https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6

This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just like only
200 years ago. Nothing has changed:
https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies, because
there should be big market for fur trade, there should be trading routes
(for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else. Just because
people recently started to use ground stone tools, which allowed people
to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher temperature, which
allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of metals, just because
all this happened it doesn't mean that people before that time were much
different. It just means that the ground stone tools allowed them to
expand technology, because of fires with higher temperature, nothing
more. Except for that people weren't much different before that.

:-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
Beaver exploitation, 400,000 years ago, testifies to prey choice diversity of Middle Pleistocene hominins
Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser cs 2023 Scient.Rep.13, 19766
Data re. the subsistence base of early hominins are heavily biased in favor of the animal component of their diets,
large mammals are generally much better preserved at archaeol.sites than the bones of smaller animals, let alone the remains of plant food.
Exploitation of smaller game is very rarely documented before the latest phases of the Pleistocene,
this is often taken to imply narrow diets of archaic Homo, and interpreted as a striking economic difference between late-Pleistocene & earlier hominins.
We present new data that contradict this view of mid-Pleistocene Lower Palaeolithic hominins:
cut-marks demonstrate systematic exploitation of beavers, identified in the large faunal assemblage from Bilzingsleben, C-Germany c 400 ka.
In combination with a prime-age dominated mortality profile, this cut-mark record shows:
the rich beaver assemblage resulted from repetitive human hunting activities, with a focus on young adult individuals.
The Bilzingsleben beaver exploitation evidence demonstrates
- a greater diversity of prey-choice by mid-Pleistocene hominins than commonly acknowledged,
- a much deeper history of broad-spectrum subsistence than commonly assumed, already visible in prey choices 400 ka.

Op zaterdag 18 november 2023 om 08:23:36 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
> This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just like only
> 200 years ago. Nothing has changed:
> https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
> Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies, because
> there should be big market for fur trade, there should be trading routes
> (for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else. Just because
> people recently started to use ground stone tools, which allowed people
> to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher temperature, which
> allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of metals, just because
> all this happened it doesn't mean that people before that time were much
> different. It just means that the ground stone tools allowed them to
> expand technology, because of fires with higher temperature, nothing
> more. Except for that people weren't much different before that.

On 18.11.2023. 11:30, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
> Beaver exploitation, 400,000 years ago, testifies to prey choice diversity of Middle Pleistocene hominins
> Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser cs 2023 Scient.Rep.13, 19766
> Data re. the subsistence base of early hominins are heavily biased in favor of the animal component of their diets,
> large mammals are generally much better preserved at archaeol.sites than the bones of smaller animals, let alone the remains of plant food.
> Exploitation of smaller game is very rarely documented before the latest phases of the Pleistocene,
> this is often taken to imply narrow diets of archaic Homo, and interpreted as a striking economic difference between late-Pleistocene & earlier hominins.
> We present new data that contradict this view of mid-Pleistocene Lower Palaeolithic hominins:
> cut-marks demonstrate systematic exploitation of beavers, identified in the large faunal assemblage from Bilzingsleben, C-Germany c 400 ka.
> In combination with a prime-age dominated mortality profile, this cut-mark record shows:
> the rich beaver assemblage resulted from repetitive human hunting activities, with a focus on young adult individuals.
> The Bilzingsleben beaver exploitation evidence demonstrates
> - a greater diversity of prey-choice by mid-Pleistocene hominins than commonly acknowledged,
> - a much deeper history of broad-spectrum subsistence than commonly assumed, already visible in prey choices 400 ka.
>
> Op zaterdag 18 november 2023 om 08:23:36 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
>> This is *exactly* what I think people were doing there. Just like only
>> 200 years ago. Nothing has changed:
>> https://youtu.be/LSmtV83vhhM?si=qbwO4IK3poTOEvhA
>> Of course, fur trade would imply highly developed societies, because
>> there should be big market for fur trade, there should be trading routes
>> (for salt, of course), and absolutely everything else. Just because
>> people recently started to use ground stone tools, which allowed people
>> to cut trees, which allowed making fires with higher temperature, which
>> allowed for ceramics, and consequently smelting of metals, just because
>> all this happened it doesn't mean that people before that time were much
>> different. It just means that the ground stone tools allowed them to
>> expand technology, because of fires with higher temperature, nothing
>> more. Except for that people weren't much different before that.

