It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.

Habilis.

Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
sign of Aquatic Ape.

Right?

Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
see an unambiguous increase in brain size.

So habilis.

Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.

Not erectus.

Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
product thereof.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673305954924822528

I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
>
> Habilis.
>
> Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
> they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
> nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
> means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
> sign of Aquatic Ape.
>
> Right?

No.

> Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
> these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
> see an unambiguous increase in brain size.
>
> So habilis.
>
> Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.
>
> Not erectus.
>
> Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
> product thereof.

There aer few habilis finds, none of them are near the coast.

See

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

Dental Evidence for the Reconstruction of Diet in African Early Homo (by
Peter S. Ungar)

"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:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> >
> > It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
> >
> > Habilis.
> >
> > Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
> > they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
> > nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
> > means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
> > sign of Aquatic Ape.
> >
> > Right?

> No.

You don't think, you feel. You experience emotions and then
rationalize them with thoughts, instead of thinking FIRST
and then getting excited (emotional) about ideas.

You're backwards.

What I said is literally true: A jump in brain sign is a prediction
of Aquatic Ape. AA says that out ancestors turned to the sea
for sustenance, a diet rich in brain building Omega-3s. This
meant our ancestors already had all they needed to get larger
(and smarter, one presumes) brains just as soon as genetics
allowed for it.

Everything was in place. Brains were as big as genetics would
allow. All they needed was a mutation to crop up, one allowing
for larger brains, and the revolution was on!

Anyway, that's one plausible model but it works regardless of
model: Seafood provides an abundance of brain building
Omega-3s so a prediction of AA is a leap in brain size. We look
for that leap and we see habilis.

Perfect.

> There aer few habilis finds, none of them are near the coast.

Seeing how nobody looks, that is expected.

It's a long standing complain about the social program masquerading
as a science: They look where it's easiest to look, then pretend that
whatever they find is representative of our ancestral population.

Here's me describing you & your "argument" <sic> back in 2012:

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

It all comes down to reading comprehension AND retention.

Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that
conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated
and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
them, much less respond.

You religious types are like that.

-- --

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

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:05:53 PM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> > I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > >
> > > It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
> > >
> > > Habilis.
> > >
> > > Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
> > > they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
> > > nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
> > > means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
> > > sign of Aquatic Ape.
> > >
> > > Right?
>
> > No.
> You don't think, you feel. You experience emotions and then
> rationalize them with thoughts, instead of thinking FIRST
> and then getting excited (emotional) about ideas.
>
> You're backwards.
>
> What I said is literally true: A jump in brain sign is a prediction
> of Aquatic Ape. AA says that out ancestors turned to the sea
> for sustenance, a diet rich in brain building Omega-3s. This
> meant our ancestors already had all they needed to get larger
> (and smarter, one presumes) brains just as soon as genetics
> allowed for it.
>
> Everything was in place. Brains were as big as genetics would
> allow. All they needed was a mutation to crop up, one allowing
> for larger brains, and the revolution was on!
>
> Anyway, that's one plausible model but it works regardless of
> model: Seafood provides an abundance of brain building
> Omega-3s so a prediction of AA is a leap in brain size. We look
> for that leap and we see habilis.
>
> Perfect.
> > There aer few habilis finds, none of them are near the coast.
> Seeing how nobody looks, that is expected.
>
> It's a long standing complain about the social program masquerading
> as a science: They look where it's easiest to look, then pretend that
> whatever they find is representative of our ancestral population.
>
> Here's me describing you & your "argument" <sic> back in 2012:
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
>
> It all comes down to reading comprehension AND retention.
>
> Dogmatic people, like you, certainly will never retain anything that
> conflicts with your treasured beliefs, assuming you even comprehended
> it in the first place, which is why arguments can be stated and re stated
> and re-re-re-re-re-re-stated across the years and you NEVER remember
> them, much less respond.
>
> You religious types are like that.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/24612532889
Suck up that cod liver oil like a big boy, lil Jerm.

Sucks, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

[...]

