No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past.
No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past.
And present:
https://skipperotto.com/seafood-brain-food/
The beauty of Aquatic Ape is that we don't need Intelligent Design.
Just by eating the seafood diet their brains were gong to get as big
as genetics would allow. That probably wasn't exactly "Huge" at
first but it didn't have to be. Whether it took a few generations or a
few million years, the moment bigger-brain mutations began to crop
up their brains would grow even bigger!
"They'd hit the ground running," to tweak the noses of the savanna
idiots...
Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 04:11:21 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past.
And present::-)
https://skipperotto.com/seafood-brain-food/
The beauty of Aquatic Ape is that we don't need Intelligent Design.Yes, it's incredible they keep repeating the same idiocies...
Just by eating the seafood diet their brains were gong to get as big
as genetics would allow. That probably wasn't exactly "Huge" at
first but it didn't have to be. Whether it took a few generations or a
few million years, the moment bigger-brain mutations began to crop
up their brains would grow even bigger!
"They'd hit the ground running," to tweak the noses of the savanna idiots...
Perhaps they should eat a bit more (shell)fish?
Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
Or are you nine shades of stupid?
Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
Somebody:
Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns:-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...
gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
Or are you nine shades of stupid?
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:12:33 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
Somebody:Claudius Denk, to be precise:
Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
Or are you nine shades of stupid?
:-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...
Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying, "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
Please note, I said "vulnerable," not "endangered". :-)
By the way, Marc, I've responded to two of your posts in sci.bio.paleontology
during the last two days. I'll be looking carefully at your response today to the first one,
and look forward to hearing from you about the second one: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/rrTZOHjtQO8/m/Ir8n1x7HBwAJ
Re: H.naledi, a Carnegie lecture by Lee Berger
Mar 22, 2023, 10:36:04 PM
It seems to me that you are vulnerable on this one.
Op donderdag 23 maart 2023 om 14:32:41 UTC+1 schreef Peter Nyikos:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:12:33 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 22:40:36 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
Forget that idiot: that man is stupid.Somebody:Claudius Denk, to be precise:
Dutch "denk" = think, but that's not what he does.
(I hope, Peter, you're not this "Denk"?)
Somebody:
JTEM:Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish
Lots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
Or are you nine shades of stupid?
:-D I don't know what 9 shades means, but that idiot is clearly stupid...
Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying, "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
That's what the kudu runners do!
Please note, I said "vulnerable," not "endangered". :-)
By the way, Marc, I've responded to two of your posts in sci.bio.paleontology
during the last two days. I'll be looking carefully at your response today to the first one,
and look forward to hearing from you about the second one:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/rrTZOHjtQO8/m/Ir8n1x7HBwAJ
Re: H.naledi, a Carnegie lecture by Lee Berger
Mar 22, 2023, 10:36:04 PM
It seems to me that you are vulnerable on this one.
Thanks, Peter, I just sent you an email,
you may forward it to sci.anthropology.paleo, if you want. --marc
Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying, "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
[On the same day, at 12:50 PM] Peter Nyikos wrote:
Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying, "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
Not even close. Sorry.
The human brain does require DHA.
That DHA is plentiful in seafoods. Even
seafoods that aren't particularly rich in DHA far exceed terrestrial sources.
There's no model you can think of where our ancestors could go so
dependent upon DHA living on a savanna.
NOTE: I said "Model." Not "They ate bugs." Because if you want to claim that then tell us which bugs. How much DHA they have. Etc.
There's studies that tell us even today, even after we evolved improved capabilities in the synthesizing DHA department, that there are measurable beneficial changes to the human brain on a DHA rich diet.
https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/omega-3s-associated-with-larger-brain-volume
*Tons* more out there.
So you and everyone else find yourself "Arguing" something that is well established. You're arguing dogma here!
There is no model that you or anyone else has ever proposed that allows
us to become so dependent upon DHA without Aquatic Ape.
That's it. Aquatic Ape explains human origins, because in the end it's our brains that separate us from the apes.
Just put ancestors on a beach, picking up shellfish and you've explained it all.
Coastal dispersal? That's them picking a stretch of beach clean then
moving on.
Aquatic Ape.
Multiregionalism/Regional Continuity or even Punctuated Equilibrium. Occasionally groups pushed inland -- escaping conflict, natural disaster, climate change or even disease. Maybe it was just the ease of following
a freshwater outlet to the sea backwards into the interior...