I wander how long plant remains will last. I don't know, maybe even no
longer than what we think agriculture exists. This is the problem with
relying on evidence. Evidence is fine, but what's so wrong with using
logic also? Hm, probably the problem is that not a lot of people can use
it, and this cannot be taught at the university, :) .

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6

Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?

Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
they were making felt 400,000 years ago?

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt

Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/734463040073957376

On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
>
> Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
> best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
> suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
>
> Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
> they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
>
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
>
> Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
> felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!

See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
hunting beavers.

Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> >> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6

> > Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
> > best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
> > suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
> > Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
> > they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
> > https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
> > Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
> > felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!

> See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
> Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
> what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
> So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
> there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
> Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
> hunting beavers.

:-) Who knows...
I thought they were following the salmon...
In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
but during Summer?? or Winter?
cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?

On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.

On 20.11.2023. 19:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>
>>>> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
>
>>> Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
>>> best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
>>> suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
>>> Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
>>> they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
>>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
>>> Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
>>> felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
>
>> See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
>> Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
>> what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
>> So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
>> there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
>> Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
>> hunting beavers.
>
> :-) Who knows...
> I thought they were following the salmon...
> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
> but during Summer?? or Winter?
> cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?
>
> On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.

I would say that it was too cold for swimming in Europe during Ice Age
(you had glaciers in Wales). No, what they were doing is *exactly' what
white man was doing in America/Canada only 300 years ago. This is what
pioneers do, fur trade. We did dive a lot, but this was, lets say, from
at least 15 mya to 2 mya, so 13 million years. At least. Long time.

Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 23:50:49 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 20.11.2023. 19:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >> On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> >>>> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
> >>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6

> >>> Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
> >>> best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
> >>> suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
> >>> Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
> >>> they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
> >>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
> >>> Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
> >>> felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!

> >> See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
> >> Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
> >> what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
> >> So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
> >> there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
> >> Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
> >> hunting beavers.

> > :-) Who knows...
> > I thought they were following the salmon...
> > In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
> > but during Summer?? or Winter?
> > cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?
> > On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.

> I would say that it was too cold for swimming in Europe during Ice Age
> (you had glaciers in Wales). No, what they were doing is *exactly' what
> white man was doing in America/Canada only 300 years ago. This is what
> pioneers do, fur trade. We did dive a lot, but this was, lets say, from
> at least 15 mya to 2 mya, so 13 million years. At least. Long time.

No, Mario:
Hominoidea >20 Ma were already bipedal=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,
IMO in the coastal forests of the islands between Arabafrica & Eurasia then,
google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
But brain enlargement, mid-facial prognathism, supra-orbital torus, platycephaly & pachy-osteo-sclerosis only appear in H.erectus begin-Pleistocene (e.g. Java) = clear indications of shallow-diving for aquatic foods (mostly shellfish? cf. stone tools).

On 21.11.2023. 0:44, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 23:50:49 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 20.11.2023. 19:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> Op maandag 20 november 2023 om 15:07:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>> On 20.11.2023. 13:33, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>>>>>> :-) Thanks, Mario! See also my comment there.
>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46956-6
>
>>>>> Though they'd probably eat anything they could kill, what is beaver
>>>>> best known for? And it's not the meat. It's the fur. So does this
>>>>> suggest that they were making clothing some 400,000 years ago?
>>>>> Apparently beaver pelts were awesome for making felt, so maybe
>>>>> they were making felt 400,000 years ago?
>>>>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felt
>>>>> Materials like felt don't preserve -- preservation bias -- but, even so
>>>>> felt has been recovered and dated to 6,500 years ago!
>
>>>> See, this is the problem with science and the evidence. What did
>>>> Neanderthals do in Europe 400 kya? They were hunting beavers. Ok. Now,
>>>> what did Neanderthals do in Europe 401 kya? They didn't hunt beavers?
>>>> So, if human ancestors are in Europe, then they are hunting beavers
>>>> there. Being it 400 kya, or 800 kya.
>>>> Of course, on a shoreline they were fishing. But inland they were
>>>> hunting beavers.
>
>>> :-) Who knows...
>>> I thought they were following the salmon...
>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
>>> but during Summer?? or Winter?
>>> cf. Summer hollidays at the coast?
>>> On the shore, they dived! pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly etc.etc.
>
>> I would say that it was too cold for swimming in Europe during Ice Age
>> (you had glaciers in Wales). No, what they were doing is *exactly' what
>> white man was doing in America/Canada only 300 years ago. This is what
>> pioneers do, fur trade. We did dive a lot, but this was, lets say, from
>> at least 15 mya to 2 mya, so 13 million years. At least. Long time.
>
> No, Mario:
> Hominoidea >20 Ma were already bipedal=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,
> IMO in the coastal forests of the islands between Arabafrica & Eurasia then,
> google "aquarboreal" (aqua=water, arbor=tree).
> But brain enlargement, mid-facial prognathism, supra-orbital torus, platycephaly & pachy-osteo-sclerosis only appear in H.erectus begin-Pleistocene (e.g. Java) = clear indications of shallow-diving for aquatic foods (mostly shellfish? cf. stone tools).
>

