littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Nobody doubts this.

The problem is:
why does Homo, although terrestrial, has so many features only (POS, platycephaly, platymeria, voluntary breathing etc.etc.) or typically (large brain, flat feet, thivk SC fat, fur loss etc.etc.) seen in (semi-)aquatic mammals?

The biological explanation is clear:
-only idiots believe H.erectus ran antelopes to exhaustion,
-H.erectus was semi-aquatic.

Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT"

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

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

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 1:50:52 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Nobody doubts this.

The problem is:
why does Homo, although terrestrial, has so many features only (POS, platycephaly, platymeria, voluntary breathing etc.etc.) or typically (large brain, flat feet, thivk SC fat, fur loss etc.etc.) seen in (semi-)aquatic mammals?

The biological explanation is clear:
-only idiots believe H.erectus ran antelopes to exhaustion,
-H.erectus was semi-aquatic.

Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT"

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

Backfloat. But not asleep

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

Op woensdag 1 september 2021 om 07:50:52 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

OI, BIG NOSE !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities
including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded
and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins
of land and water. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food,
and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the
coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know
whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, flat feet, large brains and big noses.

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

onsdag den 1. september 2021 kl. 07.50.52 UTC+2 skrev Primum Sapienti:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Nobody doubts this.

The problem is:
why does Homo, although terrestrial, has so many features only (POS, platycephaly, platymeria, voluntary breathing etc.etc.) or typically (large brain, flat feet, thivk SC fat, fur loss etc.etc.) seen in (semi-)aquatic mammals?

The biological explanation is clear:
-only idiots believe H.erectus ran antelopes to exhaustion,
-H.erectus was semi-aquatic.

Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT"

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

Only idiots keep lying about what they know perfectly well other people didn't say.

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

C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:

onsdag den 1. september 2021 kl. 07.50.52 UTC+2 skrev Primum Sapienti:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Nobody doubts this.

The problem is:
why does Homo, although terrestrial, has so many features only (POS, platycephaly, platymeria, voluntary breathing etc.etc.) or typically (large brain, flat feet, thivk SC fat, fur loss etc.etc.) seen in (semi-)aquatic mammals?

The biological explanation is clear:
-only idiots believe H.erectus ran antelopes to exhaustion,
-H.erectus was semi-aquatic.

Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT"

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

Only idiots keep lying about what they know perfectly well other people didn't say.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21245757_Aquatic_Ape_Theory_and_fossil_hominids
AQUATIC APE THEORY AND FOSSIL HOMINIDS
M. J. B. VERHAEGEN Medical Hypotheses 35: 108-114 (1991)

"In a Neandertal swimming on his back, the large nose with distal nostrils
and the protruding midface surrounded by large air sinuses functioned as a snorkel."

You were saying? Nostrils on the end of the nose. LOL

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op woensdag 1 september 2021 om 07:50:52 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

OI, BIG NOSE !

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21245757_Aquatic_Ape_Theory_and_fossil_hominids
AQUATIC APE THEORY AND FOSSIL HOMINIDS
M. J. B. VERHAEGEN Medical Hypotheses 35: 108-114 (1991)

"In a Neandertal swimming on his back, the large nose with distal nostrils
and the
protruding midface surrounded by large air sinuses functioned as a snorkel."

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

...

why does Homo, although terrestrial, has so many features only (POS, platycephaly, platymeria, voluntary breathing etc.etc.) or typically (large brain, flat feet, thivk SC fat, fur loss etc.etc.) seen in (semi-)aquatic mammals?
The biological explanation is clear:
-only idiots believe H.erectus ran antelopes to exhaustion,
-H.erectus was semi-aquatic.
Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT"

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

Only complete idiots believe human ancestors evolved projecting noses to run after kudus... :-DDD
Or believe H.erectus did not dive.
Or believe our poor olfaction is an adaptation to run after antelopes.

Backfloat. But not asleep

Probably also asleep at some phases early-Pleistocene:
google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

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

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

...

why does Homo, although terrestrial, has so many features only (POS, platycephaly, platymeria, voluntary breathing etc.etc.) or typically (large brain, flat feet, thivk SC fat, fur loss etc.etc.) seen in (semi-)aquatic mammals?
The biological explanation is clear:
-only idiots believe H.erectus ran antelopes to exhaustion,
-H.erectus was semi-aquatic.
Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT"

Only idiots believe we have snorkel noses.

