There are at least 8 *independent* scientific indications (undenied & undeniable)
that Pleistocene archaic Homo were semi-aquatic:
• Archaic Homo's atypical tooth-wear was caused by "sand and oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
• H.erectus s.s. fossilized typically (always?) in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto child amid barnacles & corals, Trinil amid Pseudodon & Elongaria, Sangiran-17 in a "brackish marsh near the coast".
• Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by H.erectus (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228-231).
• Ear exostoses (H.erectus & H.neand.) develop only after years of cold(er) water irrigation.
• Pachyosteosclerosis is typically & exclusively seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus' parietal bone is twice (2x) as thick as in gorillas.
• Brain enlargement++ (cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia) is facilitated by sea-food, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish etc.
• Homo’s stone tool use & manual dexterity is typical for molluscivores: sea-otters etc.
• Pleistocene Homo colonized islands far oversea (Flores & later even Luzon), google “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo”.
IOW, only *incredible* idiots still believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savanna... :-DDD The savanna fantasy is the most unscientific just-so story imaginalbe.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
There are at least 8 *independent* scientific indications (undenied & undeniable)
that Pleistocene archaic Homo were semi-aquatic:
Your argument on Homo erectus is good. It's great. It convinced me that I'm wrong,
sent me reeling into a new direction.
Effectively, everything you say about erectus is true, and when combined with other
pieces of evidence -- non "Aquatic" evidence -- it amounts to one fact: It all starts
with erectus.
Oh we had other ancestors before erectus. And those other ancestors had ancestors. But none of them are "Us." Erectus was.
So called "Moderns" very likely could and even did interbreed with erectus...
• Archaic Homo's atypical tooth-wear was caused by "sand and oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
• H.erectus s.s. fossilized typically (always?) in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto child amid barnacles & corals, Trinil amid Pseudodon & Elongaria, Sangiran-17 in a "brackish marsh near the coast".
• Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by H.erectus (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228-231).
• Ear exostoses (H.erectus & H.neand.) develop only after years of cold(er) water irrigation.
• Pachyosteosclerosis is typically & exclusively seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus' parietal bone is twice (2x) as thick as in gorillas.
• Brain enlargement++ (cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia) is facilitated by sea-food, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish etc.
• Homo’s stone tool use & manual dexterity is typical for molluscivores: sea-otters etc.
• Pleistocene Homo colonized islands far oversea (Flores & later even Luzon), google “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo”.
IOW, only *incredible* idiots still believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savanna... :-DDD The savanna fantasy is the most unscientific just-so story imaginable.
Effectively, stealing all your arguments, I came up with this:
THE CHROMOSOME FUSION!
In my model the littoral or waterside population is the mother group,
and all through history splinter groups had broken off, bushed
inland and adapted to their new environments. And they all interbred, sharing DNA and moderating each others evolution.
...the waterside group, following the coast, was the conduit,
carrying new adaptions (DNA) from group to group.
In a nutshell: We all had many ancestors but the one ancestor we
all share in common, the one we owe our humanity to is the waterside population.
Now this spreading -- coastal dispersal -- and splintering off, pushing inland, had been happening since the beginning. But there were many
key events that stopped it.
THERE WERE RESET BUTTONS!
On of them was the eruption of Yellowstone, close to 9 million years
ago. Yes, it had all began before that...
Another was the vastly more recent eruption of Toba. It's the reason
why people say "Out of Africa," the Toba eruption having wiped out
much of Homo outside of Africa..
The relevant RESET BUTTON here was the Chromosome Fusion,
which is popularly aligned with erectus.
There. That's it: Modern man.
Without the inland population to moderate their evolution, they
could better adapt to exploiting aquatic resources.
Oh, they were always there, exploiting those resources, but *Tons*
of selective pressures were on the inland environment -- the forests
and savannas -- and not just the littoral world. But after the
chromosome fusion they could no longer interbreed with those
more archaic inland groups. So, we got everything you describe
Effectively, everything you say about erectus is true, and when combined with other
pieces of evidence -- non "Aquatic" evidence -- it amounts to one fact: It all starts
with erectus.
