e.g. Hum.Evol.9: 121-139, 1994:
KWing of chimps & gorillas has been argued to have arisen independently (Begun 1992), possibly in more BP ancestors (Kleindienst 1975, Hasegawa cs 1985, Edelstein 1987):
- Gorilla KWing anatomy & ontogeny are much better developed than in Pan, and are different from Pan (Inouye 1992),
- the Homo-Pan LCA had not yet acquired KWing: humans do not at any age show the slightest trace of KWing:
1) we lean (e.g. on a table) far more comfortably on our proximal than on our middle hand phalanges,
2) in KWing apes the middle hand phalanges are naked, but in many men they are dorsally haired, and fingers III & IV (that bear most Wt in KWers) even more frequently than V & II (Harrison 1958, Singh 1982, Ikoma 1986),
3) “human infants walk or run spontaneously on all fours, invariably with the palms flat on the ground & the fingers completely extended” (Schultz 1936:264).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
Op zaterdag 9 juli 2022 om 09:35:23 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
:-DDD
Almost a century ago the great anatomist & primatologist Schultz already showed that KWing evolved in parallel in Gorilla//Pan.
Of course, Afr.apes need strong hands for KWing, but that has 0 to do with POS, didn't you even know this?? Grow up, little boy.
e.g. Hum.Evol.9: 121-139, 1994:
KWing of chimps & gorillas has been argued to have arisen independently (Begun 1992), possibly in more BP ancestors (Kleindienst 1975, Hasegawa cs 1985, Edelstein 1987):
- Gorilla KWing anatomy & ontogeny are much better developed than in Pan, and are different from Pan (Inouye 1992),
- the Homo-Pan LCA had not yet acquired KWing: humans do not at any age show the slightest trace of KWing:
1) we lean (e.g. on a table) far more comfortably on our proximal than on our middle hand phalanges,
2) in KWing apes the middle hand phalanges are naked, but in many men they are dorsally haired, and fingers III & IV (that bear most Wt in KWers) even more frequently than V & II (Harrison 1958, Singh 1982, Ikoma 1986),
3) “human infants walk or run spontaneously on all fours, invariably with the palms flat on the ground & the fingers completely extended” (Schultz 1936:264).
Not surprisingly, MV avoids the topic, enlarged dense (POS) knuckle bones in knucklewalkers (chimps, gorillas, armadillos(?) but not in Homo
It's really not dfficult: even retarded savanna runners can understand:
early apes (Miocene) were already bipedal:
they simply waded upright in forest swamps, and climbed arms overhead in the branches above the swamp,
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Not surprisingly, MV avoids the topic, enlarged dense (POS) knuckle bones in knucklewalkers (chimps, gorillas, armadillos(?) but not in HomoWhat the hell are you blabbering about now?
"Avoids?" Do you not grasp rudimentary English? You got far more detailed
and serious a response than you deserve.
WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR SO CALLED "ARGUMENT" HERE?
The anatomy of knuckle walkers is different so humans aren't different because they are?
Wtf?!?
You're establishing that you're a moron. You could not begin to understand what is relevant here, much less how things could relate to each other. Go ahead, prove me wrong:
What is you <ahem> "Argument?"
What do you think you're showing, and why?
Don't pretend that you've done this already, as if you were capable of it, so if you've got the guts, which you don't, map it all out.
-- --Dr jermy readies himself for auto-autopsy.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/689224263713079296
On Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 11:13:26 AM UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
It's really not dfficult: even retarded savanna runners can understand: early apes (Miocene) were already bipedal:
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
Pushing it back to some unknown
ancestors at some unknown time for
some unknown reason may be a common
evasion (i.e. dodge) but that it all it is.
they simply waded upright in forest swamps, and climbed arms overhead in the branches above the swamp,Firstly we are NOT talking about the
occasional bipedalism seen in numerous
taxa, notably in primates, but the
OBLIGATE bipedalism,seen (in living
species) only in humans.
Obligate orthograde bipedalism (OOB) is
desperately slow on the ground, and makes
climbing difficult and often impossible.
A human mother with an infant cannot
scamper up a pole-like tree, as can all
other primates.
She and her infant would be hopelessly
vulnerable to predators (both carnivore
and omnivore). The same would have
applied to all hominin ancestors since
OOB evolved.
Until you have a theory that explains how
obligate orthograde bipedalism (OOB)
evolved, you are spouting garbage.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
You're establishing that you're a moron. You could not begin to understand what is relevant here, much less how things could relate to each other. Go ahead, prove me wrong:
What is you <ahem> "Argument?"
What do you think you're showing, and why?
Dr jermy readies himself for auto-autopsy.
Neither want to discuss POS in chimps & gorillas.
Why?
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
You're establishing that you're a moron. You could not begin to understand
what is relevant here, much less how things could relate to each other. Go
ahead, prove me wrong:
What is you <ahem> "Argument?"
Pussy.What do you think you're showing, and why?Dr jermy readies himself for auto-autopsy.
You couldn't even bring yourself to attempt to answer, knowing what you
are, and you haven't the courage to back down. You're a pussy.
-- --Oh my, Dr jermy is really nailing himself to the cross today.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/689224263713079296
On Saturday 9 July 2022 at 15:40:50 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Neither want to discuss POS in chimps & gorillas.
Why?Can't. Don't know what POS in chimps and gorillas is . . .
Google search reveals nothing. Not defined in this
nor in previous thread.
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone
somebody:
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
IPOS bones are fragile (e.g. Sirenia bones are fragile).
IOW, only idiotic kudu runners believe knuckle-walking chimps & gorillas have osteosclerotic knuckles.Kudu fish traps??
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone
-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
"Fragile??"
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
There's two types of mysteries in life.
#1. We don't know how this could happen.
#2. We don't know how, out of all the potential explanations,
this did happen.
Clearly this is an example of #2.
We have tons of theories, models that may explain it (savanna
nonsense isn't one of them) and we can't know which is any
amongst them are correct.
It's unknown and unknowable.
But, the further back we draw, the bigger our picture the uncertainty vanishes along with the minutia.
Aquatic Ape is it. There's no denying it. Even Out of Africa purity
requires that it be true, as it's very means they propose humans
spread across the globe.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
[---Pussy tracks---]
Like I said, you couldn't even bring yourself to try. And we both
know why.
