Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
-- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
-- S.Afr.australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan, E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not of us,
-- "out of S-Asia" & "out of the Red Sea" are more correct than "out of Africa",
-- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.

Google e.g.
-aquarboreal
-GondwanaTalks verhaegen
-WHATtalk verhaegen

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal"

Definitely bipedal, not certain if "Aquarboreal" is a definite or more a
consequence of inland population displaying vestiges of their Aquatic
Ape ancestory. Either way it looks the same.

> -- S.Afr.australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan, E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not of us,

I definitely like your thinking. I think Pan were an early group to branch off
from the Aquatic Ape parent population, push inland and adapting to the new
environments. Australopithecus seems like a strong candidate because it
apparently radiated out, diversified, was never restricted to one niche.

Probably.

So, as populations in environments outside the forests were driven to
extinction, suddenly all the selective pressures where on arboreal, forest
adaptations. There was no longer other populations moderating their
evolution: Chimps!

> -- "out of S-Asia" & "out of the Red Sea" are more correct than "out of Africa",

I like the idea of a non-African origins for apes. I like it a lot.

And if Orangutans are the furthest from us, genetically, doesn't that suggest
that they were the first branch off, hence an Asian origins?

> -- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.

I think that groups were pushing inland, adapting, from the very beginning.
And interbreeding with these groups carried DNA across the globe but also
held back human evolution.

Hard to evolve into a modern man when something that looks like Lucy is
chucking their genes into the pool...

This is why I always thought he were onto something with erectus.

There was an event, probably the chromosome fusion, putting the brakes
on interbreeding. This was natures "Reset Button." It allowed evolution to
move forward without the genetic influence of older, more archaic types.

Of course the exact same process was continuing: Groups peeling off,
pushing inland and adapting. But these groups weren't interbreeding with
anything that came before them. So they had a huge advantage as their
gene pool wasn't being watered down by any furry cave monkeys...

That's why I sometimes argue that maybe "Modern Man" starts with erectus.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717190641535385600