I just wanted to upset the savanna idiots. That's all.

Have a nice day.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706432973876215808

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 10:29:17 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>I just wanted to upset the savanna idiots. That's all.

Whereby you admit that you're a troll.

Pandora wrote:

> Whereby you admit that you're a troll.

You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell out of a tree,
landed on a savanna, decided it would be cool running after some
antelope, which they found impossible, so they evolved the ability to
run after antelope in order to run after them.

Just to bring us all up to speed here.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706432973876215808

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 12:18:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> Whereby you admit that you're a troll.
>
>You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell out of a tree,
>landed on a savanna, decided it would be cool running after some
>antelope, which they found impossible, so they evolved the ability to
>run after antelope in order to run after them.
>
>Just to bring us all up to speed here.

Strawmen are also part of the troll repertoire.

Pandora wrote:

> >You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell out of a tree,
> >landed on a savanna, decided it would be cool running after some
> >antelope, which they found impossible, so they evolved the ability to
> >run after antelope in order to run after them.
> >
> >Just to bring us all up to speed here.

> Strawmen are also part of the troll repertoire.

ESPECIALLY when they're accurate!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706451099754921984

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Pandora wrote:
>
>> Whereby you admit that you're a troll.
>
> You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell out of a tree,
> landed on a savanna, decided it would be cool running after some
> antelope, which they found impossible, so they evolved the ability to
> run after antelope in order to run after them.
>
> Just to bring us all up to speed here.

You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell
out of a tree into water, decided that women's breats were
for floating to that babies could nurse.

https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg

Just to bring us all up to speed here.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell
> out of a tree into water, decided that women's breats were
> for floating to that babies could nurse.

We haven't really discussed sexual dimorphism. And I know for a
fact that you've yet to explain where/how our ancestors were
getting their DHA from. Aquatic Ape takes care of that.

You don't.

> https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg
> Just to bring us all up to speed here.

You and your lack of reading comprehension, not to mention retention,
but you were asked to use your savanna idiocy to explain all those
adaptations. And you didn't.

Aquatic Ape doesn't need to be perfect. It doesn't even need to be good.
It just needs to be better than the alternative, and it is.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706558664018903040

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> You rudely defend a notion where some ancestors fell
>> out of a tree into water, decided that women's breats were
>> for floating to that babies could nurse.
>
> We haven't really discussed sexual dimorphism. And I know for a

Yes, we have. Floating breasts is part of the aa mythos.

> fact that you've yet to explain where/how our ancestors were
> getting their DHA from. Aquatic Ape takes care of that.
>
> You don't.

We don't need the DHA since literally billions of people
don't have fish on a regular basis (if at all) and develop
fine.

>> https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg
>> Just to bring us all up to speed here.
>
> You and your lack of reading comprehension, not to mention retention,
> but you were asked to use your savanna idiocy to explain all those
> adaptations. And you didn't.
>
> Aquatic Ape doesn't need to be perfect. It doesn't even need to be good.
> It just needs to be better than the alternative, and it is.

AA is neither perfect nor good. Finally, you see the light
about this just so approach to evolution.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Yes, we have. Floating breasts is part of the aa mythos.

Breast do float.

> We don't need the DHA

You are literally insane.

You're not "Arguing," you're contradicting... reality.

> AA is neither perfect nor good.

You're describing nature. You're likening Aquatic Ape to nature. Which
it is.

You had to claim that breasts sink like rocks and that humans don't
need DHA just to pretend that there's fault in Aquatic Ape. Even so,
you could not even bring yourself to try and advance Out of Africa
purity.

"Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a carpenter to build one."

Well, you neither kicked down Aquatic Ape nor built up savanna idiocy
beyond he status of a symptom.

"No soup for you!"

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709132760597577728

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Yes, we have. Floating breasts is part of the aa mythos.
>
> Breast do float.

For breats feeding in water? Why?

>> We don't need the DHA
>
> You are literally insane.
>
> You're not "Arguing," you're contradicting... reality.

Please tell the billions of people in the world who
don't have access to sea food that they can't exist.

>> AA is neither perfect nor good.
>
> You're describing nature. You're likening Aquatic Ape to nature. Which
> it is.

Describing aa.

> You had to claim that breasts sink like rocks and that humans don't

Breast feeding isn't meant to be done in water. Just like chimpanzees
and gorillas, it's done on land.

> need DHA just to pretend that there's fault in Aquatic Ape. Even so,
> you could not even bring yourself to try and advance Out of Africa
> purity.
>
> "Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a carpenter to build one."
>
> Well, you neither kicked down Aquatic Ape nor built up savanna idiocy
> beyond he status of a symptom.
>
> "No soup for you!"

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Please tell the billions of people in the world who
> don't have access to sea food that they can't exist.

