On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:11:28 PM UTC-5, Primum Sapienti wrote:
> I Envy JTEM wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Fish not necessary in the diet.

True. North African highlands have at least 4 species of trout, which are higher in omega 3 fatty acids than oysters.

https://graellsia.revistas.csic.es/index.php/graellsia/article/download/515/571?inline=1

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:31:14 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 1:35:16 PM UTC, Pandora wrote:
>
> >> At some point out ancestors stopped being
> >> like other primates (in this respect). I can
> >> see them remaining on an over-crowded
> >> island when it's truly remote. But if they
> >> can see the mainland, or the next island,
> >> there will be a strong incentive get a raft
> >> or flotation aid and head towards it.
> >
> > That's quite different from going in and swimming a few miles.
> > No ape will do that, unless it's a well-trained Homo sapiens.
> Under my scenario, a population of
> chimps became isolated on a large
> island (Zanzibar will do as a model)
> probably as a result of a rise in sea-
> levels -- enough to discourage
> carnivores from crossing. In a few
> thousand years the local carnivores
> would become too inbred and die out.
> The proto-hominins would leave the
> trees, and roam free. They'd get
> used to foraging on coasts, and
> swimming between off-shore islets.
> Their nature would change as they
> evolved into a new form with
> wholly new challenges.
> > > Sure. The robusts went off in some
> > > weird direction.
> >
> > That makes them interesting as a test case for your scenario. They
> > have their origin at about the same time as Homo, but their brains are
> > small (410 cc in KNM-WT 17000), while their jaws and teeth are
> > massive. Quite the opposite of Homo.
> > They couldn't have come from the same island.
> There were several islands. and even
> more as seal-levels went down, with
> the inception of ice-ages.
> > > Hominins are very different from bovids
> > > -- being carnivorous for a start.
> >
> > More likely omnivorous.
> > Besides, we see the same pattern of diversity and niche partitioning
> > in carnivores such as Felidae. Lion, leopard, cheetah, serval,
> > caracal, and a host of other cats are sympatric in Africa today.
> All those carnivores hate each other,
> often fight, and will eat other's young.
> much the same would apply to early
> hominins.
> > > No one (with any sense) would suggest that two
> > > competing hominin species could share
> > > the same habitat.
> >
> > Paranthropus and Homo are distinct enough morphologically to suggest
> > something similar as with felids.
> Felids take much care to hide and
> protect their young which, in any case,
> grow up rapidly. Felids have many
> offspring, so can cope with a high
> death rate in their young. Hominins
> are very different.
> > > Hominins usually swim (in survival
> > > mode or otherwise) with their heads
> > > out of the water (very different from
> > > marine mammals). That drastically
> > > changes the dynamics of heat-loss,
> > > and the physiology that can best
> > > survive the cold.
> >
> > All the more reason the believe that the rest of the body was under
> > selection to make them better swimmers, to stay as short in the water
> > as possible,
> Survival (and most other forms of)
> swimming is with the head out of the
> water. It's going to be slow at the best
> of times. The selective effect of slightly
> more webbing between fingers will be
> minimal, and greatly outweighed by
> the disadvantages during ordinary
> life (e.g. more hand injuries).
> > but hominins do not even have webbed fingers and are
> > still much slower than marine predators such as sharks.
> What's the easiest way to improve
> the swimming speed of something
> like an australopith? (Not racing
> speed -- just survival speed.)
>
> How about larger hands and larger
> feet? And a longer, and more stream-
> lined body?
>
> What do we see with h.sap males?
>
> We don't see any of these cold-swiming-
> adaptations (including large heads and
> brains) with h.naledi -- they were a long
> way from the ocean.
>
> Homo males should also develop
> strong 'breast-stroke' muscles -- for
> moving the arms downwards. These
> will be less developed in austral-
> opiths and h.naledi (other things
> being equal).
> >> Sure. Marine mammals are in cold water
> >> all the time. Hominins were in it only
> >> occasionally, and maybe only rarely --
> >> but enough (may be less than once in a
> >> lifetime) for the cold to exercise selective
> >> effects.
> >
> > Only if they stayed in the water for a prolonged time,
> The waters off East and West Africa
> during ice-ages were much colder.
> However, hope of rescue was probably
> small, and it was up to each swimmer
> to get to shore themselves.
> > long enough to drown for other reasons.
> Drowning often arises from a complex
> of reasons; hypothermia is a major
> factor.
>
> https://www.hofmannlawfirm.com/faqs/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-hypothermia-in-cold-water.cfm
> > And then, the ones that reached the mainland
> > had a failure rate of 99.999%
> This was my estimate of the failure
> rate of refugees, lost on the African
> mainland.
> > there and would leave much less progeny
> > than their island conspecifics who stayed put.
> During ice-ages, sea-levels were (over
> evolutionary timescales) much more
> variable. New islands came into
> existence, and were later drowned.
> Hominins on remote islands were
> more isolated -- and safer for a time.
> But not for long.
>
> Those on islands closer to the main-
> land (or to other islands) would come
> and go from them, and mount
> expeditions to the mainland, lasting
> months or years. They'd learn to cope
> with mainland predators, and their
> populations would be much more
> capable of dealing with the radical
> changes, when they occurred, than
> would isolated populations. They'd
> leave progeny. Isolated populations
> wouldn't.
> >>> Overheating rather than hypothermia seems to have been a problem in
> >>> human evolution.
> >>
> >> One does not rule out the other.
> >
> > When one of two opposing features is no longer needed
> There's nothing 'opposing' here. Early
> hominins sometimes got too hot and
> evolved sweating (for which they needed
> good supplies of water and a range of
> hard-to-get salts of iodine, potassium
> and sodium). Sometimes they were
> exposed to hypothermia, and evolved
> mechanisms to cope with that.
> > than natural
> > selection will reduce it. On land hominins didn't need such a big
> > central heater as is useful in the water. Yet their brains grew ever
> > bigger, culminating in Homo sapiens.
> Bad thinking here. Often one feature
> or requirement will impose strains on
> others, but that's normal.
> >> Brain size took off at about the same time
> >> as ice-ages commenced.
> >
> > Those where mostly a feature of higher latitudes, not the
> > (sub)tropics. Besides, we see the smallest brain sizes in early Homo
> > at the highest latitudes of their range (as low as 546 cc in D4500 at
> > 1.8 mya from Dmanisi, Georgia).
> The effects of Ice-ages were world-wide.
> Water went to the poles. Everywhere
> was drier. Dust everywhere. Continental
> uplands very cold at night. Cold antarctic
> currents travelled much further north
> on both sides of Africa. Plenty of fish in
> them but cold -- brrrr!
> >> Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
> >> catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
> >> nets came into use.
> >
> > The oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from about
> > 29000 years ago:
> > https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
> Once you have string, nets are very
> easy to make.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vegEIHaWB8g