"all"? But what happened with our Pliocene ancestors?
Hs lacks Pliocene African retroviral DNA = we were following S.Asian coasts,
but so far we have no Pliocene Homo s.s. fossils:
did frequent shellfish-diving begin early-Pleist.? e.g. colder? more shellfish...??
or already Pliocene??
I have no ideas on chromo-fusions.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Effectively, everything you say about erectus is true, and when combined with other
pieces of evidence -- non "Aquatic" evidence -- it amounts to one fact: It all starts
with erectus.
"all"? But what happened with our Pliocene ancestors?
They weren't us and they were never going to be us, not without erectus and the
unique circumstances (events, interbreeding, selective pressures) that resulted
in erectus.
Hs lacks Pliocene African retroviral DNA = we were following S.Asian coasts,
Partially true. Our ancestors were everywhere from Sundaland to South Africa,
but the African population was so devastated by the retrovirus event that they
were either driven to extinction, absorbed by the Pan side of the family (because
they were still co fertile) or survivors were absorbed by the Eurasian population.
but so far we have no Pliocene Homo s.s. fossils:"Homo" is an artificial construct. Our habilis is usually described as the first
Homo, but it's just a convenient dividing line. I mean, habilis had immediate
ancestors, and we're are just as descended from them, even if they are NOT considered Homo...
did frequent shellfish-diving begin early-Pleist.? e.g. colder? more shellfish...??
or already Pliocene??
Before both.
Bipedalism is linked to "Aquatic Ape" -- the exploitation of marine resources --
and that goes but a minimum of 7 million years, working with the hard evidence, and probably before 10 million years ago...
I like the island model. Where the island was I do not care. But I like the Island model. It gets us from monkeys to apes, via the ocean.
Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium.
Verhaegen's "Isolation is the engine of evolution."
They get isolated on an island. No natural predators. Their only
competition is each other:
Insular Gigantism
This usually precedes Insular Dwarfism as the Gigantism
exhausts available resources, placing selective pressures on
"Small," but in this case the opposite happened. Instead of
exhausting resources they tapped into what was for them an
inexhaustible supply: The sea!
All that free protein to grow just as big as genetics would
allow!
There. We went from little monkeys to big apes.
Well. Not really apes. The apes would come later. The bipedalism,
the loss of the tale and growing brains just as big as they could,
which back then wasn't very big, all came first. LATER as some
groups branched off from the mother Aquatic Ape population,
pushed inland and adapted, they would become apes....
I have no ideas on chromo-fusions.The Chromosome Fusion thingie aligns with erectus. It would
have stopped the waterside population from interbreeding with
more archaic inland groups. It would have genetically isolated
them from more archaic inland groups.
Op zondag 30 juli 2023 om 05:42:24 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
Effectively, everything you say about erectus is true, and when combined with other
pieces of evidence -- non "Aquatic" evidence -- it amounts to one fact: It all starts
with erectus.
"all"? But what happened with our Pliocene ancestors?
They weren't us and they were never going to be us, not without erectus and the
unique circumstances (events, interbreeding, selective pressures) that resulted
in erectus.
I meant: early Hominoidea (at least early-Miocene) also underwent drastic changes (island effect??):
- larger body: semi-aquatic?
- broad: very wide pelvis (+ lateral leg movements) & esp.thorax = dorsally-placed scapulas -> lateral+upward arm movements,
+ very strong, flat, broad sternum=breast-bone (Hominoidea=Latisternalia) + long arms -> suspensory... swimming...
- centrally-placed spine (dorsally- in most mammals) = upright body posture = wading + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
- complete tail loss! underestimated, but very unexpected: frequent wading? even swimming??
You know my "plate tectonics & hominoid splittings" hypothesis (my book p.299):
c 30 Ma or so, India was approaching S-Eurasia, first forming island archipels = full of coastal forests:
some Catarrhini reached some of these islands -> Hominoidea in coastal forests: aquarboreal! google!
