https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution

People think they know about evolution, but the 'aquatic ape' theory isn't
science: it's creationism

....
Apart from the methodological flaws inherent in such cocktail-party
theorising,
the aquatic ape idea is plagued by several other problems.

First: none of the features proposed to support the idea evolved together.
The
ancestors of humans became bipedal at least five million years ago, but our
fondness for seafood is much more recent, emerging, as far as we know, with
the origin of our own species around 200,000 years ago.

Second: basing deep evolutionary hypotheses on superficial details of
soft-part
anatomy is always risky, partly because we know little about when that
anatomy
evolved. It is possible, even likely, that the distribution of body hair and
subcutaneous fat in modern humans evolved very recently and is influenced by
sexual selection. This would explain why men and women differ so dramatically
in these two attributes. As I discuss (with tongue firmly in cheek) in my
forthcoming book The Accidental Species, sexual selection could explain other
things too, such as the prominence of female breasts, the size of the
penis, and
even why we are bipeds.

Third: some of the features proposed to be relics from our watery past aren’t
unique to humans. The air-spaces in our skulls, the sinuses, might have been
buoyancy aids – but as Paul Z. Myers explains, sinuses are found in all
mammals,
aquatic or not.

Fourth: you’d be surprised how difficult it is to use anatomy to infer the
behaviour of an animal. You’d never guess from their anatomy that goats, with
their spindly legs, lack of opposable digits or prehensile tail, are
experts at
climbing trees. Or that my golden retriever, Heidi, with her relative lack
of fat
and her copious amounts of body hair, is a strong and capable swimmer.

søndag den 30. maj 2021 kl. 06.15.51 UTC+2 skrev Primum Sapienti:
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/aquatic-apes-creationism-evolution
>
> People think they know about evolution, but the 'aquatic ape' theory isn't
> science: it's creationism
>
> ...
> Apart from the methodological flaws inherent in such cocktail-party
> theorising,
> the aquatic ape idea is plagued by several other problems.
>
> First: none of the features proposed to support the idea evolved together..
> The
> ancestors of humans became bipedal at least five million years ago, but our
> fondness for seafood is much more recent, emerging, as far as we know, with
> the origin of our own species around 200,000 years ago.
>
> Second: basing deep evolutionary hypotheses on superficial details of
> soft-part
> anatomy is always risky, partly because we know little about when that
> anatomy
> evolved. It is possible, even likely, that the distribution of body hair and
> subcutaneous fat in modern humans evolved very recently and is influenced by
> sexual selection. This would explain why men and women differ so dramatically
> in these two attributes. As I discuss (with tongue firmly in cheek) in my
> forthcoming book The Accidental Species, sexual selection could explain other
> things too, such as the prominence of female breasts, the size of the
> penis, and
> even why we are bipeds.
>
> Third: some of the features proposed to be relics from our watery past aren’t
> unique to humans. The air-spaces in our skulls, the sinuses, might have been
> buoyancy aids – but as Paul Z. Myers explains, sinuses are found in all
> mammals,
> aquatic or not.
>
> Fourth: you’d be surprised how difficult it is to use anatomy to infer the
> behaviour of an animal. You’d never guess from their anatomy that goats, with
> their spindly legs, lack of opposable digits or prehensile tail, are
> experts at
> climbing trees. Or that my golden retriever, Heidi, with her relative lack
> of fat
> and her copious amounts of body hair, is a strong and capable swimmer.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308739871_A_reply_to_Alice_Roberts_and_Mark_Maslin_Our_ancestors_may_indeed_have_evolved_at_the_shoreline_-_and_here_is_why
A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why...

BBC Radio 4 recently broadcast a two-part series, The Waterside Ape, which asked some straightforward questions: How long have humans and our ancestors been habitual users of aquatic and marine resources? Also, have we adapted physiologically and cognitively to a littoral environment in which we depended on those aquatic and marine resources? And finally, what evidence from the last fifteen years of research has emerged to refute or to illuminate either of these questions?
On September 16th and since, Alice Roberts, Professor of Public Engagement in Science and Mark Maslin, Professor of Geography, made claims in an article in an article on TheConversation.com, and reprinted by The Guardian, The Independent and Scientific American, which may have been justifiable forty years ago but which are no longer of any relevance in 2016. Specifically they claim that:
1. there is no fossil or other evidence to support the waterside model, and
2. the waterside model “makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore it is pseudo-science” (courtesy of Henry Gee@Nature, retweeted by Roberts).
Both of these complaints are examined directly in The Waterside Ape. We would direct Roberts and Maslin to the following research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals over the last fifteen or so years, all of which was covered in The Waterside Ape broadcast, but which they chose to ignore in their article:
1. Human diving physiology and performance compared with semi-aquatic mammals (Schagatay 2014; Schagatay, Fahlman, 2014 – in Human Evolution).
2. Auditory exostoses suggesting frequent swimming in both modern humans and fossil skulls going back to 500 thousand years ago in Homo erectus, and in more recent Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (Rhys-Evans and Cameron, 2014 – in Human Evolution)
3. Oxygen isotope data showing that early hominids at 2 - 3 million years ago were habitually in shallow water and depending on wetland sedges and papyrus (Magill et al., 2016 in PNAS)
4. Predation and preparation of very large catfish in Turkana basin at 2 million years ago (Braun and Archer, 2014 in Journal of Human Evolution) and very large carp at the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Alperson-Afil et al., 2009, in Science).
5. Pachyosteosclerosis, i.e. dense and brittle bones in Homo erectus suggesting a shallow-diving habit (Verhaegen, Munro, 2011 in Journal of Comparative Human Biology)
6. Shallow diving for Euryales ferox nuts at GBY around 800 thousand years ago (Goren-Inbar et al., 2014 in InternetArch)
7. Wading and exploitation of large mussels both for food and tools at Trinil, in Java around 500 thousand years ago. (Joordens, Munro et al., 2015, in Nature)
8. Dependence on mussels and sea-snails at Pinnacle Point at 164 thousand years ago (Marean et al., 2007, in Nature)
9. Evolution of the hominid brain requiring iodine, iron, selenium, zinc and other nutrients in addition to DHA (Broadhurst et al., 2002, in Br J Nutrition)
10. Vernix caseosa: a falsifiable hypothesis was set up, tested and proven valid that vernix is likely to be an adaptation to entering water soon after being born. (Brenna et al., 2016, submitted.)
It would be of value to your readers if Roberts and Maslin could explain in what ways the above research fails to support a waterside model of human evolution? Also, in what sense any of the above authors are practitioners of ‘pseudo-science’?
Is the message of Roberts and Maslin that the general public should be kept in ignorance of the peer-reviewed research from the last fifteen years that points to waterside habitation and adaptation at many points in human evolutionary history? We think the job of engaging the public in science is about encouraging debate and looking at the evidence, rather than attempting to dictate which discussions are scientifically acceptable. That is the job of the peer-reviewed journals.
We would strongly encourage readers to take the out-of-date assertions of Roberts and Maslin with a good tablespoonful of salt, of the iodised variety, and to read the original work we refer to, then make their own judgements..
We applaud the BBC and Sir David Attenborough for keeping up with the most recent scientific literature and presenting it to the wider public, in contrast to the addressed professors.

Signed,
Erika Schagatay, Professor of Animal Physiology, Mid Sweden University, Sweden
Peter Rhys-Evans, Consultant Otolaryngologist, the Lister Hospital, London, UK
Kathlyn Stewart, Research Scientist, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Canada
Marc Verhaegen, General Physician and researcher in human evolution, Mechelen, Belgium
Mario Vaneechoutte, Professor of Medicine and Bacteriology, University of Ghent, Belgium
Naama Goren-Inbar, Professor of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Stephen Munro PhD, Curator at the National Museum of Australia.
Algis Kuliukas, PhD, Researcher at the University of Western Australia,
Stephen Cunnane, Professor of Medicine, Sherbrooke University, Canada
Tom Brenna, PhD, Professor, Cornell University, USA
Michael Crawford, Visiting Professor, Imperial College, London, UK

The Waterside Ape

People think they know about evolution, but the 'endurance-running' theory isn't science: it's creationism.
Hum.Evol.28:237-266, 2013):
"The nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains (‘endurance running’, ‘dogged pursuit of swifter animals’, ‘born to run’, ‘le singe coureur’, ‘Savannahstan’) are among the worst scientific hypotheses ever proposed. The susprising frequency and diversity of foot problems (e.g. hammertoes, hallux valgus and bunions, ingrown nails, heelspurs, athlete’s feet, corns and calluses — some of these due to wearing shoes) and the need to protect our feet with shoes prove that human feet are not made in the first place for running. Moreover, humans are physiologically ill-adapted to dry open milieus: “We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal. We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time” (Nature 325:305-6, 1987).