-- --Auto-autopsy.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/689330400963723264
somebody:
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone
-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
"Fragile??"Wikipedia, my boy:
"Osteopetrosis,
Osteopetrosis can cause bones to dissolve and break.
It is one of the hereditary causes of osteosclerosis.
It is considered to be the prototype of osteosclerosing dysplasias."
It's not difficult, even kudu runners can understand:
too much calcium = brittle.
On Saturday 9 July 2022 at 21:23:01 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
There's two types of mysteries in life.
#1. We don't know how this could happen.
#2. We don't know how, out of all the potential explanations,
this did happen.
Clearly this is an example of #2.Not clear at all. Mostly #1 as far as
I can see. If you had a range of
reasonable or potential explanations,
we'd see them here, from time to
time. MV never states any (while,
at the same time, claiming to have a
comprehensive answer to everything).
Daud Deden has his 'dome-shields' --
but he's the only person who doesn't
see that 'solution' as nuts.
Standard PA has none. It's savanna
nonsense is no more than a vague
(an extremely vague) assumption --
and it takes great care to never go
into any kind of detail.
We have tons of theories, models that may explain it (savannaOutline ONE.
nonsense isn't one of them) and we can't know which is any
amongst them are correct.
It's unknown and unknowable.That's certainly true if you never try
to think about it -- which appears to
be the standard operating procedure,
both around here and throughout the
'discipline'.
But, the further back we draw, the bigger our picture the uncertainty vanishes along with the minutia.Pushing it as far back as you can
(somewhere out of sight) is merely
wishful thinking that hopes the
nasty problem will just go away.
Aquatic Ape is it. There's no denying it. Even Out of Africa purity requires that it be true, as it's very means they propose humansAquatic Ape doesn't help at all.
spread across the globe.
Where does it have an explanation
as to how the first land-based
hominins avoided predation?
Parsimony requires continuity, when chromosome inversion
mutations occur, consequental behavioral inversions
consequental behavioral inversions are likely to follow, such as
inverting the arboreal ape bowl nest into a domeshield shelter.
Most mutations are negative, most inversions are negative, but
some are positive and thus reinforced.
Humans and hylobatids do
not have 48 chromosomes, great apes do.
On Sunday 10 July 2022 at 03:19:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Parsimony requires continuity, when chromosome inversionSelection works on behaviour.
mutations occur, consequental behavioral inversions
chromosome inversion affects behaviour
then it's most unlikely to be a beneficial
change, and the inversion will selected
out.
behaviour might survive.
The reason that there have been so
many chromosomal mutations in gibbons
is that their populations can so easily
become isolated in small groups.
small groups can have all manner of
genetic change. When they re-integrate
with wider populations, those changes
can spread -- so long as they are neutral
in their behavioural effects.
consequental behavioral inversions are likely to follow, such asThat would be a behavioural change,
inverting the arboreal ape bowl nest into a domeshield shelter.
NOT one in the chromosomes.
Most mutations are negative, most inversions are negative, butNo one has ever identified a chromosomal
some are positive and thus reinforced.
inversion that has had a beneficial effect.
Nor is anyone ever likely to. Gibbons
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
the meantime was probably largely about
minimising diseases. But little or none of
that concerned chromosomal inversions.
Humans and hylobatids doNot a useful observation. And nothing
not have 48 chromosomes, great apes do.
whatever to do with parsimony.
On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 8:39:23 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:All apes have sialic acid Gc form, normal for mammals, humans do not. Due to chromosome inversion?
On Sunday 10 July 2022 at 03:19:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
And physiology etc. at individual and population levels.Parsimony requires continuity, when chromosome inversionSelection works on behaviour.
mutations occur, consequental behavioral inversions
If a
chromosome inversion affects behaviourClimate/environment changes (cycles) may select for new behaviors & physiology.
then it's most unlikely to be a beneficial
change, and the inversion will selected
out.
An inversion that has no effect on
behaviour might survive.No, if not advantageous it will be lost.
The reason that there have been soThey don't group. Like single tigers vs social lions.
many chromosomal mutations in gibbons
is that their populations can so easily
become isolated in small groups.
Those
small groups can have all manner ofThe opposite.
genetic change. When they re-integrate
with wider populations, those changes
can spread -- so long as they are neutral
in their behavioural effects.
It followed the chromosome inversion. Amongst arboreals it was disadvantageous: sleeping on ground in bowl nest was dangerous generally, but sleeping on ground in dome nest was safer, far less exposed.consequental behavioral inversions are likely to follow, such as inverting the arboreal ape bowl nest into a domeshield shelter.That would be a behavioural change,
NOT one in the chromosomes.
Homo dominates all hominoids. All Homo are sheltered, none other are.Most mutations are negative, most inversions are negative, butNo one has ever identified a chromosomal
some are positive and thus reinforced.
inversion that has had a beneficial effect.
Nor is anyone ever likely to. GibbonsNo, their brachiation has greatly increased in speed, longer arms & fingers. Most of the 'selection' in
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
the meantime was probably largely aboutOf course.
minimising diseases. But little or none of
that concerned chromosomal inversions.
Did ancient hylobatids have 48?Humans and hylobatids doNot a useful observation. And nothing
not have 48 chromosomes, great apes do.
whatever to do with parsimony.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
There's two types of mysteries in life.
#1. We don't know how this could happen.
#2. We don't know how, out of all the potential explanations,
this did happen.
Clearly this is an example of #2.
Not clear at all. Mostly #1 as far as
I can see. If you had a range of
reasonable or potential explanations,
we'd see them here, from time to
time. MV never states any (while,
at the same time, claiming to have a
comprehensive answer to everything).
Daud Deden has his 'dome-shields' --
but he's the only person who doesn't
see that 'solution' as nuts.
Standard PA has none. It's savanna
nonsense is no more than a vague
(an extremely vague) assumption --
and it takes great care to never go
into any kind of detail.
We have tons of theories, models that may explain it (savanna
nonsense isn't one of them) and we can't know which is any
amongst them are correct.
Outline ONE.
Pushing it as far back as you can
(somewhere out of sight) is merely
wishful thinking that hopes the
nasty problem will just go away.
Aquatic Ape is it. There's no denying it. Even Out of Africa purity requires that it be true, as it's very means they propose humans
spread across the globe.
Aquatic Ape doesn't help at all.
Where does it have an explanation
as to how the first land-based
hominins avoided predation?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
[....]
Wow I really think you can't explain even your own goddamn
position because you're so gosh darn smart.
