(1) Viro-gene evidence (Benveniste & Todaro 1976 see below) shows: Pliocene Homo was in Asia, not Africa.
(2) But African Pliocene hominid fossils (australopiths) are traditionally believed to be related to Homo, not Pan or Gorilla.
(1) & (2) are incompatible.

But the solution is simple: (2) is wrong = anthropocentric prejudice: many (most??) paleo-anthropologists still believe that australopith fossils are "human ancestors" (because they still carry a few human traits: from the LCA), but different authors (incl. my 3 Hum.Evol.papers) showed:
- E.Afr.australopiths resemble Gorilla > Pan >> Homo,
- S.Afr.australopiths resemble Pan > Gorilla or Homo.

If we accept what is obvious - that australopiths are simply Pliocene fossil relatives of chimps, bonobos or gorillas (who were in Africa), and that Pliocene Homo was in Asia (IMO along Ind.Ocean coasts) - hominid evolution suddenly becomes a lot clearer. :-)

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
_____

-- "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian origin of man"
Raoul Benveniste & George Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8: OWMs & apes incl.man possess (as a normal component of their cell.DNA) gene-sequences (viro-genes) related to the RNA of a vims isolated from baboons. A comparison of the viral gene sequences & the other cellular sequences distinguishes those OWMs & apes that have evolved in Africa from those in Asia. Among the apes, only Gorilla & Pan seem by these criteria to be African: gibbon, orang & man are identified as Asian: most of man's evolution has occurred outside Africa.
-- "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls" Verhaegen 1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41: This paper quantifies the morphological difference between fossil & living spp of hominoids, based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain 1986). Conclusions: cranio-dentally the australopith spp are a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans: overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimp’s.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> (1) Viro-gene evidence (Benveniste & Todaro 1976 see below) shows: Pliocene Homo was in Asia, not Africa.
> (2) But African Pliocene hominid fossils (australopiths) are traditionally believed to be related to Homo, not Pan or Gorilla.
> (1) & (2) are incompatible.
>
> But the solution is simple: (2) is wrong = anthropocentric prejudice: many (most??) paleo-anthropologists still believe that australopith fossils are "human ancestors" (because they still carry a few human traits: from the LCA), but different authors (incl. my 3 Hum.Evol.papers) showed:
> - E.Afr.australopiths resemble Gorilla > Pan >> Homo,
> - S.Afr.australopiths resemble Pan > Gorilla or Homo.
>
> If we accept what is obvious - that australopiths are simply Pliocene fossil relatives of chimps, bonobos or gorillas (who were in Africa), and that Pliocene Homo was in Asia (IMO along Ind.Ocean coasts) - hominid evolution suddenly becomes a lot clearer. :-)
>
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

The problem is, we know exactly where the fossils are, if they exist. Nobody is looking. Nobody cares.

We could test Aquatic Ape. We could test Out of Asia, as if nobody has already. We can find the
first of the Chimp line... we can. They spent $13 billion, they tell us, search for a sub atomic
particle which literally doesn't do anything for us.

Doing real science would be expensive. And difficult. Going back YEARS I started suggesting dredging.
Not as a substitute for archaeology but as a way of identifying submerged archaeological sites.

Then there's the standbys:

River bends. Deltas. Volcanic deposits.

If they were inland, they were somewhere near water. If they were on the coast, they left behnd
remains -- their own dead, tools, middens... hearths.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714713784084791296

Op woensdag 19 april 2023 om 05:41:26 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > (1) Viro-gene evidence (Benveniste & Todaro 1976): Pliocene Homo was in Asia, not Africa.
> > (2) But African Pliocene hominid fossils (australopiths) are traditionally believed to be related to Homo, not Pan or Gorilla.
> > (1) & (2) are incompatible.
> > But the solution is simple: (2) is wrong = anthropocentric prejudice: many (most??) paleo-anthropologists still believe that australopith fossils are "human ancestors" (because they still carry a few human traits: from the LCA), but different authors (incl. my 3 Hum.Evol.papers) showed:
> > -- E.Afr.australopiths resemble Gorilla > Pan >> Homo,
> > -- S.Afr.australopiths resemble Pan > Gorilla or Homo.
> > If we accept what is obvious - that australopiths are simply Pliocene fossil relatives of chimps, bonobos or gorillas (who were in Africa), and that Pliocene Homo was in Asia (IMO along Ind.Ocean coasts) - hominid evolution suddenly becomes a lot clearer. :-)
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> The problem is, we know exactly where the fossils are, if they exist. Nobody is looking. Nobody cares.
> We could test Aquatic Ape. We could test Out of Asia, as if nobody has already. We can find the
> first of the Chimp line... we can. They spent $13 billion, they tell us, search for a sub atomic
> particle which literally doesn't do anything for us.
> Doing real science would be expensive. And difficult. Going back YEARS I started suggesting dredging.
> Not as a substitute for archaeology but as a way of identifying submerged archaeological sites.
> Then there's the standbys:
> River bends. Deltas. Volcanic deposits.
> If they were inland, they were somewhere near water. If they were on the coast, they left behnd
> remains -- their own dead, tools, middens... hearths.