søndag den 30. maj 2021 kl. 12.00.46 UTC+2 skrev littor...@gmail.com:
> People think they know about evolution, but the 'endurance-running' theory isn't science: it's creationism.
> Hum.Evol.28:237-266, 2013):
> "The nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains (‘endurance running’, ‘dogged pursuit of swifter animals’, ‘born to run’, ‘le singe coureur’, ‘Savannahstan’) are among the worst scientific hypotheses ever proposed. The susprising frequency and diversity of foot problems (e.g. hammertoes, hallux valgus and bunions, ingrown nails, heelspurs, athlete’s feet, corns and calluses — some of these due to wearing shoes) and the need to protect our feet with shoes prove that human feet are not made in the first place for running. Moreover, humans are physiologically ill-adapted to dry open milieus: “We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal. We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time” (Nature 325:305-6, 1987).

Fours days. That's how long Homo sapiens can go without a fresh drink of water. Longer than that, we die of thirst. We die.
Meanwhile, a flock of baboons, an actual savannah simian, has been clocked going 23 days without a fresh drink.
And we're supposed to accept endurance running as the key selector of human evolution? Running across scorching hot grassland at length to tire out prey? Losing precious water at every single step?

This is what happens when world class trained marathon runners skip one drinking station too many trying to reach the finish line faster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM5wTcItbuY

Op zondag 30 mei 2021 om 12:33:31 UTC+2 schreef C. H. Engelbrecht:
> søndag den 30. maj 2021 kl. 12.00.46 UTC+2 skrev littor...@gmail.com:

> > People think they know about evolution, but the 'endurance-running' theory isn't science: it's creationism.
> > Hum.Evol.28:237-266, 2013): "The nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains (‘endurance running’, ‘dogged pursuit of swifter animals’, ‘born to run’, ‘le singe coureur’, ‘Savannahstan’) are among the worst scientific hypotheses ever proposed. The susprising frequency and diversity of foot problems (e.g. hammertoes, hallux valgus and bunions, ingrown nails, heelspurs, athlete’s feet, corns and calluses — some of these due to wearing shoes) and the need to protect our feet with shoes prove that human feet are not made in the first place for running. Moreover, humans are physiologically ill-adapted to dry open milieus: “We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal. We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time” (Nature 325:305-6, 1987).

> Four days. That's how long Homo sapiens can go without a fresh drink of water. Longer than that, we die of thirst. We die.
> Meanwhile, a flock of baboons, an actual savannah simian, has been clocked going 23 days without a fresh drink.
> And we're supposed to accept endurance running as the key selector of human evolution? Running across scorching hot grassland at length to tire out prey? Losing precious water at every single step?
> This is what happens when world class trained marathon runners skip one drinking station too many trying to reach the finish line faster:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM5wTcItbuY

Yes. Thanks, Chris.
23 vs 4 days...
Only complete idiots still believe our Pleistocene ancestors ran antelopes to exhaustion.

Google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT".

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> People think they know about evolution, but

It couldn't be more simple:

Everyone accepts coastal dispersal. Many claim scientific confirmation.
And then they turn around and pretend that means our ancestors were
walking around carrying an African savannah on their back...

No, sorry, they were living along the coast. They were exploiting the sea.
They were consuming resources then moving on, finding new/more
resources to exploit. They weren't following a map. They didn't have a
destination in mind. They were simply living day to day.

"One toe on a savannah," the morons insist, "And they instantly turned
upright, grew big brains & started fashioning spears."

Yup.

They couldn't go near a savannah without it completely controlling
human evolution, transforming our species. Yet these same fools insists
that they were living along the coast, exploiting the sea for millennia and
that this could not have influenced our evolution in the least...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174956894044

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174956894044

søndag den 30. maj 2021 kl. 18.36.15 UTC+2 skrev I Envy JTEM:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
> > People think they know about evolution, but
> It couldn't be more simple:
>
> Everyone accepts coastal dispersal. Many claim scientific confirmation.
> And then they turn around and pretend that means our ancestors were
> walking around carrying an African savannah on their back...
>
> No, sorry, they were living along the coast. They were exploiting the sea..
> They were consuming resources then moving on, finding new/more
> resources to exploit. They weren't following a map. They didn't have a
> destination in mind. They were simply living day to day.
>
> "One toe on a savannah," the morons insist, "And they instantly turned
> upright, grew big brains & started fashioning spears."
>
> Yup.
>
> They couldn't go near a savannah without it completely controlling
> human evolution, transforming our species. Yet these same fools insists
> that they were living along the coast, exploiting the sea for millennia and
> that this could not have influenced our evolution in the least...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174956894044
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/174956894044

The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.