Only complete idiots believe human ancestors evolved projecting noses to run after kudus... :-DDD
Or believe H.erectus did not dive.
Or believe our poor olfaction is an adaptation to run after antelopes.

Backfloat. But not asleep

Probably also asleep at some phases early-Pleistocene:
google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

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

onsdag den 8. september 2021 kl. 00.37.34 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

No mermaids in there. Never were any mermaids in there, not in 1960, not in 2021. You're still lying, that's all you got. And that's why it will never go away.

"I said to myself 'They haven’t got a case.' [against aquatic human ancestry] There may well be a case. It may be a strong case. But no one seems able to convey it to the rank and file in such a way that they can assimilate it and relay it to other
people."
— Elaine Morgan, 2008

Strange pseudoscientific idea, this is. In order to reject it, the detractors need to make up what it's suggesting. They keep rejecting an idea that just doesn't exist. They keep depicting Charles Darwin as a chimp. It's almost as if no one can make it
sound crazy with what's _actually_ being suggested.
Makes it very difficult for me to see the error of my ways, now that I've dared to read these banned volumes to form my own opinion. On human origin, Nullius in Verba quite clearly doesn't apply.

Y'all couldn't lie away the heliocentric near-universe, and y'all won't succeed in lying this away either.

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

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:00:31 PM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:

onsdag den 8. september 2021 kl. 00.37.34 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

No mermaids in there. Never were any mermaids in there, not in 1960, not in 2021.

Backfloat. But not asleep

Probably also asleep...

Mermaid fallacy. Not Hardy, not Westenhoffer, not Morgan, not me.


You're still lying, that's all you got. And that's why it will never go away.

Stick another feather in, junior mermaid.

"I said to myself 'They haven’t got a case.' [against aquatic human ancestry] There may well be a case. It may be a strong case. But no one seems able to convey it to the rank and file in such a way that they can assimilate it and relay it to other

people."

— Elaine Morgan, 2008

Not sleeping in water, she never supported that.

Galileo again:

Strange pseudoscientific idea, this is. In order to reject it, the detractors need to make up what it's suggesting. They keep rejecting an idea that just doesn't exist. They keep depicting Charles Darwin as a chimp. It's almost as if no one can make it

sound crazy with what's _actually_ being suggested.

Makes it very difficult for me to see the error of my ways, now that I've dared to read these banned volumes to form my own opinion. On human origin, Nullius in Verba quite clearly doesn't apply.

Y'all couldn't lie away the heliocentric near-universe, and y'all won't succeed in lying this away either.

Oh the persecuted mermaids!

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

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 2:16:50 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

My little little boy, please consult a psychiatrist about your "mermaid" obsession.
If you mean seacows(?),

Seacows backfloat while asleep??

Nein, meine kleine tochter, nein.




yes, both H.erectus & Sirenia were/are pachyosteosclerotic (POS), IOW, shallow divers, seacows not for shellfish.

Note POS He>Hn>Hs: apparently Hn went inland along the rivers, possibly seasonally, e.g. Meuse.
I don't have to make many changes in this:

"Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" 2011 p.82-105
Mario Vaneechoutte, Algis Kuliukas & Marc Verhaegen eds.
Bentham Science Publishers
CHAPTER 5
"Pachyosteosclerosis in Archaic Homo:
Heavy Skulls for Diving, Heavy Legs for Wading?"
Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen

Compared to the skeletons of all other primates, including Homo sapiens, the crania and postcrania of Homo erectus were typically massive, displaying extremely thick bones with compact cortices and narrow medullary canals. Even outside the primate

order, examples of animals displaying such massive bones are rare.

Although this feature is sometimes seen as diagnostic of H. erectus, few convincing hypotheses have been put forward to explain its functional and adaptive significance.
Here, we present data showing that unusually heavy bones were a typical, although not exclusive nor indispensable, characteristic of H. erectus populations through the early, middle and late Pleistocene in areas of Asia, Africa and Europe.
A comparative review of the occurrence of massive skeletons in other mammals suggests that they have an important buoyancy control function in shallow diving aquatic and semi-aquatic species, and are part of a set of adaptations that allow for the more

efficient collection of slow, sessile and immobile foods such as aquatic vegetation and hard-shelled invertebrates.