Once there, they adapted. Isolated, they pursued their own unique evolutionary path. Some of the earlier ones (but by no means the
earliest) became Ardi and Lucy, eventually evolving into Chimps. Some
of the later ones were Neanderthals, Denisovans and even "Native
Americans."
Yes. The Americas were first settled by water. People arrived along the coast, eventually pushing inland... exactly as our ilk had always done.
Savanna idiocy says all these different groups fell from the sky at different
times, and then immediately stamped off in search of an all-night Burger King.
Alternatively, they fell out of a tree, landed on some grass and grew upright to they could run after an antelope, only to chase it all the way to China and beyond.
I don't recall specific information on how much is required.
Can you provide any now?
I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
how much DHA they have?
Our Western aversion to bugs is not shared by other cultures.
Ever eat a witchetty grub? They are very popular with the indigenous
people of Australia, and some whites have adopted the fondness.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/witchetty-grub-dna-sheds-light-on-indigenous-bush-food/8271724
See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.
People are emotionally invested in an answer: The don't want
Aquatic Ape to be right. Their whole lives, their success as a
student, THEIR VALUE as a student depended entirely on how
well they regurgitated the status quo. Tell them that Aquatic Ape
is right and that means they're idiots. They were never brilliant,
they were never the best & the brightest, they were the most
obedient -- the least likely to question.
This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
prove it correct.
One of the most brillant of them all, prof.Phillip Tobias, admitted he had been wrong (1995):
"All the former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier words
in the light of the new results from the early hominid deposits."
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:39:33 AM UTC-7, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Op woensdag 22 maart 2023 om 04:11:21 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
No doubt, our large brains (3x chimps) have to do with our (semi)aquatic past.
And present::-)
https://skipperotto.com/seafood-brain-food/
The beauty of Aquatic Ape is that we don't need Intelligent Design.Yes, it's incredible they keep repeating the same idiocies...
Just by eating the seafood diet their brains were gong to get as big
as genetics would allow. That probably wasn't exactly "Huge" at
first but it didn't have to be. Whether it took a few generations or a few million years, the moment bigger-brain mutations began to crop
up their brains would grow even bigger!
"They'd hit the ground running," to tweak the noses of the savanna idiots...
Perhaps they should eat a bit more (shell)fish?
Lots of small brained animals eat shellfish, you fucking morons.
Without JTEM there, he's been rather repetitive and inarticulate. I had to quote
some things from JTEM in my post to one of Marc's critics a few minutes ago to compensate for that.
Peter Nyikos wrote:
I don't recall specific information on how much is required.The proverbial 30 second Google search:
Can you provide any now?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/
Again, TONS out there on the topic. This is well established.
Aquatic Ape incorporates it, explains it. Nothing else does.
I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
how much DHA they have?
DHA? As far as I know, none. Zip, zero & nil.
Our Western aversion to bugs is not shared by other cultures.
Ever eat a witchetty grub? They are very popular with the indigenous people of Australia, and some whites have adopted the fondness.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/witchetty-grub-dna-sheds-light-on-indigenous-bush-food/8271724No DHA that I'm aware of.
See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.
People are emotionally invested in an answer: The don't want
Aquatic Ape to be right. Their whole lives, their success as a
student, THEIR VALUE as a student depended entirely on how
well they regurgitated the status quo. Tell them that Aquatic Ape
is right and that means they're idiots.
They were never brilliant,
they were never the best & the brightest, they were the most
obedient -- the least likely to question.
This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
prove it correct.
Has DHA been mentioned in research articles by "out of Africa" anthropologists
explaining where it came from?
I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
how much DHA they have?
DHA? As far as I know, none. Zip, zero & nil.
In other words, you really don't know.
No DHA that I'm aware of.
Thanks for admitting you don't know.
See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.
How about a grassfed diet on the savannah?
The supermarkets are
full of "100% grassfed milk" with close to 100mg of omega-3 in each glass.
And look at other advantages of the savannah.
Fires trapping animals, and humans
being able to get at the meat that their tough hides would otherwise make imperviable
to anything except sharpened stone tools. Good grassfed fat on the herbivores,
and even the carnivores would have it from the herbivores.
"He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
he is simple, teach him!"
This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts
prove it correct.
Do they?
Peter Nyikos wrote:
Has DHA been mentioned in research articles by "out of Africa" anthropologistsI haven't done an "Exhaustive" <wink> <wink> search but not only have I not seen any, nobody here has ever quoted such a think IN OPPOSITE TO Aquatic Ape.
explaining where it came from?
I'm not saying it, but termites come to mind. Do YOU know
how much DHA they have?
DHA? As far as I know, none. Zip, zero & nil.
In other words, you really don't know.That's NOT how reality works.
I don't have to disprove that unicorns, dragons or termite DHA. "Proof" belongs to their proponents.
To the best of my knowledge, insects aren't even good when farmed,
like if they "Fortify" their diet with DHA.
If you want to argue differently, by all means; go ahead.
No DHA that I'm aware of.
Thanks for admitting you don't know.I admit that DHA in these insects is as unproven as the existence of
unicorns & dragons.
See? There's no model here OTHER THAN Aquatic Ape.
How about a grassfed diet on the savannah?No DHA.
You get ALA from that sort of thing. Humans aren't good at synthesizing
DHA from ALA, and that's talking 80k years AFTER a genetic mutation to IMPROVE our abilities in that department... according to the savanna
idiots themselves.
The supermarkets areNo they're not.
full of "100% grassfed milk" with close to 100mg of omega-3 in each glass.
Milk can be fortified. The diet of the cows can be fortified. This absolutely was the case in the U.K. some years ago, where (dried? shredded?) fish included in their diet.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705489318794362880
THAT milk is fortified. In other words, a DHA source is added to the milk post-cow.
As you can see, it contains 32mg. My doctor recommended ONE THOUSAND
for a daily intake!
So FORTIFIED milk is something less than 100%...
And look at other advantages of the savannah.There's no advantages.
Chimp population density DROPS going from the forest to the savanna.
So smaller population density, less genetic diversity...
Fires trapping animals, and humansALA, and we're lousy at synthesizing DHA from it. We can do it -- women better than
being able to get at the meat that their tough hides would otherwise make imperviable
to anything except sharpened stone tools. Good grassfed fat on the herbivores,
and even the carnivores would have it from the herbivores.
men -- but not very good.
Something the good Doctors has a major point on: Neanderthals!
They had bigger brains than we do, their brains supposedly matured faster than is
typical nowadays so is the good Doctor right about their intake of aquatic foods?
"He who knows not and knows that he knows not,Having trouble balancing this with your "If you can't prove that termites aren't stuffed
he is simple, teach him!"
silly with DHA then I'm going to believe that they are!"
This is why they need aquatic ape to be false, even if all the facts prove it correct.
Do they?Absolutely. Looking at you. Here. Now. Right now. Your "Argument" is based on information you DON'T have -- like imaginary DHA sources on the savanna.
You don't know, you have not a lick of evidence so, TRUCK LOADS OF THE STUFF!
Although there's a correlation between DHA & CC (cranial capacity), I still don't know why exactly.
Claudius Denk wrote:
Lots of small brained animals eat shellfishLots of very economical cars burn gasoline. So if a car burns
gasoline is must be very economical. Right?
Or are you nine shades of stupid?
-- --
https://filmfreeway.com/BostonsScreamingOstrichFilmFestival
Peter Nyikos wrote:
Why? as matters now stand, you and JTEM are vulnerable to the old saying, "Correlation does not mean causation" and to the far older sarcastic saying,Not even close. Sorry.
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
The human brain does require DHA.
seafoods that aren't particularly rich in DHA far exceed terrestrial sources.
There's no model you can think of where our ancestors could go so
dependent upon DHA living on a savanna.
NOTE: I said "Model." Not "They ate bugs." Because if you want to claim that then tell us which bugs. How much DHA they have. Etc.
There's studies that tell us even today, even after we evolved improved capabilities in the synthesizing DHA department, that there are measurable beneficial changes to the human brain on a DHA rich diet.
https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/omega-3s-associated-with-larger-brain-volume
*Tons* more out there.
Yes. The Americas were first settled by water. People arrived along the coast, eventually pushing inland... exactly as our ilk had always done.
All brains require DHA
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 85:58:49 |
| Calls: | 6,808 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,328 |
| Messages: | 5,401,640 |