Bipedality does NOT define "hominin", e.g. humans, gibbons & siamangs are still BP, and bonobos & gorillas still wade bipedally in forest swamps, google "bonobo wading" & "gorilla wading".
Most if not all PA papers that use the surperfluous terms like "hominin/e/i/ae..." are prejudiced: they assume that australopiths are closer relatives of us Homo than of Pan or Gorilla. Very wrong, of course: traditional PAs anthropo- & afro-centrically
only see “human ancestors” in Plio-Pleistocene Africa, but curiously they never see “ape ancestors” (that would give less interest & no grants?) although Pan & Gorilla AFAWK have always lived in Africa, whereas the earliest undoubted Homo were
found in Java. The very bonobo-like Australopithecus habilis (sometimes anthropocentrically called "Homo"!) lived in Africa, google e.g. "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus habilis".

Hylobatids, Pongo & Homo live(d) in SE.Asia: IOW, probably, great & lesser apes split in S-Asia, and this was still the case when pongids & hominids split. Where Homo & Pan split is less certain, but IMO there are excellent arguments to believe that
this happened between Asia & Africa:

Detailed comparisons (e.g. Hum.Evol.papers) show
- clear gorilla-derived traits in E.Afr.apiths afarensis & even more so in boisei,
- clear chimp-bonobo-derived traits in S.Afr.apiths africanus & even more so in robustus:
the traditional belief that apiths are "on the way to humanity" is afro- & anthropocentric nonsense: apiths are simply on the way between the hominid LCA (still predom.BP) & extant gorillas, bonobos, chimps.

Apparently, E.African Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei evolved in parallel // to S.Afr. Australopithecus africanus->robustus:
from late-Pliocene “gracile” to early-Pleistocene “robust”:
- Praeanthropus (fossil subgenus of Gorilla) is transitional between the HP/Gorilla LCA c 8 Ma & extant low-/highland gorilla,
- Australopithecus (fossil subgenus of Pan) is transitional between the Homo/Pan LCA (c 5.4 Ma) & extant chimp/bonobo.
This is scientifically absolutely clear.

But how & where it happened is a lttle bit more speculative.
IMO, the Miocene ancestors of extant hominids Gorilla, Pan & Homo lived bipedally wading-climbing in coastal/swamp/mangrove forests along the incipient Red Sea. Google “aquarboreal”.
-- When the E.Afr.Rift began, Gorilla c 8 Ma followed the swamp forests of the Rift, splitting off from HP.
-- When the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (according to some, caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.4 Ma), H & P split:
-Pan initially followed the coastal forests to the right: the E.Afr.coasts, -Homo to the left: the S.Asian coasts, eventually as far as Java, Peking & Flores.
From the coasts, they all (G, H, P) went inland along rivers-lakes-swamps, e.g. E.Afr.apiths // S.Afr.apiths (see above).

Probably, only Pleistocene Homo became semi-aquatic = shallow-diving for shellfish etc. along the Ind.Ocean coasts, google e.g. “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo”.

What is not speculative: only incredible imbeciles still assume their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas! :-DDD

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Bipedality does NOT define "hominin", e.g. humans, gibbons & siamangs are still BP, and bonobos &
gorillas still wade bipedally in forest swamps, google "bonobo wading" & "gorilla wading".
Most if not all PA papers that use the surperfluous terms like "hominin/e/i/ae..." are prejudiced: they
assume that australopiths are closer relatives of us Homo than of Pan or Gorilla. Very wrong, of course:
traditional PAs anthropo- & afro-centrically only see “human ancestors” in Plio-Pleistocene Africa, but
curiously they never see “ape ancestors” (that would give less interest & no grants?) although Pan &
Gorilla AFAWK have always lived in Africa, whereas the earliest undoubted Homo were found in Java.
The very bonobo-like Australopithecus habilis (sometimes anthropocentrically called "Homo"!) lived in
Africa, google e.g. "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus habilis".

I've argued for *Years*, and I say years but could be decades by now, really haven't kept track, but
the whole "Humans are apes" and "Humans descended from apes" thing RUINED the study of
human origins. It locked people into thinking strictly in linear terms -- a steady progression from very
far away from humans to closer & closer to humans... Chimps are the closest thus most human like.

