Just kidding. There is no conflict. The fit perfectly.
Populations were routinely driven inland where they
adapted, evolved. The glacial/interglacial cycle
would have forced this to occur almost clock like.
The glacial periods dropped sea levels opening
up vast stretches of coastline -- highways on which
to travel -- while the interglacials swallowed up those
same coastlines, pushing groups inland and cutting
them off, isolating them.
We never needed the ice age, the glacial/interglacial
cycle, it would have happened all on it's own. The
ice age sped things up, made it regular. But natural
disasters, disease (Red Tide), conflict, curiosity (etc)
alone would have periodically pushed groups inland.
Anyhow, the coastal group is the key. The Aquatic
Ape is the key. I can have a Neanderthal ancestor that
a sub saharan African does not -- and he can have an
archaic ancestor that I don't share -- but the one
population every human can trace back to is the aquatic
ape population. They were the link. They were what
kept Homo connected. They were the conduit through
which DNA traveled from point to point.
Aquatic Ape and Multi Regionalism fit like a glove. They
explain all the evidence. And they even explain each
other!
Yeah I leave it all to the more brilliant people to work out,
but there's your answer. Multi Regionalism is right. Aquatic
Ape is right. It's not an overly simplistic, linear model but
so what? Even the mouth breathers had to sense that "One
toe touched a savanna, that's how" was always ridiculous.
Op vrijdag 10 juni 2022 om 06:37:16 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
Yes, I think you're right.
No doubt,
- the glacial cycle strongly influenced Homo's evolution,
- Pleistocene Homo spread intercontinentally following the coasts,
but I'm not sure whether this happened more during Glacials or during Interglacials.
And they in parallel ("multiregionalism") followed the rivers inland,
but again, Im not sure whether this happened more during Interglacials?
Where coasts more shellfish-rich during Glacials?? or v.v.?
And what was the influence of latitude?
Hn was apparently less tropical than He.
We know that He dived more in sea-water than Hn,
and that Hn mostly ate freshwater foods.
Very likely Hn seasonally followed the river to the sea,
but was this more during Glacials, or Interglacials??
Just kidding. There is no conflict. The fit perfectly.
Populations were routinely driven inland where they
adapted, evolved. The glacial/interglacial cycle
would have forced this to occur almost clock like.
The glacial periods dropped sea levels opening
up vast stretches of coastline -- highways on which
to travel -- while the interglacials swallowed up those
same coastlines, pushing groups inland and cutting
them off, isolating them.
We never needed the ice age, the glacial/interglacial
cycle, it would have happened all on it's own. The
ice age sped things up, made it regular. But natural
disasters, disease (Red Tide), conflict, curiosity (etc)
alone would have periodically pushed groups inland.
Anyhow, the coastal group is the key. The Aquatic
Ape is the key. I can have a Neanderthal ancestor that
a sub saharan African does not -- and he can have an
archaic ancestor that I don't share -- but the one
population every human can trace back to is the aquatic
ape population. They were the link. They were what
kept Homo connected. They were the conduit through
which DNA traveled from point to point.
Aquatic Ape and Multi Regionalism fit like a glove. They
explain all the evidence. And they even explain each
other!
Yeah I leave it all to the more brilliant people to work out,
but there's your answer. Multi Regionalism is right. Aquatic
Ape is right. It's not an overly simplistic, linear model but
so what? Even the mouth breathers had to sense that "One
toe touched a savanna, that's how" was always ridiculous.
Yes, the antelope running nonsense is the worst idea imaginable:
antelopes run on their hooves (nails), but we run on flat feet... :-DDD
- the glacial cycle strongly influenced Homo's evolution,
- Pleistocene Homo spread intercontinentally following the coasts,
but I'm not sure whether this happened more during Glacials or during Interglacials.
And what was the influence of latitude?
Hn was apparently less tropical than He.
We know that He dived more in sea-water than Hn,
and that Hn mostly ate freshwater foods.
Yes, the antelope running nonsense is the worst idea imaginable:
antelopes run on their hooves (nails), but we run on flat feet... :-DDD
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
- the glacial cycle strongly influenced Homo's evolution,
- Pleistocene Homo spread intercontinentally following the coasts,
but I'm not sure whether this happened more during Glacials or during Interglacials.
I don't think that the glacial/interglacial cycle was necessary but that
it sped things along. So, Homo spread mostly during glacial periods
and populations moved inland during interglacials.
Of course many groups would have stayed on the coast even during
the height the interglacials. And at least some would have pushed
inland even during the very depths of the glacial periods. But "The
Rule" as opposed to the exception would have been moving along
the sea coast during glacial periods and pushing inland during the interglacials.
And what was the influence of latitude?
Hn was apparently less tropical than He.
Humans were a tropical species, so He was warm weather adapted.
They couldn't push into the north until they "Evolved" and/or developed technologies that allowed them to survive colder environments.
Physically: Changes to mtDNA would have been significant, as it
would have helped to keep them warm. Technologically we're talking
maybe clothing and whatever is related to that -- could be rope or
twine or even figuring out how to make knots -- and possibly the
spread of fire.
We know that He dived more in sea-water than Hn,
Diving would significantly increase the amount of exploitable
coast line. It would be very effective in response to interglacials,
where coastlines may have vanished beneath the waves...
Think of this: Cliffs! But some cliffs near the coast and then raise
sea level over 100 meters. Suddenly you're stuck. Your way is
blocked. So picking up your sticks and moving a little further up
the coast is no longer an option. Which means you push inland,
adapt to a new environment, or get more out of the available
coastline -- DIVING!
Diving would be excessively useful even without such a
scenario. Homos are SELECTIVE. We enjoy foods. Some of them.
And other foods we don't enjoy, regardless of how edible they are.
Diving would be useful in exploiting a particular food source, a
specific food.
I lean towards oysters. They seem like a good candidate to me uneducated-on-middens mind. They probably would have started
as easily exploitable but once a population acquired a taste for
them they may have had to follow them into the waves, having
already exploited everything that was more easily accessible.
and that Hn mostly ate freshwater foods.
No entire convinced.
We know there were Neanderthals on the coast, exploiting the
sea, but we don't do a lot of searching for them. If we marked
off were the coast was during the glacial period(s) and explored
where the dry land used to be, we may find "The real" population
clustered mostly around the Mediterranean.
But here's the thing:
Regardless of how many lived inland as opposed to the coast,
we likely descend primarily from the coastal population.
Yes, the antelope running nonsense is the worst idea imaginable:
antelopes run on their hooves (nails), but we run on flat feet... :-DDD
The only way they could practice endurance running as a hunting
strategy is if they met or exceeded dietary needs on vegetation.
Otherwise they would starve to death expelling all that time and
energy into acquiring calories.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 71:10:49 |
| Calls: | 6,804 |
| Files: | 12,325 |
| Messages: | 5,399,745 |