Human ancestors did NOT “move out of the forrests, into the open land” as I just read!! Yes, it's incredible, but this nonsense is still repeated over & over.
If we had left the forests for the savanna or so, we had had a fur protecting us from the sun, no naked skin, no abundant water+sodium-excreting sweat-glands, no thick fat-layers, not flat plantigrade feet, no heel-walking, no atrophied olfaction etc.etc.etc.
No: most likely, schematically, our early-Pleistocene ancestors (Homo s.s.) moved out of the swamp/mangrove forests, into the shallow coastal seas around the Indian Ocean (collecting shellfish etc.), whereas australopiths=apes remained in the (less wet) forests.
Google “ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen” & “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT” (+ references).

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Human ancestors did NOT “move out of the forrests, into the open land” as I just read!! Yes, it's incredible, but this nonsense is still repeated over & over.
> If we had left the forests for the savanna or so, we had had a fur protecting us from the sun, no naked skin, no abundant water+sodium-excreting sweat-glands, no thick fat-layers, not flat plantigrade feet, no heel-walking, no atrophied olfaction etc.etc.etc.
> No: most likely, schematically, our early-Pleistocene ancestors (Homo s.s..) moved out of the swamp/mangrove forests, into the shallow coastal seas around the Indian Ocean (collecting shellfish etc.), whereas australopiths=apes remained in the (less wet) forests.
> Google “ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen” & “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT” (+ references).
-

Homo has never left their forest home without forest products (poles, firewood, spears, etc.) until Hs went to the moon.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Human ancestors did NOT “move out of the forrests, into the open land” as I just read!!
> Yes, it's incredible, but this nonsense is still repeated over & over.

You succeed in academia by listening to the professor and the regurgitating
every word EXACTLY. You do not get good grades by rejecting what you are
told.

In certain instances this makes a lot of sense. You really can't compromise
with the laws of physics. You order yourself up a new periodic table. And in
any type of math, you do it the right way or you get the wrong anger. So this
rigid education system, this punishment of free thinking serves us well...

EXCEPT when you move away from the strictly objective to the subjective.

There is no strict answer for human evolution, our origins, and there isn't even
a solid method for collecting evidence... or determining what is and is not
evidence.

What it boils down to is that 1+1=2 is a fact, but in paleo anthropology pretty
much everything is an opinion. People collective evidence -- or what we think
of as evidence -- and then interpret it.

Even DNA: The labs can determine EXACTLY what it looks like, but there is
nothing in this world that tells us how it got that way. Every explanation is
mere theory...

> If we had left the forests for the savanna or so, we had had a fur protecting
> us from the sun, no naked skin, no abundant water+sodium-excreting
> sweat-glands, no thick fat-layers, not flat plantigrade feet, no heel-walking, no
> atrophied olfaction etc.etc.etc.

The beauty of Aquatic Ape is that there is room to adapt. Monkeys can eat shell
fish, they don't have to first evolve into upright walking tool users. That can come
later. Doesn't have to, but it can.

The savanna nonsense pretty much requires adaptation FIRST. They have to
evolve FIRST, they need adaptations FIRST before they take to the savanna. And,
again, aquatic ape provides the answer...

They exploit the sea. There's an over supply of proteins. The sea supports a
higher population density. But it also guarantees us a periodic movement
inland in response to conflicts, natural disasters, changing sea level (etc).

The higher your population density, the more vulnerable you are to even short
term disruptions of food. So occasionally they followed streams inland, or
they got trapped by rising sea levels or they were driven off by conflict and,
BAM, they're in a new environment. They've got an upright stature, bigger
brains, tools and they need to innovate to survive...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679136273466900480

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Homo has never left their forest home without forest products (poles, firewood, spears, etc.)
> until Hs went to the moon.

I found that documentary you're quoting:

https://youtu.be/wY6insZjCfU

Not convinced, me.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679136273466900480

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 4:54:00 PM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Human ancestors did NOT “move out of the forrests, into the open land” as I just read!! Yes, it's incredible, but this nonsense is still repeated over & over.
> > If we had left the forests for the savanna or so, we had had a fur protecting us from the sun, no naked skin, no abundant water+sodium-excreting sweat-glands, no thick fat-layers, not flat plantigrade feet, no heel-walking, no atrophied olfaction etc.etc.etc.
> > No: most likely, schematically, our early-Pleistocene ancestors (Homo s..s.) moved out of the swamp/mangrove forests, into the shallow coastal seas around the Indian Ocean (collecting shellfish etc.), whereas australopiths=apes remained in the (less wet) forests.
> > Google “ape human evolution made easy PPT Verhaegen” & “coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT” (+ references).
> -
>
> Homo has never left their forest home without forest products (poles, firewood, spears, etc.) until Hs went to the moon.

Homo has never left their forest home without forest products (poles, firewood, spears, etc.) until Hs went to the moon.