We therefore consider the possibility that part-time shoreline collection of aquatic foods might have been a typical element of the lifestyle of H. erectus populations.
We discuss the alternative explanations for heavy bones from the literature, as well as apparent exceptions to the rule, such as thin-boned H. erectus and thick-boned Homo sapiens fossils.
A review of the palaeo-ecological data shows that most, if not all, H. erectus fossils and tools are associated with water-dependent molluscs and large bodies of permanent water.
Since fresh and salt water habitats have different densities, we hypothesize that in H. erectus as well as in some Homo sapiens populations, there might have been a positive correlation between massive bones and dwelling along sea or salt lake shores.

_______

Op woensdag 8 september 2021 om 02:49:24 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:00:31 PM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:

onsdag den 8. september 2021 kl. 00.37.34 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

No mermaids in there. Never were any mermaids in there, not in 1960, not in 2021.

Backfloat. But not asleep

Probably also asleep...

Mermaid fallacy. Not Hardy, not Westenhoffer, not Morgan, not me.
You're still lying, that's all you got. And that's why it will never go away.
Stick another feather in, junior mermaid.

"I said to myself 'They haven’t got a case.' [against aquatic human ancestry] There may well be a case. It may be a strong case. But no one seems able to convey it to the rank and file in such a way that they can assimilate it and relay it to

other people."

— Elaine Morgan, 2008

Not sleeping in water, she never supported that.

Galileo again:

Strange pseudoscientific idea, this is. In order to reject it, the detractors need to make up what it's suggesting. They keep rejecting an idea that just doesn't exist. They keep depicting Charles Darwin as a chimp. It's almost as if no one can

make it sound crazy with what's _actually_ being suggested.

Makes it very difficult for me to see the error of my ways, now that I've dared to read these banned volumes to form my own opinion. On human origin, Nullius in Verba quite clearly doesn't apply.

Y'all couldn't lie away the heliocentric near-universe, and y'all won't succeed in lying this away either.

Oh the persecuted mermaids!

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

My little little boy, please consult a psychiatrist about your "mermaid" obsession.
If you mean seacows(?), yes, both H.erectus & Sirenia were/are pachyosteosclerotic (POS), IOW, shallow divers, seacows not for shellfish.
Note POS He>Hn>Hs: apparently Hn went inland along the rivers, possibly seasonally, e.g. Meuse.
I don't have to make many changes in this:

"Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" 2011 p.82-105
Mario Vaneechoutte, Algis Kuliukas & Marc Verhaegen eds.
Bentham Science Publishers
CHAPTER 5
"Pachyosteosclerosis in Archaic Homo:
Heavy Skulls for Diving, Heavy Legs for Wading?"
Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen

Compared to the skeletons of all other primates, including Homo sapiens, the crania and postcrania of Homo erectus were typically massive, displaying extremely thick bones with compact cortices and narrow medullary canals. Even outside the primate order,
examples of animals displaying such massive bones are rare.
Although this feature is sometimes seen as diagnostic of H. erectus, few convincing hypotheses have been put forward to explain its functional and adaptive significance.
Here, we present data showing that unusually heavy bones were a typical, although not exclusive nor indispensable, characteristic of H. erectus populations through the early, middle and late Pleistocene in areas of Asia, Africa and Europe.
A comparative review of the occurrence of massive skeletons in other mammals suggests that they have an important buoyancy control function in shallow diving aquatic and semi-aquatic species, and are part of a set of adaptations that allow for the more
efficient collection of slow, sessile and immobile foods such as aquatic vegetation and hard-shelled invertebrates.
We therefore consider the possibility that part-time shoreline collection of aquatic foods might have been a typical element of the lifestyle of H. erectus populations.
We discuss the alternative explanations for heavy bones from the literature, as well as apparent exceptions to the rule, such as thin-boned H. erectus and thick-boned Homo sapiens fossils.
A review of the palaeo-ecological data shows that most, if not all, H. erectus fossils and tools are associated with water-dependent molluscs and large bodies of permanent water.
Since fresh and salt water habitats have different densities, we hypothesize that in H. erectus as well as in some Homo sapiens populations, there might have been a positive correlation between massive bones and dwelling along sea or salt lake shores.

_______


Op woensdag 8 september 2021 om 02:49:24 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:00:31 PM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:

onsdag den 8. september 2021 kl. 00.37.34 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

No mermaids in there. Never were any mermaids in there, not in 1960, not in 2021.

