It's traditionallly assumed (with 0 evidence: only Afrocentric prejudices) that we originated in Africa, and that all African Plio-Pleistocene hominid fossils incl. australopiths were ancestral to human, but not to chimp, bonobos or gorillas.
All known evidence contradicts this, e.g.
- retroviral data (Homo & Pongo lack African RV, vs. Pan & Gorilla),
- early fossils of undoubted Homo in Asia as far as Java,
- the impossibility that the African hominids Pan & Gorilla (4 extant spp) have no fossils, but only Homo (1 extant species, probably originally Asian!) would have had 100s of African fossils: clearly an ego- & anthropocentric prejudice.

The so-called humanlike traits of australopiths (esp. "bipedality") were no innovations in australopiths, of course, but simply left-overs from the Miocene Hominoidea, who were already "bipedal" waders-climbers in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal".

See my 2022 book p.299-300, or google
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's traditionallly assumed (with 0 evidence: only Afrocentric prejudices) that we originated in
> Africa

Technically we did. Technically.

The African population in the Out of Africa/Eve hypothesis was
of Eurasian origins. Yes. But Toba (and other events) gave Eurasia
a swift kick to the groin, leaving a vacuum, and the African group
was able to spread into the void.

I'm guessing that the African population could be further divided.
There seems to be a major cultural difference between the
regions, not just ethnic/racial.

I would guess that the African group to "Win" was sexually selected,
as we humans do seem to show some evidence for at least some
sexually selected ancestors, and such a reproductive strategy would
be a powerful advantage in recovering after a catastrophe.

> and that all African Plio-Pleistocene hominid fossils incl.
> australopiths were ancestral to human, but not to chimp, bonobos
> or gorillas.

This is relatively new. For years it was stated that Lucy was no
ancestor but a evolutionary cousin. I don't know if the switch marks
the end of paleo anthropology as an attempted science, and the
start of it's role as a political/social program, or if people are just
idiots.

> The so-called humanlike traits of australopiths (esp. "bipedality")
> were no innovations in australopiths, of course, but simply left-overs
> from the Miocene Hominoidea, who were already "bipedal"
> waders-climbers in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal".

I would argue that it's even more simple: They were descendants of
the waterside population that had pushed inland. They retained many
of the traits of their ancestors.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715256725101592576

Op zaterdag 22 april 2023 om 08:34:53 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> > It's traditionallly assumed (with 0 evidence: only Afrocentric prejudices) that we originated in
> > Africa

> Technically we did. Technically.
> The African population in the Out of Africa/Eve hypothesis was
> of Eurasian origins. Yes. But Toba (and other events) gave Eurasia
> a swift kick to the groin, leaving a vacuum, and the African group
> was able to spread into the void.

???

Let's agree to disagree here, JTEM.
(Elaine said that to me a few times... :-))

1) Hominoidea originated in Asia (hylobatids, pongids & partly hominids are still Asian),
IMO early Hominoidea late-Oligo- or early-Miocene colonized the Indian island archipels that were approaching S-Eurasia at the time:
these islands were plenty of coastal forests:
this explains why & how Hominoidea differ from Cercopithecoidea: vertical build, very large size (gibbons still have gestation period "too" long for their size = secondary reduction of size), reduction of lumbar vertebrae (7-->5), centrally-placed spine = upright posture (not dorsally- as in most mammals incl.monkeys-), very wide sternum (!! Hominoidea=Latisternalia), dorsal scapulae & very broad thorax & pelvis (= lateral movements of arms & legs, as opposed to pronograde OWMs & most mammals), very remarkably: tail loss: all these innovations can easily & AFAICS *only* be explained by an aquarboreal locomotion: wading bipedally in swamp (mangrove?) forests between the trees, and climbing arms overhead (vs most monkeys) in the branches above the water, google AQUARBOREAL.

2) The hominid LCA (of Gorilla, Homo & Pan) most likely lived in swamp forests of the then incipient Red Sea late-Miocene, still or again aquarboreally.
The Red Sea is 1/2 African, 1/2 Asian, but when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (when exactly?? c 5 Ma??),
-- Pan went right: Indian Ocean coastal forests of W.Africa -> southern Rift -> Transvaal -> africanus -> robustus, today P.paniscus & P.troglodytes,
-- Homo went left: we lack Pliocene African retroviral DNA (Yohn 2005 PLoS Biol 3:1, Benveniste 1976 Nature 261:101): we followed the S.Asian coasts, human Pliocene ancestors were NOT in Africa.
NOT: all Pliocene hominid fossils are Gorilla (afarensis-boisei etc. IMO) or Pan (africanus-robustus IMO) or extinct Afr."apes" but NOT Homo.

3) Early-Pleistocene archaic Homo (wading+shallow-diving: big brain, nose, POS, plantigrady, platypelloidy, platymeria, platycephaly etc.etc.) spread along coasts & rivers to (probably only warm) regions of Eurasia (even Flores) & Africa.
Where H.sapiens (wading->walking, +-no diving any more) late-Pleistocene originated is less clear, most likely S.Asia IMO, I'd think SE.Asia (e.g. slit eyes = SC orbital fat).
IOW, African people are most derived IMO, and most diverse (e.g. Khoi-San vs others):
Afrocentrism e.g. "Out-of-Africa" = nonsense, just-so, with 0 evidence:
Darwin etc. believed H.sapiens came from Africa because Pan & Gorilla are African, but everything we know objectively shows that human ancestors never were African except for the Red Sea.

_______

> I'm guessing that the African population could be further divided.
> There seems to be a major cultural difference between the
> regions, not just ethnic/racial.
> I would guess that the African group to "Win" was sexually selected,
> as we humans do seem to show some evidence for at least some
> sexually selected ancestors, and such a reproductive strategy would
> be a powerful advantage in recovering after a catastrophe.

It's still often assumed:
> > and that all African Plio-Pleistocene hominid fossils incl.
> > australopiths were ancestral to human, but not to chimp, bonobos
> > or gorillas.

> This is relatively new. For years it was stated that Lucy was no
> ancestor but a evolutionary cousin. I don't know if the switch marks
> the end of paleo anthropology as an attempted science, and the
> start of it's role as a political/social program, or if people are just
> idiots.

> > The so-called humanlike traits of australopiths (esp. "bipedality")
> > were no innovations in australopiths, of course, but simply left-overs
> > from the Miocene Hominoidea, who were already "bipedal"
> > waders-climbers in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal".

> I would argue that it's even more simple: They were descendants of
> the waterside population that had pushed inland. They retained many
> of the traits of their ancestors.