On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 18:52:28 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> ...
> > > 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??
>
We obviously need fossils for to see where and how the animals did live and
if they had such properties and activities like you describe. Didn't you notice
that you reject out of Africa? So need location of fossils. Didn't you notice that
you mentioned bipedal? So need at least some body bones. etc. Otherwise all
your stories are groundless fiction. Didn't you notice that you post to
sci.bio.paleontology? Paleontology is not about fiction, it deals with fossils.
For fiction there are other groups.

> 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/

I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy". With what
"aquarboereal" animals you compare? List them. AFAIK it is terminology
invented by you and meaning whatever you want to mean. Hmm ...
sea lions? Those do not climb trees. Some fat people indeed look like
caricature of sea lion ... but also do not climb trees and if to throw them
into water then also swim like pile of excrement. Those people are
product of handful of last decades, not Miocene.

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 07:00:49 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, I had read of that idiotic idea only from trolls like JTEM
and Marc. And indeed if then to search I found that some bearded
guys lot of decades ago had such "hypothesis". So show me the textbooks.
Oh? You cant? Huge surprise. And you need that garbage only to
push similarly idiotic and ungrounded deep diving ape hypothesis.

> I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
> You're a raging narcissist.
>
> Fuck off.
>
Why you demonstrate of being immature and obscene?
We all know it. No need to underline that after each sentence.

> > > 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.
>
Idiocy he himself has dug out. It is called straw man argument and
false dichotomy. Did not chase gazelles therefore did deep dive.
How does that follow? So does not follow and so has been pointlessly
brought up.

> > > 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.

How does it matter? Ape is not nailed to ground like a tree. I am in
urban region of city with about half millon people. It is 15 minutes
walk to nearest coast and hour walk to nearest forest. Totally
different environments.

> > 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.
>
Do not mirror, I'm not you.

> > 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.
>
If you write that Elvis is alive or that DHA rich foods do not contain
it then what I can say. Just take your meds.

> > > 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?
>
Yes take your meds. You are talking to yourself and arguing about
some kind of nonsense that was not said out with yourself.

> > > > 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??

troll:
> We obviously need fossils

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/

> I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".

Yes, it's obvious you don't see it. :-DDD

Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 12:27:45 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > 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??
> troll:
> > We obviously need fossils
> 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/
>
> > I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".
> Yes, it's obvious you don't see it. :-DDD

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:35:58 AM UTC-7, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
> If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

<snip rubbish>

They're here because Peter invited them. Marc is a crank of long standing, originally
deriving from the "aquatic ape" cult. He's inherited much of the cult, and added a few
other cranks and frolls, such as JTEM. Unfortunatly they'll probably be here indefinitely.

On 4/17/23 3:58 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
> 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).

1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

2. (Anticipating the answer to 1...) Why not?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 4/27/23 06:35, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? J

if you would STOP answering them, my filters would work better,

erik simpson wrote:

> They're

Right. You're a totally "Normal" and "Different" person who
never heard of the idea of bipedalism evolving on the
savanna... sure... that's the ticket.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

Mark Isaak wrote:

> 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

Here you go:

https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html

https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature

Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
what to think.

And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
can not control is always apparent.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 20:18:23 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?
> Here you go:
> the
> https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html
>
> https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature
>
These links demonstrate that disinformation and bullshit in
those journals is filtered so well that event of garbage passing
the filters is worth talking about. In our world where nothing
works 100% it is indication of remarkable quality.

> Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
> or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
> what to think.
>
You talk to mirror there. He asked cites of articles.

> And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
> the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
> compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
> can not control is always apparent.
>
Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
arguments.

troll:
> Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
> arguments.

"actual arguments"??? :-DDD

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 09:44:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:
> > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
> > arguments.
> "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

I explained that we need fossils for to know location, properties
and genes of your "hypothetical" "aquarboereal" deep ones. Also
I explained that we need something to compare with to claim
"comparative anatomy" of your animals. If life style of those is
however unique and never heard of and we see no fossils then
it must be obvious to yourself that you are talking about fantasy
monsters.
Perhaps that is why you snip and run with insults? It is obvious
to yourself?

troll:
> > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.

> > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

troll:
> I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...

No, troll, we don't:
never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 21:44:07 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:
> > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
>
> > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD
> troll:
> > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
>
> No, troll, we don't.

Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
without any fossil.

> never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?

Whose physiology? Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Dobhar-chú? Existence
of your animal has no evidence.

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> These links demonstrate

Your demand for cites, as if you ever read much less understand any,
was obfuscation. You were trying to BLOCK an exchange of ideas,
put one down. You are still attempting to do this.

THE SAME with you pretending that the savanna hypothesis on the
origins of bipedalism & modern man is something that nobody ever
put forward much less was taught...

It's all your severe personality disorder at work.

Pretending bipedalism arose on a savanna is idiocy. Pretending
bipedalism arose in trees is idiocy. Pretending that there's the
slightest truth to Out of Africa purity is idiocy.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
> without any fossil.

Why? Are you pretending that you're not supporting Out of Africa
and an African LCA in that date range -- ALL WITHOUT FOSSILS?

You're PROVING that you're mentally ill here -- DEMANDING "Cites"
to establish what YOU are claiming!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

> > 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.

It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.

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

Of course: google "aquarboreal"!

> > 4) had australopithecine ancestors??

> And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.

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

> > 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.

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?

I??
Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.

> 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.

??
Lots of trees in my garden...

> > 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?

I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.

> > 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.

You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.

> > 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.

You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.

aqua=water, arbor=tree

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

?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??
?? *deep*divers??

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:44:07 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:

I'm ashamed of you, Marc, calling a Mr. Tiib a "troll" in a post where
he is acting in a perfectly reasonable fashion.

He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
all too typical of JTEM:

> > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
>
> > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

Your loyalty to JTEM is badly misplaced here.

> troll:
> > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
>
> No, troll, we don't:

Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
of the environment of Asia and Africa explaining
how the comparative anatomy of animals millions of years
in the future is foreshadowed by differences in the paleoenvironment
of those huge continents. Or ten million years in the future, where DNA is concerned.

> never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Is this your idea of a joke? Can you tell me where in this oft-regurgitated article of yours
any relevance is explained of these things to the Africa v. Asia dispute?

ANYWHERE AT ALL?

Before you answer, take a look at the following excerpt from the article you linked:

"The most intense phase would have occurred later, probably in the early to middle Pleistocene (1.8 to 0.126 Ma), according to Marc Verhaegen. Therefore, Waterside Hypothesis is a more appropriate name."

This seems to badly undermine your assertion.

When I first saw you here in s.b.p. in March, I was very glad, because there had been
little activity here at the time you joined, and my scanty memories from
s.a.p. of you over the years had been favorable. But now I am coming
to think that you are making s.b.p. a worse place than before, and
it would be better for everyone if you confined yourself to sci.anthropology.paleo
for the rest of 2023.

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

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
> of

This is a discussion group, not a book club. And neither is it a
classroom where you're a student.

People express ideas. If you are interested and not a mangled
sock puppet acting out his disorder,. Google it. If and only if
you can't find the information, ask for help.

REMEMBER: You're pretending to be an academic. Research
is supposed to come second nature... to the character you're
playing.

Supposed to.

But clearly it does not.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716847865999360000

JTEM shows below just how appropriate it was for Öö Tiib to post
the following statement about him:

"Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments."

When Marc quoted this, he hid the fact that Tiib was saying
this to his faithful shill JTEM, and I let people know this, and how true it was:

"He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
all too typical of JTEM"

As if on cue, JTEM shows how very typical it is below.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
> > of

That is everything that you, JTEM, left in from the post where all of
the above was documented.

> This is a discussion group,

Then why are you so unwilling to discuss anything we talk about?
Why do you leave in meaningless sentence fragments and then
go into monologues that do not address the points that the person made?

> not a book club.

