The usual just-so, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies ("gorilla+chimp=forest=QP <--> human=savanna=bipedal") are contradicted by e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no seashells in any savanna,
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's huge brain (DHA etc.), cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel,
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- etc.etc.:
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is on-topic for the group.
"Group management" is impossible to enforce in an unmoderated group. A glance at verhaegen's
long involvment in s.a.p. indicates he has not changed his behavior for a long time. His presence
here is close to trolling. A possible couse of inaction might be to ignore him. At least that would result
in fewer bloated threads of no content. Bloated threads with his junk proliferate in TO.
is close to trolling.
The usual just-so, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies ("gorilla+chimp=forest=QP <--> human=savanna=bipedal") are contradicted by e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no seashells in any savanna,
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's huge brain (DHA etc.), cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel,
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- etc.etc.:
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
No it is trolling. the other group
On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is on-topic for the group.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
on-topic for the group.
Come off it, John.
The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS, possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
Would you like to know about some of them?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
on-topic for the group.
Come off it, John.
The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS, possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
Would you like to know about some of them?
On 4/4/23 00:31, erik simpson wrote:
is close to trolling.
No it is trolling.
the other group is all trolled out so he is fishing
here.
NOBODY should reply to anything he posts other than to tell him to bug out.
Hey Troll
Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you understand?
Fucking Asshole
On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is >> on-topic for the group.
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here. >>>
Come off it, John.
The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
You are confused.
What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
on posting, not the savannah hypothesis.
Hey Troll
Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you understand?
Fucking Asshole
Are you so blind as to fail to
notice that I was defending your post?
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo. But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
Would you like to know about some of them?
Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is >>>> on-topic for the group.
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here. >>>>>
Come off it, John.
The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
You are confused.
Not really. Ruben's "This" almost certainly refers to "this subject."
What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
on posting, not the savannah hypothesis.
Oh, come on now! Popping Mad has been trying to manage this group
to make Marc and JTEM into outcasts. Take a look at how I responded
to a post where he was blatantly trying to do just that:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/Hwl9e8ZwBAAJ Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)
[First half of my reply:]
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:
Hey Troll
Why the singular? why don't you tell us whom you are addressing?
Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you
understand?
This is the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS, possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
Fucking Asshole
For someone who hates conflict, you sure are abusive here. ======================= end of excerpt===========================
Face it, John: you didn't know the context of Ruben's "OFF TOPIC". If you still think Ruben ("Popping Mad") used those caps over my ordinary request to Marc,
you are implicitly accusing him of atrocious double standards.
BTW in the bottom half of the post from which I've quoted the top half,
I gave Ruben credit for NOT playing "do as I say, not as I do."
Are you so blind as to fail to
notice that I was defending your post?
"blind" is fraught with irony. AT BEST, you were defending the tiny smidgen that "Popping Mad" left in. At worst, you were playing "good cop" to his "bad cop"
with your superfluous prelude,
"It may not be on-topic for paleontology,"
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo. >>> But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS, >>> possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be >>> ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
Would you like to know about some of them?
Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.
It has everything to do with Ruben wanting Marc to be ostracized.
On 4/5/23 1:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is >>>> on-topic for the group.
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once
This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
Come off it, John.
The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
You are confused.
Not really. Ruben's "This" almost certainly refers to "this subject."
Subsequent posts make that clear. My mistake. In my defense, that's not
a sensible claim. Human paleontology is still paleontology, last I checked.
What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
on posting, not the savannah hypothesis.
Oh, come on now! Popping Mad has been trying to manage this group
to make Marc and JTEM into outcasts. Take a look at how I responded
to a post where he was blatantly trying to do just that:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/Hwl9e8ZwBAAJ
Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)
[First half of my reply:]
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:
Hey Troll
Why the singular? why don't you tell us whom you are addressing?
Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you
understand?
This is the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo. But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
Fucking Asshole
For someone who hates conflict, you sure are abusive here. ======================= end of excerpt===========================
Face it, John: you didn't know the context of Ruben's "OFF TOPIC". If you still think Ruben ("Popping Mad") used those caps over my ordinary request to Marc,
you are implicitly accusing him of atrocious double standards.
BTW in the bottom half of the post from which I've quoted the top half,
I gave Ruben credit for NOT playing "do as I say, not as I do."
Are you so blind as to fail to
notice that I was defending your post?
"blind" is fraught with irony. AT BEST, you were defending the tiny smidgen
that "Popping Mad" left in. At worst, you were playing "good cop" to his "bad cop"
with your superfluous prelude,
"It may not be on-topic for paleontology,"
Again, I was referring to your administrative suggestions.
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
Would you like to know about some of them?
Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.
It has everything to do with Ruben wanting Marc to be ostracized.
Clearly, he isn't a troll. But it also seems difficult to have any sort
of discussion with him, given that his main technique is a Gish gallop,
even in response to direct questions.
APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!
Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
the way that only humans do so today.
Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.
APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!
Which ones? Not orangutans, surely: Sivapithecus resembled orangutans
more than it did humans, for example.
Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
the way that only humans do so today.
"likely"? Did it also "likely" make tools from stones?
Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.
You and Marc never seem to use articles by anyone but Marc to back up your hypotheses
"Another hypothesis proposes that
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:15:51 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!
Which ones? Not orangutans, surely: Sivapithecus resembled orangutans
more than it did humans, for example.
And which apes did humans evolve from, according to you?
according to Marc?
Gorilla diverged before the clade Homo-Pan, meaning that ancestral bipedalism would require parallel evolution of knuckle-walking in separate chimpanzee and gorilla radiations.[22]"Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
the way that only humans do so today.
"likely"? Did it also "likely" make tools from stones?
Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.
You and Marc never seem to use articles by anyone but Marc to back up your hypotheses,
yet in Wikipedia I see a reference that agrees with this hypothesis: "Another hypothesis proposes that African apes came from a bipedal ancestor, as no differences in hemoglobin are seen between Pan and Homo, suggesting that their divergence occurred relatively recently. Examining protein sequence changes suggests that
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckle-walking
[22] Edelstein, S.J. (1987). "An Alternative Paradigm for Hominoid Evolution". Hum. Evol. 2 (2): 169–74. doi:10.1007/bf02436404. S2CID 55123100.
Have you or Marc looked at this one before? If you want to be taken seriously,José Joordens, Peter H. Rhys Evans, ... , and many others.
start citing other authors, and don't try to make Marc look like a genius who thought of everything by himself.
In an article that Marc tells others to google, his fan, Kathelijne Bonne, gives a whole list of others:
Note: Although in this article the Waterside Hypotheses is explained by Marc, there are many other important and prominent authors, researchers and advocates, such as Algis Kuliukas, Mario Vaneechoutte, Stephen Munro, Franceska Mansfield, John Foss,
__ https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
How come I never see papers by these people cited by you or Marc?
Most of the NAMES are unfamiliar to me. And note, Edelstein (see [22] above) is not listed.
A problem with listing them the way Ms Bonne does is that there is no clue given
as to WHICH of Marc's and your numerous hypotheses and claims which author endorses.
Y'all's claims range far and wide, and perhaps some of them are only endorsed
by one or two of the listed people, while others on the list wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
Peter Nyikos
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 97:47:57 |
| Calls: | 6,766 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,382 |
| Posted today: | 1 |