(That was sarcasm)
-- --GIGO.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/689330400963723264
On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:24:02 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 8:39:23 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Sunday 10 July 2022 at 03:19:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
All apes have sialic acid Gc form, normal for mammals, humans do not. Due to chromosome inversion?And physiology etc. at individual and population levels.Parsimony requires continuity, when chromosome inversionSelection works on behaviour.
mutations occur, consequental behavioral inversions
If a
chromosome inversion affects behaviourClimate/environment changes (cycles) may select for new behaviors & physiology.
then it's most unlikely to be a beneficial
change, and the inversion will selected
out.
An inversion that has no effect on
behaviour might survive.No, if not advantageous it will be lost.
The reason that there have been soThey don't group. Like single tigers vs social lions.
many chromosomal mutations in gibbons
is that their populations can so easily
become isolated in small groups.
Those
small groups can have all manner ofThe opposite.
genetic change. When they re-integrate
with wider populations, those changes
can spread -- so long as they are neutral
in their behavioural effects.
It followed the chromosome inversion. Amongst arboreals it was disadvantageous: sleeping on ground in bowl nest was dangerous generally, but sleeping on ground in dome nest was safer, far less exposed.consequental behavioral inversions are likely to follow, such as inverting the arboreal ape bowl nest into a domeshield shelter.That would be a behavioural change,
NOT one in the chromosomes.
Homo dominates all hominoids. All Homo are sheltered, none other are.Most mutations are negative, most inversions are negative, butNo one has ever identified a chromosomal
some are positive and thus reinforced.
inversion that has had a beneficial effect.
Nor is anyone ever likely to. GibbonsNo, their brachiation has greatly increased in speed, longer arms & fingers.
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
Most of the 'selection' in
the meantime was probably largely aboutOf course.
minimising diseases. But little or none of
that concerned chromosomal inversions.
Did ancient hylobatids have 48?Humans and hylobatids doNot a useful observation. And nothing
not have 48 chromosomes, great apes do.
whatever to do with parsimony.
Loss of N-glycolylneuraminic acid in humans: Mechanisms, consequences,
and implications for hominid evolution
Ajit Varki
Abstract
The surface of all mammalian cells is covered with a dense and complex
array of sugar chains, which are frequently terminated by members of a
family of molecules called sialic acids. One particular sialic acid called N- glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an immune response in adult humans.
An inversion that has no effect on. .
behaviour might survive.
No, if not advantageous it will be lost.
The reason that there have been so. .
many chromosomal mutations in gibbons
is that their populations can so easily
become isolated in small groups.
They don't group. Like single tigers vs social lions.
Nor is anyone ever likely to. Gibbons. .
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
No, their brachiation has greatly increased in speed, longer arms & fingers.
. .Humans and hylobatids doNot a useful observation. And nothing
not have 48 chromosomes, great apes do.
. .
whatever to do with parsimony.
Did ancient hylobatids have 48?
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
There's two types of mysteries in life.
#1. We don't know how this could happen.
#2. We don't know how, out of all the potential explanations,
this did happen.
Clearly this is an example of #2.
Not clear at all. Mostly #1 as far as
I can see.
So let's put this all together: Homo everywhere, tools everywhere
and all this starting more than 2 million years ago... how did this
happen?
So did Homo just by coincidence evolve a form that was perfectly
suited for the waterside existence, or did they evolve the form by
existing waterside?
We have tons of theories, models that may explain it (savanna
nonsense isn't one of them) and we can't know which is any
amongst them are correct.
Outline ONE.
Aquatic Ape/Waterside/Litoral.
Where does it have an explanation
as to how the first land-based
hominins avoided predation?
It's irrelevant. Here:
https://youtu.be/8nsRPhseatQ
Skip to 1:12 to watch a leopard dragging it's Chimp
carcass. The point being, your large predators are a
problem everywhere.
There was no safe place in the world.
On Sunday 10 July 2022 at 18:24:02 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
There cann be a lot of genetic change overAn inversion that has no effect on. .
behaviour might survive.
No, if not advantageous it will be lost.
time (including chromosomal inversions),
especially in populations which often split
into smaller populations and later re-
integrate -- as in gibbons -- with no
discernible advantages.
I should have written 'small populations'.The reason that there have been so. .
many chromosomal mutations in gibbons
is that their populations can so easily
become isolated in small groups.
They don't group. Like single tigers vs social lions.
[..]
Gibbon brachiation evolved > 20 maNor is anyone ever likely to. Gibbons. .
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
No, their brachiation has greatly increased in speed, longer arms & fingers.
with long arms, fingers, loss of tail,
centralised spine, flat chest, etc.
Little or nothing fundamental has
changed since.
Some of them did.. .Humans and hylobatids doNot a useful observation. And nothing
not have 48 chromosomes, great apes do.
. .
whatever to do with parsimony.
Did ancient hylobatids have 48?
to suggest that those were the ancestors
of large apes. But there was so much
(largely random) change at different times
that no one should bet on it.
On Monday 11 July 2022 at 02:30:30 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Loss of N-glycolylneuraminic acid in humans: Mechanisms, consequences,
and implications for hominid evolution
Ajit Varki
AbstractGlad you found this. The genetic change
The surface of all mammalian cells is covered with a dense and complex array of sugar chains, which are frequently terminated by members of a family of molecules called sialic acids. One particular sialic acid called N-
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
was close to trivial
for the populations involved were huge.
It's also why red meat and dairy are not
healthy foods for humans.
It was IMO probably adopted
population on an off-shore island,
means of avoiding malaria-type infections
from mosquitoes blown in from the main-
land.
could not cope with different cell-surfaces.
In time (recent millennia?) the mosquitoes
(and/or their bugs) evolved strains that
could parasitise on humans.
They estimate the sialic change at 3 ma.
I'd say it was probably much closer to the
origin of the taxon at ~5ma.
On Sunday 10 July 2022 at 23:13:57 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
It is extremely difficult to explain how
obligate orthograde bipedalism evolved.
There's two types of mysteries in life.
#1. We don't know how this could happen.
#2. We don't know how, out of all the potential explanations,
this did happen.
Clearly this is an example of #2.
We are talking about the adoption ofNot clear at all. Mostly #1 as far asSo let's put this all together: Homo everywhere, tools everywhere
I can see.
and all this starting more than 2 million years ago... how did this
happen?
Obligate Orthograde Bipedalism (OOB).
