The usual just-so, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies ("gorilla+chimp=forest=QP <--> human=savanna=bipedal") are contradicted by e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no seashells in any savanna,
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's huge brain (DHA etc.), cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel,
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- etc.etc.:
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.

Once some threads have obviously "died out," a status that only becomes apparent after two weeks of inactivity,
I don't mind new ones as long as they don't outnumber the "dead" ones.

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:16:38 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> The usual just-so, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies ("gorilla+chimp=forest=QP <--> human=savanna=bipedal") are contradicted by e.g.
> - shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no seashells in any savanna,

Can't you provide us with a url? I am a very busy man, and all these googlings take time.

> - stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
> - Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),

Easily explained by lowered sea level during ice ages.
Recent example: Tasmanian aborigines losing the know-how to
navigate the Bass Strait, and those on the Australian mainland
also losing it.

> - Homo's huge brain (DHA etc.), cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel,

Those inequalities also relate to body size. You need ratios, not cc's. Please provide them;
you should have published that data long ago, either in a book or on line.

> - Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,

In that order? How about some dates?

And before that? Somewhere further back, there was Africa: Proconsul, etc.

> - pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
> - etc.etc.:

Wikipedia does not support "exclusively" and even if it did, it is not a reliable source for such a strong word.
You need peer reviewed professional literature.

By the way, why "archaic" Homo? Don't WE have pachy-osteo-sclerosis?
If we do have it, why doesn't the wikipedia entry mention us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis
> human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,

Or gathered shellfish, crabs, etc. from exposed rocks during low tide. Crabs can also climb
rocks at high tide. When I was twelve (12) years old, three of us caught half a dozen crabs from
crevices in a high rock.

> google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

Referencing yourself is bad form unless you also reference independent researchers.

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

On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
>
> Once

This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.

On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
>> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
>>
>> Once
>
>
> This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
>
>
It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
on-topic for the group.

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:15:18 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> > On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
> >> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
> >>
> >> Once
> >
> >
> > This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
> >
> >
> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
> on-topic for the group.

"Group management" is impossible to enforce in an unmoderated group. A glance at verhaegen's
long involvment in s.a.p. indicates he has not changed his behavior for a long time. His presence
here is close to trolling. A possible couse of inaction might be to ignore him. At least that would result
in fewer bloated threads of no content. Bloated threads with his junk proliferate in TO.

erik simpson wrote:

> "Group management" is impossible to enforce in an unmoderated group. A glance at verhaegen's
> long involvment in s.a.p. indicates he has not changed his behavior for a long time. His presence
> here is close to trolling. A possible couse of inaction might be to ignore him. At least that would result
> in fewer bloated threads of no content. Bloated threads with his junk proliferate in TO.

Just out of curiosity, have you suffered a recent head injury?

Seriously? "Off Topic?" You're just making crap up.

He's fascinated by the human body, the apparent signs of the
Aquatic Ape/Littoral/Waterside lifestyle. I'm kind of like "We're
past all that. We've proven our case. Let's move on to the
ramifications."

He's still to prove what he has long since proven. He mistakes
your inability to emotionally deal with "Unsanctioned" facts as
a lack of knowledge, and he want's to provide you with knowledge.

That's his only mistake: There are none so blind as those who will
not see, and you won't see.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713529832816902144

On 4/4/23 00:31, erik simpson wrote:
> is close to trolling.

No it is trolling. the other group is all trolled out so he is fishing
here.