What we've known for a VERY long time is that bipedalism evolved FIRST, some MILLIONS of years
before the Chimp line peeled off, so THE ANCESTOR to Chimps was closer to us, and Chimps are
further away... they've been evolving AWAY from us since the split.

Also: Going by the convention where "Birds are dinosaurs" because they evolved from a dinosaur
ancestor, the claim "Humans are apes" should be abandoned, because apes evolved from us, not
the other way around. Chimps evolved from upright walkers who most likely used (made?) tools.

Maybe gorillas as well.

Humans ARE monkeys -- because the lat common ancestor with monkeys was in fact a monkey,
but claiming that we're apes isn't quite so clear cut...

Hylobatids, Pongo & Homo live(d) in SE.Asia: IOW, probably, great & lesser apes split in S-Asia,
and this was still the case when pongids & hominids split. Where Homo & Pan split is less certain,
but IMO there are excellent arguments to believe that this happened between Asia & Africa:

It's one of the problems with everyone obsessing over "Old World" vs "New World" monkeys. Besides
all the assumptions being wrong -- "New World" monkey finds are older than anything inside of
Africa -- it ignores Asia entirely.

Detailed comparisons (e.g. Hum.Evol.papers) show
- clear gorilla-derived traits in E.Afr.apiths afarensis & even more so in boisei,
- clear chimp-bonobo-derived traits in S.Afr.apiths africanus & even more so in robustus:
the traditional belief that apiths are "on the way to humanity" is afro- & anthropocentric
nonsense: apiths are simply on the way between the hominid LCA (still predom.BP) & extant gorillas, bonobos, chimps.

My pet theory is that Humans invented Chimps, amongst many other species. That, originally
there were populations more like us, spread across a great area, having moved inland and
adapted to exploit those resources for much longer, but as they came into conflicted with
the later arrivals (from the Waterside) population, all were wiped out EXCEPT those who
adapted to the forest for safety.

But how & where it happened is a lttle bit more speculative.
IMO, the Miocene ancestors of extant hominids Gorilla, Pan & Homo lived bipedally wading-climbing in coastal/swamp/mangrove forests along the incipient Red Sea. Google “aquarboreal”.

The Persian Gulf is anything candidate. There is extensive work detailing it's highly
verdant stage from about glacial maximum climate optimum (5~ years ago), but not a lot talking about conditions during previous glacial cycles.

What I'm saying is that you can extrapolate of lot of the data from the last glacial/interglacial transition to the previous ones...

-- When the E.Afr.Rift began, Gorilla c 8 Ma followed the swamp forests of the Rift, splitting off from HP.
-- When the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (according to some, caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.4 Ma), H & P split:
-Pan initially followed the coastal forests to the right: the E.Afr.coasts, -Homo to the left: the S.Asian coasts, eventually as far as Java, Peking & Flores.
From the coasts, they all (G, H, P) went inland along rivers-lakes-swamps, e.g. E.Afr.apiths // S.Afr.apiths (see above).

I have to agree that places like the Rift Valley are exactly where early Waterside
groups would have peeled off, followed the water sources inland, adapted and then radiated.

Probably, only Pleistocene Homo became semi-aquatic = shallow-diving for shellfish etc.
along the Ind.Ocean coasts, google e.g. “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo”.

I think there was too much interaction (breeding) with inland groups, moderating
evolution on both sides, and something happened (the Chromosome Fusion thing?) allow for something of a Quantum Leap.

Could also be earth changes: Plate tectonics, the Quaternary cooling things down.
Or, maybe they just reached a threshold: They got so big, so smart!

A lot of this stuff alines well with your erectus... modern brans, even the loss of the
boner bone, the baculum.

Erectus was "Modern Man."

Oh, sure, he was too specialized. He had to evolve away some of his rough edges,
being mostly a tropical species that wasn't going to play well where it got cold.

But erectus seems it. We seem to have the blueprint laid down and there's been nothing more than tweaking since then.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/702918710262923264

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

Op woensdag 7 december 2022 om 06:31:18 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

Bipedality does NOT define "hominin", e.g. humans, gibbons & siamangs are still BP, and bonobos &
gorillas still wade bipedally in forest swamps, google "bonobo wading" & "gorilla wading".
Most if not all PA papers that use the surperfluous terms like "hominin/e/i/ae..." are prejudiced: they
assume that australopiths are closer relatives of us Homo than of Pan or Gorilla. Very wrong, of course:
traditional PAs anthropo- & afro-centrically only see “human ancestors” in Plio-Pleistocene Africa, but
curiously they never see “ape ancestors” (that would give less interest & no grants?) although Pan &
Gorilla AFAWK have always lived in Africa, whereas the earliest undoubted Homo were found in Java.
The very bonobo-like Australopithecus habilis (sometimes anthropocentrically called "Homo"!) lived in
Africa, google e.g. "not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus habilis".