There might have been inland Pliocene offshoots along rivers, but they've always followed the coast -> early-Pleist.Java:
Where are the fossils "exactly", JTEM?
Pliocene Homo fossils below sea-level along the Ind.Ocean? = difficult to find?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Where are the fossils "exactly", JTEM?

That answer differs with the hypothesis you're endorsing.

For Out of Asia and I guess Aquatic Ape while we're at it, I would start
at Ground Zero: Sundaland.

It's the most favored spot. That's where the best odds are, according to
Out of Asia proponents. So I would go there. I would map out the old
costline, for various periods. And then I would dredge.

Dredging is vastly more efficient than other "Archaeology." It's claimed
that for projects like the Suez Canal they actually flooded it, because
dredging was easier than working the dry land...

So dredging would just be "Test Strips" to identify sites worth a proper
archaeological investigation. This could be undersea excavation, which
is probably the worst and most expensive, or damming off a site... maybe
some sort of submerged dome.

Was it the famous Brooklyn Bridge where the excavations for the
foundations happened in this fashion? The men working underwater in
an upside down concrete box? Something like that?

The Jungle freaks would have it easier. They pick a date, identify the
course of any/all rivers through a region and then search for bends and
deltas. Those are the best places to find fossils.

One of the best preserved dinosaur mummies -- YES I SAID MUMMIES! --
is believed to have been covered in mud/silt by a river flood. Lucy appears
to have been preserved in some similar fashion, only she had weathered
out and lay exposed, degrading, long before anyone thought to search
for her...

If you pick your poison -- forest, Aquatic Ape, Out of Africa, Out of Asia --
that tells you where they were supposed to be, hence where their remains
are.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714988662814818305

Op woensdag 19 april 2023 om 08:51:24 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Where are the fossils "exactly", JTEM?

> That answer differs with the hypothesis you're endorsing.
> For Out of Asia and I guess Aquatic Ape while we're at it, I would start
> at Ground Zero: Sundaland.
> It's the most favored spot. That's where the best odds are, according to
> Out of Asia proponents. So I would go there. I would map out the old
> coastline, for various periods. And then I would dredge.

The late-Miocene H/P LCA lived in Red Sea swamp forests:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
When the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks 5.33 Ma: Zanclean mega-flood),
- Pan went right ->S.Afr. late-Pliocene Austr.africanus etc.
- Homo went left -> SE.Asian early-Pleist.H.erectus = aq."ape" (POS, CC=DHA) etc.:
yes: late-Pliocene Sunda-land is well possible?
Were they still aquarboreal then? already frequent shallow-diving?

> Dredging is vastly more efficient than other "Archaeology." It's claimed
> that for projects like the Suez Canal they actually flooded it, because
> dredging was easier than working the dry land...
> So dredging would just be "Test Strips" to identify sites worth a proper
> archaeological investigation. This could be undersea excavation, which
> is probably the worst and most expensive, or damming off a site... maybe
> some sort of submerged dome.
> Was it the famous Brooklyn Bridge where the excavations for the
> foundations happened in this fashion? The men working underwater in
> an upside down concrete box? Something like that?
> The Jungle freaks would have it easier. They pick a date, identify the
> course of any/all rivers through a region and then search for bends and
> deltas. Those are the best places to find fossils.
> One of the best preserved dinosaur mummies -- YES I SAID MUMMIES! --
> is believed to have been covered in mud/silt by a river flood. Lucy appears
> to have been preserved in some similar fashion, only she had weathered
> out and lay exposed, degrading, long before anyone thought to search
> for her...
> If you pick your poison -- forest, Aquatic Ape, Out of Africa, Out of Asia --
> that tells you where they were supposed to be, hence where their remains
> are.

- hominids s.s. (HPG) = out of Red Sea,
- Homo = out of S-Asia,
- H.sapiens = out of ...?