India further underneath Eurasia split hylobatids (E) & great hominoids (W) along Tethys Ocean coasts.
The Mesopotamian Seaway Closure c 15 Ma split hominids-dryopiths (E) & pongids-sivapiths (E).
Hominids (Medit.Sea+rivers...) died out except in the incipient Red Sea = hominids, now Gorilla, Homo & Pan:
- Gorilla ancestors 8-7 Ma followed the incipient N-Rift -> Lucy... -> boisei etc.
- when de Red Sea opened into the Gulf 6-5 Ma, Homo went left, Pan went right. :-) Simple, no?
Pliocene Pan along the E.Afr.coasts followed the incipient S-Rift -> Taung... -> robustus etc.
This explains Gorilla//Pan evolutions: aquarboreal->"gracile"->"robust"->knuckle-walking.
H.sapiens lacks Pliocene African retroviral DNA = we were following S.Asian coasts,
Partially true. Our ancestors were everywhere from Sundaland to South Africa,
No:
Pliocene Homo followed the S.Asian coasts -> Sundaland.
We never were in S.Africa, except perhaps late-Pleistocene:
"Out-of-Africa" is almost as idiotic as "endurance-running".
parallel, convergent, reverse evolution), weten we vaak niet tot welke tak een vroeg ‘mensachtig’ (hominide) fossiel behoort: Pan, Homo, Gorilla, een gemeenschappelijke tak, een uitgestorven tak? Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (but the African population was so devastated by the retrovirus event that they
were either driven to extinction, absorbed by the Pan side of the family (because
they were still co fertile) or survivors were absorbed by the Eurasian population.
but so far we have no Pliocene Homo s.s. fossils:"Homo" is an artificial construct. Our habilis is usually described as the first
Homo, but it's just a convenient dividing line. I mean, habilis had immediate
ancestors, and we're are just as descended from them, even if they are NOT considered Homo...
Most "habilis" were Pan-Australopithecus, not Homo! e.g. see my book (a bit shortened):
"Homo habilis: australopitheek of/en oermens? -- Kort na de chimp/mens-splitsing (~5 Ma?) waren de verschillen klein, en vermits veranderingen in diverse lichaamsdelen bij diverse oerhominiden mozaïekachtig en soms zelfs omgekeerd gebeurden (mosaic,
Verscheidene fossielen uit het Oost-Afrikaanse slenkengebied die men gewoonlijk tot het geslacht Homo rekent, zijn bijna 2 Ma (bv. OH Olduvai Hominids). Veel zijn afgezet met water- en moeras-bewoners in nu opgedroogde papyrus-meren. Soms lagen restenvan nijlpaarden en andere grote zoogdieren bij bewerkte stenen, en op enkele fossiele hoefdier-botten beschrijft men – maar bijt-letsels van krokodillen of vertrappeling door hoeven lijken op bewerking met keien – sporen van kloppen of schrapen met
De term Homo habilis is gebruikt voor diverse 'graciele' skeletresten toen uit Olduvai (OH), Oost-Turkana (ER) en Zuid-Afrika (ST en SK): behoorden die allemaal wel tot eenzelfde soort habilis, of zelfs tot Homo? Sommige waren zo klein als Lucy, ofleken wat op africanus, en heetten misschien beter Australopithecus of Praeanthropus habilis? Bij OH-16 wees de glazuur-slijtage op fruiteten zoals bij africanus en chimps, en het tand-bederf deed prof.Puech denken dat zij (zoals de oude Egyptenaren bij
De inhoud van sommige habilis-schedels schat men 600 à 900 cc, te groot voor Australopithecus: dus te klasseren bij Homo? Maar hun lichaams-gewicht kan onderschat zijn, zoals vaak. Ook zijn de 4 habilis-schedels uit Olduvai zo verschrikkelijkverbrokkeld dat hun schedelinhoud slecht te meten is (Spoor 2015). En kregen chimpanzees na hun splitsing met onze voorouders – door minder water(kant)voedsel te gaan eten? – terug kleinere hersenen? Ook ons brein is kleiner dan dat van neandertalers
