oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.

> You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.

i don't provide support that the sun rises in the east and sets in the
west, either. "Madness," I know.

> > > Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.
> >
> > No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.

> What a odd dodge.

It's not a dodge, you blithering idiot. You simply lack a grasp of
rudimentary English.

> Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
> more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence.

Who cares? This isn't 50 years ago. The Out of Africa purity is nonsense.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717065307257176065

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:52:41 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen emerged from hiding just
long enough to post a few lines that avoid the main point of what he is responding to.

..
> ... Peter:
> "it seems strange that he is here talking about swamp forests when his big pitch for BP earlier had them wading in coastal waters for shellfish."

Marc, you are ignoring BP in the few lines you do write below.

> ?? Apparently you haven't even read my view!?

You have so many views on so many things, and they are so under-supported,
it's hard to keep track of them all.

In stunning contrast, you are fleeing headlong from innumerable holes Mr. Tiib and
I have poked in various other "views" of yours on this thread. Are you doing this out of admiration for the way
JTEM is running away from them and insulting people who try to make him discuss them like a responsible adult?

> Please inform properly before talking.

If I had, I would have poked holes in these views sooner, rather than here. See below.

> Again, for the Xth time, schematically:
> 1) Most Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were *aquarboreal*(google!),

Google you spouting more unevidenced information from which Afro-Asian fossils of human
ancestors (Sivapithecus isn't one, even by your standards) are completely missing by your standards?
[Your standards have reassigned all those hominin fossils to the ancestry of gorillas and chimps.]

As for Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus and other European apes, where is your evidence that they were aquarboreal?

> dispersing mostly in coastal forests (Tethys Ocean -> Tethys Sea etc.) + everywhere side-branches inland, of course.

No fossils, so your "of course" is empty bravado.

> Diet: mostly fruits etc.? shellfish (+-no brain enlargement!)??

Why the question marks? don't you believe your own hypotheses?

> 2) Pliocene Homo followed the Ind.Ocean coastal forests e.g. Java early-Pleist.

Java was near the end of the line. Where are your examples from elsewhere along the line?
Why would the super-eruption you and JTEM conveniently blame for their lack
bury the whole route but not the Java part, despite your "everywhere side-branches inland, of course".??

+ frequent shallow-diving for mostly shellfish (H.erectus pachy-osteo-sclerosis, brain enlargement, island colonizations etc.), e.g. *shell engravings*: google "Joordens Munro"!

Will I find photos of engravings if I do the googling? That aside...

How is it that you banish Homo naledi to the chimp and gorilla line, but not Homo erectus?
There is some speculation that *erectus* and *naledi* are in direct line of descent one with the other.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:52:09 PM UTC-4, oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 23:54:44 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> > oot...@hot.ee wrote:
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, generations were spoon fed savanna idiocy.
> >
> You keep failing to provide anything to support that claim.

You are being too kind to him. He PRIDES himself on childish
talk about sun rising in the east, and on the way he thereby insults anyone
who wants some sign that he knows what he is talking about.

He's like a little child chanting "I know something you don't know! I know something you don't know!

Marc, on the other hand, is a coward who only shows his face at fleeting
intervals these last two days. I handily took care of his little foray
a few minutes ago

[For the record, I give the url:]
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/3S-5EpiWkmg/m/bOWE1WcJBQAJ

> > > > Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
> > > > proposal.
> >
> > > What is the point?

> > You clearly want to disagree with the good Doctor so make a counter
> > proposal.
> >
> > > Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings.

> > No. That's projecting humans -- actions and motives -- onto animals.
> >
> What a odd dodge. Your ancestors were animals and so are you.
> Some humans are like some other animals capable to make and to
> use some tools and to build something, some other humans are
> not ... anyway all are animals.
>
> Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan made that aquatic ape hypothesis
> more than 50 years ago because of gaps in evidence. Meanwhile
> plenty of evidence has been found about tool-using and bipedal woodland
> apes and none about those aquatic apes. Those are still missing.
>
> You can only run with insults as you have nothing else.

As if on cue, JTEM did exactly that in reply.

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> You have so many views on so many things, and they are so under-supported,

What are you pretending is the better supported model?

And I do mean "Model."

Aquatic Ape is a model that fits the evidence and makes predictions. What
you do have to offer that competes with it?

