Oops, the video of gibbons living on cliffs (I screwed it in the
previous post):
https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE

On 24.8.2021. 23:15, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 24.8.2021. 19:12, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am claiming that we ate shellfish, shellfish
>>>>> give you protein, but not energy.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't exclusively shellfish, I'm sure. Even Inuit (formerly
>>>> called Eskimos)
>>>> ate vegetable material when they could get it.
>>>>
>>>> And even if you are right, they probably ate everything in the
>>>> shellfish,
>>>> and didn't clean it out with multiple rinses like they do before
>>>> you are served shellfish in a restaurant, or even before you buy
>>>> them in a grocery store. Otherwise, I believe they would have gotten
>>>> any number of vitamin deficiency "diseases" like scurvy, or
>>>> beriberi, or pellagra.
>>
>>> Thanks, excellent suggestion.
>>> Yes, they were eating normal primate food, fruits and such, probably
>>> also eggs, plus they were eating shellfish.
>>
>> So maybe they did have a lot more energy than you do.
>>
>>
>>> We have thick enamel because shellfish (unrinsed) is full with sand.
>>>>> So, we probably did what we are doing
>>>>> on our vacation, laying down on the sun for whole day, :) .
>>>>
>>>> And sitting ducks for predators? No thanks.
>>> Actually, no.
>>> At first we were living on seaside cliffs. There, we were safe from
>>> predators. Take a look at those two videos. See, scientists don't
>>> understand what is going on. What is happening is that terrestrial
>>> predators aren't made to hunt in water:
>>> https://youtu.be/jSGikymKFlc?t=124
>>> https://youtu.be/vnClAxxL1j0?t=173
>>> Later we started to use fire. Cats need ambush, with fire you can burn
>>> low vegetation, so cats cannot hide, and they will not attack.
>>
>> You are beginning to be on topic for sci.bio.paleontology, but you
>> are badly in need of coming up with some plausible dating hypotheses
>> for all this.
>
>         By "dating hypotheses", do you think that I should put it in a
> time frame?
>         Well, I wrote about this a lot, also. But, to explain it, I
> should write a longer post. Here it is, and this is with some
> explanations of why I do think this is so. It is, mostly, comparative
> biology, or whatever.
>         First, why apes, why not in South America? South America is,
> actually, the initial state. Primates are smallish creatures, that live
> on trees, climb trees, over branch locomotion. Climbing doesn't like
> body size, the biggest primate can be the size of howler monkey, and he
> has big problems because of its size, this is why he is the loudest
> animal on Earth (because that way he doesn't have to move much). Also,
> branches at the tips are narrow, they don't hold big body weight.
>         Apes aren't of that type, apes are big primates.
>         So, why Africa? Because Popigai asteroid hit 35.7 mya (some say
> 33 mya) in Siberia.
>         Per my idea, this created tinning of the Earth's crust in a
> line that goes from Popigai crater, to its antipode point. The greatest
> tinning was at the half way. This half way point was somewhere in
> Tanzania, south of lake Victoria. This was a low land, back then, but
> since crust tinned there, the pressure from below started to bulb the
> are. This area started to rise and rise, like a bulb, until, finally, it
> didn't break up at the edges of the bulb. This is why we have today two
> arms of Grate Rift Valley, that go around "the bulb".
>         It isn't me who imagined this, this is how things did develop,
> per what the scientists claim. The only thing is that nobody before tied
> the Popigai impact to those events. Popigai happened immediately before
> this.
>         So, this bulb, along with the line (that was also thin) that
> goes from the bulb towards the Popigai crater, created rifting.
> "Rifting" is, actually, a myriad of completely vertical cliffs. Cliffs
> are safer sleeping places for primates, than trees, so, primates start
> to use those cliffs as safe sleeping places, just like baboons are using
> it today.
>         Also, this rifting allowed sunlight to reach ground above the
> cliffs. So primates didn't have to climb trees anymore, now they were
> living on cliffs, and they were eating plants that were on the ground,
> above cliffs. Or vines that were going over cliffs.
>         This is what created apes.
>         On this video you can see the process of rifting. You will see
> parallel rifts, stretching for hundreds of kilometers:
> https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=51
>         Here you can see a close up (something similar is also
> happening on Iceland):
> https://youtu.be/546Ov8uaLDI
>         Gee, I decided to put a lot of my selected videos here, these
> are the best for explaining things.
>         Now, few videos that will explain apes using cliffs as their
> preferred sleeping sites.
>         Here you will see baboons using cave cliffs as a sleeping site.
> Although it is pitch-dark, they still prefer this over trees:
> https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA
>         Here you can see Hamadryas baboons using cliffs for sleeping.
> Also, you can see how a primate climbs on cliffs. They say that slow,
> deliberate, overhead climbing was the mode of locomotion of early apes.
> You can see exactly that on this video, but here it is the descent, not
> ascent (only the first 2:50 of the video is important):
> https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY
>         On this video you will see advanced, big body, cliff climbing.