Brain enlargement - possibly for thermoregulation
Mid facial prognatism - chopping meat with teeth
Sahelanthropus has supra-orbital torus
Platycephaly - could be because of strong chewing muscles
Pachyosteosclerosis - I cannot find the info how this trait was
represented in the past

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> I thought they were following the salmon...

There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
where we might infer Cro Magnon...

> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?

I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration
thing.

So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.

We part company on the migration thing.

I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
and everyone else while we were at it.

Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!

The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/734460585236905984

On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> I thought they were following the salmon...
>
> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
>
>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
>
> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration
> thing.
>
> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
>
> We part company on the migration thing.
>
> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
> and everyone else while we were at it.
>
> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
>
> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.

Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
has its roots *deep* into our past.
The fact that we eat salty food *demands* two things:
- it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
- it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
trading routes

Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> >> I thought they were following the salmon...

> > There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
> > salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
> > where we might infer Cro Magnon...

OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?

> >> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?

> > I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
> > to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.

Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.

> > So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.

If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?

> > We part company on the migration thing.
> > I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
> > inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
> > and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
> > and everyone else while we were at it.

Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.

> > Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
> > radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
> > the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
> > pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
> > further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
> > pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!

Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
You know my view:
late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
-c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
-c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
--Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.

> > The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
> > from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
> > pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.

> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
> has its roots *deep* into our past.
> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
> trading routes.

Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).

On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>>>> I thought they were following the salmon...
>
>>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
>
> OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
>
>>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
>
>>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
>
> Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
>
>>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
>
> If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
>
>>> We part company on the migration thing.
>>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
>
> Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
>
>>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
>
> Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
> You know my view:
> late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
> -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
> -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
> --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
> --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.
>
>>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
>>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
>
>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
>> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
>> trading routes.
>
> Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).

We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.

Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> >>>> I thought they were following the salmon...

> >>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
> >>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
> >>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...

> > OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
> >>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?

> >>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
> >>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.

> > Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.

> >>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.

> > If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?

> >>> We part company on the migration thing.
> >>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
> >>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
> >>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
> >>> and everyone else while we were at it.

> > Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.

> >>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
> >>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
> >>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
> >>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
> >>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
> >>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!

> > Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
> > You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
> > -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
> > -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
> > --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
> > --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H..erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.

> >>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
> >>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
> >>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.

> >> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
> >> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
> >> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
> >> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
> >> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
> >> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
> >> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
> >> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
> >> has its roots *deep* into our past.
> >> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
> >> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
> >> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
> >> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
> >> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
> >> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
> >> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
> >> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
> >> trading routes.

> > Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).

> We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
> retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.

No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis, wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).

On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>
>>>>>> I thought they were following the salmon...
>
>>>>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
>>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
>
>>> OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
>
>>>>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
>
>>>>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
>
>>> Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
>
>>>>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
>
>>> If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
>
>>>>> We part company on the migration thing.
>>>>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
>>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
>>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
>
>>> Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
>
>>>>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
>>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
>>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
>>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
>>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
>
>>> Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
>>> You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
>>> -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
>>> -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
>>> --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
>>> --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.
>
>>>>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
>>>>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
>>>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
>
>>>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
>>>> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
>>>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
>>>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
>>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
>>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
>>>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
>>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
>>>> trading routes.
>
>>> Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
>
>> We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
>> retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
>> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
>> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
>
> No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis, wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
> IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
> our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).

