Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

No question is so difficult as one to which the answer is obvious.


interests / sci.anthropology.paleo / our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

SubjectAuthor
* our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishlittor...@gmail.com
+* Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishPrimum Sapienti
|+* Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishlittor...@gmail.com
||`* Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishPrimum Sapienti
|| `* Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishlittor...@gmail.com
||  `* MV doesn't know what a snorkel is. Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestorsPrimum Sapienti
||   `- Now MV thinks philtrums are snorkels... Re: MV doesn't know what aPrimum Sapienti
|`- Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishlittor...@gmail.com
`* Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishI Envy JTEM
 `* Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishlittor...@gmail.com
  +- Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishDD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
  `- Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfishI Envy JTEM

1
our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12310&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12310

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5994:: with SMTP id e20mr1008294qte.75.1640252707227;
Thu, 23 Dec 2021 01:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:40a:: with SMTP id n10mr988874qtx.161.1640252707049;
Thu, 23 Dec 2021 01:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 01:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:13b:a5a9:3b38:3b31;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:13b:a5a9:3b38:3b31
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 09:45:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 18
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Thu, 23 Dec 2021 09:45 UTC

Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
e.g. already
- 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
"The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
- 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
"The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"

Many questions remain, however, e.g.
did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
See discussions at aat@groups.io.

In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12495&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12495

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: inval...@invalid.invalid (Primum Sapienti)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:42:26 -0700
Organization: sum
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:42:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0646a5281c08ce7ee9bd60bf9d4b039c";
logging-data="21132"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Se0DOiu2fAc+iJFSx1IEc"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.49.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E/0Qt79N1X+u08rVsOzDkVRPc74=
In-Reply-To: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Primum Sapienti - Thu, 13 Jan 2022 20:42 UTC

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...
>
> Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
> Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
> e.g. already
> - 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
> "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
> - 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
> "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
>
> Many questions remain, however, e.g.
> did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
> See discussions at aat@groups.io.
>
> In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12536&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12536

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f13:: with SMTP id f19mr16969649qtk.670.1642418014751;
Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:13:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:19e9:: with SMTP id q9mr17892033qvc.45.1642418014602;
Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:13:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:48f7:8be8:9c34:e7cb;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:48f7:8be8:9c34:e7cb
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com> <srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:13:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 20
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:13 UTC

> > Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...
> > Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
> > Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
> > e.g. already
> > - 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
> > "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
> > - 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
> > "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
> > Many questions remain, however, e.g.
> > did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
> > See discussions at aat@groups.io.
> > In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

Some kudu runner:
> ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

?? If so, so what??
Google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<90e7080d-818b-4b27-a4d1-890d0ee23617n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12538&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12538

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:28b:: with SMTP id z11mr4695639qtw.365.1642420725487;
Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:58:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f4d:: with SMTP id g13mr16343625qtk.215.1642420725375;
Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:58:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:48f7:8be8:9c34:e7cb;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:48f7:8be8:9c34:e7cb
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com> <srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <90e7080d-818b-4b27-a4d1-890d0ee23617n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:58:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 18
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:58 UTC

> > Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish:

> ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.

> > Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
> > Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
> > e.g. already
> > - 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
> > "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
> > - 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
> > "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"

Fast cursorial tetrapods don't have very long extremities.
Many primates have rel. much longer extremities than cursorials.
Frequently-wading tetrapods often have rel. very long legs: BP heron, QP moose...
Early hominoids were vertical-bipedal waders-climbers (google "Aquarboreal Ancestors?"),
but archaic Homo (POS) began diving frequently for sessile foods:
although they were still probably parttime wading, they had rel.shorter tibias than H.sapiens,
and during diving they held their upperarms constantly next to their trunk (ill.Med.Hyp.1985-1987).

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<st5a8r$flm$8@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12636&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12636

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: inval...@invalid.invalid (Primum Sapienti)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 23:12:47 -0700
Organization: sum
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <st5a8r$flm$8@dont-email.me>
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
<srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
<25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 06:12:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="addc7642f088f6a4a8e1767cf4758d91";
logging-data="16054"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CwNNjF40up9UEePPjPIBG"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.49.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LzOByv8ORtQej+WcC8ODV8jGfl0=
In-Reply-To: <25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Primum Sapienti - Sun, 30 Jan 2022 06:12 UTC

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...
>>> Why don't people read the relevant literature before talking nonsense??
>>> Human leg length has perfectly been explained:
>>> e.g. already
>>> - 1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32
>>> "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario" &
>>> - 1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9
>>> "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
>>> Many questions remain, however, e.g.
>>> did our (late-?)Pliocene ancestors (Red Sea?) dive more than our (early-?)Pleistocene ancestors (Indian Ocean?), or v.v.?
>>> See discussions at aat@groups.io.
>>> In any case, only incredible imbeciles believe human Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.
>
> Some kudu runner:
>> ALL aquatic mammals are short limbed. ALL.
>
> ?? If so, so what??

We aren't short limbed.

> Google

Found those snorkel noses yet?

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<55e8dec7-4075-48de-ada0-0ce3f5bba021n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12682&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12682

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:41c8:: with SMTP id o8mr21187137qtm.386.1643755271350;
Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:41:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:ac0b:: with SMTP id e11mr18531837qkm.498.1643755271135;
Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:41:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <st5a8r$flm$8@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:b46c:7d21:48b:7c52;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:b46c:7d21:48b:7c52
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
<srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me> <25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>
<st5a8r$flm$8@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <55e8dec7-4075-48de-ada0-0ce3f5bba021n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 22:41:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4645
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Tue, 1 Feb 2022 22:41 UTC

> Found those snorkel noses yet?

Yes, why do think the columella & the philtrum fitted? cf. prognathism:

Oi, Big nose !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces. Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins of land and water.. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food, and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving). This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<e20a05d7-e093-4516-9f41-7aab7bc6b27bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12684&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12684

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a49:: with SMTP id o9mr21902807qta.267.1643804354030;
Wed, 02 Feb 2022 04:19:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7e8f:: with SMTP id w15mr22273381qtj.314.1643804353847;
Wed, 02 Feb 2022 04:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 04:19:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:192:4c7f:4ba0:bcf7:98dc:8cc7:bd21;
posting-account=Si1SKwoAAADpFF5n-E1OIJfy3ARZBlIl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:192:4c7f:4ba0:bcf7:98dc:8cc7:bd21
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e20a05d7-e093-4516-9f41-7aab7bc6b27bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: jte...@gmail.com (I Envy JTEM)
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 12:19:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 47
 by: I Envy JTEM - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:19 UTC

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

My only complaint is that shellfish generally allow you to forgo diving.

You've got to remember: We have nearly depleted the oceans at this point.

What we see today is a tiny fraction of what once was.

AND, we know that they consumed resources then moved on. It's how they
spanned the continents. It's not just how they migrated but why they
migrated.

So they didn't necessarily have to dive for anything until much, much later.

It's one of the reasons why I like to say that our evolution doesn't start with
erectus, it ends there. Erectus appears to be the first "Modern," quite literally
if you follow the rather loose application of the term "Modern" by paleo
anthropology which seems to think "Moderns" were around 300,000 years
ago at this point.

That's what the social program is saying.

Brow ridges? Low sloping forehead? MODERN!

And it's not entirely wrong. I mean it is wrong, just not entirely wrong.

Genetically they were probably so close to us that interbreeding is very
likely. But they weren't modern at all in the sense that their features fell
outside the normally accept range of humans today.

You could pick one out of a crowd.

Is that really so important? Well it's enough to show that they were a very
different POPULATION, one that doesn't exist today, but there is an argument
that they were actually the same species... we are THAT close.

So I tend to see erectus NOT as Aquatic Ape but what Aquatic Ape resulted
in... arrived at... produced.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<98eb9a4c-2696-400d-8b97-2953301bafb0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12724&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12724

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a54:: with SMTP id o20mr6415517qta.670.1644191124621;
Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:45:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e37:: with SMTP id d23mr6322885qtw.534.1644191124507;
Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2022 15:45:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <e20a05d7-e093-4516-9f41-7aab7bc6b27bn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:dc68:99ab:1c8a:e9f4;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:dc68:99ab:1c8a:e9f4
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com> <e20a05d7-e093-4516-9f41-7aab7bc6b27bn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <98eb9a4c-2696-400d-8b97-2953301bafb0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 23:45:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 47
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Sun, 6 Feb 2022 23:45 UTC

Op woensdag 2 februari 2022 om 13:19:14 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...

> My only complaint is that shellfish generally allow you to forgo diving.
> You've got to remember: We have nearly depleted the oceans at this point.
> What we see today is a tiny fraction of what once was.

Yes, most of our Pleistocene ancestors were waterside omnivores,
but at some (short?) times they might have been almost full-time shellfish-(& seaweed?-)divers:
pachyosteosclosis (H.erectus) in other animals is *exclusively *seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods.
This coincides with the Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal of erectus cs (incl. islands, e.g. Flores).
I wonder: did shellfish become more abundant at (sub)tropical coasts when (Pleistocene) temperatures dropped?
> AND, we know that they consumed resources then moved on. It's how they
> spanned the continents. It's not just how they migrated but why they
> migrated.

Neandertals had C & N isotopes between salt & freshwater foods:
presumably they seasonally followed the river to the sea (salmon?).

Traditional PAs suggested Neandertals were "super-carnivores" because their C+N isotopes were "more carnivorous" than in pure carnivores.
But they were so prejudiced that they didn't even consider aquatic foods!
How can an animal be more carnivorous than felids?? :-D
The imbeciles!

> So they didn't necessarily have to dive for anything until much, much later.
> It's one of the reasons why I like to say that our evolution doesn't start with
> erectus, it ends there. Erectus appears to be the first "Modern," quite literally
> if you follow the rather loose application of the term "Modern" by paleo
> anthropology which seems to think "Moderns" were around 300,000 years
> ago at this point.
> That's what the social program is saying.
> Brow ridges? Low sloping forehead? MODERN!
> And it's not entirely wrong. I mean it is wrong, just not entirely wrong.
> Genetically they were probably so close to us that interbreeding is very
> likely. But they weren't modern at all in the sense that their features fell
> outside the normally accept range of humans today.
> You could pick one out of a crowd.
> Is that really so important? Well it's enough to show that they were a very
> different POPULATION, one that doesn't exist today, but there is an argument
> that they were actually the same species... we are THAT close.
> So I tend to see erectus NOT as Aquatic Ape but what Aquatic Ape resulted
> in... arrived at... produced.

I'll (try to) answer these problems in my WHAT talk next sunday.
If you contact me at m_verhaegen@skynet.be, I'll send the PPT.

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<bb1d3fd6-d8cd-4819-b898-67378b3d8521n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12725&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12725

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a49:: with SMTP id o9mr6183800qta.267.1644194651954;
Sun, 06 Feb 2022 16:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:194a:: with SMTP id q10mr6691517qvk.82.1644194651527;
Sun, 06 Feb 2022 16:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2022 16:44:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <98eb9a4c-2696-400d-8b97-2953301bafb0n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2607:fb90:409e:b9e1:0:2d:503f:b501;
posting-account=EMmeqwoAAAA_LjVgdifHm2aHM2oOTKz0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fb90:409e:b9e1:0:2d:503f:b501
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
<e20a05d7-e093-4516-9f41-7aab7bc6b27bn@googlegroups.com> <98eb9a4c-2696-400d-8b97-2953301bafb0n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bb1d3fd6-d8cd-4819-b898-67378b3d8521n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: daud.de...@gmail.com (DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves)
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 00:44:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 42
 by: DD'eDeN aka not - Mon, 7 Feb 2022 00:44 UTC

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op woensdag 2 februari 2022 om 13:19:14 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> > > Some incredible imbeciles here seem to believe that because we have long legs our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors could not have dived for shellfish...
>
> > My only complaint is that shellfish generally allow you to forgo diving.
> > You've got to remember: We have nearly depleted the oceans at this point.
> > What we see today is a tiny fraction of what once was.
> Yes, most of our Pleistocene ancestors were waterside omnivores,
> but at some (short?) times they might have been almost full-time shellfish-(& seaweed?-)divers:
> pachyosteosclosis (H.erectus) in other animals is *exclusively *seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods.
> This coincides with the Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal of erectus cs (incl. islands, e.g. Flores).
> I wonder: did shellfish become more abundant at (sub)tropical coasts when (Pleistocene) temperatures dropped?
> > AND, we know that they consumed resources then moved on. It's how they
> > spanned the continents. It's not just how they migrated but why they
> > migrated.
> Neandertals had C & N isotopes between salt & freshwater foods:
> presumably they seasonally followed the river to the sea (salmon?).
>
> Traditional PAs suggested Neandertals were "super-carnivores" because their C+N isotopes were "more carnivorous" than in pure carnivores.
> But they were so prejudiced that they didn't even consider aquatic foods!
> How can an animal be more carnivorous than felids?? :-D
> The imbeciles!
> > So they didn't necessarily have to dive for anything until much, much later.
> > It's one of the reasons why I like to say that our evolution doesn't start with
> > erectus, it ends there. Erectus appears to be the first "Modern," quite literally
> > if you follow the rather loose application of the term "Modern" by paleo
> > anthropology which seems to think "Moderns" were around 300,000 years
> > ago at this point.
> > That's what the social program is saying.
> > Brow ridges? Low sloping forehead? MODERN!
> > And it's not entirely wrong. I mean it is wrong, just not entirely wrong.
> > Genetically they were probably so close to us that interbreeding is very
> > likely. But they weren't modern at all in the sense that their features fell
> > outside the normally accept range of humans today.
> > You could pick one out of a crowd.
> > Is that really so important? Well it's enough to show that they were a very
> > different POPULATION, one that doesn't exist today, but there is an argument
> > that they were actually the same species... we are THAT close.
> > So I tend to see erectus NOT as Aquatic Ape but what Aquatic Ape resulted
> > in... arrived at... produced.
> I'll (try to) answer these problems in my WHAT talk next sunday.
> If you contact me at m_ver...@skynet.be, I'll send the PPT.
Neandertals hunted eagles. Hypercarnivores.

Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<36ecaeeb-8f49-42a0-b67f-c149f92f2757n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12733&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12733

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:430d:: with SMTP id u13mr1080991qko.286.1644269887726;
Mon, 07 Feb 2022 13:38:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d0e:: with SMTP id 14mr1209650qvh.62.1644269887494;
Mon, 07 Feb 2022 13:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 13:38:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <98eb9a4c-2696-400d-8b97-2953301bafb0n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:192:4c7f:4ba0:39fb:d0e1:636a:1efe;
posting-account=Si1SKwoAAADpFF5n-E1OIJfy3ARZBlIl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:192:4c7f:4ba0:39fb:d0e1:636a:1efe
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
<e20a05d7-e093-4516-9f41-7aab7bc6b27bn@googlegroups.com> <98eb9a4c-2696-400d-8b97-2953301bafb0n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <36ecaeeb-8f49-42a0-b67f-c149f92f2757n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
From: jte...@gmail.com (I Envy JTEM)
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 21:38:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 42
 by: I Envy JTEM - Mon, 7 Feb 2022 21:38 UTC

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Neandertals had C & N isotopes between salt & freshwater foods:
> presumably they seasonally followed the river to the sea (salmon?).
>
> Traditional PAs suggested Neandertals were "super-carnivores" because their C+N isotopes were "more carnivorous" than in pure carnivores.
> But they were so prejudiced that they didn't even consider aquatic foods!
> How can an animal be more carnivorous than felids?? :-D
> The imbeciles!

It's actually quite easy to fool the tests. Practicing cannibalism is one way.
Do that and you're absorbing all the isotopes of another human. Or you can
eat carnivores like wolves and lions. Then you absorb their isotopes.

We have this problem today with fish and toxins. The little fishies muck around,
absorbing all the pollution that lands in the water -- toxins -- and then the big
carnivores eat them. Lots of them. Hundreds. Maybe thousands over a lifetime,
I dunno, I don't keep track. The point is they absorb all the toxins that the little
fish take in... building it up... and then we come along and eat that big fish.

But you get it, right?

If you eat 100 fish then you're absorbing the isotopes from 100 fish... 100x the
isotopes. And if a wolf or a lion eats 10 dear over its lifetime, and you eat the
wolf/lion you're absorbing all their isotopes.

....and if you practice cannibalism, you're absorbing the isotopes that
the person you're eating absorbed over their lifetime.

> I'll (try to) answer these problems in my WHAT talk next sunday.
> If you contact me at m_ver...@skynet.be, I'll send the PPT.

OMG! I missed this! Sorry. I just noticed your reply now.

I will check out the WHAT talk on Youtube though...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/675134847733448704

MV doesn't know what a snorkel is. Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<sui4h0$f1p$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12809&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12809

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: inval...@invalid.invalid (Primum Sapienti)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: MV doesn't know what a snorkel is. Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors
dived for shellfish
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:10:41 -0700
Organization: sum
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <sui4h0$f1p$2@dont-email.me>
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
<srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
<25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>
<st5a8r$flm$8@dont-email.me>
<55e8dec7-4075-48de-ada0-0ce3f5bba021n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 06:10:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="79ed16892487de775a9a54bf3a5c0ce7";
logging-data="15417"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JuO5uwTixzrXSy6oYrurP"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.49.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:26rJf92/yDOFNhZHxSrB5x0oSzs=
In-Reply-To: <55e8dec7-4075-48de-ada0-0ce3f5bba021n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Primum Sapienti - Wed, 16 Feb 2022 06:10 UTC

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Found those snorkel noses yet?
>
> Yes, why do think the columella & the philtrum fitted? cf. prognathism:

That's not a snorkel. And of course, you have to manually hold the lip
against the nose.
That must make swimming really easy, eh, doing it with ONE hand?

