4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
3) were savanna-dwellers???
4) had australopithecine ancestors??
These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
- Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
- Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
- apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits..

Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
But
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).

https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.

Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
– Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
– Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.

Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 13:58:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> 3) were savanna-dwellers???

That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

> 4) had australopithecine ancestors??

And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.

> These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
geocentrists and deep one worshipers.

> Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.

> 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,

Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
capability to climb?

> 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> But
> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
that crow did dive.

> 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
>
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
>
> Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
> c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
> c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
> c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
> c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
> c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
> c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
> – Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P..paniscus,
> – Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
> mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
>
> Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
> but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most
animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find
seashells in swamp. Good luck.

The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> marc verhaegen wrote:
> > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> That is not that popular hypothesis.

Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
"theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
other so called "Ape" is bipedal...

> You typically use it as straw man.

It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
and idiotic.

> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?

You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.

The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
bipedalism was most useful.

There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
> > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

> Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> more than hundred years ago.

Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.

Is it a straw man or are you insane?

> > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

> Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> trap or ambush.

Lol!

"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"

> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

> Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.

Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.

I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.

> Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid

Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:

Coastal dispersal.

And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
using terrestrial ALA.

So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...

It fits.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
>
> > That is not that popular hypothesis.
>
> Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
>
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.

> > You typically use it as straw man.
>
> It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> and idiotic.
>
It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.

> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
>
> Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
>
> You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
>
> The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> bipedalism was most useful.
>
> There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> a number of environments is "Popular."
>
Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
by evidence.

> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago.
> Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
>
> Is it a straw man or are you insane?
>
What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.

> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
>
> > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush.
> Lol!
>
> "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
>
Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
not read books?

> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
>
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
>
> I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
>
> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
>
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
that forest inhibits brain development.
>
> Coastal dispersal.
>
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.

> And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> using terrestrial ALA.
>
> So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
>
> It fits.
>
It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
IMO
1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,
2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr.apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,
3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),
4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

_____

> On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >
> > > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
> >
> > > That is not that popular hypothesis.
> >
> > Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> > that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> > "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> > other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
> >
> Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
> generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
> very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
> bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
> evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
> use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
> > > You typically use it as straw man.
> >
> > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > and idiotic.
> >
> It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
> imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
> bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.
> > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> >
> > Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
> >
> > You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> > fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> > a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
> >
> > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > bipedalism was most useful.
> >
> > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > a number of environments is "Popular."
> >
> Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
> features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
> reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
> fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
> have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
> by evidence.
> > > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
> >
> > > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > > more than hundred years ago.
> > Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
> >
> > Is it a straw man or are you insane?
> >
> What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
> of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
> > > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
> >
> > > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > > trap or ambush.
> > Lol!
> >
> > "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> > think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
> >
> Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
> drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
> about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
> imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
> weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
> not read books?
> > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> >
> > > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> > Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> >
> > I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> > about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> > keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
> >
> > > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> > Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> > evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> > and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> > southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> > And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
> >
> So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
> indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
> smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
> that forest inhibits brain development.
> >
> > Coastal dispersal.
> >
> Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
> swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
> > And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> > present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> > dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> > using terrestrial ALA.
> >
> > So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> > MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> > from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> > the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
> >
> > It fits.
> >
> It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
> not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
> fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 14:53:18 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 10:47:00 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
>
> Please, "oot", stop misrepresenting me:
> IMO
>
Hard to do it you outright spam your nonsense. And what you write are
just "IMO"... barely even worth to call hypothesis.

> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
Name the findings, genes what have you. Note that it takes quite a stretch to
conclude "bipedal" from few teeth or skull fragments.

> 2) we do not descend from australopiths: my Hum.Evol.papers showed: E.Afr..apiths afarensis->boisei are fossil Gorilla relatives // S.Afr.apiths africanus->robustus are fossil Pan,

That "showed" should read "expressed opinion". And most of your
opinion is based on none of evidence just on your discarding
contradicting evidence of others without much ground.

> 3) we do not come from Africa ("out of Afria" nonsense): Miocene Hominoidea dispersed along Tethys-ocean coasts, Pliocene Homo along Ind.Ocean coasts, Hs I don't kow (S or even SE.Asia?),

Again Miocene? Where are the fossils, tools whatever of Miocene?
Sahelanthropus and Orrorin (late Miocene) were in Africa.
> 4) we never lived in savanna, but have always been waterside, it's really not difficult:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
What means "never"? Tens of millions of people of Africa live in savanna
right now. It is just your favorite straw-man that ape in savanna should
imagine being cheetah and to chase antelopes and gazelles around there.
I did no misrepresentations whatsoever.