As has been pointed out many times, but you have neither comprehension
nor retention, human brains have shrunk since the advent of civilization &
the reliance on agriculture.

As has been pointed out, including by one of your own sock puppets, I do
believe, the genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize DHA as well as
we do -- which sucks, btw -- isn't very old. "Molecular Dating" claims it's
on the order of 80,000 years. Which means the entire history of Homo
is contained with the span of the most recent 80,000 years or, now get
this, your trademark lack of reading comprehension & retention is not
serving you nearly as well as you appear to believe.

You have no position here. You're merely contradicting.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710311843910041600

Idiotic kudu runner:

> Please tell the billions of people in the world who
> don't have access to sea food that they can't exist.

Tell them to keep running after kudus: otherwise they can't exist...
:-DDDDD

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Idiotic kudu runner:
>
>> Please tell the billions of people in the world who
>> don't have access to sea food that they can't exist.
>
> Tell them to keep running after kudus: otherwise they can't exist...
> :-DDDDD
>
Tell them to breathe through the nostrils on the tips of their noses.

:-DDDDDDDDDDDDD

Close to you:

https://www.ahotu.com/calendar/running/marathon/netherlands

https://www.ahotu.com/calendar/netherlands
Endurance race calendar 2022 - 2023 in the Netherlands

https://www.hdsports.org/running/holland-races-running-calendar

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Please tell the billions of people in the world who
>> don't have access to sea food that they can't exist.
>
> As has been pointed out many times, but you have neither comprehension
> nor retention, human brains have shrunk since the advent of civilization &
> the reliance on agriculture.
>
> As has been pointed out, including by one of your own sock puppets, I do
> believe, the genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize DHA as well as
> we do -- which sucks, btw -- isn't very old. "Molecular Dating" claims it's
> on the order of 80,000 years. Which means the entire history of Homo
> is contained with the span of the most recent 80,000 years or, now get
> this, your trademark lack of reading comprehension & retention is not
> serving you nearly as well as you appear to believe.
>
> You have no position here. You're merely contradicting.

As has been pointed out many times, you're ignoring brain organization.

Why are birds so capable despite small brains and some with no
regular fish in their diet?

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abe0536
Birds do have a brain cortex—and think
25 Sep 2020

Abstract
The term “birdbrain” used to be derogatory. But humans, with
their limited brain size, should have known better than to
use the meager proportions of the bird brain as an insult.
Part of the cause for derision is that the mantle, or pallium,
of the bird brain lacks the obvious layering that earned the
mammalian pallium its “cerebral cortex” label. However, birds,
and particularly corvids (such as ravens), are as cognitively
capable as monkeys (1) and even great apes (2). Because their
neurons are smaller, the pallium of songbirds and parrots
actually comprises many more information-processing neuronal
units than the equivalent-sized mammalian cortices (3). On page
1626 of this issue, Nieder et al. (4) show that the bird
pallium has neurons that represent what it perceives—a hallmark
of consciousness. And on page 1585 of this issue, Stacho et
al. (5) establish that the bird pallium has similar organization
to the mammalian cortex.

This rather significant, the sort of thing that aa tries to
ignore in favor of the just-so-story approach. Paper is public

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619515/
2013 May 22
Brain reorganization, not relative brain size, primarily characterizes
anthropoid brain evolution

Abstract
Comparative analyses of primate brain evolution have
highlighted changes in size and internal organization
as key factors underlying species diversity. It remains,
however, unclear (i) how much variation in mosaic brain
reorganization versus variation in relative brain size
contributes to explaining the structural neural diversity
observed across species, (ii) which mosaic changes
contribute most to explaining diversity, and (iii) what
the temporal origin, rates and processes are that underlie
evolutionary shifts in mosaic reorganization for
individual branches of the primate tree of life. We
address these questions by combining novel comparative
methods that allow assessing the temporal origin, rate and
process of evolutionary changes on individual branches of
the tree of life, with newly available data on volumes of
key brain structures (prefrontal cortex, frontal motor
areas and cerebrocerebellum) for a sample of 17 species
(including humans). We identify patterns of mosaic change
in brain evolution that mirror brain systems previously
identified by electrophysiological and anatomical
tract-tracing studies in non-human primates and functional
connectivity MRI studies in humans. Across more than
40 Myr of anthropoid primate evolution, mosaic changes
contribute more to explaining neural diversity than changes
in relative brain size, and different mosaic patterns are
differentially selected for when brains increase or decrease
in size. We identify lineage-specific evolutionary
specializations for all branches of the tree of life
covered by our sample and demonstrate deep evolutionary
roots for mosaic patterns associated with motor control and
learning.

Also significant (and also publicly accessible)...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7485526/
Published online 2018 May 31
Normative brain size variation and brain shape diversity in humans

Abstract
Brain size variation over primate evolution and human
development is associated with shifts in the proportions
of different brain regions. Individual brain size can vary
almost twofold among typically developing humans, but the
consequences of this for brain organization remain poorly
understood. Using in vivo neuroimaging data from more than
3000 individuals, we find that larger human brains show
greater areal expansion in distributed frontoparietal
cortical networks and related subcortical regions than
in limbic, sensory, and motor systems. This areal
redistribution recapitulates cortical remodeling across
evolution, manifests by early childhood in humans, and
is linked to multiple markers of heightened metabolic
cost and neuronal connectivity. Thus, human brain shape
is systematically coupled to naturally occurring
variations in brain size through a scaling map that
integrates spatiotemporally diverse aspects of
neurobiology.

The aa idea of science is to ignore contradictory evidence and
resort to snide remarks.

Kudu runner:

> Why are birds so capable despite small brains

They fly, my little boy. Didn't you know?

Why do we still have brains almost as large as in neandertals?
Because neandertals were still more aquatic:
google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Why are birds so capable despite small brains and some with no
> regular fish in their diet?

We're not birds. Brain size is a defining feature of our species, our
genus.

Concentrate. TRY to focus here.

One way you can see how abysmally pathetic you're being is to
now build a model. Correlate your "Organization" with human
development. You're claiming it's distinct from size, so map it
out for us.

Oops.

You're just a contradictions. You don't have a model, you don't
have a theory... you clue what so ever. All you have is contradictions.

Nothing fits.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/620778152520712192

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Kudu runner:
> > Why are birds so capable despite small brains

> They fly, my little boy. Didn't you know?

Birds are very highly evolved at pattern recognition. They're not
all that bright though. The term "Bird Brain" is not Latin for
"Genius."

Birds are also highly irrelevant to human evolution.

Remember when the Bird Brain thought elephants were proof
positive of... well.. he never did quite work that one out. And he
won't with birds, either.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/620778152520712192

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kudu runner:
>
>> Why are birds so capable despite small brains
>
> They fly, my little boy. Didn't you know?

Birds use tools - despite small brains.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cockatoos-tool-kit-national-park

> Why do we still have brains almost as large as in neandertals?
> Because neandertals were still more aquatic:
> google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
>

You don't understand brain organization do you?

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Why are birds so capable despite small brains and some with no
>> regular fish in their diet?
>
> We're not birds. Brain size is a defining feature of our species, our
> genus.
>
> Concentrate. TRY to focus here.

And we're not seals or porpoises. TRY to focus here.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> And we're not seals or porpoises.

Very good! You earned a biscuit!

And... are we plastic milk jugs?

What about a kitchen sponge? Are we one of those?

Go on. Take a wild stab at it. Are we a kitchen sponge or
are we not a kitchen sponge?

10 extra BONUS doses of your meds if you include some
random "Cite" you never read in your reply!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712093348746362880

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 4:29:41 AM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Kudu runner:
> > > Why are birds so capable despite small brains
>
> > They fly, my little boy. Didn't you know?
> Birds are very highly evolved at pattern recognition. They're not
> all that bright though. The term "Bird Brain" is not Latin for
> "Genius."
>
> Birds are also highly irrelevant to human evolution.
>

So, JTEM, here's a question for you. Is a bird that nests in trees and eats shellfish going through an aqua-arboreal stage of evolution? If not, explain why not. If so, explain why we don't see more birds that have evolved hominid/human traits and behaviors. (As you know, my "communal guarding garden habitat hypothesis," has no unfulfilled expectations in this regard.)

Actually, this is something I disagree with the good Doctor on...

I personally argue that Lucy was part of a group, or at least is
descended from a group that peeled off from the Aquatic Ape
population, pushed inland and was adapting to it's new
environment. It wasn't so much "Aquaboreal" in my estimation
as Aquatic Ape within the midst of becoming arboreal.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713373848091934720

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Actually, this is something I disagree with the good Doctor on...

Uh, . . er, uh?

> a group that peeled off from the Aquatic Ape
> population, pushed inland and was adapting to it's new
> environment.

So, we can think of them as going through a towelling off phase, followed by a changing-out of wet clothes phase.

> It wasn't so much "Aquaboreal" in my estimation
> as Aquatic Ape within the midst of becoming arboreal.

Maybe they then went through an ice-cream eating phase.

So I would argue that the good Doctor really is seeing what he believes he's
seeing, only not for the reasons he attributes to them.

He sees "Aquarboreal" because they are descendants of Aquatic Ape, and
they are in transition to an arboreal lifestyle.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713374166302244864

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 10:10:43 PM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> So I would argue that the good Doctor really is seeing what he believes he's
> seeing, only not for the reasons he attributes to them.
>
> He sees "Aquarboreal" because they are descendants of Aquatic Ape, and
> they are in transition to an arboreal lifestyle.

You obviously have zero understanding of biological evolution.