On 23.4.2022. 5:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:48:56 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 23.4.2022. 1:01, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 23.4.2022. 0:13, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 22.4.2022. 22:21, Paul Crowley wrote:
>>>>> On Friday 22 April 2022 at 11:58:16 UTC+1, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm saying that they must have dug down
>>>>>>> to the fresh-water table. The closer to the
>>>>>>> sea, and the lower the elevation, the less
>>>>>>> they had to dig. In many places they could
>>>>>>> find soft sandy soil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By that time people already had stone tools. Hand axe was used for
>>>>>> digging (says me).
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hand-axes" varied enormously in size. They
>>>>> are found in vast quantities in water-courses
>>>>> nearly always with sharp edges, showing
>>>>> that they had not been used for any kind
>>>>> of rough handling.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/MartaMLahr/status/1513573362160840704
>>>>
>>>> Humans vary in size, too. From little children to strong
>>>> adults. Digging soil is about the least rough thing a tool can do.
>>>>
>>>>>> But, this time period isn't a problem, people evolved before that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But IMO they didn't change their
>>>>> core niche --- which was coastal. They were
>>>>> often on off-shore islands (the only way to
>>>>> avoid predation on their slow-growing
>>>>> children).
>>>>
>>>> How many times do I have to tell you, humans don't have
>>>> predators in sea. Sharks don't eat terrestrial flesh, salty crocodiles
>>>> need to live near fresh water (for breading). Terrestrial predators
>>>> are useless in water (except sabre toothed cats, of course, but I
>>>> wouldn't say that they are adapted to sea). The only predators should
>>>> be raptor birds. We had hyraxes to warn us about them (the alarm call
>>>> of hyraxes is about the most scary sound to humans). We also have
>>>> prominent brow ridges and eyebrows which help us looking at the sun
>>>> (those birds attack from the direction of sun), just like hyraxes have
>>>> eyes adapted to look at the sun. Plus, those birds nestle on cliffs,
>>>> and we are experts in climbing cliffs, our young men are brave, and
>>>> they prove their bravery by climbing up on the cliff, destroying
>>>> raptor bird's nest, and coming back with a feather of a raptor bird in
>>>> their hair.
>>>>
>>>>>> You know, Australopithecus is already evolved biped.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, as you should know, we had completely evolved biped on Crete,
>>>>>> 5.7 mya. And human-like fossils going back all the way to 9.6 mya
>>>>>> (Ouranopithecus).
>>>>>
>>>>> Dubiously bipedal, Very unlikely to be ancestral.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the higher the mountain, the bigger the chance that spring will
>>>>>> be above sea level.
>>>>>> The second thing, the bigger the precipitation, the bigger the chance
>>>>>> to have fresh water everywhere.
>>>>>> Third thing, the higher the temp, the bigger the precipitation.
>>>>>> Are you following me?
>>>>>
>>>>> For the past 2.6 Myr, coasts have usually been
>>>>> a long way from mountains -- and even cliffs.
>>>>> Take a look at a map of the Adriatic in an
>>>>> ice-age. If any hominins lived on cliffs, they
>>>>> would have had difficulty getting salt, and
>>>>> would not have evolved sweating (or they
>>>>> would have lost the capacity to sweat if
>>>>> they had it to start with).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1040618220306285-gr1.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Of course they didn't live at the Adriatic sea at that time.
>>>> But to claim that there were no places to live would be too much.
>>>> Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, of course there were a lot of rocky
>>>> coasts back then.
