On Thursday 11 August 2022 at 04:35:52 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> The question is whether hominoids
>> evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
>
> Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.

Why not invent yet another taxon, to
fill in an awkward gap in whatever
theory it is that you are promoting at
the moment?

>> One came first, and the other evolved
>> from it.

This is known as parsimony.

>> Why do you always dodge the question of
>> what were the enormous benefits to the
>> first ape populations --
>
> Your selective amnesia makes you ignorant.

If you had answered in this way before,
I'd have responded as I'm going to now.
I didn't, because you've never provided
this daft answer.

> Hanging fruit -> hanging bimanual & upright bipedal arboreal apes had access which monkeys didn't.

Trees produce fruit so it can get eaten.
If there are now some bunches located
better for apes (rather than monkeys)
-- which I doubt -- they only came
into existence AFTER apes began to
consume the fruit. It was (or would
have been) a co-evolution of fruit trees
with apes.

So there were NO bunches of fruit more
accessible to apes (as against monkeys)
when apes first evolved.

Even if there were a few, it would still
not justify the enormous changes in
morphology that we see. The distance
between the trivial benefits (as you see
them) and the enormous costs could
scarcely be greater.

> How many times have I informed you of this?

Never. It's an epic failure in the Principles
of Evolution 101. Sorry, but you'll have to
take the course again next year. This time
try harder.

>> All apes have hook-like hands -- except
>> for one most peculiar (and highly
>> derived) taxon. Yet, it seems, you want
>> to propose that all of them (chimps,
>> gorillas, orangs, multitudes of fossil
>> apes, and gibbons) were the odd ones
>> out; there was one 'good' strain, that
>> kept its non-hook-like hands all the
>> way through -- from the monkeys, and
>> all the other apes split off from it at
>> various times.
>>
>> And that's not 'delusional'?
>
> PC is so full of bullshit he couldn't dive for a dollar.

Such an articulate, well-reasoned
response! A bit like Trump taking
the Fifth. Any attempt at an answer
would land you in trouble.

....

> > it's simple:
> > - early Hominoidea adapted to wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
> > - H.erectus often dived for shallow-water shellfish (= so-called "aq.ape", but no ape any more, and only semi-aquatic),
> > - late-Pleistocene H.sapiens waded-walked.
> > Only incredible idiots are so delusional to believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

> You think pleistocene Homo couldn't run?

Late-Pleistocene Homo can run, of course, although rather slowly:
real runners are horses, antelopes, hunting-dogs etc.: narrow feet, narrow bodies, lightly-built, run twice as fast as humans.

Early-Pleistocene H.erectus was an extremely poor runner:
- feet even fltter than ours,
- shorter legs,
- wider pelvis,
- heavier bones,
- etc.

Only self-declared "scientists" who don't know anything of biology believe Pleistocene Homo ran after antelopes.

....

> The question is whether hominoids
> evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
> One came first, and the other evolved
> from it.

No, no: hylobatids & great apes had a LCA, probably some 20 Ma.
This LCA was no hylobatid, and no great ape.
Comparative anatomy shows it waded bipedally in forest swamps, and climbed arms overhead in the branches above the swamp.
Questions that remain are: where did it live? in which swamp forests exactly?
Most likely IMO, they lived in coastal forests (did mangroves already exist?), I'd think somewhere around what is now India.

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:20:32 AM UTC-4, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2022 at 04:35:52 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> The question is whether hominoids
> >> evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
> >
> > Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.
> Why not invent yet another taxon, to
> fill in an awkward gap in whatever
> theory it is that you are promoting at
> the moment?

Hylobatids & Homo share archaic traits subsequently lost in swamp forest great apes, these are early hominoid primitive traits & morphologies still retained by H & H. No reason for new taxa designations.

> >> One came first, and the other evolved
> >> from it.
> This is known as parsimony.
I taught you parsimony.

> >> Why do you always dodge the question of
> >> what were the enormous benefits to the
> >> first ape populations --
> >
> > Your selective amnesia makes you ignorant.
> If you had answered in this way before,
> I'd have responded as I'm going to now.
> I didn't, because you've never provided
> this daft answer.
You're dribbling.