THIS is a definition of snorkel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/snorkel
a hard rubber or plastic tube through which a swimmer can breathe while
moving face down at or just below the surface of the water.

I challenge you to show how"columella & the philtrum" make a snorkel.

You won't, because it can't be shown.

Now MV thinks philtrums are snorkels... Re: MV doesn't know what a snorkel is. Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish

<svmtg7$9tr$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=12938&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#12938

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: inval...@invalid.invalid (Primum Sapienti)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Now MV thinks philtrums are snorkels... Re: MV doesn't know what a
snorkel is. Re: our Plio-Pleistocene ancestors dived for shellfish
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 21:57:44 -0700
Organization: sum
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <svmtg7$9tr$2@dont-email.me>
References: <944e3b3f-a7b6-4e1a-9398-aac279b9875bn@googlegroups.com>
<srq2rf$kkc$4@dont-email.me>
<25d8f2fd-6990-44c9-a1bb-5916e4c10e84n@googlegroups.com>
<st5a8r$flm$8@dont-email.me>
<55e8dec7-4075-48de-ada0-0ce3f5bba021n@googlegroups.com>
<sui4h0$f1p$2@dont-email.me>
<ef210301-7f8e-45db-b324-a18c88424bdbn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 04:57:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ffb030b22dc4ae1733a1d76abebe33b4";
logging-data="10171"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IwCf9gqvc0NzI0kRrZYZ0"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.49.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bAujPYzAIgaiFlr8+bcJAuiITcM=
In-Reply-To: <ef210301-7f8e-45db-b324-a18c88424bdbn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Primum Sapienti - Wed, 2 Mar 2022 04:57 UTC

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Somebody:
>
>> I challenge you to show how"columella & the philtrum" make a snorkel.
>
> Everybody who knows a little bit of erectus' anatomy can:
> "what talk you tube verhaegen"
>

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

The philtrum (Latin: philtrum from Ancient Greek φίλτρον phíltron, lit.
"love charm"), or medial cleft, is a vertical indentation in the middle area
of the upper lip, common to many mammals, extending in humans from
the nasal septum to the tubercle of the upper lip. Together with a glandular
rhinarium and slit-like nostrils, it is believed to constitute the primitive
condition for at least therian mammals."

In most mammals, the philtrum is a narrow groove that may carry dissolved
odorants from the rhinarium or nose pad to the vomeronasal organ via ducts
inside the mouth.

For humans and most primates, the philtrum survives only as a vestigial
medial depression between the nose and upper lip.

The human philtrum, bordered by ridges, also is known as the infranasal
depression, but has no apparent function. That may be because most higher
primates rely more on vision than on smell.[4] Strepsirrhine primates, such
as lemurs, still retain the philtrum and the rhinarium, unlike monkeys and
apes.

https://advetresearch.com/index.php/AVR/article/view/487/432

The philtrum is a median groove in the upper lip of domestic animals
(Nickelet al.,1979). It usually found in animals that possessed a
rhinarium or a nasalplane (NP) such as carnivores and small ruminants
(Nickelet al., 1979; Evans and Christensen, 1979). The nasal plane is a
wet glabrous skin area, which covers the medial wings of the nostrils
(Nickelet al., 1979). The philtrum in such species is deep and sometimes
extends to the nostrils. On the other hand, it’s shallow or absent in
animals that lack NP, a sequine (Nickelet al., 1979). This anatomical
association is also indicating functional correlations between the
philtrum and the NP (Hillenius and Rehorek, 2005). The philtrum proposed
to drain the odoront molecules that dissolved in the fluid covering the NP
to reach the incisive papillae and then into the nasopalatine ducts
(Wöhrmann-Repenning and Bergmann, 2001). While the nasopalatine ducts or
incisive ducts are the oro-nasal passage of the vomeronasal duct system
(VNO), the philtrum thereby is considered the communication canal between
the NP and the VNO (Hillenius and Rehorek, 2005; Eshrah, 2019).

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor