https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just like only
200 years ago. Nothing has changed: https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies, because
there should be big market for fur trade, there should be trading routes
(for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else. Just because
people recently started to use ground stone tools, which allowed people
to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher temperature, which allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of metals, just because
all this happened it doesn't mean that people before that time were much different. It just means that the ground stone tools allowed them to
expand technology, because of fires with higher temperature, nothing
more. Except for that people weren't much different before that.
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Beaver exploitation, 400,000 years ago, testifies to prey choice diversity of Middle Pleistocene hominins
Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser cs 2023 Scient.Rep.13, 19766
Data re. the subsistence base of early hominins are heavily biased in favor of the animal component of their diets,
large mammals are generally much better preserved at archaeol.sites than the bones of smaller animals, let alone the remains of plant food.
Exploitation of smaller game is very rarely documented before the latest phases of the Pleistocene,
this is often taken to imply narrow diets of archaic Homo, and interpreted as a striking economic difference between late-Pleistocene & earlier hominins.
We present new data that contradict this view of mid-Pleistocene Lower Palaeolithic hominins:
cut-marks demonstrate systematic exploitation of beavers, identified in the large faunal assemblage from Bilzingsleben, C-Germany c 400 ka.
In combination with a prime-age dominated mortality profile, this cut-mark record shows:
the rich beaver assemblage resulted from repetitive human hunting activities, with a focus on young adult individuals.
The Bilzingsleben beaver exploitation evidence demonstrates
- a greater diversity of prey-choice by mid-Pleistocene hominins than commonly acknowledged,
- a much deeper history of broad-spectrum subsistence than commonly assumed, already visible in prey choices 400 ka.
Op zaterdag 18 november 2023 om 08:23:36 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just like only
200 years ago. Nothing has changed:
https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies, because
there should be big market for fur trade, there should be trading routes
(for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else. Just because
people recently started to use ground stone tools, which allowed people
to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher temperature, which
allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of metals, just because
all this happened it doesn't mean that people before that time were much
different. It just means that the ground stone tools allowed them to
expand technology, because of fires with higher temperature, nothing
more. Except for that people weren't much different before that.
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
they were making felt 400,000 years ago? https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
hunting beavers.
Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
hunting beavers.
:-) Who knows...
I thought they were following the salmon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
but during Summer?? or Winter?
cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?
On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.
On 20.11.2023. 19:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so >>> felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
hunting beavers.
:-) Who knows...
I thought they were following the salmon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
but during Summer?? or Winter?
cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?
On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.
I would say that it was too cold for swimming in Europe during Ice Age
(you had glaciers in Wales). No, what they were doing is *exactly' what
white man was doing in America/Canada only 300 years ago. This is what pioneers do, fur trade. We did dive a lot, but this was, lets say, from
at least 15 mya to 2 mya, so 13 million years. At least. Long time.
Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 23:50:49 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 20.11.2023. 19:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>> On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so >>>>> felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now, >>>> what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
hunting beavers.
:-) Who knows...
I thought they were following the salmon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
but during Summer?? or Winter?
cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?
On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.
I would say that it was too cold for swimming in Europe during Ice Age
(you had glaciers in Wales). No, what they were doing is *exactly' what
white man was doing in America/Canada only 300 years ago. This is what
pioneers do, fur trade. We did dive a lot, but this was, lets say, from
at least 15 mya to 2 mya, so 13 million years. At least. Long time.
No, Mario:
Hominoidea >20 Ma were already bipedal=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,
IMO in the coastal forests of the islands between Arabafrica & Eurasia then, google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
But brain enlargement, mid-facial prognathism, supra-orbital torus, platycephaly & pachy-osteo-sclerosis only appear in H.erectus begin-Pleistocene (e.g. Java) = clear indications of shallow-diving for aquatic foods (mostly shellfish? cf. stone tools).
I thought they were following the salmon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
where we might infer Cro Magnon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration
thing.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
and everyone else while we were at it.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
where we might infer Cro Magnon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
and everyone else while we were at it.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes.
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:colonisations etc.etc.
On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view:
late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island
The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
colonisations etc.etc.In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island
The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of >> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything >> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:colonisations etc.etc.
On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island
wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of >>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything >>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something >>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis,
IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates >>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used >>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people >>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
island colonisations etc.etc.Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene >>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings,
wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious, >>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if >>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think >>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it >>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for >>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything >>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something >>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established >>>> trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis,
IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
see gorillas and chimps do the same.
Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
any coast?
Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:island colonisations etc.etc.
On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates >>>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used >>>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people >>>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene >>>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings,
wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious, >>>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a >>>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if >>>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody, >>>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think >>>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't >>>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it >>>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling >>>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of >>>>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for >>>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything >>>>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something >>>>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established >>>>>> trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis,
IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
see gorillas and chimps do the same.
Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
any coast?
1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
-Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
-Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
-Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).
2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels...?) cf.scenario above.
3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.
On 22.11.2023. 19:46, Marc Verhaegen wrote:island colonisations etc.etc.
Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of >>>>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates >>>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used >>>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that >>>>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans >>>>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people >>>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland, >>>>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably >>>>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups >>>>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the >>>>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene >>>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings,
wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious, >>>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a >>>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if >>>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody, >>>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think >>>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't >>>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it >>>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling >>>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for >>>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established >>>>>> trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as >>>> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat >>>> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis,
IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you >> see gorillas and chimps do the same.
Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
any coast?
1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
-Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
-Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
-Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).
2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels...?) cf.scenario above.
3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.
Ok. First, Red Sea was flooded numerous times between 25 and 5 Ma: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222001994#s0070
Second, only humans use stone tools the way Lomekwi stone tools were used. Oh, I knew that we share more diseases with orangutan, although we
share more genes with chimps and gorillas. This means that chimps and gorillas are our closest living relatives, while we spatially evolved on
a place where orangutans evolved. This means, in Euroasia.
Pan didn't live on a coast at the time we were bipedal, and we were
bipedal for 12 mya.
Danuvius is in Europe, long away from chimps. Chimps
and gorillas lived where they are living today, in forests. So, we, actually, weren't in contact. Our last contact with forest species was
with orangutan. We, actually, burned off forest species, and ate them burned. Only, we couldn't burn areas with huge precipitation, this is
why today's apes survived in rain forests.
So, these are the facts, and all this was in Miocene, not in Pliocene.
Try do compile scenario using facts. And facts are that we are bipedal
for 12 My. At least.
Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 01:30:58 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:island colonisations etc.etc.
On 22.11.2023. 19:46, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>> On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic: >>>>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
I thought they were following the salmon...
There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of >>>>>>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates >>>>>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used >>>>>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing. >>>
So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
We part company on the migration thing.
I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that >>>>>>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans >>>>>>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people >>>>>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland, >>>>>>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably >>>>>>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups >>>>>>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the >>>>>>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene >>>>>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings,
wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that >>>>>>>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious, >>>>>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a >>>>>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if >>>>>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody, >>>>>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think >>>>>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't >>>>>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it >>>>>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling >>>>>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for >>>>>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something >>>>>>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established >>>>>>>> trading routes.
Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as >>>>>> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat >>>>>> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis,
IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you >>>> see gorillas and chimps do the same.
Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
any coast?
1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
-Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
-Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
-Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).
2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels...?) cf.scenario above.
3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.
Ok. First, Red Sea was flooded numerous times between 25 and 5 Ma:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222001994#s0070
Red sea evaporites: Formation, creep and dissolution
Joshua E Smith & J Carlos Santamarina 2022
Earth-Science Reviews 232, 104115
doi org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104115 open access
Evaporite deposition & sea-floor spreading are 2 salient processes in the geol.history of the Red Sea.
We piece together the available evidence about rift-evolution & evaporite-fm: we constrain the deposition history, analyze creep, and advance a plausible explanation for the preservation of these soluble fms.
At the end of evaporite deposition, before the Ind.Ocean flooded the Red Sea through the Bab al-Mandab's strait (5.33 Ma?? --mv), the salt thickness must have exceeded ~1.5 x the current thickness.
Reported plate rotation, rift rates & a salt suture zone in the C-Red Sea allow us to estimate an effective large-scale viscosity of 1018 Pa·s.
Thinned salt along the S-Red Sea flows up to 5 mm/yr, creep cannot keep up with sea-floor spreading, oceanic crust remains exposed.
Vast alluvial fans & carbonate platforms cause salt withdrawal;
corresponding sea-floor settlement rates can exceed ~10 mm/yr, and overtake coral reef production.