I've argued for *Years*, and I say years but could be decades by now, really haven't kept track, but
the whole "Humans are apes" and "Humans descended from apes" thing RUINED the study of
human origins. It locked people into thinking strictly in linear terms -- a steady progression from very
far away from humans to closer & closer to humans... Chimps are the closest thus most human like.
What we've known for a VERY long time is that bipedalism evolved FIRST, some MILLIONS of years
before the Chimp line peeled off, so THE ANCESTOR to Chimps was closer to us, and Chimps are
further away... they've been evolving AWAY from us since the split.
Also: Going by the convention where "Birds are dinosaurs" because they evolved from a dinosaur
ancestor, the claim "Humans are apes" should be abandoned, because apes evolved from us, not
the other way around. Chimps evolved from upright walkers who most likely used (made?) tools.
Maybe gorillas as well.
Humans ARE monkeys -- because the lat common ancestor with monkeys was in fact a monkey,
but claiming that we're apes isn't quite so clear cut...

Early Hominoidea were already "bipedal" >20 Ma, not BP like humans today, but vertical waders-cllimbers in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal".

Hylobatids, Pongo & Homo live(d) in SE.Asia: IOW, probably, great & lesser apes split in S-Asia,
and this was still the case when pongids & hominids split. Where Homo & Pan split is less certain,
but IMO there are excellent arguments to believe that this happened between Asia & Africa:

It's one of the problems with everyone obsessing over "Old World" vs "New World" monkeys. Besides
all the assumptions being wrong -- "New World" monkey finds are older than anything inside of
Africa -- it ignores Asia entirely.

Detailed comparisons (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers) show
- clear gorilla-derived traits in E.Afr.apiths afarensis & even more so in boisei,
- clear chimp-bonobo-derived traits in S.Afr.apiths africanus & even more so in robustus:
the traditional belief that apiths are "on the way to humanity" is afro- & anthropocentric
nonsense: apiths are simply on the way between the hominid LCA (still predom.BP) & extant gorillas, bonobos, chimps.

My pet theory is that Humans invented Chimps, amongst many other species. That, originally
there were populations more like us, spread across a great area, having moved inland and
adapted to exploit those resources for much longer, but as they came into conflicted with
the later arrivals (from the Waterside) population, all were wiped out EXCEPT those who
adapted to the forest for safety.

But how & where it happened is a lttle bit more speculative.
IMO, the Miocene ancestors of extant hominids Gorilla, Pan & Homo lived bipedally wading-climbing in coastal/swamp/mangrove forests along the incipient Red Sea. Google “aquarboreal”.

The Persian Gulf is anything candidate. There is extensive work detailing it's highly
verdant stage from about glacial maximum climate optimum (5~ years ago), but not a lot talking about conditions during previous glacial cycles.
What I'm saying is that you can extrapolate of lot of the data from the last glacial/interglacial transition to the previous ones...

-- When the E.Afr.Rift began, Gorilla c 8 Ma followed the swamp forests of the Rift, splitting off from HP.
-- When the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (according to some, caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.4 Ma), H & P split:
-Pan initially followed the coastal forests to the right: the E.Afr.coasts,
-Homo to the left: the S.Asian coasts, eventually as far as Java, Peking & Flores.
From the coasts, they all (G, H, P) went inland along rivers-lakes-swamps, e.g. E.Afr.apiths // S.Afr.apiths (see above).

I have to agree that places like the Rift Valley are exactly where early Waterside
groups would have peeled off, followed the water sources inland, adapted and then radiated.

Probably, only Pleistocene Homo became semi-aquatic = shallow-diving for shellfish etc.
along the Ind.Ocean coasts, google e.g. “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo”.