NOBODY should reply to anything he posts other than to tell him to bug out.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving
Josephine CA Joordens ... Stephen Munro ... 2015 doi 10.1038/nature13962

The manufacture of geometric engravings is generally interpreted as indicative of modern cognition & behaviour.
.... is this innovation restricted to H.sapiens? does it have a uniquely African origin? (2nd question: why?? Pliocene Homo lived along S.Asian coasts! --mv)
Here we report on a fossil freshwater shell assemblage from the HKS (Hauptknochenschicht "main bone" Trinil, Java, H.erectus type locality, discovered by Eugène Dubois 1891).
In the Dubois collection (Naturalis museum, Leiden NL) we found evidence for
- freshwater shellfish consumption by hominins,
- 1 unambiguous shell tool,
- a shell with a geometric engraving.
We dated sediment contained in the shells (40/39Ar & luminescence methods): max.age 0.54 Ma ± 0., min.age 0.43 Ma ± 0.05:
the Trinil HKS is younger than previously estimated.
Our data indicate: the engraving was made by H.erectus, it is considerably older than the oldest geometric engravings described so far.
It is at present not possible to assess the function or meaning of the engraved shell, but this discovery suggests:
engraving abstract patterns was in the realm of Asian H.erectus cognition & neuromotor control.

___

Op ma 3 apr 2023 om 22:59 schreef Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com>:
Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next 2 weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
to keep track of what was said in which thread.
Once some threads have obviously "died out," a status that only becomes apparent after 2 weeks of inactivity,
I don't mind new ones as long as they don't outnumber the "dead" ones.

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:16:38 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> The usual just-so, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies ("gorilla+chimp=forest=QP <--> human=savanna=bipedal") are contradicted by e.g.
> - shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no seashells in any savanna,

Can't you provide us with a url? I am a very busy man, and all these googlings take time.

> - stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
> - Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),

Easily explained by lowered sea level during ice ages.

mv: No, no: 18 km at lowest sea-level. ...

> - Homo's huge brain (DHA etc.), cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel,

Those inequalities also relate to body size. You need ratios, not cc's. Please provide them;
you should have published that data long ago, either in a book or on line.

mv: No, no: rel.CCs.

> - Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,

In that order? How about some dates?

mv: Pliocene Homo = S.Asia. Africa was latest AFAICS (Pleist.).

And before that? Somewhere further back, there was Africa: Proconsul, etc.

mv: Proconsul=hominid, not Homo.

> - pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
> - etc.etc.:

Wikipedia does not support "exclusively" and even if it did, it is not a reliable source for such a strong word.
You need peer reviewed professional literature.

mv: Refs in my publications (Wiki is often wrong & retareded).

By the way, why "archaic" Homo? Don't WE have pachy-osteo-sclerosis?
If we do have it, why doesn't the wikipedia entry mention us?

mv: Hs doesn't have it: we're no divers (any more)!
- brain size CC Hn>Hs>>He>>apes-apiths,
- POS He>>Hn>>Hs-apes-apiths.

> human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,

Or gathered shellfish, crabs, etc. from exposed rocks during low tide. Crabs can also climb
rocks at high tide. When I was twelve (12) years old, three of us caught half a dozen crabs from
crevices in a high rock.

mv: No, no: archaic Homo (He>Hn) = shallow-diving:
POS, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy etc.

> google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
> or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

Referencing yourself is bad form unless you also reference independent researchers.

mv: Yes, see refs therein.

Popping Mad wrote:

> No it is trolling. the other group

I get it. You're mentally ill. You need to kill any conversation that you
can't control. It's a common enough symptom, at least amongst your
type...

APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!

Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
the way that only humans do so today.

Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> > On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
> >> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
> >>
> >> Once
> >
> >
> > This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
> >
> >
> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
> on-topic for the group.

Come off it, John.

The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.

Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.

And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.

Would you like to know about some of them?

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

On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
>>> On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
>>>> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
>>>>
>>>> Once
>>>
>>>
>>> This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
>>>
>>>
>> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
>> on-topic for the group.
>
> Come off it, John.
>
> The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
> Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.

You are confused. What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
on posting, not the savannah hypothesis. Are you so blind as to fail to
notice that I was defending your post?

> Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
> But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
> possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
>
> And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
> about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
> ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
>
> Would you like to know about some of them?

Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.

On 4/5/23 11:20, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
>>> On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
>>>> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
>>>>
>>>> Once
>>>
>>>
>>> This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
>>>

Read it over there.