You're not clever or funny. Best advice is if you have nothing to say you
should try saying nothing.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673305954924822528

Op zaterdag 15 januari 2022 om 09:31:55 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
> Habilis.
> Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
> they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
> nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
> means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
> sign of Aquatic Ape.
> Right?
> Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
> these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
> see an unambiguous increase in brain size.
> So habilis.
> Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.
> Not erectus.
> Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
> product thereof.

- Larger brains are very often seen in (semi)aquatic mammals, but not necessarily, e.g. Sirenia.
- Pachy-osteo-sclerosis (POS) is exclusively seen in show+shallow divers (esp.in salt water?):
no doubt H.erectus (POS) often dived for shallow-aquatic foods:
mostly shellfish? cf. larger brain (DHA), stone tools (sea-otter), island colonizations (Flores, Luzon) ...
IOW, H.erectus was our most-aquatic relative known,
it's not impossible that erectus' immediate ancestors were even more aquatic, but we lack fossils:
Pliocene Red Sea?? (if on Danakil island, Elaine was right once more ... :-))

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> - Larger brains are very often seen in (semi)aquatic mammals, but not necessarily,

The point is, Aquatic Ape is an explanation for how our brains got larger.

Larger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. We should see a jump in brain size
after Aquatic Ape begins. And we see that jump in the case of Habilis.

This suggests that erectus was more of an arrival point (destination of Aquatic Ape)
rather than a beginning.

> it's not impossible that erectus' immediate ancestors were even more aquatic, but we lack fossils:

Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.

Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673664049844731904

Op dinsdag 18 januari 2022 om 08:48:57 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > - Larger brains are very often seen in (semi)aquatic mammals, but not necessarily,

> The point is, Aquatic Ape is an explanation for how our brains got larger.

I never use the term "aq.ape" (contradictio in terminis),
but yes, (partial) seafoods or at least aq.foods are the best explanation.

> Larger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. We should see a jump in brain size
> after Aquatic Ape begins. And we see that jump in the case of Habilis.

-"habilis" = apith?? Homo?
-is c 600 cc a "jump"?
-inland (riverside) sidebranches of littoral ancestors??

> This suggests that erectus was more of an arrival point (destination of Aquatic Ape)
> rather than a beginning.

Hn had *much* larger brains than He:
CC apiths < Hh << He << Hs < Hn

> > it's not impossible that erectus' immediate ancestors were even more aquatic, but we lack fossils:

> Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
> we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.

:-) I fully agree.
But when we see early-Pleistocene He with pachyosteosclerosis, we know:
He were slow-shallow divers, likely mostly for shellfish.
What exactly Hh were, we don't know.

> Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
> brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.

"just"?
What happened with Pliocene Homo after the H/P split (c 5 Ma?)? around/in the Red Sea?
What as the effect of the Ice Ages on diet & CC??

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> -"habilis" = apith?? Homo?

Habilis is conventionally labelled first amongst Homos. And they are
considered Homo precisely because of their larger brains and, yes,
their association with tool making.

But they are called the first Homo, and they do have larger brains.

> > Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
> > we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.

> :-) I fully agree.
> But when we see early-Pleistocene He with pachyosteosclerosis, we know:
> He were slow-shallow divers, likely mostly for shellfish.

It's indirect evidence. But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.
It's not that anatomically moderns arose because erectus was aquatic, it's that
erectus arose because their ancestors had turned to the sea coast.

> > Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
> > brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.

> "just"?

Speaking of species or sub species... as if either terms is properly defined.

-- --

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

Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 05:02:42 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > -"habilis" = apith?? Homo?

> Habilis is conventionally labelled first amongst Homos. And they are
> considered Homo precisely because of their larger brains and, yes,
> their association with tool making.
> But they are called the first Homo, and they do have larger brains.

ok

> > > Fossils suck. They don't form at all in some environments, we don't always know what
> > > we're looking at and they are far from the only evidence.

> > :-) I fully agree.
> > But when we see early-Pleistocene He with pachyosteosclerosis, we know:
> > He were slow-shallow divers, likely mostly for shellfish.

> It's indirect evidence.

