https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06900-0.pdf
10 January 2024

Abstract
The largest ever primate and one of the largest of
the southeast Asian megafauna, Gigantopithecus
blacki1, persisted in China from about 2.0 million
years until the late middle Pleistocene when it
became extinct2,3,4. Its demise is enigmatic
considering that it was one of the few Asian great
apes to go extinct in the last 2.6 million years,
whereas others, including orangutan, survived
until the present5. The cause of the disappearance
of G. blacki remains unresolved but could shed
light on primate resilience and the fate of
megafauna in this region6. Here we applied three
multidisciplinary analyses—timing, past
environments and behaviour—to 22 caves in southern
China. We used 157 radiometric ages from six dating
techniques to establish a timeline for the demise
of G. blacki. We show that from 2.3 million years
ago the environment was a mosaic of forests and
grasses, providing ideal conditions for thriving
G. blacki populations. However, just before and
during the extinction window between 295,000 and
215,000  years ago there was enhanced environmental
variability from increased seasonality, which
caused changes in plant communities and an increase
in open forest environments. Although its close
relative Pongo weidenreichi managed to adapt its
dietary preferences and behaviour to this
variability, G. blacki showed signs of chronic
stress and dwindling populations. Ultimately its
struggle to adapt led to the extinction of the
greatest primate to ever inhabit the Earth.

It's not science. It's propaganda.

The "Cite" is literally saying nothing. "Gee, they're dead and
we don't know why."

Read your own cite. It went extinct between 200 and 300
thousand years ago, but the current ice age with this
glacial/interglacial cycle began significantly earlier. So
if Kwimate Cha-Ching ("Hand me another research grant!")
killed them off, why not hundreds of thousands of years
earlier?

The 2.6 million year span they mention? That is the
conventional start of this Quaternary Period: 2.6
million years ago.

But it's literally not telling you anything: "We don't know
why it went extinct, KWIMATE CHA-CHING!"

Here:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016

One had tools and smarts. The other went extinct.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/738875614392680448

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 23 januari 2024 om 21:41:48 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
>> It's not science. It's propaganda.
>> The "Cite" is literally saying nothing. "Gee, they're dead and
>> we don't know why."
>> Read your own cite. It went extinct between 200 and 300
>> thousand years ago, but the current ice age with this
>> glacial/interglacial cycle began significantly earlier. So
>> if Kwimate Cha-Ching ("Hand me another research grant!")
>> killed them off, why not hundreds of 1000s of years earlier?
>> The 2.6 million year span they mention? That is the
>> conventional start of this Quaternary Period: 2.6 Ma.
>> But it's literally not telling you anything: "We don't know
>> why it went extinct, KWIMATE CHA-CHING!"
>> Here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
>> One had tools and smarts. The other went extinct.
>
> Yes, they say it themselves:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06900-0.pdf
> "The cause of the disappearance of G.blacki remains unresolved".

How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.

". We used 157 radiometric ages from six dating
techniques to establish a timeline for the demise
of G. blacki. We show that from 2.3 million years
ago the environment was a mosaic of forests and
grasses, providing ideal conditions for thriving
G. blacki populations. However, just before and
during the extinction window between 295,000 and
215,000  years ago there was enhanced environmental
variability from increased seasonality, which
caused changes in plant communities and an increase
in open forest environments."

"By about 300 ka there is evidence of a struggling
G. blacki population as the number of G. blacki
caves and teeth reduced (Fig. 3c), indicating a
dwindling population. The stark change in the
teeth banding of G. blacki indicates chronic stress
in the population (Fig. 2d(iv)–(v)) and changes
from its preferred dietary behaviour (Fig. 2c and
Extended Data Fig. 10f,g) indicate that G. blacki
was struggling to respond to the environmental
changes on a potentially shrinking territory20.
It would seem that its forest refugia changed its
structure and became too open and disturbed for
this species to sustain itself."

A nicely laid out case.

Can you or your film school acolyte tell us precisely
why and how other species died out? Say, Brontops?
Cynognathus? No?

Perhaps you are jealous at the depth and extent
of their analysis. All you have is snorkel noses...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
> conditions during which G. lived.

