Evidence keeps pushing bipedalism back further
and further. At this point it stretch back beyond
any date for Homo/Pan divergence and could
quite possibly pre date the split with Gorillas.
...would actually argue that it does, but for
the time being we need only accept that the
oldest evidence for bipedalism pre dates the
youngest estimates for the split with Gorillas.
My point is that bipedalism isn't quite as special
as we would often like to believe. Or do believe.
There's something that looks like bipedalism
going back many millions of years before the
Homo line officially kicks off, before even the
oldest claimed evidence for tool making.
It's not /That/ special. It's not quite so defining
of our Homo line...
But, big brains are. And we can't grow bigger
brains without DHA.
Omega-3s and DHA in particular would be vital in
the rise of Homo: If you're going to build a brick
house you need bricks. If you're going to grow a
large brain you need these Omega-3s.
: analyses found that a variant improving the synthesis
: of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the absence of a
: fish-rich diet originated in Africa around 84,000 years
: ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308783
So did Homo or at least "Modern Humans" originate
only 84k years ago, or where our ancestors getting the
necessary Omega-3s from another source?
Oh. That "Other Source" means "Aquatic Ape."
It means "Aquatic Ape" is correct and savanna nonsense
is dead.
So, is it?
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming aquatic. Think Inuit.
Evidence keeps pushing bipedalism back further
and further. At this point it stretch back beyond
any date for Homo/Pan divergence and could
quite possibly pre date the split with Gorillas.
...would actually argue that it does, but for
the time being we need only accept that the
oldest evidence for bipedalism pre dates the
youngest estimates for the split with Gorillas.
My point is that bipedalism isn't quite as special
as we would often like to believe. Or do believe.
There's something that looks like bipedalism
going back many millions of years before the
Homo line officially kicks off, before even the
oldest claimed evidence for tool making.
It's not /That/ special. It's not quite so defining
of our Homo line...
But, big brains are. And we can't grow bigger
brains without DHA.
Omega-3s and DHA in particular would be vital in
the rise of Homo: If you're going to build a brick
house you need bricks. If you're going to grow a
large brain you need these Omega-3s.
: analyses found that a variant improving the synthesis
: of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the absence of a
: fish-rich diet originated in Africa around 84,000 years
: ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308783
So did Homo or at least "Modern Humans" originate
only 84k years ago, or where our ancestors getting the
necessary Omega-3s from another source?
Oh. That "Other Source" means "Aquatic Ape."
It means "Aquatic Ape" is correct and savanna nonsense
is dead.
So, is it?
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:06:53 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Evidence keeps pushing bipedalism back further
and further. At this point it stretch back beyond
any date for Homo/Pan divergence and could
quite possibly pre date the split with Gorillas.
...would actually argue that it does, but for
the time being we need only accept that the
oldest evidence for bipedalism pre dates the
youngest estimates for the split with Gorillas.
My point is that bipedalism isn't quite as special
as we would often like to believe. Or do believe.
There's something that looks like bipedalism
going back many millions of years before the
Homo line officially kicks off, before even the
oldest claimed evidence for tool making.
It's not /That/ special. It's not quite so defining
of our Homo line...
But, big brains are. And we can't grow bigger
brains without DHA.
Omega-3s and DHA in particular would be vital in
the rise of Homo: If you're going to build a brick
house you need bricks. If you're going to grow a
large brain you need these Omega-3s.
: analyses found that a variant improving the synthesis
: of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the absence of a
: fish-rich diet originated in Africa around 84,000 years
: ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308783
So did Homo or at least "Modern Humans" originate
only 84k years ago, or where our ancestors getting the
necessary Omega-3s from another source?
Oh. That "Other Source" means "Aquatic Ape."
It means "Aquatic Ape" is correct and savanna nonsense
is dead.
So, is it?
<https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12-omega-3-rich-foods>
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming aquatic. Think Inuit.
Op vrijdag 30 december 2022 om 22:10:35 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is my hero:
Evidence keeps pushing bipedalism back further
and further. At this point it stretch back beyond
any date for Homo/Pan divergence and could
quite possibly pre date the split with Gorillas.
Yes:
apparently, early Hominoidea >20 Ma were already BP:
- Hylobatidae (gibbons, siamang) are still vertical (brachiating),
- Pongo evolved from aquarboreal to fist-walking,
- Pan & Gorilla evolved from aquarboreal to (different kinds of) knuckle-walking (in //),
- Homo became even more BP.