>>>
>>> And regarding Ouranopithecus, it is *very* similar to
>>> Graecopithecus, which is in our ancestral line:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils#Late_Miocene_(7.2%E2%80%935.5_million_years_old)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus#Re-examination_and_reinterpretation
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, Ouranopithecus lived in the same ecological
>>> niche as Graecopithecus, this niche is different than ape niche, and,
>>> out of all apes, liveable only for humans. This is niche of
>>> "impoverished" ecology, completely unsuitable for other apes, which need
>>> very rich ecology. It isn't strange that it is *very* similar to
>>> Graecopithecus, although placed in separate taxon. The placement in
>>> separate taxon doesn't exclude similarity. Plus, it is placed in
>>> separate taxon only after the emergence of Trachilos footprints. So,
>>> there was a strong pressure to place it in different taxon, since
>>> Trachilos footprints undoubtedly place Graecopithecus into our taxon
>>> (which means, after Homo-chimp split), and if Ouranopithecus is the same
>>> as Gaecopithecus, then Homo-chimp split would be much earlier than the
>>> popular genetic clock suggests, so, the separation of Graecopithecus
>>> from Ouranopithecus *obviously* was a forced one, one of doubtful
>>> motives (the motive, obviously, was to not place Homo-chimp split too
>>> early, :), which is shameful, just as a lot of things in this science is
>>> also shameful, nothing new).
>> And also, the "impoverished" environment of Ouranopithecus and
>> Graecopithecus was created after "Vallesian crisis", 9.6 mya, by the way
>> of fire, at exactly the same places Graecopithecus and Ouranopithecus
>> were found. And, look at that, humans are the prime users of fire. Now,
>> who would say so?
>> Also, the question is, why then, why 9.6 mya? Why not 150 mya, why not
>> 140 mya, why not 40 mya, why not 35 mya, why not 25 mya, why not 265
>> mya? So, why we have it 9.6 mya? What's wrong with 9.6 mya? Up till then
>> the whole world was forested, so why 9.6 mya? And humans are the prime
>> users of fire, and deforestation was made by the way of fire, and ...,
>> and ...
>> So, the real question here is how no human scientist can make a
>> connection here, this is the *real* question. He doesn't even have to
>> claim that this was because of humans, but, for sure, he has to say that
>> there is a strong possibility that it could be humans. But no, I see no
>> references anywhere, anywhen, by anybody. Not even close to that.
>> So, the actual question is, not what's wrong with 9.6 mya, but what's
>> wrong with those bloody *stupid* humans, who think that they are the
>> smartest things in the Universe.
>
> Unlike previous analyses, which observed an abrupt extinction at the Lower/Upper Vallesian boundary, our results show that this pattern actually results from uneven sampling. We rather propose a slow decrease in taxonomic richness from the Upper Vallesian, the consequence of a series of extinctions affecting, in priority, forest species.

Exactly. It wasn't one geological, or climatic event, that caused
global change, it is the fact that humans started to burn forest, more
and more, not all forest at the same time, but gradually.
For this you need to be bipedal, and you need to be able to use fire.
So both of those happened earlier. So, the split from chimps was much
earlier, and, of course, this split happened in Africa.
So, our ancestors split from chimps in Africa, went to Europe
(northern coast of Africa is less likely, since it isn't a rocky coast),
went all the way to Portugal, along a shore. There (in Portugal) they
met Mediterranean ecology, a pyrophytic ecology, and learnt about the
benefits of fire. Of course, initially the benefits were strictly for
safety reasons. But soon they found out that burning is additional
source of meat. Well, that's good, but we are talking about coastal
species. Then they, very gradually, started to move away from the coast,
burning more and more, burning and eating other species, particularly
other apes, which lived on trees, and which weren't able to easily move
from tree to tree (just like orangutan cannot). But there were other
"burnable" species as well, like piglets (who are living in nests).
So, some of us moved away from the coast, those became
Australopithecuses. Our direct ancestors stayed at the coast, where they
perfected language (coastline living is good for developing language),
until our language became so good that we were able to manufacture
tools. At that time we (Homo) also moved away from coastline, and
replaced Australopithecuses there.
But, even before all this, before the use of fire, before reaching
Portugal, another split happened. This was the split between adducted
big toe, and abducted big toe species. You know, in the beginning we
were rocky coast species, eating shellfish on rocky coast. But, there
are shellfish on shallow coasts, as well. So, some of us ate shellfish
on shallow coast. But, you cannot use cliffs as a safe sleeping place on
those coasts, since there are no cliffs. So, you have to use trees. So,
this is where abducted big toe emerged. So, out of this branch emerged
Oreopithecus and Ardipithecus. Those didn't use fire, since fire use
isn't beneficial if you are living on trees, you burn your own house.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com