, cliff - shallow cove - cliff -
shallow cove.
See Sydney:
https://youtu.be/cO59-P6dXh8
This picture shows what I am talking about:. .
https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/17-2-landforms-of-coastal-erosion/
Oops, the very last picture on this page (I thought that the link will present only the picture).
On Saturday 23 April 2022 at 00:50:05 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
. .For example, see that all those "shallowly" hills are folded, >>>> and those folds protrude into sea, so, the coastline isn't like a
straight line, but it is wavy. Well, all those tips which protrude
into sea can be eroded by the force of sea currents, this is how
coastline forms. So, you can have intermittently, cliffs (which are
eroded tips), and shallow coves. So, cliff - shallow cove - cliff -
shallow cove.
See Sydney:
https://youtu.be/cO59-P6dXh8
Sydney harbour is a classic 'ria' -- possible
only after a large and recent rise in sea level.
. .
This picture shows what I am talking about:. .
https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/17-2-landforms-of-coastal-erosion/
Oops, the very last picture on this page (I thought that the link will
present only the picture).
That sequence shows 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'd'.
. .
We're familiar with 'a' -- it's the time we
live in. -- loads of rocky coasts and plenty
of sea cliffs.
. .
But 2.6 ma nearly all coasts would have
been like 'd' -- with rocks and promontories
ground down by millions of years of wave
action.
Then sea levels fell -- up to 100 metres.
There were virtually NO rocky coasts.
Hardly any cliffs.
On Saturday 23 April 2022 at 12:17:11 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
But 2.6 ma nearly all coasts would have. .
been like 'd' -- with rocks and promontories
ground down by millions of years of wave
action.
. .
Then sea levels fell -- up to 100 metres.
There were virtually NO rocky coasts.
Hardly any cliffs.
Those folds are normal consequences of crest uplifting.
Geological uplifts are usually slow.
Wave action is fast, and sea-level rises
(at the end of glacials) and sea-level falls
(at the start of glacials) are effectively
instantaneous (on geological timescales).
A fall of 10 or 20 metres in sea-levels
will -- in nearly all cases -- remove the
coast from rocky shores and cliffs by
at least a kilometre, and often by
dozens of km.
Africa and Europe collide, which produces uplifting of Europe, and
sinking of Africa below Europe. So, Europe has rocky coast, while
Africa has shallow coast, which sinks below Europe.
All that is 'temporary'. It's like looking
at Durban after the recent floods. Go
back to 15 ka to see the situation our
ancestors faced most of the time -- no
(or very few) rocky coasts.
But 2.6 ma nearly all coasts would have. .
been like 'd' -- with rocks and promontories
ground down by millions of years of wave
action.
. .
Then sea levels fell -- up to 100 metres.
There were virtually NO rocky coasts.
Hardly any cliffs.
Those folds are normal consequences of crest uplifting.
Africa and Europe collide, which produces uplifting of Europe, and
sinking of Africa below Europe. So, Europe has rocky coast, while
Africa has shallow coast, which sinks below Europe.
A fall of 10 or 20 metres in sea-levels
will -- in nearly all cases -- remove the
coast from rocky shores and cliffs by
at least a kilometre, and often by
dozens of km.
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 10:00:09 PM UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Please, first set things with yourself. Now you are saying that this
goes quickly, at the beginning you've said that we are still at the
phase "a", today. Notice, after "a" it comes to "b", which has cliffs.
After "b" it comes to "c", which also has cliffs. And after "c" it comes
to "d", which also has cliffs (if you have noticed).
This model is largely theoretical, since it
disregards changes in sea-level. We are
in Stage 'a' at the moment, since the
seas rose between 16ka and 12 ka.
https://opentextbc.ca/geology/chapter/17-2-landforms-of-coastal-erosion/
But the next stage (now a bit overdue) is
a new ice-age, where sea-levels fall by
around 50 metres. In most locations the
seas vanish over the horizon and are 100
+ km away. The stages 'b', 'c' and 'd' in
that model just never happen.
The model has some application before
ice-ages began 2.6 ma. When sea-levels
were fairly stable for millions of years, the
sea would have erased promontories, and
coasts would have become long straight
beaches, with cliffs set well back and few
rocky foreshores.
This is important for Aquatic Ape
theories or any (such as myself) who
propose that early hominins occupied a
coastal niche. Before 2.6 ma there's little
chance of diving in rock pools, or of
consuming barnacles. The shellfish
available would be those found on
exposed (storm-ridden) sandy beaches,
possibly cockles, clams, oysters, best
obtained by walking at low tide.
Please, first set things with yourself. Now you are saying that this
goes quickly, at the beginning you've said that we are still at the
phase "a", today. Notice, after "a" it comes to "b", which has cliffs.
After "b" it comes to "c", which also has cliffs. And after "c" it comes
to "d", which also has cliffs (if you have noticed).
Humans sweat a lot.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 72:59:10 |
| Calls: | 6,805 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,325 |
| Messages: | 5,399,878 |
