Some outdated, self-declared, ego+afro+anthropocentric paleo-anthropologists declare that the waterside theory of human evolution is only followed by non-scientists...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98

marc verhaegen wrote:

> Some outdated, self-declared, ego+afro+anthropocentric paleo-anthropologists
> declare that the waterside theory of human evolution is only followed by non-scientists...
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98

The "Biblical Archaeologists" also consider themselves scientists.

In no uncertain terms, paleo anthropology is not and never has been
a science. It doesn't meet the basic rules of science, like in data
collecting: Can you say "Selection Bias?"

It's circular. It BEGINS with an answer: "Humans arose in Africa then
went searching for a Burger King, carrying a savanna on their backs
to eat from."

Look at the idiocy we've encountered here. Like how our ancestors
didn't need DHA, even though we all know that they did, because
Elephants.

?!?!?!?!?

It's rationalizing. People have been trained to respond on command.

Africa: The right answer.

Anything else: The wrong answer. Don't worry about why it's wrong,
just make up anything.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

Op dinsdag 16 mei 2023 om 07:55:38 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:

> > Some outdated, self-declared, ego+afro+anthropocentric paleo-anthropologists
> > declare that the waterside theory of human evolution is only followed by non-scientists...
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98

> The "Biblical Archaeologists" also consider themselves scientists.
> In no uncertain terms, paleo anthropology is not and never has been
> a science. It doesn't meet the basic rules of science, like in data
> collecting: Can you say "Selection Bias?"
> It's circular. It BEGINS with an answer: "Humans arose in Africa then
> went searching for a Burger King, carrying a savanna on their backs
> to eat from."
> Look at the idiocy we've encountered here. Like how our ancestors
> didn't need DHA, even though we all know that they did, because
> Elephants.
> ?!?!?!?!?
> It's rationalizing. People have been trained to respond on command.
> Africa: The right answer.
> Anything else: The wrong answer. Don't worry about why it's wrong,
> just make up anything.

Yes, incredible, but:
When I first read about paleo-anthropology (in the 1960s & 70s) I accepted everything they said: it seemed very logical: our nearest relativs are Pan & Gorilla, both resemble each other, they live in C-Africa, are furred, have long canines, thin cheektooth enamel, knuckle-walking, hand-like feet etc..: we probably descended from something like that?! I had read Desmond Morris "Naked ape" (Dutch transl.) but had forgotten that he briefly mentioned the possibility of our (semi)aq.past. Then I read Elaine's "Descent of women" (transl.), found Hardy's idea very interesting, but was at that time preoccupied by this: if Darwin's "survival of the species" was correct, why was there war?? Sociobiology + evolution of DNA (not of the species!) gave me the answer (in 1974 IIRC), and I went to our waterside evolution.
Soon it became clear (my medical studies: sweating etc.) that the various elements of savanna idea were incredibly wrong. Since evolution is gradual, there had to be a phase that combined trees + water: I described this aquarboreal phase some 5 yrs before the sedge-wading Ndoki gorilla were described (in 1995?).
Hardy's idea of our aq.phase >10 Ma, and Elaine's >5 Ma, were apparently too long ago (Elaine thought our aquaticness *caused* the H/P split 5 Ma).
Reading the whole PA literature forced me to accept that E.Afr.apiths->Gorilla, and S.Afr.apiths->PanAnd that Pan had more humanlike ancestors (e.g. their fetus has more humanlike feet), and that apiths (incl. most or all "habilis" etc.?) were NO human ancestors. My idea that knuckle-walking evolved in Pan//Gorilla is now accepted by most PAs.
Gradually I came to the scenario that I'm promoting since 1 or 2 yrs (geology): India approaching S-Eurasia + forming islands/peninsulas with coastal forests explains the cercopith/ape split, the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma explains the pongid/hominid split, and the N- & later S-Rift fms explain the remarkably parallel evolutions of Pan//Gorilla, and that "OoAfrica" is an afrocentric prejudice .
I'm now beginning the think that early-Pliocene Pan along the E.Afr.coasts might have been more humanlike than we generally think: with a diet incl. some seafood: slight brain enlargement, stone tools, flat feet... (even some diving??)
(One of my remaining problems: why is Gorilla so much larger than Homo & Pan? herbivory??)