> > Hanging fruit -> hanging bimanual & upright bipedal arboreal apes had access which monkeys didn't.
> Trees produce fruit so it can get eaten.
> If there are now some bunches located
> better for apes (rather than monkeys)
> -- which I doubt -- they only came
> into existence AFTER apes began to
> consume the fruit. It was (or would
> have been) a co-evolution of fruit trees
> with apes.
Preceded by fruit bats, which had access to hanging fruit at branch tips difficult for monkeys to get.
>
> So there were NO bunches of fruit more
> accessible to apes (as against monkeys)
> when apes first evolved.
False.

> Even if there were a few, it would still
> not justify the enormous changes in
> morphology that we see.

Of course it would. Apes supplanted fruit bats & monkeys in getting access to hanging fruit not at branch tips.

The distance
> between the trivial benefits (as you see
> them) and the enormous costs could
> scarcely be greater.
Wrong.

> > How many times have I informed you of this?
> Never.
Pretending again.
It's an epic failure in the Principles
> of Evolution 101.
You reject reality.
Sorry, but you'll have to
> take the course again next year. This time
> try harder.
Empty verbiage.

> >> All apes have hook-like hands -- except
> >> for one most peculiar (and highly
> >> derived) taxon. Yet, it seems, you want
> >> to propose that all of them (chimps,
> >> gorillas, orangs, multitudes of fossil
> >> apes, and gibbons) were the odd ones
> >> out; there was one 'good' strain, that
> >> kept its non-hook-like hands all the
> >> way through -- from the monkeys, and
> >> all the other apes split off from it at
> >> various times.
> >>
> >> And that's not 'delusional'?
> >
> > PC is so full of bullshit he couldn't dive for a dollar.
> Such an articulate, well-reasoned
> response!
Thanks for the compliment.

A bit like Trump taking
> the Fifth. Any attempt at an answer
> would land you in trouble.
I can't answer pseudoscience. Where have all the biologists gone?

On Thursday 11 August 2022 at 20:33:07 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

>> The question is whether hominoids
>> evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
>> One came first, and the other evolved
>> from it.
>
> No, no: hylobatids & great apes had a LCA, probably some 20 Ma.
> This LCA was no hylobatid, and no great ape.

Why not invent a new, wholly
different, wholly unknown species?

That is NOT parsimonious.

It fits another of your curious habits:
when it's agreed that the phylogeny of a
well-known taxon split you routinely
imagine there was an LCA of an
unknown nature at the splitting point
(but you always shove in some swamp
or watery aspect). This is in addition to
your other mental habit of assuming
that one branch went east and the
other west -- or north/south.

Evolution does not work like that. We
can see incipient stages in action. Take
seagulls. New populations (that don't
interbreed with normal seagulls) are
now occupying cities, often far from
the coast. They nest on roofs, and feed
on garbage dumps. In time (if humans
don't change their ways) there will be
a new species of City Gulls.

No LCA. No north/south, nor east/west
split.

There are two more parsimonious
theories: (a) large apes evolved from
large monkeys (let's say baboon-like)
(b) gibbons evolved from small or
medium sized monkeys.

> Comparative anatomy shows it waded bipedally in forest swamps, and climbed arms
> overhead in the branches above the swamp.

"Comparative anatomy" involving
an imaginary species is worse than
a waste of time.

> Questions that remain are: where did it live? in which swamp forests exactly?
> Most likely IMO, they lived in coastal forests (did mangroves already exist?)

Mangrove forests certainly existed,
but they are hostile to mammalian
(and many other) species, especially
primates. They lack fresh water.

On Friday 12 August 2022 at 07:39:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>>>> The question is whether hominoids
>>>> evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.
>> .
>> Why not invent yet another taxon, to
>> fill in an awkward gap in whatever
>> theory it is that you are promoting at
>> the moment?
> .
> Hylobatids & Homo share archaic traits subsequently lost in swamp forest great apes, these
> are early hominoid primitive traits & morphologies still retained by H & H. No reason for new
> taxa designations.

Evolution is extremely conservative,
BUT it allows change when essential,
and it can revert to a previous state
without too much trouble. Large
apes need a short, inflexible body in
order to climb fast and effectively.
So they changed from their gibbon
ancestors. Homo, springing from
a large ape, reverted to a longer
more flexible back, better suited for
walking distances on the ground.

