savanna fool:
> It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything

I read these posts only until the first nonsense...
:-)

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 16:06:32 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> savanna fool:
> > It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything
> I read these posts only until the first nonsense...
> :-)

You still can not identify anyone who supports savanna, so you are liar.
And you post nothing but those idiotic lies so why you do it at all? :D

> > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",

savanna fool:
> You have no fossils.

We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.

> The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,

3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
??

> neither looks like aquatic.

Sigh.
Even so, so what??
1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:
more in detail (my 2022 book):
• Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?

2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??

Sigh.
Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 16:20:46 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
> savanna fool:
> > You have no fossils.
>
> We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
> but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.
>
We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.

> > The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
> 3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
> ??
>
> > neither looks like aquatic.
>
> Sigh.
> Even so, so what??
> 1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:

Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.

> more in detail (my 2022 book):
> • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
> • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?
>
I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:

| • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously coarse eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teeth smaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real two-legged man, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, when a palm-rich freshwater area with fish, water turtles, monitor lizards, pythons, crocodiles, peacocks, swans, herons and snake-necked birds, various otters, porcupines and porcupines, slim monkeys, antelopes and giraffes, three-toed horses, and pachyderms of all kinds, the anthracothere 'hippopotamus' Lybicosaurus emerged from the shallow seas of the Lybian Sirt Basin (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).

What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
aquatic.

• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas and swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers and water pygmy deer, three-toed horses and chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars and elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal and other rodents, lagomorphs and rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish and freshwater mussels. Orrorin appeared more human- and chimp-like than Sahelanthropus, says Professor Pickford, and had climbing and bipedal features: a vertical vertebral column? The large femoral head appeared more human-like than in australopithekes and apes. The long thighbone helped move the leg sideways but hindered running. Femoral neck and thigh bone were flattened anterior-backward as in fossil humans and australopithics (but less than in seals), not round as in apes, certainly not laterally flattened as in animals that run a lot. The terminal phalanx of the thumb was wider than in chimps, as in us, but not as wide as in boisei. A hand bone was clearly curved: hanging climbing? The face was short, the molars seemed rather small, the tooth enamel - with wear as in us, unlike in chimps - was thicker than in Sahelanthropus and certainly Ardipithecus. Isotopes in tooth enamel indicated a hippopotamus or boar-like diet (Roche 2013). The primeval hominids Sahelanthropus and Orrorin mainly ate fruit and aquatic (edge) plants, I suspect, often climbed overarms, walked and waded more often than lowland gorillas on two legs in wetlands, or sometimes floated in shallow water, head and arms above. Aquaboreal?

Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even
chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.

> 2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??
>
You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>
It is still preserved above as your quote.
I brought two examples of fossils from *late* Miocene (note, not early) that were only moving
towards bipedality of h.erectus You deny these are our ancestors of Miocene but fail to give
cite to any better fossils. But now you even complain that these predate early
Pleistocene? We discussed Miocene, remember ???

> Sigh.
> Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!

Learn to behave in non-demented manner. Try to add some level of coherence
to what you write, also take notes to keep track what you are discussing. Or just
snip and run if you can't.
Are you from savanna? Is the dementia because of sunstroke?

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by

You sound like an idiot trying very hard not to sound like an idiot.

> It started from African woodland apes.

That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."

Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.

> We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.

They do not have a good record here...

> Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.

Not associated with Homo, if the claims hold up.

It's not a fact that they even are tools.

Oldowan

> The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
> Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
> mya.

They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
first-generation tools.

And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
Asia and beyond?

Where did they get the DHA their brains needed?

Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
ago?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717246477475430400

> > > > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > > > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",

savanna fool:
> > > You have no fossils.

> > We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
> > but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.

savanna fool:
> We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
> early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.

:-DDD
Even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more detailed, but we have several fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!), e.g. all sivapiths = probably pongids (Ankarapithecus, Sivapith., Khoratpith., Lufengpith., Gigantopith., Indo.pithecus) & all dryopiths = hominids: Pierolapith., Anoiapith., Danuvius, Dryo-, Ruda-, Bodva-, Hispano-pith., Oreopith., Trachilos footprints, Ourano-, Graeco-pith.etc.
savanna fool:
> > > The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,

> > 3 misspelling in 1 short sentence... ??

savanna fool:
> > > neither looks like aquatic.

> > Sigh. Even so, so what??
> > 1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:

> Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.

:-DDD Our savanna fool fails to see.

> > more in detail (my 2022 book):
> > • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
> > • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?

> I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:

:-) Thanks, my boy. Some *explanations/corrections* by me:

> • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously *heavy* eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teeth smaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real *biped*, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, *at the time* a palm-rich freshwater area with fish, water turtles, monitor lizards, pythons, crocodiles, peacocks, swans, herons & snake-necked birds, various otters, porcupines & porcupines, slim monkeys, antelopes & giraffes, three-toed horses, pachyderms of all kinds, the anthracothere 'hippopotamus' Lybicosaurus emerged from the shallow seas of the Lybian Sirt Basin (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).

> What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
> Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
> It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
> aquatic.

My little little boy (grow up!! inform a bit!!), again, for the Xth time: IMO
-Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were "aquarboreal"(google!!): BP wading-climbing in swamp/coastal forest,
-early-Pleist.H.erectus frequently dived (you can call that "semi-aquatic"): brain++, pachyosteosclerosis, shell engravings, stone tools, island colonizations etc.,
okidoki??

> • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas & swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers & water pygmy deer, three-toed horses & chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars & elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal & other rodents, lagomorphs & rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish & freshwater mussels. Orrorin appeared more human- & chimp-like than Sahelanthropus, says Professor Pickford, and had climbing & bipedal features: a vertical vertebral column? The large femoral head appeared more human-like than in australopiths & apes. The long thigh-bone helped the leg move sideways, but hindered running. Femoral neck & thigh-bone were flattened anterior-backward as in fossil humans & australopiths (but less than in seals), not round as in apes, certainly not laterally flattened as in animals that run a lot. The terminal phalanx of the thumb was wider than in chimps, as in us, but not as wide as in boisei. A hand-bone was clearly curved: hanging climbing? The face was short, the molars seemed rather small, the tooth-enamel (with wear as in us, unlike in chimps) was thicker than in Sahelanthropus & certainly Ardipithecus. Isotopes in tooth enamel indicated a hippo- or boar-like diet (Roche 2013).
The primeval hominids Sahelanthropus & Orrorin mainly ate fruits & *water(side)* plants, I suspect, often climbed overarms, walked & waded more often than lowland gorillas on 2 legs in wetlands, or sometimes floated in shallow water, head & arms above. Aquaboreal?

> Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even
> chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
> carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.

Yes, my boy, indeed: you talk incoherent word salad.

> > 2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??

> You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>

Google "aquarboreal", my boy, and then come back!
Rest of your salad snipped.

On Sunday, 14 May 2023 at 08:49:46 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by
> You sound like an idiot trying very hard not to sound like an idiot.
>
Do not mirror.

> > It started from African woodland apes.
> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
>
> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>
The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated. We do not discuss origins of
ape, but origins of Homo. Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
likely closer to our ancestors than Orangutang and clearly not Homo nor
there's nothing aquatic about it. Theory of marc that Homo somehow
evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.

> > We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
> Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
>
> They do not have a good record here...
>
No idea what rocks you mean here. Just random denial?

> > Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.
> Not associated with Homo, if the claims hold up.
>
> It's not a fact that they even are tools.
>
> Oldowan
>
But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya. It was likely ancestor
of Homo as lot of Homo kept using very similar tools more than million years
later in parallel with Acheulean tools.
That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
those. And before you ask, no, no one claims that it ate only hippos and
nothing else.

> > The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
> > Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
> > mya.
> They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> first-generation tools.
>
Nope, there no so old Acheulean tools in China. Oldest are 2.1mya Oldowan
tools in the southern Chinese Loess plateau. The favorite of marc Java had
Oldowan tools 1.8 mya. Oldest Acheulean tools in Asia are from South India
1.5 mya.

> And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> Asia and beyond?
>
But what is the problem? There were likely forests everywhere. If not
always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees. The
h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
long distances. Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
of fire but evidence of it is low. But it clearly spread relatively quickly all
over the warm climate woodlands on both continents ~2 mya.

> Where did they get the DHA their brains needed?
>
Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and corn syrup
eaters. Our ancestors did not eat such garbage. They ate meat, eggs,
nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit. For catching spawning fish in some
forest brook there was no need to be aquatic nor very wise. Bear, cat and
fox do it why not ape with spears and traps? Otter and seal eat fish all the
time do they have large brain? One grows bigger brain for when there is
need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.

> Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> ago?
>
No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya. Genetic
evidence, fossils and findings of tools show that Homo evolved from African
apes. Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.

Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
mya or later, I do not know, and it is not even discussed here. Homo evolved
about ten millions years later. The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense
"aquarboreal" apes but forest apes. That "aquarboreal" seems to mean
someone who either wades in water or climbs trees but for undisclosed
reasons avoids walking on dry land? Do you buy that? I may be mistaken
as marc verhaegen's bullshit is mostly in Dutch, is jumping between events that
are several millions of years apart. Word salad about not running in savanna.
Homo were likely never half as fast runners as bear (who hates to run). Do
bears run in savanna? No. But if bear does not run in savanna then it likely
dives and wades? Also no. How it survives without using neither of "two allowed"
options of marc verhaegen?

....
> options of marc verhaegen?

Again, in short:
Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal"(google),
-- S.Afr.australopiths = fossil relatives of Pan, and E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not Homo,
-- it’s not "out of Africa”, but "out of southern Asia" and "out of the Red Sea”,
-- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna-hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.
Google e.g. – aquarboreal – GondwanaTalks verhaegen – WHATtalk verhaegen
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Hypothesis: ape & human evolution:
plate tectonics & hominoid splittings (my 2022 book p.299-300):
c 25 Ma India approached S-Asia, formed island archipelagoes & peninsulas full of coastal forests,
Catarrhini reaching these became aquarboreal Hominoidea, frugivorous + incipiently molluscivorous??
c 20 Ma Indian further underneath Eurasia split lesser (E) & great apes (W) along Tethys Ocean coasts,
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W),
Medit.hominids died out late-Miocene, only hominids s.s. (HPG) in incipient Red Sea survived:
c 8 Ma Gorilla followed incipient N-Rift->Afar->afarensis->boisei->gorillas, HP remained in Red Sea,
c 5 Ma Red Sea opened into Gulf (exactly 5.33 Ma?? Zanclean flood):
-Pan went right->E.Afr.coasts (+ stone tools??)->S-Rift->Transvaal->africanus->robustus->Pan // Gorilla,
-Pliocene Homo left->S.Asian coast: early-Pleist.shallow-diving "aq.ape": brain++ pachyosteosclerosis etc.
mid-Pleist.Homo evolved diving -> + wading (initially seasonally?) -> today walking...

There are still a lot of uncertainties, of course, but I'm pretty sure:
- E.Afr.apiths->Gorilla // S.Afr.apiths->Pan,
- late-Miocene Homo-Pan LCA were still aquarboreal in Red Sea swamp forests..
:-)

In any case:
“The nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains ("endurance running", "dogged pursuit of swifter animals", "born to run", "le singe coureur", "Savannahstan") are among the worst scientific hypotheses ever proposed.”
:-D

Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > > It started from African woodland apes.
> > That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
> >
> > Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> > so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> > most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> > are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.

> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.

The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.

> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.

The line between the two is blurry at best.

> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang

Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
more recent than that.

Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.

> likely closer

Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.

>Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.

I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
ancestor lived further back than Chimps. In other words, FIRST we
split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.

So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
humans...

Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.

> > > We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

> > Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> > that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
> >
> > They do not have a good record here...

> No idea what rocks you mean here.

You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
back to 2013.

Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.

> But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.

And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.

> That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
> those.

Not a fact.

> > They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> > first-generation tools.

> Nope

Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ

> > And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> > Asia and beyond?

> But what is the problem?

So answer.

> There were likely forests everywhere.

Why? Are there forests everywhere today?

> If not
> always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
> grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.

So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...

Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.

> Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.

No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
Gorillas.

> The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> long distances.

So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
do it?

> Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> of fire but evidence of it is low.

What purpose would these technologies serve?

> Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> corn syrup eaters.

Dead wrong.

> They ate meat, eggs,
> nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.

Where?

The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
is that?

> One grows bigger brain for when there is
> need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.

You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
Intelligent Design.

And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?

You're rationalizing. Cheaply.

> > Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> > ago?

> No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.

That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?

> Genetic evidence

There is none.

> fossils

None what so ever.

> and findings of tools

You can't find what you don't look for.

> Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.

Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
person chose.

> Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
> mya or later, I do not know

Define Homo.

If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
evolving larger... where is the line, and why?

> Homo evolved about ten millions years later.

It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
Africa.

I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not about
geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.

>The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apes
> but forest apes.

So where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717282714287521792

On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > > > It started from African woodland apes.
> > > That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
> > >
> > > Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> > > so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> > > most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> > > are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>
> > The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
>
> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
>
> > We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
>
> The line between the two is blurry at best.
>
Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
little subset of that clade.

> > Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
> more recent than that.
>
> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
>
Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
is that clade Hominoidea (apes).

> > likely closer
>
> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
>
When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
that contradict with evidence.

> >Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> > evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
>
He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.

> In other words, FIRST we
> split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
>
Yes, so it seems.

> So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
> Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
> humans...
>
Yes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of
millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
years ago.

> Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.
>
What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.

> > > > We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > > > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
>
> > > Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> > > that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
> > >
> > > They do not have a good record here...
>
> > No idea what rocks you mean here.
> You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
> back to 2013.
>
> Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
>
If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?

> > But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
>
> And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
>
Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas
used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.

> > That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
> > those.
> Not a fact.
> > > They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> > > first-generation tools.
>
> > Nope
> Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
>
You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were
Acheulean tools?

> > > And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> > > Asia and beyond?
>
> > But what is the problem?
> So answer.
> > There were likely forests everywhere.
> Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
>
Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber for
metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.

> > If not
> > always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
> > grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> > talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
>
> So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
>
> Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
>
It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows
relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few
thousand years ago.

> > Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.
> No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
> Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
> Gorillas.
> > The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> > long distances.
> So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
> do it?
>
Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
who did not participate in hunt.

> > Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> > of fire but evidence of it is low.
>
> What purpose would these technologies serve?
>
Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try to
catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
your mouth.

> > Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> > corn syrup eaters.
> Dead wrong.
>
Medicine literature says so, argue with them.

> > They ate meat, eggs,
> > nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
> Where?
>
In forest.

> The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
> from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
> is that?
>
Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already
generalists back then.

> > One grows bigger brain for when there is
> > need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
> You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
> Intelligent Design.
>
> And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
> Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
>
> You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
>
Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weapons
for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building
and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
for survival?
Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes
make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that
do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with
few thousands years of breeding.

> > > Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> > > ago?
>
> > No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
> That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
> Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
>
> > Genetic evidence
>
> There is none.
>
Genes can be sequenced.

> > fossils
>
> None what so ever.
>
Odd denial.

> > and findings of tools
>
> You can't find what you don't look for.
>
If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.

netloon:
> > > > It started from African woodland apes.

:-DDD
What is "it"??

Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea forests, as well all know... :-D
Of the c 20 lesser & 8 great apes, 5 spp of gr.apes live in African trop.forests.
All other live in SE.Asian trop.forests.

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
> sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.

There's no such thing as "genetic distance" for the overwhelming
majority of human evolution.

This is already 20 years old:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092615.htm

> > > Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
> > Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
> > and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
> > more recent than that.
> >
> > Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.

> Monkeys are

Pay attention. The point was that you can't go by the fossils, BECAUSE
you were going by the fossils.

It's also noteworthy that you lack any model that incorporates ALL the
fossil evidence...

> > Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.

> When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
> with other fossils and extant apes.

Such assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.

> > >Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> > > evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
> >
> > I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
> > share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
> > ancestor lived further back than Chimps.

> He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
> Orangutans.

So what?

Look. We share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs. We do. It
makes as much sense to claim that common ancestor belonged to
THIS genus as THAT genus... or even NEITHER genus.

We're making this stuff up. It's a convention. It's just an agreed
upon way of speaking about these things, not a "Truth" etched in
stone. He's communicating a relationship that does exist. That's
all.

> He avoids making clear full sentences

It's not him that lacks clarity here.

> > In other words, FIRST we
> > split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.

> Yes, so it seems.

So he's right. The good Doctor is right. We share a common ancestor
with the greatest living Asian ape and that ancestor predates any
known African ancestor.

> > So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
> > Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
> > humans...

> Yes

So you agree with the good Doctor, yet are actively attempting to
disagree.

> and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys

Which was a monkey. The common ancestor to humans and monkeys,
or apes and monkeys if you prefer, was a monkey.

> and even more first with penguins.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

> > Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
> > stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
> > zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.

> If you care

Go over to sci.anthropology.paleo and search.

> > And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.

> Even

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

> > > > They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> > > > first-generation tools.
> >
> > > Nope
> >
> > Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ

> You

Spell out your model that accounts for these Asian finds.

> Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and

Where?

> > > Sahara was
> > > grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> > > talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
> >
> > So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...

> It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods

So are you back to forests again or are you still on your grasslands?

Those are two different environments.

> > > The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> > > long distances.
> >
> > So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
> > do it?

> Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
> managed to kill it.

You're not inspiring a lot of confidence in your views.

> > > Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> > > of fire but evidence of it is low.
> >
> > What purpose would these technologies serve?

> Technologies make life easier

That's not an answer.

> > > Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> > > corn syrup eaters.
> >
> > Dead wrong.

> Medicine literature says so, argue with them.

#1. It doesn't.

#2. There is no "medicine literature" on pre Homo or early Homo or
even fairly recent Homo ancestors.

You're simply making things up,

> > > They ate meat, eggs,
> > > nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
> >
> > Where?

> In forest.

Tools preserve well. Fish require water so if they're mucking about
in that then we have fossils only we don't.

> > The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
> > from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
> > is that?

> Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
> farther relative Gorilla is herbivore.

They are also adapted to the forest. They evolved AWAY from bipedalism
and into knuckle walking, in adaptation to the forest.

> > > One grows bigger brain for when there is
> > > need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
> >
> > You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
> > Intelligent Design.
> >
> > And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
> > Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?

> Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools

Go back far enough and neither did our ancestors. So the question
is HOW and WHY.

You can't even begin to speculate here.

> Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools

Of course not.

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

> > > Genetic evidence
> >
> > There is none.

> Genes can be sequenced.

Not if they don't exist.

> > > fossils
> >
> > None what so ever.

> Odd denial.

Show us the early Chimp fossils, the ones within a million years
of the LCA.

> > > and findings of tools
> >
> > You can't find what you don't look for.

> If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.

So Pan is out, entirely, and they magically pop up no later than half
a million years ago.

> > Define Homo.

> It is not up to me to redefine

I didn't ask you to redefine, I asked you to define it. And no point did
I so much as imply that you should invent a definition. Simply provide
the definition you are employing here. After that we can worry about
the source.

> > If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
> > evolving larger... where is the line, and why?

> It is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
> have gone extinct meanwhile.

That is not an answer.

> > > Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
> >
> > It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
> > you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
> > Africa.

> Yep

Stop that.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
>> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>
>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>>>> It started from African woodland apes.
>>>> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
>>>>
>>>> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
>>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
>>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
>>>> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>>
>>> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
>>
>> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
>>
>>> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
>>
>> The line between the two is blurry at best.
>>
> Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
> sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
> So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
> little subset of that clade.

In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide
taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
But in practice, ranks are arbitrary. The only rule is that lower ranks
must nest within higher ones.

>>> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
>> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
>> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
>> more recent than that.
>>
>> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
>>
> Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
> is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
>
>>> likely closer
>>
>> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
>>
> When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
> with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
> is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
> that contradict with evidence.
>
>>> Theory of marc that Homo somehow
>>> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
>> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
>> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
>> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
>>
> He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
> Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
> that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.
>
>> In other words, FIRST we
>> split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
>>
> Yes, so it seems.
>
>> So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
>> Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
>> humans...
>>
> Yes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
> and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of
> millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
> years ago.
>
>> Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.
>>
> What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.
>
>>>>> We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
>>>>> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
>>
>>>> Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
>>>> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
>>>>
>>>> They do not have a good record here...
>>
>>> No idea what rocks you mean here.
>> You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
>> back to 2013.
>>
>> Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
>> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
>> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
>>
> If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?
>
>>> But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
>>
>> And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
>>
> Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas
> used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.
>
>>> That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
>>> those.
>> Not a fact.
>>>> They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
>>>> first-generation tools.
>>
>>> Nope
>> Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
>>
> You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were
> Acheulean tools?
>
>>>> And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
>>>> Asia and beyond?
>>
>>> But what is the problem?
>> So answer.
>>> There were likely forests everywhere.
>> Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
>>
> Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber for
> metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.
>
>>> If not
>>> always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
>>> grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
>>> talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
>>
>> So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
>>
>> Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
>>
> It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows
> relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few
> thousand years ago.
>
>>> Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.
>> No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
>> Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
>> Gorillas.
>>> The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
>>> long distances.
>> So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
>> do it?
>>
> Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
> managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
> those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
> who did not participate in hunt.
>
>>> Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
>>> of fire but evidence of it is low.
>>
>> What purpose would these technologies serve?
>>
> Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try to
> catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
> your mouth.
>
>>> Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
>>> corn syrup eaters.
>> Dead wrong.
>>
> Medicine literature says so, argue with them.
>
>>> They ate meat, eggs,
>>> nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
>> Where?
>>
> In forest.
>
>> The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
>> from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
>> is that?
>>
> Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
> farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
> years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already
> generalists back then.
>
>>> One grows bigger brain for when there is
>>> need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
>> You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
>> Intelligent Design.
>>
>> And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
>> Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
>>
>> You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
>>
> Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weapons
> for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building
> and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
> for survival?
> Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes
> make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that
> do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
> human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with
> few thousands years of breeding.
>
>>>> Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
>>>> ago?
>>
>>> No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
>> That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
>> Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
>>
>>> Genetic evidence
>>
>> There is none.
>>
> Genes can be sequenced.
>
>>> fossils
>>
>> None what so ever.
>>
> Odd denial.
>
>>> and findings of tools
>>
>> You can't find what you don't look for.
>>
> If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.
>
>>> Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.
>> Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
>> person chose.
>>> Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
>>> mya or later, I do not know
>> Define Homo.
>>
> It is not up to me to redefine a term that others are already defined,
> I explained its meaning above.
>
>> If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
>> evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
>>
> It is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
> have gone extinct meanwhile.
>
>>> Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
>> It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
>> you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
>> Africa.
>>
> Yep so it seems it happened. You can't change past in a way
> that something else happened. You can just lie or deny it, but what
> is the point?
>
>> I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not about
>> geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
>>> The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apes
>>> but forest apes.
>> So where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
>>
> There are only few teeth found from half millions years ago.
> Perhaps chimp did live in environments where everything was
> eaten or did decay too quickly, or we haven't been lucky. That is
> common about complex and diverse biomes like forests. The
> occasions need luck like something drowned into swamp and
> then was later covered with some mudslide. But why is chimp
> important? With gorilla fossils there is more luck. Gorilla also
> uses tools to open nuts and such.

some netloon:
> > > >Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> > > > evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.

???
:-DDD
Again, for the Xth time, read it carefully:
orang-utans Pongo (2 or 3 spp: Po.pygmaeus, Po.tapanulienis on Borneo, Po.abelii on Sumatra) are pongids if you didn't know:
AFAICS, the Mesopotamian Seaway Closure c 15 ma split hominids-dryopiths (along the Med.Sea + rivers) & pongids-sivapiths (along the Ind.Ocean + rivers):
in coastal/swamp...forests, they frequently waded bipedally (upright, vertically) & climbed arms overhead in the branches above, google "aquarboreal".
Most hominids died out (cooling? drying? Messinian Salinity Crisis? Zanclean Mega-flood?), but some Red Sea hominids survived:
- Gorilla subgenus Praeanthropus followed c 8 Ma the northern Rift formation: afarensis->boisei cs,
- when de Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood? Francesca Mansfield):
-- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus went right + followed the E.African coastal forests -> southern Rift fm -> africanus->robustus cs (in // afarensis->boisei),
-- Pliocene Homo followed the S-Asian coasts -> e.g. Java early-Pleistocene H.erectus brain++ (DHA), pachyosteosclerosis (shallow-diving), stone tools (opening shells), shell engravings (google: Joordens Munro), island colonizations (e.g. Flores) etc. & back to Africa & Europe: H.neand.etc.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:18:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> >> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >>
> >>> JTEM wrote:
> >>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >>>>> It started from African woodland apes.
> >>>> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
> >>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
> >>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
> >>>> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
> >>
> >>> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
> >>
> >> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
> >>
> >>> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
> >>
> >> The line between the two is blurry at best.
> >>
> > Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
> > sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
> > So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
> > little subset of that clade.

> In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide
> taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
> But in practice, ranks are arbitrary.

They are only "arbitrary" to a limited extent. If anyone tried to make
a class out of Hominidae, he'd be suspected of being a creationist.
Especially if he tried to make Homo the sole member of a subclass.

You really need to stop misleading people with your ideology-driven
use of the word "arbitrary."

> The only rule is that lower ranks
> must nest within higher ones.

It's the only *official* rule, but there are lots of rules of thumb
over which you are riding roughshod. One is that taxonomists
specializing within classes of Vertebrata need to be fairly consistent,
but they are free to disregard established custom for other classes.
Thus what counts as an order in Aves based on morphological
distance would only count as a family in Mammalia, according to Romer.
Is that true also of genetic distance?

> >>> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
> >> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
> >> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
> >> more recent than that.
> >>
> >> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
> >>
> > Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
> > is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
> >
> >>> likely closer
> >>
> >> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
> >>
> > When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
> > with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
> > is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
> > that contradict with evidence.
> >
> >>> Theory of marc that Homo somehow
> >>> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
> >> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
> >> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
> >> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
> >>
> > He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
> > Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
> > that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.

How come you didn't mention Schwartz here, John?
You could have been *constructive* for a change.

As it was, with me returning to this thread only after almost a month,
this thread died with Marc Verhaegen posting another one of his
pseudo-communicative spiels in direct response to this post of yours.

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

PS I left in the rest below. I think you could have commented
constructively in one or more places, were you so inclined.
I'm holding off commenting on it until I hear from one of
{Mr. Tiib, yourself}.

> >> In other words, FIRST we
> >> split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
> >>
> > Yes, so it seems.
> >
> >> So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
> >> Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
> >> humans...
> >>
> > Yes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
> > and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of
> > millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
> > years ago.
> >
> >> Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.
> >>
> > What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.
> >
> >>>>> We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> >>>>> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
> >>
> >>>> Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
> >>>> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
> >>>>
> >>>> They do not have a good record here...
> >>
> >>> No idea what rocks you mean here.
> >> You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
> >> back to 2013.
> >>
> >> Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
> >> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
> >> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
> >>
> > If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?
> >
> >>> But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
> >>
> >> And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
> >>
> > Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas
> > used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.
> >
> >>> That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
> >>> those.
> >> Not a fact.
> >>>> They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
> >>>> first-generation tools.
> >>
> >>> Nope
> >> Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
> >>
> > You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were
> > Acheulean tools?
> >
> >>>> And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
> >>>> Asia and beyond?
> >>
> >>> But what is the problem?
> >> So answer.
> >>> There were likely forests everywhere.
> >> Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
> >>
> > Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber for
> > metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.
> >
> >>> If not
> >>> always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
> >>> grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
> >>> talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
> >>
> >> So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
> >>
> >> Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
> >>
> > It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows
> > relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few
> > thousand years ago.
> >
> >>> Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.
> >> No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
> >> Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
> >> Gorillas.
> >>> The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
> >>> long distances.
> >> So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
> >> do it?
> >>
> > Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
> > managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
> > those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
> > who did not participate in hunt.
> >
> >>> Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
> >>> of fire but evidence of it is low.
> >>
> >> What purpose would these technologies serve?
> >>
> > Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try to
> > catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
> > your mouth.
> >
> >>> Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
> >>> corn syrup eaters.
> >> Dead wrong.
> >>
> > Medicine literature says so, argue with them.
> >
> >>> They ate meat, eggs,
> >>> nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
> >> Where?
> >>
> > In forest.
> >
> >> The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
> >> from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
> >> is that?
> >>
> > Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
> > farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
> > years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already
> > generalists back then.
> >
> >>> One grows bigger brain for when there is
> >>> need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
> >> You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
> >> Intelligent Design.
> >>
> >> And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
> >> Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
> >>
> >> You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
> >>
> > Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weapons
> > for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building
> > and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
> > for survival?
> > Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes
> > make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that
> > do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
> > human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with
> > few thousands years of breeding.
> >
> >>>> Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
> >>>> ago?
> >>
> >>> No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
> >> That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
> >> Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
> >>
> >>> Genetic evidence
> >>
> >> There is none.
> >>
> > Genes can be sequenced.
> >
> >>> fossils
> >>
> >> None what so ever.
> >>
> > Odd denial.
> >
> >>> and findings of tools
> >>
> >> You can't find what you don't look for.
> >>
> > If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss..
> >
> >>> Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.
> >> Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
> >> person chose.

On 6/13/23 1:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 2:18:07 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/15/23 6:47 AM, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>> On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 06:24:18 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
>>>> Staring in the mirror, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>>>>>>> It started from African woodland apes.
>>>>>> That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
>>>>>> so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
>>>>>> most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
>>>>>> are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.
>>>>
>>>>> The monkeys indeed evolved and migrated.
>>>>
>>>> The oldest monkey fossils are in the Americas.
>>>>
>>>>> We do not discuss origins of ape, but origins of Homo.
>>>>
>>>> The line between the two is blurry at best.
>>>>
>>> Scientists use genetic distances for to figure taxonomic groups like
>>> sub-species, species, genuses, tribes and so on.
>>> So ape is any member of clade Hominoidea, but Homo is genus,
>>> little subset of that clade.
>
>> In fact, scientists generally do not use genetic distances to decide
>> taxonomic ranks. It's been proposed many times, as has time of origin.
>> But in practice, ranks are arbitrary.
>
> They are only "arbitrary" to a limited extent. If anyone tried to make
> a class out of Hominidae, he'd be suspected of being a creationist.
> Especially if he tried to make Homo the sole member of a subclass.
>
> You really need to stop misleading people with your ideology-driven
> use of the word "arbitrary."

Ranks are arbitrary. You could try to make Hominidae a class, but you
would have to change its name and you would have to elevate all the
higher taxa to which it belongs, as per the rule mentioned below.

So very unlikely that any such thing could happen. Too much disruption.

>> The only rule is that lower ranks
>> must nest within higher ones.
>
> It's the only *official* rule, but there are lots of rules of thumb
> over which you are riding roughshod. One is that taxonomists
> specializing within classes of Vertebrata need to be fairly consistent,
> but they are free to disregard established custom for other classes.
> Thus what counts as an order in Aves based on morphological
> distance would only count as a family in Mammalia, according to Romer.
> Is that true also of genetic distance?

There is no consistency, because that's not a rule anyone actually
follows. Orders in birds and mammals don't depend on morphological
distance now, if they ever did. Perhaps you refer not to actual,
computed distance but to some vague feeling of a distancy sort? I don't
think Romer had any clear idea of how to judge such distances and
neither do you.

>>>>> Pierolapithecus was after split from Orangutang
>>>> Maybe. If we're going by fossils than monkeys arose in the Americas
>>>> and chimps go back no further than half a million years and probably
>>>> more recent than that.
>>>>
>>>> Molecular dating sucks rotten eggs through a straw, and likes it.
>>>>
>>> Monkeys are members of primate suborder Simiformes whose part
>>> is that clade Hominoidea (apes).
>>>
>>>>> likely closer
>>>>
>>>> Assumptions are proven wrong often enough to stop making them.
>>>>
>>> When we can't get genes of it then we estimate based on differences
>>> with other fossils and extant apes. We know nothing 100% as all evidence
>>> is only indicative. That does not mean that we should fill it with fantasies
>>> that contradict with evidence.
>>>
>>>>> Theory of marc that Homo somehow
>>>>> evolved from Orangutang is therefore void.
>>>> I've never seen him claim that and I don't claim it now. We do however
>>>> share a common ancestor with Orangoutangs and that common
>>>> ancestor lived further back than Chimps.
>>>>
>>> He keeps constantly mentioning Pongo or Pongids, that is genus of
>>> Orangutans. He avoids making clear full sentences so it can be
>>> that I'm wrong what he means, but seems that he claims that.
>
> How come you didn't mention Schwartz here, John?
> You could have been *constructive* for a change.

Why would I mention Schwartz? The point was that this supposed theory
was not anything Verhaegen proposes or believes, and it's not even
Schwartz's.

> As it was, with me returning to this thread only after almost a month,
> this thread died with Marc Verhaegen posting another one of his
> pseudo-communicative spiels in direct response to this post of yours.

No reason it shouldn't die. Spam kills.

> PS I left in the rest below. I think you could have commented
> constructively in one or more places, were you so inclined.
> I'm holding off commenting on it until I hear from one of
> {Mr. Tiib, yourself}.

I saw nothing worthy of comment. What did you have in mind?

>>>> In other words, FIRST we
>>>> split from Orangoutangs and then LATER we split from Chimps.
>>>>
>>> Yes, so it seems.
>>>
>>>> So FIRST there lived this LCA of humans and Orangoutangs, over in
>>>> Asia apparently, and then LATER there lived this LCA of Chimps and
>>>> humans...
>>>>
>>> Yes and even more first there lived common ancestors with monkeys,
>>> and even more first with penguins. That is if we go tens or hundreds of
>>> millions back in time. But Homo appeared only "recently" 2.5 millions
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>>> Nothing you've ever stated can account for these facts.
>>>>
>>> What? It is obvious and nothing I've ever stated contradicts with it.
>>>
>>>>>>> We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
>>>>>>> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
>>>>
>>>>>> Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
>>>>>> that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do not have a good record here...
>>>>
>>>>> No idea what rocks you mean here.
>>>> You're lying. Just search I found discussions that I've been involved in going
>>>> back to 2013.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is more than one site where it is claimed there are BILLIONS of
>>>> stone "Tools" found. It really is THAT ridiculous. Again, I had absolutely
>>>> zero difficulties finding threads on the topic, discussions of such claims.
>>>>
>>> If you care, cite, I know nothing about it so how can I lie?
>>>
>>>>> But no one claims that there was Homo 2.9 mya.
>>>>
>>>> And there's no definitive proof of tools, either.
>>>>
>>> Even marc does not dispute it much. All he says is that chimps or gorillas
>>> used those. But these do not make stone tools nor use stones for butchering.
>>>
>>>>> That ancestor was clearly living in woodland, did kill hippos and butchered
>>>>> those.
>>>> Not a fact.
>>>>>> They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
>>>>>> first-generation tools.
>>>>
>>>>> Nope
>>>> Eat fecal matter, you bologna kissing twirp:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/ReYK9jOygu0/m/Ho0jzrgjDQAJ
>>>>
>>> You can't speak normally? Take your meds. Where anyone says that these were
>>> Acheulean tools?
>>>
>>>>>> And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
>>>>>> Asia and beyond?
>>>>
>>>>> But what is the problem?
>>>> So answer.
>>>>> There were likely forests everywhere.
>>>> Why? Are there forests everywhere today?
>>>>
>>> Nope, most forests have been destroyed by agriculture and need for timber for
>>> metallurgy to make charcoal. That wasn't problem before.
>>>
>>>>> If not
>>>>> always then during million of years there are long humid periods. Sahara was
>>>>> grassland only recently for at least 10,000 years until 5,000 years ago. We
>>>>> talk about hundreds of times longer timescale.
>>>>
>>>> So they lived in trees but they didn't, they lived in grasslands...
>>>>
>>>> Wow. You talk out both sides of your mouth.
>>>>
>>> It was easy to verify example that there are humid periods. Forest grows
>>> relatively quickly when there are bodies of water nearby. It was only few
>>> thousand years ago.
>>>
>>>>> Apes evolved into Homo that did walk upright and did climb trees.
>>>> No. It was the other way around. This is DEFINITELY the case with
>>>> Chimps, and very likely though yet to be proven to be the case with
>>>> Gorillas.
>>>>> The h.erectus was capable to make Oldowan tools, carry weapons and food
>>>>> long distances.
>>>> So what? If you're claiming that is what they did then why did they
>>>> do it?
>>>>
>>> Because they did not want to eat hippo in whatever damn bush they
>>> managed to kill it. So they butchered it, cut good pieces, and carried
>>> those to eat in some better place perhaps also to share with others
>>> who did not participate in hunt.
>>>
>>>>> Some even claim leather clothes, bags, rafting and control
>>>>> of fire but evidence of it is low.
>>>>
>>>> What purpose would these technologies serve?
>>>>
>>> Technologies make life easier but take some brains to organise. Try to
>>> catch and kill some wild animal with your hands and butcher it with
>>> your mouth.
>>>
>>>>> Lack of DHA is problem only for one-sided cereal, margarine and
>>>>> corn syrup eaters.
>>>> Dead wrong.
>>>>
>>> Medicine literature says so, argue with them.
>>>
>>>>> They ate meat, eggs,
>>>>> nuts, termite grubs, seeds, fish and fruit.
>>>> Where?
>>>>
>>> In forest.
>>>
>>>> The religion of paleo anthropology insists that our ancestors moved
>>>> from specialists to generalists, while you describe generalists. Why
>>>> is that?
>>>>
>>> Because our closest genetic relative Chimp is also omnivore while
>>> farther relative Gorilla is herbivore. As we discuss time of millions
>>> years after split with Chimp it is more likely that both were already
>>> generalists back then.
>>>
>>>>> One grows bigger brain for when there is
>>>>> need/benefit to have one, not because they eat fish.
>>>> You're dead wrong. You're comically wrong. You're describing
>>>> Intelligent Design.
>>>>
>>>> And why would more intelligence NOT be beneficial to rabbits?
>>>> Or snakes? Or fish? Or foxes?
>>>>
>>>> You're rationalizing. Cheaply.
>>>>
>>> Rabbits, snakes, fish and foxes do not make and use tools and weapons
>>> for coordinated hunting. So why to waste energy and materials for building
>>> and feeding and carrying more large and cumbersome organ than is needed
>>> for survival?
>>> Crows, elephants and parrots sometimes make and use tools apes sometimes
>>> make and use weapons. So those have bigger brains. Brain of wolves (that
>>> do coordinated hunting) is bigger than that of dogs. Simplified duties for what
>>> human needed dogs caused dogs to lose noticeable amount of brain only with
>>> few thousands years of breeding.
>>>
>>>>>> Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
>>>>>> ago?
>>>>
>>>>> No one claims that there were no apes in Europe or Asia 10 mya.
>>>> That was NOT the question. Why were there teeth that looked like
>>>> Ardi or Lucy -- ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER -- in Europe?
>>>>
>>>>> Genetic evidence
>>>>
>>>> There is none.
>>>>
>>> Genes can be sequenced.
>>>
>>>>> fossils
>>>>
>>>> None what so ever.
>>>>
>>> Odd denial.
>>>
>>>>> and findings of tools
>>>>
>>>> You can't find what you don't look for.
>>>>
>>> If you don't find despite you look for then there is nothing to discuss.
>>>
>>>>> Oldest fossil that is called "Homo" is h.habilis 2.31 mya in Africa.
>>>> Habilis never called itself "Homo." It's a name that some modern
>>>> person chose.
>
>>>>> Ancestors of said apes could migrate to Africa from Europe 13-10
>>>>> mya or later, I do not know
>>>> Define Homo.
>>>>
>>> It is not up to me to redefine a term that others are already defined,
>>> I explained its meaning above.
>>>
>>>> If it's our ancestor, it stood upright and walked, it's brain was
>>>> evolving larger... where is the line, and why?
>>>>
>>> It is we, our ancestors just above 2 mya and close relatives that
>>> have gone extinct meanwhile.
>>>
>>>>> Homo evolved about ten millions years later.
>>>> It's seems like you're making an "Argument" of definitions, where
>>>> you DEFINE Homo as an African species so Homo began in
>>>> Africa.
>>>>
>>> Yep so it seems it happened. You can't change past in a way
>>> that something else happened. You can just lie or deny it, but what
>>> is the point?
>>>
>>>> I prefer the good Doctor's definition where it's not about
>>>> geographical coordinates but an environment... a resource.
>>>>> The fossils are not aquatic apes or nonsense "aquarboreal" apes
>>>>> but forest apes.
>>>> So where are they? Show us the Chimp fossils, for example.
>>>>
>>> There are only few teeth found from half millions years ago.
>>> Perhaps chimp did live in environments where everything was
>>> eaten or did decay too quickly, or we haven't been lucky. That is
>>> common about complex and diverse biomes like forests. The
>>> occasions need luck like something drowned into swamp and
>>> then was later covered with some mudslide. But why is chimp
>>> important? With gorilla fossils there is more luck. Gorilla also
>>> uses tools to open nuts and such.

Op dinsdag 13 juni 2023 om 22:23:07 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:
nothing of interest:
the poor man doesn't know anything on paleo-anthropology... :-(
= a waste of time

4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits..

Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.

Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.

Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 13:58:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> 3) were savanna-dwellers???

That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

> 4) had australopithecine ancestors??

And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.

> These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
geocentrists and deep one worshipers.

> Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.

> 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,

Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
capability to climb?

> 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> But
> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
that crow did dive.

> 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
>
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
>
> Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
> c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
> c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
> c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
> c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
> c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
> c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
> – Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P..paniscus,
> – Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
> mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
>
> Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
> but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most
animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find
seashells in swamp. Good luck.

The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> marc verhaegen wrote:
> > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> That is not that popular hypothesis.

Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...

> You typically use it as straw man.

It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.

> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?

You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.

The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
bipedalism was most useful.

There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
> > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

> Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> more than hundred years ago.

Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.

Is it a straw man or are you insane?

> > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

> Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> trap or ambush.

Lol!

"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"

> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

> Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.

Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.

I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.

> Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid

Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:

Coastal dispersal.

And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.

So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...

It fits.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
>
> > That is not that popular hypothesis.
>
> Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
>
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.

> > You typically use it as straw man.
>
> It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> and idiotic.
>
It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.

> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
>
> Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
>
> You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
>
> The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> bipedalism was most useful.
>
> There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> a number of environments is "Popular."
>
Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
by evidence.

> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago.
> Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
>
> Is it a straw man or are you insane?
>
What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.

> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
>
> > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush.
> Lol!
>
> "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
>
Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
not read books?

> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
>
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
>
> I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
>
> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
>
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
that forest inhibits brain development.
>
> Coastal dispersal.
>
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.

> And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> using terrestrial ALA.
>
> So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
>
> It fits.
>
It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
IMO
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,
2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr.apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,
3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),
4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

_____

> On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >
> > > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
> >
> > > That is not that popular hypothesis.
> >
> > Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> > that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> > "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> > other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
> >
> Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
> generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
> very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
> bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
> evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
> use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
> > > You typically use it as straw man.
> >
> > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > and idiotic.
> >
> It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
> imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
> bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.
> > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> >
> > Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
> >
> > You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> > fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> > a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
> >
> > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > bipedalism was most useful.
> >
> > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > a number of environments is "Popular."
> >
> Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
> features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
> reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
> fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
> have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
> by evidence.
> > > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
> >
> > > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > > more than hundred years ago.
> > Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
> >
> > Is it a straw man or are you insane?
> >
> What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
> of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
> > > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
> >
> > > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > > trap or ambush.
> > Lol!
> >
> > "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> > think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
> >
> Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
> drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
> about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
> imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
> weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
> not read books?
> > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> >
> > > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> > Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> >
> > I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> > about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> > keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
> >
> > > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> > Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> > evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> > and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> > southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> > And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
> >
> So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
> indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
> smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
> that forest inhibits brain development.
> >
> > Coastal dispersal.
> >
> Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
> swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
> > And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> > present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> > dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> > using terrestrial ALA.
> >
> > So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> > MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> > from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> > the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
> >
> > It fits.
> >
> It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
> not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
> fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 14:53:18 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
>
> Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
> IMO
>
Hard to do it you outright spam your nonsense. And what you write are
just "IMO"... barely even worth to call hypothesis.

> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
Name the findings, genes what have you. Note that it takes quite a stretch to
conclude "bipedal" from few teeth or skull fragments.

> 2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr..apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,

That "showed" should read "expressed opinion". And most of your
opinion is based on none of evidence just on your discarding
contradicting evidence of others without much ground.

> 3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),

Again Miocene? Where are the fossils, tools whatever of Miocene?
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin (late Miocene) were in Africa.
> 4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
What means "never"? Tens of millions of people of Africa live in savanna
right now. It is just your favorite straw-man that ape in savanna should
imagine being cheetah and to chase antelopes and gazelles around there.
I did no misrepresentations whatsoever.

> _____
> > On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> > > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > >
> > > > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
> > >
> > > > That is not that popular hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> > > that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> > > "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> > > other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
> > >
> > Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> > savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
> > generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
> > very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
> > bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
> > evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
> > use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
> > > > You typically use it as straw man.
> > >
> > > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > > and idiotic.
> > >
> > It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
> > imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
> > bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that..
> > > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> > >
> > > Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
> > >
> > > You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> > > fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> > > a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
> > >
> > > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > > bipedalism was most useful.
> > >
> > > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > > a number of environments is "Popular."
> > >
> > Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
> > features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
> > reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
> > fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
> > have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
> > by evidence.
> > > > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
> > >
> > > > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > > > more than hundred years ago.
> > > Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
> > >
> > > Is it a straw man or are you insane?
> > >
> > What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
> > of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
> > > > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
> > >
> > > > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > > > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > > > trap or ambush.
> > > Lol!
> > >
> > > "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> > > think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
> > >
> > Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
> > drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
> > about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
> > imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
> > weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
> > not read books?
> > > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> > >
> > > > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > > > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> > > Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> > >
> > > I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> > > about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> > > keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
> > >
> > > > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> > > Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> > > evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> > > and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> > > southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> > > And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
> > >
> > So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
> > indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
> > smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
> > that forest inhibits brain development.
> > >
> > > Coastal dispersal.
> > >
> > Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> > of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> > lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
> > swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
> > > And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> > > present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> > > dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> > > using terrestrial ALA.
> > >
> > > So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> > > MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> > > from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> > > the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
> > >
> > > It fits.
> > >
> > It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
> > not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
> > fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

....

> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

troll:
> Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?

Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??

It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
innovations:
- Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
- centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
- reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
- broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
- tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
(cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> savanna to chase antelopes?

Why? Are you a child? You were never exposed to such an idea?

I'm calling you a liar. I'm denouncing you as a lying troll.

I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
You're a raging narcissist.

Fuck off.

> > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > and idiotic.

> It is Marcs favorite straw man.

No. It's idiocy that he argues against.

> > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > bipedalism was most useful.
> >
> > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > a number of environments is "Popular."

> Yes

"Environments" is plural.... more than one environment.

> What? I do read scientific articles

I doubt that. And you can't read usenet posts for comprehension, there's
no point is pretending you read & understand scientific papers.

> So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?

No. None. They contain radioactive isotopes that destroy DHA.

If you want to make a case for your terrestrial DHA,. make it. STOP
asking me or anyone else to make it for you.

> > Coastal dispersal.

> Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> lot better and safer.

So they were dead on the coast. "Coastal Dispersal," is in your mind
when dead ancestors walked everywhere from Sundaland to South
Africa, and every point in between... dead.

And certainly not eating!

I mean, how can dead ancestors eat?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840