ER-1470 (~1,8 Ma), nog groter dan OH-7, is vaak geklasseerd bij habilis. Volgens Richard Leakey had hij hersenen van 750 cc, volgens Dean Falk een Broca-achtig hersengebied (dat mond- en keel-spieren coördineerde), volgens Bob Franciscus watuitwendige neus en grote neusbijholtes(sinus), hij zou dus Homo zijn, en Bernard Wood noemde hem Homo rudolfensis (daartoe rekende hij ook BC-1 en UR-501, 2 stukken schedel uit schelp-rijke meren of lagunes in Kenya en Malawi ~2,4 Ma). Maar Tim Bromage
2,6 of 2,5 Ma zijn de vroegst bekende ‘werktuig-ateliers’ (met Oldowan-afslagtechniek – ook chimps laten op hun noot-kraak-plaatsen vergelijkbare steenschilfers achter, zegt Julio Mercader). Ze lagen aan de oude Awash-rivier in Gona, niet ver vanHadar, waar Lucy ontdekt is. Homo-werktuigen of -fossielen aan Oost-Afrikaanse meren lijken samen te gaan met hoge zee-nivo’s (~2½, ~1,8 en ~1 Ma, Trauth 2005). José Joordens vermoedt dan telkens zee-verbindingen. Rond 1,8 Ma verschijnen er in het
Het Turkana-meer, zegt José’s mooie proefschrift, was toen (~1,8 Ma) veel rijker aan eetbare schelp-dieren dan nu. Er leefden blijkbaar tenminste 3 soorten hominiden: de Gorilla-achtige boisei, de Homo-achtige ergaster, en de Pan-achtige habilis (resp. bv. ER-406, ER-3733 en ER-1813). Was boisei een 'drasland-gorilla' met papyrus-dieet? ergaster een schelpdier-etende Homo uit Indische Oceaankusten? en sommige habilis fruitetende bonobo-verwanten uit Oost-Afrikaanse kustbossen, die kleiner werden,
Rest later: have to prepare for family feast, says my wife... :-)
did frequent shellfish-diving begin early-Pleist.? e.g. colder? more shellfish...??
or already Pliocene??
Before both.
Bipedalism is linked to "Aquatic Ape" -- the exploitation of marine resources --
and that goes but a minimum of 7 million years, working with the hard evidence, and probably before 10 million years ago...
I like the island model. Where the island was I do not care. But I like the
Island model. It gets us from monkeys to apes, via the ocean.
Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium.
Verhaegen's "Isolation is the engine of evolution."
They get isolated on an island. No natural predators. Their only competition is each other:
Insular Gigantism
This usually precedes Insular Dwarfism as the Gigantism
exhausts available resources, placing selective pressures on
"Small," but in this case the opposite happened. Instead of
exhausting resources they tapped into what was for them an
inexhaustible supply: The sea!
All that free protein to grow just as big as genetics would
allow!
There. We went from little monkeys to big apes.
Well. Not really apes. The apes would come later. The bipedalism,
the loss of the tail and growing brains just as big as they could,
which back then wasn't very big, all came first. LATER as some
groups branched off from the mother Aquatic Ape population,
pushed inland and adapted, they would become apes...
I have no ideas on chromo-fusions.
The Chromosome Fusion thingie aligns with erectus. It would
have stopped the waterside population from interbreeding with
more archaic inland groups. It would have genetically isolated
them from more archaic inland groups.
I meant: early Hominoidea (at least early-Miocene) also underwent
drastic changes (island effect??):
- larger body: semi-aquatic?
Sundaland = islands:
island forms are often "special":
this might help explain Homo's peculiar evolution?
I'd think we have to discern (at least) 2 island phases:
1) early Hominoidea = arboreal->aquarboreal (late-Oligo- already & early-Miocene?)
2) archaic Homo = aquarboreal->shallow-diving (early-Pleisto- & already late-Pliocene?)
I'm frustrated that the waterside model is still not generally accepted although the evidence is obvious for everybody with a little bit of intelligence
but I'm very happy at my age to see a very coherent scenario of
hominoid evolution arising, partly based on isolation
(island = It.isola = Lat.insula).
There. We went from little monkeys to big apes.
Well. Not really apes. The apes would come later. The bipedalism,
the loss of the tail and growing brains just as big as they could,
which back then wasn't very big, all came first. LATER as some
groups branched off from the mother Aquatic Ape population,
pushed inland and adapted, they would become apes...
Interesting thinking. :-)
Insular gigantism followed by insular dwarfism??
(Semi)aquatic mammals generally become larger.
I was wondering:
- why was Gigantopith.(fossil pongid?) so big?
- and why is Gorilla larger than Homo & Pan?
When is this chromo-fusion (only Homo?) estimated to have happened?
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant: early Hominoidea (at least early-Miocene) also underwent
drastic changes (island effect??):
- larger body: semi-aquatic?
It's certainly logical.
By becoming isolated on an island, free of natural predators, populations breed rapidly and are only in competition with themselves. This results in Insular Gigantism.
I've read claims where Insular Gigantism precedes Insular Dwarfism. That, FIRST they get big and then they get small. BUT...
If a population so isolated had exhausted its food supply, and adapted by exploiting the sea, the opposite could happen. They could have gotten
big, and then after switching to a very high protein diet of abundant seafood,
they got bigger!
Sundaland = islands:
island forms are often "special":
this might help explain Homo's peculiar evolution?
I'm guessing that monkeys in isolation, probably on islands, resulted in Hominins, which (very quickly?) spawned Hominids...
Yes I'm guessing that all the so called "Great Apes" are only secondarily knuckle walkers.
I'd think we have to discern (at least) 2 island phases:
1) early Hominoidea = arboreal->aquarboreal (late-Oligo- already & early-Miocene?)
2) archaic Homo = aquarboreal->shallow-diving (early-Pleisto- & already late-Pliocene?)
I don't see it as distinct phases. Well, what I mean is that I don't see a need
for it. The two can happen in parallel, and I believe THAT model is more the more likely.
I actually, I believe we are seeing this in the evidence..
There were groups/populations that had pushed inland, adapted to the
"new" environment, eventually radiating out into every niche it could fit. And THAT is why you are seeing your "Aquaboreal." It's because some
were exploiting the forest, adapting to an arboreal lifestyle, but they
were co-fertile with, sharing DNA with other groups, exploiting other niches... including new arrivals from the waterside group. So your
forest population was maintaining traits inherited from the Aquatic
Ape population, due to all this interbreeding, even as selective
pressures were helping it to adapt to the trees.
So we don't need separate phases. This could all be happening at
once. What we need is separate populations.
I'm frustrated that the waterside model is still not generally accepted although the evidence is obvious for everybody with a little bit of intelligence
What pisses me off is the supposedly "Educated" people who can't
spot circular reasoning when it's staring them in the face. And they're
blind to the selection/sampling bias even when it's pointed out to
them!
I mean, I regular state that "Paleo anthropology is not a real science"
and people think I'm just being an asshole. No. No I'm not. It honestly
isn't a real science. It fails to meet the standards of science.
It's not alone in this regard.
but I'm very happy at my age to see a very coherent scenario of
hominoid evolution arising, partly based on isolation
(island = It.isola = Lat.insula).
I came to Aquatic Ape via Wolpoff and his ideas on Multi
regionalism, so "Isolation" had always been a part of the formula.
It was just a matter of how much.
Presently, I see his Multi Regionalism as the macro scale, as
opposed to the micro scale of your islands.
There. We went from little monkeys to big apes.
Well. Not really apes. The apes would come later. The bipedalism,
the loss of the tail and growing brains just as big as they could, which back then wasn't very big, all came first. LATER as some
groups branched off from the mother Aquatic Ape population,
pushed inland and adapted, they would become apes...
Interesting thinking. :-)
Hominins followed by Hominids.
Insular gigantism followed by insular dwarfism??
