4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++ c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?
marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis.
You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush.
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis.
Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
You typically use it as straw man.
It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thoughtAre you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
more than hundred years ago.
Is it a straw man or are you insane?
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is fullLol!
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush.
"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note thatActually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupidSpeaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
Coastal dispersal.
And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.
So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
It fits.
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis.
Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
You typically use it as straw man.
It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.
It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
by evidence.
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thoughtAre you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
more than hundred years ago.
Is it a straw man or are you insane?
What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is fullLol!
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush.
"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
not read books?
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note thatActually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupidSpeaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
that forest inhibits brain development.
Coastal dispersal.
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.
So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
It fits.
It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.
Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
IMO
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above thewater,
2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr.apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,
3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),
4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
_____
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis.
Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
You typically use it as straw man.
It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.
It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
by evidence.
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought more than hundred years ago.Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
Is it a straw man or are you insane?
What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is fullLol!
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush.
"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do not read books?
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note thatActually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupidSpeaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
that forest inhibits brain development.
Coastal dispersal.
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.
So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
It fits.
It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.
water,1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the
Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes?
It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.
It is Marcs favorite straw man.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
Yes
What? I do read scientific articles
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?
Coastal dispersal.
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer.
...the water,
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above
troll:
Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??
It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
innovations:
- Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
- centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
- reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
- broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
- tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
(cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests): https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went intoWhy? Are you a child? You were never exposed to such an idea?
savanna to chase antelopes?
I'm calling you a liar. I'm denouncing you as a lying troll.
I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
You're a raging narcissist.
Fuck off.
It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.
It is Marcs favorite straw man.
No. It's idiocy that he argues against.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
Yes"Environments" is plural.... more than one environment.
What? I do read scientific articles
I doubt that. And you can't read usenet posts for comprehension, there's
no point is pretending you read & understand scientific papers.
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?No. None. They contain radioactive isotopes that destroy DHA.
If you want to make a case for your terrestrial DHA,. make it. STOP
asking me or anyone else to make it for you.
Coastal dispersal.
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer.
So they were dead on the coast. "Coastal Dispersal," is in your mind
when dead ancestors walked everywhere from Sundaland to South
Africa, and every point in between... dead.
And certainly not eating!
I mean, how can dead ancestors eat?
the water,1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above
Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??
We obviously need fossils
It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
innovations:
- Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
- centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
- reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
- broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
- tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
(cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".
above the water,1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches
troll:
Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
troll:Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??
We obviously need fossilsAre you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??
It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
innovations:
- Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
- centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
- reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
- broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
- tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
(cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".Yes, it's obvious you don't see it. :-DDD
Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
They're
Hmm do you actually have split personality? J
1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?
Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
arguments.
troll:
Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and"actual arguments"??? :-DDD
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
arguments.
Mark Isaak wrote:
1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?Here you go:
the
https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html
https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature
Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
what to think.
And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
can not control is always apparent.
Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
"actual arguments"??? :-DDD
I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
troll:
Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
troll:"actual arguments"??? :-DDD
I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
No, troll, we don't.
never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
These links demonstrate
Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
without any fossil.
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers, geocentrists and deep one worshipers.
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests?
Why? Forest is full
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
capability to climb?
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
that crow did dive.
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find seashells in swamp. Good luck.
The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.
I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:
Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
Misrepresentation.
Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.
> we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:
Aren't lots of African monkeys free from the viral genes?
IIRC baboons do carry them. Am I remembering wrong?
- "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
- "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments with JTEM so far, and that JTEM has not provided him with references.
Instead he has just stated conclusions.
I will remedy that problem today, by showing John these references.
The obvious
question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
There's no
particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
exact same set of infections.
In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions while humans did
not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
unless one
shows
John Harshman wrote:
The obvious
question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
Not really.
Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
There's no
particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
exact same set of infections.
It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here, which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions while humans did
not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
Evidence is evidence. Period.
Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
unless one
shows
It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the evidence and there is no counter evidence.
It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."
This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
That's in no way obvious.
Is there one specific species only?
That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
Evidence is evidence. Period.
Not true.
Evidence can have many degrees of quality.
Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
That's an assertion without supporting evidence
Note
that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently, so
the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the evidence and there is no counter evidence.