But yes, I too once accepted the ridiculous idea of savanna-dwelling ancestors... :-D

On Tue, 16 May 2023 16:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
marc verhaegen <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Op dinsdag 16 mei 2023 om 07:55:38 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
>
> > > Some outdated, self-declared, ego+afro+anthropocentric paleo-anthropologists
> > > declare that the waterside theory of human evolution is only followed by non-scientists...
> > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98
>
> > The "Biblical Archaeologists" also consider themselves scientists.
> > In no uncertain terms, paleo anthropology is not and never has been
> > a science. It doesn't meet the basic rules of science, like in data
> > collecting: Can you say "Selection Bias?"
> > It's circular. It BEGINS with an answer: "Humans arose in Africa then
> > went searching for a Burger King, carrying a savanna on their backs
> > to eat from."
> > Look at the idiocy we've encountered here. Like how our ancestors
> > didn't need DHA, even though we all know that they did, because
> > Elephants.
> > ?!?!?!?!?
> > It's rationalizing. People have been trained to respond on command.
> > Africa: The right answer.
> > Anything else: The wrong answer. Don't worry about why it's wrong,
> > just make up anything.
>
>
> Yes, incredible, but:
> When I first read about paleo-anthropology (in the 1960s & 70s) I accepted everything they said: it seemed very logical: our nearest relativs are Pan & Gorilla, both resemble each other, they live in C-Africa, are furred, have long canines, thin cheektooth enamel, knuckle-walking, hand-like feet etc.: we probably descended from something like that?! I had read Desmond Morris "Naked ape" (Dutch transl.) but had forgotten that he briefly mentioned the possibility of our (semi)aq.past. Then I read Elaine's "Descent of women" (transl.), found Hardy's idea very interesting, but was at that time preoccupied by this: if Darwin's "survival of the species" was correct, why was there war?? Sociobiology + evolution of DNA (not of the species!) gave me the answer (in 1974 IIRC), and I went to our waterside evolution.
> Soon it became clear (my medical studies: sweating etc.) that the various elements of savanna idea were incredibly wrong. Since evolution is gradual, there had to be a phase that combined trees + water: I described this aquarboreal phase some 5 yrs before the sedge-wading Ndoki gorilla were described (in 1995?).
> Hardy's idea of our aq.phase >10 Ma, and Elaine's >5 Ma, were apparently too long ago (Elaine thought our aquaticness *caused* the H/P split 5 Ma).
> Reading the whole PA literature forced me to accept that E.Afr.apiths->Gorilla, and S.Afr.apiths->PanAnd that Pan had more humanlike ancestors (e.g. their fetus has more humanlike feet), and that apiths (incl. most or all "habilis" etc.?) were NO human ancestors. My idea that knuckle-walking evolved in Pan//Gorilla is now accepted by most PAs.
> Gradually I came to the scenario that I'm promoting since 1 or 2 yrs (geology): India approaching S-Eurasia + forming islands/peninsulas with coastal forests explains the cercopith/ape split, the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma explains the pongid/hominid split, and the N- & later S-Rift fms explain the remarkably parallel evolutions of Pan//Gorilla, and that "OoAfrica" is an afrocentric prejudice .
> I'm now beginning the think that early-Pliocene Pan along the E.Afr.coasts might have been more humanlike than we generally think: with a diet incl. some seafood: slight brain enlargement, stone tools, flat feet... (even some diving??)
> (One of my remaining problems: why is Gorilla so much larger than Homo & Pan? herbivory??)
>
> But yes, I too once accepted the ridiculous idea of savanna-dwelling ancestors... :-D

Thanks for slowing down enough to explain your thinking (apart from 'PA'
- Paleo-Anthropologist?); but what's needed is /Evidence/.

Sweating is an effective way to cool a body that's running after prey that
can't, though. I don't see how it helps in an aquatic environment.

Oh, and hello to all. But please note that I'm not interested in any
religious 'explanations'.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> Sweating is an effective way to cool a body that's running after prey that
> can't, though. I don't see how it helps in an aquatic environment.

Lol! Running after prey? That's insane.

But sweating is a great way to rid the body of salt. Living waterside,
swallowing dozens & dozens of shellfish, their liquor maybe not as
salty as sea water but still pretty salty...

> Oh, and hello to all. But please note that I'm not interested in any
> religious 'explanations'.

You just gave us one.

You require the behavior -- running after antelope -- before they can
evolve the means to do so. Else there is no selective pressure to
evolve the means for the behavior.