Backfloat. But not asleep

Probably also asleep...

Mermaid fallacy. Not Hardy, not Westenhoffer, not Morgan, not me.
You're still lying, that's all you got. And that's why it will never go away. Stick another feather in, junior mermaid.

"I said to myself 'They haven’t got a case.' [against aquatic human ancestry] There may well be a case. It may be a strong case. But no one seems able to convey it to the rank and file in such a way that they can assimilate it and relay it to other

people."

— Elaine Morgan, 2008

Not sleeping in water, she never supported that.

Galileo again:

Strange pseudoscientific idea, this is. In order to reject it, the detractors need to make up what it's suggesting. They keep rejecting an idea that just doesn't exist. They keep depicting Charles Darwin as a chimp. It's almost as if no one can make

it sound crazy with what's _actually_ being suggested.

Makes it very difficult for me to see the error of my ways, now that I've dared to read these banned volumes to form my own opinion. On human origin, Nullius in Verba quite clearly doesn't apply.

Y'all couldn't lie away the heliocentric near-universe, and y'all won't succeed in lying this away either.

Oh the persecuted mermaids!

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

Op woensdag 8 september 2021 om 08:22:23 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Nein, meine kleine tochter, nein.

My little little boy (you're becoming more & more infantile), if you want to write German(??) for some reason, please try to do it correctly.

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

Good diagnosis, thanks, Chris: they only have their own lies to deny.
Only complete idiots think their naked & fat ancestors with big noses ran ofter antelopes.



Op woensdag 8 september 2021 om 02:00:31 UTC+2 schreef C. H. Engelbrecht:

onsdag den 8. september 2021 kl. 00.37.34 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

No mermaids in there. Never were any mermaids in there, not in 1960, not in 2021. You're still lying, that's all you got. And that's why it will never go away.

"I said to myself 'They haven’t got a case.' [against aquatic human ancestry] There may well be a case. It may be a strong case. But no one seems able to convey it to the rank and file in such a way that they can assimilate it and relay it to other

people."

— Elaine Morgan, 2008

Strange pseudoscientific idea, this is. In order to reject it, the detractors need to make up what it's suggesting. They keep rejecting an idea that just doesn't exist. They keep depicting Charles Darwin as a chimp. It's almost as if no one can make it

sound crazy with what's _actually_ being suggested.

Makes it very difficult for me to see the error of my ways, now that I've dared to read these banned volumes to form my own opinion. On human origin, Nullius in Verba quite clearly doesn't apply.

Y'all couldn't lie away the heliocentric near-universe, and y'all won't succeed in lying this away either.

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

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:26:06 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Good diagnosis, thanks,

:DD

Chris: they only have their own lies to deny.

Only complete idiots think their naked & fat ancestors with big noses ran ofter antelopes.

Op woensdag 8 september 2021 om 02:00:31 UTC+2 schreef C. H. Engelbrecht:

onsdag den 8. september 2021 kl. 00.37.34 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Mermaid fallacy, foundation for pseudoscience, not biology.

No mermaids in there. Never were any mermaids in there, not in 1960, not in 2021. You're still lying, that's all you got. And that's why it will never go away.

"I said to myself 'They haven’t got a case.' [against aquatic human ancestry] There may well be a case. It may be a strong case. But no one seems able to convey it to the rank and file in such a way that they can assimilate it and relay it to other

people."

— Elaine Morgan, 2008

Strange pseudoscientific idea, this is. In order to reject it, the detractors need to make up what it's suggesting. They keep rejecting an idea that just doesn't exist. They keep depicting Charles Darwin as a chimp. It's almost as if no one can make

it sound crazy with what's _actually_ being suggested.

Makes it very difficult for me to see the error of my ways, now that I've dared to read these banned volumes to form my own opinion. On human origin, Nullius in Verba quite clearly doesn't apply.

Y'all couldn't lie away the heliocentric near-universe, and y'all won't succeed in lying this away either.

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

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:22:57 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op woensdag 8 september 2021 om 08:22:23 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Nein, meine kleine tochter, nein.

My little little boy (you're becoming more & more infantile), if you want to write German(??) for some reason, please try to do it correctly.

Insults & arguments from the murky monkey, can't do the science, just the science fiction.

You don't even speak Pennsylvania Dutch?

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