littor...@gmail.com wrote:
H & P split c 5 Ma, when the Red Sea opened to the Indian Ocean:
- Pan went right, following the African coast & swamp forests, with later fossil representatives such as late-Pliocene A.africanus & early-Pleistocene robustus, naledi etc.
- Homo went left, colonized the S-Asian coasts, and evolved into H.erectus cs.
Did only early-Pleistocene Homo evolve platycephaly, much larger brains, pachyosteosclerosis, platypelloidy etc.: why? was the cooling important in becoming frequent divers for shellfish? or fossil biases?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/orangutans-human-relative-evolution
I'd ignore it myself, but the truth is that DNA simply does not work the
way we are told to work. Genetic distance can represent time, yes, but
it's more accurate to say it's generations: Reproductive strategy alone
can produce this genetic distance. But environment is another huge
factor. Move from Location-A to Location-B and DNA is presented with
a whole new set of selective pressures which translates directly to
genetic distance.
Haven't quite worked out a model in my head that produces what is
supposed to be greater similarity in Chimps than Orangutans, if our
genus is Out of Asia.
I said Genus and not Species...
But I'm not swayed by the genetic evidence. It's LONG been the case
that where we can date both with archaeology and DNA the dates
contradict each other, with the DNA uniformly older. Problem is, when
there isn't archaeology to demonstrate the error of the molecular
dating, the molecular dating is treated as gospel.
(We don't like that)
'
There isn't a linear progression though, that much I know for a fact, so
there is room in the "Genetic Distances" here to argue a closer
relationship to Orangutans than even Chimps.
Then again, it's all so unnecessary to the Out of Asia position anyway
so maybe I'm wasting your time.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687864248003592192
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)