From francesca mansfield at aat@groups.io -
I fullyagree:

.... have you ever noticed how much easier/faster it is to swim & dive if you’re wearing a pair of fins? They certainly seem to provide a lot of thrust. In fact, when swimming with fins, you barely need to use your arms. All the forward power is generated from the legs & feet. Even the short, stumpy artificial fins seem to do a helluva job.
I’ve always assumed that Flores’s big feet (& hands) must be indicative of swimming. Certainly not running. (Have you ever tried running in fins?) I guess evolution had to make a pay-off between feet large enough to provide thrust when swimming, and not so large that you fall over when you walk.
As we are less aquatic than we once were, our feet now are probably modified more towards walking (but not running, particularly: cursorial animals have very different feet, and we’re a bit pathetic without shoes of some kind).

:-) I coudn't have said it better!
Only incredible idiots believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes over savannas... :-D

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 2:58:26 PM UTC-7, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> From francesca mansfield at a...@groups.io -
> I fullyagree:
>
> ... have you ever noticed how much easier/faster it is to swim & dive if you’re wearing a pair of fins? They certainly seem to provide a lot of thrust. In fact, when swimming with fins, you barely need to use your arms. All the forward power is generated from the legs & feet. Even the short, stumpy artificial fins seem to do a helluva job.
> I’ve always assumed that Flores’s big feet (& hands) must be indicative of swimming. Certainly not running. (Have you ever tried running in fins?) I guess evolution had to make a pay-off between feet large enough to provide thrust when swimming, and not so large that you fall over when you walk.
> As we are less aquatic than we once were, our feet now are probably modified more towards walking (but not running, particularly: cursorial animals have very different feet, and we’re a bit pathetic without shoes of some kind).
>
> :-) I coudn't have said it better!
> Only incredible idiots believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes over savannas... :-D
Or that they swam with the crocodiles.

James McGinn wrote:

> Or that they swam with the crocodiles.

using a helicopter, you can fly for *Days* on end, maybe weeks,
skimming the coast from southeast Africa to Australia without
spotting a single crocodile-free stretch of beach. That, or I found
another hole in your, um, your "Argument."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712178904209702912

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:38:14 PM UTC-4, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> James McGinn wrote:
>
> > Or that they swam with the crocodiles.

> using a helicopter, you can fly for *Days* on end, maybe weeks,
> skimming the coast from southeast Africa to Australia without
> spotting a single crocodile-free stretch of beach. That, or I found
> another hole in your, um, your "Argument."

> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712178904209702912

False dichotomy.

Salt water crocodiles are a lot more dangerous to humans than most other kinds.
Once they see a beach where hominini congregate, you can expect hell to break loose,
and your aquarboreal hypothesis entails millions of years for even scarce salt water crocodiles
to make the connection.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > using a helicopter, you can fly for *Days* on end, maybe weeks,
> > skimming the coast from southeast Africa to Australia without
> > spotting a single crocodile-free stretch of beach. That, or I found
> > another hole in your, um, your "Argument."
> > https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712178904209702912
> False dichotomy.

No it's not.

> Salt water crocodiles are a lot more dangerous to humans than most other kinds.
> Once they see a beach where hominini congregate, you can expect hell to break loose,
> and your aquarboreal hypothesis entails millions of years for even scarce salt water crocodiles
> to make the connection.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/these-extinct-giant-crocs-may-have-hunted-our-ancient-ancestors

Your fantasy here is that a small number of beaches with salt water crocs would
wipe out our ancestors, exactly the same way they never did in the Rift Valley and
elsewhere.

So it's self refuting.

Secondly, if there were a problem is crocodiles for a coastal group, that would be
a mechanism for pushing them inland... and they did push inland!

The fallacy here is that Crocs were an issue ONLY for the coastal population. I
would argue they were far LESS of an issue.

The Nile has been exploited for longer than there has been civilization, and the
crocodiles are still there...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711774416431923200

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 10:20:30 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:38:14 PM UTC-4, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> > James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > > Or that they swam with the crocodiles.
>
> > using a helicopter, you can fly for *Days* on end, maybe weeks,
> > skimming the coast from southeast Africa to Australia without
> > spotting a single crocodile-free stretch of beach. That, or I found
> > another hole in your, um, your "Argument."
> > https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712178904209702912
>
> False dichotomy.

I think there is a general misunderstanding about there having to have been some odd event that would then initiate a cascade of evolutionary 'breakthroughs' to arrive at humans (in accordance with natural selection). Evolution doesn't work like that. Both the aquatic ape theories and the savannah theories/hypotheses plunder down this line of this bad thinking.

> Salt water crocodiles are a lot more dangerous to humans than most other kinds.
> Once they see a beach where hominini congregate, you can expect hell to break loose,
> and your aquarboreal hypothesis entails millions of years for even scarce salt water crocodiles
> to make the connection.

The aquatic-apers (Marc V., etc.) never discuss intricacies of how their model supposedly predicts humans (and not fish). Same is true of Savanah apers, you know, why would an early hominid hunter/scavenger evolve human traits and not the traits of hyena or lion? Why would the earliest ape like hominid lose the incredible strength they possessed (7 x human strength) if they are now in a environment where they have to compete with sabertoothed cats and hyena?

Claudius Denk

Claudius Denk wrote:

> I think there is a general misunderstanding about there having to have been some
> odd event that would then initiate a cascade of evolutionary 'breakthroughs' to
> arrive at humans (in accordance with natural selection).

There was: Exploitation of marine resources.

> Evolution doesn't work like that. Both the aquatic ape theories and the savannah
> theories/hypotheses plunder down this line of this bad thinking.

Wrong. "Savanna" idiocy doesn't even explain the savanna while Aquatic Ape fits
the evidence, the observations.

> The aquatic-apers (Marc V., etc.) never discuss intricacies of how their mode
> supposedly predicts humans (and not fish).

That's a straw man. Why would a model of human evolution have to "Predict"
fish?

It's a gross misunderstanding of evolution on your part! An organism is perfectly
happy to remain unchanged for eons... epochs! What you need to drive evolution
is the proverbial "Fish out of water."

You need that CHANGE to the environment, and even then evolution is unlikely.

The most likely outcome, by far, is extinction...

Aquatic Ape provides all the pieces. They eat, they move on. Eventually they
find themselves in new places, new environments...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712622932947517440

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > I think there is a general misunderstanding about there having to have been some
> > odd event that would then initiate a cascade of evolutionary 'breakthroughs' to
> > arrive at humans (in accordance with natural selection).
> There was: Exploitation of marine resources.

So what?

> > Evolution doesn't work like that. Both the aquatic ape theories and the savannah
> > theories/hypotheses plunder down this line of this bad thinking.
> Wrong. "Savanna" idiocy doesn't even explain the savanna while Aquatic Ape fits
> the evidence, the observations.

Humans aren't aquatic.

> > The aquatic-apers (Marc V., etc.) never discuss intricacies of how their mode
> > supposedly predicts humans (and not fish).
> That's a straw man. Why would a model of human evolution have to "Predict"
> fish?

My point, obviously, is that you have an aquatic model that predicts the emergence of a non-aquatic species, hominids.

Explain how you missed this obvious point.

>
> It's a gross misunderstanding of evolution on your part! An organism is perfectly
> happy to remain unchanged for eons... epochs! What you need to drive evolution
> is the proverbial "Fish out of water."

I'm trying to explain human evolution from apes. Human aren't fish nor are they especially aquatic.

>
> You need that CHANGE to the environment, and even then evolution is unlikely.
>
> The most likely outcome, by far, is extinction...
>
> Aquatic Ape provides all the pieces. They eat, they move on. Eventually they
> find themselves in new places, new environments...

You don't have the slightest understanding of biological evolution.

Claudius Denk / Genius

Claudius Denk wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > I think there is a general misunderstanding about there having to have been some
> > > odd event that would then initiate a cascade of evolutionary 'breakthroughs' to
> > > arrive at humans (in accordance with natural selection).

> > There was: Exploitation of marine resources.

> So what?

Are you a bot. Your question is illogical. You're not even necessarily disputing my
response -- providing the breakthrough -- with your over vague, generic reaction.

> > > Evolution doesn't work like that. Both the aquatic ape theories and the savannah
> > > theories/hypotheses plunder down this line of this bad thinking.

> > Wrong. "Savanna" idiocy doesn't even explain the savanna while Aquatic Ape fits
> > the evidence, the observations.

> Humans aren't aquatic.

So you don't grasp the first thing here. In this case, you don't even know WHAT
"Aquatic Ape" is. And though that isn't a crime and perhaps isn't a sin, it's also
not an argument.

"Well I have no clue what these terms mean, SO I'M RIGHT!"

No. No, sorry, you're either a not-at-all-intelligent bot or a troll.

We need to end this here are your error is critical. Irrecoverable.

...no point in rowing after you sank your own boat.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712626036266926080/jj-foleys

On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 9:43:16 PM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > I think there is a general misunderstanding about there having to have been some
> > > > odd event that would then initiate a cascade of evolutionary 'breakthroughs' to
> > > > arrive at humans (in accordance with natural selection).
>
> > > There was: Exploitation of marine resources.
>
> > So what?
> Are you a bot. Your question is illogical.

Let me make it simple for you. Explain how eating shellfish caused the evolution of human traits.

> You're not even necessarily disputing my
> response

Right. I don't dispute that hominids ate shellfish.

-- providing the breakthrough --

Explain how eating shellfish is a breakthrough.

with your over vague, generic reaction.

You got nothing!!!

> > > > Evolution doesn't work like that. Both the aquatic ape theories and the savannah
> > > > theories/hypotheses plunder down this line of this bad thinking.
>
> > > Wrong. "Savanna" idiocy doesn't even explain the savanna while Aquatic Ape fits
> > > the evidence, the observations.
>
> > Humans aren't aquatic.
> So you don't grasp the first thing here. In this case, you don't even know WHAT
> "Aquatic Ape" is. And though that isn't a crime and perhaps isn't a sin, it's also
> not an argument.

i don't have an argument. I agree early hominids may have eaten shellfish.

>
> "Well I have no clue what these terms mean, SO I'M RIGHT!"

You think eating shellfish makes an animal aquatic. Right? And you think that being aquatic eventually results in emergence of hominid traits.

I think you are a babbling moron who has no business in any kind of a scientific discussion