No, it's very direct evidence: all POS tetrapods are slow+shallow divers for sessile foods.
We (Hs) have a lot of probably-ex-aquatic traits (fur loss, SC fat etc.), but for H.erectus there's no doubt:
they frequently dived for sessile foods, probably mostly shellfish (CC, stone tools).

> But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.

We're no sure when exactly they began frequent diving, erectus or pre-erectus, Plio- (no Homo fossils) or early-Pleistocene?

> It's not that anatomically moderns arose because erectus was aquatic, it's that
> erectus arose because their ancestors had turned to the sea coast.

Early hominids (Oreopithecus, Trachilos etc.) were already coastal, but more likely aquarboreal than shallow-diving.

> > > Like I point out, bigger brains are a prediction of Aquatic Ape. So if we find a jump in
> > > brain size, we know that Aquatic Ape began there or just prior.

> > "just"?

> Speaking of species or sub species... as if either terms is properly defined.

We don't know: the Trachilos footprints are remarkably humanlike (flat feet = wading/swimming).

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.

> We're no sure when exactly they began frequent diving, erectus or pre-erectus, Plio- (no Homo fossils) or early-Pleistocene?

Aquatic Ape, sea side, waterside -- whatever we want to call it -- began absolutely
positively no later than habilis. It's entirely possible and one may argue likely that
it began before then but it goes at least as far back as habilis.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673795584734494720

Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 22:03:28 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > > But it started before erectus, which makes perfect sense.
> > We're no sure when exactly they began frequent diving, erectus or pre-erectus, Plio- (no Homo fossils) or early-Pleistocene?

> Aquatic Ape, sea side, waterside -- whatever we want to call it -- began absolutely
> positively no later than habilis. It's entirely possible and one may argue likely that
> it began before then but it goes at least as far back as habilis.

H.erectus = POS = slow+shallow diving.
This was still partly the case in neandertals:
-less extreme POS than erectus,
-ear exostoses.

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 3:31:55 AM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> It's in habilis where we see the leap in brain size.
>
> Habilis.
>
> Now DHA and the brain are integral to Aquatic Ape,
> they are a piece of the human puzzle that savanna
> nonsense leaves out but Aquatic Ape provides, this
> means that habilis and it's larger brain are a PREDICTED
> sign of Aquatic Ape.
>
> Right?
>
> Aquatic Ape leads to abundant EPA and DHA Omega-3s,
> these leads to larger brains and it's in habilis where we
> see an unambiguous increase in brain size.
>
> So habilis.
>
> Aquatic Ape starts with or immediately precedes habilis.
>
> Not erectus.
>
> Erectus only appears AFTER Aquatic Ape. Erectus is a
> product thereof.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673305954924822528

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html
Biggest brains

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Biggest brains

It's not about "Biggest brains," it's about a perceptible increase in brain size across
a population (or "Species").

A prediction of AA is that the seafood diet, rich in DHA, would allow brains to grow
to their maximum potential in size, thus AA will result in an observable bump in
brain size within the fossil record.

-- --

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

Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 02:48:20 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> It's not about "Biggest brains," it's about a perceptible increase in brain size across
> a population (or "Species").
> A prediction of AA is that the seafood diet, rich in DHA, would allow brains to grow
> to their maximum potential in size, thus AA will result in an observable bump in
> brain size within the fossil record.

Yes (very aquatic foods, or mixed foods partly aquatic), but after the (semi)aquatic phase, brains could perhaps shrink?
The longer the (semi)aquatic phase ago, the smaller brains?