No one suggests it was after ~5ma.
So I don't know where you are going.
So did Homo just by coincidence evolve a form that was perfectlyHomo evolved a form that is explicable
suited for the waterside existence, or did they evolve the form by
existing waterside?
only as resulting from a largely coastal
existence. I don't know about "perfectly
suited".
We have tons of theories, models that may explain it (savanna
nonsense isn't one of them) and we can't know which is any
amongst them are correct.
Outline ONE.
Aquatic Ape/Waterside/Litoral.It provides no explanation for the
adoption of OOB.
Where does it have an explanation
as to how the first land-based
hominins avoided predation?
It's irrelevant. Here:
https://youtu.be/8nsRPhseatQ
Skip to 1:12 to watch a leopard dragging it's Chimp
carcass. The point being, your large predators are a
problem everywhere.
There was no safe place in the world.It's very obvious from the behaviour
of human infants and children that they
could NOT have evolved in the presence
of dangerous predators. They DID live
in a safe place. Likewise any observation
of their basic anatomy, and that of their
mothers, forces the same conclusion.
They found safe places in the world.
We are talking about the adoption of
Obligate Orthograde Bipedalism (OOB).
No one suggests it was after ~5ma.
Hylobatids (arboreal) and Homo (arboreal->terrestrial) have shared this trait since the
hominoid LCA,
cf achilles tendon, long lower back, no bowl nesting.
Aust. africanus had gorilla-like heelbone https://phys.org/news/2016-08-results-reveal-heel-
bone-fossil.html
Homo has highly dense large heel bone.
It provides no explanation for the
adoption of OOB.
https://youtu.be/8nsRPhseatQThere was no safe place in the world.
Skip to 1:12 to watch a leopard dragging it's Chimp
carcass. The point being, your large predators are a
problem everywhere.
It's very obvious from the behaviour
of human infants and children that they
could NOT have evolved in the presence
of dangerous predators. They DID live
in a safe place.
They found safe places in the world.
Of course, in shelters derived from standard great ape nests.
especially in populations which often split
into smaller populations and later re-
integrate -- as in gibbons -- with no
discernible advantages.
Unsupported assertion.
[..]
Nor is anyone ever likely to. Gibbons. .
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
No, their brachiation has greatly increased in speed, longer arms & fingers.
Gibbon brachiation evolved > 20 ma
with long arms, fingers, loss of tail,
centralised spine, flat chest, etc.
Unsupported assertion.
One particular sialic acid called N-
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian
tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
Glad you found this. The genetic change
was close to trivial
No, critical.
-- even if the implications
for the populations involved were huge.
It's also why red meat and dairy are not
healthy foods for humans.
No, domestic fatty cattle are the problem.
Normal H&G active humans have no problem with wild game.
means of avoiding malaria-type infections
from mosquitoes blown in from the main-
land.
No other mammal has it, despite living with malarial/mosquito habitats.
Yes, but where did 3ma come from?
On Monday 11 July 2022 at 16:48:52 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
One particular sialic acid called N-
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian >>> tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
Glad you found this. The genetic change
was close to trivial
No, critical.It was trivial in terms of the numbers
of genetic base pairs that had to
change.
-- even if the implications
for the populations involved were huge.
It's also why red meat and dairy are not
healthy foods for humans.
No, domestic fatty cattle are the problem.Just nonsense. Re-read your sources.
Normal H&G active humans have no problem with wild game.
The cells of nearly all mammals are
surrounded by Neu5Gc -- whether
they are wild or domesticated. A
diet based on wild game -- deer, hogs
etc., would be just as poisonous for
our ancestors as for us.
had such a diet -- in spite of PAprobably happened during the chromosome inversion.
fantasy.
means of avoiding malaria-type infections
from mosquitoes blown in from the main-
land.
No other mammal has it, despite living with malarial/mosquito habitats.A few other mammals do have it,
but it's rare, and difficult to achieve.
I don't know how it came about (nor
does anyone) but I imagine that its
adoption in one individual generally
means that he or she can't breed
with others who don't have it. So
great advantages if you can over-
come that barrier, but enormously
difficult to get there.
It would be essential to have very
small and isolated populations with
high degrees of inbreeding. Most
such populations would fail, of
course, but if one 'got it right' its
members would have great
advantages over others of their
species.
Yes, but where did 3ma come from?A conclusion from looking at the rate
of change in (what they thought were)
allied genes . . ?
On Monday 11 July 2022 at 16:28:40 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
especially in populations which often split
into smaller populations and later re-
integrate -- as in gibbons -- with no
discernible advantages.
Unsupported assertion.I'm the one denying the existence of
evidence.
chromosomal mutations can be
associated with changes in behaviour
and/or morphology. I've asked you
for evidence. You've provided none.
[..]
Nor is anyone ever likely to. Gibbons. .
now are pretty much the same as they
were 15 ma.
No, their brachiation has greatly increased in speed, longer arms & fingers.
Gibbon brachiation evolved > 20 ma
with long arms, fingers, loss of tail,
centralised spine, flat chest, etc.
Unsupported assertion.See above. It's widely accepted that
gibbons evolved around 20 ma (maybe
~16 ma).
which could not be occupied by a half-
gibbon or a 3/4 gibbon. It's YOUR
assertion that gibbons went from sub-
gibbons to gibbons long after they
first evolved. It's like deciding that the
ancestors of eagles 20 ma were not
birds of prey, and that they could
barely fly; or that the ancestors of
gannets 20 ma were like rooks or
thrushes.
Both wrong, Homo moved upright bipedalism to the ground.
We are talking about the adoption of
Obligate Orthograde Bipedalism (OOB).
No one suggests it was after ~5ma.
So I don't know where you are going.
So did Homo just by coincidence evolve a form that was perfectly
suited for the waterside existence, or did they evolve the form by
existing waterside?
Homo evolved a form that is explicable
only as resulting from a largely coastal
existence. I don't know about "perfectly
suited".
Aquatic Ape/Waterside/Litoral.
It provides no explanation for the
adoption of OOB.
https://youtu.be/8nsRPhseatQ
Skip to 1:12 to watch a leopard dragging it's Chimp
carcass. The point being, your large predators are a
problem everywhere.
There was no safe place in the world.
It's very obvious from the behaviour
of human infants and children that they
could NOT have evolved in the presence
of dangerous predators.
They DID live in a safe place.
Aquatic Ape/Waterside/Litoral.