I think there was too much interaction (breeding) with inland groups, moderating
evolution on both sides, and something happened (the Chromosome Fusion thing?)
allow for something of a Quantum Leap.
Could also be earth changes: Plate tectonics, the Quaternary cooling things down.
Or, maybe they just reached a threshold: They got so big, so smart!
A lot of this stuff alines well with your erectus... modern brans, even the loss of the
boner bone, the baculum.
Erectus was "Modern Man."
Oh, sure, he was too specialized. He had to evolve away some of his rough edges,
being mostly a tropical species that wasn't going to play well where it got cold.
But erectus seems it. We seem to have the blueprint laid down and there's been
nothing more than tweaking since then.

H.erectus still differed considerably from us Hs: platycephaly, platypelloidy, platymeria, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, CC c 900 cc, shorter tibias etc.:
no doubt, He was predom.shallow-diving, probably mostly in salt water (POS+), probably mostly for shellfish (stone tools).

In any case, only incredibly idiots believe H.erectus ran after antelopes. :-D

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

H.erectus still differed considerably from us Hs:

But we'd expect that. Even with a single unbroken line of descent, we'd expect differences. It's impossible for it to be any other way.

If you cut an erectus in half you won't find any labels. As far as we know, they
could breed just fine with "Modern" humans, probably humans today.

What really matters here? What constitutes a line that says "No, this is a different species?"

There's only one species of dog. You've got to admit, all the breeds look quite different from each other!

I don't find "They look different" to be all that significant. I find similarities more
important.

AND THE HUMAN BODY IS EASILY MOLDED by lifestyle. Environment. Diet.

Do the Google on the human face & forks:

https://www.businessinsider.com/using-cutlery-has-changed-the-human-face-2015-3

That's it, "Forks." The use of dining utensils supposedly changed the way human faces look.

Look at racial and ethnic characteristics TODAY! Imagine when maybe a couple of hundreds miles was as difficult to traverse as a few thousand miles is TODAY...

I think everything after erectus is likely just fine tuning. Erectus nailed the concept,
Homo just needed a few tweaks in order to make it into the colder regions... push
inland...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703033379335110656

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

Op donderdag 8 december 2022 om 08:17:47 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

H.erectus still differed considerably from us Hs:

But we'd expect that. Even with a single unbroken line of descent, we'd expect
differences. It's impossible for it to be any other way.
If you cut an erectus in half you won't find any labels. As far as we know, they
could breed just fine with "Modern" humans, probably humans today.
What really matters here? What constitutes a line that says "No, this is a different species?"
There's only one species of dog. You've got to admit, all the breeds look quite
different from each other!

Yes, indeed, I was surprised to hear that Eurasian Hs carry neandertal DNA,
but I'll still be surprised when I hear that some Hs carry He DNA, but who knows...

I don't find "They look different" to be all that significant. I find similarities more
important.
AND THE HUMAN BODY IS EASILY MOLDED by lifestyle. Environment. Diet.
Do the Google on the human face & forks: https://www.businessinsider.com/using-cutlery-has-changed-the-human-face-2015-3
That's it, "Forks." The use of dining utensils supposedly changed the way human
faces look.
Look at racial and ethnic characteristics TODAY! Imagine when maybe a couple of
hundreds miles was as difficult to traverse as a few thousand miles is TODAY...
I think everything after erectus is likely just fine tuning. Erectus nailed the concept,
Homo just needed a few tweaks in order to make it into the colder regions... push
inland...

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, indeed, I was surprised to hear that Eurasian Hs carry neandertal DNA, but I'll still be surprised when I hear that some Hs carry He DNA, but who knows...

It's really about DNA that's unique to a particular group, or originates with them.

Our DNA is different from erectus, or Neanderthals or anything else. But your DNA
is different from sub Saharan Africans... Melanesians.

But even if we were talking about a single, unbroken line starting 200k or 1m years
ago until today, we would expect a lot of differences.

Our mtDNA had to change just in order for a species from the tropics to push up north, into colder regions. It had to change if we were going to live into our 40s
and beyond, as mtDNA slows with age. When 30 was "Elderly," it didn't have to last long. Know we need it to power along for 2x or 3x as long.

It doesn't just stop working and kill you. But it won't keep you as warm, won't help
fight off cancer...

This is why our mtDNA "molecular dating" exaggerates age so much. It was under a great deal of selective pressure, once Homo pushed outside of the tropics and/or
wanted to grow older.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703058730579820544

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