Interesting, and a tad of an aside here, but he mentions
that humans see in color and...

All the great apes do.

So this is consistent with a common "Aquatic Ape"
ancestor.

It also follows the exact same pattern we can see
quite plainly: DIFFERENT, distinct populations!

Neanderthals were distinct from Denisovans, the
various Denisovan populations were as distinct from
each other as they were Neanderthals... everyone
insists that so-called "Moderns" (who, let's face it,
weren't modern at all) were distinct from everyone
else, including other African populations...

This is the model I apply to, say, Lucy...

Common origin, as all the "Great Apes" share a
common origin, but far more recent. Lucy's
population pealed off from the Aquatic Ape group
much later than other hominins, but they did peel
off. They did separate. They pushed inland, adapted,
their apparent "Aquatic Ape" adaptations may have
been applicable to their inland world, maybe they
weren't at all applicable and were just vestiges of
their Aquatic Ape ancestry, but they were no longer
part of the "Aquatic" population.

...they may have even interbred with groups
that peeled off earlier, like Ardipithecus, speeding
their departure from the Aquatic Ape group...

Beyond that? I think our genitals are the end product
of a number of distinct reproductive strategies: The
old r/K selection thingie. Some were sexually selected.

Period.

There's just too much variation to think there was one
point of selective pressure.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706022903934746624

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

Op dinsdag 10 januari 2023 om 05:28:46 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

- Lucy was a fossil aquarboreal hominid, probably not very much aquatic any more, a close relative of Gorilla, fossil subgenus Praeanthropus, not of Homo-Pan!
- Neandertals OTOH are humans: a fossil subspecies of H.sapiens, they were still strongly aquatic: no doubt frequently diving (pachosteosclerosis, though less than erectus: He>>Hn>>Hs), and probably frequently wading, e.g. seasonally following the river (
salmon??) from the coasts? Google "human evolution Verhaegen".

But I haven't seen yet Bert Chan's recent WHAT talk... (family parties...)
In any case: congratulations, Bert!!
ASAP! :-)

________

Interesting, and a tad of an aside here, but he mentions
that humans see in color and...

All the great apes do.

So this is consistent with a common "Aquatic Ape"
ancestor.

It also follows the exact same pattern we can see
quite plainly: DIFFERENT, distinct populations!

Neanderthals were distinct from Denisovans, the
various Denisovan populations were as distinct from
each other as they were Neanderthals... everyone
insists that so-called "Moderns" (who, let's face it,
weren't modern at all) were distinct from everyone
else, including other African populations...

This is the model I apply to, say, Lucy...

Common origin, as all the "Great Apes" share a
common origin, but far more recent. Lucy's
population pealed off from the Aquatic Ape group
much later than other hominins, but they did peel
off. They did separate. They pushed inland, adapted,
their apparent "Aquatic Ape" adaptations may have
been applicable to their inland world, maybe they
weren't at all applicable and were just vestiges of
their Aquatic Ape ancestry, but they were no longer
part of the "Aquatic" population.

...they may have even interbred with groups
that peeled off earlier, like Ardipithecus, speeding
their departure from the Aquatic Ape group...

Beyond that? I think our genitals are the end product
of a number of distinct reproductive strategies: The
old r/K selection thingie. Some were sexually selected.

Period.

There's just too much variation to think there was one
point of selective pressure.

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