It provides no explanation for the
adoption of OOB.
You're just being dogmatic -- mindlessly dogmatic... defender of the
faith, you.
One particular sialic acid called N-
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian >>>>> tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
It's also why red meat and dairy are not
healthy foods for humans.
No, domestic fatty cattle are the problem.
Pork and beef are big sellers. Your reasoning is off.
. .Yes, but where did 3ma come from?
A conclusion from looking at the rate. .
of change in (what they thought were)
allied genes . . ?
probably happened during the chromosome inversion.
This isn't an event as you are ordered to believe, but a process.
It provides no explanation for the
adoption of OOB.
You're just being dogmatic -- mindlessly dogmatic... defender of the
faith, you.
https://youtu.be/8nsRPhseatQ
Skip to 1:12 to watch a leopard dragging it's Chimp
carcass. The point being, your large predators are a
problem everywhere.
There was no safe place in the world.
It's very obvious from the behaviour
of human infants and children that they
could NOT have evolved in the presence
of dangerous predators.
No it isn't. Not evident at all.
They DID live in a safe place.
There is no safe place. Never has been. Chimps are killed
by predators now. Chimps kill other chimps including babies.
On Wednesday 13 July 2022 at 07:28:03 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
This isn't an event as you are ordered to believe, but a process.It was 'an event' -- to the extent that
anything in evolution can be regarded
as one. At the start they were chimps
living in trees. A few generations later
they'd left the trees, were occupying
territory well away from them, finding
new food, sleeping on the ground, and
changing their entire social structure,
their character and their morphology.
They'd found a new niche.
Finding a new niche is never 'a process'.
It's a one-time step, which either
works or fails.
It provides no explanation for the
adoption of OOB.
You're just being dogmatic -- mindlessly dogmatic... defender of theObligate Orthograde Bipedalism (OOB)
faith, you.
requires an explanation. The taxon adopted
a very much slower form of terrestrial
locomotion and became incapable of
scampering up pole-like trees (especially
with infants attached).
All that was possible only if there were
no dangerous predators around.
That's not being dogmatic. It's stating
manifest facts and transparently
obvious conclusions.
https://youtu.be/8nsRPhseatQ
Skip to 1:12 to watch a leopard dragging it's Chimp
carcass. The point being, your large predators are a
problem everywhere.
There was no safe place in the world.
It's very obvious from the behaviour
of human infants and children that they
could NOT have evolved in the presence
of dangerous predators.
No it isn't. Not evident at all.
They DID live in a safe place.
There is no safe place. Never has been. Chimps are killedWho is being dogmatic?
by predators now. Chimps kill other chimps including babies.
Off-shore islands (e.g. Zanzibar) are
predator-free. Hominin occupation of
them (from the origin of the bipedal
taxon) also ties in with what is needed
to explain the (crucial but relatively
few) 'aquatic' aspects of human
morphology, physiology and behaviour.
On Tuesday 12 July 2022 at 23:37:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:consume a lot of domestic cattle
Pork and beef are big sellers. Your reasoning is off.One particular sialic acid called N-It's also why red meat and dairy are not
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian >>>>> tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
healthy foods for humans.
No, domestic fatty cattle are the problem.
Humans [post-agr]
and pig.
smoking, alcohol and other harmful drugs.
You can hardly claim that (say) smoking is
good for you, and that's proved because
so many like it.
Neu5Gc is bad for humans. It causes
inflammation. Our bodies treat it as
harmful, encase it in tissue and
commonly dump it into tumors
A cascade of changes followed the inversion, mostly not shared with any hominoids.Possible but unlikely. Different processes.. .Yes, but where did 3ma come from?
A conclusion from looking at the rate. .
of change in (what they thought were)
allied genes . . ?
probably happened during the chromosome inversion.
Off-shore islands (e.g. Zanzibar) are
predator-free. Hominin occupation of
them (from the origin of the bipedal
taxon) also ties in with what is needed
to explain the (crucial but relatively
few) 'aquatic' aspects of human
morphology, physiology and behaviour.
Off-shore isles have continental predators, oceanic isles far from
continents evolve their own.
On Wednesday 13 July 2022 at 13:44:11 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Off-shore islands (e.g. Zanzibar) are
predator-free. Hominin occupation of
them (from the origin of the bipedal
taxon) also ties in with what is needed
to explain the (crucial but relatively
few) 'aquatic' aspects of human
morphology, physiology and behaviour.
Off-shore isles have continental predators, oceanic isles far from continents evolve their own.It depends on the distance, the
strength of the currents between the
island and the mainland, etc., etc.
Most off-shore islands today were
part of the mainland before ~14 ka
when sea-levels were much lower,
but few have significant predators.
There are none (that would trouble
hominins) on Borneo, for example.
Predators must necessarily have a
population that is a small fraction
of that of their prey.
the prey species will survive when
the predator ones become too
inbred.
The general situation for hominins
was much more favourable ~5 ma
as there was a great variety of
species of large predators and
omnivores that preyed on forest
species.
would have had small numbers on
a newly-created island, and would
have rapidly gone extinct.
Once the proto-hominins came
down from the trees, they would
have been alert to incursions of
individual predators/omnivores
swimming across from the main-
land, and had the numbers and
capacity to eliminate them, and/
or prevent them from breeding.
Off-shore isles have continental predators, oceanic isles far from. .
continents evolve their own.
It depends on the distance, the
strength of the currents between the
island and the mainland, etc., etc.
Cherry picking?
Generally my point stands.
Most off-shore islands today were
part of the mainland before ~14 ka
when sea-levels were much lower,
but few have significant predators.
There are none (that would trouble
hominins) on Borneo, for example.
Bornean tigers previously, clouded leopards today.
Predators must necessarily have a
population that is a small fraction
of that of their prey.
Glad you finally accept that, I've told you that repeatedly.
On an island,
the prey species will survive when
the predator ones become too
inbred.
Not offshore isles.
The general situation for hominins
was much more favourable ~5 ma
as there was a great variety of
species of large predators and
omnivores that preyed on forest
species.
Domeshields always beat predators, carnivores, omnivores.
Once the proto-hominins came
down from the trees, they would
have been alert to incursions of
individual predators/omnivores
swimming across from the main-
land, and had the numbers and
capacity to eliminate them, and/
or prevent them from breeding.
Fantasy. If large predators went extinct on an island, hominins would have entirely lost their fear of them.
