The old paleo-anthropology was incredibly wrong in very different ways,
in +-all ways:
- australopiths are fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan or..., not of Homo,
- our Pliocene ancestors were swamp forest waders, no savanna runners,
- Pliocene Homo followed S-Asian coasts: "out of Africa" is just-so fantasy,
- we were no hunters in the Pleistocene, but shallow-diving molluscivores,
- not only "hominins": all Hominoidea had bipedal Mio-Pliocene ancestors,
- we don't descend from hunters: stone tools were for opening shellfish,
- etc.

How could a whole "science" be so wrong??
Are there other examples of sciences that were so incredibly wrong once?

On 19.10.2023. 20:15, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are there other examples of sciences that were so incredibly wrong once?

This particular science is the most important, it touches the very
center of believes, of religions. There are very powerful forces that
take care that this thing is *never* solved.

On 19.10.2023. 23:05, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.10.2023. 20:15, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Are there other examples of sciences that were so incredibly wrong once?
>
>         This particular science is the most important, it touches the
> very center of believes, of religions. There are very powerful forces
> that take care that this thing is *never* solved.

For the proof you don't need to go any further than just to see this:
Hominidie => Homininae => Hominini => Hominina.
The very purpose of nomenclature should be to help scientists to make
more clear differentiation between species. I'll pay a beer to anybody
who manages to make those things *less* clear, more confusing, that
this, existing, nomenclature. This is so confusing that even experts
have difficulties. Now, the question is "Why?". Why somebody makes even
such a simple thing as nomenclature so confusing? Aren't we have enough
of confusing things already, so we have to make it even more confusing? Why?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> - australopiths are fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan or..., not of Homo

Oh, I agree that they're not an ancestor of Homo but, I wouldn't draw
any definitive lines between relationships.

I mean, they descend from the Aquatic Ape ancestor, or one of them.

I imagine they were a sub species, or close enough.

Groups from the parent Aquatic Ape population routinely broke off,
pushed inland. They were descendants of those groups.

...later groups to push inland would interbreed with earlier
groups, moderating their evolution...

The further you got from the horn of Africa, the lesser the influx of
new, moderating DNA from interbreeding...

The clean break came maybe 3.7 million years ago, aligning with
the retrovirus evidence. If there was any ancestor species to Homo
in Africa at that time, they were absorbed by the Pan side, or went
extinct, or were genetically swamped by later contact with the
Eurasian population.

-- --

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

Op vrijdag 20 oktober 2023 om 18:01:57 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > - australopiths are fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan or..., not of Homo

> Oh, I agree that they're not an ancestor of Homo but, I wouldn't draw
> any definitive lines between relationships.

Yes, we can't be sure unless we have DNA, and there can always have been other unknown extinct hominid side-branches (hominid today = HPG), but the PA descriptions are clear: E.Afr.apiths typically resemble Gorilla>HP, and S.Afr.apiths typically resemble Pan>H or G (refs in my 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol..papers).

And the correlation with tectonics is also clear:
Pliocene"gracile"->early-Pleist."robust" in E//S.Africa cf. Rift formation:
afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.

We also know: Pliocene Homo was NOT in Africa (*at least* since 3.7 Ma): Yohn CT cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11.
Early Homo fossils are abundant in E.Asia: Java, Flores, Peking, Luzon...

With the available infm, it's clear IMO:
- late-Miocene hominids were aquarboreal in the incipient Red Sea,
- Gorilla-Praeanthr. 8-7 Ma followed the incipient E.Afr.rift->afarensis->boisei etc.,
- 6-5 Ma (exactly 5.33? mega-flood) the Red Sea opened into the Gulf/Aden:
- Pan went right->E.Afr.mangroves (no fossils)->incipient S.Afr.rift after c 4 Ma Australop.s.s.africanus->robustus,
- Pliocene Homo went left->S.Asian mangroves->early-Pleist.Java H.erectus=brain++, pachyosteoscl. etc.etc.=shallow-diving = "aq.ape"s.s.

There's 0 doubt:
H.erectus often dived for shellfish:
• tooth-wear caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks", Towle cs 2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24500
• coastal fossilisation: Mojokerto barnacles + corals, Trinil: edible shellfish Pseudodon + Elongaria, Sangiran-17 "brackish marsh near the coast".
• Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by H.erectus, Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
• ear-exostoses (H.erectus & neand.) develop after years of cold(er) water irrigation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
• pachy-osteo-sclerosis: only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus’ parietal = 2x as thick as in gorillas.
• erectus' brain size (2x apes/australopiths) is facilitated by aquatic foods, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish… cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia.
• Pleistocene colonisations of Flores & Luzon 67 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.
Only *incredible* imbeciles still believe their ancestors ran after African antelopes... :-DDD

> I mean, they descend from the Aquatic Ape ancestor, or one of them.

What is "aq.ape"? We have to discern:
1) Mio-Pliocene *aquarboreal* Hominoidea (apes in // ->less aquarboreal cf.Pleist.cooling?),
2) shallow-diving H.erectus (since early-Pleist.? already Pliocene??) = "aq.ape s.s."
IOW, non-Homo Hominoidea ("apes") were aquarboreal, but no shellfish-divers like H.erectus.

> I imagine they were a sub species, or close enough.
> Groups from the parent Aquatic Ape population routinely broke off,
> pushed inland. They were descendants of those groups.
> ...later groups to push inland would interbreed with earlier
> groups, moderating their evolution...

AFAWK, archaic Homo's shellfish-diving was?began early-Pleist. SE.Asia (why?? different shellfish Ice Ages??).
Meanwhile, Pan-Australop.//Gorilla-Praeanthropus evolved in // in Africa -> knuckle-walking apes today, indendently from us
(Homo (sapiens?) only re-entered Africa late-Pleist.?).

> The further you got from the Horn of Africa, the lesser the influx of
> new, moderating DNA from interbreeding...
> The clean break came maybe 3.7 million years ago, aligning with
> the retrovirus evidence. If there was any ancestor species to Homo
> in Africa at that time, they were absorbed by the Pan side, or went
> extinct, or were genetically swamped by later contact with the
> Eurasian population.

3.7 Ma is not impossible, but more likely when Homo & Pan split
(the Red Sea opened into the Gulf 6-5 Ma, possibly exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood):
-Pan went right,
-Homo went left:
simple, no?
:-)

All this has already been published in my book,
google "Verhaegen Bonne English"
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Op vrijdag 20 oktober 2023 om 20:14:09 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:
Sorry, a few misspellings, here corrected:

> > > - australopiths are fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan or..., not of Homo

> > Oh, I agree that they're not an ancestor of Homo but, I wouldn't draw
> > any definitive lines between relationships.

> Yes, we can't be sure unless we have DNA, and there can always have been other unknown extinct hominid side-branches (hominids today = Homo, Pan, Gorilla), but the PA descriptions are clear: E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla>HP, and S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan>H or G (refs in my 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers).

> And the correlation with tectonics is also clear IMO:
> Pliocene"gracile"->early-Pleist."robust" in E//S.Africa cf. Rift formation:
> afarensis->boisei // africanus->robustus.

> We also know: Pliocene Homo was NOT in Africa (*at least* since 3.7 Ma): Yohn CT cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11.
> Early Homo fossils are abundant in E.Asia: Java, Flores, Peking, Luzon...

> With the available infm, it's clear IMO:
> - late-Miocene hominids were aquarboreal in the incipient Red Sea,
> - Gorilla-Praeanthr. 8-7 Ma followed the incipient E.Afr.rift->afarensis->boisei etc.,
> - 6-5 Ma (exactly 5.33? mega-flood) the Red Sea opened into the Gulf/Aden:
> - Pan went right->E.Afr.mangroves (no fossils)->incipient S.Afr.rift after c 4 Ma Australop.s.s.africanus->robustus,
> - Pliocene Homo went left->S.Asian mangroves->early-Pleist.Java H.erectus=brain++, pachyosteoscl. etc.etc.=shallow-diving = "aq.ape"s.s.

> There's 0 doubt:
> H.erectus often dived for shellfish:
> • tooth-wear caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks", Towle cs 2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24500
> • coastal fossilisations: Mojokerto barnacles + corals, Trinil: edible shellfish Pseudodon + Elongaria, Sangiran-17 "brackish marsh near the coast".
> • Stephen Munro discovered sea-shell engravings made by H.erectus, Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
> • ear-exostoses (H.erectus & neand.) develop after years of cold(er) water irrigation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
> • pachy-osteo-sclerosis: only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus’ parietal = 2x as thick as in gorillas.
> • erectus' brain size (2x apes/australopiths) is facilitated by aquatic foods, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish… cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia.
> • Pleistocene colonisations of Flores & Luzon 67 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.
> Only *incredible* imbeciles still believe their ancestors ran after African antelopes... :-DDD

> > I mean, they descend from the Aquatic Ape ancestor, or one of them.

> What is "aq.ape"? We have to discern:
> 1) Mio-Pliocene *aquarboreal* Hominoidea (apes in // ->less aquarboreal cf.Pleist.cooling?),
> 2) shallow-diving H.erectus (since early-Pleist.? already Pliocene??) = "aq.ape s.s."
> IOW, non-Homo Hominoidea ("apes") ancestors were aquarboreal, but not shellfish-diving like H.erectus was.

> > I imagine they were a sub species, or close enough.
> > Groups from the parent Aquatic Ape population routinely broke off,
> > pushed inland. They were descendants of those groups.
> > ...later groups to push inland would interbreed with earlier
> > groups, moderating their evolution...

> AFAWK, archaic Homo's shellfish-diving was?began early-Pleist. SE.Asia (why?? different shellfish Ice Ages??).
> Meanwhile, Pan-Australop.//Gorilla-Praeanthropus evolved in // in Africa -> knuckle-walking apes today, indendently from us
> (Homo s.s. only re-entered Africa late-Pleist.? only sapiens??).

> > The further you got from the Horn of Africa, the lesser the influx of
> > new, moderating DNA from interbreeding...
> > The clean break came maybe 3.7 million years ago, aligning with
> > the retrovirus evidence. If there was any ancestor species to Homo
> > in Africa at that time, they were absorbed by the Pan side, or went
> > extinct, or were genetically swamped by later contact with the
> > Eurasian population.

> 3.7 Ma is not impossible, but more likely when Homo & Pan split 6-5 Ma (DNA)
> (the Red Sea opened into the Gulf 6-5 Ma, possibly exactly 5.33 Ma Zanclean mega-flood):
> -Pan went right,
> -Homo went left:
> simple, no? :-)

> All this has already been published in my book,
> google "Verhaegen Bonne English"
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/