> _____
> > On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> > > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> > >
> > > > marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
> > >
> > > > That is not that popular hypothesis.
> > >
> > > Of course it is. GENERATIONS were spoon fed it. You might mean
> > > that academia has since decided to pile on an even WORSE crank
> > > "theory" -- that bipedalism was spawned in trees which is why no
> > > other so called "Ape" is bipedal...
> > >
> > Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> > savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
> > generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
> > very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
> > bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
> > evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
> > use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
> > > > You typically use it as straw man.
> > >
> > > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > > and idiotic.
> > >
> > It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
> > imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
> > bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that..
> > > > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > > > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> > >
> > > Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
> > >
> > > You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
> > > fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
> > > a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
> > >
> > > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > > bipedalism was most useful.
> > >
> > > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > > a number of environments is "Popular."
> > >
> > Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
> > features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
> > reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
> > fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
> > have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
> > by evidence.
> > > > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
> > >
> > > > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > > > more than hundred years ago.
> > > Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
> > >
> > > Is it a straw man or are you insane?
> > >
> > What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
> > of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
> > > > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
> > >
> > > > Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> > > > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > > > trap or ambush.
> > > Lol!
> > >
> > > "No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
> > > think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
> > >
> > Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
> > drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
> > about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
> > imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
> > weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
> > not read books?
> > > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> > >
> > > > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > > > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
> > > Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> > >
> > > I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
> > > about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> > > keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
> > >
> > > > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
> > > Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
> > > evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
> > > and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
> > > southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
> > > And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
> > >
> > So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
> > indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
> > smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
> > that forest inhibits brain development.
> > >
> > > Coastal dispersal.
> > >
> > Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> > of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> > lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
> > swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
> > > And if you're a believer in the church of Molecular Dating then our
> > > present ability to synthesize DHA, as not very good as it is, only
> > > dates back some 80k years... WAY too recent to account for DHA
> > > using terrestrial ALA.
> > >
> > > So we have humans across continents, we have this stretching back
> > > MILLIONS of years, they dd this following the coast, not swinging
> > > from tree branches... if they were on the coast they were eating on
> > > the coast... all that protein, all that DHA...
> > >
> > > It fits.
> > >
> > It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
> > not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
> > fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.

....

> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

troll:
> Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?

Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??

It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
innovations:
- Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
- centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
- reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
- broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
- tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
(cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> savanna to chase antelopes?

Why? Are you a child? You were never exposed to such an idea?

I'm calling you a liar. I'm denouncing you as a lying troll.

I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
You're a raging narcissist.

Fuck off.

> > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > and idiotic.

> It is Marcs favorite straw man.

No. It's idiocy that he argues against.

> > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > bipedalism was most useful.
> >
> > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > a number of environments is "Popular."

> Yes

"Environments" is plural.... more than one environment.

> What? I do read scientific articles

I doubt that. And you can't read usenet posts for comprehension, there's
no point is pretending you read & understand scientific papers.

> So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?

No. None. They contain radioactive isotopes that destroy DHA.

If you want to make a case for your terrestrial DHA,. make it. STOP
asking me or anyone else to make it for you.

> > Coastal dispersal.

> Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> lot better and safer.

So they were dead on the coast. "Coastal Dispersal," is in your mind
when dead ancestors walked everywhere from Sundaland to South
Africa, and every point in between... dead.

And certainly not eating!

I mean, how can dead ancestors eat?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 18:52:28 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> ...
> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,
> troll:
> > Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
> Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
> Why do you need fossils????
> Never heard of comparative anatomy??
> When do you think lesser & great apes split??
>
We obviously need fossils for to see where and how the animals did live and
if they had such properties and activities like you describe. Didn't you notice
that you reject out of Africa? So need location of fossils. Didn't you notice that
you mentioned bipedal? So need at least some body bones. etc. Otherwise all
your stories are groundless fiction. Didn't you notice that you post to
sci.bio.paleontology? Paleontology is not about fiction, it deals with fossils.
For fiction there are other groups.

> It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
> Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
> innovations:
> - Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
> - centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
> - reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
> - broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
> - tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
> AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
> (cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy". With what
"aquarboereal" animals you compare? List them. AFAIK it is terminology
invented by you and meaning whatever you want to mean. Hmm ...
sea lions? Those do not climb trees. Some fat people indeed look like
caricature of sea lion ... but also do not climb trees and if to throw them
into water then also swim like pile of excrement. Those people are
product of handful of last decades, not Miocene.