But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.
It's above your reading level but give it a try:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf

And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.

Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!

And here you go, again:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016

There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740591652167663616

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM

Sometimes I have this dream where the idiots defending
the status quo aren't serious. They realize that the good
Doctor has valid points. Maybe they just disagree with you
on the details and NOT on the overall point of Aquatic Ape.
But they can't admit it, not without jeopardizing publication,
grants and of course academic status.

Let's face it: Aquatic Ape is right. We're just arguing over
the nitty gritty... the details.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740429495655432192

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>> We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM
>
> Sometimes I have this dream where the idiots defending
> the status quo aren't serious. They realize that the good
> Doctor has valid points. Maybe they just disagree with you
> on the details and NOT on the overall point of Aquatic Ape.
> But they can't admit it, not without jeopardizing publication,
> grants and of course academic status.
>
> Let's face it: Aquatic Ape is right. We're just arguing over
> the nitty gritty... the details.

Let's face it - aa attracts people like you who believe in
space aliens and Nostra-dumbass and creationism

Go back to film school.

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
>> conditions during which G. lived.
>
> But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.

Yes, they did.

> It's above your reading level but give it a try:
>
> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
>
> And you think that the climate was stable until
> roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

I said no such thing. I only posted a link to the paper.

> You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
> know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
> the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
> lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
>
> Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
> looks like you did!
>
> And here you go, again:
>
> https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
>
> There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

You finished last in film school, didn't you?

Did you bother to read your own link?

"...Homo and Gigantopithecus co-occur at Tham Khuyen
about a half million years ago."

Now, from the other paper's abstract:

"... just before and during the extinction window
between 295,000 and 215,000  years ago there was
enhanced environmental variability..."

You do understand that half a million years ago is
OLDER than 295kya to 215kya?

Johnny Johnny Johnny - what ARE we going to do with you?

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Op zaterdag 27 januari 2024 om 05:58:16 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
> some netloon:
>>> How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
>>> conditions during which G. lived.> But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.
>
>> It's above your reading level but give it a try:
>> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
>> And you think that the climate was stable until
>> roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?
>> You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
>> know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
>> the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
>> lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
>> Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
>> looks like you did!
>> And here you go, again:
>> https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
>> There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.
>
> We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM
>
> Anthropology without waterside adaptations = geology without plate tectonics.
>

Like this

<https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg>

:=}

On 2/5/24 11:18 AM, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
> modern insights:
> google
> - David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
> - Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
> - aquarboreal
> - seafood, diving, song & speech
> - Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not our ancestors” open access https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94
That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/5/24 11:18 AM, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
>> modern insights:
>> google
>> - David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
>> - Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
>> - aquarboreal
>> - seafood, diving, song & speech
>> - Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been
>> barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not
>> our ancestors” open access  https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94
>  That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Nice catch.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Let's face it

You worship Out of Africa purity & savanna retardation. I don't
think there's much, if anything, you could face.

Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks
agree with it. It's how they say humanity spread. A few
claim that it has been confirmed with finds along the
Arabian peninsular. Of course, our ancestors were already
in China more than 2 million years ago. The retrovirus
evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741817533268656128

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Let's face it
>
> You worship Out of Africa purity & savanna retardation. I don't

You worship mv. Get help.

> think there's much, if anything, you could face.
>
> Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks

It's quackology. Along with your space aliens and
Nostradamus Nonsense.

> agree with it. It's how they say humanity spread. A few

We live on land and traveled on land. Ancestors did not swim
around the world.

> claim that it has been confirmed with finds along the
> Arabian peninsular. Of course, our ancestors were already
> in China more than 2 million years ago. The retrovirus

Well inland. erectus finds in South Africa in the same
time frame

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
3 Apr 2020

Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
and early Homo erectus in South Africa

"The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with
Homo erectus, whereas the DNH 152 cranium represents
P. robustus. Stratigraphic analysis of the Drimolen
Main Quarry deposits indicates that unlike many
other South African sites, there was only one major
phase of relatively short deposition between ~2.04
million years ago and ~1.95 million years ago. ...
The DNH 134 cranium shares affinities with H.
erectus and predates all known specimens in that
species."

"The DNH 134 Homo cranium has affinities with H.
erectus and extends the species’ temporal range
by ~200,000 to 150,000 years. DNH 134 being older
than A. sediba complicates the likelihood of this
species being ancestral to Homo in South Africa,
as previously suggested. With the oldest occurrence
of H. erectus at the southern tip of Africa, this
argues against a suggested Asian origin for H.
erectus."

"We interpret the occurrence of Homo aff. erectus
at this time in South Africa, and soon after at
Dmanisi (73), as evidence for a major range
expansion of this species (covering at least 8000
km) both out of and within Africa around 2.0 to
1.8 Ma ago."

Ancestors went east later

> evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation
What evidence is that?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> You worship mv. Get help.

I came to Aquatic Ape quite independently to him, through
MultiRegionalism.

> > Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks
> It's quackology.

Out of Africa purity? Of course! Pure rubbish. It's pseudo
scientific excrement. For starters, the "African" population
isn't a separate species at all. Much of the "African" DNA
arrived in Africa via Aquatic Ape, from Eurasia.

> Along with your space aliens and
> Nostradamus Nonsense.

You never do miss an opportunity to parade your lack of
reading comprehension. Why's that?

> We live on land and traveled on land.

Okay. "Aquatic Ape" isn't French for "Sea Monkeys." It's
acknowledging the fact that our ancestors followed the
coast, exploited the sea.

> Ancestors did not swim
> around the world.

If you weren't arguably retarded you might recall any one
of the very many times "Coastal Dispersal" was invoked,
including within this very thread.

"Coastal Dispersal," btw, is mainstream.

> Well inland.

Do you mean that the not-at-all-first-generation tools
were found well inland? But they're not first generation
tools. So the ancestral population who left them evolved
somewhere else. And as you insist that they came from
Africa, and the mainstream says they moved around via
"Coastal Dispersal," guess where that inland group came
from?

> erectus finds in South Africa in the same
> time frame

No. That's idiocy.

An undergrad student said a juvenile skull fragment most
closely resembled erectus. But it was a juvenile and it
wasn't found with erectus but Paranthropus. So you have
an anomalous find which, had it survived, would likely
have turned out to look very different...

> Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
> and early Homo erectus in South Africa

No. That is referred to as "Circular." It's saying that this
skull which nobody looked at and saw erectus, at least
until an undergrade said it looked most like erectus, is
proof that erectus lived there. Well. Identify it as
something else.

Get rid of the anomaly.

It's pretty simple: "Gee. This skull came from an
individual that had yet to grow it's sagital crest.

There. Done.

> "The DNH 134 Homo cranium

Again, another circular argument. "It's a Homo skull
because we said it was a Homo skull, so that proves
erectus was there!"

> > evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation

> What evidence is that?

Are you profoundly stupid? Suffering from dementia? Or
are you intentionally pretending that you're unaware of the
retrovirus evidence?

Or all of the above, I suppose...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/742798356654473216

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> This idiot is wasting our time, JTEM: he assumes Drimolen DHN-134 is
erectus... :-DDD

From a post by Pandora Dec 27:
quote...
This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
cranial capacity 450 cc):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2

Compare to DNH 134:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2

Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
differences that would exclude DNH 134 from being a male A. robustus.

endquote...

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> You worship mv. Get help.
>
> I came to Aquatic Ape quite independently to him, through

Along with space aliens and NostraDumbAss. Nuff said.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
> cranial capacity 450 cc):
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2
>
> Compare to DNH 134:
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2

The former is an adult, the latter is a juvenile. The sagittal
Crest doesn't develop in Gorillas until early adulthood, and
we would expect a similar situation with Paranthropus robustus.

This has all been addressed in the past, more than once.

If you're not a troll and you're not a dogmatic fool trying
to protect his religious beliefs, you can prove it by starting
to incorporate known information in your remarks... especially
known information that renders yours comments moot.

> Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
> differences

Between an adult and a juvenile? Yeah, even a nincompoop
shouldn't be making the error you just made, again.

So stop it already.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Well inland. erectus finds in South Africa in the same
> time frame

So we find a juvenile skull associated with Paranthropus
robustus, in South Africa, and absolutely NOBODY saw any
erectus skull...until significantly later when an
undergraduate said it was closest to erectus.

Wow. Enough to give you goosebumps, right?

>
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
> 3 Apr 2020
>
> Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
> and early Homo erectus in South Africa

Erectus is a contemporary of erectus? Are you sure?

Wow.

If you look real hard I bet even the likes of you can
spot the circular reasoning in that one.

But, you're just repeating the exact same claim without
addressing the known facts. Such as absolutely NOBODY
ever saw erectus here until an undergraduate decided it
was closest to erectus or at least closer.

> "The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with
> Homo erectus

Modern humans share clear affinities with Chimps, for
crying out loud...

The usual claim is, what? Roughly 25% of our DNA in
common with bananas...

, whereas the DNH 152 cranium represents
> P. robustus. Stratigraphic analysis of the Drimolen
> Main Quarry deposits indicates that unlike many
> other South African sites, there was only one major
> phase of relatively short deposition between ~2.04
> million years ago and ~1.95 million years ago. ...
> The DNH 134 cranium shares affinities with H.
> erectus and predates all known specimens in that
> species."

It's a juvenile.

Again: It's a juvenile.

One more time: It's a juvenile.

It's a juvenile found in association with Paranthropus
robustus and absolutely NOBODY who was there, who looked
at it thought they were seeing an erectus skull.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> > Primum Sapienti wrote:
> >
> >> You worship mv. Get help.
> >
> > I came to Aquatic Ape quite independently to him, through

> Along with space aliens and NostraDumbAss. Nuff said.

You have the reading comprehension of a dead gnat, seeing how
I have often & forcefully argued AGAINST aliens visiting the
earth, and refer to Nostradamus "prophecies" as POSTecies.

You're testifying to the fact that you're an emotional spazz,
a troll. You seek negative attention.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Like this
>
> <https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg>

You've been challenged in the past, only to run away on tippy
toes like a little fleeing a spider, but I'll challenge you
again:

Explain everything in the image using your savanna idiocy.

Because, as has been pointed out to you before, but you're
a troll so why would you consider it: Aquatic Ape doesn't
have to be perfect. It doesn't even have to be good. It just
as to be better than all the alternatives, and it is.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> erik simpson wrote:

>>> - Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we
>>> been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are
>>> probably not our ancestors” open access
>>> https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94
>>   That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

> Nice catch.

It's not a catch at all. The fact is that for an extremely long
time the mainstream was denouncing Lucy and her ilk as an
evolutionary cousin, NOT an ancestor. Now, for ten bonus doses
of your medication explain to us WHY it was dismissed as an
evolutionary cousin and WHY did they switch to calling it an
ancestor?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

>>   Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>
>>> How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
>>> conditions during which G. lived.
>>
>> But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.

> Yes, they did.

Prove it. Copy & paste the words. Because they never
presented a detailed analysis of anything in your
cite.

But, again, copy and paste this detailed analysis, from
your cite.

>> It's above your reading level but give it a try:
>>
>> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
>>
>> And you think that the climate was stable until
>> roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

> I said no such thing. I only posted a link to the paper.

You claim that they give a detailed analysis of conditions,
and your cite claims it was Kwimate Cha-Ching! that killed
them off, so that requires that #1 Kwimate Cha-Ching! began
300k years ago and that they provided details of their
analysis of this fact.

>> You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
>> know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
>> the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
>> lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
>>
>> Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
>> looks like you did!
>>
>> And here you go, again:
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
>>
>> There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

> You finished last in film school, didn't you?

Wow you said that and now the entire history of the
Quaternary Period, the Glacial/Interglacial cycle has
gone away!

Amazing. One day you must tell us how you do it...

> "...Homo and Gigantopithecus co-occur at Tham Khuyen
> about a half million years ago."

And co-occurrence needs to exist PRIOR TO the former
driving the latter extinct. You do know this, right?

> "... just before and during the extinction window
> between 295,000 and 215,000  years ago there was
> enhanced environmental variability..."

No there wasn't. The Quaternary Period, the present ice
age, the Glacial/Interglacial cycle began long before
then.

You should try addressing information that refutes you,
instead of acting dogmatic.