> This isn't an ape (it is a bear), but you can clearly see how human body
> plan evolved (with our adduction/abduction abilities, shallow chest,
> flexible wrists, big toe used for toe off). Mind you, if you climb
> branches overhead, your fingers turn into hooks, and get longer. Miocene
> apes had short fingers, they climbed cliffs, not branches:
> https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM
>         Mind you, although all this cliff climbing looks so hard for
> those animals, it is a piece of cake for humans. This (and only this) is
> where humans are advantageous compared to other animals:
> https://youtu.be/Wy3SuhEQHVg
>         The collision with Euroasia created triple rift system, with
> Red Sea Rift, and Gulf of Aden Rift being the other two hands of this
> triple rift system.
>         Now, it turned out that those two happen to be flooded by sea.
> So we had cliffs, with apes on them, but below we had sea, with a lot of
> food, accessible to somebody who has hands (like otters, or apes). This
> is what is happening when baboons live by the sea:
> https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
>         Regarding further time framing, we should look at gibbons.
> Gibbons were the first who moved out of Africa to Euroasia. What were
> apes in the time of gibbons? Still not going into sea, just living on
> cliffs. This is how that looked like:
> https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88
>         Whether they exploited shellfish by then, we should know by the
> state of their enamel. Ancient apes had thick enamel. Thick enamel you
> get by the way of abrasion. Abrasion comes from food. I would suggest
> that sand in shellfish would create this abrasion.
>         So, thick enameled apes are the ones who ate shellfish.
>         You can see in the last video that baboons have to wait for low
> tide. Why? Why they don't reach those shark eggs at high tide? Because,
> in that case they would need to go into sea with their bodies. The
> problem isn't to wet your fur, the problem arises when sea vapors off,
> and leaves salt crystals. Those crystals are sharp, and they damage fur.
> A land otter doesn't go into sea unless there is a pool of fresh water
> nearby. To wash themselves off. Polar bear rolls in snow after exiting
> sea. If you soak otter five times in sea water, then otter will show
> signs of hypothermia. Furred animals don't like to go into sea.
>         But, take a look at that, great apes all lack underfur. It
> looks like they first lost fur, and then they got it back again. I
> presume that great apes once went into sea to get shellfish. They didn't
> dive for shellfish, though. I presume that we were still quadruped when
> we lost our fur, since we have our pubic hair on the place where you
> would expect hair to remain if we are quadrupeds (just like underarm
> hair, between body and arms, we also have hair between legs).
>         So, at that stage we were all great apes, with short fingers,
> and we lost body hair. But, great apes already separated onto two
> branches, klinorhynchy facial morphology (African apes plus humans), and
> airorhynch facial morphology (orangutans). I have a perfect place for
> that to happen. Since we are talking about the angle at which face is
> rolled, and since apes should expect predators to come from the
> direction of sun (eagles), the two distinctive morphologies can evolve
> if their position in relation to sun is different. And this happens at
> the shores of Red Sea. There you can have spatially separated seaside
> cliffs living apes, one on Arabian side (orangutan, gigantopithecus,
> sivapithecus), and one on African side (European and African Miocene apes).
>         So, this separation should be in the time before Great Apes
> moved into Euroasia (so, before 17 mya).
>         Later one of the apes started to use marine resources more (I
> also have a detailed scenario which explains this line of events),
> humans. We started to dive, so we evolved external nose, and we evolved
> subcutaneous fat thermal protection. We conquered shores, and expelled
> other apes inland.
>         OK, enough for now, :) .
>
>>> Cowboys in pampas had problems with jaguars, jaguars were attacking
>>> their cattle. Then they figured out how to solve the problem. It is
>>> enough to move your cattle 200 meters away from jungle, and jaguars will
>>> not attack.
>>
>>
>> <huge snip here of things I will talk about in a later post, perhaps
>> only tomorrow>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> I even don't follow paleoanthropology, lately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can relate to that. When Trump was impeached, I was really
>>>>>> bothered by the wildly conflicting narratives
>>>>>> that the majority of Republicans and practically all the Democrats
>>>>>> in Congress were sticking to.
>>>>>> When it turned out that first the House and then the Senate hardly
>>>>>> had anyone addressing the
>>>>>> allegations of the other side, and almost no witnesses were
>>>>>> called, I knew the USA was in for a lot of trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both the impeachment by the House and the trial in the Senate were
>>>>>> mere formalities,
>>>>>> and both rushed to a vote that was almost all along party lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't return to talk.origins or sci.bio.paleontology for over
>>>>>> two months, because I wanted
>>>>>> to get a good feel for how people with a wide range of outlooks
>>>>>> thought of these
>>>>>> events and of many other issues. The pandemic was a major source
>>>>>> of conflicting
>>>>>> narratives. There were some really toxic, pseudoscientific stories
>>>>>> about what the mRNA vaccines
>>>>>> could do to you, and I persisted until I found out the truth about
>>>>>> them. As a result,
>>>>>> I gladly took the Pfizer vaccine: first dose February 1, second
>>>>>> February 22.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Peter, for the encouraging words. I am strongly against
>>>>> vaccination, for sure I will never do it, :) .
>>
>> I wonder whether Harshman thought your smiley meant you were kidding,
>> with
>> his one word response "Seriously?" in response to what I wrote next:
>
>         I presume that Harshman doesn't take seriously anybody who
> doesn't think in a way that isn't broadly accepted.
>
>>>> I'm not 100% sure you are wrong, but I do hope you are not avoiding
>>>> it for the wrong reasons.
>>
>>> The reason is exactly the same why you are running. You are running
>>> not to atrophy. If vaccination is fighting viruses, our defense
>>> mechanism will atrophy.
>>
>> Correction: those of our descendants will atrophy, because we weren't
>> weeded out for our lack of immunity to this or that potentially deadly
>> disease.
>>
>> This is so elementary, so much in line with Darwin's theory,
>> that I grasped it at the age of 14. I figured we were
>> creating a biological time bomb for us, to explode maybe ten centuries
>> later,
>>   by our compassionate attitude towards people with all kinds of "unfit"
>> defense mechanisms.
>>
>> Just look at how "compassionate" governments all over the world are
>> in response to the pandemic. Among the most extreme are Victoria,
>> Australia, where
>> Covid-19 deaths are still among the lowest in the world, but where the
>> leaders are so "compassionate" that the state has been in lockdown
>> more often than not this year. The government seemingly cannot bear
>> the thought
>> of a tiny percentage of their population dying because they aren't
>> vaccinated.
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have suffered so much that about 4,000
>> defied lockdown just the other day, and demonstrated against the mess
>> the government has made of their everyday lives. Over 200 were arrested,
>> and some face fines up to US$3000 for "resisting arrest".
>>
>>
>>> Our defense mechanism is the only thing that
>>> keeps us alive.
>>
>> AND, for untold millions of us, the vaccinations that are mandatory
>> for infants. Diphtheria
>> was a great killer before a vaccine was developed. And so was polio,
>> which maimed millions that it didn't kill outright. Covid may evolve
>> to be like that.
>>
>> Face it, Mario: we have been thwarting natural selection for centuries,
>> and we seem to be stuck in a downward spiral from which there is no
>> escape.
>>
>>
>>> Of course, it doesn't matter in my case, because I am old, I will not
>>> have descendants. But never the less, I want to give a support to anyone
>>> who wants to keep our defense mechanism in shape.
>>> A lot of people say that jab saves lives. It is true, without jab 50 %
>>> of people would die. With jab, 100 % of people will die, but not
>>> tomorrow, maybe in 500 years, maybe in 1,000 years, maybe in 2,000
>>> years, but *for sure* we all will die.
>>
>> I would *love* it if I could live for 2000 or even 200 years, but even
>> the
>> latter seems out of reach in this century and the next for anyone.
>> And I do hate the thought that I might not make it to be 100:
>> there is so much that I want to know and see and do before I die.
>>
>>
>>> Of course, science doesn't see this, science looks only in front of
>>> its nose, 2,000 years from now is too far for science to see what will
>>> happen.
>>
>> Anyway, it's nice to see that you are broaching a topic which I
>> consider to be on-topic
>> for sci.bio.paleontology. The reason is that sci.bio.evolution, which
>> is the
>> natural place for this kind of talk, has been extinct for over half a
>> dozen years.
>> It was a moderated newsgroup, and it died of boredom before I discovered
>> a way it might have been revived.
>>
>> These last few years I have treated sci.bio.paleontology as a
>> "sci.bio.evolution in exile",
>> just as I treat it as a "talk.origins in exile" on the occasions where
>> "Beagle," the
>> robo-moderator of talk.origins, is down.
>>
>>
>> And now, for the first time on this thread, I feel we are sufficiently
>> on topic for me
>> to do one of my four-line virtual .sigs that let anyone know that
>> there is some
>> good on-topic material that I've added to the post.
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics   -- standard disclaimer--
>> University of South Carolina
>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
>         Well, I enjoyed reading this. But, I want to point you to one
> thing that everybody already forgot, regarding Covid-19.
>         When Covid-19 started to emerge the reports were like this,
> Covid-19 *shouldn't be* a serious threat, it is just a *mild* virus. The
> problem *this time*, is in our defense mechanism, which is not
> responding accordingly to this *mild* virus. In the case of Covid-19, it
> is not the virus that kills us, it is, actually, our defense mechanism
> that is killing us, because it already doesn't work like it should, it
> doesn't respond, anymore, like it should. I mean, we are vaccinating our
> babies for, maybe, 60 years, and this already screwed our defense
> mechanism so much.
>         Imagine if you are driving your car. Then turn comes, and you
> start to turn your wheel. And you know by how much, exactly. But then
> your passenger starts to help you with turning the wheel. Well, OK. The
> only problem is, this passenger doesn't know what he is doing. But, OK,
> every turn it comes, you get a help from passenger. But now, the turn
> comes, and passenger doesn't respond to this turn. And now you are all
> confused, you cannot determine, anymore, how much input you will do. If
> you do like you are used to do so far (when your passenger helped you),
> it'll be too little. Now, when you realize that, it is already too late,
> now you have to put a lot more. But, this "lot more" can be too much.
>         This is what we are doing to our dense mechanism.
>

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