Salt dissolution leaves behind a residual sediment cap made of insoluble minerals that gradually retards further dissolution: self-armoring.
New exper.evidence & the numerical solution of diffusion with a moving boundary show:
- self-armoring by selective dissolution controls early evaporite dissolution,
- background sedimentation dominates sediment accumulation over long time scales.
Armoring-delayed evaporite dissolution prevents the fm of a vast regional brine pool.
Second, only humans use stone tools the way Lomekwi stone tools were used. >> Oh, I knew that we share more diseases with orangutan, although we
share more genes with chimps and gorillas. This means that chimps and
gorillas are our closest living relatives, while we spatially evolved on
a place where orangutans evolved. This means, in Euroasia.
Pan didn't live on a coast at the time we were bipedal, and we were
bipedal for 12 mya.
Pan was coastal until 4 or 3 Ma (then ->S-Rift->Transvaal: africanus-robustus-habilis...),
possibly, they used stones to open mangrove oysters etc.
Early-Miocene Hominoida were already BP! Google "aquarboreal"!
Did, Homo in S.Asia begin regular diving only early-Pleist.?
Pongids & hominids split 15-14 Ma = Mesopotamian seaway closure. Eur.dryopiths, incl.Danuvius etc., died out,
only HPG in the (then incipient) Red Sea survived late-Miocene:
-Gorilla followed the N-Rift->Afar->Lucy-afarensis-boisei etc.
-When the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (5.33 Ma?):
-- Pan went right->E.Afr.coast->S-Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc. -- Homo went left->S.Asia Plioceen->Java: H.erectus etc.
The rest of what you write is nonsense, Mario:
Danuvius is in Europe, long away from chimps. Chimps
and gorillas lived where they are living today, in forests. So, we,
actually, weren't in contact. Our last contact with forest species was
with orangutan. We, actually, burned off forest species, and ate them
burned. Only, we couldn't burn areas with huge precipitation, this is
why today's apes survived in rain forests.
So, these are the facts, and all this was in Miocene, not in Pliocene.
Try do compile scenario using facts. And facts are that we are bipedal
for 12 My. At least.
What you are writing is nonsense. You are forcibly making apes
bipedal.
Do you know what you are saying, that our pelvis which is
completely unique, changed like a yo-yo, now it is long, then it is
short, and so on, and so on, whichever way you personally like it.
Something that happens once ever, in your scenario has to happen
whenever you want it. This is completely crazy. So, stick (jesus,
another one of those English words that has thousand meanings, :) ) to
the facts, not to your dreams.
What you are writing is nonsense. You are forcibly making apes
bipedal.
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* two things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
What you are writing is nonsense. You are forcibly making apes
bipedal.
Makes sense, actually. Chimps are unquestionably secondarily
knuckle walkers. Seems that Gorillas must be as well, though
evolved separately. And, again, the good Doctor's island origins
hypothesis works. It really does.
Islands are famous for spawning Insular Dwarfism. But do the
Google on Insular Gigantism. There are sources which claim
that Gigantism is the norm, and that even in cases of dwarfism
they first grew bigger.
Effectively, a species isolated on an island with no serious
predators is in competition with itself. They're competing
against each other. So larger is an advantage. But growing
larger means burning through more resources, so either they
shrink in numbers or they shrink in size. So...
Put a small animal on an island they grow larger. But instead
of burning through resources they begin exploiting marine
resources. They can actually grow even bigger! You know,
from their new protein diet.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade.
People of African heritage have a lower tolerance for salt. It's
also claimed that the mutation that improves the human
ability to synthesize DHA evolved in Africa. Combined, they
appear to support the good Doctor's model, as Africa would
be the end point, not the beginning.
...the molecular clock crowd claims the synthesizing
DHA thing is on the order of 80k years old. Pretty darn
recent. Especially when people like me argue that this
"Molecular Clock" nonsense exaggerates age. Sometimes
by a very large margin.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* two things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes
It's important to remember that they only had to live long enough to reproduce.
Secondly, keeping with the waterside model, the inland
population that paleo anthropology exclusively digs up would
NOT be our ancestors.
Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 15:08:10 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
...
What you are writing is nonsense. You are forcibly making apes
bipedal.
Not at all: Miocene Hominoide were aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree):
- humans & hylobatids are still BP,
- fist- (Pongo) & knuckle-walking (Pan//Gorilla) evolved in parallel in these long-armed vertical apes to move on dry ground,
google "aquarboreal".