How and why were Homo in China more than 2 million years ago if our
ancestors were evolving on an African savanna?

How did we evolve such a need for DHA PRIOR to any genetic adaptation
that allows us to synthesize it as well as we do -- which isn't great -- when
your claimed environment is near devoid of the stuff?

Bipedalism predates the LCA by a strong margin. How did adapting to
the forest lead to evolving AWAY from bipedalism when you now claim
it is where & how bipedalism arose in the first place?

> JTEM is running away

You are a severely mentally ill troll. We're looking at numerous
personality disorders here, starting with D.I.D.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717065307257176065

Op vrijdag 12 mei 2023 om 04:03:47 UTC+2 schreef Peter Nyikos:

> Marc, on the other hand, is a coward

??? Unworthy!

> who only shows his face at fleeting
> intervals these last two days. I handily took care of his little foray
> a few minutes ago

I have other things to do than talking with uninformed persons.
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

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

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

Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 08:24:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM:
> 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 "Aquarboreal," 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.

:-DDD
brain size, stone tools, occipital pachy-osteo-sclerosis, large paranasal air sinuses, external nose, shell engravings, etc.

> Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
> I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquarboreal. I'm not complaining
> about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
> keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.

1) primates = arboreal (arbor=tree),
2) humans = ex-semi-aquatic (aqua=water),
3) evolution = gradual:
c 1990, I "predicted" aquarboreal ancestors (swamp?mangrove?coastal?...forest),
c 1995, the Ndoki wading gorillas were described, later followed by wading bonobos, orangs & now even chimps AFAIK.
:-)

> > 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.

I can only agree with JTEM:
only incredible idiots believe their Plio-Pleistocene ancestors lived in African savannas...
:-DDD

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 17:19:37 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:
> > 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.
> of course:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by Alister
Hardy and Elaine Morgan from two human generations ago. Back then it
was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. You have already shown
that you got none evidence and avoid all evidence of others.

It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya. Oldowan
tools elsewhere are all after 2 mya so some homo spread out with those.
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
mya.
So all Mode I and Mode II "technology" came from Africa and spread slowly
elsewhere. Also everything indicates that inventors preferred eating medium
to large game to harvesting seashores.

There are no evidence that anything came from unknown Java homos
evolved from unknown Ponginae. Ponginae are genetically too far from homo
so hybrids are unlikely. But African Oldowan tools we find on Java
1.8 mya, carried by h.erectus, descendant of African woodland apes more
than million years after Africans butchered hippos with tools of that type.
Someone of them then engraved few seashells and that is all your evidence.

me:
> > > > 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???

somebody uninformed:
> > > 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.

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

imbecile:
> You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by Alister
> Hardy and Elaine Morgan from two human generations ago. Back then it
> was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...

:-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD
Google:
-aquarboreal
-WHATtalk verhaegen
-GondwanaTalk Verhaegen

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 23:04:41 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> me:
> > > > > 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???
> somebody uninformed:
> > > > 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.
> me:
> > > of course:
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> imbecile:
> > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
> > was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> > sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> > theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
>
Yes you are parroting there what Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan wrote.

> :-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD

The current scientific evidence of outside of your imaginary kook universe is is that,
let me restore:
It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya. Oldowan
tools elsewhere are all after 2 mya so some homo spread out with those.
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
mya.
So all Mode I and Mode II "technology" came from Africa and spread slowly
elsewhere. Also everything indicates that inventors preferred eating medium
to large game to harvesting seashores.

me:
> > > > > > 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???

somebody uninformed:
> > > > > 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.

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

imbecile:
> > > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
> > > was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> > > sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> > > theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...

:-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD

same imbecile:
> It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

"we"see?? :-DDD
Even if so, my little little boy, never heard of chimp tool use??
Grow up:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 02:03:13 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> me:
> > > > > > > 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???
>
> somebody uninformed:
> > > > > > 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.
>
> me:
> > > > > of course:
> > > > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
> imbecile:
> > > > You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by from two human generations ago. Back then it
> > > > was "purely hypothetical" because of gap in fossil record and methods for
> > > > sequencing genes were still under development. Right now it is clearly kook
> > > > theory that is contradicting with all our evidence. ...
>
Yes you are simply parroting there what Alister Hardy and Elaine Morgan wrote.
They were refuted by new finds and genetic analysis, you simply run from it.