On Wednesday 13 July 2022 at 18:11:07 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Off-shore isles have continental predators, oceanic isles far from. .
continents evolve their own.
It depends on the distance, the
strength of the currents between the
island and the mainland, etc., etc.
Cherry picking?Evolution cherry picks. Life-forms can
only exist and prosper under certain
conditions. The ecology on the island
is not going to be different if the
channel creating it is only 100 meters
wide
Generally my point stands.
Not really. Chimp bands (and those of
gorilla and every prey species) on the
mainland would love to get rid of their
predators. But there's no point in
trying. Kill one leopard, and there's a
new one to take its place. On an
island, with necessarily small numbers
of a predator species, get rid of them,
and there aren't easy replacements.
The motivation is entirely different.
The entire island population would
unite in that endeavor, and take
significant losses in the process.
Most off-shore islands today were
part of the mainland before ~14 ka
when sea-levels were much lower,
but few have significant predators.
There are none (that would trouble
hominins) on Borneo, for example.
Bornean tigers previously, clouded leopards today.Clouded leopards have maximum size
of 26 kg. A problem, but not too
serious.
Predators must necessarily have a
population that is a small fraction
of that of their prey.
Glad you finally accept that, I've told you that repeatedly.It's Biology 101. I've never denied
it. I don't believe that you've ever
mentioned it.
On an island,
the prey species will survive when
the predator ones become too
inbred.
Not offshore isles.Eh? The island would have to be very
close (? less than a Km?) and with
minimal sea currents, if it was to share
its population of predators (and other
species) with the mainland.
The general situation for hominins
was much more favourable ~5 ma
as there was a great variety of
species of large predators and
omnivores that preyed on forest
species.
Domeshields always beat predators, carnivores, omnivores.Domeshields exist solely in your
imagination.
Once the proto-hominins came
down from the trees, they would
have been alert to incursions of
individual predators/omnivores
swimming across from the main-
land, and had the numbers and
capacity to eliminate them, and/
or prevent them from breeding.
Fantasy. If large predators went extinct on an island, hominins would have entirely lost their fear of them.Ridiculous. There would still be
predators, like the occasional salt-
water crocodile, and pythons. Those
instincts run very deep. the other day
a small girl on the street with her
parents wanted to pet my labrador .
He's fine with children, but was
looking on the ground (for food?).
I turned his head towards her, and
she reacted with a spasm of fear.
His head seemed huge when a
few inches from her face, and she
wasn't expecting it.
the bones in a ram’s body.POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:"Fragile??"
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
Pachyosteosclerosis in Archaic Homo Fifty Years after Alister Hardy Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution 91 -
Modern bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have very thick skull bones, presumably to protect the brain during inter-male head-butting rituals. These sheep do not ram each other with the skull caps, but with the horns, which weigh ~ 14 kg, as much as all
IPOS bones are fragile (e.g. Sirenia bones are fragile).?? POS is most similar to diamonds! Compact bone.
IOW, only idiotic kudu runners believe knuckle-walking chimps & gorillas have osteosclerotic knuckles.Kudu fish traps??
At 5 minutesthe bones in a ram’s body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:"Fragile??"
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
Pachyosteosclerosis in Archaic Homo Fifty Years after Alister Hardy Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution 91 -
Modern bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have very thick skull bones, presumably to protect the brain during inter-male head-butting rituals. These sheep do not ram each other with the skull caps, but with the horns, which weigh ~ 14 kg, as much as all
IPOS bones are fragile (e.g. Sirenia bones are fragile).?? POS is most similar to diamonds! Compact bone.
IOW, only idiotic kudu runners believe knuckle-walking chimps & gorillas have osteosclerotic knuckles.Kudu fish traps??
Again, mermaid fanatics disregard POS in chimps, gorillas, bighorn sheep.
It was 'an event' -- to the extent that
anything in evolution can be regarded
as one.
At the start they were chimps
living in trees.
all the bones in a ram’s body.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:"Fragile??"
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
Pachyosteosclerosis in Archaic Homo Fifty Years after Alister Hardy Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution 91 -
Modern bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have very thick skull bones, presumably to protect the brain during inter-male head-butting rituals. These sheep do not ram each other with the skull caps, but with the horns, which weigh ~ 14 kg, as much as
bones are fragile".IPOS bones are fragile (e.g. Sirenia bones are fragile).?? POS is most similar to diamonds! Compact bone.
IOW, only idiotic kudu runners believe knuckle-walking chimps & gorillas have osteosclerotic knuckles.Kudu fish traps??
Again, mermaid fanatics disregard POS in chimps, gorillas, bighorn sheep.Wikipedia claims that pachyosteosclerotic bones are 'fragile'. That is blatantly false. (I suspect MV inserted that sentence.)
Consider this:
"Due to the fact that H. gigas (sea cow) bone is pachyosteosclerotic (formed entirely of compact rather than cancellous bone), this material is prized among artisans who make decorative knife handles and carved pieces."
Common sense indicates that something which is carved to make a knife handle could NOT be fragile material. Osteoporotic bone is fragile, POS bone is not. Unfortunately MV is not a scientist, not a biologist, and promotes nonsense such as " Sirenia
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00272/full
Op donderdag 14 juli 2022 om 05:28:44 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
Believing that KWing = POS is too stupid for words:
it's as stupid as apiths running after antelopes on imaginary savannas:Saiga?? Backfloating in open sea??
you need normal (= strong) bone for knuckle-walking.POS bone is stronger than "normal" bone, not hollow!
Seacows often die from collisions with boats + fractures.So do whales , dolphins, seals; motorboats kill everything they hit!! Thick steel hulls crush all bone!! Only jellyfish survive contact.
all the bones in a ram’s body.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
POS = PachyOsteoSclerisis = dense enlarged bone-sclerOsis
thick & dense bone cortex
Wicki:"Fragile??"
"Pachyosteosclerosis is a combination of thickening (pachyostosis) and densification (osteosclerosis) of bones.
It makes bones more heavy, but also more fragile."
Pachyosteosclerosis in Archaic Homo Fifty Years after Alister Hardy Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution 91 -
Modern bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have very thick skull bones, presumably to protect the brain during inter-male head-butting rituals. These sheep do not ram each other with the skull caps, but with the horns, which weigh ~ 14 kg, as much as
bones are fragile".IPOS bones are fragile (e.g. Sirenia bones are fragile).?? POS is most similar to diamonds! Compact bone.