It's extremely weak evidence.
It would be strong evidence only if we
It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two hypotheses that need to be differentiated.
This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
It's evidence, true.
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:Wiki isn't a cite. It's controlled by nimrods, including a number of
usenet trolls.
Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
Misrepresentation.
No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
saying that it's idiocy.
Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter proposal.
Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still wellOf course: google "aquarboreal"!
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.Yes, of course: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers, geocentrists and deep one worshipers.
Worshipers?
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests?
I??
Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.
Why? Forest is full??
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.
Lots of trees in my garden...
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
capability to climb?
I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
that crow did dive.
You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens. Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find seashells in swamp. Good luck.
You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.
aqua=water, arbor=tree
The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.
?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??
?? *deep*divers??
John Harshman wrote:
Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
That's in no way obvious.
That is a lie.
Is there one specific species only?
That gave rise to humans? In this context, yes. absolutely.
That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
Evidence is evidence. Period.
Not true.
No. You're lying. We have evidence for an Asian origins of Homo:
The retrovirus evidence.
It exists. It's real. You have no counter.
Evidence can have many degrees of quality.
You have nothing to counter it. Nothing.
Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million >>> years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
That's an assertion without supporting evidence
No it's not. It's the furthest thing from unsupported. The retrovirus
event is currently placed back 3 to 4 million years ago. So erase the
last 3 to 4 million years of divergence. We were THAT much closer to
Chimps back then.
Note
that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently, so
the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
Chimps and humans are closer than are Chimps and Gorillas.
Again, this is NOT a "Six of one, half dozen of the other" situation.
It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had >>> to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand >>> that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
evidence and there is no counter evidence.
It's extremely weak evidence.
"Extremely weak" is a pathetic attempt at you to attach a value to the evidence. It's SUBJECTIVE. What is objectively true, on the other hand,
is that it is evidence.
It would be strong evidence only if we
It's strong evidence with no counter.
It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
hypotheses that need to be differentiated.
We have supporting evidence for Out of Asia in the retrovirus.
This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
It's evidence, true.
It's objectively true. Your value judgments are not.
You have no counter.
I see you're back to snipping
On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 14:50:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:human lineage and orangutan lineage. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor."
- "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
From the cited by you article ...
"First, there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon, making it unlikely that endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and then became subsequently deleted in the
... and ...macaque was significantly less (0.051% and 0.058%, respectively; p < 0.007, one-tailed t test), corresponding to a much more recent origin (approximately 1.5 million years ago)."
"Using neutral estimates of primate LTR divergence [8], we estimate that a contemporaneous infection occurred in these ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee lineages 3–4 million years ago (see Materials and Methods). LTR divergence among baboon and
What you talk about is therefore retrovirus that infected those apes separatelyrather than a human ancestor...)
and anyway after human ancestors had already split/stopped hybridising with ancestors of those apes. Why are the viruses relevant?
Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are?? (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor
The cited article mentions australopiths in precisely zero places so it is unclear frombut simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.
where you even took them in. By other publications australopiths appeared 4.2 mya
well before of those retroviruses entered genomes of said apes. If australopiths did
not make 3.3 mya stone tools in Kenya or 2.6 mya in Ethiopia then someone anyway
did. Those places are in Africa and those tools weren't likely made by chimpanzee or
gorilla. Instead you are discussing 2.2 mya or younger stuff from time when tools are
all over the place: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
Particularly you cherry-pick Java with findings 1.8 mya old. Why?
Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene), not for running after antelopes, of course,
antelopes?!How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than
And again your straw-man without source. What is the source of that antelope chasing
garbage? You never tell. Yet your whole "aquarboreal" theory is built on false dichotomy
between those unknown "cheetah men" and your unknown "deep ones". Without cites in
scientific publications so both are most likely wrong.
Wiki is source of reliable references
No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
saying that it's idiocy.
Misrepresentation.
I'm arguing that majority of people
Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter proposal.
What is the point?
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.
You
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.
Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter proposal.
What is the point?You clearly want to disagree with the good Doctor so make a counter
proposal.
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.
JTEM wrote:
On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.
You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.
No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.
What a odd dodge.
Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence.
On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 23:54:44 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.
You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.
Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter proposal.
What is the point?
You clearly want to disagree with the good Doctor so make a counter proposal.
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.
No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.
What a odd dodge. Your ancestors were animals and so are you.
Some humans are like some other animals capable to make and to
use some tools and to build something, some other humans are
not ... anyway all are animals.
Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence. Meanwhile
plenty of evidence has been found about tool-using and bipedal woodland
apes and none about those aquatic apes. Those are still missing.
You can only run with insults as you have nothing else.
... Peter:
"it seems strange that he is here talking about swamp forests when his big pitch for BP earlier had them wading in coastal waters for shellfish."
?? Apparently you haven't even read my view!?
Please inform properly before talking.
Again, for the Xth time, schematically:
1) Most Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were *aquarboreal*(google!),
dispersing mostly in coastal forests (Tethys Ocean -> Tethys Sea etc.) + everywhere side-branches inland, of course.
Diet: mostly fruits etc.? shellfish (+-no brain enlargement!)??
2) Pliocene Homo followed the Ind.Ocean coastal forests e.g. Java early-Pleist.
You have so many views on so many things, and they are so under-supported,
JTEM is running away
Marc, on the other hand, is a coward
who only shows his face at fleeting
intervals these last two days. I handily took care of his little foray
a few minutes ago
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis.
Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
You typically use it as straw man.
It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquarboreal," I see it as
evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago.
Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
Is it a straw man or are you insane?
Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush.
Lol!
"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquarboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
Coastal dispersal.
And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.
So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
It fits.
On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 13:58:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 13:58:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man. Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still wellof course: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man. Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
of course: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan from two human generations ago. Back then it
was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
me:
somebody uninformed:4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
me:That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man. Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
of course: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
imbecile:
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
:-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
of course: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
me:
4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence: Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
somebody uninformed:
That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
me:
of course: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
imbecile:
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
:-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD
same imbecile:
It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape tools in Africa from 3.3 mya."we"see?? :-DDD
Even if so, my little little boy, never heard of chimp tool use??
On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
The obvious
question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to >> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
Not really.
Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
That's in no way obvious.
I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
you won't whether I ask or not.
There's no
particular reason why every African species should have experienced the >> exact same set of infections.
It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
that don't?
In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions
while humans did
not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
Evidence is evidence. Period.Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.
Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.
Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,
so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
We do, sometimes. But not every time.
unless one
shows
It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the evidence and there is no counter evidence.
It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
failing to have the virus.
You could support that by showing that all
African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as
relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.
It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't
do much to differentiate them.
It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."
This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to
improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to
find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.
Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided
to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.
On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
The obvious
question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to >>>> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
Not really.
Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
That's in no way obvious.
It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via chimps,
and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin
I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
you won't whether I ask or not.
You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.
For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in no way obvious"
even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist.
I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reasoning.
There's no
particular reason why every African species should have experienced the >>>> exact same set of infections.
Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same locus of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?
It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here, >>> which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave >>> rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
that don't?
In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions
How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
mean by "independent," anyway?
while humans did
not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
Evidence is evidence. Period.Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.
That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?
Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million >>> years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.
So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for reasoning, as above.
Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,
What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.
so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."
There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
We do, sometimes. But not every time.
That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural
question, but pretended superiority.
unless one
shows
It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had >>> to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand >>> that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
evidence and there is no counter evidence.
It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
failing to have the virus.
Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight. I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.
You could support that by showing that all
African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as
relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.
It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't
do much to differentiate them.
It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to
This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to
find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.
Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided
to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.
1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?
Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.
Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances: -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
-- S.Afr.australopiths = fossil relatives of Pan, E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not Homo,
-- "out of S-Asia" & "out of the Red Sea" are more correct than "out of Africa",
-- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.
savanna fool's only "argument":
Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.
It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything
savanna fool:
It was a reply to post in what you snipped everythingI read these posts only until the first nonsense...
:-)
Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
You have no fossils.
The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
neither looks like aquatic.
savanna fool:Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
You have no fossils.
We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.
The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
??
neither looks like aquatic.
Sigh.
Even so, so what??
