People like to narrow the view, whittle down the
questions as much as possible, and in so doing
ignore their problems.

Take savanna idiocy as an example.

"They, uh, they touched a toe to a savanna, like
right after falling out of a tree, and stood upright
and started ENDURANCE RUNNING! Next thing
you know they chased that gazelle clear over to
China and beyond!"

In a word: Nope.

"Once they got on the savanna bigger brains were
an advantage so they grew some."

Nope.

Now look at aquatic ape:

The picked up stuff & ate it.

There. That's it. They were on the coast, on a beach
and they picked up stuff & ate it. Once everything they
could pick up was gone they moved on.

There. That spreads our ancestors across the continents.

How does savanna idiocy do that? In a word: IT DOESN'T!

Okay that's two words. Fine. Counting isn't my thing, and
human origins ain't yours if you don't subscribe to the
truth of Aquatic Ape...

SEAFOOD IS BRAIN FOOD!

Seafood is a great source for Omega-3s, the good kind.

You get Omega-3s from terrestrial sources, yes, but they're
the wrong kind. You get ALA when the "Big Brain" thing wants
DHA in particular, and you get that from seafood while you
don't get that from plants or cave bears.

So by just walking along a beach, picking up stuff & eating
it we already have a mechanism for moving them across
continents AND a mechanism for growing their brains bigger.

Yes they're brains are going to be just as big as genetics will
allow, from that seafood diet. And heaven forbid a mutation
arises that allows for even larger/smarter brains, they're going
grow them as well! They can't help it. They're eating brain foods!

The human body can use ALA to synthesize DHA. Problem is,
we suck at it. Women are better than men and women aren't
all that great at it. Men are pathetic. Which means we either
lost this ability to synthesize the building blocks for our brains
or we never needed it... not under Aquatic Ape resulted in
BIG brains and then some of them branched out, split away
and pushed inland...

So now we're up to three things here, just from walking on a
beach, picking stuff up & eating it:

#1. Spreading across continents.

#2. Growing larger brains, just as large as genetics would allow.

#3. Periodic branching inland, resulting in unique groups as
each adapts to their own environment.

Wow. All this, inescapable from just walking along a beach,
picking stuff up & eating it...

And you know what's really funny? EVERYONE agrees it happened
this way. Even the most ardent "Out of Africa," savanna running
idiot. They all agree that mankind spread across the globe by
following the sea:

COASTAL DISPERSAL

So if we agree with COASTAL DISPERSAL and we further agree
that none of them were carry African savannas on their backs
for feeding, we all agree they were exploit the sea.

The were on the sea -- COASTAL DISPERSAL -- they had to eat,
they had to survive and none of them were carry around a
savanna to meet dietary needs so that leaves one and only one
thing: They were exploiting the sea.

"Aquatic Ape."

So already, just from walking on a beach, picking stuff up &
eating it, it's no longer a question of IF Aquatic Ape is correct
but WHEN it started, HOW LONG it lasted and, of course, what
specific adaptations arose because of it.

Because, savanna nonsense insists that one toe touched
grass and it transformed the bodies of our ancestors. AND,
that no amount of time & energy exploiting the sea could have
possibly shaped human evolution in the slightest.

Which is stupid, of course.

Savanna idiocy is the drool soaked product of mumbling fools.

Aquatic Ape is the answer. You know it. There will be no
reward for being the last mumbling fool to give up savanna
idiocy.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695500485414764544

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:09:17 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:

People like to narrow the view, whittle down the
questions as much as possible, and in so doing
ignore their problems.

Take savanna idiocy as an example.

"They, uh, they touched a toe to a savanna, like
right after falling out of a tree, and stood upright
and started ENDURANCE RUNNING! Next thing
you know they chased that gazelle clear over to
China and beyond!"

Rather crude satire, on MAD magazine level, but I get the message.

In a word: Nope.

"Once they got on the savanna bigger brains were
an advantage so they grew some."

Nope.

Why? It's well established that full, almost obligate,
bipedalism came before significant differences in cranial capacity.

Bipedalism is not only good for running, it's good for seeing
over tall grass.

Now look at aquatic ape:

The picked up stuff & ate it.

There. That's it. They were on the coast, on a beach
and they picked up stuff & ate it. Once everything they
could pick up was gone they moved on.

Wading doesn't qualify for "aquatic."

The word you are looking for is "littoral." And maybe "riparian," see below.


At low tide, plenty of food
is available just by wading. In various tide pools, I saw an 8-inch octopus;
a three foot long, over 6 inches wide eel; numerous sea anemonies;
numerous sea urchins; numerous starfish; lots of crabs; and mountains of shellfish.

There. That spreads our ancestors across the continents.

Only their fringes.

In another thread, you claimed without evidence that they
journeyed on open water from Europe to the Americas
in Clovis times and long before.

How does savanna idiocy do that? In a word: IT DOESN'T!

Okay that's two words. Fine. Counting isn't my thing, and
human origins ain't yours if you don't subscribe to the
truth of Aquatic Ape...

SEAFOOD IS BRAIN FOOD!

What about river and lake food? That's what you need for "across continents".

Seafood is a great source for Omega-3s, the good kind.

You get Omega-3s from terrestrial sources, yes, but they're
the wrong kind. You get ALA when the "Big Brain" thing wants
DHA in particular,

How crucial is that to brain size, in particular? especially frontal lobe size?

and you get that from seafood while you
don't get that from plants or cave bears.

Or sea otters or phocids or cetaceans?

So by just walking along a beach, picking up stuff & eating
it we already have a mechanism for moving them across
continents

Correction: along the fringes of continents.

How did all this go across in sci.anthropology.paleo?

AND a mechanism for growing their brains bigger.

Yes they're brains are going to be just as big as genetics will
allow, from that seafood diet. And heaven forbid a mutation
arises that allows for even larger/smarter brains, they're going
grow them as well! They can't help it. They're eating brain foods!

The human body can use ALA to synthesize DHA. Problem is,
we suck at it. Women are better than men and women aren't
all that great at it. Men are pathetic. Which means we either
lost this ability to synthesize the building blocks for our brains
or we never needed it... not under Aquatic Ape resulted in
BIG brains and then some of them branched out, split away
and pushed inland...

So now we're up to three things here, just from walking on a
beach, picking stuff up & eating it:

#1. Spreading across continents.

#2. Growing larger brains, just as large as genetics would allow.

#3. Periodic branching inland, resulting in unique groups as
each adapts to their own environment.

Wow. All this, inescapable from just walking along a beach,
picking stuff up & eating it...

And you know what's really funny? EVERYONE agrees it happened
this way.

Including Pandora? This I've got to see.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Even the most ardent "Out of Africa," savanna running
idiot. They all agree that mankind spread across the globe by
following the sea:

COASTAL DISPERSAL

So if we agree with COASTAL DISPERSAL and we further agree
that none of them were carry African savannas on their backs
for feeding, we all agree they were exploit the sea.

The were on the sea -- COASTAL DISPERSAL -- they had to eat,
they had to survive and none of them were carry around a
savanna to meet dietary needs so that leaves one and only one
thing: They were exploiting the sea.

"Aquatic Ape."

So already, just from walking on a beach, picking stuff up &
eating it, it's no longer a question of IF Aquatic Ape is correct
but WHEN it started, HOW LONG it lasted and, of course, what
specific adaptations arose because of it.

Because, savanna nonsense insists that one toe touched
grass and it transformed the bodies of our ancestors. AND,
that no amount of time & energy exploiting the sea could have
possibly shaped human evolution in the slightest.

Which is stupid, of course.

Savanna idiocy is the drool soaked product of mumbling fools.

Aquatic Ape is the answer. You know it. There will be no
reward for being the last mumbling fool to give up savanna
idiocy.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/695500485414764544

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

JTEM wrote:

"Once they got on the savanna bigger brains were
an advantage so they grew some."

Nope.

Why? It's well established that full, almost obligate,
bipedalism came before significant differences in cranial capacity.

You're focusing on bipedalism, something I am not disputing, instead
of the savanna environment. There is nothing apart from bias to
force one to conclude that bipedalism is associated with a savanna.

Bipedalism is not only good for running, it's good for seeing
over tall grass.

Humans are walkers. And you're using logic, not evidence. And, as I
pointed out, it simply does not work. It's not a model for spreading
humans across continents.

Now look at aquatic ape:

The picked up stuff & ate it.