The main studies that were necessary for Marc to be able to cite
are far more likely to be found in scholarly journals than in books.
Had you left in the rest of my sentence, this would have been
clear to anyone who knows how science is disseminated.

> And neither is it a
> classroom where you're a student.
>
> People express ideas.

> If you are interested

I am interested in seeing true support by Marc for his innumerable
hypotheses, instead of FALSELY alleging that support is to be found in the article,
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
which is what he did this time. You snipped it, because you can't face the truth about Marc.

Support for other claims consists of telling us to google other articles that Marc is too cowardly to post information from,
lest it be found out that his support is laughably inadequate.

>and not a mangled
> sock puppet acting out his disorder,. Google it.

See above. Our time is too precious for us to go looking in
huge haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.
We need assurance that Marc is not bluffing about the things he tells us to google.
He's cried "Wolf!" too many times with that waterside article.

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> "Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping

You never had any balls to snip, and you should trim replies,
quote only what you are reacting you, idiot.

> That is everything that

Shut up.

> Then why are you so unwilling to discuss anything we talk about?

I'm pretty sure that, if you try, even you might find a contradiction
there.

> The main studies that were necessary for Marc to be able to cite
> are

it's not necessary for him to cite anything. This is a discussion group,
and you have never once shown any willingness much less abilty
to read cites for comprehension. You generally cower behind sock
puppets, posting random cites that you never read past a title or
headline, rarely ever pertaining to the topic under discussion and
NEVER supporting your position.

> I am interested in seeing true

No you're not. Again, this is a discussion group.

Admit it: Back before usenet died you made up a lot of stupid
things, probably being so deranged you had no idea you were
making it all up, and were shut down by demands for cites. Of
course, you being an idiot, you misread all this to mean that a
demand for cites is a powerful weapon that shuts down people,
instead of an indication that you aren't fooling anyone.

Try to deconstruct arguments, figure out WHAT precisely you
feel you need to dispute, and why. State those things as
clearly as your mental state will allow.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716884097016971264

Op dinsdag 9 mei 2023 om 03:11:45 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:44:07 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > troll:

> I'm ashamed of you, Marc, calling a Mr. Tiib a "troll"

I have no idea who this "Tiib" is, Peter, but everybody who believes his Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas is a *ridiculous* troll: we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:
- "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
- "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are?? (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)
Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene), not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.

How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!?
We'll (should) know that the Homo-Pan LCA c 5 Ma lived in swamp forests (google "aquarboreal"), frequently wading bipedally & climbing vertically (arms overhead) in the branches above the water, most likely in coastal forests along the Gulf of Aden, google "WHATtalk verhaegen"):
- Pan followed the E.Afr.coasts, e.g. Au.africanus->robustus->naledi etc. (google "naledi verhaegen"),
- Pliocene Homo followed the S.Asian coasts, e.g. H.erectus early-Pleistocene, see my book, google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen".

______

in a post where
> he is acting in a perfectly reasonable fashion.
> He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
> all too typical of JTEM:
> > > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
> >
> > > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD
> Your loyalty to JTEM is badly misplaced here.
> > troll:
> > > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
> >
> > No, troll, we don't:
> Yes, Marc, we do, until you post a tremendous array of studies
> of the environment of Asia and Africa explaining
> how the comparative anatomy of animals millions of years
> in the future is foreshadowed by differences in the paleoenvironment
> of those huge continents. Or ten million years in the future, where DNA is concerned.

> > never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> Is this your idea of a joke? Can you tell me where in this oft-regurgitated article of yours
> any relevance is explained of these things to the Africa v. Asia dispute?
>
> ANYWHERE AT ALL?
>
> Before you answer, take a look at the following excerpt from the article you linked:
>
> "The most intense phase would have occurred later, probably in the early to middle Pleistocene (1.8 to 0.126 Ma), according to Marc Verhaegen. Therefore, Waterside Hypothesis is a more appropriate name."
>
> This seems to badly undermine your assertion.
>
>
> When I first saw you here in s.b.p. in March, I was very glad, because there had been
> little activity here at the time you joined, and my scanty memories from
> s.a.p. of you over the years had been favorable. But now I am coming
> to think that you are making s.b.p. a worse place than before, and
> it would be better for everyone if you confined yourself to sci.anthropology.paleo
> for the rest of 2023.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 9 mei 2023 om 03:11:45 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:44:07 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > troll:
>
> > I'm ashamed of you, Marc, calling a Mr. Tiib a "troll"

> I have no idea who this "Tiib" is, Peter,

He is Öö Tiib, and if you had read further than where you ended your post, you would
recognize him as the main person you and JTEM have been arguing with on this thread.

> but everybody who believes his Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes over Afr.savannas is a *ridiculous* troll:

Öö Tiib is an Estonian, and he grew up under a Communist system, where he never heard
of this "antelope" hypothesis. Your shill JTEM refused to believe that Tiib had never seen
that hypothesis supported in any scientific paper, but both of you refused to provide him
with a reference to such a paper.

Tiib NEVER showed any sign of sympathy towards the "antelope" hypothesis,
yet you call him a troll.

WHY??

> we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:

Aren't lots of African monkeys free from the viral genes?
IIRC baboons do carry them. Am I remembering wrong?

> - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments
with JTEM so far, and that JTEM has not provided him with references.
Instead he has just stated conclusions.

I will remedy that problem today, by showing John these references.

> Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
> fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD

You speak of comparative anatomy and DNA and physiology in reply to Tiib
(see below where you stopped responding to me)
but this is the basis for their conclusion that these are human ancestors.

Have you ever tried to show that these comparative analyses are flawed?

> Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are??

They can't unless you refute their comparative analyses.

> (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)

They call australopiths human ancestors, and "ape" is an informal term
covering all tailless monkeys including a macaque called the Barbary ape.
It is a polyphylectic assemblage, and even non-cladists have nothing to do with polyphyletic taxa.

> Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene),

This ignores the possibility that human ancestors and gibbon ancestors
developed BP independently after their ancestors split from their LCA.
This would make BP polyphyletic within Hominoidea.

> not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.

> How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!?

Mr. Tiib has not encountered any of them, and I have never seen a
scientific treatise alleging these activities. The last time I have seen anything
like this in popular science books and articles was over three decades ago.

> We'll (should) know that the Homo-Pan LCA c 5 Ma lived in swamp forests (google "aquarboreal"), frequently wading bipedally & climbing vertically (arms overhead) in the branches above the water, most likely in coastal forests along the Gulf of Aden, google "WHATtalk verhaegen"):
> - Pan followed the E.Afr.coasts, e.g. Au.africanus->robustus->naledi etc. (google "naledi verhaegen"),
> - Pliocene Homo followed the S.Asian coasts, e.g. H.erectus early-Pleistocene, see my book, google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen".

We've been over this before. Now kindly start addressing the things you
are ignoring below.

> ______
> in a post where
> > he is acting in a perfectly reasonable fashion.

Do you deny this?

> > He said the following to JTEM, and the behavior he describes is
> > all too typical of JTEM:

Do you deny this? You obscured the fact that he was describing
JTEM and let casual readers think that he was describing you.
I had to scroll way back to the post where the following was written
to see who Mr. Tiib was referring to.

> > > > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
> > >
> > > > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

> > Your loyalty to JTEM is badly misplaced here.

> > > troll:
> > > > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
> > >
> > > No, troll, we don't:

Then SHOW IT by finding scientific articles that begin to do what I said:

> > Yes, Marc, we do, until you [cite] a tremendous array of studies
> > of the environment of Asia and Africa explaining
> > how the comparative anatomy of animals millions of years
> > in the future is foreshadowed by differences in the paleoenvironment
> > of those huge continents. Or ten million years in the future, where DNA is concerned.

That's about where the human - African ape split took place, by your hypothesis, isn't it?
>

> > > never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> > Is this your idea of a joke? Can you tell me where in this oft-regurgitated article of yours
> > any relevance is explained of these things to the Africa v. Asia dispute?
> >
> > ANYWHERE AT ALL?
> >
> > Before you answer, take a look at the following excerpt from the article you linked:
> >
> > "The most intense phase would have occurred later, probably in the early to middle Pleistocene (1.8 to 0.126 Ma), according to Marc Verhaegen. Therefore, Waterside Hypothesis is a more appropriate name."
> >
> > This seems to badly undermine your assertion.

And now came the conclusion:

> > When I first saw you here in s.b.p. in March, I was very glad, because there had been
> > little activity here at the time you joined, and my scanty memories from
> > s.a.p. of you over the years had been favorable. But now I am coming
> > to think that you are making s.b.p. a worse place than before, and
> > it would be better for everyone if you confined yourself to sci.anthropology.paleo
> > for the rest of 2023.

That applies even more to JTEM. I am boycotting him on this thread
until one or both of you deals with the majority of points I raise above.

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

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Öö Tiib is an Estonian, and he grew up under a Communist system, where he never heard
> of this "antelope" hypothesis.

So a know-nothing that was raised to believe evolution was a western,
capitalist, colonialist ruse used to justify the exploitation of people
along class & racial lines.

Big whoop.

> You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments

Well then. Switch sock puppets & touch it! What are you waiting for?

> Have you ever

You're wetting your pants, screaming about how other people aren't making an
argument for you.

This is a discussion group. Discuss.

Quit your whining and discuss.

BETTER YET: Detail your counter proposal.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716884097016971264

On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 14:50:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:

> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
>
From the cited by you article ...

"First, there is virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla, macaque, and baboon, making it unlikely that endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and then became subsequently deleted in the human lineage and orangutan lineage. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor."

.... and ...

"Using neutral estimates of primate LTR divergence [8], we estimate that a contemporaneous infection occurred in these ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee lineages 3–4 million years ago (see Materials and Methods). LTR divergence among baboon and macaque was significantly less (0.051% and 0.058%, respectively; p < 0.007, one-tailed t test), corresponding to a much more recent origin (approximately 1.5 million years ago)."

What you talk about is therefore retrovirus that infected those apes separately
and anyway after human ancestors had already split/stopped hybridising with
ancestors of those apes. Why are the viruses relevant?

> Obviously, australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla, NOT of us:
> fossil hunters find everywhere lots of ape ancestors, but mysteriously in Pliocene Africa they only find "human ancestors"... :-DDD Don't they realize how ridiculously afro+anthropo-centric they are?? (but yes, who prefers to find an ape ancestor rather than a human ancestor...)

The cited article mentions australopiths in precisely zero places so it is unclear from
where you even took them in. By other publications australopiths appeared 4..2 mya
well before of those retroviruses entered genomes of said apes. If australopiths did
not make 3.3 mya stone tools in Kenya or 2.6 mya in Ethiopia then someone anyway
did. Those places are in Africa and those tools weren't likely made by chimpanzee or
gorilla. Instead you are discussing 2.2 mya or younger stuff from time when tools are
all over the place:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
Particularly you cherry-pick Java with findings 1.8 mya old. Why?

> Whenever these fossil hunters discern a humanlike feature in *their* fossil (usu."bipedality"), they say they've found a "human anestor", not realizing that *all* Hominoidea had BP ancestors (Mio-Pliocene), not for running after antelopes, of course, but simply for wading upright + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests, as all great apes still do occasionally (in spite of Pleist.coolings?), google e.g. "bonobo wading" illustrations.
>
> How is it possible that there are still idiots who believe that we got flatter feet + short toes & poor olfaction (!!) & external noses & huge brains & stone tools to hunt on Afr.savannas, sweating abundantly water+sodium, running 3x slower than antelopes?!?

And again your straw-man without source. What is the source of that antelope chasing
garbage? You never tell. Yet your whole "aquarboreal" theory is built on false dichotomy
between those unknown "cheetah men" and your unknown "deep ones". Without cites in
scientific publications so both are most likely wrong.