Some paleo-anthropologists still see everywhere "human ancestors".
Orangs have lot of fossil relatives/ancestors in Asia (sivapiths etc.), but for some obscure reason (read: anthropo-/ego-/afro-centrism) tradit.PAs never see in Africa fossils of bonobo or chimp or gorilla relatives, only fossils of themselves=humans.
Yet human DNA (no Pliocene African retrovirus) clearly shows human ancestors were NOT in Africa at least (IMO even longer) during the Pliocene (Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).

Because Pan & Gorilla are knuckle-walkers, most PAs believe(d) humans also must have had K-Wing ancestors (they've never heard of parallel evolution....).

Many?most PAs still reason:
- quadrupedal = forests,
- bipedal (only humans today) = outside forest,
- outside forest in Africa = savanna,
- concl. they believe their ancestors ran?walked over savannas...
:-DDD

The solution to many of these "problems" is simple:

Hominoidea (Miocene or somewhat earlier) became apelike when they became "aquarboreal" = bipedal waders-climbers in swamp forests (apes: larger size, tail loss, very wide body=sternum-thorax-pelvis = lateral arm+leg movements, centrally-placed spine = vertical, etc.etc.).

IMO (hypothetically) this was when Arabafrica approached Eurasia, and initially formed island archipels + coastal forests: wading upright cf today Rhinopithecus & Nasalis monkeys in mangrove forests + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water.

Still hypothetically, but likely IMO, the early hominids late-Miocene lived in the incipient Red Sea:
- 8-7 Ma, Gorilla=Praeanthropus afarensis Lucy cs followed the incipient northern Afr.Rift swamp forests,
- 6-5 Ma, the Red Sea opened into the Gulf of Aden:
--- Pan went right -> E.Afr.coastal forests -> southern Rift -> Transvaal Taung cs Australop.africanus->robustus (// Praeanthr.afarensis->boisei -- parallel evolutions are seen everywhere in evolution, but tradit.PAs are blind),
--- Homo went left -> S.Asian coastal forests:
they became (early-Pleist.? cf cooling = different molluscs? ...?) shallow-divers for shellfish etc.

At least 8 *independent* indications show Indonesian H.erectus were semi-aquatic early-Pleist.:
• archaic Homo's atypical tooth-wear was caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks", Towle cs 2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24500
• H.erectus s.s. fossilized in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto amid barnacles + corals, Trinil amid edible shellfishPseudodon + Elongaria, Sangiran-17 in "brackish marsh near the coast" etc.
• Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by Javanese H.erectus, Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
• ear exostoses as in H.erectus & H.neand. develop after years of cold(er) water irrigation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
• pachy-osteo-sclerosis is seen in +-all incipient marine tetrapods = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101): erectus’ parietal bone is 2x as thick as in gorillas.
• brain size in erectus (2x apes/australopiths) is facilitated by aquatic foods (e.g. DHA): Odontocetes, Pinnipedia etc.
• erectus' descendants/relatives colonized Flores & Luzon far oversea https://www.academia.edu/36193382/Coastal_Dispersal_of_Pleistocene_Homo_2018
• Homo’s stone tool use & dexterity is typical for molluscivores, e.g. sea-otters.

Simple, no? :-)

The only serious question remains:
how can so many PAs remain so incredibly stupid to believe their ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas?? :-DDD

On 19.10.2023. 11:26, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> The only serious question remains:
> how can so many PAs remain so incredibly stupid to believe their ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas?? :-DDD

Because they are stupid nerds who follow, who don't think with their
own head.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some paleo-anthropologists still see everywhere "human ancestors".
> Orangs have lot of fossil relatives/ancestors in Asia (sivapiths etc.), but for some obscure reason (read: anthropo-/ego-/afro-centrism) tradit.PAs never see in Africa fossils of bonobo or chimp or gorilla relatives, only fossils of themselves=humans.
> Yet human DNA (no Pliocene African retrovirus) clearly shows human ancestors were NOT in Africa at least (IMO even longer) during the Pliocene (Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).

Most of academia is training. It's training people to not think.

The professor lectures. He assigns readings. Later you are given a test
where you regurgitate what the professor said in the lecture, what you
read in the readings. Deviate and you flunk the test.

After four or five or whatever years of strict obedience to the gospels,
they hand you a degree and you are now an expert.

Now the least creative, the most obedient, the absolute last people to
make any waves become the next generation of field workers,
professors and authors...

Know what's worse?

There's no military or economic application for any of this work. There's
no billions of dollars to be made off of it. And there's almost no jobs
what so ever.

The number of professor positions that open within the field in a given
year hoovers between zero and... what? Maybe two or three?

But "Zero" happens frequent enough.

You need to be rich already, to pursue an economically pointless
career. Or you have to be exceedingly lucky to get a position. Or you
have to be unusually proficient in navigating the politics of both
academia and the grant process. But what I did NOT just say here
is that you need to possess any particular skills or insight within
paleo archaeology itself.

The skills or qualifications (background) necessary to succeed in
paleo anthropology literally have nothing to do with paleo
anthropology itself.

You can be the most brilliant paleo anthropologist to ever exist,
and not be lucky enough to score a position. Or be lousy at grant
writing. Or not belong to the Lucky Sperm Club so daddy can't
just pick up the phone and get you hired. And if you're not rich,
given everything else, you're going to be working the counter at
Starbucks before very long, your dreams of unraveling the truth
behind human origins crushed beneath the heals of a self
appointed elite...

This is true for everything that does not have a direct military or
economic potential.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/730831540483932160

On 19.10.2023. 20:27, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Some paleo-anthropologists still see everywhere "human ancestors".
>> Orangs have lot of fossil relatives/ancestors in Asia (sivapiths etc.), but for some obscure reason (read: anthropo-/ego-/afro-centrism) tradit.PAs never see in Africa fossils of bonobo or chimp or gorilla relatives, only fossils of themselves=humans.
>> Yet human DNA (no Pliocene African retrovirus) clearly shows human ancestors were NOT in Africa at least (IMO even longer) during the Pliocene (Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).
>
> Most of academia is training. It's training people to not think.
>
> The professor lectures. He assigns readings. Later you are given a test
> where you regurgitate what the professor said in the lecture, what you
> read in the readings. Deviate and you flunk the test.
>
> After four or five or whatever years of strict obedience to the gospels,
> they hand you a degree and you are now an expert.
>
> Now the least creative, the most obedient, the absolute last people to
> make any waves become the next generation of field workers,
> professors and authors...
>
> Know what's worse?
>
> There's no military or economic application for any of this work. There's
> no billions of dollars to be made off of it. And there's almost no jobs
> what so ever.
>
> The number of professor positions that open within the field in a given
> year hoovers between zero and... what? Maybe two or three?
>
> But "Zero" happens frequent enough.
>
> You need to be rich already, to pursue an economically pointless
> career. Or you have to be exceedingly lucky to get a position. Or you
> have to be unusually proficient in navigating the politics of both
> academia and the grant process. But what I did NOT just say here
> is that you need to possess any particular skills or insight within
> paleo archaeology itself.
>
> The skills or qualifications (background) necessary to succeed in
> paleo anthropology literally have nothing to do with paleo
> anthropology itself.
>
> You can be the most brilliant paleo anthropologist to ever exist,
> and not be lucky enough to score a position. Or be lousy at grant
> writing. Or not belong to the Lucky Sperm Club so daddy can't
> just pick up the phone and get you hired. And if you're not rich,
> given everything else, you're going to be working the counter at
> Starbucks before very long, your dreams of unraveling the truth
> behind human origins crushed beneath the heals of a self
> appointed elite...
>
> This is true for everything that does not have a direct military or
> economic potential.

Hm, uncharacteristically, I agree with everything that you wrote.

Op donderdag 19 oktober 2023 om 20:27:08 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Some paleo-anthropologists still see everywhere "human ancestors".
> > Orangs have lot of fossil relatives/ancestors in Asia (sivapiths etc.), but for some obscure reason (read: anthropo-/ego-/afro-centrism) tradit.PAs never see in Africa fossils of bonobo or chimp or gorilla relatives, only fossils of themselves=humans.
> > Yet human DNA (no Pliocene African retrovirus) clearly shows human ancestors were NOT in Africa at least (IMO even longer) during the Pliocene (Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).

> Most of academia is training. It's training people to not think.
> The professor lectures. He assigns readings. Later you are given a test
> where you regurgitate what the professor said in the lecture, what you
> read in the readings. Deviate and you flunk the test.
> After four or five or whatever years of strict obedience to the gospels,
> they hand you a degree and you are now an expert.
> Now the least creative, the most obedient, the absolute last people to
> make any waves become the next generation of field workers,
> professors and authors...

Yes, I'm from outside academical anthropology.
What brought me to all this?
- Interest in the first place?
- Medical studies: biology, physiology, biochemics & esp.anatomy?
- Reading Elaine's "Descent of Woman".
- Then reading lots of PA & biological papers & books.
- Thinking a bit.

> Know what's worse?
> There's no military or economic application for any of this work. There's
> no billions of dollars to be made off of it. And there's almost no jobs
> what so ever.
> The number of professor positions that open within the field in a given
> year hoovers between zero and... what? Maybe two or three?
> But "Zero" happens frequent enough.
> You need to be rich already, to pursue an economically pointless
> career. Or you have to be exceedingly lucky to get a position. Or you
> have to be unusually proficient in navigating the politics of both
> academia and the grant process. But what I did NOT just say here
> is that you need to possess any particular skills or insight within
> paleo archaeology itself.
> The skills or qualifications (background) necessary to succeed in
> paleo anthropology literally have nothing to do with paleo
> anthropology itself.
> You can be the most brilliant paleo anthropologist to ever exist,
> and not be lucky enough to score a position. Or be lousy at grant
> writing. Or not belong to the Lucky Sperm Club so daddy can't
> just pick up the phone and get you hired. And if you're not rich,
> given everything else, you're going to be working the counter at
> Starbucks before very long, your dreams of unraveling the truth
> behind human origins crushed beneath the heals of a self
> appointed elite...
> This is true for everything that does not have a direct military or
> economic potential.

Yes, but PAs were/are incredibly wrong in +- *everything*:
- not savanna :-DDD, but aquarboreal->shellfish-diving,
- not meat, but fruits, oysters etc.,
- not in Africa, but in Asia,
- apiths = fossil Pan or Gorilla,
- *all* Hominoidea were bipedal=aquarboreal,
- etc.
Afrocentric + anthropocentric + egocentric prejudices.

Even the enormously drastic innovation of plate tectonics in geology was less profound.