IOW, only idiotic kudu runners believe knuckle-walking chimps & gorillas have osteosclerotic knuckles.Kudu fish traps??
Again, mermaid fanatics disregard POS in chimps, gorillas, bighorn sheep.Wikipedia claims that pachyosteosclerotic bones are 'fragile'. That is blatantly false. (I suspect MV inserted that sentence.)
Consider this:
"Due to the fact that H. gigas (sea cow) bone is pachyosteosclerotic (formed entirely of compact rather than cancellous bone), this material is prized among artisans who make decorative knife handles and carved pieces."
Common sense indicates that something which is carved to make a knife handle could NOT be fragile material. Osteoporotic bone is fragile, POS bone is not. Unfortunately MV is not a scientist, not a biologist, and promotes nonsense such as " Sirenia
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00272/full
. .One particular sialic acid called N-. .
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian >>>>>>> tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
It's also why red meat and dairy are not
healthy foods for humans.
Humans [post-agr] consume a lot of domestic cattle. .
and pig.
Compared to H&G Hs or H er., way more.
. .
They're also often addicted to. .
smoking, alcohol and other harmful drugs.
Compared to H&G Hs & H er., way more.
. .
You can hardly claim that (say) smoking is. .
good for you, and that's proved because
so many like it.
Tobacco, alcohol, concentrated opium & cocaine, fatty cattle & swine all resulted
from domestication in agriculture, before that they were sacred meds & meals.
Neu5Gc is bad for humans. It causes. .
inflammation. Our bodies treat it as
harmful, encase it in tissue and
commonly dump it into tumors
And yet it is widely consumed by huge numbers of healthy people who live to old age.
What caused the huge shift from Gc to Ga that did not occur to other mammals?
probably happened during the chromosome inversion.
Possible but unlikely. Different processes.
A cascade of changes followed the inversion, mostly not shared with any hominoids.
Believing that KWing = POS is too stupid for words:
Note MV's misdirection.
African hominoids with hard thick bones: chimp gorilla H erectus H sapiens Central West Africans
Ursids with hard thick bones: polar bear "their skulls are larger and thicker than a motorcycle helmet" POS
Bighorn sheep skulls are large and thick POS
it's as stupid as apiths running after antelopes on imaginary savannas:
Saiga?? Backfloating in open sea??
you need normal (= strong) bone for knuckle-walking.
POS bone is stronger than "normal" bone, not hollow!
On Wednesday 13 July 2022 at 13:41:35 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:They farm.
Some Yanomami males are stoned. .One particular sialic acid called N-. .
glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) is widely expressed on most mammalian
tissues, but is not easily detectable on human cells. In fact, it provokes an
immune response in adult humans.
It's also why red meat and dairy are not
healthy foods for humans.
Humans [post-agr] consume a lot of domestic cattle. .
and pig.
Compared to H&G Hs or H er., way more.
. .
They're also often addicted to. .
smoking, alcohol and other harmful drugs.
Compared to H&G Hs & H er., way more.
. .
You can hardly claim that (say) smoking is. .
good for you, and that's proved because
so many like it.
Tobacco, alcohol, concentrated opium & cocaine, fatty cattle & swine all resulted
from domestication in agriculture, before that they were sacred meds & meals.
(from various plant-sourced drugs)
most of the time.
Not a valid argument. People used toNeu5Gc is bad for humans. It causes. .
inflammation. Our bodies treat it as
harmful, encase it in tissue and
commonly dump it into tumors
And yet it is widely consumed by huge numbers of healthy people who live to old age.
point to aged humans who died around
100 y/o while still smoking >20 a day.
Heavy consumers of junk food not only
have shorter lives, but suffer many more
years of ill-health.
What caused the huge shift from Gc to Ga that did not occur to other mammals?A random genetic change among a
small isolated highly-inbred population
which occupied predator-free off-shore
islands.
The absence of predators was crucial.
Predators keep their populations of
prey species healthy.
individuals that are less than 100% fit.
An isolated population on the main-
land that became highly inbred would
be eliminated by predators.
why other mammals don't manage
this shift.
This particular hominin population
acquired immunity from a mosquito or
mosquito-borne parasite (or the like).
Some of that population were healthy
enough to be able to expand to other
islands and out-breed other hominin
populations.
probably happened during the chromosome inversion.
Possible but unlikely. Different processes.
A cascade of changes followed the inversion, mostly not shared with any hominoids.Chromosomal inversions happen all
the time.
responsible for most miscarriages.
99.99% (or more) cause defects.
A tiny number are neutral, and may
randomly spread. I'm fairly sure that
no one knows of an example of one
that has been beneficial to a
population in the wild.
. .Neu5Gc is bad for humans. It causes. .
inflammation. Our bodies treat it as
harmful, encase it in tissue and
commonly dump it into tumors
And yet it is widely consumed by huge numbers of healthy people who live to old age.
Not a valid argument. People used to. .
point to aged humans who died around
100 y/o while still smoking >20 a day.
Heavy consumers of junk food not only
have shorter lives, but suffer many more
years of ill-health.
So? Beef & pork (processed) sustain billions for long lives. You are sidetracked.
. .What caused the huge shift from Gc to Ga that did not occur to other mammals?. .
A random genetic change among a
small isolated highly-inbred population
which occupied predator-free off-shore
islands.
One individual with the mutated gene survived and procreated.
S/He kept eating meat.
Malaria couldn't attack. Tropical woods & freshwater selected for it, an isolated
ocean isle would not, no homo-type mosquitoes there insufficient prey base.
The H/P chrom. inversion/fusion is unusual.It completely displaced the ape standard, must have had huge benefit
At 5 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
Op zaterdag 9 juli 2022 om 09:35:23 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
At 5 minutesThanks, my boy, yes, this clearly shows that chimps & gorillas don't have POS hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
Only incredible fools deny that erectus & neandertals frequently dived:
-POS is exclusively seen in slow+shallow divers,
-ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation,
-very large brains are typical for marine mammals.
On Thursday 14 July 2022 at 16:16:49 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
The discussion not about whether modern. .Neu5Gc is bad for humans. It causes. .
inflammation. Our bodies treat it as
harmful, encase it in tissue and
commonly dump it into tumors
And yet it is widely consumed by huge numbers of healthy people who live to old age.
Not a valid argument. People used to. .
point to aged humans who died around
100 y/o while still smoking >20 a day.
