It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
during Inquisition.

On 9.1.2024. 11:19, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 10:37:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
>> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
>> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
>> during Inquisition.
>
> :-D
> Yes, we were no carnivores, but rather frugi->mollusci->omnivores
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Who were, finally, able to use fire for their benefit. Starting 15 mya.

On 9.1.2024. 16:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 15:42:11 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 9.1.2024. 11:19, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 10:37:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>>> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
>>>> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
>>>> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
>>>> during Inquisition.
>
>>> :-D Yes, we were no carnivores, but rather frugi->mollusci->omnivores
>>> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
>> Who were, finally, able to use fire for their benefit. Starting 15 mya.
>
> 15 Ma??? 1.5 Ma you mean?

No. Those things change Earth vegetation, hence this changes Earth's
albedo (because thick vegetation swallows more sunlight), so it reflects
in surface temperature change. Nice example is when humans started to
burn America, and this caused Younger Dryas. We had Middle Miocene
Disruption around 14 Mya.

Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 17:21:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> On 9.1.2024. 16:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> >>>> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
> >>>> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
> >>>> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
> >>>> during Inquisition.

> >>> :-D Yes, we were no carnivores, but rather frugi->mollusci->omnivores
> >>> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> >> Who were, finally, able to use fire for their benefit. Starting 15 mya.

> > 15 Ma??? 1.5 Ma you mean?

> No. Those things change Earth vegetation, hence this changes Earth's
> albedo (because thick vegetation swallows more sunlight), so it reflects
> in surface temperature change. Nice example is when humans started to
> burn America, and this caused Younger Dryas. We had Middle Miocene
> Disruption around 14 Mya.

??
- Homo & Pan split 6-5 Ma.
- Fire use <- stone use = opening shells = early-Pleist.?

On 9.1.2024. 17:54, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 17:21:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> On 9.1.2024. 16:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>>>>>> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
>>>>>> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
>>>>>> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
>>>>>> during Inquisition.
>
>>>>> :-D Yes, we were no carnivores, but rather frugi->mollusci->omnivores
>>>>> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
>>>> Who were, finally, able to use fire for their benefit. Starting 15 mya.
>
>>> 15 Ma??? 1.5 Ma you mean?
>
>> No. Those things change Earth vegetation, hence this changes Earth's
>> albedo (because thick vegetation swallows more sunlight), so it reflects
>> in surface temperature change. Nice example is when humans started to
>> burn America, and this caused Younger Dryas. We had Middle Miocene
>> Disruption around 14 Mya.
>
> ??
> - Homo & Pan split 6-5 Ma.
> - Fire use <- stone use = opening shells = early-Pleist.?

You repeat the same old nonsense over and over again. We have bipedal
ape 11.6 Ma. Now, you may not agree that this is our ancestor, but for
sure you cannot deny that whoever says that this is our ancestor has a
mighty good argument for it. In fact, much better argument than you will
ever have. So, your nonsense of 6-5 Ma split isn't a counter-argument
for what I am saying.
With fire use you repeat the same. How you came up with
early-Pleistocene date? They do have some Pleistocene evidence for the
controlled use of fire. But I am talking about uncontrolled use of fire.
There is no sense to start with the controlled use of fire (just like
with absolutely anything else), a controlled developed use must be
preceded by long term association with the substance.
So, for example, you have stone tools. It doesn't fall from the skies,
it has to be preceded by long term association with stones. You get this
on rocky coast, and nowhere else. It doesn't happen that some animal
starts to use stones just like that, out of nothing.
Of course, to whomever I am talking about this, he simply doesn't
understand what I am talking about. So, my talking is pure waste of
time, because so many people would just like that association humans
with stones happens just immediately before the evidence of stone tools.
The only problem is, that this doesn't work that way.
Or, for example, we have so many plants domesticated in Americas. I
mean, if somebody managed to domesticate so many plants in the new
environment, out of absolutely nothing, he should have thorough
understanding of agriculture before he came to this environment. But I
can talk about this over and over again, for years and years, and still
nobody will get it, for them it is perfectly alright that some species
suddenly develops all this agriculture out of nothing. Of course,
because to so many people it is perfectly alright that God created the
world in seven days out of nothing, and a lot of people see nothing
wrong with such an idea. So what can I do.

On 9.1.2024. 19:12, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 9.1.2024. 17:54, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 17:21:38 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>>> On 9.1.2024. 16:10, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
>>>>>>> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
>>>>>>> during Inquisition.
>>
>>>>>> :-D Yes, we were no carnivores, but rather frugi->mollusci->omnivores
>>>>>> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>>
>>>>> Who were, finally, able to use fire for their benefit. Starting 15
>>>>> mya.
>>
>>>> 15 Ma??? 1.5 Ma you mean?
>>
>>> No. Those things change Earth vegetation, hence this changes Earth's
>>> albedo (because thick vegetation swallows more sunlight), so it reflects
>>> in surface temperature change. Nice example is when humans started to
>>> burn America, and this caused Younger Dryas. We had Middle Miocene
>>> Disruption around 14 Mya.
>>
>> ??
>> - Homo & Pan split 6-5 Ma.
>> - Fire use <- stone use = opening shells = early-Pleist.?
>
>         You repeat the same old nonsense over and over again. We have
> bipedal ape 11.6 Ma. Now, you may not agree that this is our ancestor,
> but for sure you cannot deny that whoever says that this is our ancestor
> has a mighty good argument for it. In fact, much better argument than
> you will ever have. So, your nonsense of 6-5 Ma split isn't a
> counter-argument for what I am saying.
>         With fire use you repeat the same. How you came up with
> early-Pleistocene date? They do have some Pleistocene evidence for the
> controlled use of fire. But I am talking about uncontrolled use of fire.
> There is no sense to start with the controlled use of fire (just like
> with absolutely anything else), a controlled developed use must be
> preceded by long term association with the substance.
>         So, for example, you have stone tools. It doesn't fall from the
> skies, it has to be preceded by long term association with stones. You
> get this on rocky coast, and nowhere else. It doesn't happen that some
> animal starts to use stones just like that, out of nothing.
>         Of course, to whomever I am talking about this, he simply
> doesn't understand what I am talking about. So, my talking is pure waste
> of time, because so many people would just like that association humans
> with stones happens just immediately before the evidence of stone tools.
> The only problem is, that this doesn't work that way.
>         Or, for example, we have so many plants domesticated in
> Americas. I mean, if somebody managed to domesticate so many plants in
> the new environment, out of absolutely nothing, he should have thorough
> understanding of agriculture before he came to this environment. But I
> can talk about this over and over again, for years and years, and still
> nobody will get it, for them it is perfectly alright that some species
> suddenly develops all this agriculture out of nothing. Of course,
> because to so many people it is perfectly alright that God created the
> world in seven days out of nothing, and a lot of people see nothing
> wrong with such an idea. So what can I do.

Oh yes, those people who are claiming that we suddenly started to use
fire, that we suddenly started to use stones, that we suddenly started
to use agriculture out of absolutely nothing, have the perfect argument
for how this is possible. It is because we are divine, you know. And
then you see them in their graduation cloaks, looking so divine, and you
realize that being a divine is an argument you will never able to counter.

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
> during Inquisition.

Nonsense. They just used their machineguns.

Apes didn't live in trees, btw. They were driven to the trees. There
were plenty of apes -- or their parent species -- running around on
the ground. They were wiped out by Homo. The only survivors were
the ones in trees... also caves, at first.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739102134427140096

On 11.1.2024. 14:00, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> It happened at night, when apes that are living on trees are asleep.
>> Humans would take torches, find one tree with ape on it, and burn it.
>> Imagine nazi torchlight parades, Ku Klux Klan, or burning of witches
>> during Inquisition.
>
> Nonsense. They just used their machineguns.
>
> Apes didn't live in trees, btw. They were driven to the trees. There
> were plenty of apes -- or their parent species -- running around on
> the ground. They were wiped out by Homo. The only survivors were
> the ones in trees... also caves, at first.

Yes, the only survivors live on trees, hence apes lived on trees. And
only in rain forest, where there is too big precipitation so that you
cannot burn around. But in the whole planet was forested, and apes lived
on those trees, where there wasn't such a big precipitation. Those were
eaten by humans.
Anyway, I don't think that you are smart enough to figure this out.
You are just bubbling without any sense.

On 11.1.2024. 17:32, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op donderdag 11 januari 2024 om 14:42:02 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> Nothing of interest.
> I don't think that you are smart enough to figure this out, Mario Petrinovic. You are just bubbling without any sense.

Of course (that you don't think...), :) .

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> Yes, the only survivors live on trees, hence apes lived on trees.

Chimps descend from an upright walker. They ADAPTED TO the
trees. Their hands were more like ours. We have the more primitive
form of hand than present chimps. We are the less derived. Their
ancestors did not live in trees.

Please stop picking your nose long enough to think about these
things BEFORE you post.

God bless. Me.

-- --

https://filmfreeway.com/BostonsScreamingOstrichFilmFestival

On 12.1.2024. 20:45, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> Yes, the only survivors live on trees, hence apes lived on trees.
>
> Chimps descend from an upright walker. They ADAPTED TO the
> trees. Their hands were more like ours. We have the more primitive
> form of hand than present chimps. We are the less derived. Their
> ancestors did not live in trees.
>
> Please stop picking your nose long enough to think about these
> things BEFORE you post.
>
> God bless. Me.

Absolutely, the ancestors of apes didn't live on trees, they were like
us. Well, we are still like us, but apes moved to trees, this is why
they went extinct, except the extant ones, which are living in areas
with huge precipitation. So, all the apes which weren't living in areas
with huge precipitation got extinct because precipitation couldn't save
them. It is obvious that precipitation (i.e., water) saves apes.
Can I continue to pick my nose, or you have more questions?
BTW, I thought that you are the God.

On 12.1.2024. 22:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 12.1.2024. 20:45, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> Yes, the only survivors live on trees, hence apes lived on trees.
>>
>> Chimps descend from an upright walker. They ADAPTED TO the
>> trees. Their hands were more like ours. We have the more primitive
>> form of hand than present chimps. We are the less derived. Their
>> ancestors did not live in trees.
>>
>> Please stop picking your nose long enough to think about these
>> things BEFORE you post.
>>
>> God bless. Me.
>
>         Absolutely, the ancestors of apes didn't live on trees, they
> were like us. Well, we are still like us, but apes moved to trees, this
> is why they went extinct, except the extant ones, which are living in
> areas with huge precipitation. So, all the apes which weren't living in
> areas with huge precipitation got extinct because precipitation couldn't
> save them. It is obvious that precipitation (i.e., water) saves apes.
>         Can I continue to pick my nose, or you have more questions?
>         BTW, I thought that you are the God.

And, BTW, Miocene apes went extinct at the exact time when
deforestation emerged. Also, Oreopithecus didn't go extinct for a while,
but the island where Oreopithecus lived (Tusco-Sardinian island) didn't
experience deforestation. And finally, when this island touched mainland
it experienced deforestation, and Oreopithecus went extinct. Ah, too
many coincidences to handle, isn't it? Wherever there is deforestation
apes go extinct, only where forest remained, apes don't go extinct. I
mean, do I really need to draw a picture for you, like for a little child?

On 12.1.2024. 22:47, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 12.1.2024. 22:38, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 12.1.2024. 20:45, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> Yes, the only survivors live on trees, hence apes lived on trees.
>>>
>>> Chimps descend from an upright walker. They ADAPTED TO the
>>> trees. Their hands were more like ours. We have the more primitive
>>> form of hand than present chimps. We are the less derived. Their
>>> ancestors did not live in trees.
>>>
>>> Please stop picking your nose long enough to think about these
>>> things BEFORE you post.
>>>
>>> God bless. Me.
>>
>>          Absolutely, the ancestors of apes didn't live on trees, they
>> were like us. Well, we are still like us, but apes moved to trees,
>> this is why they went extinct, except the extant ones, which are
>> living in areas with huge precipitation. So, all the apes which
>> weren't living in areas with huge precipitation got extinct because
>> precipitation couldn't save them. It is obvious that precipitation
>> (i.e., water) saves apes.
>>          Can I continue to pick my nose, or you have more questions?
>>          BTW, I thought that you are the God.
>
>         And, BTW, Miocene apes went extinct at the exact time when
> deforestation emerged. Also, Oreopithecus didn't go extinct for a while,
> but the island where Oreopithecus lived (Tusco-Sardinian island) didn't
> experience deforestation. And finally, when this island touched mainland
> it experienced deforestation, and Oreopithecus went extinct. Ah, too
> many coincidences to handle, isn't it? Wherever there is deforestation
> apes go extinct, only where forest remained, apes don't go extinct. I
> mean, do I really need to draw a picture for you, like for a little child?

And BTW (and then I have to continue to pick my nose after that), you
have not the slightest idea about what happened in the past, because you
simply never even tried to find out. You are just bubbling around
without any knowledge of the past at all. I don't think that you know
what Oreopithecus is, I don't think that you ever heard about
Tusco-Sardinian island, you have never ever shown that you have *any*
knowledge about paleoanthropology, even the basic knowledge. I wonder if
you have knowledge about Bible, if you don't have it about
paleoanthropology.