(1) Viro-gene evidence (Benveniste & Todaro 1976 see below) shows: Pliocene Homo was in Asia, not Africa.incl. my 3 Hum.Evol.papers) showed:
(2) But African Pliocene hominid fossils (australopiths) are traditionally believed to be related to Homo, not Pan or Gorilla.
(1) & (2) are incompatible.
But the solution is simple: (2) is wrong = anthropocentric prejudice: many (most??) paleo-anthropologists still believe that australopith fossils are "human ancestors" (because they still carry a few human traits: from the LCA), but different authors (
- E.Afr.australopiths resemble Gorilla > Pan >> Homo,clearer. :-)
- S.Afr.australopiths resemble Pan > Gorilla or Homo.
If we accept what is obvious - that australopiths are simply Pliocene fossil relatives of chimps, bonobos or gorillas (who were in Africa), and that Pliocene Homo was in Asia (IMO along Ind.Ocean coasts) - hominid evolution suddenly becomes a lot
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Where are the fossils "exactly", JTEM?
littor...@gmail.com wrote:(incl. my 3 Hum.Evol.papers) showed:
(1) Viro-gene evidence (Benveniste & Todaro 1976): Pliocene Homo was in Asia, not Africa.
(2) But African Pliocene hominid fossils (australopiths) are traditionally believed to be related to Homo, not Pan or Gorilla.
(1) & (2) are incompatible.
But the solution is simple: (2) is wrong = anthropocentric prejudice: many (most??) paleo-anthropologists still believe that australopith fossils are "human ancestors" (because they still carry a few human traits: from the LCA), but different authors
clearer. :-)-- E.Afr.australopiths resemble Gorilla > Pan >> Homo,
-- S.Afr.australopiths resemble Pan > Gorilla or Homo.
If we accept what is obvious - that australopiths are simply Pliocene fossil relatives of chimps, bonobos or gorillas (who were in Africa), and that Pliocene Homo was in Asia (IMO along Ind.Ocean coasts) - hominid evolution suddenly becomes a lot
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
The problem is, we know exactly where the fossils are, if they exist. Nobody is looking. Nobody cares.
We could test Aquatic Ape. We could test Out of Asia, as if nobody has already. We can find the
first of the Chimp line... we can. They spent $13 billion, they tell us, search for a sub atomic
particle which literally doesn't do anything for us.
Doing real science would be expensive. And difficult. Going back YEARS I started suggesting dredging.
Not as a substitute for archaeology but as a way of identifying submerged archaeological sites.
Then there's the standbys:
River bends. Deltas. Volcanic deposits.
If they were inland, they were somewhere near water. If they were on the coast, they left behnd
remains -- their own dead, tools, middens... hearths.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Where are the fossils "exactly", JTEM?
That answer differs with the hypothesis you're endorsing.
For Out of Asia and I guess Aquatic Ape while we're at it, I would start
at Ground Zero: Sundaland.
It's the most favored spot. That's where the best odds are, according to
Out of Asia proponents. So I would go there. I would map out the old coastline, for various periods. And then I would dredge.
Dredging is vastly more efficient than other "Archaeology." It's claimed
that for projects like the Suez Canal they actually flooded it, because dredging was easier than working the dry land...
So dredging would just be "Test Strips" to identify sites worth a proper archaeological investigation. This could be undersea excavation, which
is probably the worst and most expensive, or damming off a site... maybe
some sort of submerged dome.
Was it the famous Brooklyn Bridge where the excavations for the
foundations happened in this fashion? The men working underwater in
an upside down concrete box? Something like that?
The Jungle freaks would have it easier. They pick a date, identify the
course of any/all rivers through a region and then search for bends and deltas. Those are the best places to find fossils.
One of the best preserved dinosaur mummies -- YES I SAID MUMMIES! --
is believed to have been covered in mud/silt by a river flood. Lucy appears to have been preserved in some similar fashion, only she had weathered
out and lay exposed, degrading, long before anyone thought to search
for her...
If you pick your poison -- forest, Aquatic Ape, Out of Africa, Out of Asia -- that tells you where they were supposed to be, hence where their remains
are.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 303 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 78:11:33 |
Calls: | 6,805 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,328 |
Messages: | 5,400,433 |