Op zondag 30 mei 2021 om 19:09:58 UTC+2 schreef C. H. Engelbrecht:
> søndag den 30. maj 2021 kl. 18.36.15 UTC+2 skrev I Envy JTEM:

> > Everyone accepts coastal dispersal. Many claim scientific confirmation.
> > And then they turn around and pretend that means our ancestors were
> > walking around carrying an African savannah on their back...
> > No, sorry, they were living along the coast. They were exploiting the sea.
> > They were consuming resources then moving on, finding new/more
> > resources to exploit. They weren't following a map. They didn't have a
> > destination in mind. They were simply living day to day.
> > "One toe on a savannah," the morons insist, "And they instantly turned
> > upright, grew big brains & started fashioning spears."
> > Yup.
> > They couldn't go near a savannah without it completely controlling
> > human evolution, transforming our species. Yet these same fools insists
> > that they were living along the coast, exploiting the sea for millennia and
> > that this could not have influenced our evolution in the least...

> The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.

The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
-ape=forest=climbing=QP
-human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.

(ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> C. H. Engelbrecht:

> > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.

> The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
>
> (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)

I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.

They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.

There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
continents, to each and every population of humans.

If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...

The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/652630910294016000

Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 06:10:06 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on .... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.

> > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)

> I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.

Yes, shortshightness.

> They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.

Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D

> There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> continents, to each and every population of humans.
> If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.

Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
google
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
google
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 2:10:54 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 06:10:06 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> > littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.
>
> > > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)
>
> > I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.
> Yes, shortshightness.
> > They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> > find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.
> Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D
> > There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> > dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> > know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> > us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> > continents, to each and every population of humans.
> > If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> > cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> > traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> > the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> > allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> > glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> > The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> > history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.
> Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
> google
> "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
>
> Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
> 1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
> 2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
> 3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
> google
> "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

Trinil was not coastal, could have been reached by trekking from W Africa.

mandag den 31. maj 2021 kl. 13.34.20 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 2:10:54 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 06:10:06 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> > > littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.
> >
> > > > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > > > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > > > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > > > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)
> >
> > > I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.
> > Yes, shortshightness.
> > > They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> > > find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.
> > Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D
> > > There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> > > dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> > > know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> > > us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> > > continents, to each and every population of humans.
> > > If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> > > cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> > > traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> > > the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> > > allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> > > glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> > > The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> > > history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.
> > Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
> > google
> > "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> >
> > Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
> > 1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
> > 2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
> > 3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
> > google
> > "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
> Trinil was not coastal, could have been reached by trekking from W Africa..

What, the Java Man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinil
"Trinil is a palaeoanthropological site on the banks of the Bengawan Solo River in Ngawi Regency, East Java Province, Indonesia."
"River"? As in "river"?

Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 13:34:20 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > > > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.
> > > > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > > > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > > > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > > > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)

> > > I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.

> > Yes, shortshightness.

> > > They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> > > find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.

> > Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D

> > > There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> > > dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> > > know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> > > us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> > > continents, to each and every population of humans.
> > > If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> > > cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> > > traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> > > the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> > > allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> > > glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> > > The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> > > history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.

> > Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
> > google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> > Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
> > 1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
> > 2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
> > 3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
> > google "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

> Trinil was not coastal, could have been reached by trekking from W Africa..

Yes, my little boy, that's what I'm saying.
Do you still believe the water around Flores was not salty?

"The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel."
- H. L. Mencken

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 8:11:20 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> mandag den 31. maj 2021 kl. 13.34.20 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 2:10:54 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 06:10:06 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> > > > littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > > > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.
> > >
> > > > > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > > > > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > > > > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > > > > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)
> > >
> > > > I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.
> > > Yes, shortshightness.
> > > > They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> > > > find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.
> > > Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D
> > > > There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> > > > dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> > > > know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> > > > us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> > > > continents, to each and every population of humans.
> > > > If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> > > > cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> > > > traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> > > > the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> > > > allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> > > > glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> > > > The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> > > > history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.
> > > Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
> > > google
> > > "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> > >
> > > Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
> > > 1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
> > > 2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
> > > 3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
> > > google
> > > "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
> > Trinil was not coastal, could have been reached by trekking from W Africa.
> What, the Java Man?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinil
> "Trinil is a palaeoanthropological site on the banks of the Bengawan Solo River in Ngawi Regency, East Java Province, Indonesia."
> "River"? As in "river"?
Yes, a small shallow stream in an inland forest. Not the Nile delta. Not the Mississippi delta. Just a small stream far inland.

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 13:34:20 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > > > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > > > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.
>
> > > > > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > > > > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > > > > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > > > > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)
>
> > > > I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.
>
> > > Yes, shortshightness.
>
> > > > They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> > > > find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.
>
> > > Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D
>
> > > > There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> > > > dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> > > > know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> > > > us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> > > > continents, to each and every population of humans.
> > > > If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> > > > cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> > > > traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> > > > the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> > > > allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> > > > glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> > > > The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> > > > history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.
>
> > > Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
> > > google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> > > Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
> > > 1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
> > > 2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
> > > 3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
> > > google "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
>
> > Trinil was not coastal, could have been reached by trekking from W Africa.
> Yes, my little boy, that's what I'm saying.
> Do you still believe the water around Flores was not salty?
Relevance??

tirsdag den 1. juni 2021 kl. 10.45.20 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 8:11:20 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
> > mandag den 31. maj 2021 kl. 13.34.20 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > > On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 2:10:54 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Op maandag 31 mei 2021 om 06:10:06 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
> > > > > littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > C. H. Engelbrecht:
> > > > > > > The whole grassland scenario is a 200 years old assumption based on ... nothing. It's some alternate version of the 19th century European quasi-racist gentleman's club concept, that we all descend from "white" ice age mammoth hunters on the Eurasian plains some 40kya. 'Cause that was the first scenario emerging European paleoanthropology studied in depth. Only reluctantly did they relocate human origin to the African continent, because Raymond Dart wouldn't shut up about that ape skull from South Africa, and they simply picked the African scenario most similar to the European one, they never really want to abandon as the cradle of humanity. Paleoanthropology just moved The Flintstones to Africa. That is the only reason the savannah hypothesis still exist.
> > > >
> > > > > > The grassland scenario is based on simplistic reasoning:
> > > > > > -ape=forest=climbing=QP
> > > > > > -human=plain=running=BP=sun=naked etc.
> > > > > > (ridiculous, of course, e.g. savanna baboons are more QP than forest baboons)
> > > >
> > > > > I always figured it has more to do with laziness & stupidity.
> > > > Yes, shortshightness.
> > > > > They look were it's convenient to look. Then, they assuming that whatever they
> > > > > find there is a representative sampling of our true ancestors.
> > > > Yes, anthropocentrism: they see everywhere human ancestors... :-D
> > > > > There's little or no reason to assume any of the inland populations that they've
> > > > > dug up are ancestral to a single living human being. At the same time we all
> > > > > know that it was the coastal population(s) which connected humanity, keeping
> > > > > us a single species. They were the conduit which DNA flowed between the
> > > > > continents, to each and every population of humans.
> > > > > If I may complicate things further: Our present ice age, it's glacial/interglacial
> > > > > cycle has acted as a pump. The glaciers grow, sea levels drop and groups
> > > > > traveled freely between continents, even to what are today islands. Then when
> > > > > the glaciers shrunk the seas rose, cutting populations off from each other,
> > > > > allowing them to adapt to their unique environments/conditions only for the
> > > > > glaciers to eventually grow again, starting the whole process all over again...
> > > > > The Quaternary Period, our present ice age, pretty much coincides with our the
> > > > > history of the genus Homo.... no coincidence there.
> > > > Yes, likely IMO, although I see it more in availability of certains foods during the Ice Ages that could +-easily be acquired by diving,
> > > > google
> > > > "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> > > >
> > > > Ape & human evolution in short IMO:
> > > > 1) Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal hominoids,
> > > > 2) early-Pleistocene shallow-diving Homo,
> > > > 3) late-Pleistocene wading-walking H.sapiens,
> > > > google
> > > > "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
> > > Trinil was not coastal, could have been reached by trekking from W Africa.
> > What, the Java Man?
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinil
> > "Trinil is a palaeoanthropological site on the banks of the Bengawan Solo River in Ngawi Regency, East Java Province, Indonesia."
> > "River"? As in "river"?
> Yes, a small shallow stream in an inland forest. Not the Nile delta. Not the Mississippi delta. Just a small stream far inland.

Uhuh.