When I was just a little, before even going to kindergarten, my mammy
would take me to the local playground where, of course, there was a
sandpit, and all the kids were playing in that sandpit. Shovel,
actually, was our first toy. See, shovel:
https://youtube.com/shorts/Cs7wJ84K2lo?si=Y8zxdqk3mX_LFkUO
So, hand axes were for digging. But, it is hard to dig with long arms,
far more efficient is if you have the length of arms that we have, than
what Homo habilis had. So, this is how Homo erectus was created, our arm
length is because we dug a lot.

On 18.9.2023. 10:53, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         When I was just a little, before even going to kindergarten, my
> mammy would take me to the local playground where, of course, there was
> a sandpit, and all the kids were playing in that sandpit. Shovel,
> actually, was our first toy. See, shovel:
> https://youtube.com/shorts/Cs7wJ84K2lo?si=Y8zxdqk3mX_LFkUO
>         So, hand axes were for digging. But, it is hard to dig with
> long arms, far more efficient is if you have the length of arms that we
> have, than what Homo habilis had. So, this is how Homo erectus was
> created, our arm length is because we dug a lot.

So, they were not bloody "hunter gatherers", they were diggers, :) .

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> When I was just a little, before even going to kindergarten, my mammy
> would take me to the local playground where, of course, there was a
> sandpit, and all the kids were playing in that sandpit. Shovel,
> actually, was our first toy. See, shovel:
> https://youtube.com/shorts/Cs7wJ84K2lo?si=Y8zxdqk3mX_LFkUO
> So, hand axes were for digging. But, it is hard to dig with long arms,
> far more efficient is if you have the length of arms that we have, than
> what Homo habilis had. So, this is how Homo erectus was created, our arm
> length is because we dug a lot.

"When the asteroid struck, it hit the world so hard that it bounced all
the dinosaurs into the air. And some of those dinosaurs flapped their
arms, in the air like that, and they become birds and flew & stuff. A
few landed in the water and that's why we have ducks."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728608394425073664

On 18.9.2023. 13:04, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> When I was just a little, before even going to kindergarten, my mammy
>> would take me to the local playground where, of course, there was a
>> sandpit, and all the kids were playing in that sandpit. Shovel,
>> actually, was our first toy. See, shovel:
>> https://youtube.com/shorts/Cs7wJ84K2lo?si=Y8zxdqk3mX_LFkUO
>> So, hand axes were for digging. But, it is hard to dig with long arms,
>> far more efficient is if you have the length of arms that we have, than
>> what Homo habilis had. So, this is how Homo erectus was created, our arm
>> length is because we dug a lot.
>
> "When the asteroid struck, it hit the world so hard that it bounced all
> the dinosaurs into the air. And some of those dinosaurs flapped their
> arms, in the air like that, and they become birds and flew & stuff. A
> few landed in the water and that's why we have ducks."

Isn't it simple? How come nobody figures it out? Nobody even wants to
accept that hand axes are shovels. Why? Do they have a better idea? A
vague idea of Stone Age 'Swiss Knife'? I mean, you have to base your
ideas on something, not just act smartly. Everybody is so bloody vague,
like, they know *everything*.
So, the first step is to accept hand axe as being a shovel. If you
never do even the first step, how can you advance? You think that by
carefully measuring femurs you will relieve all the secrets in the
Universe? No, you will not. You have to look at everything, and yet not
drown yourself in so many completely unimportant things. Your thinking
has to be connected by logic, and not channeled out by the one who is
using you as a tool.

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> Isn't it simple? How come nobody figures it out? Nobody even wants to
> accept that hand axes are shovels. Why?

Hand axes are described as the Swiss Army Knife of Tools.

This does not exclude much if anything.

> A vague idea of Stone Age 'Swiss Knife'?

Saying "They were shovels" sounds like an answer but it's not.
It doesn't tell us what they were digging. It doesn't tell us a
lifestyle or map to any evolution.

> I mean, you have to base your ideas on something,

The irony is getting mighty thick.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728608394425073664

On 18.9.2023. 19:21, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> Isn't it simple? How come nobody figures it out? Nobody even wants to
>> accept that hand axes are shovels. Why?
>
> Hand axes are described as the Swiss Army Knife of Tools.
>
> This does not exclude much if anything.
>
>> A vague idea of Stone Age 'Swiss Knife'?
>
> Saying "They were shovels" sounds like an answer but it's not.
> It doesn't tell us what they were digging. It doesn't tell us a
> lifestyle or map to any evolution.
>
>> I mean, you have to base your ideas on something,
>
> The irony is getting mighty thick.

What they were digging? *Anything*. I mean, like, you are claiming
that there is no sense in digging? There are so many applications for
digging, you chose any of those, or all of them, whichever you like.
BTW, hand axes appear only in areas which are suitable for
agriculture, they don't appear in rain forests.

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> What they were digging? *Anything*.

Which is not an answer.

There is no valid information here. There's no mapping to
anything, no evolutionary track drawn out... nothing.

"They dug stuff."

The real irony is how you attack Aquatic Ape which is not
only the best model we've got, but the only real model.

Aquatic Ape tells us HOW and WHY they dispersed, for
example. "They dug stuff" does not even tell us what they
were digging...

You have to think in terms of model. Or, "The big picture"
if you need it simplified.

Disarticulated "Stuff" is the nonsense which the status
quo thrives on.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728625463760650240

On 18.9.2023. 20:38, sci.anthropology.paleo wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> What they were digging? *Anything*.
>
> Which is not an answer.
>
> There is no valid information here. There's no mapping to
> anything, no evolutionary track drawn out... nothing.
>
> "They dug stuff."
>
> The real irony is how you attack Aquatic Ape which is not
> only the best model we've got, but the only real model.
>
> Aquatic Ape tells us HOW and WHY they dispersed, for
> example. "They dug stuff" does not even tell us what they
> were digging...
>
> You have to think in terms of model. Or, "The big picture"
> if you need it simplified.
>
> Disarticulated "Stuff" is the nonsense which the status
> quo thrives on.

First, I am not attacking AAT, I am the proponent of AAT, my main
theory, the cliff AAT theory heavily relies on AAT, it is half part
cliffs, and the other half AAT.
I don't know who you think dispersed, where. Yes, we were living on
the sea coast *everywhere*.
Regarding digging, you are talking BS. There *is* evolutionary benefit
from digging.
And, after all, its up to you. Hand axes do look like shovels, they
disappeared with the emergence of hematite (red ochre), which points
that these indeed were shovels, since you can carve better shovels with
hematite from wood. Also, this fits excellently with appearance of Homo
erectus, since, indeed, long arms are too long for digging.

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> First, I am not attacking AAT, I am the proponent of AAT, my main
> theory, the cliff AAT theory heavily relies on AAT, it is half part
> cliffs, and the other half AAT.

My mistake.

You're in the same boat as the good Doctor: You both see arboreal
adaptations and conclude climbing.

Me? I know that it's not necessary. Yes, they could have been
climbing, or they could have been interbreeding with a closely
related group (species?) that did climb, or maybe the fossils we're
seeing ARE the closely related group (species) that climbed, and
not our ancestors at all.

For me there's no problem: The Aquatic Ape population is the
one all humans have in common.

Who cares if some groups was climbing trees or climbing
rocks or whatever?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728625463760650240

On 19.9.2023. 8:29, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> First, I am not attacking AAT, I am the proponent of AAT, my main
>> theory, the cliff AAT theory heavily relies on AAT, it is half part
>> cliffs, and the other half AAT.
>
> My mistake.
>
> You're in the same boat as the good Doctor: You both see arboreal
> adaptations and conclude climbing.
>
> Me? I know that it's not necessary. Yes, they could have been
> climbing, or they could have been interbreeding with a closely
> related group (species?) that did climb, or maybe the fossils we're
> seeing ARE the closely related group (species) that climbed, and
> not our ancestors at all.
>
> For me there's no problem: The Aquatic Ape population is the
> one all humans have in common.
>
> Who cares if some groups was climbing trees or climbing
> rocks or whatever?

To hang down from branches you got to have long, hook-like, fingers.
All extant apes are hanging from branches, and all have those. But, this
is new adaptation, early apes had short fingers, they didn't hang from
branches, and yet, they were climbers. And yet, cliffs are more safe
places for apes than trees (because cats can climb trees, but not cliffs).
Isn't all this so simple, this should be the basic knowledge that
everybody who is researching this should know. Yet, a lot of people
don't know this, because they are closed in their little boxes, and they
don't care much about to research this, they are only concerned how to
perform the task given to them, and this is usually only a tiny fragment
of the whole picture. So, they don't have time to look at the whole
picture. Second thing, for the unknown reason they are completely unable
to value what they know. Mostly, the highest value in their eyes is
their specific field of research, and the second highest is the notion
that we are extraordinary creatures, much more spiritual, and everything
else, than all the other species. So, most of the time they try to
resolve why we are such species. They are not very flexible in their
thinking, because they don't give any importance in the fact that we
have language. Actually, they put language into our special traits which
we evolved only *after* the "divine spark" has hit us.

Op dinsdag 19 september 2023 om 10:12:19 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> To hang down from branches you got to have long, hook-like, fingers.
> All extant apes are hanging from branches, and all have those. But, this
> is new adaptation, early apes had short fingers, they didn't hang from
> branches, and yet, they were climbers.

Yes, very long arms, hands & fingers evolved in parallel in apes, after they split from our acnestral line,
but this has nothing to do with cliffs, Mario, only with branches AFAICS.

Speech evolution, see e.g.
1986 E.Morgan & MV New Scient.1498:62-63 "In the beginning was the water"
1987 Hum.Evol.2:381 "Speech origins"
1988 Specul.Sci.Technol 11:165-171 "Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis"
1992 Language Origins Society Forum 15:17-18 "KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts"
1995 Med.Hypoth.44:409-413 "Aquatic ape theory, speech origins, and brain differences with apes and monkeys"
1995 ReVision 18:34-38 "Aquatic ape theory, the brain cortex, and language origins"
1997 "In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens" Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp
1998 "Human/ape brain differences and speech origins" p.131 in M.Raath ... P.Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ.Witwatersrand Jo'burg abstracts
1999 MV & S.Munro Mother Tongue V:161-168 "Bipeds, tools and speech"
2000 id. "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory" p.236-240 in J-L.Dessalles & L.Ghadakpour eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat.Sup.Télécommunications Paris
2004 id. Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2011 M.Vaneechoutte, S.Munro & MV "Seafood, diving, song and speech" p.181-9 in M.Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution"
2022 "De Evolutie van de Mens – waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken – Medisch-biologische Inzichten en Recente Fossiele Vondsten" Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp

> And yet, cliffs are more safe
> places for apes than trees (because cats can climb trees, but not cliffs)..
> Isn't all this so simple, this should be the basic knowledge that
> everybody who is researching this should know. Yet, a lot of people
> don't know this, because they are closed in their little boxes, and they
> don't care much about to research this, they are only concerned how to
> perform the task given to them, and this is usually only a tiny fragment
> of the whole picture. So, they don't have time to look at the whole
> picture. Second thing, for the unknown reason they are completely unable
> to value what they know. Mostly, the highest value in their eyes is
> their specific field of research, and the second highest is the notion
> that we are extraordinary creatures, much more spiritual, and everything
> else, than all the other species. So, most of the time they try to
> resolve why we are such species. They are not very flexible in their
> thinking, because they don't give any importance in the fact that we
> have language. Actually, they put language into our special traits which
> we evolved only *after* the "divine spark" has hit us.

On 20.9.2023. 11:19, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 19 september 2023 om 10:12:19 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> To hang down from branches you got to have long, hook-like, fingers.
>> All extant apes are hanging from branches, and all have those. But, this
>> is new adaptation, early apes had short fingers, they didn't hang from
>> branches, and yet, they were climbers.
>
> Yes, very long arms, hands & fingers evolved in parallel in apes, after they split from our acnestral line,
> but this has nothing to do with cliffs, Mario, only with branches AFAICS.

Yes, long arms, hands and fingers have nothing to do with cliffs, only
with branches. And those evolved after they split from our ancestral
line, just like you are saying. Exactly.
Cliffs were before that, cliffs are our ancestral line.

Op maandag 18 september 2023 om 10:53:06 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> When I was just a little, before even going to kindergarten, my mammy
> would take me to the local playground where, of course, there was a
> sandpit, and all the kids were playing in that sandpit. Shovel,
> actually, was our first toy. See, shovel:
> https://youtube.com/shorts/Cs7wJ84K2lo?si=Y8zxdqk3mX_LFkUO
> So, hand axes were for digging. But, it is hard to dig with long arms,
> far more efficient is if you have the length of arms that we have, than
> what Homo habilis had. So, this is how Homo erectus was created, our arm
> length is because we dug a lot.

What were we digging for?

On 20.9.2023. 13:51, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 18 september 2023 om 10:53:06 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> When I was just a little, before even going to kindergarten, my mammy
>> would take me to the local playground where, of course, there was a
>> sandpit, and all the kids were playing in that sandpit. Shovel,
>> actually, was our first toy. See, shovel:
>> https://youtube.com/shorts/Cs7wJ84K2lo?si=Y8zxdqk3mX_LFkUO
>> So, hand axes were for digging. But, it is hard to dig with long arms,
>> far more efficient is if you have the length of arms that we have, than
>> what Homo habilis had. So, this is how Homo erectus was created, our arm
>> length is because we dug a lot.
>
> What were we digging for?

I don't know, everything. What are you digging for today? What would
be your answer?
Tranches, traps, clay for huts, agriculture. Hand axes are present
only in areas where agriculture is possible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movius_Line#/media/File:Biface_Extension.png
Blades started to appear 500 kya. The only tool where we use a blade
is sickle. Sickle is needed to cut cereals. So, if we had cereals 500
kya, other, more natural vegetables, we did before that.