> :-DDD *your* evidence!! :-DDD
>
> same imbecile:
> > It started from African woodland apes. We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> > tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.
> "we"see?? :-DDD
>
Oh yes, even liar like you can't deny that both of us see the publications. So we see
and you wiggle.
> Even if so, my little little boy, never heard of chimp tool use??
>
Sure it was closer to apes, like I said, and like also time tells. It was smarter than chimp.
There we have pre-Oldovan stone tools manfactured. Chimps manufacture wooden
tools sometimes.

Let me restore what you run from:
Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya. Oldowan
tools elsewhere are all after 2 mya so some homo spread out with those.
The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
mya.
So all Mode I and Mode II "technology" came from Africa and spread slowly
elsewhere. Also everything indicates that inventors preferred eating medium
to large game to harvesting seashores.

African Oldowan tools we find on Java
1.8 mya, carried by h.erectus, descendant of African woodland apes more
than million years after Africans butchered hippos with tools of that type.
But at that time Africans started to switch to Acheulean tools.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> The obvious
> >> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
> >> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.

> That's in no way obvious.

It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via chimps,
and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

> I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
> you won't whether I ask or not.

You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.

For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in no way obvious"
even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist..

I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reasoning.

> >> There's no
> >> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
> >> exact same set of infections.

Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same locus
of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?

> > It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
> > which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
> > rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.

> Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
> that don't?

> >> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
> >> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions

How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
mean by "independent," anyway?

> > > while humans did
> >> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
> >
> > That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
> > Evidence is evidence. Period.
> Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
> particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.

That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?

> > Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
> > have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
> > years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.

> That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.

So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for
reasoning, as above.

> Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,

What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.

> so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.

I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."

> > There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
> > vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
> >
> > Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
> > are, and we can and do exchange viruses...

> We do, sometimes. But not every time.

That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural
question, but pretended superiority.

> >> unless one
> >> shows
> >
> > It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
> > to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
> > quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
> > that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
> > evidence and there is no counter evidence.

> It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
> knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
> failing to have the virus.

Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight.
I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

> You could support that by showing that all
> African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as
> relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.

> It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
> hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't
> do much to differentiate them.
> > It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."
> >
> > This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter..
> It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to
> improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to
> find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.
>
> Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided
> to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.

On 5/12/23 7:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> The obvious
>>>> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
>>>> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
>
>> That's in no way obvious.
>
> It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via chimps,
> and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally.
> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

One datum results in a conclusion?

>> I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
>> you won't whether I ask or not.
>
> You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
> and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.
>
> For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in no way obvious"
> even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist.
>
> I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
> NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reasoning.

You should know by now that your suspicions about other people's motives
are so unreliable as to be useless. And you waste much effort away from
the subject.

>>>> There's no
>>>> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
>>>> exact same set of infections.
>
> Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same locus
> of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?

No, quite the contrary. But that isn't what I meant. I mean the same set
of viruses inserting in the species's genomes.

>>> It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
>>> which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
>>> rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
>
>> Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
>> that don't?
>
>>>> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
>>>> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions
>
> How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
> mean by "independent," anyway?

I mean that they were separate events.

>>>> while humans did
>>>> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
>>>
>>> That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
>
>>> Evidence is evidence. Period.
>> Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
>> particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.
>
> That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?

It's not very good evidence for humans not being in Africa because there
are many other possible explanations for the failure of humans to pick
up this virus.

>>> Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
>>> have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
>>> years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
>
>
>> That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.
>
> So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for
> reasoning, as above.

>> Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,
>
> What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.

It's the clear conclusion from the insertion sites being different. The
phylogeny of the virus doesn't show that chimps got it from gorillas or
vice versa. They both got it from another source, likely a monkey.

>> so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
>
> I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."

The point is that there is no reason to suppose that humans, if they got
this virus, would have got it from chimps, just as chimps and gorillas
didn't get it from each other.

>>> There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
>>> vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
>>>
>>> Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
>>> are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
>
>> We do, sometimes. But not every time.
>
> That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
> post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural
> question, but pretended superiority.

Another poor attribution of motive, another abandonment of the subject
in favor of gratuitous insult. Stop.

Again, this virus was not, that we can tell, exchanged among closest
relatives, so the fact that chimps are our closest relatives is not
relevant.

>>>> unless one
>>>> shows
>>>
>>> It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
>>> to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
>>> quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
>>> that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
>>> evidence and there is no counter evidence.
>
>> It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we
>> knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
>> failing to have the virus.
>
> Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is of course a continuum. You have, apparently, a different
estimate of the place of this evidence along that continuum. It isn't
clear why, because you don't say.

> What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight.
> I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.

So basically, you wasted most of your time by attacking my motives and
had no time to get to the actual meat of the matter. This is not
productive use of your time.

>> You could support that by showing that all
>> African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as
>> relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.
>
>
>> It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
>> hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't
>> do much to differentiate them.
>>> It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."
>>>
>>> This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
>> It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to
>> improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to
>> find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.
>>
>> Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided
>> to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.

savanna fool's only "argument":
> Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
> If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.

:-DDD

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

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

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

1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32 "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario"
1986 E.Morgan & MV New Scient 1498:62-63 "In the beginning was the water"
1986 Marswin 7:64-69 "Een korte inleiding tot de waterapentheorie"
1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
1987 Hum Evol 2:381 "Speech origins"
1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9 "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
1987 Marswin 8:142-151 "Vertonen de fossiele hominiden tekens van wateraanpassing?"
1988 Specul Sci Technol 11:165-171 "Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis"
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African ape ancestry"
1991 Med Hypoth 35:108-114 "Aquatic ape theory and fossil hominids"
1991 M Roede cs eds 1991 "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" Souvenir London :75-112 "Aquatic features in fossil hominids?"
1991 ib.:182-192 "Human regulation of body temperature and water balance"
1992 Hum Evol 7:63-64 "Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of Gramineae?"
1992 Language Origins Society Forum 15:17-18 "KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts"
1993 Nutr Health 9:165-191 "Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence"
1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1995 Med Hypoth 44:409-413 "Aquatic ape theory, speech origins, and brain differences with apes and monkeys"
1995 ReVision 18:34-38 "Aquatic ape theory, the brain cortex, and language origins"
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
1997 R Bender, MV, N Oser Anthropol Anz 55:1-14 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht der Aquatic Ape Theory"
1997 New Scient 2091:53 "Sweaty humans"
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens
1998 in MA Raath ... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg :128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?"
1998 + P-F Puech ib.:47 "Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet"
1999 + S Munro Mother Tongue 5:161-168 "Bipeds, Tools and Speech"
1999 + N McPhail, S Munro Eur.Sociobiol.Society Newsletter 50:4-12 "Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla forebears"
1999 + S Munro Water & Human Evolution Symposium Univ Gent :11-23 "Australopiths wading? Homo diving?"
2000 + P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2000 + Munro in J-L Dessalles cs eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat Sup Télécomm.Paris:236-240 "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory"
2002 + S Munro Nutr Health 16:25-27 "The continental shelf hypothesis"
2002 + P-F Puech, S Munro Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7 (google aquarboreal) "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
2004 + S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2007 + S Munro in SI Muñoz ed 2007 "Ecology Research Progress" Nova NY:1-4 "New directions in palaeoanthropology"
2007 + S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser ib.:155-186 (google econiche Homo) "The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?"
2009 + S Munro in NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Confer.Kamilari Crete:37-38 "Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?"
2009 S Munro, MV ib.:28-29 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods"
2010 New Scient 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10 "Oi, big nose!"
2011 + S Munro HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
2011 + Munro, Puech, Vaneechoutte in M Vaneechoutte, Kuliukas, MV eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" :67-81 "Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?"
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV ib.:181-9 "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech" (google)
2011 S Munro, MV ib.:82-105 "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?"
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV J compar hum Biol 63:496-503 "Book review: Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" Bentham Sci Publ
2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
2016 E Schagatay cs "A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why..."
2022 Acad.Uitg. Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 13:57:41 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> savanna fool's only "argument":
> > Hmm do you actually have split personality? JTEM and marc verhaegen?
> > If so take your meds, I can't help, sorry.
>
It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything and then ran with
empty insults like JTEM. You can not identify anyone who supports
savanna, so you are liar. It is your false dichotomy: did not
chase antelopes therefore did dive into swamps and/or oceans (unclear
where). No one understands how that nonsense is supposed to
follow ... but that is your sole actual argument posted here.

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 13:58:56 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",

You have no fossils. The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
neither looks like aquatic.

> -- S.Afr.australopiths = fossil relatives of Pan, E-Afr.apiths of Gorilla, not Homo,

It is unclear who made the 2.9 mya Oldovan tools and butchered hippos in
Kenya but they were most likely related to humans.

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

Why? By what evidence? Kenya is not too near to Red Sea and the Ethiopia
is near Red Sea but in Africa.

> -- Plio-Pleistocene Homo were no savanna hunters, but followed coasts & rivers.
>
Kenya and Ethiopia were forest ... big to medium game is indeed easier to ambush
and slay near water bodies not in open savanna.

savanna fool:
> It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything

I read these posts only until the first nonsense...
:-)

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 16:06:32 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> savanna fool:
> > It was a reply to post in what you snipped everything
> I read these posts only until the first nonsense...
> :-)

You still can not identify anyone who supports savanna, so you are liar.
And you post nothing but those idiotic lies so why you do it at all? :D

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

savanna fool:
> You have no fossils.

We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.

> The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,

3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
??

> neither looks like aquatic.

Sigh.
Even so, so what??
1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:
more in detail (my 2022 book):
• Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?

2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??

Sigh.
Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 16:20:46 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
> > > Traditional paleo-anthropology is incredibly wrong in at least 4 instances:
> > > -- early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal",
> savanna fool:
> > You have no fossils.
>
> We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
> but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.
>
We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.

> > The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,
> 3 misspelling in 1 short sentence...
> ??
>
> > neither looks like aquatic.
>
> Sigh.
> Even so, so what??
> 1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:

Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.

> more in detail (my 2022 book):
> • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
> • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?
>
I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:

| • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously coarse eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teeth smaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real two-legged man, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, when a palm-rich freshwater area with fish, water turtles, monitor lizards, pythons, crocodiles, peacocks, swans, herons and snake-necked birds, various otters, porcupines and porcupines, slim monkeys, antelopes and giraffes, three-toed horses, and pachyderms of all kinds, the anthracothere 'hippopotamus' Lybicosaurus emerged from the shallow seas of the Lybian Sirt Basin (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).

What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
aquatic.

• Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas and swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers and water pygmy deer, three-toed horses and chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars and elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal and other rodents, lagomorphs and rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish and freshwater mussels. Orrorin appeared more human- and chimp-like than Sahelanthropus, says Professor Pickford, and had climbing and bipedal features: a vertical vertebral column? The large femoral head appeared more human-like than in australopithekes and apes. The long thighbone helped move the leg sideways but hindered running. Femoral neck and thigh bone were flattened anterior-backward as in fossil humans and australopithics (but less than in seals), not round as in apes, certainly not laterally flattened as in animals that run a lot. The terminal phalanx of the thumb was wider than in chimps, as in us, but not as wide as in boisei. A hand bone was clearly curved: hanging climbing? The face was short, the molars seemed rather small, the tooth enamel - with wear as in us, unlike in chimps - was thicker than in Sahelanthropus and certainly Ardipithecus. Isotopes in tooth enamel indicated a hippopotamus or boar-like diet (Roche 2013). The primeval hominids Sahelanthropus and Orrorin mainly ate fruit and aquatic (edge) plants, I suspect, often climbed overarms, walked and waded more often than lowland gorillas on two legs in wetlands, or sometimes floated in shallow water, head and arms above. Aquaboreal?

Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even
chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.

> 2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??
>
You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>
It is still preserved above as your quote.
I brought two examples of fossils from *late* Miocene (note, not early) that were only moving
towards bipedality of h.erectus You deny these are our ancestors of Miocene but fail to give
cite to any better fossils. But now you even complain that these predate early
Pleistocene? We discussed Miocene, remember ???

> Sigh.
> Inform before talking, little boy: grow up!

Learn to behave in non-demented manner. Try to add some level of coherence
to what you write, also take notes to keep track what you are discussing. Or just
snip and run if you can't.
Are you from savanna? Is the dementia because of sunstroke?

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> You *are* parroting there groundless H.P. Lowecraft fan-fiction by

You sound like an idiot trying very hard not to sound like an idiot.