There. That's it. They were on the coast, on a beach
and they picked up stuff & ate it. Once everything they
could pick up was gone they moved on.

Wading doesn't qualify for "aquatic."

So? You're telling me about yourself, not human evolution.

At low tide, plenty of food
is available just by wading. In various tide pools, I saw an 8-inch octopus; a three foot long, over 6 inches wide eel; numerous sea anemonies;
numerous sea urchins; numerous starfish; lots of crabs; and mountains of shellfish.

True. But let's stick to facts: Humans DID spread across the continents, we have
tool makers in China over 2 million years ago -- and they were on Tools 2.0 at that
point, these were not first generation tools -- and everyone agrees that our ancestors
did not spread across the globe carrying a savanna on their backs.

So there's one fact that savanna nonsense doesn't even attempt to address:

Moving between the continents.

Aquatic ape explains it, savanna nonsense can not.

In another thread, you claimed without evidence that they
journeyed on open water from Europe to the Americas
in Clovis times and long before.

No I didn't. If you're speaking of my recent citing of video, what I pointed out is that
nobody is searching for any such water crossings even though they became possible at least 100,000 years ago, considering the evidence of water crossings
in the Mediterranean.

SEAFOOD IS BRAIN FOOD!

What about river and lake food? That's what you need for "across continents".

You can't follow a river or a lake from Oceania to southeast Africa, and everywhere
in between, so again it's not an explanation. Aquatic ape though, cooastal dispersal, is.

Seafood is a great source for Omega-3s, the good kind.

You get Omega-3s from terrestrial sources, yes, but they're
the wrong kind. You get ALA when the "Big Brain" thing wants
DHA in particular,

How crucial is that to brain size, in particular?

Tons of studies out there. Do the Google. You'll find plenty on the topic.

Here. Literally the very first cite Google returned. Shocked you couldn't
find it:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-omega-3-intake/omega-3-intake-inversely-linked-to-signs-of-brain-aging-idUSBREA0N13F20140124

So by just walking along a beach, picking up stuff & eating
it we already have a mechanism for moving them across
continents

Correction: along the fringes of continents.

Across to other continents: Everywhere from Oceania to Africa and
the stretches between.

And you know what's really funny? EVERYONE agrees it happened
this way.

Including Pandora? This I've got to see.

I can't be expected to account for anyone's mental illness. They are
outliers. But, even the Out of Africa purists agree with Coastal
Dispersal. It's accepted.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/696979988598194176

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 2, 2022 at 3:06:24 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

JTEM wrote:

"Once they got on the savanna bigger brains were
an advantage so they grew some."

Nope.

Why? It's well established that full, almost obligate,
bipedalism came before significant differences in cranial capacity.

You're focusing on bipedalism, something I am not disputing, instead
of the savanna environment. There is nothing apart from bias to
force one to conclude that bipedalism is associated with a savanna.

But it seems to put savanna and seashore on a more nearly equal footing. Crawling over rocks might help to spot little features that distinguish
between potential food and other items.

Bipedalism is not only good for running, it's good for seeing
over tall grass.

Humans are walkers.

Restricted use of the word "running" noted.


And you're using logic, not evidence. And, as I

pointed out, it simply does not work. It's not a model for spreading
humans across continents.

There are lots of other explanations for spreading over the Old World.
One is "population pressure": there are lots of reasons for groups
to separate themselves from others. It's *sine qua non* for
punctuated equilibrium.

Now look at aquatic ape:

The picked up stuff & ate it.

There. That's it. They were on the coast, on a beach
and they picked up stuff & ate it. Once everything they
could pick up was gone they moved on.

Wading doesn't qualify for "aquatic."

As in your beloved term, "aquatic ape."

So? You're telling me about yourself, not human evolution.

You're telling me a lot about yourself by making an unmarked
snip of the following:

The word you are looking for is "littoral." And maybe "riparian," see below.

What causes you to lump wading with swimming? The responsible
behavior would have been to give a respected reference that
makes it clear that both behaviors are standard for "aquatic."

The fact that you resorted to an unmarked snip suggests
that you know of no such reference.

At low tide, plenty of food
is available just by wading. In various tide pools, I saw an 8-inch octopus;
a three foot long, over 6 inches wide eel; numerous sea anemonies; numerous sea urchins; numerous starfish; lots of crabs; and mountains of shellfish.