>>>
>> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
>> on-topic for the group.
>
> Come off it, John.
>
> The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
> Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
>
> Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
> But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
> possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
>
> And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
> about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
> ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
>
> Would you like to know about some of them?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:22:37 AM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:
> On 4/4/23 00:31, erik simpson wrote:
> > is close to trolling.
>
>
> No it is trolling.

Erik is right. They are moderately stubborn cranks, especially JTEM, but they only troll part-time.
Take a look at the post I did in reply to Marc, which you saw fit to keep
only off-topic text from. It was loaded with on-topic criticism of Marc's
"evidence" [hypotheses backing other hypotheses, mostly], but Marc
took it like a man and didn't get all repetitive on me, let alone acting like a troll.

> the other group is all trolled out so he is fishing
> here.

Have you been lurking on sci.anthropology.paleo for years?
That is what you would need to have done in order to write
that last sentence with any authority.

You haven't even been lurking here since the first half of 2018, have you?

Don't confuse lurking with actively posting. You are a "comet" who posts here
copiously for a short time and then disappears for a long time.
And I haven't seen any sign that you saw anything in s.b.p. while you were gone.

>
>
> NOBODY should reply to anything he posts other than to tell him to bug out.

Bug out of what? As I told you on another thread that you began:

"This is the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera. Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology."
--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/Hwl9e8ZwBAAJ
Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)

In reply to that post, you snipped everything before and after the line I quoted just now,
but you had been very unreasonable and I wanted you to see that:

_____________________________ excerpts, with [...] in place of line quoted above _____________________________

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:

> Hey Troll

Why the singular? why don't you tell us whom you are addressing?

> Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you
> understand?

[...]
Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.

> Fucking Asshole

For someone who hates conflict, you sure are abusive here.

Marc, and probably JTEM, are looking here for new perspectives on their theory, and especially
new people to talk to about their theory. And they found me willing to do both.

####################### end of excerpts #########################

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

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> >>> On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
> >>>> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
> >> on-topic for the group.
> >
> > Come off it, John.
> >
> > The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
> > Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.

> You are confused.

Not really. Ruben's "This" almost certainly refers to "this subject."

> What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
> on posting, not the savannah hypothesis.

Oh, come on now! Popping Mad has been trying to manage this group
to make Marc and JTEM into outcasts. Take a look at how I responded
to a post where he was blatantly trying to do just that:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/Hwl9e8ZwBAAJ
Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)
[First half of my reply:]
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:

> Hey Troll

Why the singular? why don't you tell us whom you are addressing?
> Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you
> understand?

This is the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.

Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.

> Fucking Asshole

For someone who hates conflict, you sure are abusive here.
======================= end of excerpt==========================
Face it, John: you didn't know the context of Ruben's "OFF TOPIC". If you
still think Ruben ("Popping Mad") used those caps over my ordinary request to Marc,
you are implicitly accusing him of atrocious double standards.

BTW in the bottom half of the post from which I've quoted the top half,
I gave Ruben credit for NOT playing "do as I say, not as I do."

> Are you so blind as to fail to
> notice that I was defending your post?

"blind" is fraught with irony. AT BEST, you were defending the tiny smidgen
that "Popping Mad" left in. At worst, you were playing "good cop" to his "bad cop"
with your superfluous prelude,
"It may not be on-topic for paleontology,"

> > Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
> > But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
> > possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
> >
> > And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
> > about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
> > ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
> >
> > Would you like to know about some of them?

> Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.

It has everything to do with Ruben wanting Marc to be ostracized.

Peter Nyikos

On 4/5/23 1:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
>>>>>> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
>>>> on-topic for the group.
>>>
>>> Come off it, John.
>>>
>>> The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
>>> Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
>
>
>> You are confused.
>
> Not really. Ruben's "This" almost certainly refers to "this subject."

Subsequent posts make that clear. My mistake. In my defense, that's not
a sensible claim. Human paleontology is still paleontology, last I checked.

>> What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
>> on posting, not the savannah hypothesis.
>
> Oh, come on now! Popping Mad has been trying to manage this group
> to make Marc and JTEM into outcasts. Take a look at how I responded
> to a post where he was blatantly trying to do just that:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/Hwl9e8ZwBAAJ
> Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)
> [First half of my reply:]
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
>> Hey Troll
>
> Why the singular? why don't you tell us whom you are addressing?
>
>> Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you
>> understand?
>
> This is the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
> Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
>
> Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
> But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
> possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
>
>
>> Fucking Asshole
>
> For someone who hates conflict, you sure are abusive here.
> ======================= end of excerpt===========================
>
> Face it, John: you didn't know the context of Ruben's "OFF TOPIC". If you
> still think Ruben ("Popping Mad") used those caps over my ordinary request to Marc,
> you are implicitly accusing him of atrocious double standards.
>
> BTW in the bottom half of the post from which I've quoted the top half,
> I gave Ruben credit for NOT playing "do as I say, not as I do."
>
>
>> Are you so blind as to fail to
>> notice that I was defending your post?
>
> "blind" is fraught with irony. AT BEST, you were defending the tiny smidgen
> that "Popping Mad" left in. At worst, you were playing "good cop" to his "bad cop"
> with your superfluous prelude,
> "It may not be on-topic for paleontology,"

Again, I was referring to your administrative suggestions.

>>> Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
>>> But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
>>> possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
>>>
>>> And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
>>> about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
>>> ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
>>>
>>> Would you like to know about some of them?
>
>> Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.
>
> It has everything to do with Ruben wanting Marc to be ostracized.

Clearly, he isn't a troll. But it also seems difficult to have any sort
of discussion with him, given that his main technique is a Gish gallop,
even in response to direct questions.

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 9:13:10 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/5/23 1:54 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:40:32 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 4/5/23 8:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 12:15:18 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 4/3/23 7:58 PM, Popping Mad wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/3/23 16:59, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>> Marc, please refrain from starting more threads on this subject for the next two weeks, at least. It is very hard for me
> >>>>>> to keep track of what was said in which thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Once
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is OFF TOPIC for the group altogether and sholdn't be posted here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> It may not be on-topic for paleontology, but surely group management is
> >>>> on-topic for the group.
> >>>
> >>> Come off it, John.
> >>>
> >>> The savannah hypothesis is part of the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
> >>> Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
> >
> >
> >> You are confused.
> >
> > Not really. Ruben's "This" almost certainly refers to "this subject."

> Subsequent posts make that clear. My mistake. In my defense, that's not
> a sensible claim. Human paleontology is still paleontology, last I checked.

Of course it is. As I told Ruben on that other thread yesterday,

"Paleontology that studies Hominoidea is a tiny corner of paleontology,
but paleontology is incomplete without including our superfamily."
--https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/y53i-9J5BAAJ
Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)

I wrote "Hominoidea" because a fair portion of Marc's argument has to do
with how bipedalism developed in hylobatids (gibbons and the siamang).

Thanks for acknowledging your mistake graciously, and for your closing comment below.

> >> What Popping Mad was calling off-topic was your advice
> >> on posting, not the savannah hypothesis.
> >
> > Oh, come on now! Popping Mad has been trying to manage this group
> > to make Marc and JTEM into outcasts. Take a look at how I responded
> > to a post where he was blatantly trying to do just that:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/e595r-ESGvY/m/Hwl9e8ZwBAAJ
> > Re: Pliocene human ancestors lived in S-Asia (retroviral data)
> > [First half of my reply:]
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-4, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Troll
> >
> > Why the singular? why don't you tell us whom you are addressing?
> >
> >> Which part of , Your posting in the wrong usenet group, don't you
> >> understand?
> >
> > This is the paleontology of our ancestral species/genera.
> > Perfectly on topic for sci.bio.paleontology.
> >
> > Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
> > But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
> > possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
> >
> >
> >> Fucking Asshole
> >
> > For someone who hates conflict, you sure are abusive here.
> > ======================= end of excerpt===========================
> >
> > Face it, John: you didn't know the context of Ruben's "OFF TOPIC". If you
> > still think Ruben ("Popping Mad") used those caps over my ordinary request to Marc,
> > you are implicitly accusing him of atrocious double standards.
> >
> > BTW in the bottom half of the post from which I've quoted the top half,
> > I gave Ruben credit for NOT playing "do as I say, not as I do."
> >
> >
> >> Are you so blind as to fail to
> >> notice that I was defending your post?
> >
> > "blind" is fraught with irony. AT BEST, you were defending the tiny smidgen
> > that "Popping Mad" left in. At worst, you were playing "good cop" to his "bad cop"
> > with your superfluous prelude,
> > "It may not be on-topic for paleontology,"

> Again, I was referring to your administrative suggestions.

I can see that now. But your intent would have been clearer earlier
without that superfluous prelude. The huge majority of what we write in s.b..p.
isn't on-topic for paleontology, but that's just a reflection on how
we humans converse online. That said, I don't think we need to discuss this further.

> >>> Granted, it is more in line with the specialty of sci.anthropology.paleo.
> >>> But both Marc and JTEM have posted there about this very subject for YEARS,
> >>> possibly decades. And they are continuing to post about it there.
> >>>
> >>> And what's so bad about describing the hypothesis here TOO? I've found out a lot
> >>> about a number of things through arguing with them, that I would still be
> >>> ignorant about if Marc hadn't started posting here.
> >>>
> >>> Would you like to know about some of them?
> >
> >> Possibly. But that has nothing to do with the post you're responding to.
> >
> > It has everything to do with Ruben wanting Marc to be ostracized.

> Clearly, he isn't a troll. But it also seems difficult to have any sort
> of discussion with him, given that his main technique is a Gish gallop,
> even in response to direct questions.

Agreed. I'm trying to get him to be more directly responsive, but it's slow going.
One of his worst habits is to tell people to "google [some article of his]", when
he could just have given us a url. Even that is vastly inferior to quoting
a relevant part of the article to the special feature under discussion.
I've started telling this to him, but wading through a thicket of excuses could take a while.

Thanks, by the way, for introducing me to the term, "Gish gallop."

Peter Nyikos

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:15:51 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!

Which ones? Not orangutans, surely: Sivapithecus resembled orangutans
more than it did humans, for example.

And which apes did humans evolve from, according to you?
according to Marc?

> Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
> are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
> ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
> the way that only humans do so today.

"likely"? Did it also "likely" make tools from stones?

>
> Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.

You and Marc never seem to use articles by anyone but Marc to back up your hypotheses,
yet in Wikipedia I see a reference that agrees with this hypothesis:

"Another hypothesis proposes that African apes came from a bipedal ancestor, as no differences in hemoglobin are seen between Pan and Homo, suggesting that their divergence occurred relatively recently. Examining protein sequence changes suggests that Gorilla diverged before the clade Homo-Pan, meaning that ancestral bipedalism would require parallel evolution of knuckle-walking in separate chimpanzee and gorilla radiations.[22]"
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckle-walking

[22] Edelstein, S.J. (1987). "An Alternative Paradigm for Hominoid Evolution". Hum. Evol. 2 (2): 169–74. doi:10.1007/bf02436404. S2CID 55123100.

Have you or Marc looked at this one before? If you want to be taken seriously,
start citing other authors, and don't try to make Marc look like a genius who thought of everything by himself.
In an article that Marc tells others to google, his fan, Kathelijne Bonne, gives a whole list of others:

Note: Although in this article the Waterside Hypotheses is explained by Marc, there are many other important and prominent authors, researchers and advocates, such as Algis Kuliukas, Mario Vaneechoutte, Stephen Munro, Franceska Mansfield, John Foss, José Joordens, Peter H. Rhys Evans, ... , and many others.
__ https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

How come I never see papers by these people cited by you or Marc?
Most of the NAMES are unfamiliar to me. And note, Edelstein (see [22] above) is not listed.

A problem with listing them the way Ms Bonne does is that there is no clue given
as to WHICH of Marc's and your numerous hypotheses and claims which author endorses.

Y'all's claims range far and wide, and perhaps some of them are only endorsed
by one or two of the listed people, while others on the list wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.

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

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!
> Which ones? Not orangutans, surely: Sivapithecus resembled orangutans
> more than it did humans, for example.

I was pretty explicit.

You quote me:

> > Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
> > are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
> > ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
> > the way that only humans do so today.

> "likely"? Did it also "likely" make tools from stones?

I'm not interested in playing.

Gorillas aren't as old as savanna idiots need them to be.

The young end of the spectrum for gorilla divergence is no older than
is evidence for bipedalism. Accept it and move on.

Now YOUR position is baseless. My position, on the other hand, is looking
how things worked out elsewhere and assuming the nature, evolution didn't
invent new rules at some point.

We can't use a knuckle walking chimp as a model for humans. But we
can use them as a model for a fellow knuckle walker.

> > Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.

> You and Marc never seem to use articles by anyone but Marc to back up your hypotheses

That's a lie. And stupid.

We all already know and agree that the status quo enforces the savanna idiocy.

Name a fact that you could not verify using Google.

Name WHAT you are disputing, specifically. And focus on FACT, the data.

> "Another hypothesis proposes that

Who gives a shit? Certainly not anyone with any scientific curiosity.

We want the data. The facts. Not anyone pet theory.

Do you see the difference? Do you understand WHAT is appropriate to
challenge and what is not?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

Op vrijdag 7 april 2023 om 23:14:23 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:15:51 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:

> > APES EVOLVED FROM HUMANS!

> Which ones? Not orangutans, surely: Sivapithecus resembled orangutans
> more than it did humans, for example.
> And which apes did humans evolve from, according to you?
> according to Marc?

Hylobatids are still largely BP/vertical, IOW, hominoid bipedality probably predates the lesser/gr.ape LCA:
google "aquarboreal".
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> > Well. It's just a way of thinking about things, how apes and humans
> > are actually related. The ancestor to the apes was bipedal. The
> > ancestor to Chimps was an upright walker who likely used tools in
> > the way that only humans do so today.

> "likely"? Did it also "likely" make tools from stones?

> > Chimps -- APES -- evolved knuckle walking FROM bipedal locomotion.

> You and Marc never seem to use articles by anyone but Marc to back up your hypotheses,
> yet in Wikipedia I see a reference that agrees with this hypothesis:
> "Another hypothesis proposes that African apes came from a bipedal ancestor, as no differences in hemoglobin are seen between Pan and Homo, suggesting that their divergence occurred relatively recently. Examining protein sequence changes suggests that Gorilla diverged before the clade Homo-Pan, meaning that ancestral bipedalism would require parallel evolution of knuckle-walking in separate chimpanzee and gorilla radiations.[22]"
> --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckle-walking
> [22] Edelstein, S.J. (1987). "An Alternative Paradigm for Hominoid Evolution". Hum. Evol. 2 (2): 169–74. doi:10.1007/bf02436404. S2CID 55123100.

If you had read my papers, Peter, you had known that different authors (some already many many years ago) had proposed that early apes were (more) BP.
What I proposed (already +-1990 IIRC) was that early hominoids were *aquarboreal*!
This was +-5 yrs later confirmed when the wading gorillas of Ndoki were discovered (wading for sedges), later also wading bonobos (for waterlilies) & even wading orangs (for crossing water??).

> Have you or Marc looked at this one before? If you want to be taken seriously,
> start citing other authors, and don't try to make Marc look like a genius who thought of everything by himself.
> In an article that Marc tells others to google, his fan, Kathelijne Bonne, gives a whole list of others:
> Note: Although in this article the Waterside Hypotheses is explained by Marc, there are many other important and prominent authors, researchers and advocates, such as Algis Kuliukas, Mario Vaneechoutte, Stephen Munro, Franceska Mansfield, John Foss, José Joordens, Peter H. Rhys Evans, ... , and many others.
> __ https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> How come I never see papers by these people cited by you or Marc?
> Most of the NAMES are unfamiliar to me. And note, Edelstein (see [22] above) is not listed.
> A problem with listing them the way Ms Bonne does is that there is no clue given
> as to WHICH of Marc's and your numerous hypotheses and claims which author endorses.
> Y'all's claims range far and wide, and perhaps some of them are only endorsed
> by one or two of the listed people, while others on the list wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
> Peter Nyikos

You problem, Peter, is that you apparently never read my/our publications
(without our speech papers):
1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32 "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario"
1986 E.Morgan & MV New Scient 1498:62-63 "In the beginning was the water"
1986 Marswin 7:64-69 "Een korte inleiding tot de waterapentheorie"
1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
1987 Hum Evol 2:381 "Speech origins"
1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9 "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
1987 Marswin 8:142-151 "Vertonen de fossiele hominiden tekens van wateraanpassing?"
1988 Specul Sci Technol 11:165-171 "Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis"
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African ape ancestry"
1991 Med Hypoth 35:108-114 "Aquatic ape theory and fossil hominids"
1991 M Roede cs eds 1991 "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" Souvenir London :75-112 "Aquatic features in fossil hominids?"
1991 ib.:182-192 "Human regulation of body temperature and water balance"
1992 Hum Evol 7:63-64 "Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of Gramineae?"
1992 Language Origins Society Forum 15:17-18 "KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts"
1993 Nutr Health 9:165-191 "Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence"
1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1995 Med Hypoth 44:409-413 "Aquatic ape theory, speech origins, and brain differences with apes and monkeys"
1995 ReVision 18:34-38 "Aquatic ape theory, the brain cortex, and language origins"
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
1997 R Bender, MV, N Oser Anthropol Anz 55:1-14 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht der Aquatic Ape Theory"
1997 New Scient 2091:53 "Sweaty humans"
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens
1998 in MA Raath ... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg :128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?"
1998 + P-F Puech ib.:47 "Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet"
1999 + S Munro Mother Tongue 5:161-168 "Bipeds, Tools and Speech"
1999 + N McPhail, S Munro Eur.Sociobiol.Society Newsletter 50:4-12 "Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla forebears"
1999 + S Munro Water & Human Evolution Symposium Univ Gent :11-23 "Australopiths wading? Homo diving?"
2000 + P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2000 + Munro in J-L Dessalles cs eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat Sup Télécomm.Paris:236-240 "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory"
2002 + S Munro Nutr Health 16:25-27 "The continental shelf hypothesis"
2002 + P-F Puech, S Munro Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7 (google aquarboreal) "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
2004 + S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2007 + S Munro in SI Muñoz ed 2007 "Ecology Research Progress" Nova NY:1-4 "New directions in palaeoanthropology"
2007 + S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser ib.:155-186 (google econiche Homo) "The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?"
2009 + S Munro in NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Confer.Kamilari Crete:37-38 "Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?"
2009 S Munro, MV ib.:28-29 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods"
2010 New Scient 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10 "Oi, big nose!"
2011 + S Munro HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
2011 + Munro, Puech, Vaneechoutte in M Vaneechoutte, Kuliukas, MV eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" :67-81 "Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?"
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV ib.:181-9 "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech" (google)
2011 S Munro, MV ib.:82-105 "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?"
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV J compar hum Biol 63:496-503 "Book review: Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" Bentham Sci Publ
2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
2016 E Schagatay cs "A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why..."
2022 Acad.Uitg. Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken