The uncertain case for human-driven extinctions prior to Homo sapiens
J Tyler Faith cs 2020

A growing body of literature proposes that our ancestors contributed to large mammal extinctions in Africa long before the appearance of H.sapiens:
some argue that premodern hominins (e.g. H.erectus) triggered the demise of Africa's largest herbivores & the loss of carnivoran diversity.
Such arguments have been around for decades, but they are now increasingly accepted by those concerned with bio-diversity decline in the present-day, despite the near complete absence of critical discussion or debate.

Here we review ancient anthropogenic extinction hypotheses,
we critically examine the data underpinning them:
arguments made in favor of ancient anthropogenic extinctions are
- based on problematic data & and interpretation,
- substantially weakened when extinctions are considered in the context of long-term evolutionary, ecological & environmental changes:
at present, there is no compelling empirical evidence supporting a deep history of hominin impacts on Africa's faunal diversity.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/uncertain-case-for-humandriven-extinctions-prior-to-homo-sapiens/F91F1125CC0A988E322DA9AD9564F0C5

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 6:17:15 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> The uncertain case for human-driven extinctions prior to Homo sapiens
> J Tyler Faith cs 2020
>
> A growing body of literature proposes that our ancestors contributed to large mammal extinctions in Africa long before the appearance of H.sapiens:
> some argue that premodern hominins (e.g. H.erectus) triggered the demise of Africa's largest herbivores & the loss of carnivoran diversity.
> Such arguments have been around for decades, but they are now increasingly accepted by those concerned with bio-diversity decline in the present-day, despite the near complete absence of critical discussion or debate.
>
> Here we review ancient anthropogenic extinction hypotheses,
> we critically examine the data underpinning them:
> arguments made in favor of ancient anthropogenic extinctions are
> - based on problematic data & and interpretation,
> - substantially weakened when extinctions are considered in the context of long-term evolutionary, ecological & environmental changes:
> at present, there is no compelling empirical evidence supporting a deep history of hominin impacts on Africa's faunal diversity.
>
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/uncertain-case-for-humandriven-extinctions-prior-to-homo-sapiens/F91F1125CC0A988E322DA9AD9564F0C5

Inland trout (mountain streams) have higher omega 3 oils than coastal oysters or mussels.

Op dinsdag 28 december 2021 om 08:36:46 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

....

> Inland trout (mountain streams) have higher omega 3 oils than coastal oysters or mussels.

:-) Yes yes, my little boy, this confirms what we've been saying for ages:
Hn seasonally followed the rivers inland.
Google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 5:31:00 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 28 december 2021 om 08:36:46 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
>
> ...
> > Inland trout (mountain streams) have higher omega 3 oils than coastal oysters or mussels.
> :-) Yes yes, my little boy, this confirms what we've been saying for ages:
> Hn seasonally followed the rivers inland.
> Google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
:D No neanderthals in Atlas mtns where dades trout lived.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> The uncertain case for human-driven extinctions prior to Homo sapiens
> J Tyler Faith cs 2020
>
> A growing body of literature proposes that our ancestors contributed to large mammal extinctions in Africa long before the appearance of H.sapiens:
> some argue that premodern hominins (e.g. H.erectus) triggered the demise of Africa's largest herbivores & the loss of carnivoran diversity.
> Such arguments have been around for decades, but they are now increasingly accepted by those concerned with bio-diversity decline in the present-day, despite the near complete absence of critical discussion or debate.
>
> Here we review ancient anthropogenic extinction hypotheses,
> we critically examine the data underpinning them:
> arguments made in favor of ancient anthropogenic extinctions are
> - based on problematic data & and interpretation,
> - substantially weakened when extinctions are considered in the context of long-term evolutionary, ecological & environmental changes:
> at present, there is no compelling empirical evidence supporting a deep history of hominin impacts on Africa's faunal diversity.
>
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/uncertain-case-for-humandriven-extinctions-prior-to-homo-sapiens/F91F1125CC0A988E322DA9AD9564F0C5
>

Here is the real text:

Abstract
A growing body of literature proposes that our ancestors contributed to
large mammal extinctions in Africa long before the appearance of Homo
sapiens, with some arguing that premodern hominins (e.g., Homo erectus)
triggered the demise of Africa's largest herbivores and the loss of
carnivoran
diversity. Though such arguments have been around for decades, they are
now increasingly accepted by those concerned with biodiversity decline in
the present-day, despite the near complete absence of critical discussion or
debate. To facilitate that process, here we review ancient anthropogenic
extinction hypotheses and critically examine the data underpinning them.
Broadly speaking, we show that arguments made in favor of ancient
anthropogenic extinctions are based on problematic data analysis and
interpretation, and are substantially weakened when extinctions are
considered in the context of long-term evolutionary, ecological, and
environmental changes. Thus, at present, there is no compelling empirical
evidence supporting a deep history of hominin impacts on Africa's faunal
diversity.

> J Tyler Faith cs 2020
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/uncertain-case-for-humandriven-extinctions-prior-to-homo-sapiens/F91F1125CC0A988E322DA9AD9564F0C5
> ... Thus, at present, there is no compelling empirical > evidence supporting a deep history of hominin impacts on Africa's faunal > diversity.

Yes, only compete imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/12/04/4140529.htm

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 4:42:48 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > J Tyler Faith cs 2020
> > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/uncertain-case-for-humandriven-extinctions-prior-to-homo-sapiens/F91F1125CC0A988E322DA9AD9564F0C5
> > ... Thus, at present, there is no compelling empirical > evidence supporting a deep history of hominin impacts on Africa's faunal > diversity.
>
> Yes, only compete imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/12/04/4140529.htm
Snorkeled saiga antelope live far inland, were hunted by snorkeled H erectus...

Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 02:38:07 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > Yes, only complete imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
> > https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/12/04/4140529.htm

> Snorkeled saiga antelope live far inland, were hunted by snorkeled H erectus...

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.

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 5:02:28 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 02:38:07 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
>
>
> > > Yes, only complete imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
> > > https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/12/04/4140529.htm
>
> > Snorkeled saiga antelope live far inland, were hunted by snorkeled H erectus...
> 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.
-

Skipping the mermaid fallacy...

Pygmies slit the stems of large broad-leaves and clothespin them to the wicker frame of their dome huts. Ancient Homo did the same with their domeshield, and used the same slit & pin method to hang and cure ultra-thin meat slices at streamside (sunnier there than under the forest canopy) before fire was domesticated. Killing a boar or sow required a strong sharp spear, the hunters stood behind shields next to trees, if charged they climbed 2' up the tree, safe since the boar couldn't raise it's head, unlike a bull or stag. (Russians do this, they cling to tree trunks just above the ground, no need to climb higher.)