> It started from African woodland apes.

That's a conclusion i.e. "circular reasoning."

Seems that we should be the furthest away, genetically, from the FIRST
so called apes to peel off from us, and the closest genetically to the
most recent of the so called apes to peel off from our line. Well the Chimps
are the closest and they're in Africa. Orangutans are way over in Asia.

> We see Pre-Oldowan woodland ape
> tools in Africa from 3.3 mya.

Speculation. We see broken rocks. In some instances it has been claimed
that BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of broken rocks, in a single site, are tools.

They do not have a good record here...

> Oldowan tools (and butchered hippos) in Africa from 2.9 mya.

Not associated with Homo, if the claims hold up.

It's not a fact that they even are tools.

Oldowan

> The later Acheulean tools we see similarly starting from 1.76 mya East
> Africa and then spreading to elsewhere slowly between 1.5 mya to 0.8
> mya.

They were already in China BEYOND 2 million years ago, and they weren't
first-generation tools.

And how did "Woodland Apes" spread from a corner in Africa to Europe,
Asia and beyond?

Where did they get the DHA their brains needed?

Why do we find what looks like Ardi/Lucy teeth in Europe 10 million years
ago?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717246477475430400

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

savanna fool:
> > > You have no fossils.

> > We have lots of fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!),
> > but even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more details at least as important.

savanna fool:
> We have lot of fossils but you run from discussing those. With imbecile insults. About
> early Miocene bipedal ape we have no fossils and you can cite none.

:-DDD
Even if we hadn't, the comparative evidence is much more detailed, but we have several fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers (IOW, inform before talking!), e.g. all sivapiths = probably pongids (Ankarapithecus, Sivapith., Khoratpith., Lufengpith., Gigantopith., Indo.pithecus) & all dryopiths = hominids: Pierolapith., Anoiapith., Danuvius, Dryo-, Ruda-, Bodva-, Hispano-pith., Oreopith., Trachilos footprints, Ourano-, Graeco-pith.etc.
savanna fool:
> > > The saleanthropus and orrorin are from late Mioene,

> > 3 misspelling in 1 short sentence... ??

savanna fool:
> > > neither looks like aquatic.

> > Sigh. Even so, so what??
> > 1) As I said (but you didn't read!), they're not our ancestors, possibly related to Gorilla, very likely aquarboreal:

> Then you fail to show better candidates of fossils of our ancestors.

:-DDD Our savanna fool fails to see.

> > more in detail (my 2022 book):
> > • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, water-schildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).
> > • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), in 2000 ontdekt door Martin Pickford’s groep in Kenya, lag in een waterbos (~1200 mm/jaar regen) met nijlpaarden, slankapen, impala-achtigen en moeras-antilopes, verder nog een andere mensaap denkt men, duikers en waterdwerghertjes, drietenige paardjes en chalicothere onevenhoevigen, zwijn- en olifantachtigen met ronde kiezen, boomhyraxen, palmcivetten, galago’s, vleerhonden, boom- en andere knaagdieren, haasachtigen en neushoorns, grote otters, diverse vissen en zoetwatermosselen. Orrorin leek meer mens- en chimpachtig dan Sahelanthropus, aldus professor Pickford, en had klim- en tweebenige kenmerken: een verticale wervelzuil? De grote dijbotkop leek mensachtiger dan bij australopitheken en mensapen. De lange dijbothals hielp het been opzij bewegen, maar hinderde rennen. Dijbothals en dijbot waren voorachterwaarts afgeplat zoals bij fossiele mensen en australopitheken (maar minder dan bij robben), niet rond zoals bij mensapen, zeker niet zijlings afgeplat zoals bij dieren die veel rennen. Het eindkootje van de duim was zoals bij ons breder dan bij chimps, maar niet zo breed als bij boisei. Een handbotje was duidelijk gekromd: hangklimmen? Het gelaat was kort, de kiezen leken nogal klein, het tandglazuur – met slijtage zoals bij ons, anders dan bij chimps – was dikker dan bij Sahelanthropus en zeker Ardipithecus. Isotopen in tandglazuur wezen op een nijlpaard- of zwijnachtig dieet (Roche 2013). De oer-hominiden Sahelanthropus en Orrorin aten vooral fruit en water(kant)planten, vermoed ik, klommen vaak overarms, stapten en waadden vaker dan laaglandgorilla’s tweebenig in drasgrond, of dreven soms in ondiep water, kop en armen boven. Aquarboreaal?

