|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5908:0:b0:5ef:5ec2:3ddd with SMTP id ez8-20020ad45908000000b005ef5ec23dddmr3748484qvb.5.1682490266590;
Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:efd7:0:b0:38e:19e0:8866 with SMTP id
n206-20020acaefd7000000b0038e19e08866mr5515375oih.2.1682490266256; Tue, 25
Apr 2023 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 23:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:192:4c7f:4ba0:d969:d2c9:d465:9a09;
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:24:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77224
> 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
> Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
Is there any reason to believe this should not be the case?
You clearly believe in Intelligent Design. Clearly. If you didn't, the
fact that traits can be vestigial or even adapted virtually as is to
a new role is hardly new or even noteworthy.
The good Doctor sees this as evidence for "Aquaboreal," I see it as
evidence for an animal existing in number of environments... the
forest where such traits are very useful, outside the forests where
bipedalism was most useful.
There's very strong evidence for this, btw. If you want to talk
"Popular," the idea that australopithecus occupied a wide range,
a number of environments is "Popular."
> > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
> Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> more than hundred years ago.
Are you insane? That is NOT what you just quoted and are reacting to.
Is it a straw man or are you insane?
> > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
> Where you concluded that we left forests? Why? Forest is full
> of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> trap or ambush.
"No! We live in the forest! We're an arboreal species! You just
think we're not cus you live in a country without forests!"
> > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
> Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java.
Actually, there's also the fact that Java isn't in Africa. Just saying.
I'm not a fan of the good Doctor's Aquaboreal. I'm not complaining
about his observations -- those are real enough, unlike the crap you
keep imagining. I just think there are better explanations.
> Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid
Speaking of stupid: The forest is not an environment where the
evolution of our brain could happen. We're dependent upon DHA
and you can't get it there. But Homo is found everywhere from
southeast Asia to South Africa, so clearly they were moving around.
And everyone agrees on HOW they moved around:
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...
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list