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 07:00:49 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
> > savanna to chase antelopes?
> Why? Are you a child? You were never exposed to such an idea?
>
> I'm calling you a liar. I'm denouncing you as a lying troll.
>
Yes, I had read of that idiotic idea only from trolls like JTEM
and Marc. And indeed if then to search I found that some bearded
guys lot of decades ago had such "hypothesis". So show me the textbooks.
Oh? You cant? Huge surprise. And you need that garbage only to
push similarly idiotic and ungrounded deep diving ape hypothesis.

> I'm not going to establish the well established. Narcissist obstruct.
> You're a raging narcissist.
>
> Fuck off.
>
Why you demonstrate of being immature and obscene?
We all know it. No need to underline that after each sentence.

> > > It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> > > and idiotic.
>
> > It is Marcs favorite straw man.
>
> No. It's idiocy that he argues against.
>
Idiocy he himself has dug out. It is called straw man argument and
false dichotomy. Did not chase gazelles therefore did deep dive.
How does that follow? So does not follow and so has been pointlessly
brought up.

> > > The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
> > > evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
> > > forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
> > > bipedalism was most useful.
> > >
> > > There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
> > > "Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
> > > a number of environments is "Popular."
>
> > Yes
> "Environments" is plural.... more than one environment.

How does it matter? Ape is not nailed to ground like a tree. I am in
urban region of city with about half millon people. It is 15 minutes
walk to nearest coast and hour walk to nearest forest. Totally
different environments.

> > What? I do read scientific articles
>
> I doubt that. And you can't read usenet posts for comprehension, there's
> no point is pretending you read & understand scientific papers.
>
Do not mirror, I'm not you.

> > So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA?
> No. None. They contain radioactive isotopes that destroy DHA.
>
> If you want to make a case for your terrestrial DHA,. make it. STOP
> asking me or anyone else to make it for you.
>
If you write that Elvis is alive or that DHA rich foods do not contain
it then what I can say. Just take your meds.

> > > Coastal dispersal.
>
> > Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
> > of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
> > lot better and safer.
>
> So they were dead on the coast. "Coastal Dispersal," is in your mind
> when dead ancestors walked everywhere from Sundaland to South
> Africa, and every point in between... dead.
>
> And certainly not eating!
>
> I mean, how can dead ancestors eat?
>
Yes take your meds. You are talking to yourself and arguing about
some kind of nonsense that was not said out with yourself.

> > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,

troll:
> > > Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?

> > Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
> > Why do you need fossils????
> > Never heard of comparative anatomy??
> > When do you think lesser & great apes split??

troll:
> We obviously need fossils

Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
Why do you need fossils????
Never heard of comparative anatomy??
When do you think lesser & great apes split??

> > It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
> > Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
> > innovations:
> > - Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
> > - centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
> > - reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
> > - broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
> > - tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
> > AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
> > (cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".

Yes, it's obvious you don't see it. :-DDD

Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 12:27:45 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP (hylobatids & Hs still are): aquaRboreal (aqua=water, arbor=tree) vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (+- cf.Nasalis-Rhinopithecus): wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water,
>
> troll:
> > > > Where are fossils of those early Miocene (like -22M) hominids?
>
> > > Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
> > > Why do you need fossils????
> > > Never heard of comparative anatomy??
> > > When do you think lesser & great apes split??
> troll:
> > We obviously need fossils
> Are you really sooo stupid, my lttle boy??
> Why do you need fossils????
> Never heard of comparative anatomy??
> When do you think lesser & great apes split??
> > > It's really not difficult, even you can understand:
> > > Hominoidea (vs Cercopithecoidea):
> > > innovations:
> > > - Latisternalia: very broad breast-bone & thorax + dorsal (not lateral) scapulae for lateral arm movements,
> > > - centrally-(not dorsally-)placed spine = upright,
> > > - reduction of lumbar vertebrae cf. upright posture,
> > > - broad pelvis: also lateral leg movements,
> > > - tail loss (incoporation of coccyx into pelvis bottom): unexpacted in purely arboreal tetrapod:
> > > AFAICS all this can *only* be explained by aquarborealism, don't you think? :-D
> > > (cf. also some convergences with Rhinopithecus-Nasalis in mangrove forests):
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> > I do not see grounds of your "comparative anatomy".
> Yes, it's obvious you don't see it. :-DDD

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:35:58 AM UTC-7, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
> If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

<snip rubbish>

They're here because Peter invited them. Marc is a crank of long standing, originally
deriving from the "aquatic ape" cult. He's inherited much of the cult, and added a few
other cranks and frolls, such as JTEM. Unfortunatly they'll probably be here indefinitely.