There are many who will tell you this is the norm. That, the Gigantism
is a phase they pass through prior to the dwarfism. But what if instead
of shrinking as your giants on the island exhausted resources, they
instead turned to exploiting a new, abundant and extremely high
protein food source: The ocean!
(Semi)aquatic mammals generally become larger.
I was wondering:
- why was Gigantopith.(fossil pongid?) so big?
- and why is Gorilla larger than Homo & Pan?
I believe that Gigantism isn't linked to the isolation per se, but
with a species in competition with itself.
The size is likely a product of their breeding strategy, their
social structure.
The isolation on an island can protect a population, resulting
in vastly increased competition with itself.
When is this chromo-fusion (only Homo?) estimated to have happened?
W-I-D-E variation in numbers. This one says about a million years ago: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36008753/#:~:text=Genomic%20signatures%20of%20this%20event,million%20years%20ago%20(Mya).
This one says 0.74 to 4.5 million years ago: https://molecularcytogenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13039-016-0283-3#:~:text=Results,0.74%20%2D%204.5%20million%20years%20ago.
From there it gets complicated.
I personally have long argued for TWO events, not one. Mutations
along these lines are NOT uncommon. So I came up with the model
where such mutations cropped up in not one but TWO populations,
only for them to interbreed, fusing the fusion!
Okay, I didn't come up with it, I stole it from someone else. Big deal.
In science it's about getting things right. That's all that matters. Not being the first but being smart enough to recognize the truth when
you see it...
Anyway, WHY I see this as so important is because it allows for a
much larger founding population. You have a group prone to what
is not an uncommon mutation meeting up with another group...
DOUBLE YOUR PLEASURE! DOUBLE YOUR FUN!
Double your chances of getting this fusion thing going for real.
The point is, you could have ONE group dealing with this for
millions of years, perhaps, and the other for significantly shorter.
So the molecular dating nonsense could be even less accurate
than it usually is.
Regardless, all the estimates overlap with the range of erectus.
Interbreeding is perhaps still often possible after a few 100,000s of yrs, but not after >1 My?
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Interbreeding is perhaps still often possible after a few 100,000s of yrs, but not after >1 My?
I've heard that 2 million years is the upward limit.
Well. in regards to humans.
One researcher claimed that there has been only a single human species
for most of the last 2 million years... which would start us off with erectus.
I like his thinking, as it moves everything in line with erectus.
Difficult to know: H.neand. (late-Pleist.) was apparently still inter-fertile, but H.erectus (early-Pleist.) was a lot more different from us AFAICS (fossil data: bones): smaller brain, long & low brain-skull, foramen magnum a bit more dorsally, veryheavy & thick bones, projecting mid-face, no chin, more flaring ilia & longer + more horizontal femoral necks IIRC, shorter tibias etc. They were predom.shallow-divers, we are predom.terrestrial walkers. But only incredible imbeciles still assume erectus
There are at least 8 *independent* scientific indications (undenied & undeniable) that Pleistocene archaic Homo were semi-aquatic:
• Archaic Homo's atypical tooth-wear was caused by "sand and oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
• H.erectus s.s. fossilized typically (always?) in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto child amid barnacles & corals, Trinil amid Pseudodon & Elongaria, Sangiran-17 in a "brackish marsh near the coast".
• Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by H.erectus (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228-231).
• Ear exostoses (H.erectus & H.neand.) develop after years of cold(er) water irrigation.
• Pachyosteosclerosis is typically & exclusively seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus' parietal bone is twice (2x) as thick as in gorillas.
• Brain enlargement++ (cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia) is facilitated by sea-food, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish etc.
• Homo’s stone tool use & manual dexterity is typical for molluscivores: sea-otters etc.
• Pleistocene Homo colonized islands far oversea (Flores & later even Luzon), google “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo”.
IOW, only *incredible* idiots still believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes over African savanna... :-DDD The savanna fantasy is the most unscientific just-so story imaginable.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 302 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 97:55:17 |
Calls: | 6,766 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,295 |
Messages: | 5,376,385 |
Posted today: | 1 |