True. But let's stick to facts: Humans DID spread across the continents, we have
tool makers in China over 2 million years ago -- and they were on Tools 2.0 at that
point, these were not first generation tools -- and everyone agrees that our ancestors
did not spread across the globe carrying a savanna on their backs.

And everyone agrees that they did not spread across the globe carrying
a beach on their backs. Duh.

So there's one fact that savanna nonsense doesn't even attempt to address:

Moving between the continents.

There is no evidence of any hominids besides Homo sapiens sapiens
in either the Americas or Australia. [Except in zoos, etc. today, of course.] Now see my next comment.

Aquatic ape explains it, savanna nonsense can not.

The origination of bigger brains in whatever environment is
the starting point. Once that exists, the rest is a whole new issue.

In another thread, you claimed without evidence that they
journeyed on open water from Europe to the Americas
in Clovis times and long before.

No I didn't. If you're speaking of my recent citing of video, what I pointed out is that
nobody is searching for any such water crossings even though they became possible at least 100,000 years ago, considering the evidence of water crossings
in the Mediterranean.

Homo sapiens sapiens was well established by then.

SEAFOOD IS BRAIN FOOD!

What about river and lake food? That's what you need for "across continents".

You can't follow a river or a lake from Oceania to southeast Africa, and everywhere
in between, so again it's not an explanation.

But you can populate the interiors of continents. That would
seem to be included in "across continents" more surely than
"littoral" being included in "aquatic".

Aquatic ape though, cooastal
dispersal, is.

Seafood is a great source for Omega-3s, the good kind.

You get Omega-3s from terrestrial sources, yes, but they're
the wrong kind. You get ALA when the "Big Brain" thing wants
DHA in particular,

How crucial is that to brain size, in particular?

Tons of studies out there. Do the Google. You'll find plenty on the topic.

As well as a lot on crank diets, such as the Adkins and the paleo.

Here. Literally the very first cite Google returned. Shocked you couldn't find it:

You are too easily shockable.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-omega-3-intake/omega-3-intake-inversely-linked-to-signs-of-brain-aging-idUSBREA0N13F20140124

Pop science source, which admits at the end:
"Since the study does not prove that blood levels of omega-3s are the cause of the brain-size differences observed, or that those differences have any effect on cognitive function, the researchers caution that more research is needed to know whether
raising omega-3 levels would make any difference to brain health."

Shocked that you didn't search for a better source out of those "tons". :) :)

So by just walking along a beach, picking up stuff & eating
it we already have a mechanism for moving them across
continents

Correction: along the fringes of continents.

Across to other continents: Everywhere from Oceania to Africa and
the stretches between.

"Oceania" only includes the part of Indonesia to the west of the Wallace Line for any but Homo sapiens sapiens. And the other subspecies
only made it that far because all of this part of "Oceania" was
one solid peninsula of Asia during the last ice age. Also,
wasn't Africa connected to Eurasia at the time?

Littoral, not aquatic.

And you know what's really funny? EVERYONE agrees it happened
this way.

Including Pandora? This I've got to see.

I can't be expected to account for anyone's mental illness.

Pandora has all the earmarks of a professional paleontologist.
I hate to say what YOU have the earmarks of.

They are outliers. But, even the Out of Africa purists agree with Coastal Dispersal. It's accepted.

I suspect even Pandora agrees with it, now that you've
moved the goalposts all the way from "aquatic ape"
to Coastal Dispersal. For one thing, that can coexist
with Continent Interior Dispersal, see above.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

You're focusing on bipedalism, something I am not disputing, instead
of the savanna environment. There is nothing apart from bias to
force one to conclude that bipedalism is associated with a savanna.

But it seems to put savanna and seashore on a more nearly equal footing.

You're looking for a tall man, with dark hair driving an orange car. I point out a tall man with blond hair stepping out of a green van and tell you, "Well, same thing."

No. No match. And savanna idiocy is no match to what we have for
observations. It can't explain anything while Aquatic Ape does.

Crawling over rocks might help to spot little features that distinguish between potential food and other items.

Well crawling over rocks doesn't move populations from Oceania to
southern Africa (and everywhere in between). Living along the coast,
exploiting the sea, eating up available food then moving along to fresh pickings does.