1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:
more in detail (my 2022 book):kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk
• Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden
• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers enwaterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen
2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earthdoes that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??
Sigh.
Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by
It started from African woodland apes.
We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
mya.
Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
You have no fossils.
We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.
We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.
The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
3 misspelling in 1 short sentence... ??
neither looks like aquatic.
Sigh. Even so, so what??
1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:
Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.
kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijkmore in detail (my 2022 book):
• Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden
waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en
I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:
• Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously *heavy* eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teethsmaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real *biped*, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, *at the time* a palm-rich
What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
aquatic.
• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas & swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers & water pygmydeer, three-toed horses & chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars & elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal & other rodents, lagomorphs & rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish & freshwater mussels. Orrorin
Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.
does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth
You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction byYou sound like an idiot trying very hard not to sound like an idiot.
It started from African woodland apes.That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
We see Pre-Oldowan woodland apeSpeculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
They do not have a good record here...
Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.Not associated with Homo, if the claims hold up.
It's not a fact that they even are tools.
Oldowan
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't first-generation tools.
mya.
And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
Asia and beyond?
Where did they get the DHA their brains needed?
Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years ago?
options of marc verhaegen?
JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
It started from African woodland apes.That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
likely closer
Theory of marc that Homo somehow
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
They do not have a good record here...
No idea what rocks you mean here.
But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered those.
They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't first-generation tools.
Nope
And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
Asia and beyond?
But what is the problem?
There were likely forests everywhere.
If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.
The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
long distances.
Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low.
Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
corn syrup eaters.
They ate meat, eggs,
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
One grows bigger brain for when there is
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years ago?
No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
Genetic evidence
fossils
and findings of tools
Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.
Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
mya or later, I do not know
Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apes
but forest apes.
Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
It started from African woodland apes.That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
The line between the two is blurry at best.
Pierolapithecus was after split from OrangutangMaybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.
Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
likely closer
Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
Theory of marc that Homo somehowI've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
In other words, FIRST we
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
humans...
Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.
We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
They do not have a good record here...
No idea what rocks you mean here.You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
back to 2013.
Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered those.Not a fact.
They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't first-generation tools.
NopeEat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe, Asia and beyond?
But what is the problem?So answer.
There were likely forests everywhere.Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
Gorillas.
The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food long distances.So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
do it?
Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low.
What purpose would these technologies serve?
Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine andDead wrong.
corn syrup eaters.
They ate meat, eggs,Where?
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?
One grows bigger brain for when there isYou're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
Intelligent Design.
And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years ago?
No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
Genetic evidence
There is none.
fossils
None what so ever.
and findings of tools
You can't find what you don't look for.
Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
person chose.
Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10Define Homo.
mya or later, I do not know
If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
Homo evolved about ten millions years later.It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.
I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not about
geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apesSo where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
but forest apes.
It started from African woodland apes.
Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.
Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
Monkeys are
Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
with other fossils and extant apes.
Theory of marc that Homo somehow
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
Orangutans.
He avoids making clear full sentences
In other words, FIRST we
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
Yes, so it seems.
So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and humans...
Yes
and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys
and even more first with penguins.
Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
If you care
And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
Even
They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't first-generation tools.
Nope
Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
You
Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and
Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods
The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food long distances.
So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
do it?
Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
managed to kill it.
Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low.
What purpose would these technologies serve?
Technologies make life easier
Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
corn syrup eaters.
Dead wrong.
Medicine literature says so, argue with them.
They ate meat, eggs,
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
Where?
In forest.
The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?
Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
farther relative Gorilla is herbivore.
One grows bigger brain for when there is
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
Intelligent Design.
And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools
Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools
Genetic evidence
There is none.
Genes can be sequenced.
fossils
None what so ever.
Odd denial.
and findings of tools
You can't find what you don't look for.
If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.
Define Homo.
It is not up to me to redefine
If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
It is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
have gone extinct meanwhile.
Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.
Yep
On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:
It started from African woodland apes.That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST >>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the >>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
The line between the two is blurry at best.
So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
little subset of that clade.
Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose partPierolapithecus was after split from OrangutangMaybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.
Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differenceslikely closer
Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies that contradict with evidence.
He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus ofTheory of marc that Homo somehowI've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.
In other words, FIRST weYes, so it seems.