Heavy consumers of junk food not only
have shorter lives, but suffer many more
years of ill-health.
So? Beef & pork (processed) sustain billions for long lives. You are sidetracked.
civilisation is good or bad, but about
whether or not mammal meat was a
substantial part of hominin diet. Note
that fish and birds have the same sialic
acid as humans and can be eaten
without the long-term ill effects of
mammal meat.
It takes more than one to procreate.. .What caused the huge shift from Gc to Ga that did not occur to other mammals?. .
A random genetic change among a
small isolated highly-inbred population
which occupied predator-free off-shore
islands.
One individual with the mutated gene survived and procreated.
That's a major problem with drastic new
physiology -- such as the Neu5Gc/
Neu5Ac. The new cannot procreate
with the old.
another of the opposite gender (almost
certainly closely related) who also has
the same genetic alteration.
S/He kept eating meat.
God, I'm stupid -- I missed this most
obvious point.
Chimps and their proto-hominin
descendants were comfortable with
animal food. They could maybe
(theoretically?) have eaten fish -- but
it would have disagreed with them,
and had long-term poisonous effects.
THIS genetic change reversed that for
the new hominins. They would have
found meat poisonous (to some extent)
BUT it made fish more compatible -- no
sialic acid problems.
Malaria couldn't attack. Tropical woods & freshwater selected for it, an isolatedAn island, not too far off-shore,
ocean isle would not, no homo-type mosquitoes there insufficient prey base.
get infected mosquitoes blown out to
sea.
hominin. What happens to their offspring
(if any) doesn't matter.
We are not talking just about malaria
-- but about all the other diseases
transmitted by flying insects.
one bound, the hominin population
became immune to all of them.
The H/P chrom. inversion/fusion is unusual.It completely displaced the ape standard, must have had huge benefitWhen you can quote a chrom. inversion/
fusion in some other taxon that is known
to have shown benefits, post it here.
What does have benefits is finding and
establishing a new niche, almost invariably
the result of the isolation of a population
of the parent species. Changes in behaviour
and morphology follow, as does random
genetic change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
Thanks, my boy, yes, this clearly shows that chimps & gorillas don't have POS hands.
Only incredible fools deny that erectus & neandertals frequently dived: -POS is exclusively seen in slow+shallow divers,
-ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation,
-very large brains are typical for marine mammals.
Says the fool that thinks mermaid ivory (sirenian rib bone) is fragile. It is as strong as mammoth & elephant ivory!!
Op vrijdag 15 juli 2022 om 02:38:25 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kakBfGxhpM&t=121s
No answer, of course:Thanks, my boy, yes, this clearly shows that chimps & gorillas don't have POS hands.
Only incredible fools deny that erectus & neandertals frequently dived: -POS is exclusively seen in slow+shallow divers,
-ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation,
-very large brains are typical for marine mammals.
Says the fool that thinks mermaid ivory (sirenian rib bone) is fragile. It is as strong as mammoth & elephant ivory!!Fools are who don't understand the difference between hard / brittle / heavy.
-H.erectus had pachyo-osteo-sclerosis He>Hn>Hs.
-All archaic Homo had brain enlargement.
-Neandertals had ear exostoses.
IOW, no scientist doubts that archaic Homo frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods.
Manatees have big brains??
Manatees have big brains??
DD = manatee... :-DDD
Op vrijdag 15 juli 2022 om 11:45:12 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
Manatees have big brains??
DD = manatee... :-DDD
Manatees have big brains??
DD = manatee... :-DDD
[mv infected by dr jermy]
Op vrijdag 15 juli 2022 om 22:37:58 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:Do you sleep in water?
Manatees have big brains??
DD = manatee... :-DDD
[mv infected by dr jermy]No, my boy, only irritated by your lack of any biological & scientific insight.
It's really not difficult, even I could understand:
Hardy & Morgan showed human ancestors were (semi)aquatic: naked, fat etc.
However, both were wrong as to when this happened.
AFAWCS,
-H.erectus was most-aquatic: extreme POS (He>Hn>Hs>apiths-apes...), -neandertals were still frequently diving for shallow-aquatic foods: moderate POS, ear exostoses, largest brains (Hn>Hs).
What happened in erectus' ancestors (e.g. late-Pliocene), we don't know (most so-called "habilis" were fossil relatives of Pan, of course):
Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were originally aquarboreal (mostly wading-climbing), of course,
but when did our Homo ancestors stop climbing: Plio- or early-Pliestocene?
Do you sleep in water?
What long term ill effects? Humans move Gc to pockets where it does no harm.
My cats eat fish, they do not get sick from Ga, despite having Gc. It is similar to
dietary cholesterol not causing blood cholesterol problems in humans, but saturated fats doing so, due to sedentaryism. You are sidetracked.
What caused the huge shift from Gc to Ga that did not occur to other mammals?
Two close cousins, one with, one not, or both with mutation.
That's a major problem with drastic new
physiology -- such as the Neu5Gc/
Neu5Ac. The new cannot procreate
with the old.
Unproven conjecture.
Malaria couldn't attack. Tropical woods & freshwater selected for it, an isolatedAn island, not too far off-shore,
ocean isle would not, no homo-type mosquitoes there insufficient prey base. >>. .
Lots of tigers etc. there. Lions recently lived on Nile estuarine islands.
would get infected mosquitoes blown out to sea.. .
According to your hypothesis, mosquitos on islands lose flight. Never heard of any.
The H/P chrom. inversion/fusion is unusual.It completely displaced the ape >>> standard, must have had huge benefit. .
When you can quote a chrom. inversion/
fusion in some other taxon that is known
to have shown benefits, post it here.
Strawman. If there were no benefit, it would have been selected out.
What does have benefits is finding and
establishing a new niche, almost invariably
the result of the isolation of a population
of the parent species. Changes in behaviour
and morphology follow, as does random
genetic change.
More imagination.
Where do you sleep?
Eating red meat shortens lives. Do a google
search. Shortens healthy livespan even more.
Vegetarians (and vegans) live longer and
better.
Diseases that shorten lives are tolerable
(almost irrelevant?) in species that breed
fast when relatively young.
yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
Eating red meat shortens lives. Do a google. .
search. Shortens healthy livespan even more.
Vegetarians (and vegans) live longer and
better.
That's bullshit.
Google "life expectancy" "vegetarian"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 97:59:02 |
| Calls: | 6,766 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,385 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