The biggest incrses in c-brain size are seen in H.erectus & H.neand.
CC apes-apiths < habilis" << erectus << sapiens < neand.-early-sapiens
POS apes-apiths-habilis < sapiens << neand. << erectus.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:05:53 PM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> Suck up that cod liver oil like a big boy, lil Jerm.
>

"Jerm" :=}

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
>
> https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html
> Biggest brains
>

The paper is here

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248421001718
February 2022

Evolution of cranial capacity revisited: A view from the late Middle
Pleistocene cranium from Xujiayao, China

Abstract
The Late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Xujiayao site in
northern
China have been closely studied in light of their morphological variability.
However, all previous studies have focused on separated cranial fragments.
Here,
we report the first reconstruction of a fairly complete posterior cranium,
Xujiayao 6 (XJY 6), confidently dated to ∼200–160 ka, which facilitated an
assessment of its overall cranial size. XJY 6 was reconstructed from three
of the
original fragments—the PA1486 (No.7/XJY 6a) occipital bone, PA1490
(No.10/XJY 6b) right parietal bone, and PA1498 (No.17/XJY 15) left temporal
bone—which originated from the same young adult individual. The XJY 6
endocranial capacity, estimated by measuring endocranial volume, was
estimated using multiple regression formulae derived from ectocranial and
endocranial measurements on select samples of Pleistocene hominins and
recent modern humans. The results indicate that the larger pooled sample of
both Pleistocene and recent modern humans was more robust for the
endocranial capacity estimate. Based on the pooled sample using the
ectocranial and endocranial measurements, we conservatively estimate the
XJY 6 endocranial volume to be ∼1700 cm3 with a 95% confidence interval
of 1555–1781 cm3. This is close to Xuchang 1, which dates to 125–105 ka
and whose endocranial volume is ∼1800 cm3. Thus, XJY 6 provides the
earliest evidence of a brain size that falls in the upper range of
Neanderthals
and modern Homo sapiens. XJY 6, together with Xuchang 1, Homo floresiensis,
Homo luzonensis, and Homo naledi, challenge the general pattern that brain
size gradually increases over geological time. This study also finds that
hominin brain size expansion occurred at different rates across time and
space.

The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...

On Monday 24 January 2022 at 05:47:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...

More to the point is that it's the only hominin
fossil of that time. In other words, it's as rare
as a toothed hen; showing that the hominin
population was around one hundred thousandth
of that of local sabre-tooth cats.

Hominins might have found some way of
concealing their dead bodies (e.g. avoiding
caves, and normally cremating their dead) but
failing any such explanation, the most likely
theory is that they simply weren't there.
There were NOT a part of the local ecology.

So where did they live?

One possible location are near-coastal low-
lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
would also have provided them with plentiful
salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
which they have such high needs.

Can you think of any other possible locations?

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> > The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...

> More to the point is that it's the only hominin
> fossil of that time. In other words, it's as rare
> as a toothed hen; showing that the hominin
> population was around one hundred thousandth
> of that of local sabre-tooth cats.

"The light over here is better!"

You're not talking science, you're advancing a selection bias.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248417300349

It's not that old, and the age suggests to me that they developed elsewhere
then moved inland... which is precisely what Aquatic Ape predicts.

Look. Populations are found inland. The people who advance Aquatic Ape
know this so obviously populations moving inland from the shore is a
prediction, not a problem.

The point is NOT that the Aquatic/Coastal/Waterside population was the
only population, it's that they were the only population common to all. That
even if groups peeled off and moved inland, the only way they could ever
remain connected to other groups -- much less other continents -- was
through the coastal population. They were the conduit through which DNA
flowed between land masses.

P.S. There were probably numerous populations that have left no living
descendants today.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/674208621273497600