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over inYes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
humans...
and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
years ago.
Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.
If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in goingWe see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed >>>> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools. >>>>
They do not have a good record here...
No idea what rocks you mean here.
back to 2013.
Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of >> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely >> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims. >>
Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were Acheulean tools?That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered >>> those.Not a fact.
Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't >>>> first-generation tools.
Nope
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber for metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.So answer.And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
Asia and beyond?
But what is the problem?
There were likely forests everywhere.Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few thousand years ago.If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We >>> talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush theyApes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
Gorillas.
The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and foodSo what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
long distances.
do it?
managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
who did not participate in hunt.
Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try toSome even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low.
What purpose would these technologies serve?
catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
your mouth.
Medicine literature says so, argue with them.Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine andDead wrong.
corn syrup eaters.
In forest.They ate meat, eggs,Where?
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors movedBecause our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?
farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already generalists back then.
Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weaponsOne grows bigger brain for when there isYou're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
Intelligent Design.
And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
for survival?
Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes
make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that
do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with few thousands years of breeding.
Genes can be sequenced.That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked likeWhy do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years >>>> ago?
No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
Genetic evidence
There is none.
Odd denial.fossils
None what so ever.
If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.and findings of tools
You can't find what you don't look for.
It is not up to me to redefine a term that others are already defined,Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
person chose.
Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10Define Homo.
mya or later, I do not know
I explained its meaning above.
If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain wasIt is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
have gone extinct meanwhile.
Yep so it seems it happened. You can't change past in a wayHomo evolved about ten millions years later.It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.
that something else happened. You can just lie or deny it, but what
is the point?
I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not aboutThere are only few teeth found from half millions years ago.
geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apesSo where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
but forest apes.
Perhaps chimp did live in environments where everything was
eaten or did decay too quickly, or we haven't been lucky. That is
common about complex and diverse biomes like forests. The
occasions need luck like something drowned into swamp and
then was later covered with some mudslide. But why is chimp
important? With gorilla fossils there is more luck. Gorilla also
uses tools to open nuts and such.
Theory of marc that Homo somehow
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
It started from African woodland apes.That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST >>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the >>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia. >>
The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
The line between the two is blurry at best.
So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
little subset of that clade.
In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
But in practice, ranks are arbitrary.
The only rule is that lower ranks
must nest within higher ones.
Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose partPierolapithecus was after split from OrangutangMaybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.
Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differenceslikely closer
Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
that contradict with evidence.
He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can beTheory of marc that Homo somehowI've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.
In other words, FIRST weYes, so it seems.
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over inYes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
humans...
and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions years ago.
Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.
If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in goingWe see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed >>>> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
They do not have a good record here...
No idea what rocks you mean here.
back to 2013.
Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these wereThat ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butcheredNot a fact.
those.
Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't >>>> first-generation tools.
Nope
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
Acheulean tools?
Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber forSo answer.And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe, >>>> Asia and beyond?
But what is the problem?
There were likely forests everywhere.Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.
It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few thousand years ago.If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush theyApes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
Gorillas.
The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food >>> long distances.So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
do it?
managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
who did not participate in hunt.
Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try to catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it withSome even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low.
What purpose would these technologies serve?
your mouth.
Medicine literature says so, argue with them.Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine andDead wrong.
corn syrup eaters.
In forest.They ate meat, eggs,Where?
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors movedBecause our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?
farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already generalists back then.
Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weaponsOne grows bigger brain for when there isYou're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
Intelligent Design.
And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed for survival?
Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with few thousands years of breeding.
Genes can be sequenced.That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked likeWhy do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
ago?
No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
Genetic evidence
There is none.
Odd denial.fossils
None what so ever.
If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.and findings of tools
You can't find what you don't look for.
Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
person chose.
It is not up to me to redefine a term that others are already defined,Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10Define Homo.
mya or later, I do not know
I explained its meaning above.
If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain wasIt is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
have gone extinct meanwhile.
Yep so it seems it happened. You can't change past in a wayHomo evolved about ten millions years later.It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.
that something else happened. You can just lie or deny it, but what
is the point?
I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not aboutThere are only few teeth found from half millions years ago.
geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apesSo where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
but forest apes.
Perhaps chimp did live in environments where everything was
eaten or did decay too quickly, or we haven't been lucky. That is
common about complex and diverse biomes like forests. The
occasions need luck like something drowned into swamp and
then was later covered with some mudslide. But why is chimp
important? With gorilla fossils there is more luck. Gorilla also
uses tools to open nuts and such.
On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:18:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
JTEM wrote:
oot...@hot.ee wrote:The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
It started from African woodland apes.That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST >>>>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the >>>>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia. >>>>
The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
The line between the two is blurry at best.
sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
little subset of that clade.
In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide
taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
But in practice, ranks are arbitrary.
They are only "arbitrary" to a limited extent. If anyone tried to make
a class out of Hominidae, he'd be suspected of being a creationist. Especially if he tried to make Homo the sole member of a subclass.
You really need to stop misleading people with your ideology-driven
use of the word "arbitrary."
The only rule is that lower ranks
must nest within higher ones.
It's the only *official* rule, but there are lots of rules of thumb
over which you are riding roughshod. One is that taxonomists
specializing within classes of Vertebrata need to be fairly consistent,
but they are free to disregard established custom for other classes.
Thus what counts as an order in Aves based on morphological
distance would only count as a family in Mammalia, according to Romer.
Is that true also of genetic distance?
Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose partPierolapithecus was after split from OrangutangMaybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.
Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differenceslikely closer
Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence >>> is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
that contradict with evidence.
He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus ofTheory of marc that Homo somehowI've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however >>>> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.
How come you didn't mention Schwartz here, John?
You could have been *constructive* for a change.
As it was, with me returning to this thread only after almost a month,
this thread died with Marc Verhaegen posting another one of his pseudo-communicative spiels in direct response to this post of yours.
PS I left in the rest below. I think you could have commented
constructively in one or more places, were you so inclined.
I'm holding off commenting on it until I hear from one of
{Mr. Tiib, yourself}.
In other words, FIRST weYes, so it seems.
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over inYes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
humans...
and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of
millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
years ago.
Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.
If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in goingWe see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed >>>>>> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
They do not have a good record here...
No idea what rocks you mean here.
back to 2013.
Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of >>>> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely >>>> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas >>> used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were >>> Acheulean tools?That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butcheredNot a fact.
those.
Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't >>>>>> first-generation tools.
Nope
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber forSo answer.And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe, >>>>>> Asia and beyond?
But what is the problem?
There were likely forests everywhere.Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.
It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows >>> relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few >>> thousand years ago.If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush theyApes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
Gorillas.
The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food >>>>> long distances.So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
do it?
managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
who did not participate in hunt.
Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try toSome even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low.
What purpose would these technologies serve?
catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
your mouth.
Medicine literature says so, argue with them.Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine andDead wrong.
corn syrup eaters.
In forest.They ate meat, eggs,Where?
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors movedBecause our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?
farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already
generalists back then.
Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weaponsOne grows bigger brain for when there isYou're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
Intelligent Design.
And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building >>> and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
for survival?
Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes >>> make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that >>> do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with >>> few thousands years of breeding.
Genes can be sequenced.That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked likeWhy do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
ago?
No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
Genetic evidence
There is none.
Odd denial.fossils
None what so ever.
If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss. >>>and findings of tools
You can't find what you don't look for.
Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
person chose.
It is not up to me to redefine a term that others are already defined,Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10Define Homo.
mya or later, I do not know
I explained its meaning above.
If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain wasIt is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
have gone extinct meanwhile.
Yep so it seems it happened. You can't change past in a wayHomo evolved about ten millions years later.It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.
that something else happened. You can just lie or deny it, but what
is the point?
I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not aboutThere are only few teeth found from half millions years ago.
geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apesSo where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
but forest apes.
Perhaps chimp did live in environments where everything was
eaten or did decay too quickly, or we haven't been lucky. That is
common about complex and diverse biomes like forests. The
occasions need luck like something drowned into swamp and
then was later covered with some mudslide. But why is chimp
important? With gorilla fossils there is more luck. Gorilla also
uses tools to open nuts and such.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:36:15 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,413 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
