On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 05:09:25 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

>> 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.

Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:54:07 AM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> 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.

They are not actively foraging, which requires submerged head.
Human hair does not insulate in water.
The scalp has little subcutaneous fat.

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.

Like other terrestrials.

> > 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?

Tightly coiled scalp hair blocks direct sun much better than straight hair while allowing breezes to remove heat.

> > 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.

Irrelevant.

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.

Coasts were just another habitat that hominins expanded into. Deserts have iodine as does the Congo. Stop being so damned ignorant.

On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 18:54:09 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> 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.
>
> They are not actively foraging, which requires submerged head.

There's little to forage in most seas. I'm
talking about the swimming that is needed
to get from place to place -- maybe to
cross a river or estuary; to swim to an
island and back; floatation aids would have
been used, probably rafts. But shipwrecks
would have occurred. Crises like these
might only have been, on average, once in
a lifetime, but those with the larger heads
would have survived and left descendants.

> Human hair does not insulate in water.
> The scalp has little subcutaneous fat.

Fishing with nets might also have occurred.
In any case, heads would have been out of
the water.

>> 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.
>
> Like other terrestrials.

Other terrestrials that get into cold
water regularly already have good
coats of hair, and they evolve fur that
is even more dense and waterproof.
Hominins didn't seem to have that
option.

>> How do you explain the need for the
>> insulation provided by Afro-hair?
>
> Tightly coiled scalp hair blocks direct sun much better
> than straight hair while allowing breezes to remove heat.

A silly argument. Why do hominins
(of both genders) need to spend so
long out under the sun? In any case,
the rest of the body is naked, and will
suffer if the sun is that strong, and
the hominin has to spend extended
periods under it.

>>> 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.
>
> Irrelevant.

Not at all. The occasional trout will not
provide enough DHA for large brains.

> Coasts were just another habitat that hominins expanded
> into. Deserts have iodine as does the Congo.

Iodine is a trace element in many locations.
But it's scarce. Similarly (if less acutely) for
sodium and potassium away from coasts.
Terrestrial animals don't sweat and do all
they can to minimise losses of those vital
elements (e.g. with placentophagy). But not
so for the heavily sweating hominins.

> Stop being so damned ignorant.

Ignorant about what?

On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 18:02:48 UTC, Pandora wrote:

>> Before the Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over".
>> Hominin fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins
>> were never a normal part of any generally recognised
>> ecosystem.
>
> If you deny the fossil record showing that hominins were over much of
> Africa prior to 1.8 mya, based on numerous sites, and in Europe and
> Asia shortly thereafter then you can't be part of any meaningful
> discussion about human evolution.

Google "Lee Berger" "Two teeth"

When Berger began his career he was
warned to avoid East Africa, as worldwide
there were more PA fossil-hunters than
there were hominin fossils (with each
tooth or fractional part of a clavicle being
a separate "fossil"). And in East Africa the
ratio of PA profs to fossils was higher
than elsewhere. So he went to South
Africa, where after 17 years work he
found two teeth. That find hit the
headlines, and he got into National
Geographic.

Such a record is ridiculous -- under all
Standard PA scenarios. A tiny, tiny
fraction of the fosil record of any
remotely comparable taxon.

If you can't explain this (OR you and the
people you're woking with are not trying)
then you are not doing science.

Why and how PA got into this dreadful
state are profoundly disturbing questions.
There's the 'showbiz' element. Every find
is lauded, and no one talks of the non-
finds and the empty careers. The truth
only emerges by accident and through
indirection.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:22:34 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 18:54:09 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> 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.

You have convinced me that your head is indeed just a heat storage container, unlike most folk. Has MV been giving you his amnesia pills?
> >
> > They are not actively foraging, which requires submerged head.
> There's little to forage in most seas. I'm
> talking about the swimming that is needed
> to get from place to place -- maybe to
> cross a river or estuary; to swim to an
> island and back; floatation aids would have
> been used, probably rafts. But shipwrecks
> would have occurred. Crises like these
> might only have been, on average, once in
> a lifetime, but those with the larger heads
> would have survived and left descendants.
> > Human hair does not insulate in water.
> > The scalp has little subcutaneous fat.
> Fishing with nets might also have occurred.
> In any case, heads would have been out of
> the water.
> >> 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.
> >
> > Like other terrestrials.
> Other terrestrials that get into cold
> water regularly already have good
> coats of hair, and they evolve fur that
> is even more dense and waterproof.
> Hominins didn't seem to have that
> option.
> >> How do you explain the need for the
> >> insulation provided by Afro-hair?
> >
> > Tightly coiled scalp hair blocks direct sun much better
> > than straight hair while allowing breezes to remove heat.
> A silly argument. Why do hominins
> (of both genders) need to spend so
> long out under the sun? In any case,
> the rest of the body is naked, and will
> suffer if the sun is that strong, and
> the hominin has to spend extended
> periods under it.
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> Not at all. The occasional trout will not
> provide enough DHA for large brains.
> > Coasts were just another habitat that hominins expanded
> > into. Deserts have iodine as does the Congo.
> Iodine is a trace element in many locations.
> But it's scarce. Similarly (if less acutely) for
> sodium and potassium away from coasts.
> Terrestrial animals don't sweat and do all
> they can to minimise losses of those vital
> elements (e.g. with placentophagy). But not
> so for the heavily sweating hominins.
> > Stop being so damned ignorant.
> Ignorant about what?
Everything outside your cubicle.

On Thursday 27 January 2022 at 10:11:14 UTC, Pandora wrote:

>> So he went to South Africa, where
>> after 17 years work he found two
>> teeth. That find hit the headlines, and
>> he got into National Geographic.
>
> Lee likes to launch casual statements when the camera is on. Lately he
> seems to have changed his mind:

He, along with most in the profession,
had decided that 'there was no more
to find' and was in the process of
giving up when he discovered Malapa
and, fairly soon after, H.naledi.

> "We've discovered more hominids, just our teams, in the last seven or
> eight years then in the entire history of the field of
> paleoanthropology on the whole continent of Africa. What a change!"

An enormous change for him. He and
his team more than doubled the number
of African fossils. But that's the point.
Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
tiny number.

> In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
> https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830

My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
(I think) dodgy software, made that bit
of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.

> You want to use that as your new dogma?

It's not dogma. It's an observation.
Hominins in Africa were about as rare
as griffon vultures are in Scotland.
They were not a part of the ecosystem
-- unless you've some other explanation
as to why they left so few fossils. Do
you know of any scientific literature
where this issue is discussed?

On Thursday 27 January 2022 at 20:09:30 UTC, Pandora wrote:

>> It's not dogma. It's an observation.
>> Hominins in Africa were about as rare
>> as griffon vultures are in Scotland.
>> They were not a part of the ecosystem
>> -- unless you've some other explanation
>> as to why they left so few fossils. Do
>> you know of any scientific literature
>> where this issue is discussed?
>
> It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
> around an idee fixe

What is the "idee fixe"?

> an idiosyncratic fringe theory

What is the 'idiosyncratic fringe theory'?

> and where you
> grab at every straw to downgrade real data.

Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
abuse, you should say how my observations
are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.

Are hominins as well represented (in terms
of fossils) on the African continent as well
as other roughly comparable taxa? Such as,
say, hyena? Or as omnivores like baboons or
warthogs? Or is there an enormous
difference?

If there is a difference, what accounts for it?

On Friday 28 January 2022 at 11:47:55 UTC, Pandora wrote:

>>> It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
>>> around an idee fixe
>>
>>What is the "idee fixe"?
>
> That your fantasy on human evolution represents no less than a
> paradigm shift in paleoanthropology.

That's no "idee fixe". At most it would
be a vain hope. ('Vain' in every sense.)
Marc V's "idee fixe" is that all human
evolution comes from diving for shellfish.
Perhaps he might also be descrbed as
suffering from the vain fantasy above.
but it's not the same thing.

PA has settled into a non-thinking, non-
functioning rut, where it long ago forgot
what its purpose was meant to be. The
obvious questions, that an intelligent
child would pose, are not answered.
Worse than that, professional PA people
can't even conceive of the possibility of
ever answering them --

Why did we diverge from chimps?
How did we diverge from chimps?
Why and how did bipedalism evolve?
What kind of habitat did early hominins
occupy?
How did early hominins (or ANY pre-
modern hominins) avoid overwhelming
levels of predation?
Where did all those 'handaxes' come
from, and what were they for?
How come hominin fossils are so
exceedingly rare on the African
mainland?

>>> an idiosyncratic fringe theory
>>
>> What is the 'idiosyncratic fringe theory'?
>
> That only you conceive of the idea that hominins evolved on islands
> along the edge (fringe) of the African continent, swimming back and
> forth between the mainland, evolving big brains to keep them warm in
> the water, eventually settling permanently on the mainland after
> killing off all the predators by poisoning them wth hand axes.
> It's not just dataless fringe, it's lunatic fringe.

These are a number of provisional
answers to a set of interrelated
questions, including those above.
There's no 'theory' -- other than the
general evolutionary ones, accepted
by non-PA naturalists:
a) species occupy distinct ecological niches;
b) they are generally subject to predation;
c) species do not lose critical survival
capacities (such as escape speed and
an ability to climb trees) except in
special circumstances requiring isolation;
d) if they are to re-integrate afterwards
those abilities have to be replaced or
made unnecessary in some way

>> Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
>> abuse, you should say how my observations
>> are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.
>
> Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist

Note your ducking of the question.
(You could have said my theory
about islands/ swimming / hand-
axes / big brains / extinction of
all large predatory omnivores in
Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
Y or Z.) But no. You just you leap
straight back into (wholly misplaced)
ad hominem abuse.

> that categorically
> denies the existence of transitional fossils, even if you show him a
> nearly complete specimen of Archaeopteryx, and who can even quote
> professional paleontologists to support him:
>
> "Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in
> mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil
> record without evidence of transitional forms." - D. M. Raup and S. M.
> Stanley, Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and Co., San
> Francisco, 1971, page 306.

I'm seeking to find answers -- e.g. to how
and why bipedalism evolved. Or how early
hominins coped with predation. You (and
PA generally) are the ones claiming that
it's all an insoluable mystery, best left to
God or to some far-removed Posterity --
or, best of all, just issues to be forgotten
and never discussed in polite company

> Ideology gets in the way of meaningful discussion.

Give an example of a current 'meaningful
discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
layperson could have an interest.

Show how any of my suggestions might
'get in the way' of it.

> There's a difference, but not nearly as extreme as you suggest.

You could readily spend a whole life in East
Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
out. The difference is massive. Hominins
were never a normal part of ANY East
African (or any other mainland African)
ecology.

> The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
> specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
> Hyaenidae.
>
> https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/

So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
times as common as hyena in the area?

It's a museum selection. Says nothing
about being representative. It's whatever
-- at various times -- took the fancy of
the collectors, the conservators, and
the curator.

> There can be more than one reason for the difference in
> representation: e.g. ecological (trophic levels, carnivores are rarer
> than herbivores),

No one claims that hominins were more
than fractionally carnivorous.

> taxonomic (greater diversity of species in some
> higher taxa than in others, e.g. monkeys vs apes), etc.

None of which begin to account for the
difference.

Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
by the massive quantities of bifaces found
in paleo lakes and rivers.

No explanations, let alone theories, from
Standard PA that begin to touch the sides
of any of the problems. You might as well
try to discuss the Big Bang with a pre-
Copernican astronomer. The difference is
that, at some point in the long-distant
past, PA people knew what the subject
was for.

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:52:35 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Friday 28 January 2022 at 11:47:55 UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
> >>> It's an issue only inside your bubble, where everything revolves
> >>> around an idee fixe
> >>
> >>What is the "idee fixe"?
> >
> > That your fantasy on human evolution represents no less than a
> > paradigm shift in paleoanthropology.
> That's no "idee fixe". At most it would
> be a vain hope. ('Vain' in every sense.)
> Marc V's "idee fixe" is that all human
> evolution comes from diving for shellfish.
> Perhaps he might also be descrbed as
> suffering from the vain fantasy above.
> but it's not the same thing.
>
> PA has settled into a non-thinking, non-
> functioning rut, where it long ago forgot
> what its purpose was meant to be. The
> obvious questions, that an intelligent
> child would pose, are not answered.
> Worse than that, professional PA people
> can't even conceive of the possibility of
> ever answering them --
>
> Why did we diverge from chimps?
> How did we diverge from chimps?
> Why and how did bipedalism evolve?
> What kind of habitat did early hominins
> occupy?
> How did early hominins (or ANY pre-
> modern hominins) avoid overwhelming
> levels of predation?
> Where did all those 'handaxes' come
> from, and what were they for?
> How come hominin fossils are so
> exceedingly rare on the African
> mainland?
> >>> an idiosyncratic fringe theory
> >>
> >> What is the 'idiosyncratic fringe theory'?
> >
> > That only you conceive of the idea that hominins evolved on islands
> > along the edge (fringe) of the African continent, swimming back and
> > forth between the mainland, evolving big brains to keep them warm in
> > the water, eventually settling permanently on the mainland after
> > killing off all the predators by poisoning them wth hand axes.
> > It's not just dataless fringe, it's lunatic fringe.
> These are a number of provisional
> answers to a set of interrelated
> questions, including those above.
> There's no 'theory' -- other than the
> general evolutionary ones, accepted
> by non-PA naturalists:
> a) species occupy distinct ecological niches;
> b) they are generally subject to predation;
> c) species do not lose critical survival
> capacities (such as escape speed and
> an ability to climb trees) except in
> special circumstances requiring isolation;
> d) if they are to re-integrate afterwards
> those abilities have to be replaced or
> made unnecessary in some way
> >> Rather than pathetic attempts at ad hominem
> >> abuse, you should say how my observations
> >> are wrong. They are matters of simple fact.
> >
> > Your state of mind is comparable to a creationist
> Note your ducking of the question.
> (You could have said my theory
> about islands/ swimming / hand-
> axes / big brains / extinction of
> all large predatory omnivores in
> Africa . . . . . are undermined by X,
> Y or Z.) But no. You just you leap
> straight back into (wholly misplaced)
> ad hominem abuse.
> > that categorically
> > denies the existence of transitional fossils, even if you show him a
> > nearly complete specimen of Archaeopteryx, and who can even quote
> > professional paleontologists to support him:
> >
> > "Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in
> > mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil
> > record without evidence of transitional forms." - D. M. Raup and S. M.
> > Stanley, Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and Co., San
> > Francisco, 1971, page 306.
> I'm seeking to find answers -- e.g. to how
> and why bipedalism evolved. Or how early
> hominins coped with predation. You (and
> PA generally) are the ones claiming that
> it's all an insoluable mystery, best left to
> God or to some far-removed Posterity --
> or, best of all, just issues to be forgotten
> and never discussed in polite company
> > Ideology gets in the way of meaningful discussion.
> Give an example of a current 'meaningful
> discussion' in PA -- in which an intelligent
> layperson could have an interest.
>
> Show how any of my suggestions might
> 'get in the way' of it.
> > There's a difference, but not nearly as extreme as you suggest.
> You could readily spend a whole life in East
> Africa as a fossil hunter and not find a single
> hominin fossil. Whereas, in every hour on
> a fossilferous strata you'll see dozens, if not
> hundreds, of non-hominin fossils eroding
> out. The difference is massive. Hominins
> were never a normal part of ANY East
> African (or any other mainland African)
> ecology.
> > The Turkana Database, one of the most comprehensive, lists 3045
> > specimens of Cercopithecidae, 2294 Suidae, 671 Hominidae, 177
> > Hyaenidae.
> >
> > https://www.museums.or.ke/turkana-checklist/
> So, over the 6 Myr, hominins were four
> times as common as hyena in the area?
>
> It's a museum selection. Says nothing
> about being representative. It's whatever
> -- at various times -- took the fancy of
> the collectors, the conservators, and
> the curator.
> > There can be more than one reason for the difference in
> > representation: e.g. ecological (trophic levels, carnivores are rarer
> > than herbivores),
> No one claims that hominins were more
> than fractionally carnivorous.
> > taxonomic (greater diversity of species in some
> > higher taxa than in others, e.g. monkeys vs apes), etc.
> None of which begin to account for the
> difference.
>
> Yet hominins were around -- as evidenced
> by the massive quantities of bifaces found
> in paleo lakes and rivers.
>
> No explanations, let alone theories, from
> Standard PA that begin to touch the sides
> of any of the problems. You might as well
> try to discuss the Big Bang with a pre-
> Copernican astronomer. The difference is
> that, at some point in the long-distant
> past, PA people knew what the subject
> was for.
All hominoids and probably nearly all primates eat eggs.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> 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,

Cold?

> and their heads are in the air. The head is

They have to breathe... ;)

> 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.

Boating safety draws on research for survival tips

https://www.boatus.org/study-guide/prep/cold-water/

'This position, the Heat Escape Lessening Position, or H.E.L.P., aims to
protect
some of the areas of your body most prone to heat loss - the head, neck, sides
of the chest cavity and the groin area."

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 05:09:25 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
> fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
> Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
> fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
> normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.

Australopithecines et al ranged form East Africa to South Africa to
Chad in Central Africa. Consider

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Thursday 27 January 2022 at 10:11:14 UTC, Pandora wrote:

>> "We've discovered more hominids, just our teams, in the last seven or
>> eight years then in the entire history of the field of
>> paleoanthropology on the whole continent of Africa. What a change!"
>
> An enormous change for him. He and
> his team more than doubled the number
> of African fossils. But that's the point.
> Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
> tiny number.
>
>> In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
>> https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
>
> My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
> (I think) dodgy software, made that bit
> of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.

Yes, it does matter. You didn't try very hard. Berger speaks in English
and there
was no problem with moving the slider over.

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.

Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large quantities of
fish
etc and have large brains.

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> 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.

Irony anyone?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > 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.

> Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large quantities of
> fish

Okay. And you think this means... what?

Go on, roll up your sleeves, really challenge yourself here & explain what you
think you mean.

-- --

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

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > You're not clever or funny. Best advice is if you have nothing to say you
> > should try saying nothing.

> Irony anyone?

No. If you weren't crippled by your emotions you'd see that I had plenty to
say, most f it involving DHA, where it's found in abundance and how this
all relates to Aquatic Ape.

But you'd have to start thinking and stop rationalizing to notice.

-- --

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

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:54:07 AM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> 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,

Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common, but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks... thus leading to...

> 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.

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?

You seem to prefer going to your cubicle.

Lions, wolves, hyenas hunt in *groups* by chasing herds in the open selecting the weakest/unluckiest individual prey.
Tigers & leopards & bears hunt as stealthy loners in woodlands and forests, they can be surrounded and driven away by *groups*. A group of 12 - 20 adult Homo with shields and sharp sticks and stones would be avoided by a lone predator, with rare exception (sick/wounded/aged).

On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 05:54:06 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

>> An enormous change for him. He and
>> his team more than doubled the number
>> of African fossils. But that's the point.
>> Doubling a tiny number still leaves it a
>> tiny number.
> >
>>> In this video you can hear him say it at about 30:25:
>>> https://www.npostart.nl/govert-naar-de-oorsprong-van-de-mens/27-08-2021/VPWON_1316830
>>
>> My Dutch is non-existent and that, plus
>> (I think) dodgy software, made that bit
>> of video inaccessible. Not that it matters.
>
> Yes, it does matter. You didn't try very hard. Berger
> speaks in English and there was no problem with
> moving the slider over.

Nice to see how you can concentrate on
the essentials.

On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 06:09:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:

> Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large
> quantities of fish etc and have large brains.

Once the genetic bauplan (the genotype) is
set, it's not going to be altered for the
environment. The organism cannot re-arrange
its organs. It may starve if some or all don't
get sustenance. Billions of humans have
starved.

There has been (over the past 30 kyr) strong
selection against bigger brains in humans,
which suggests that large size is unnecessary,
-- set against the costs of finding the resources
it needs.

On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 05:45:48 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

>> Categorically false -- if your conclusions are based on the
>> fossil record -- or on more than superstition. Before the
>> Holocene, they certainly weren't "all over". Hominin
>> fossils are extraordinarily rare. Hominins were never a
>> normal part of any generally recognised ecosystem.
>
> Australopithecines et al ranged form East Africa to South Africa
> to Chad in Central Africa. Consider
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_fossil_sites_of_the_early_hominids_(4.4-1M_BP).svg

Try to deal with the argument made, not the
argument you want it to be.

On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 14:26:56 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>>> 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,
>
> Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,
> but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
> easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...

Imaginative nonsense -- a theory for which
you have no evidence.

Trout occupy waters in temperate regions
They cannot take excessive cold in winters,
nor excessive heat in summers.

That climate would have moved closer to
the equator during ice ages, but there is no
good reason to think temperate regions
grew in size. In fact, terrestrial upland
continental life-forms generally suffered.
Everywhere was much drier (water
accumulated at the poles) and more windy.
Deserts abounded. Not good for vegetation
nor the insects on which trout feed.

> thus leading to...
>
>> the massive expansion
>> in hominin brains began

Bad thinking in many ways. Trout can
be rapidly fished out from streams.
Lakes would have been better, but
hard for early hominins to fish.

Also, IF early hominins had fished in the
streams you envisage, they'd have
drowned in them, or got caught in floods
and left more fossils than the vanishingly
few we have today.

Ice-age wind blew dust into the oceans
fertilising life-forms there (the limiting
factor is usually iron). Most DHA comes
from krill and the phytoplanton on
which it feeds.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:41:24 PM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> > H.naledi had no access to super-
> > abundant DHA. Nor did it need the heat-
> > store that large brains provide.
>
> Lions, wolves, hyenas hunt in *groups* by chasing herds in
> the open selecting the weakest/unluckiest individual prey.
> Tigers & leopards & bears hunt as stealthy loners in
> woodlands and forests, they can be surrounded and driven
> away by *groups*.

We don't know how the large omnivores
in Africa before ~2 ma hunted prey. But
I'd accept your broad categories.

> A group of 12 - 20 adult Homo with
> shields and sharp sticks and stones would be avoided by a
> lone predator, with rare exception (sick/wounded/aged).

You forget
A) That chimps and female gorillas (and
their young stayed up in trees to keep
away from these predators -- even
though they'd have have far better
suited than early homo to cope with
them -- they could run much faster
and scoot up the nearest tree with
their infants attached;
B) Most predatory attacks are at night
and hominins have almost no night-
sight.
C) It's inconceivable that hominins
would ever allow their young on the
ground when such predators were
in the vicinity. And, given the wooded
habitat you envisage, even in daylight
they'd rarely be seen until it was too
late.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:10:51 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 06:09:57 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> > I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> > Billions of people on the planet do not have access to large
> > quantities of fish etc and have large brains.
> Once the genetic bauplan (the genotype) is
> set,

It is never set, it is constantly evolving.

it's not going to be altered for the
> environment. The organism cannot re-arrange
> its organs. It may starve if some or all don't
> get sustenance. Billions of humans have
> starved.
>
> There has been (over the past 30 kyr) strong
> selection against bigger brains in humans,
> which suggests that large size is unnecessary,
> -- set against the costs of finding the resources
> it needs.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 6:20:51 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 30 January 2022 at 14:26:56 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >>> 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,
> >
> > Now, between ice ages, trout are cold water fish, so less common,
> > but during ice ages they were everywhere far more common, and
> > easily caught with domeshield wicker frames in creeks...
> Imaginative nonsense -- a theory for which
> you have no evidence.

Where do you sleep? Not in a tree, not in water, but in a constructed shelter derived from a great ape bowl nest.
Your cubicle is all the evidence you need.
Fish traps derive from domeshield wicker frames, see this example:

https://usamerica.shop/product/best-all-fish-trap/?utm_source=Google%20Shopping&utm_campaign=US%20AMERICA%20FEED&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=70664&gclid=Cj0KCQiAi9mPBhCJARIsAHchl1wiYvEQxmx1XjtcDc1vB3sB17A_RparYaf2GsftHDh2IP3gbhwMkRAaAty1EALw_wcB

It catches trout, crayfish, etc.

> Trout occupy waters in temperate regions
> They cannot take excessive cold in winters,

Yes they can, see arctic grayling of Alaska.

> nor excessive heat in summers.
>
> That climate would have moved closer to
> the equator during ice ages, but there is no
> good reason to think temperate regions
> grew in size.

Dades trout live in Morocco's Atlas mountains and in Sicily, Italy, indicating formerly a vast range.

In fact, terrestrial upland
> continental life-forms generally suffered.
> Everywhere was much drier (water
> accumulated at the poles) and more windy.
> Deserts abounded. Not good for vegetation
> nor the insects on which trout feed.

False, insects thrive in that cooler drier climate, as do trout.

> > thus leading to...
> >
> >> the massive expansion
> >> in hominin brains began
> Bad thinking in many ways.

??

Trout can
> be rapidly fished out from streams.

Fiction.

> Lakes would have been better, but
> hard for early hominins to fish.
Crocs...
>
> Also, IF early hominins had fished in the
> streams you envisage, they'd have
> drowned in them,

In shallow crystalline streams??!!

or got caught in floods
> and left more fossils than the vanishingly
> few we have today.

Forest dwellers rarely leave fossils.
>
> Ice-age wind blew dust into the oceans
> fertilising life-forms there (the limiting
> factor is usually iron). Most DHA comes
> from krill and the phytoplanton on
> which it feeds.