Google "aquarboreal".
...would actually argue that it does, but for
the time being we need only accept that the
oldest evidence for bipedalism pre dates the
youngest estimates for the split with Gorillas.
My point is that bipedalism isn't quite as special
as we would often like to believe. Or do believe.
There's something that looks like bipedalism
going back many millions of years before the
Homo line officially kicks off, before even the
oldest claimed evidence for tool making.
It's not /That/ special. It's not quite so defining
of our Homo line...
But, big brains are. And we can't grow bigger
brains without DHA.
Omega-3s and DHA in particular would be vital in
the rise of Homo: If you're going to build a brick
house you need bricks. If you're going to grow a
large brain you need these Omega-3s.
: analyses found that a variant improving the synthesis
: of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the absence of a
: fish-rich diet originated in Africa around 84,000 years
: ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308783
So did Homo or at least "Modern Humans" originate
only 84k years ago, or where our ancestors getting the
necessary Omega-3s from another source?
Oh. That "Other Source" means "Aquatic Ape."
It means "Aquatic Ape" is correct and savanna nonsense
is dead.
So, is it?
The savanna fantasies aren't dead yet, unfortunately...
It's difficult to understand but many people still can believe their ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas:
fat, furless, flat-footed, salt+water-sweating mammals running under
hot sun - how idiotic is this??
On 12/31/2022 4:35 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:06:53 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Evidence keeps pushing bipedalism back further
and further. At this point it stretch back beyond
any date for Homo/Pan divergence and could
quite possibly pre date the split with Gorillas.
...would actually argue that it does, but for
the time being we need only accept that the
oldest evidence for bipedalism pre dates the
youngest estimates for the split with Gorillas.
My point is that bipedalism isn't quite as special
as we would often like to believe. Or do believe.
There's something that looks like bipedalism
going back many millions of years before the
Homo line officially kicks off, before even the
oldest claimed evidence for tool making.
It's not /That/ special. It's not quite so defining
of our Homo line...
But, big brains are. And we can't grow bigger
brains without DHA.
Omega-3s and DHA in particular would be vital in
the rise of Homo: If you're going to build a brick
house you need bricks. If you're going to grow a
large brain you need these Omega-3s.
: analyses found that a variant improving the synthesis
: of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the absence of a
: fish-rich diet originated in Africa around 84,000 years
: ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308783
So did Homo or at least "Modern Humans" originate
only 84k years ago, or where our ancestors getting the
necessary Omega-3s from another source?
Oh. That "Other Source" means "Aquatic Ape."
It means "Aquatic Ape" is correct and savanna nonsense
is dead.
So, is it?
<https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12-omega-3-rich-foods>
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming
aquatic. Think Inuit.
Primates were initially insectavores and got their Omega-3 fatty acids
from eating invertebrates. Chimps and gorillas still likely get most of >their Omega-3 from eating insects. Insects and other invertebrates are >still an important part of some human diets around the world. My take
is that as larger brains evolved in the Australopiths and early Homo
that invertebrates were a more important part of the diet until they
started developing the technology to fish. There is a lot of meat
protein in a snail as well as omega-3 and we still consider them a delicacy.
Ron Okimoto
Op zaterdag 31 december 2022 om 11:40:35 UTC+1 schreef jillery:
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming
aquatic. Think Inuit.
Yes, but nobody believes H.sapiens came from the north-pole.
Do you believe omega-3 diets are restricted to the north-pole? If
not, what's your point?
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming aquatic. Think Inuit.
Primates were initially insectavores and got their Omega-3 fatty acids
from eating invertebrates.
Chimps and gorillas still likely get most of their Omega-3 from eating insects.
Insects and other invertebrates are
still an important part of some human diets around the world.
My take
is that as larger brains evolved in the Australopiths and early Homo
that invertebrates were a more important part of the diet until they
started developing the technology to fish.
jillery wrote:
Do you believe omega-3 diets are restricted to the north-pole? If
not, what's your point?
There is no evidence for anything other than "Modern Humans"
living as the Inuit do. So they're not a model for HOW modern
humans evolved.
Aquatic Ape is the model that fits all the pieces.
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 13:51:04 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Aquatic Ape is the model that fits all the pieces.
Don't need to be an aquatic ape to eat shellfish.
Don't need to be an aquatic ape to eat shellfish.
Water on the brain is likely his problem.
There's plenty of evidence of ancestral bipeds long before omega-3
absorbing big brains.
jillery wrote:
There's plenty of evidence of ancestral bipeds long before omega-3
absorbing big brains.
And?
You would have an excellent point if brain size was dictated only
by the presence of DHA and genetics played no part.
Actually, you mistakenly stumbled upon one of the more intriguing
aspects of Aquatic Ape: They diet was there, the building blocks
for larger brains were in place, SO WHEN A MUTATION AROSE
ALLOWING FOR BIGGER BRAINS they could optimize it.
The other way around is stupid:
"Well they evolved the capacity
for much larger brains, and this adaptation wasn't the least bit
useful because they lacked the bran building DHA. but they knew
it would arrive eventually! That's why they retained the adaptation."
Again, Aquatic Ape is by far the better model... their date provided
all the brain building food they could ever hope for, and when
mutations allowed for larger brains they could take full advantage
of them.
Ron O wrote:
Water on the brain is likely his problem.
Wow. Cool. I bet you're amongst the top 3 or 10 funniest
people in your trailer park...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195329786626048
As I said before: Aquatic Ape is also known as "Littoral" ape and >"Waterside" ape. It simply means they were exploiting marine
resources, not a savanna. It no more suggests that they were a
type of fish than savanna idiocy suggests they were blades of grass.
There are zero mutations needed for arboreal apes to eat shellfish or
any of many other sources of omega-3s.
This refutes your hypothesis
Probably anything would be better than being a willfully ignorant troll,
Since you asked, and so your hypothesis linking human bipedalism to
aquatic apes is refuted.
You would have an excellent point if brain size was dictated only
by the presence of DHA and genetics played no part.
Actually, you mistakenly stumbled upon one of the more intriguing
aspects of Aquatic Ape: [The] diet was there, the building blocks
for larger brains were in place, SO WHEN A MUTATION AROSE
ALLOWING FOR BIGGER BRAINS they could optimize it.
The other way around is stupid:
Nobody even implied "the other way around".
Your projection
is embarrassing.
You started by completely misunderstanding & misrepresenting what
aquatic ape is, and now that you've been corrected you're demanding
(not arguing, simply demanding) that your misunderstanding refuted >something.
Your comments above are trivially proved false:
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming aquatic. Think Inuit.
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming >aquatic. Think Inuit.
Prove it.
jillery wrote:
Since you asked, and so your hypothesis linking human bipedalism to
aquatic apes is refuted.
What? Are you stupid and not just emotionally unhinged?
You started by completely misunderstanding & misrepresenting what
aquatic ape is, and now that you've been corrected you're demanding
(not arguing, simply demanding) that your misunderstanding refuted
something.
*********************************So, is it?
<https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/12-omega-3-rich-foods>
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming >aquatic. Think Inuit.
Aquatic Ape is it. It's the means and the motive for spreading humanity:
"Coastal Dispersal."
It's the source of DHA.
It's a model that leaves us with distinct groups like Neanderthals and >Denisovans...
You would have an excellent point if brain size was dictated only
by the presence of DHA and genetics played no part.
<Crickets>
Actually, you mistakenly stumbled upon one of the more intriguing
aspects of Aquatic Ape: [The] diet was there, the building blocks
for larger brains were in place, SO WHEN A MUTATION AROSE
ALLOWING FOR BIGGER BRAINS they could optimize it.
The other way around is stupid:
Nobody even implied "the other way around".
Well, Nobody, you did.
jillery wrote:
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming
aquatic. Think Inuit.
So what were you "Thinking" <sic> Aquatic Ape was? In the above?
JTEM is my hero
jillery wrote:
Omega-3 diets, even seafood diets, were/are available without becoming
aquatic. Think Inuit.
So what were you "Thinking" <sic> Aquatic Ape was? In the above?
Since you asked:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis>
and your OP didn't specify your personal meaning of the phrase.
Ron O wrote:
Probably anything would be better than being a willfully ignorant troll,
And you honestly believes this is how you put DHA into food sources
that lack it?
Or are you pretending that they were much better at synthesizing it from
ALA then we are even though we have adaptations for synthesizing it
that they didn't have?
And does this also explain how your "They ate bugs" resulted in the
dispersal of Homo and all the distinct groups?
Wow. You're off your lithium, again.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705195120724754432
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:06:04 |
| Calls: | 6,704 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,335 |