Similarly, homo lost the long arm
with hook-like hands, when it
ceased to be tree-dwelling, reverting
to an early primate pattern.

>>>> One came first, and the other evolved
>>>> from it.
>> This is known as parsimony.
>
> I taught you parsimony.

You've never understood it. When
I point out how defective your
grasp of it is, you claim: "That's
not parsimony", and then say no
more -- as here.

[..]
>> Trees produce fruit so it can get eaten.
>> If there are now some bunches located
>> better for apes (rather than monkeys)
>> -- which I doubt -- they only came
>> into existence AFTER apes began to
>> consume the fruit. It was (or would
>> have been) a co-evolution of fruit trees
>> with apes.

> Preceded by fruit bats, which had access to hanging fruit at branch tips
> difficult for monkeys to get.

Difficult for most primates, especially
a large one. A small gibbon could
probably get to them.

>>> So there were NO bunches of fruit more
>>> accessible to apes (as against monkeys)
>>> when apes first evolved.
>> .
>> False.
>>
>> Even if there were a few, it would still
>> not justify the enormous changes in
>> morphology that we see.
>
> Of course it would. Apes supplanted fruit bats & monkeys in getting access to
> hanging fruit not at branch tips.

Lesser apes (i.e. gibbons) might have
done that. Certainly not larger ones.

Op zondag 14 augustus 2022 om 18:29:52 UTC+2 schreef yelw...@gmail.com:

> >> The question is whether hominoids
> >> evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
> >> One came first, and the other evolved from it.

It's extremely unlikely that 1 branch had undergone a lot of evolution, and the other branch 0.

> > No, no: hylobatids & great apes had a LCA, probably some 20 Ma.
> > This LCA was no hylobatid, and no great ape.

> Why not invent a new, wholly
> different, wholly unknown species?
> That is NOT parsimonious.

0 invention: facts:
very wide pelvis, thorax & sternum,
centrally-placed spine with less lumbar, more sacral & less coccygal vertebrae,
etc.etc.

> It fits another of your curious habits:
> when it's agreed that the phylogeny of a
> well-known taxon split you routinely
> imagine there was an LCA of an
> unknown nature at the splitting point
> (but you always shove in some swamp
> or watery aspect).

Unkown??
I had predicted aquarboreal Miocene Hominoidea a few years before the wading Ndoki gorillas had been discovered!

> This is in addition to
> your other mental habit of assuming
> that one branch went east and the
> other west -- or north/south.

Not my fault that hylobatids live in SE.Asia, and that sivapiths-pongids lived E of dryopiths-hominids, etc.etc.

> Evolution does not work like that.

Do you really believe plate tectonics can't have influence on evolution???

> We can see incipient stages in action. Take
> seagulls. New populations (that don't
> interbreed with normal seagulls) are
> now occupying cities, often far from
> the coast. They nest on roofs, and feed
> on garbage dumps. In time (if humans
> don't change their ways) there will be
> a new species of City Gulls.

Yes, many Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea simply followed lakes/rivers/swamp... inland in parallel, just like your seagulls.
> No LCA. No north/south, nor east/west split.

??? There are always LCAs, of course.

> There are two more parsimonious
> theories: (a) large apes evolved from
> large monkeys (let's say baboon-like)
> (b) gibbons evolved from small or
> medium sized monkeys.

:-DDD

Hylobatids & gr.apes are closely related.
All hominoids have numerous hominoid innovations, not seen in monkeys,
e.g. Hominoidea=Latisternalia:
wide sternum, as the old primatologists already saw (but you don't even see this?!).

> > Comparative anatomy shows it waded bipedally in forest swamps, and climbed arms
> > overhead in the branches above the swamp.

> "Comparative anatomy" involving
> an imaginary species is worse than
> a waste of time.

Imaginary??
*You* are imaginary & a waste of time!

> > Questions that remain are: where did it live? in which swamp forests exactly?
> > Most likely IMO, they lived in coastal forests (did mangroves already exist?)

> Mangrove forests certainly existed,
> but they are hostile to mammalian
> (and many other) species, especially
> primates. They lack fresh water.

Nasalis regularly wades bipedally in salt water.
I don't know whether Hominoidea originally lived in fresh- or salt-water forests,
but salt-water is more likely IMO, cf. Nasalis.