There are lots of other explanations for spreading over the Old World.

No there are not.

One is "population pressure":

That's a motive, not a means.

Again, "Coastal Dispersal" is accepted.

there are lots of reasons for groups
to separate themselves from others. It's *sine qua non* for
punctuated equilibrium.

Doesn't work. You're on a savanna and you separate yourself from
other... find yourself in Sundaland? Nope. Doesn't work.

As in your beloved term, "aquatic ape."

So what? Deal with it. Move on. Are you trying to discuss this or
obstruct?

You're telling me a lot about yourself by making an unmarked
snip

Well. Freud would have a field day there.

What causes you to

You're telling me about you, not human evolution.

Do you do the same with stupid terms like "Natural Selection," which
is flagrantly wrong?

Natural "Filter" works. Natural "Sieve," Natural "Colander" but not "Selection." There is no "Selection" and the term implies CHOICE, a
conscious decision...

So stop trying to obstruct and deal with what's in front of you.

The name is "Aquatic Ape." Who cares if it's the best name. Move on.
Deal with the fact that it's the best IDEA, the theory that's the most
CORRECT.

The fact that you resorted to an unmarked snip

Calling, Freud! Come in, Freud!

True. But let's stick to facts: Humans DID spread across the continents, we have
tool makers in China over 2 million years ago -- and they were on Tools 2.0 at that
point, these were not first generation tools -- and everyone agrees that our ancestors
did not spread across the globe carrying a savanna on their backs.

And everyone agrees that they did not spread across the globe carrying
a beach on their backs. Duh.

You're trolling.

You don't have to carry a beach if you're walking on one. But you do have to carry a savanna if you're a savanna species moving along a beach.

Stop trolling.

You're obfuscating. That's the sign of a narcissist trying to block something that
they can't control.

So there's one fact that savanna nonsense doesn't even attempt to address:

Moving between the continents.

There is no evidence of any hominids besides Homo sapiens sapiens
in either the Americas or Australia.

Well there's more than one Mammoth species, just for starters. And if Mammoths could cross over then so couldn't people.

It's really a questions of what would have stopped people from coming here. If you answer THAT question, then in the absence of whatever that is, people should
have been arriving.

You've heard of the Solutrean Hypothesis, well there are sites a lot older which
puts human arrivals within range of what is NOT labelled "Modern" man.

Aquatic ape explains it, savanna nonsense can not.

The origination of bigger brains in whatever environment is
the starting point. Once that exists, the rest is a whole new issue.

Well in Intelligent Design i.e. savanna idiocy, "Bigger brains would be an advantage so they grew some."

In Aquatic Ape, they were consuming a high protein diet rich in brain building Omega-3s, which would have allowed their brains to grow just as big as their genetics would allow, and of course if any random mutation cropped up
allowing bigger/smarter brains, they would have hit the ground running.

No I didn't. If you're speaking of my recent citing of video, what I pointed out is that
nobody is searching for any such water crossings even though they became possible at least 100,000 years ago, considering the evidence of water crossings
in the Mediterranean.

Homo sapiens sapiens was well established by then.

Of course not. For Christ's sake, Google this stuff! You're trolling. If you have a
sincere interest, Google it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328544-800-neanderthals-were-ancient-mariners/

Again, calling "Troll Droppings" on you.

You can't follow a river or a lake from Oceania to southeast Africa, and everywhere
in between, so again it's not an explanation.

But you can populate the interiors of continents.

Not unless you reach them first so, again, you offer no explanation.

Shocked that you didn't search for a better source

Shocked that you couldn't find so much as one.

If you could, that establishes you as a troll, asking things that you could and should have answered on your own.

Across to other continents: Everywhere from Oceania to Africa and
the stretches between.

"Oceania" only includes the part of Indonesia to the west of the Wallace Line

Pretending that anyone has bothered with a methodical underwater search.

The sea level is higher. What was dry land is submerged. If you want to find
an early coastal population you need to be searching under the waves.

Here. Proof of trolling:

Pandora has all the earmarks of a professional paleontologist.
I hate to say what YOU have the earmarks of.

But you also said that this sock puppet agrees with me: Coastal Dispersal.

So someone with all the earmarks of a professional paleontologist agrees
with me, and that makes me bad?

You're trolling.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/696971608721670144

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)