Aquatic Ape does not have this problem. They're simply picking up
stuff & eating -- i.e. shellfish. This alone will ensure the absolute
largest brain their genetics will allow. And, if bigger/smarter brain
genes pop up, a useful mutations, they can take full advantage of
it... learning how to make new tools... to better exploit resources.

But they didn't have to. They could take a million years to figure
out stuff, or two million. It didn't matter. They could take advantage
of it on day-1 is the circumstances were right, or the new genetic
adaptation could be floating around as an outlier for a million years
before it made the difference between life or death.

Not true with your savanna idiocy.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717522942454579200

Op woensdag 17 mei 2023 om 22:02:14 UTC+2 schreef Kerr-Mudd, John:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 16:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
> marc verhaegen <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
....
> > When I first read about paleo-anthropology (in the 1960s & 70s) I accepted everything they said: it seemed very logical: our nearest relativs are Pan & Gorilla, both resemble each other, they live in C-Africa, are furred, have long canines, thin cheektooth enamel, knuckle-walking, hand-like feet etc.: we probably descended from something like that?! I had read Desmond Morris "Naked ape" (Dutch transl.) but had forgotten that he briefly mentioned the possibility of our (semi)aq.past. Then I read Elaine's "Descent of women" (transl.), found Hardy's idea very interesting, but was at that time preoccupied by this: if Darwin's "survival of the species" was correct, why was there war?? Sociobiology + evolution of DNA (not of the species!) gave me the answer (in 1974 IIRC), and I went to our waterside evolution.
> > Soon it became clear (my medical studies: sweating etc.) that the various elements of savanna idea were incredibly wrong. Since evolution is gradual, there had to be a phase that combined trees + water: I described this aquarboreal phase some 5 yrs before the sedge-wading Ndoki gorillas were described (in 1995?).
> > Hardy's idea of our aq.phase >10 Ma, and Elaine's >5 Ma, were apparently too long ago (Elaine thought our aquaticness *caused* the H/P split 5 Ma)..
> > Reading the whole PA literature forced me to accept that E.Afr.apiths->Gorilla, and S.Afr.apiths->Pan, and that Pan had more humanlike ancestors (e.g. their fetus has more humanlike feet), and that apiths (incl. most or all "habilis" etc.?) were NO human ancestors. My idea that knuckle-walking evolved in Pan//Gorilla is now accepted by most PAs.
> > Gradually I came to the scenario that I'm promoting since 1 or 2 yrs (geology): India approaching S-Eurasia + forming islands/peninsulas with coastal forests explains the cercopith/ape split, the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma explains the pongid/hominid split, and the N- & later S-Rift fms explain the remarkably parallel evolutions of Pan//Gorilla, and that "OoAfrica" is an afrocentric prejudice.
> > I'm now beginning the think that early-Pliocene Pan along the E.Afr.coasts might have been more humanlike than we generally think: with a diet incl. some seafood: slight brain enlargement, stone tools, flat feet... (even some diving??)
> > (One of my remaining problems: why is Gorilla so much larger than Homo & Pan? herbivory??)
> > But yes, I too once accepted the ridiculous idea of savanna-dwelling ancestors... :-D

> Thanks for slowing down enough to explain your thinking (apart from 'PA'
> - Paleo-Anthropologist?); but what's needed is /Evidence/.
> Sweating is an effective way to cool a body that's running after prey that
> can't, though. I don't see how it helps in an aquatic environment.

:-) Sweat=water+sodium: both are scarce on savannas, IOW,
sweating is the worst thing you can do running after antelopes... :-DDD

Most likely, sweating was originally for getting rid of superfluous sodium, in shellfish etc.,
but when we became more terrestrial (not frequently immersed=cooling any more, but still enough water+sodium in our diet), sweating also reduced our body Tp.
....
Google "aquarboreal", or read my new book - written in Dutch, but reviewed also in English:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Op woensdag 17 mei 2023 om 23:21:36 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> > Sweating is an effective way to cool a body that's running after prey that
> > can't, though. I don't see how it helps in an aquatic environment.

> Lol! Running after prey? That's insane.
> But sweating is a great way to rid the body of salt. Living waterside,
> swallowing dozens & dozens of shellfish, their liquor maybe not as
> salty as sea water but still pretty salty...

> > Oh, and hello to all. But please note that I'm not interested in any
> > religious 'explanations'.

> You just gave us one.
> You require the behavior -- running after antelope -- before they can
> evolve the means to do so. Else there is no selective pressure to
> evolve the means for the behavior.
> Aquatic Ape does not have this problem. They're simply picking up
> stuff & eating -- i.e. shellfish. This alone will ensure the absolute
> largest brain their genetics will allow. And, if bigger/smarter brain
> genes pop up, a useful mutations, they can take full advantage of
> it... learning how to make new tools... to better exploit resources.
> But they didn't have to. They could take a million years to figure
> out stuff, or two million. It didn't matter. They could take advantage
> of it on day-1 is the circumstances were right, or the new genetic
> adaptation could be floating around as an outlier for a million years
> before it made the difference between life or death.
> Not true with your savanna idiocy.

I fully agree, of course, but said the same in different words... :-D

Op dinsdag 23 mei 2023 om 13:25:54 UTC+2 schreef marc verhaegen:
> Op woensdag 17 mei 2023 om 23:21:36 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:

kudu runner:
> > > Sweating is an effective way to cool a body that's running after prey that
> > > can't, though. I don't see how it helps in an aquatic environment.

> > Lol! Running after prey? That's insane.
> > But sweating is a great way to rid the body of salt. Living waterside,
> > swallowing dozens & dozens of shellfish, their liquor maybe not as
> > salty as sea water but still pretty salty...

> > > Oh, and hello to all. But please note that I'm not interested in any
> > > religious 'explanations'.

Yes, Santa Savanna... :-D

> > You just gave us one.
> > You require the behavior -- running after antelope -- before they can
> > evolve the means to do so. Else there is no selective pressure to
> > evolve the means for the behavior.
> > Aquatic Ape does not have this problem. They're simply picking up
> > stuff & eating -- i.e. shellfish. This alone will ensure the absolute
> > largest brain their genetics will allow. And, if bigger/smarter brain
> > genes pop up, a useful mutations, they can take full advantage of
> > it... learning how to make new tools... to better exploit resources.
> > But they didn't have to. They could take a million years to figure
> > out stuff, or two million. It didn't matter. They could take advantage
> > of it on day-1 is the circumstances were right, or the new genetic
> > adaptation could be floating around as an outlier for a million years
> > before it made the difference between life or death.
> > Not true with your savanna idiocy.

> I fully agree, of course, but said the same in different words... :-D

Sweat=water+salt.
This suggests that we were still seaside until maximally 100 or 200 ka?

Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?

If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
posting (and even lurking) break.

In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
been absent from it for almost a month.

[Memo to self: check back to s.b.p. AT LEAST once a week from now on.]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 4:02:14 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 16:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
> marc verhaegen <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Op dinsdag 16 mei 2023 om 07:55:38 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
> >
> > > > Some outdated, self-declared, ego+afro+anthropocentric paleo-anthropologists
> > > > declare that the waterside theory of human evolution is only followed by non-scientists...
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98
> >
> > > The "Biblical Archaeologists" also consider themselves scientists.
> > > In no uncertain terms, paleo anthropology is not and never has been
> > > a science. It doesn't meet the basic rules of science, like in data
> > > collecting: Can you say "Selection Bias?"
> > > It's circular. It BEGINS with an answer: "Humans arose in Africa then
> > > went searching for a Burger King, carrying a savanna on their backs
> > > to eat from."
> > > Look at the idiocy we've encountered here. Like how our ancestors
> > > didn't need DHA, even though we all know that they did, because
> > > Elephants.
> > > ?!?!?!?!?

JTEM is ignoring the obvious -- the elephant in the room, you might say.
Where did elephants get such large [much larger than human] brains
if they did NOT (they obviously DO not) eat shellfish or other DHA-rich food
advertised by JTEM?

Why, then, is the "coast-hugging, shellfish-eating ape" hypothesis
supposed to be powerful evidence for the aquatic ape theory?
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, after all.