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 12:47:57 AM UTC-5, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >
> >
> > https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html
> > Biggest brains
> >
>
> The paper is here
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248421001718
> February 2022
>
> Evolution of cranial capacity revisited: A view from the late Middle
> Pleistocene cranium from Xujiayao, China
>
> Abstract
> The Late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Xujiayao site in
> northern
> China have been closely studied in light of their morphological variability.
> However, all previous studies have focused on separated cranial fragments..
> Here,
> we report the first reconstruction of a fairly complete posterior cranium,
> Xujiayao 6 (XJY 6), confidently dated to ∼200–160 ka, which facilitated an
> assessment of its overall cranial size. XJY 6 was reconstructed from three
> of the
> original fragments—the PA1486 (No.7/XJY 6a) occipital bone, PA1490
> (No.10/XJY 6b) right parietal bone, and PA1498 (No.17/XJY 15) left temporal
> bone—which originated from the same young adult individual. The XJY 6
> endocranial capacity, estimated by measuring endocranial volume, was
> estimated using multiple regression formulae derived from ectocranial and
> endocranial measurements on select samples of Pleistocene hominins and
> recent modern humans. The results indicate that the larger pooled sample of
> both Pleistocene and recent modern humans was more robust for the
> endocranial capacity estimate. Based on the pooled sample using the
> ectocranial and endocranial measurements, we conservatively estimate the
> XJY 6 endocranial volume to be ∼1700 cm3 with a 95% confidence interval
> of 1555–1781 cm3. This is close to Xuchang 1, which dates to 125–105 ka
> and whose endocranial volume is ∼1800 cm3. Thus, XJY 6 provides the
> earliest evidence of a brain size that falls in the upper range of
> Neanderthals
> and modern Homo sapiens. XJY 6, together with Xuchang 1, Homo floresiensis,
> Homo luzonensis, and Homo naledi, challenge the general pattern that brain
> size gradually increases over geological time. This study also finds that
> hominin brain size expansion occurred at different rates across time and
> space.
>
>
> The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...

Thanks, isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size? They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its comfort food or something!

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 1:49:13 AM UTC-5, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 12:47:57 AM UTC-5, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> > DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202201/19/WS61e770eca310cdd39bc81fb5.html
> > > Biggest brains
> > >
> >
> > The paper is here
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248421001718
> > February 2022
> >
> > Evolution of cranial capacity revisited: A view from the late Middle
> > Pleistocene cranium from Xujiayao, China
> >
> > Abstract
> > The Late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Xujiayao site in
> > northern
> > China have been closely studied in light of their morphological variability.
> > However, all previous studies have focused on separated cranial fragments.
> > Here,
> > we report the first reconstruction of a fairly complete posterior cranium,
> > Xujiayao 6 (XJY 6), confidently dated to ∼200–160 ka, which facilitated an
> > assessment of its overall cranial size. XJY 6 was reconstructed from three
> > of the
> > original fragments—the PA1486 (No.7/XJY 6a) occipital bone, PA1490
> > (No.10/XJY 6b) right parietal bone, and PA1498 (No.17/XJY 15) left temporal
> > bone—which originated from the same young adult individual. The XJY 6
> > endocranial capacity, estimated by measuring endocranial volume, was
> > estimated using multiple regression formulae derived from ectocranial and
> > endocranial measurements on select samples of Pleistocene hominins and
> > recent modern humans. The results indicate that the larger pooled sample of
> > both Pleistocene and recent modern humans was more robust for the
> > endocranial capacity estimate. Based on the pooled sample using the
> > ectocranial and endocranial measurements, we conservatively estimate the
> > XJY 6 endocranial volume to be ∼1700 cm3 with a 95% confidence interval
> > of 1555–1781 cm3. This is close to Xuchang 1, which dates to 125–105 ka
> > and whose endocranial volume is ∼1800 cm3. Thus, XJY 6 provides the
> > earliest evidence of a brain size that falls in the upper range of
> > Neanderthals
> > and modern Homo sapiens. XJY 6, together with Xuchang 1, Homo floresiensis,
> > Homo luzonensis, and Homo naledi, challenge the general pattern that brain
> > size gradually increases over geological time. This study also finds that
> > hominin brain size expansion occurred at different rates across time and
> > space.
> >
> >
> > The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...
> Thanks, isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size? They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its comfort food or something!

https://www.science.org/content/article/did-taste-blood-help-humans-grow-big-brains-story-isn-t-so-simple-study-argues
Later sites = more cutmarks, more common, sampling density at issue.

On Tuesday 25 January 2022 at 06:49:13 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size?

Humans have absurdly large heads (& large
brains). They're obviously not for 'intelligence'
(in any sense of the word). An important
function is as a store of heat -- when the
hominin finds itself in freezing cold water, with
its head above the waves. That might happen
(on average) less than once a lifetime, but if it
saves the hominin's life, then it will be selected.

