https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012

"In sum, there is some evidence for a change in dietary adaptations
with the earliest members of the genus Homo, at least in incisor size
and perhaps molar occlusal slope and relief. This might suggest a
shift toward foods requiring more incisal preparation and molar
shearing, perhaps including displacement-limited items such as
tough-plant products or animal tissues. More substantial change
seems to have come with H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
and smaller molar teeth compared with H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
A broader range of microwear texture complexity values in H. erectus
compared with H. habilis accords with the consumption of a wider
variety of foods, and smaller average feature size is consistent with the
incorporation of more tough items in the diet.

"Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
might have played a role."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[...]

Google: Selection Bias

You're welcome.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:07:49 PM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Google: Selection Bias
>
> You're welcome.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
Yumz, cod liver oil again!

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Google: Selection Bias
>
> You're welcome.

There is no selection bias operating when there are limited samples to
being with.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012

"In sum, there is some evidence for a change in dietary adaptations
with the earliest members of the genus Homo, at least in incisor size
and perhaps molar occlusal slope and relief. This might suggest a
shift toward foods requiring more incisal preparation and molar
shearing, perhaps including displacement-limited items such as
tough-plant products or animal tissues. More substantial change
seems to have come with H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
and smaller molar teeth compared with H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
A broader range of microwear texture complexity values in H. erectus
compared with H. habilis accords with the consumption of a wider
variety of foods, and smaller average feature size is consistent with the
incorporation of more tough items in the diet.

"Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
might have played a role."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> There is no selection bias

There's no uniformity in human teeth TODAY. Get it?

RIGHT NOW teeth occupy a *Very* wide range. Even in number there is some
variation, and many sources will tell you there was more in the past.

You being an idiot & all, this is undoubtedly new to you. And unless and
until you accomplish even rudimentary Google searches -- like on people
with "Big" or "Small" teeth -- you're never going to educate yourself.

Lord knows, nobody is capable of telling you anything... you're so goddamn
protective of your ignorance.

From the way things appear on this side of the Looking Glass, there was
greater variation in the past. certainly looking at what they want us to believe
is early Hss, Neanderthals and what we think were Denisovans, there seems
to be quite the spectrum...

-- --

https://rumble.com/vr5fsv-confessions-of-an-ex-hippie.html

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> There is no selection bias
>
> There's no uniformity in human teeth TODAY. Get it?

Humans across the globe have teeth that are identifiable as human.

There is no selection bias operating when there are limited samples to
being with.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012

"In sum, there is some evidence for a change in dietary adaptations
with the earliest members of the genus Homo, at least in incisor size
and perhaps molar occlusal slope and relief. This might suggest a
shift toward foods requiring more incisal preparation and molar
shearing, perhaps including displacement-limited items such as
tough-plant products or animal tissues. More substantial change
seems to have come with H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
and smaller molar teeth compared with H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
A broader range of microwear texture complexity values in H. erectus
compared with H. habilis accords with the consumption of a wider
variety of foods, and smaller average feature size is consistent with the
incorporation of more tough items in the diet.

"Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
might have played a role."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Humans across the globe have teeth

There is an enormous variation in human teeth today, and there was greater
variation looking backwards in time.

You can keep denying this or you can accept reality.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/676775721186869248

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Humans across the globe have teeth
>
> There is an enormous variation in human teeth today, and there was greater
> variation looking backwards in time.
>
> You can keep denying this or you can accept reality.

They're quite identifiable as *human*. You understand that, right?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> They're quite identifiable as *human*. You understand that, right?

Lol!

Your cite, the one you clearly did not read, is talking about Homo.

Homo.

Homo = Human

You're welcome.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/677437778777243648

Op zondag 16 januari 2022 om 06:25:03 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
> https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
> Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012
> ... H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
> and smaller molar teeth ...
> "Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
> tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
> might have played a role."

:-DDD Doesn't Ungar know that erectus dived for shellfish??
Of course, smaller dentition! What else??
-found amid shellfish, coastal plain,
-shellfish engravings, googel "Joordens Munro"
-google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT",
-etc.etc.

Meat-eating idiots!

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:45:50 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zondag 16 januari 2022 om 06:25:03 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
> > https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
> > Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012
> > ... H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
> > and smaller molar teeth ...
> > "Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
> > tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
> > might have played a role."
> :-DDD Doesn't Ungar know that erectus dived for shellfish??
> Of course, smaller dentition! What else??

Walrus, manatee, dugongs, kolponomos, polar bear, elephant: enlarged dentition.

Are you comparing us to baleen whales?

> -found amid shellfish, coastal plain,
> -shellfish engravings, googel "Joordens Munro"

Freshwater, walked from Malaya following shallow streams.

> -google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT",

Coastal?? Flores mini-brain?

> -etc.etc.
>
> Meat-eating idiots!

Seaweed stew again?

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> They're quite identifiable as *human*. You understand that, right?
>
> Lol!
>
> Your cite, the one you clearly did not read, is talking about Homo.
>
> Homo.
>
> Homo = Human
>
> You're welcome.

It's in the title of the paper, Jerm. You're welcome.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012

"In sum, there is some evidence for a change in dietary adaptations
with the earliest members of the genus Homo, at least in incisor size
and perhaps molar occlusal slope and relief. This might suggest a
shift toward foods requiring more incisal preparation and molar
shearing, perhaps including displacement-limited items such as
tough-plant products or animal tissues. More substantial change
seems to have come with H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
and smaller molar teeth compared with H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
A broader range of microwear texture complexity values in H. erectus
compared with H. habilis accords with the consumption of a wider
variety of foods, and smaller average feature size is consistent with the
incorporation of more tough items in the diet.

"Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
might have played a role."

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zondag 16 januari 2022 om 06:25:03 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
>> https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/666700
>> Current Anthropology Volume 53, Supplement 6, December 2012
>> ... H. erectus, which has both smaller incisors
>> and smaller molar teeth ...
>> "Are these lines of evidence consistent with increased meat eating or
>> tool use in food preparation? The short answer is yes; each of these
>> might have played a role."
>
> :-DDD Doesn't Ungar know that erectus dived for shellfish??
> Of course, smaller dentition! What else??
> -found amid shellfish, coastal plain,
> -shellfish engravings, googel "Joordens Munro"
> -google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT",
> -etc.etc.
>
> Meat-eating idiots!

He knows we don't have snorkel noses!

> ... snorkel noses!

Oi, big nose !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010
(changed a bit)

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, flat feet, large brains and big noses.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> It's in the title of the paper

Besides the fact that you're no more mature than a school child, what
is it you think you're saying?

Again, there is a very big variation in human dentition RIGHT NOW. There
was greater variation in the past.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/678857025448558592

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> It's in the title of the paper
>
> Besides the fact that you're no more mature than a school child,

You're jealous, eh?