> > > It's rationalizing. People have been trained to respond on command.
> > > Africa: The right answer.
> > > Anything else: The wrong answer. Don't worry about why it's wrong,
> > > just make up anything.
> >
> >
> > Yes, incredible, but:
> > When I first read about paleo-anthropology (in the 1960s & 70s) I accepted everything they said: it seemed very logical: our nearest relativs are Pan & Gorilla, both resemble each other, they live in C-Africa, are furred, have long canines, thin cheektooth enamel, knuckle-walking, hand-like feet etc.: we probably descended from something like that?! I had read Desmond Morris "Naked ape" (Dutch transl.) but had forgotten that he briefly mentioned the possibility of our (semi)aq.past. Then I read Elaine's "Descent of women" (transl.), found Hardy's idea very interesting, but was at that time preoccupied by this: if Darwin's "survival of the species" was correct, why was there war?? Sociobiology + evolution of DNA (not of the species!) gave me the answer (in 1974 IIRC), and I went to our waterside evolution.
> > Soon it became clear (my medical studies: sweating etc.) that the various elements of savanna idea were incredibly wrong. Since evolution is gradual, there had to be a phase that combined trees + water: I described this aquarboreal phase some 5 yrs before the sedge-wading Ndoki gorilla were described (in 1995?).
> > Hardy's idea of our aq.phase >10 Ma, and Elaine's >5 Ma, were apparently too long ago (Elaine thought our aquaticness *caused* the H/P split 5 Ma)..
> > Reading the whole PA literature forced me to accept that E.Afr.apiths->Gorilla, and S.Afr.apiths->PanAnd that Pan had more humanlike ancestors (e.g. their fetus has more humanlike feet), and that apiths (incl. most or all "habilis" etc.?) were NO human ancestors. My idea that knuckle-walking evolved in Pan//Gorilla is now accepted by most PAs.
> > Gradually I came to the scenario that I'm promoting since 1 or 2 yrs (geology): India approaching S-Eurasia + forming islands/peninsulas with coastal forests explains the cercopith/ape split, the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma explains the pongid/hominid split, and the N- & later S-Rift fms explain the remarkably parallel evolutions of Pan//Gorilla, and that "OoAfrica" is an afrocentric prejudice .
> > I'm now beginning the think that early-Pliocene Pan along the E.Afr.coasts might have been more humanlike than we generally think: with a diet incl. some seafood: slight brain enlargement, stone tools, flat feet... (even some diving??)
> > (One of my remaining problems: why is Gorilla so much larger than Homo & Pan? herbivory??)
> >
> > But yes, I too once accepted the ridiculous idea of savanna-dwelling ancestors... :-D
> Thanks for slowing down enough to explain your thinking (apart from 'PA'
> - Paleo-Anthropologist?); but what's needed is /Evidence/.
>
> Sweating is an effective way to cool a body that's running after prey that
> can't, though. I don't see how it helps in an aquatic environment.
>
> Oh, and hello to all. But please note that I'm not interested in any
> religious 'explanations'.

Perish the thought. That's only on topic for talk.origins.
I must confess that all my Usenet efforts were there for the whole of this past month.
[My last post here before today was on May 12.]
I won't let that happen again [see above] to the same extent.
>
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Again, welcome, and I hope you haven't given up on us already.

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

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>
> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
> posting (and even lurking) break.
>
> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
> been absent from it for almost a month.

Thank you.

I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
the Ediacaran explosion.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 6/13/23 2:46 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>>
>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
>> posting (and even lurking) break.
>>
>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
>> been absent from it for almost a month.
>
> Thank you.
>
> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
> the Ediacaran explosion.
>
I wouldn't say this group is active, much, but if you ask questions
about what you're interested in you might get some answers. I could
certainly provide some information on the last two subjects.

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 5:46:40 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
> >
> > If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
> > is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
> > in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
> > posting (and even lurking) break.
> >
> > In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
> > been absent from it for almost a month.

> Thank you.

And thanks for replying so soon.

> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
> the Ediacaran explosion.

No need to be so modest. With the exception of Pandora, who posts
here only rarely [her "home" group is sci.anthropology.paleo], we are all amateurs here.
It's interest, not expertise, that draws us here. We have various degrees
of fossil-hunting experience. The most experienced is Inyo, who sends
us elaborate reports several times a year of his latest expedition,
and they are always a great treat.

This group isn't what it was back in the 1990's. Several professionals
posted to it back then, and one of the most active was Tom Holtz,
the dinosaur expert. You may have heard of him.

> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

At the opposite extreme, we have had participants whose knowledge
of paleontology was that of an average middle-schooler, but
as long as they were game for a learning experience, I was always
glad to encourage them.

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> JTEM is ignoring the obvious -- the elephant in the room, you might say.
> Where did elephants get such large [much larger than human] brains

We're not elephants. And in proportion to body mass, elephants have
vastly smaller brains than we do. Even so, you have never ever
established that elephant brains are at all analagous to human brains,
that they are as dependent upon DHA.

Elephants also intake ALA in abundance. If they're the slightest bit
better than humans at synthesizing DHA from it -- and you have yet
to so much as speculate on the topic, let alone provide any facts --
they could out grow our brains easily. But they don't. They instead
have a significantly smaller brain in proportion to us.

This "Elephant" thing is childish. It's literally a child's view of the
world. Humans need DHA. Period. Our dependence upon DHA
could not have evolved outside an environment, a diet that
provided it in abundance. Doesn't matter if elephants or cats or
rocks have different needs and different metabolisms. We need
what we need, and we started needing it BEFORE we evolved the
means to synthesize DHA as well as we do, which isn't that well
at all.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719879056031612929

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40 PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
> >
> > If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
> > is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
> > in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
> > posting (and even lurking) break.
> >
> > In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
> > been absent from it for almost a month.
> Thank you.
>
> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
> the Ediacaran explosion.
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).

The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it.. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
(~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
collection of references I could provide.

On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40 PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>>>
>>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
>>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
>>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
>>> posting (and even lurking) break.
>>>
>>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
>>> been absent from it for almost a month.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
>> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
>> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
>> the Ediacaran explosion.
>> --
>> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
>
> Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
> who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
> paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
> in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
>
> The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
> Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
> in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
> a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
> Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
> (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
> collection of references I could provide.
>
While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.

Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:15:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40 PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
> >> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
> >>>
> >>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
> >>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
> >>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
> >>> posting (and even lurking) break.
> >>>
> >>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
> >>> been absent from it for almost a month.
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
> >> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
> >> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
> >> the Ediacaran explosion.
> >> --
> >> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
> >
> > Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
> > who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
> > paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
> > in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
> >
> > The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
> > Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
> > in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
> > a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
> > Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
> > (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
> > collection of references I could provide.
> >
> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.
I can't find it either, and I haven't got it. A lot of good stuff has been found since 2000.
Budd is a good name to look for, as is Droser, Erwin (duh) and Shuhei Xiou.

On 6/14/23 9:45 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:15:03 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40 PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
>>>>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
>>>>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
>>>>> posting (and even lurking) break.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
>>>>> been absent from it for almost a month.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
>>>> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
>>>> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
>>>> the Ediacaran explosion.
>>>> --
>>>> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
>>>
>>> Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
>>> who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
>>> paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
>>> in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
>>>
>>> The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
>>> Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
>>> in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
>>> a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
>>> Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
>>> (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
>>> collection of references I could provide.
>>>
>> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
>> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
>> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.
> I can't find it either, and I haven't got it. A lot of good stuff has been found since 2000.
> Budd is a good name to look for, as is Droser, Erwin (duh) and Shuhei Xiou.

You could try requesting a copy on Researchgate.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:14:49 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40?PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>>>>
>>>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
>>>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
>>>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
>>>> posting (and even lurking) break.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
>>>> been absent from it for almost a month.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
>>> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
>>> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
>>> the Ediacaran explosion.
>>> --
>>> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
>>
>> Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
>> who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
>> paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
>> in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
>>
>> The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
>> Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
>> in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
>> a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
>> Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
>> (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
>> collection of references I could provide.
>>
>While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
>Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
>phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
>
>Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.

Did you try this?
https://www.academia.edu/1279529/A_critical_reappraisal_of_the_fossil_record_of_the_bilaterian_phyla

On 6/14/23 10:18 AM, Pandora wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:14:49 -0700, John Harshman
> <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40?PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
>>>>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
>>>>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
>>>>> posting (and even lurking) break.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
>>>>> been absent from it for almost a month.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
>>>> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
>>>> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
>>>> the Ediacaran explosion.
>>>> --
>>>> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
>>>
>>> Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
>>> who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
>>> paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
>>> in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
>>>
>>> The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
>>> Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
>>> in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
>>> a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
>>> Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
>>> (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
>>> collection of references I could provide.
>>>
>> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
>> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
>> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.
>
> Did you try this?
> https://www.academia.edu/1279529/A_critical_reappraisal_of_the_fossil_record_of_the_bilaterian_phyla

No. I tend to avoid those people because they frequently want money. But
that looks free.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:03:28 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/14/23 10:18 AM, Pandora wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:14:49 -0700, John Harshman
> > <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40?PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
> >>>>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
> >>>>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
> >>>>> posting (and even lurking) break.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
> >>>>> been absent from it for almost a month.
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
> >>>> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
> >>>> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
> >>>> the Ediacaran explosion.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
> >>>
> >>> Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
> >>> who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
> >>> paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
> >>> in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
> >>>
> >>> The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
> >>> Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
> >>> in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
> >>> a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
> >>> Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
> >>> (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
> >>> collection of references I could provide.
> >>>
> >> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
> >> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
> >> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.
> >
> > Did you try this?
> > https://www.academia.edu/1279529/A_critical_reappraisal_of_the_fossil_record_of_the_bilaterian_phyla
> No. I tend to avoid those people because they frequently want money. But
> that looks free.

Got it. Thank you both.

On 6/14/23 1:19 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:03:28 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/14/23 10:18 AM, Pandora wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:14:49 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/14/23 8:21 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 2:46:40?PM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the first time you are posting to sci.bio.paleontology John?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, a hearty welcome to you! We need more participants. This group
>>>>>>> is now in the "Endangered" zone, almost as bad as the "Critically Endangered zone"
>>>>>>> in which I found it in December 2010 after having gone on a decade-long
>>>>>>> posting (and even lurking) break.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any event, I hope this post won't be your last here, and I apologize for having
>>>>>>> been absent from it for almost a month.
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a long-time usenet user, but a bit of a fraud here; I have no
>>>>>> paelontology background, I was just looking for any active group that might
>>>>>> have any recent information about early humans, dinosaur-bird split and
>>>>>> the Ediacaran explosion.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bah, and indeed Humbug.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi John K-M. You MAY have come to the right place. John Harshman is a ornithologic systematist
>>>>> who is very familiar with the dinosaur-bird connections. Peter has a long amateur interest in vertebrate
>>>>> paleontology, with reservations about many current views. I'm also an amateur, with particular interest
>>>>> in very early metazoan evolution (neo-Proterzoic on).
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ediacaran-Cambrian "explosion" is a big subject. There's an excellent, non-trivial book "The Cambrian
>>>>> Explosion" by Erwin and Valentine, unfortunately out of print (and now slightly out of date). You can find in
>>>>> in libraries, or maybe used book places. IF you find it at ~< $100, buy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is generally
>>>>> a good place to start with these subjects in the most popular branching order: Ctenophora, Spongia, Placozoa,
>>>>> Cnidaria, Bilateria, Prototomia (bugs), Deuterosomia (us). All of the above have their origins in the Ediacaran from earliest
>>>>> (~620 Mya) to latest (542 Mya). If any references you may want to see are behind paywalls, I have an extensive
>>>>> collection of references I could provide.
>>>>>
>>>> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
>>>> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
>>>> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I can't at the moment locate a free web copy.
>>>
>>> Did you try this?
>>> https://www.academia.edu/1279529/A_critical_reappraisal_of_the_fossil_record_of_the_bilaterian_phyla
>> No. I tend to avoid those people because they frequently want money. But
>> that looks free.
>
> Got it. Thank you both.

Anyway, so much for the "fully formed" trope.

John Harshman wrote:

> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.

You can't follow threads, not even your own "Contribution." You often
ask questions already answered. You post cites you never read or
if you did you failed to comprehend. And yet here you are, "name
dropping," so to speak, thinking you're fooling anyone but one of your
own alters.

You are a fraud.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723841933821296640

On 7/25/23 12:44 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> While we're on the subject of references, my very favorite: Budd G.E.,
>> Jensen S. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
>> phyla. Biological Reviews 2000; 75:253-295.
>
> You can't follow threads, not even your own "Contribution." You often
> ask questions already answered. You post cites you never read or
> if you did you failed to comprehend. And yet here you are, "name
> dropping," so to speak, thinking you're fooling anyone but one of your
> own alters.
>
> You are a fraud.

I have no idea what the context was, since you removed all of it, but if
you have any interest in the Cambrian explosion, you should read Budd &
Jensen 2000.

John Harshman wrote:

> I have no idea

No. No you don't.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723841933821296640

On 7/25/23 7:50 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> I have no idea
>
> No.

!