Abstract
Humans diverged from apes (chimpanzees, specifically) toward
the end of the Miocene ~9.3 million to 6.5 million years ago.
Understanding the origins of the human lineage (hominins)
requires reconstructing the morphology, behavior, and
environment of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor.
Humans diverged from apes (chimpanzees, specifically) toward
the end of the Miocene ~9.3 million to 6.5 million years ago.
Nah.
Had to be more recent. I'd argue a lot more recent, some argue a
little more recent but it had to be more recent.
Understanding the origins of the human lineage (hominins)
requires reconstructing the morphology, behavior, and
environment of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor.
Lol!
"When" they split they split as two different POPULATIONS. They
might've remained a single species for eons... possible 2 million
years! I think it more likely that it happened faster.
The "Aquatic Ape" population started early. Very early. but from
the beginning groups peeled off, pushed inland. Maybe it happened
the other way around: An inland group pushed to water's edge,
began exploiting marine resource.
Whatever the case, we had one group facing different "Selective
Pressures" than the other...
The sea can support a higher population density than a forest,
which supported a higher population density than any savanna,
so advantage goes to Team Aquatic!
They're not migrating, so to speak. They're eating. That's it. They're
just picking up stuff & eating it. But it's a trap, you know. Once
they get past the shells, learn to open those shellfish there's an
insane amount of free protein just for the taking! Easy! No work,
Well, practically no work. So our ancestors did what we did and
ate themselves from abundance to scarcity! Suddenly there were
a whole lot more mouths to feed than food to feed them, so they
moved on to better pickings... new shorelines.
Some pushed inland though. Probably following freshwater
outlets to the sea... the Rift Valley is exactly what we'd be looking
for in his model, btw.
Where & when these splinter groups pushed inland made a
difference. The earliest ones would look like an Ardi or a Lucy,
probably, after cutting themselves off from the brain-building
DHA and all that free protein. The last of the splinter groups
probably looked like, oh, I dunno... something like Neanderthals
or Denisovans. Maybe...
At some point, I'm guessing erectus, something broke. I'm
thinking the Chromosome fusion. So for a short while,
geologically speaking, there was no interbreeding. There was
no moderation of their evolution by inland groups that they
encountered. That is, until they themselves splintered off,
pushed inland and adapted to their new environment.
~Everything old is new again~
Yes. Of course. Why would the exact same thing that was
already happening for millions of years continue to happen?
The only difference was, the glacial/interglacial cycle was
throwing everything into overdrive. During a glacial cycle,
you can walk between cliffs and the sea, eating everything
you come across. During the interglacial the sea come right
up to those cliffs, likely to some depths... YOU'RE CUT OFF!
You've got to push inland, no choice, or adapt. You can figure
out how to get more out of a given stretch of shoreline...
swimming/diving significantly increasing the amount of
exploitable ocean floor.
Industry? Like, fishing?
They could have developed things like netting and hooks...
spear fishing, of course.
Fire attracts fish at night. It's also a great way to open shellfish.
So that's the process, that's WHY Chimps split off and arose
in the first place. The question is: When?
I don't agree with the good Doctor about everything but I know
he's a Poop Ton closer to the truth than you are. Chimps just
aren't that old! The oldest Chimp fossil is like a third the age
of erectus... a little younger than that, actually.
So either people are actively AVOIDING any search for Chimp
fossils, or they're lying and found them but won't admit for
whatever reason or, now get this; they've long since found
Chimp fossils only they look *So* different from what we
expect, what we want them to look like, that nobody recognizes
them as Chimps... or the Chimp ancestor, more accurately.
But I still don't know: where apiths +-on the line to extant Afr.apes? or side-lines?
In any case, it's clear (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers) that
- E.Afr.apiths "Praeanthropus" afarensis->boisei were fossil Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths "Australopithecus"africanus->robustus were fossil Pan.
As long as many PAs anthropocentrically keep believing that australopiths were closer relatives of us Homo (because "bipedal") than of Pan or Gorilla, they'll never understand hominid evolution, and keep producing nonsense about "bipedal hominins" inAfrican savannas.
*All* early Hominoidea (hylobatids, pongids, hominids) were frequently bipedal, not for running after savanna antelopes, of course (only incredible imbeciles believe such nonsense), but simply for wading upright in swamp forests & climbing armsoverhead in the branches avobe the swamp, as still seen in orangs, lowland gorillas, chimp & bonobos sometimes.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 361 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 124:14:40 |
Calls: | 7,716 |
Files: | 12,861 |
Messages: | 5,727,967 |