1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ANTHROPOLOGY.PALEO

  • Why, oh why is the aquatic ape hypothesis still considered 'controversi

    From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 16 11:35:04 2023
    Why, oh why is the aquatic ape hypothesis still considered 'controversial'?

    My answer:

    :-D Who knows?? Conservatism? Savanna believers who all their lifes have been saying that we were endurance runners on African plains are simply too biased to consider only the possibility of coastal dispersal?

    The savanna idea is not only controversial, it's ridiculous nonsense.
    Also wrong (although perhaps a little bit less ridiculous) are
    - australopiths being human ancestors,
    - bipedalism discerning "hominins" from other primates,
    - Out of Africa.

    IMO it's clear that
    - E.Afr.apiths are fossil Gorilla (Lucy) // S.Afr.apiths are fossil Pan (Taung),
    - Miocene Hominoidea were already bipedal=AQUARBOREAL (google),
    - Pliocene Homo followed S.Asian coasts (H.erectus Java).

    https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 16 14:15:23 2023
    littor...@gmail.com wrote:

    Why, oh why is the aquatic ape hypothesis still considered 'controversial'?

    Unlearning is far more difficult than learning.

    Plus, Out of Africa purity is not science. it's a social program, maybe you could call it a political policy.

    I personally believe they are retarded because I can't see any way of truly dividing the "African" population in the Out of Africa purity idiocy from the Eurasian groups. They were descended from Eurasians. Even today the
    Bantu carry some Neanderthal DNA, do they not?

    And when was the Bantu expansion? Only like 3 thousand years ago, which
    would be some centuries AFTER the famous King Tut. Which means they
    were either so poorly adapted to Africa that they couldn't spread, or the
    other "Races" (ethnicities) were too well entrenched, and something had to happen to create a void for the Bantu to fill...

    It's been speculated here that it was Malaria. They didn't have much in the
    way of resistance to Malaria.

    Or there could have been a pandemic, right? Something like AIDS or the
    black death moving through sub saharan Africa...

    Whatever. The point isn't WHY the Bantu Expansion happened, it's that they
    like their ancestors were part of the Eurasian group -- they were all related.

    Call them a "Sub group."

    I imagine they most significant differences were cultural.





    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714713784084791296

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 16 15:18:25 2023
    Op zondag 16 april 2023 om 23:15:24 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

    Why, oh why is the aquatic ape hypothesis still considered 'controversial'?

    Unlearning is far more difficult than learning.

    Yes, apparently: how can they be & remain so stupid??

    Plus, Out of Africa purity is not science. it's a social program, maybe you could call it a political policy.

    It's not illogical: Pan & Gorilla = Africa.
    (IMO, Pliocene Homo came from the Red Sea: 1/2 Africa...)

    I personally believe they are retarded because I can't see any way of truly dividing the "African" population in the Out of Africa purity idiocy from the Eurasian groups. They were descended from Eurasians. Even today the
    Bantu carry some Neanderthal DNA, do they not?

    Pliocene Homo was Asia, but I'd think that Pleist.sapiens also came from Asia?

    And when was the Bantu expansion? Only like 3000 years ago, which
    would be some centuries AFTER the famous King Tut. Which means they
    were either so poorly adapted to Africa that they couldn't spread, or the other "Races" (ethnicities) were too well entrenched, and something had to happen to create a void for the Bantu to fill...
    It's been speculated here that it was Malaria. They didn't have much in the way of resistance to Malaria.
    Or there could have been a pandemic, right? Something like AIDS or the
    black death moving through sub saharan Africa...
    Whatever. The point isn't WHY the Bantu Expansion happened, it's that they like their ancestors were part of the Eurasian group -- they were all related.
    Call them a "Sub group."
    I imagine they most significant differences were cultural.

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