Yes, when taught clearly & patiently & safely, yet among thousands of fish-eating fauna, only Hs makes them, and most Hs never do.
No primate but man has ever been observed tying a knot. All great apes weave over-under wicker as part of bowl nest making, none have been observed weaving anything else. Mats & nets of soft fiber are neolithic, baskets of wicker are much older. Some of the basket fish traps used in the Congo river could fit a man inside. The Mbuti Pygmies use nets & spears to hunt, perhaps the inventors.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 4:55:38 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:02:05 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka
> note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Humans are still not fast swimmers, but
> >> >> catch plenty of fish. It's a question of when
> >> >> nets came into use.
> >> >
> >> > The oldest evidence for such sophisticated techniques is from about
> >> > 29000 years ago:
> >> > https://phys.org/news/2018-08-world-oldest-fishing-net-sinkers.html
> >>
> >> Once you have string, nets are very
> >> easy to make.
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vegEIHaWB8g
> >
> >Yes, when taught clearly & patiently & safely, yet among thousands of fish-eating fauna,
> >only Hs makes them, and most Hs never do. No primate but man has ever been observed tying a knot.
> When a chimpanzee in the wild ties a knot, maybe just by accident,
> it's literally Pan Africa News:
> https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/143363/1/Pan5%281%29_08.pdf

Thanks, interesting. They report it as anecdotal, exceptional, probably accidental, and did not observe the action, so my claim holds true. Other animals have been observed tying knots regularly, including a shark that ties off it's egg case with no hands and a hagfish to remove it's armor of slime using no hands, and weaverbirds again with no hands. Only Homo sapiens has been observed tying knots by hand. Considering the manual and pedal proficiencies of apes, nondeliberate or deliberate knot tying would seem to be at least a rare to occasional activity, but I hadn't heard of it before. If there were a reward, say scraping or squeezing a bit of meat or fat out of the knot to be eaten or licked, that could select for repetition and teaching by a mother to a child. Tying a series of knots on a net is at another level.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> 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.

I had no problem with the "inaccessible" video.

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's not going to be altered for the
> environment. The organism cannot re-arrange

"selection" operates when the environment changes.

> 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,

No, there is selection for brain organization which means a reduction
in size can result.

> which suggests that large size is unnecessary,
> -- set against the costs of finding the resources
> it needs.
>

Paul Crowley wrote:
> 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.
>

Here is the full unsnipped post:

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

I wrote the australopithecines were adaptable, you said "categorically false".

Their range says you're wrong.

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>> Fish not necessary in the diet.
>
> Cool. And where is the time machine that you imagine, the one that whisks
> your lack of fish back to aquatic ape, eliminating fish from their diet?
>
> Seriously, can you not grasp this?
>
> You might as well argue that we're not habilis so habilis never existed...
>
> You don't see to understand what is pertinent and what is not.
>
> Are you an economist by any chance? Eew. Hose the place down, get
> rid of the stench....

Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?

On Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 04:18:26 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

> 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
>
> I wrote the australopithecines were adaptable, you said "categorically false".
>
> Their range says you're wrong.

If you could do a thorough survey of deep
sea floors, you'd find a lot of human fossils.
From that you should not conclude that
the species was clearly marine and ranged
widely over every sea and ocean.

"A species range is an area where a particular species can be found
during its lifetime. Species ranges include areas where individuals or
communities may migrate or hibernate."

We know where australopith fossils were
found. We DON'T know where they lived.
Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
their 'range') we can safely conclude that
they were never a part of any local ecology.

Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
even more hypothetical.

On Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 05:08:44 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

>>> Fish not necessary in the diet.
>
>> Eew. Hose the place down, get rid of the stench....
>
> Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?

Aparently odiferous materials (and
non-odiferous ones) do not have a
scent in their own right. They smell
strongly (or weakly) to the relevant
species. So humans (and other prey
animals) find that lion pee has a
powerful and unpleasant odour. We
needed to be especially sensitive to
it for much of our evolutionary past.

Rotting fish likewise has a powerful
and unpleasant smell. It must have
been important for our ancestors to
take especial care in avoiding it.

That would suggest that it was a
significant part of our ancestral diet.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 04:18:26 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> I wrote the australopithecines were adaptable, you said "categorically false".
>>
>> Their range says you're wrong.
>
> If you could do a thorough survey of deep
> sea floors, you'd find a lot of human fossils.

So, human fossils in the sa floors middle of the Pacific?

> From that you should not conclude that
> the species was clearly marine and ranged
> widely over every sea and ocean.
>
> "A species range is an area where a particular species can be found
> during its lifetime. Species ranges include areas where individuals or
> communities may migrate or hibernate."
>
> We know where australopith fossils were
> found. We DON'T know where they lived.

Yes, we do.

"A species range is an area where a particular species can be found
during its lifetime. Species ranges include areas where individuals or
communities may migrate or hibernate."

> Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
> their 'range') we can safely conclude that
> they were never a part of any local ecology.

So what were those creatures doing there then?

> Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
> even more hypothetical.

So, those creatures went there and immediately died?

On Thursday 17 March 2022 at 03:21:55 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

>> Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
>> their 'range') we can safely conclude that
>> they were never a part of any local ecology.
>
> So what were those creatures doing there then?

Vagrants -- far from their home range
-- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
never a viable population.

>> Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
>> even more hypothetical.
>
> So, those creatures went there and immediately died?

As with most refugees, some died
immediately; some lived a few years,
a few survived several decades,
probably by regularly moving on, so
that the local predators never began
to see them as prey. They could
never settle nor raise children to
adulthood.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?

Wait. So you're "Arguing" that they carried spare savannas on their backs to
drop & eat when they were hungry? Or are you saying EVERYONE, even the
Out of Africa purists, are wrong and that Coastal Dispersal was never a thing?

You need to learn to look at the big picture. NOT individual statements or
pieces of evidence, but how they fit together. If something doesn't fit then
either EVERYONE is wrong or the anomalous evidence is being misinterpreted
(misrepresented).

...not being able to reach other lands, other continents, unless they didn't
starve to death during this "Coastal Dispersal" is a given. It's understood. And
yet you are presently contending that it is not.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vxq3ac-great-lakes-expert-forecasts.html

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
>
> Wait. So you're "Arguing" that they carried spare savannas on their backs to
> drop & eat when they were hungry? Or are you saying EVERYONE, even the
> Out of Africa purists, are wrong and that Coastal Dispersal was never a thing?
>
> You need to learn to look at the big picture. NOT individual statements or
> pieces of evidence, but how they fit together. If something doesn't fit then
> either EVERYONE is wrong or the anomalous evidence is being misinterpreted
> (misrepresented).
>
> ...not being able to reach other lands, other continents, unless they didn't
> starve to death during this "Coastal Dispersal" is a given. It's understood. And
> yet you are presently contending that it is not.

Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
developmental penalty.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2022 at 03:21:55 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
>>> their 'range') we can safely conclude that
>>> they were never a part of any local ecology.
>>
>> So what were those creatures doing there then?
>
> Vagrants -- far from their home range
> -- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
> never a viable population.

And you know this... how?

>>> Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
>>> even more hypothetical.
>>
>> So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
>
> As with most refugees, some died

Refugees? Refugees from WHAT? Bill collectors? Nazis?

> immediately; some lived a few years,
> a few survived several decades,
> probably by regularly moving on, so
> that the local predators never began
> to see them as prey. They could
> never settle nor raise children to
> adulthood.
>

On Wednesday 30 March 2022 at 06:05:51 UTC+1, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>>> Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
>>>> their 'range') we can safely conclude that
>>>> they were never a part of any local ecology.
>>>..
>>> So what were those creatures doing there then?
>>..
>> Vagrants -- far from their home range
>> -- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
>> never a viable population.
> ..
> And you know this... how?

Yellow-bellied sapsuckers (birds) are
occasionally found around here. We know
that they are not part of the local ecology
because they are so rare. The never (or
almost never) find a mate and reproduce.

We can say much the same about
hominins for the great bulk of continental
Africa for nearly all the time up to ~15 ka.

>>>> Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
>>>> even more hypothetical.
>>>..
>>> So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
>>..
>> As with most refugees, some died
>..
> Refugees? Refugees from WHAT? Bill collectors? Nazis?

It's an analogy to some extent. But parties
of hominins (usually quite small) would have
left their over-crowded native locations --
fleeing for all the usual reasons: starvation,
disease outbreaks, war, natural disasters,
such as hurricanes, volcanoes or tsunami --
and sought to make a life for themselves in
a different region.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
> developmental penalty.

WRONG!

: Children who reported eating fish weekly scored 4.8 points higher on the IQ exams
: than those who don't. Kids who eat fish at least once a week sleep better and have
: IQ scores that are 4 points higher, on average, than those who eat fish less frequently
: or not at all, a new study shows

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/eating-fish-is-linked-to-better-sleep-and-a-higher-i-q-for-kids

There's other health benefits. My doctor prescribed them for high triglycerides.
They are shown to not only lower them but are also good for the heart.

Well, the EPA is most closely associated with heart health, the DHA is more
associated with a bigger/better brain. BOTH are found in seafood.

I buy kelp/seaweed/whatever when I can (it's prohibitively expensive at the
local supermarket), because it's a great source of EPA. I absolutely had it but
if I remember I take a fish oil supplement.

READ THE LABELS!

They tell me that you need at least 1000mgs a day. A lot of the supplements
will claim 1000 or even much HIGHER on the front of the label, but if you
turn it around & read the "nutritional" information you often need to take at
least two, and sometimes four in order to reach 1000mgs of Omega-3s. The
rest of it is just useless oil.

Walmart, of all places, had a great selection. There's not one nearby but if I
do make it there I'm heading straight for the supplements.

They had a number of different brands. The beauty there is that if you like one
better than others, buy that one! Doesn't matter if you have to take four pills a
day to top 1000mgs of actual Omega-3s. Buy supplements you don't like and
you won't use them.

Or just eat seafood.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680033542752829440

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:11 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 2 March 2022 at 05:08:44 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> >>> Fish not necessary in the diet.
> >
> >> Eew. Hose the place down, get rid of the stench....
> >
> > Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
> Aparently odiferous materials (and
> non-odiferous ones) do not have a
> scent in their own right. They smell
> strongly (or weakly) to the relevant
> species. So humans (and other prey
> animals) find that lion pee has a
> powerful and unpleasant odour. We
> needed to be especially sensitive to
> it for much of our evolutionary past.

Fixed a typo:

> Rotting feces likewise has a powerful
> and unpleasant smell. It must have
> been important for our ancestors to
> take especial care in avoiding it.
>
> That would suggest that it was a
> significant part of our ancestral diet.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:57:31 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> > Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
> > developmental penalty.
> WRONG!
>
> : Children who reported eating fish weekly scored 4.8 points higher on the IQ exams
> : than those who don't. Kids who eat fish at least once a week sleep better and have
> : IQ scores that are 4 points higher, on average, than those who eat fish less frequently
> : or not at all, a new study shows
>
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/eating-fish-is-linked-to-better-sleep-and-a-higher-i-q-for-kids
>
> There's other health benefits. My doctor prescribed them for high triglycerides.
> They are shown to not only lower them but are also good for the heart.
>
> Well, the EPA is most closely associated with heart health, the DHA is more
> associated with a bigger/better brain. BOTH are found in seafood.
>
> I buy kelp/seaweed/whatever when I can (it's prohibitively expensive at the
> local supermarket), because it's a great source of EPA. I absolutely had it but
> if I remember I take a fish oil supplement.
>
> READ THE LABELS!
>
> They tell me that you need at least 1000mgs a day. A lot of the supplements
> will claim 1000 or even much HIGHER on the front of the label, but if you
> turn it around & read the "nutritional" information you often need to take at
> least two, and sometimes four in order to reach 1000mgs of Omega-3s. The
> rest of it is just useless oil.
>
> Walmart, of all places, had a great selection. There's not one nearby but if I
> do make it there I'm heading straight for the supplements.
>
> They had a number of different brands. The beauty there is that if you like one
> better than others, buy that one! Doesn't matter if you have to take four pills a
> day to top 1000mgs of actual Omega-3s. Buy supplements you don't like and
> you won't use them.
>
> Or just eat seafood.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680033542752829440
Trout. It's not just for breakfast. Or jerm's favorite, cod liver oil.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 March 2022 at 06:05:51 UTC+1, Primum Sapienti wrote:
>>>>> Given their extreme rarity (in every part of
>>>>> their 'range') we can safely conclude that
>>>>> they were never a part of any local ecology.
>>>> ..
>>>> So what were those creatures doing there then?
>>> ..
>>> Vagrants -- far from their home range
>>> -- unlikely to reproduce, and certainly
>>> never a viable population.
>> ..
>> And you know this... how?
>
> Yellow-bellied sapsuckers (birds) are
> occasionally found around here. We know
> that they are not part of the local ecology
> because they are so rare. The never (or
> almost never) find a mate and reproduce.
>
> We can say much the same about
> hominins for the great bulk of continental
> Africa for nearly all the time up to ~15 ka.

A primate like an australopith wandering around Africa abll by itself?
Come on.

>>>>> Their supposed 'adaptability' becomes
>>>>> even more hypothetical.
>>>> ..
>>>> So, those creatures went there and immediately died?
>>> ..
>>> As with most refugees, some died
>> ..
>> Refugees? Refugees from WHAT? Bill collectors? Nazis?
>
> It's an analogy to some extent. But parties

To zero extent.

> of hominins (usually quite small) would have
> left their over-crowded native locations --
> fleeing for all the usual reasons: starvation,
> disease outbreaks, war, natural disasters,
> such as hurricanes, volcanoes or tsunami --
> and sought to make a life for themselves in
> a different region.
>

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
>> developmental penalty.

Correct.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[...]

It's pretty clear that your cognitive development was stunted,
so you should be investing in fish oil instead of embarrassing
yourself by attempting to (f)Lame...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681558557689266176

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> It's pretty clear that your cognitive development was stunted,
> so you should be investing in fish oil instead of embarrassing
> yourself by attempting to (f)Lame...

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Where is your time machine that says they gorged on fish?
>
> Wait. So you're "Arguing" that they carried spare savannas on their
backs to
> drop & eat when they were hungry? Or are you saying EVERYONE, even the
> Out of Africa purists, are wrong and that Coastal Dispersal was never a
thing?
>
> You need to learn to look at the big picture. NOT individual statements or
> pieces of evidence, but how they fit together. If something doesn't fit
then
> either EVERYONE is wrong or the anomalous evidence is being misinterpreted
> (misrepresented).
>
> ...not being able to reach other lands, other continents, unless
they didn't
> starve to death during this "Coastal Dispersal" is a given. It's
understood. And
> yet you are presently contending that it is not.

Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have fish/seafood without
developmental penalty.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have

Awesome! And how many have time machines and pop back to the
evolutionarily significant times we are speaking of?

Because you clearly have no idea what the issues are or how deconstruct
the problems & form pertinent questions.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/685720939973001216

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Millions of people, if no billions, do not regularly have
>
> Awesome! And how many have time machines and pop back to the
> evolutionarily significant times we are speaking of?

You're the one relying on time machines...

> Because you clearly have no idea what the issues are or how deconstruct
> the problems & form pertinent questions.

There are 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."