I remember, as a kid, one day the cat was on the roof
of the garage. I mean, just lounging about, like the
empress of the universe, as if it weren't doing anything
out of the ordinary. But none of had any idea /How/ the
cat could have gotten up there in the first place! It was
just too high, and anything it might have gotten up on
top of in order to jump up to the roof seemed *Way* too
high itself... nobody could explain how this cat got there.

But there it was.

Humans evolved under circumstances where they were
consuming a large supply of DHA. And they just weren't
getting this on a savanna.

Nope.

Even if you want to pretend the shoreline was absolutely
choking with crocodiles, and that Lucy & kin lived in a
croc-free Utopia, it can't change anything. They were on
that coast. They were exploiting marine resources. They
were ingesting copious amounts of DHA. The end.

THEN there's "Coastal Dispersal" which might as well be
Latin for "Aquatic Ape." Because they're one and the same.

They were living on that coast line, consuming marine
resources. They weren't following the coast only to stop
at Burger King for lunch. Sorry. Well, not sorry.

We find tools in Asia MILLIONS of years ago, and they
don't seem to be 1st generation tools. So in all probability
Homo went back much further than that and we have yet to
find their ancestors...

There's retrovirus evidence where African apes carry it
and Asian apes & humans do not. This suggest AT THE
VERY LEAST that our ancestors were in Asia at that time:

Some 3 to 4 million years ago.

No, the retrovirus evidence doesn't mean that there couldn't
have been a population of our ancestral species living in
Africa. It just means we are not descended from THAT
population but a different one... the Asian one.

If you're a savanna idiot you missed it but, this is also
screaming "Aquatic Ape."

How'd they get everywhere from Africa to southeast Asia?

Not by plane. No, it was COASTAL DISPERSAL.

So even if the danger from crocs was only a quarter or
less than that faced by Lucy and her kin, they faced that
danger. They traveled that coast. They exploited marine
resources.

And we all know this for a fact because they couldn't
fly. They needed the DHA, they got the DHA, they spread
across continents following the coast line and they
weren't flying.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

Op maandag 17 juli 2023 om 07:00:01 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> I remember, as a kid, one day the cat was on the roof
> of the garage. I mean, just lounging about, like the
> empress of the universe, as if it weren't doing anything
> out of the ordinary. But none of had any idea /How/ the
> cat could have gotten up there in the first place! It was
> just too high, and anything it might have gotten up on
> top of in order to jump up to the roof seemed *Way* too
> high itself... nobody could explain how this cat got there.
>
> But there it was.
>
> Humans evolved under circumstances where they were
> consuming a large supply of DHA. And they just weren't
> getting this on a savanna.
>
> Nope.
>
> Even if you want to pretend the shoreline was absolutely
> choking with crocodiles, and that Lucy & kin lived in a
> croc-free Utopia, it can't change anything. They were on
> that coast. They were exploiting marine resources. They
> were ingesting copious amounts of DHA. The end.
>
> THEN there's "Coastal Dispersal" which might as well be
> Latin for "Aquatic Ape." Because they're one and the same.
>
> They were living on that coast line, consuming marine
> resources. They weren't following the coast only to stop
> at Burger King for lunch. Sorry. Well, not sorry.
>
> We find tools in Asia MILLIONS of years ago, and they
> don't seem to be 1st generation tools. So in all probability
> Homo went back much further than that and we have yet to
> find their ancestors...
>
> There's retrovirus evidence where African apes carry it
> and Asian apes & humans do not. This suggest AT THE
> VERY LEAST that our ancestors were in Asia at that time:
>
> Some 3 to 4 million years ago.
>
> No, the retrovirus evidence doesn't mean that there couldn't
> have been a population of our ancestral species living in
> Africa. It just means we are not descended from THAT
> population but a different one... the Asian one.
>
> If you're a savanna idiot you missed it but, this is also
> screaming "Aquatic Ape."
>
> How'd they get everywhere from Africa to southeast Asia?

From Africa = from the (then incipient) Red Sea (Arabafrica).

> Not by plane. No, it was COASTAL DISPERSAL.
>
> So even if the danger from crocs was only a quarter or
> less than that faced by Lucy and her kin, they faced that
> danger. They traveled that coast. They exploited marine
> resources.
>
> And we all know this for a fact because they couldn't
> fly. They needed the DHA, they got the DHA, they spread
> across continents following the coast line and they
> weren't flying.

100% agree. Few or no other animals have such well-known evolution.

FWIW, I'd think there were 2 more drastic transitions in our evolution (on islands??):
-- from above- to also below-branch hominoid ("monkey" to "ape"), already Oligocene?? google "aquarboreal"
-- from aquarboreal to also shallow-diving "archaic"Homo, early-Pleist.?? google "pachyosteosclerosis"
Apparently, both transitions occurred in S-Asian coasts?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> FWIW, I'd think there were 2 more drastic transitions in our evolution (on islands??):
> -- from above- to also below-branch hominoid ("monkey" to "ape"), already Oligocene?? google "aquarboreal"
> -- from aquarboreal to also shallow-diving "archaic"Homo, early-Pleist.?? google "pachyosteosclerosis"
> Apparently, both transitions occurred in S-Asian coasts?

The concept is sound, though I honestly don't know about the specifics -- where
and when.

It's Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium," right? Well. Also a possibility of a founder
effect but it's not like they're mutually exclusive...

And it's brilliant in that it works with known observations...

Let's start with Insular Dwarfism. They get stuck on an island, they face limited
resources and this places heavy selective pressures on being small. But...

But there are many who claim that Insular Gigantism is not only a thing but that
it precedes Insular Dwarfism. In other words, a population gets isolated, like on
an island, with no predators. As their only competition is each other, they get
big. This causes them to burn through resources, or burn through them faster,
resulting in selective pressures turning on smaller. But...

But what if this happened to little monkeys, pushing them up to ape size --
insular gigantism -- BUT THEN instead of burning through all the resources
and shrinking, they began to exploit marine resources. Instead of growing
small, this high protein diet might have pushed the Gigantism further!

The first time I heard the Island scenario the person placed it in Europe or
the Mediterranean. And there is a smidgen of evidence to support this,
though such evidence is NOT inconsistent with an origins elsewhere -- like
Asia.

Evidence: The 10 million year old teeth, found in Germany, that look like
Ardi or Lucy. And I realize that teeth are Slam-Dunk evidence but only when
used in support of the status quo, so in this case teeth are inadmissible.

But they are evidence.

So there you go, me being *Way* too long winded, agreeing with your
concept, your underlying premise and as uncertain as ever about your
details...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

Op maandag 17 juli 2023 om 19:35:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > FWIW, I'd think there were 2 more drastic transitions in our evolution (on islands??):
> > -- from above- to also below-branch hominoid ("monkey" to "ape"), already Oligocene?? google "aquarboreal"
> > -- from aquarboreal to also shallow-diving "archaic"Homo, early-Pleist.?? google "pachyosteosclerosis"
> > Apparently, both transitions occurred in S-Asian coasts?

> The concept is sound, though I honestly don't know about the specifics -- where & when.
> It's Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium," right? Well. Also a possibility of a founder
> effect but it's not like they're mutually exclusive...
> And it's brilliant in that it works with known observations...

I wasn't thinking on Gould - only that insular form (understandably) are often "special" (limited population??).
I imagine early Hominoidea (30 Ma?) reaching (1 or more?) islands (coastal forests++) between India & S-Asia, where they became aquarboreal.
(Semi)aquatic mammals often become bigger, cf. thermoregulation, gravity...

> Let's start with Insular Dwarfism. They get stuck on an island, they face limited
> resources and this places heavy selective pressures on being small. But...
> But there are many who claim that Insular Gigantism is not only a thing but that
> it precedes Insular Dwarfism. In other words, a population gets isolated, like on
> an island, with no predators. As their only competition is each other, they get
> big. This causes them to burn through resources, or burn through them faster,
> resulting in selective pressures turning on smaller. But...
> But what if this happened to little monkeys, pushing them up to ape size --
> insular gigantism -- BUT THEN instead of burning through all the resources
> and shrinking, they began to exploit marine resources. Instead of growing
> small, this high protein diet might have pushed the Gigantism further!

Yes, possible.

> The first time I heard the Island scenario the person placed it in Europe or
> the Mediterranean. And there is a smidgen of evidence to support this,
> though such evidence is NOT inconsistent with an origins elsewhere -- like
> Asia.

Hylobatids & pongids live in SE.Asia.
I thought: India further underneath Eurasia (25-20 Ma) split Hominoidea into Hylobatids (E) & other (W).
Then I read about the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma = when hominids (W) & pongids (E) split:
- pongids(=sivapiths?) along Ind.Ocean coasts forced hylobatids higher into the trees ->smaller brachiators?
- hominids s.l.(=dryopiths?) along Tethys->Med.Sea-coasts, cf.Dryopith.Germany, Trachilos footprints etc.

> Evidence: The 10 million year old teeth, found in Germany, that look like
> Ardi or Lucy. And I realize that teeth are Slam-Dunk evidence but only when
> used in support of the status quo, so in this case teeth are inadmissible.
> But they are evidence.
> So there you go, me being *Way* too long winded, agreeing with your
> concept, your underlying premise and as uncertain as ever about your
> details...

There must have been many parallel evolutions in hominids s.l.//pongids (e.g. via rivers inland).
For some reason (cooling? Med.desiccation? ...?) only hominids s.s. survived: in the (incipient) Red Sea,
IMO,
- Gorilla 8-7 Ma followed the incipient N-Rift ->Lucy->boisei,
- and when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden (5.33 Ma??),
-- Pan went right = E-Afr.coast -> incipient S-Rift ->Taung->robustus (Pan//Gorilla),
-- Homo went left = S-Asian coast, where they began diving later (cooling early-Pleist.?? Indon.island fm??).

(I'll forward this to our discussion group aat@groups.io?)