> I do not know what you mean by pasting it, let me translate:

:-) Thanks, my boy. Some *explanations/corrections* by me:

> • Sahelanthropus ('Sahel Man', 'Toumaï' TM-266, 7–6 Ma) is about halfway between Pierolapithecus and a small gorilla: conspicuously *heavy* eye-protective forehead ridge (~18 mm thick), brain no larger than in chimps ( ~365 cc), canine teeth smaller, molar enamel thicker, almost like orangutans. Not a real *biped*, thinks Macchiarelli (2020), and Marc Meyer (2022) also finds the strongly curved ulna chimp-like. The fossil comes from a lake deposit in Chad, *at the time* a palm-rich freshwater area with fish, water turtles, monitor lizards, pythons, crocodiles, peacocks, swans, herons & snake-necked birds, various otters, porcupines & porcupines, slim monkeys, antelopes & giraffes, three-toed horses, pachyderms of all kinds, the anthracothere 'hippopotamus' Lybicosaurus emerged from the shallow seas of the Lybian Sirt Basin (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017).

> What can be the issue that our ancestors 7 millions years ago were quite ape-like?
> Genetic evidence suggests that we did split from chimps about 2 millions years later.
> It had indeed to drown in some swamp for fossil to preserve. That does not say that it was
> aquatic.

My little little boy (grow up!! inform a bit!!), again, for the Xth time: IMO
-Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were "aquarboreal"(google!!): BP wading-climbing in swamp/coastal forest,
-early-Pleist.H.erectus frequently dived (you can call that "semi-aquatic"): brain++, pachyosteosclerosis, shell engravings, stone tools, island colonizations etc.,
okidoki??

> • Orrorin (Milennium Man ~6 Ma), discovered in 2000 by Martin Pickford's group in Kenya, was in a water forest (~1200 mm/year of rain) with hippos, slender monkeys, impalas & swamp antelopes, and another great ape one thinks, divers & water pygmy deer, three-toed horses & chalicothere odd-toed ungulates, round-toothed boars & elephants, arboreal hyraxes, palm civets, galagos, megabats, arboreal & other rodents, lagomorphs & rhinoceroses, large otters, various fish & freshwater mussels. Orrorin appeared more human- & chimp-like than Sahelanthropus, says Professor Pickford, and had climbing & bipedal features: a vertical vertebral column? The large femoral head appeared more human-like than in australopiths & apes. The long thigh-bone helped the leg move sideways, but hindered running. Femoral neck & thigh-bone were flattened anterior-backward as in fossil humans & australopiths (but less than in seals), not round as in apes, certainly not laterally flattened as in animals that run a lot. The terminal phalanx of the thumb was wider than in chimps, as in us, but not as wide as in boisei. A hand-bone was clearly curved: hanging climbing? The face was short, the molars seemed rather small, the tooth-enamel (with wear as in us, unlike in chimps) was thicker than in Sahelanthropus & certainly Ardipithecus. Isotopes in tooth enamel indicated a hippo- or boar-like diet (Roche 2013).
The primeval hominids Sahelanthropus & Orrorin mainly ate fruits & *water(side)* plants, I suspect, often climbed overarms, walked & waded more often than lowland gorillas on 2 legs in wetlands, or sometimes floated in shallow water, head & arms above. Aquaboreal?

> Some incoherent word salad ... who said our ancestors must run a lot? Even
> chimps can make spears and ambush their prey. Upright walking helps to
> carry weapons and tools, to fight, to harvest and to carry food to camp.

Yes, my boy, indeed: you talk incoherent word salad.

> > 2) They *far* predate the early-Pleistocene, when H.erectus frequently dived for shallow-aquatic foods: brain x2, DHA, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, stone tools, shell engravings etc.etc.: early-Pleist.H.erectus can be called semi-aquatic, but what on earth does that have to do with Sahelanthropus & Orrorin??

> You said --- << early-Miocene Hominoidea were already "bipedal" sensu "aquarboreal" >>

Google "aquarboreal", my boy, and then come back!
Rest of your salad snipped.