On 4/17/23 3:58 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
> But
> 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).

1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

2. (Anticipating the answer to 1...) Why not?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 4/27/23 06:35, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? J

if you would STOP answering them, my filters would work better,

erik simpson wrote:

> They're

Right. You're a totally "Normal" and "Different" person who
never heard of the idea of bipedalism evolving on the
savanna... sure... that's the ticket.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

Mark Isaak wrote:

> 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?

Here you go:

https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html

https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature

Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
what to think.

And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
can not control is always apparent.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 20:18:23 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > 1. Where are your peer-reviewed articles in respectable journals?
> Here you go:
> the
> https://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html
>
> https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351930262_Gibberish_papers_still_lurk_in_the_scientific_literature
>
These links demonstrate that disinformation and bullshit in
those journals is filtered so well that event of garbage passing
the filters is worth talking about. In our world where nothing
works 100% it is indication of remarkable quality.

> Your "Argument" here is that you are far too stupid to discuss facts
> or ideas and you need to magazine -- Oops! "Journal" -- to tell you
> what to think.
>
You talk to mirror there. He asked cites of articles.

> And this doesn't surprise me. Because you can switch handles all
> the live long day, but the same crippling mental disorder that
> compels you to obfuscate, to try and stop any conversation you
> can not control is always apparent.
>
Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
arguments.

troll:
> Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
> arguments.

"actual arguments"??? :-DDD

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 09:44:23 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:
> > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual
> > arguments.
> "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

I explained that we need fossils for to know location, properties
and genes of your "hypothetical" "aquarboereal" deep ones. Also
I explained that we need something to compare with to claim
"comparative anatomy" of your animals. If life style of those is
however unique and never heard of and we see no fossils then
it must be obvious to yourself that you are talking about fantasy
monsters.
Perhaps that is why you snip and run with insults? It is obvious
to yourself?

troll:
> > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.

> > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD

troll:
> I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...

No, troll, we don't:
never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 21:44:07 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> troll:
> > > > Try to have conversation some time instead of that snipping and
> > > > then replying with imbecile noise for to run from actual arguments.
>
> > > "actual arguments"??? :-DDD
> troll:
> > I explained that we need fossils for to know location, ...
>
> No, troll, we don't.

Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
without any fossil.

> never heard of comparative biology?? anatomy? DNA? physiology? ...?

Whose physiology? Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Dobhar-chú? Existence
of your animal has no evidence.

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> These links demonstrate

Your demand for cites, as if you ever read much less understand any,
was obfuscation. You were trying to BLOCK an exchange of ideas,
put one down. You are still attempting to do this.

THE SAME with you pretending that the savanna hypothesis on the
origins of bipedalism & modern man is something that nobody ever
put forward much less was taught...

It's all your severe personality disorder at work.

Pretending bipedalism arose on a savanna is idiocy. Pretending
bipedalism arose in trees is idiocy. Pretending that there's the
slightest truth to Out of Africa purity is idiocy.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> Cite to article that figures location of animal of 10M ago on planet
> without any fossil.

Why? Are you pretending that you're not supporting Out of Africa
and an African LCA in that date range -- ALL WITHOUT FOSSILS?

You're PROVING that you're mentally ill here -- DEMANDING "Cites"
to establish what YOU are claiming!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

> > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > 3) were savanna-dwellers???

> That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.

It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.

> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.

Of course: google "aquarboreal"!

> > 4) had australopithecine ancestors??

> And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.

Yes, of course:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.

> Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
> people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
> geocentrists and deep one worshipers.

Worshipers?

> > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,

> Where you concluded that we left forests?

I??
Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.

> Why? Forest is full
> of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
> forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.

??
Lots of trees in my garden...

> > 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> > 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,

> Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
> capability to climb?

I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.

> > 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> > But
> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,

> Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
> where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
> that crow did dive.

You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.

> > 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> > 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> > 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> > Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
> > Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
> > c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
> > c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
> > c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
> > c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests)..
> > c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
> > c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
> > – Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
> > – Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
> > mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
> > Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
> > but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?

> Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
> these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
> into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most
> animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find
> seashells in swamp. Good luck.

You're still confusing
- Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
- early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.

aqua=water, arbor=tree

> The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
> divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.

?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??
?? *deep*divers??