This theory is supported by the nature of
ancestral human head hair -- dense folds of thick
insulation. That hair is costly (in terms of bodily
resources) but it loses its insulative power,
stops being 'strong' -- i.e. loses its melanin, and
ceases to be physiological costly as soon as
humans begin to approach the end of their
reproductive capacity. (See images of Obama
when young, as against now.)

> They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its
> comfort food or something!

Hominin brains would not have grown if the
resources (e.g. DHA) had not been so readily
available -- Nor if hominins had commonly
needed to run fast (as predators or prey).
H.naledi (and other hominin species) show
how compact modern hominin brains can
be. H.naledi had no access to super-
abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
store that large brains provide.

If we don't understand where we have been,
how can we see where we're going?

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 6:32:42 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 January 2022 at 06:49:13 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > isn't it funny that PC & the Jerm completely lost interest in brain size?
> Humans have absurdly large heads (& large
> brains). They're obviously not for 'intelligence'
> (in any sense of the word). An important
> function is as a store of heat -- when the
> hominin finds itself in freezing cold water, with
> its head above the waves. That might happen
> (on average) less than once a lifetime, but if it
> saves the hominin's life, then it will be selected.
>
> This theory is supported by the nature of
> ancestral human head hair -- dense folds of thick
> insulation. That hair is costly (in terms of bodily
> resources) but it loses its insulative power,
> stops being 'strong' -- i.e. loses its melanin, and
> ceases to be physiological costly as soon as
> humans begin to approach the end of their
> reproductive capacity. (See images of Obama
> when young, as against now.)
> > They switch to talking about mermaid fallacies immediately. Like its
> > comfort food or something!
> Hominin brains would not have grown if the
> resources (e.g. DHA) had not been so readily
> available -- Nor if hominins had commonly
> needed to run fast (as predators or prey).
> H.naledi (and other hominin species) show
> how compact modern hominin brains can
> be. H.naledi had no access to super-
> abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
> store that large brains provide.
>
> If we don't understand where we have been,
> how can we see where we're going?

The human head does not store heat, it is primarily an air/water/food intake and sense receptor/data analyst/data storage container. DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Monday 24 January 2022 at 05:47:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> The Xujiayao site is a couple hundred miles from the ocean...
>
> More to the point is that it's the only hominin
> fossil of that time. In other words, it's as rare
> as a toothed hen; showing that the hominin
> population was around one hundred thousandth
> of that of local sabre-tooth cats.
>
> Hominins might have found some way of
> concealing their dead bodies (e.g. avoiding
> caves, and normally cremating their dead) but
> failing any such explanation, the most likely
> theory is that they simply weren't there.
> There were NOT a part of the local ecology.
>
> So where did they live?
>
> One possible location are near-coastal low-
> lands, now covered by sea. That habitat
> would also have provided them with plentiful
> salts of sodium, potassium and iodine, of
> which they have such high needs.
>
> Can you think of any other possible locations?
>
All over since they were very adaptable.

On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 00:33:40 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> The human head does not store heat,

Take a look at a typical group of swimmers
in the sea. Their bodies are in the cold water,
and their heads are in the air. The head is
necessarily a store of heat. Being in the cold
water, the limbs and trunk in the water will
cool down much more rapidly than the
head out of the water.

> it is primarily an air/water/food intake and sense receptor/data
> analyst/data storage container.

It does numerous other things. But here
we are asking why it is so large -- much
larger (proportionately) than for any
other terrestrial mammal.

How do you explain the need for the
insulation provided by Afro-hair?

> DHA & EPA are higher in trout than in coastal seafood, iodine is in
> Congo plants & deserts. Big brains need O2 & calories to function.

No Standard-PA person would claim that
hominins ~2 ma consumed more than the
occasional trout. That was when ice ages
were getting intense, the massive expansion
in hominin brains began, and the only
remotely likely habitat for hominins was on,
or close to, the coast. It was also the only
remotely likely habitat with plentiful
supplies of DHA, sodium, potassium and
iodine salts --which humans so routinely
(and so exceptionally) wastefully excrete.