I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
see gorillas and chimps do the same.
Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
any coast?

Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> >>>>>> I thought they were following the salmon...

> >>>>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
> >>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
> >>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...

> >>> OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?

> >>>>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?

> >>>>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
> >>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing..

> >>> Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.

> >>>>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.

> >>> If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?

> >>>>> We part company on the migration thing.
> >>>>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
> >>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
> >>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
> >>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.

> >>> Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
> >>>>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
> >>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
> >>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
> >>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
> >>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
> >>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!

> >>> Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
> >>> You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
> >>> -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
> >>> -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
> >>> --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
> >>> --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java....H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext..nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.

> >>>>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
> >>>>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
> >>>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.

> >>>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
> >>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
> >>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
> >>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
> >>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
> >>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
> >>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
> >>>> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
> >>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
> >>>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
> >>>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
> >>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
> >>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
> >>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
> >>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
> >>>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
> >>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
> >>>> trading routes.

> >>> Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).

> >> We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
> >> retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
> >> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
> >> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.

> > No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis, wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
> > IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
> > our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).

> I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
> Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
> see gorillas and chimps do the same.
> Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
> any coast?

1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
-Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
-Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
-Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).

2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels....?) cf.scenario above.

3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.

On 22.11.2023. 19:46, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I thought they were following the salmon...
>
>>>>>>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
>>>>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
>>>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
>
>>>>> OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
>
>>>>>>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
>
>>>>>>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
>>>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
>
>>>>> Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
>
>>>>>>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
>
>>>>> If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
>
>>>>>>> We part company on the migration thing.
>>>>>>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
>>>>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
>>>>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
>>>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
>
>>>>> Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
>
>>>>>>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
>>>>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
>>>>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
>>>>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
>>>>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
>>>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
>
>>>>> Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
>>>>> You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
>>>>> -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
>>>>> -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
>>>>> --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
>>>>> --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.
>
>>>>>>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
>>>>>>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
>>>>>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
>
>>>>>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
>>>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
>>>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
>>>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
>>>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
>>>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
>>>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
>>>>>> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
>>>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
>>>>>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
>>>>>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
>>>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
>>>>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
>>>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
>>>>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
>>>>>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
>>>>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
>>>>>> trading routes.
>
>>>>> Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
>
>>>> We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
>>>> retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
>>>> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
>>>> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
>
>>> No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis, wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
>>> IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
>>> our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
>
>> I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
>> Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
>> see gorillas and chimps do the same.
>> Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
>> any coast?
>
> 1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
> IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
> This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
> when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
> -Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
> -Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
> -Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).
>
> 2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels...?) cf.scenario above.
>
> 3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
> Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.

Ok. First, Red Sea was flooded numerous times between 25 and 5 Ma:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222001994#s0070
Second, only humans use stone tools the way Lomekwi stone tools were used.
Oh, I knew that we share more diseases with orangutan, although we
share more genes with chimps and gorillas. This means that chimps and
gorillas are our closest living relatives, while we spatially evolved on
a place where orangutans evolved. This means, in Euroasia.
Pan didn't live on a coast at the time we were bipedal, and we were
bipedal for 12 mya. Danuvius is in Europe, long away from chimps. Chimps
and gorillas lived where they are living today, in forests. So, we,
actually, weren't in contact. Our last contact with forest species was
with orangutan. We, actually, burned off forest species, and ate them
burned. Only, we couldn't burn areas with huge precipitation, this is
why today's apes survived in rain forests.
So, these are the facts, and all this was in Miocene, not in Pliocene.
Try do compile scenario using facts. And facts are that we are bipedal
for 12 My. At least.

Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 01:30:58 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 22.11.2023. 19:46, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >> On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >>>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>>>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>> I thought they were following the salmon...
> >
> >>>>>>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
> >>>>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
> >>>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
> >
> >>>>> OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
> >
> >>>>>>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
> >
> >>>>>>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
> >>>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
> >
> >>>>> Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
> >
> >>>>>>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
> >
> >>>>> If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
> >
> >>>>>>> We part company on the migration thing.
> >>>>>>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
> >>>>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
> >>>>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
> >>>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
> >
> >>>>> Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
> >
> >>>>>>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
> >>>>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
> >>>>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
> >>>>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
> >>>>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
> >>>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
> >
> >>>>> Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
> >>>>> You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
> >>>>> -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
> >>>>> -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
> >>>>> --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
> >>>>> --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java....H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.
> >
> >>>>>>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
> >>>>>>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
> >>>>>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
> >
> >>>>>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
> >>>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
> >>>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
> >>>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
> >>>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
> >>>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
> >>>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
> >>>>>> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
> >>>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
> >>>>>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
> >>>>>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
> >>>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
> >>>>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
> >>>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
> >>>>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
> >>>>>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
> >>>>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
> >>>>>> trading routes.
> >
> >>>>> Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
> >
> >>>> We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
> >>>> retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
> >>>> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
> >>>> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
> >
> >>> No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis, wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
> >>> IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
> >>> our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
> >
> >> I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
> >> Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
> >> see gorillas and chimps do the same.
> >> Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
> >> any coast?

> > 1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
> > IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
> > This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
> > when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
> > -Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
> > -Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
> > -Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).
> > 2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels...?) cf.scenario above.

> > 3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
> > Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.

> Ok. First, Red Sea was flooded numerous times between 25 and 5 Ma:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222001994#s0070

Red sea evaporites: Formation, creep and dissolution
Joshua E Smith & J Carlos Santamarina 2022
Earth-Science Reviews 232, 104115
doi org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104115 open access

Evaporite deposition & sea-floor spreading are 2 salient processes in the geol.history of the Red Sea.
We piece together the available evidence about rift-evolution & evaporite-fm:
we constrain the deposition history, analyze creep, and advance a plausible explanation for the preservation of these soluble fms.
At the end of evaporite deposition, before the Ind.Ocean flooded the Red Sea through the Bab al-Mandab's strait (5.33 Ma?? --mv), the salt thickness must have exceeded ~1.5 x the current thickness.
Reported plate rotation, rift rates & a salt suture zone in the C-Red Sea allow us to estimate an effective large-scale viscosity of 1018 Pa·s.
Thinned salt along the S-Red Sea flows up to 5 mm/yr, creep cannot keep up with sea-floor spreading, oceanic crust remains exposed.
Vast alluvial fans & carbonate platforms cause salt withdrawal;
corresponding sea-floor settlement rates can exceed ~10 mm/yr, and overtake coral reef production.
Salt dissolution leaves behind a residual sediment cap made of insoluble minerals that gradually retards further dissolution: self-armoring.
New exper.evidence & the numerical solution of diffusion with a moving boundary show:
- self-armoring by selective dissolution controls early evaporite dissolution,
- background sedimentation dominates sediment accumulation over long time scales.
Armoring-delayed evaporite dissolution prevents the fm of a vast regional brine pool.

On 23.11.2023. 13:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 01:30:58 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 22.11.2023. 19:46, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> Op woensdag 22 november 2023 om 17:48:00 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>> On 21.11.2023. 17:38, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 15:06:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 12:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>>>>> Op dinsdag 21 november 2023 om 09:32:17 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>>>>>> On 21.11.2023. 3:12, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I thought they were following the salmon...
>>>
>>>>>>>>> There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the exploitation of
>>>>>>>>> salmon, and by that I mean none at all. Not until well after dates
>>>>>>>>> where we might infer Cro Magnon...
>>>
>>>>>>> OK, but salmon exploitation probably doesn't leave much evidence?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In any case, they seasonally followed the river inland?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could be out of sync but as far as I am aware -- what they used
>>>>>>>>> to teach -- is that Neanderthals weren't big on the migration thing.
>>>
>>>>>>> Hn is found at seacoasts + along (big) rivers.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> So called "Moderns," on the other hand, were big on migration.
>>>
>>>>>>> If Hs were big on migration, Hn was?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> We part company on the migration thing.
>>>>>>>>> I see groups splitting off, pushing inland and adapting to that
>>>>>>>>> inland environment. It's how we got Neanderthals and Denisovans
>>>>>>>>> and so called "Moderns" in the first place... and Red Deer people
>>>>>>>>> and everyone else while we were at it.
>>>
>>>>>>> Hs/Hn/Hd splittings are already explained by the long distances.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chimps began as "Aquatic Ape." Their ancestors pushed inland,
>>>>>>>>> radiated out. But whatever point they pushed inland, probably
>>>>>>>>> the horn of Africa, was the destination point for future groups
>>>>>>>>> pushing inland, so their evolution was moderated. However, the
>>>>>>>>> further they got from that point, the less influence on their gene
>>>>>>>>> pool until finally there was no more influx: Chimps!
>>>
>>>>>>> Hominoidea began as aquarboreals (IMO on island archipels between Arabafrica & Eurasia early-Miocene).
>>>>>>> You know my view: late-Miocene HPG in (incipient) Red Sea:
>>>>>>> -c 8 Ma, Gorilla followed the incipient northern Rift->Afar: aferensis-anamensis-boisei etc.
>>>>>>> -c 5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
>>>>>>> --Pan went->right: E.Afr.coastal forests->southern Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus etc.(//Gorilla)
>>>>>>> --Homo->left: S.Asian coasts (no Pliocene Afr.retroviral DNA)->Java...H.erectus: diving"ape": brain++, platycephaly, mid-facial prognathism, ext.nose, supra-orb.torus, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, fossilisation amid shellfish, shellgish engravings, island colonisations etc.etc.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> The famous "Plains Indians" of the Americas were descended
>>>>>>>>> from a coastal population, exploiting marine resources, that
>>>>>>>>> pushed inland... it's a process that never ended.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade. It is so obvious,
>>>>>>>> yet nobody cares (to not care about obvious, it looks like it is a
>>>>>>>> habit). People always find the excuse why obvious isn't necessary if
>>>>>>>> what is obvious doesn't fit into their rotten scenario. Everybody,
>>>>>>>> actually, don't give merit to the obvious things, because they think
>>>>>>>> that those happen all by themself, not a big deal. They even don't
>>>>>>>> notice the obvious, because, well, it is so "everyday".
>>>>>>>> We eat salty food. Trust me, this *isn't* a normal condition, and it
>>>>>>>> has its roots *deep* into our past.
>>>>>>>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* 2 things:
>>>>>>>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
>>>>>>>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
>>>>>>>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
>>>>>>>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
>>>>>>>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
>>>>>>>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
>>>>>>>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
>>>>>>>> trading routes.
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, very relevant indeed IMO (but 3 Ma?? rather 0.3 Ma??).
>>>
>>>>>> We started moving inland with Kenyanthropus platyops. He still
>>>>>> retained flat face, but inland we started to eat terrestrial meat (as
>>>>>> opposed to eating shellfish until then), we started to chop off meat
>>>>>> with our teeth, so midfacial prognathism developed because of that.
>>>
>>>>> No. From my book: "Volgens Louise Leakey is Kenyanthropus platyops (‘Kenya’s platgezichtmens’, ontdekt in meerafzettingen) antropo-centrisch een vroege Homo 3½ miljoen jaar oud, volgens Tim White een door fossilisatie vervormde afarensis, wellicht 2½ miljoen jaar oud."
>>>>> IOW, "Kenyanthr." is probably a Praeanthropus afarensis, like Lucy, a fossil relative of Gorilla:
>>>>> our human ancestors were not in Africa at that time (S-Asian coasts IMO): we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn cs 2005).
>>>
>>>> I don't know anything about this retroviral abracadabra, they found
>>>> Kenyanthropus with stone tools, you don't need better proof. Unless you
>>>> see gorillas and chimps do the same.
>>>> Why would our ancestors be specifically on S-Asian coast, and not on
>>>> any coast?
>
>>> 1) All Pliocene African mammals (e.g. Gorilla & Pan) got infected with certain retroviruses, not no Asian animals, e.g. Homo & Pongo,
>>> IOW, humans ancestors were NOT in Africa at least during most of the Pliocene.
>>> This confirms my view: the late-Miocene Homo-Pan ancestor lived in Red Sea coastal forests,
>>> when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (Francesca Mansfields exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood?),
>>> -Pan->Z.Afr.coastal forests (IMO->southern Rift->Transvaal->africanus-robustus-habilis...),
>>> -Homo->S.Asian coastal forests (H.erectus Java early-Pleist.)->Pleist.coastal->riverside dispersal W-Asia-Europe-Africa...
>>> -Gorilla, already 8-7 Ma, followed the northern-Rift->Afar->Kenyanthr.-Lucy-afarensis-anamensis-boisei... often in//S.Afrapiths).
>
>>> 2) Tool use Homo>Pan>Gorilla in coastal forests (mangrove oysters, mussels...?) cf.scenario above.
>
>>> 3) Which "other" coast, Mario??
>>> Pliocene Pan=E.Africa, Homo:S-Asia.
>
>> Ok. First, Red Sea was flooded numerous times between 25 and 5 Ma:
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222001994#s0070
>
> Red sea evaporites: Formation, creep and dissolution
> Joshua E Smith & J Carlos Santamarina 2022
> Earth-Science Reviews 232, 104115
> doi org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104115 open access
>
> Evaporite deposition & sea-floor spreading are 2 salient processes in the geol.history of the Red Sea.
> We piece together the available evidence about rift-evolution & evaporite-fm:
> we constrain the deposition history, analyze creep, and advance a plausible explanation for the preservation of these soluble fms.
> At the end of evaporite deposition, before the Ind.Ocean flooded the Red Sea through the Bab al-Mandab's strait (5.33 Ma?? --mv), the salt thickness must have exceeded ~1.5 x the current thickness.
> Reported plate rotation, rift rates & a salt suture zone in the C-Red Sea allow us to estimate an effective large-scale viscosity of 1018 Pa·s.
> Thinned salt along the S-Red Sea flows up to 5 mm/yr, creep cannot keep up with sea-floor spreading, oceanic crust remains exposed.
> Vast alluvial fans & carbonate platforms cause salt withdrawal;
> corresponding sea-floor settlement rates can exceed ~10 mm/yr, and overtake coral reef production.
> Salt dissolution leaves behind a residual sediment cap made of insoluble minerals that gradually retards further dissolution: self-armoring.
> New exper.evidence & the numerical solution of diffusion with a moving boundary show:
> - self-armoring by selective dissolution controls early evaporite dissolution,
> - background sedimentation dominates sediment accumulation over long time scales.
> Armoring-delayed evaporite dissolution prevents the fm of a vast regional brine pool.

On 23.11.2023. 15:27, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 15:08:10 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> ...
>
>> What you are writing is nonsense. You are forcibly making apes
>> bipedal.
>
> Not at all: Miocene Hominoide were aquarboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree):
> - humans & hylobatids are still BP,
> - fist- (Pongo) & knuckle-walking (Pan//Gorilla) evolved in parallel in these long-armed vertical apes to move on dry ground,
> google "aquarboreal".
>
> Pelvis evolution is not so difficult, even you can understand, Mario:
> Miocene apes had very broad bodies (sternum-thorax-pelvis),
> great apes post-aquarboreally evolved longer iliac blades in parallel.
>
> And please no nonsense any more like this:
>
>> Do you know what you are saying, that our pelvis which is
>> completely unique, changed like a yo-yo, now it is long, then it is
>> short, and so on, and so on, whichever way you personally like it.
>> Something that happens once ever, in your scenario has to happen
>> whenever you want it. This is completely crazy. So, stick (jesus,
>> another one of those English words that has thousand meanings, :) ) to
>> the facts, not to your dreams.

I told you, your scenario has no confirmation in facts, in evidence.
Everything can be, given the right circumstances in a million of years
we can be elephants. We do have dogs climbing trees, after all, Fossa.
The thing is, though, that the evidence supports my scenario. Long time
ago I was claiming that we were bipedal at least 10 Ma, while everybody
else questioned anything older than 4 Ma. See, I am good at this, at
finding the real explanations. Your behavior is also well known, you are
good at excuses why your scenario doesn't fit the evidence. My scenario
predicted future evidence, while your scenario is just hanging in thin air.

On 23.11.2023. 15:32, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>> Nobody ever mentions our dependence on salt trade.
>
> People of African heritage have a lower tolerance for salt. It's
> also claimed that the mutation that improves the human
> ability to synthesize DHA evolved in Africa. Combined, they
> appear to support the good Doctor's model, as Africa would
> be the end point, not the beginning.
>
> ...the molecular clock crowd claims the synthesizing
> DHA thing is on the order of 80k years old. Pretty darn
> recent. Especially when people like me argue that this
> "Molecular Clock" nonsense exaggerates age. Sometimes
> by a very large margin.
>
>> The fact that we eat salty food *demands* two things:
>> - it demands that we evolved on a sea coast (just like our cooling
>> mechanism, sweating, *demands* our evolution on a shore of big bodies of
>> water, nobody cares about this, hm..., this is *very* important for
>> god's sake, this is crucial, how will humans *ever* figure out anything
>> if they are, literally, *blind* to such things)
>> - it demands that we were capable to organize trading routes something
>> like 3 mya, we cannot move inland without having *well* established
>> trading routes
>
> It's important to remember that they only had to live long enough to
> reproduce.
>
> Secondly, keeping with the waterside model, the inland
> population that paleo anthropology exclusively digs up would
> NOT be our ancestors.

JTEM, you are talking vapor.
First, you are claiming that African people don't salt food. Hm.
Then you are citing Molecular clock. My god.
Then you are selecting our ancestors per your specific liking.
I mean, everybody can say whatever they want, so can you, why not.

On 23.11.2023. 15:44, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> What you are writing is nonsense. You are forcibly making apes
>> bipedal.
>
> Makes sense, actually. Chimps are unquestionably secondarily
> knuckle walkers. Seems that Gorillas must be as well, though
> evolved separately. And, again, the good Doctor's island origins
> hypothesis works. It really does.
>
> Islands are famous for spawning Insular Dwarfism. But do the
> Google on Insular Gigantism. There are sources which claim
> that Gigantism is the norm, and that even in cases of dwarfism
> they first grew bigger.
>
> Effectively, a species isolated on an island with no serious
> predators is in competition with itself. They're competing
> against each other. So larger is an advantage. But growing
> larger means burning through more resources, so either they
> shrink in numbers or they shrink in size. So...
>
> Put a small animal on an island they grow larger. But instead
> of burning through resources they begin exploiting marine
> resources. They can actually grow even bigger! You know,
> from their new protein diet.

It looks like you don't understand this. On island big animals get
smaller, and small animals get bigger, until they all are similar in
size. Mouse and elephant at the end become the same size on islands,
elephants get smaller and rats get bigger.

On 23.11.2023. 19:45, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>>> People of African heritage have a lower tolerance for salt.
>
>> JTEM, you are talking vapor.
>> First, you are claiming that African people don't salt food. Hm.
>
> https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.HYP.28.5.854
>
> No, I stated the fact that they have a lower tolerance for salt. And
> they do have a lower tolerance for salt.

Well, I appreciate your info, I didn't know that, and this fits nice
in my scenario. But still, there is no sense in mentioning this in this
context. Africans do it salty food just like anybody else. They may
tolerate the excess amount of salt less well than the rest, after all,
they did depend on long trading routes, since Africa is the biggest land
mass. But this doesn't change anything in the scenario, they still do
eat salty food.

>> Then you are citing Molecular clock. My god.
>
> No, I was noting the molecular dating attributed to the mutation
> that provides an enhanced ability to synthesize DHA.
Molecular dating is all wrong since it is based on wrong premises. A
necessary premise for molecular clock to work is that the "mutations"
happen at the constant pace, which, literally, is nonsense, and only an
idiot can assume that. Plus, the mere concept of mutations being the
engine behind evolution is idiotic, in tune only with Bible and
absolutely nothing else.
So, molecular dating, mutations, plus some imaginary "DHA
synthesization is all, I don't know, like a thoughts from mad house. I
know that this has something with standard view on things, but this only
means that the standard view on things has something to do with mad
house, and nothing more.

On 23.11.2023. 19:48, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> It looks like you don't understand this. On island big animals get
>> smaller, and small animals get bigger, until they all are similar in
>> size.
>
> No. That's Intelligent Design, not evolution.
>
> Secondly, we ARE talking about a small animal getting big.
>
> I was adding another dimension though: The switch to a high
> protein diet.
>
> Please. DO try to keep up.

You can add the influence of cosmic rays, you can add whatever you
want. Small animals also have high protein diet. Shrew has extremely
high protein diet. Now you can add this DHA, which, like "pumps" brains.
For gods sake, a mad house.

On 23.11.2023. 23:58, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op donderdag 23 november 2023 om 17:47:08 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
> ...
>
>> I told you, your scenario has no confirmation in facts, in evidence.
>
> Inform, my little boy, google
> - aquarboreal
> - GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English,
> and waste your own time.

Ha, ha, I had the same thought, what a waste of time you are, there is
no hope for you.