Well, there is one scientific method by which we can determine that.
When were Trachillos footprints? Lets see scientific method by which
they found the date. Sedimentary rocks are 5.6 my old. Foraminifera that
was present was 8.5 and 3.5 my old. So, taking sedimentary rocks and
foraminifora, it was 8.5 - 5.6 my.
So, nobody claims that those footprints are old 5.685.384 years and
234 days. Nobody. It is the range. This is the scientific method, the range.
But, in a case of human speech, fire, it is always the closest
possible date. Fire 700 kya, speech, the closest possible. Well, it
*isn't* the closest possible only in these examples, it is the range.
The range is between H/P LCA and the closest possible. The way they are
looking at it today *isn't scientific way*.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op zaterdag 11 december 2021 om 01:56:03 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> Well, there is one scientific method by which we can determine that.
> When were Trachilos footprints? ...

All early hominids were "bipedal", google "aquarboreal":
they waded & climbed vertically in swamp/mangrove/flooded...forests.

Trachilos were simply waterside footprints of a dryopith or hominid - nothing unexpected:
google "ape human evolution made easy PPT".

But hominid bipedality has 0 to do with human speech:
google "language speech origins 2017 PPT".

On 11.12.2021. 10:46, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 11 december 2021 om 01:56:03 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>> Well, there is one scientific method by which we can determine that.
>> When were Trachilos footprints? ...
>
> All early hominids were "bipedal", google "aquarboreal":
> they waded & climbed vertically in swamp/mangrove/flooded...forests.
>
> Trachilos were simply waterside footprints of a dryopith or hominid - nothing unexpected:
> google "ape human evolution made easy PPT".

Everybody agrees that those footprints were left by Graecopithecus. It
has thick enamel, smaller canines. Evolution isn't a bubble gum, to
stretch it the way you like it.

> But hominid bipedality has 0 to do with human speech:
> google "language speech origins 2017 PPT".

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op zaterdag 11 december 2021 om 14:53:49 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> >> Well, there is one scientific method by which we can determine that.
> >> When were Trachilos footprints? ...

> > All early hominids were "bipedal", google "aquarboreal":
> > they waded & climbed vertically in swamp/mangrove/flooded...forests.
> > Trachilos were simply waterside footprints of a dryopith or hominid - nothing unexpected:
> > google "ape human evolution made easy PPT".

> Everybody agrees that those footprints were left by Graecopithecus. It
> has thick enamel, smaller canines. Evolution isn't a bubble gum, to
> stretch it the way you like it.

Of course: all early hominids incl.Graecopith were "bipedal", google "aquarboreal":
they waded & climbed vertically in swamp/mangrove/flooded...forests.
Trachilos were simply waterside footprints of a dryopith or hominid - nothing unexpected:
google "ape human evolution made easy PPT".

But this has 0 to do with human speech:
google "language speech origins 2017 PPT".

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> Well, there is one scientific method by which we can determine that.
> When were Trachillos footprints? Lets see scientific method by which
> they found the date. Sedimentary rocks are 5.6 my old. Foraminifera that
> was present was 8.5 and 3.5 my old. So, taking sedimentary rocks and
> foraminifora, it was 8.5 - 5.6 my.

: The researchers of the tracks suggest that it may imply the possibility of hominin
: evolution outside of Africa, contrary to the current theory.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trachilos_footprints

If pale anthropology were a science and not a social program it would't obsess
over WHERE, realizing that modern humans evolved from a process and not a
location.

I can agree that we can break things down to a range. Like, would any of us
really argue -- apart from trolling -- AGAINST the notion of erectus having
speech?

I think not.

And maybe habilis for an upward limit?

I personally doubt that early habilis had our idea of language...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/670313698125037568

Op zondag 12 december 2021 om 20:59:59 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> I can agree that we can break things down to a range. Like, would any of us
> really argue -- apart from trolling -- AGAINST the notion of erectus having
> speech?

Preadaptations to language
-large brain erectus +-
-voluntary breathing +in erectus
-hyoidal descent

Op zondag 12 december 2021 om 20:59:59 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> ... would any of us
> really argue -- apart from trolling -- AGAINST the notion of erectus having
> speech?

-very large brain erectus +-
-hyoidal descent erectus +
-voluntary breathing erectus +
-suction feeding erectus +

AFAICS, erectus had most preadaptations to speech:
they might gradually evolve speech:
possibly, speech was how to could evolve from diving to wading-walking.

Google "vaneechoutte seafood diving song speech"

On 12.12.2021. 20:59, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
>> Well, there is one scientific method by which we can determine that.
>> When were Trachillos footprints? Lets see scientific method by which
>> they found the date. Sedimentary rocks are 5.6 my old. Foraminifera that
>> was present was 8.5 and 3.5 my old. So, taking sedimentary rocks and
>> foraminifora, it was 8.5 - 5.6 my.
>
> : The researchers of the tracks suggest that it may imply the possibility of hominin
> : evolution outside of Africa, contrary to the current theory.[2]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trachilos_footprints
>
> If pale anthropology were a science and not a social program it would't obsess
> over WHERE, realizing that modern humans evolved from a process and not a
> location.
>
> I can agree that we can break things down to a range. Like, would any of us
> really argue -- apart from trolling -- AGAINST the notion of erectus having
> speech?
>
> I think not.
>
> And maybe habilis for an upward limit?
>
> I personally doubt that early habilis had our idea of language...

Stone tools equals language.
This means, Kenyanthropus equals language. Since Kenyanthropus was
"platyops" (flat face), he came from the north. He lived on a lakeside.
So, he came from northern shores.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op zondag 12 december 2021 om 21:58:44 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> Stone tools equals language.

:-D

> This means, Kenyanthropus equals language. Since Kenyanthropus was
> "platyops" (flat face), he came from the north.

:-D