4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices without any evidence:
Many PAs still believe that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions because:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Likely scenario IMO:
Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels: full of coastal forests.
c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices without any evidence:
Many PAs still believe that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound,
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA),
3) were savanna-dwellers,
4) had australopithine ancestors.
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" because Pan & Gorilla were African
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
2) Homo originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in
swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices without any evidence:
Many PAs still believe that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound,
Gorillas spend the least amount of time in trees of all the "Great apes."
By that argument, they should be closer to Homo than Chimps.
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA),
Part of the problem is one of definitions.
WHAT is supposed to have come out of Africa?
The earliest monkeys are found in South America, apes appear have
evolved in Eurasia...
Homo?
"Modern" man?
3) were savanna-dwellers,
This is just dumb.
The savanna supports the smallest, the least population density of any
of the proposed environments.
4) had australopithecine ancestors.
You know for the longest time they said the opposite.
I actually think that Lucy & kin were the offshoots from, the child group
of the Aquatic Ape population. They probably interbred with earlier
groups to split off, or the descendants thereof, like maybe Ardi...
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" because Pan & Gorilla were African
Oh, let's be honest; if Darwin "Thought" that it's because Wallace of someone else suggested it. And it might've seemed like a reasonable
bet, after some of the idiocy that man came up with... like Pangenesis. Which was his /Only/ theory, btw.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
I've been arguing, on usenet, for a very long time, going back to when talk.origins was an actual group, that it very well could have been the other way around: Chimps evolved from us!
Since then, I've seen tons of evidence that says it happened that way!
2) Homo originated in Africa (OoA),
Out of Asia has been taught in Asia for years. I think it was a Dutch man who first proposed it... probably has a little something to do with the rotten-to-the-core British aristocracy promoting the Darwin idiocy...
The British/Dutch rivalry was only ever surpassed by the British/French rivalry it seems.
India, South Africa and much of the later American colonies were all Dutch.
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
Exactly like all the other animals on the savanna.
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
People can argue against your identification of Chimp ancestors but, there's no doubt that you're thinking along the right lines. The simplest, most conservative answer to the question of missing Chimp fossils is that we found them, only they don't look like Chimps.
It's a situation that mirrors Denisovans!
They claim Denisovans branched off from Neanderthals like 400,000 years
ago or more. Well. there's plenty of finds younger than that attributed to "Erectus." So doesn't that mean they've been finding Denisovans all along?
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
It's like the further back we look, the further back we find them.
Op maandag 17 april 2023 om 09:29:22 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices without any evidence:
Many PAs still believe that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound,
Gorillas spend the least amount of time in trees of all the "Great apes." By that argument, they should be closer to Homo than Chimps.
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA),
Part of the problem is one of definitions.See my scenario: lesser & other apes split c 20 Ma, I'd think when India went further underneath Eurasia.
WHAT is supposed to have come out of Africa?
The earliest monkeys are found in South America, apes appear have
evolved in Eurasia...
Homo?
Homo & Pan split c 5 Ma, IMO not long after the Red Sea opened into the Gulf:
--Pan->E.Afr.coast->Transvaal->africanus->robustus,
--Pliocene Homo->S.Asian coast->Java, Flores etc.
"Modern" man?
More difficult: H.sapiens came from Asia?
3) were savanna-dwellers,
This is just dumb.Yes, incredibly dumb. Savanna idiots... :-D Running after their antelopes... :-DDD
The savanna supports the smallest, the least population density of any
of the proposed environments.
Swimming with crocodiles? Really?
childish kudu runner:
Swimming with crocodiles? Really?
Ah?? Why do you believe that,
childish kudu runner:
Swimming with crocodiles? Really?
Ah?? Why do you believe that, my little little boy??
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Swimming with crocodiles? Really?
Ah?? Why do you believe that, my little little boy??
I wouldn't give it the time of day. The argument amounts to claiming that the sea shore was bristling with Homo eating crocodiles while the Rift Valley was devoid of same...
I mean, the goddamn Nile river STILL has crocodiles! According to the nitwits,
nobody could have ever lived there, no civilization could have arose... Doesn't matter how they dealt with crocs. They dealt with crocs. We know that because they weren't wiped out of existence.
It's just the same stupid, Stupid, STUPID "arguments" over & over again... the
troll clearly has no clue. They are incapable of deconstructing their own "Arguments" and testing them. If they were any more idiotic I'd conclude that they must have a Phd in paleo anthropology...
Gorilla 8 Ma via incipient N-Rift -> Afar: afarensis, aethiopicus, boisei etc.etc.H.erectus shellfish-diving at least early-Pleist. 2 Ma:
Pan 5 Ma via S-Rift (// Gorilla) -> Transvaal: africanus, robustus, habilis etc.etc.
Homo Pliocene (no Afr.retroviral DNA!) -> S.Asian coasts ->
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Human olfactory atrophy (very poor sense of smell) shows that
Pleistocene Homo were no "hunters-gatherers" (gathering OK,
but systematic hunting = nonsense).
Ape+human evolution, google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".I dunno.
There seems to me to be an inexplicable draw to the inland
environments.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with Aquatic Ape. Anything
else is just stupid. But our ancestors seemed to want to
give it up, push inland, and this seems to appear from the very
start -- 10 or 20 million years ago!
Look. Even if you want to claim that Ardi & Lucy were no
ancestors, the Aquatic Ape model says they at the very least
share a common ancestor. And Chimps. And Gorillas.
Etc.
So bipedalism goes back as far as we can see, and that
likely evolved as a result of Aquatic Ape. And even the
branching of Apes & Monkeys was likely related to, if not
directly caused by, Aquatic Ape. And this means groups
were peeling off, pushing inland from the very start!
And that is NOT the least bit contradictory. There's no reason
why our ancestors couldn't have preferred inland, preferred
animal meat over marine resources. It really could have been
that way. Because when we're talking about Aquatic Ape
we're not talking about all the predecessors to Homo. We're
just talking about our ancestors.
There were "Modern" humans running around 5k years ago.
This doesn't mean they were an ancestor or yours. It doesn't
even mean that they were the ancestor to any living person
today. And just like that, there were many many populations
of Homo and pre Homo species, but they don't matter. All
we care about is the one we all descend from, the one we
can all call our ancestors. And that's Aquatic Ape.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 89:34:01 |
| Calls: | 6,812 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,328 |
| Messages: | 5,401,951 |