Pelvis evolution is not so difficult, even you can understand, Mario:
Miocene apes had very broad bodies (sternum-thorax-pelvis),
great apes post-aquarboreally evolved longer iliac blades in parallel.
And please no nonsense any more like this:
Do you know what you are saying, that our pelvis which is
completely unique, changed like a yo-yo, now it is long, then it is
short, and so on, and so on, whichever way you personally like it.
Something that happens once ever, in your scenario has to happen
whenever you want it. This is completely crazy. So, stick (jesus,
another one of those English words that has thousand meanings, :) ) to
the facts, not to your dreams.
It looks like you don't understand this. On island big animals get
smaller, and small animals get bigger, until they all are similar in
size.
JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
People of African heritage have a lower tolerance for salt.
JTEM, you are talking vapor.
First, you are claiming that African people don't salt food. Hm.
Then you are citing Molecular clock. My god.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
It looks like you don't understand this. On island big animals get
smaller, and small animals get bigger, until they all are similar in
size.
No. That's Intelligent Design, not evolution.
Secondly, we ARE talking about a small animal getting big.
I was adding another dimension though: The switch to a high
protein diet.
Please. DO try to keep up.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
People of African heritage have a lower tolerance for salt.
JTEM, you are talking vapor.
First, you are claiming that African people don't salt food. Hm.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.HYP.28.5.854
No, I stated the fact that they have a lower tolerance for salt. And
they do have a lower tolerance for salt.
Molecular dating is all wrong since it is based on wrong premises. AThen you are citing Molecular clock. My god.
No, I was noting the molecular dating attributed to the mutation
that provides an enhanced ability to synthesize DHA.
I told you, your scenario has no confirmation in facts, in evidence.
Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 17:47:08 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
...
I told you, your scenario has no confirmation in facts, in evidence.
Inform, my little boy, google
- aquarboreal
- GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English,
and waste your own time.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just like
only 200 years ago. Nothing has changed: https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies, because there should be big market for fur trade, there should be trading routes (for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else. Just because people recently started to use ground stone tools, which allowed people to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher temperature, which
allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of metals, just because all this happened it doesn't mean that people before that time were much different. It just means that the ground stone tools allowed them to expand technology, because of fires with higher temperature, nothing more. Except for that people weren't much different before that.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just
like only 200 years ago. Nothing has changed:
https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies,
because there should be big market for fur trade, there should be
trading routes (for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else.
Just because people recently started to use ground stone tools, which
allowed people to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher
temperature, which allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of
metals, just because all this happened it doesn't mean that people
before that time were much different. It just means that the ground
stone tools allowed them to expand technology, because of fires with
higher temperature, nothing more. Except for that people weren't much
different before that.
Good catch.
Beaver exploitation, 400,000 years ago, testifies to
prey choice diversity of Middle Pleistocene hominins
Abstract
Data regarding the subsistence base of early
hominins are heavily biased in favor of the
animal component of their diets, in particular
the remains of large mammals, which are generally
much better preserved at archaeological sites than
the bones of smaller animals, let alone the
remains of plant food. Exploitation of smaller
game is very rarely documented before the latest
phases of the Pleistocene, which is often taken
to imply narrow diets of archaic Homo and
interpreted as a striking economic difference
between Late Pleistocene and earlier hominins.
We present new data that contradict this view of
Middle Pleistocene Lower Palaeolithic hominins:
cut mark evidence demonstrating systematic
exploitation of beavers, identified in the large
faunal assemblage from the c. 400,000 years old
hominin site Bilzingsleben, in central Germany.
In combination with a prime-age dominated mortality
profile, this cut mark record shows that the rich
beaver assemblage resulted from repetitive human
hunting activities, with a focus on young adult
individuals. The Bilzingsleben beaver exploitation
evidence demonstrates a greater diversity of prey
choice by Middle Pleistocene hominins than
commonly acknowledged, and a much deeper history
of broad-spectrum subsistence than commonly
assumed, already visible in prey choices 400,000
years ago.
Hunting was broad spectrum and moving into different
climes demanded it.
As I remember,
Op zaterdag 25 november 2023 om 10:17:51 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
As I remember,
:-DDD
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 96:19:58 |
| Calls: | 6,764 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,361 |
| Posted today: | 1 |