-Pliocene Homo wading+climbing
-early-Pleist. wading+diving
-late-Pleistocene wading+walking

Google resp.
-aquarboreal
-pachyosteosclerosis
-gondwanatalks verhaegen :-)

marc verhaegen wrote:
> -Pliocene Homo wading+climbing
> -early-Pleist. wading+diving
> -late-Pleistocene wading+walking
>
> Google resp.
> -aquarboreal
> -pachyosteosclerosis
> -gondwanatalks verhaegen :-)

This is where we part company.

I don't see a tree climbing Homo. I see groups breaking off from
the Aquatic Ape population, pushing inland with at least some of
them reverting.

Once a group pushed inland, it adapted to the inland conditions.

For starters, hunter-gathering on dry land is less productive, can't
support as great a population density. So they had to spread out,
ending up in new niches.. diversifying.

And THAT, my good Doctor, is why we see what looks like your
"Aquaboreal" ancestors. We're not looking at our ancestors, per se,
we're looking at our cousins. We're looking at what the selection
bias pretending to be a science is cherry picking from the ground.

Oh, people can call it a "Preservation Bias" but that's not true. I mean,
it is true that they're digging the best places to form fossils, not
the best places to test varies ideas, but WHERE they look for good
environments for preservation follows their conclusions.

Conclusion FIRST, then they go looking...

The result is that they find what you describe as "Aquaboreal."

I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOUR UNDERLYING FACTS ARE WRONG!

The fossils do appear exactly the way you describe them. Where
I am disagreeing with you is WHY they look that way: The explanation.

Because we all agree with Aquatic Ape -- at least those of us who
don't regularly eat ear wax -- but we all have our own ways of
interpreting the facts.

...my way just happens to be right. That's all.

-- --

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