|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:598a:0:b0:3ef:1c64:a9ff with SMTP id e10-20020ac8598a000000b003ef1c64a9ffmr7791324qte.10.1682498819590;
Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:404e:b0:18e:67eb:de7b with SMTP id
ky14-20020a056871404e00b0018e67ebde7bmr663851oab.2.1682498819309; Wed, 26 Apr
2023 01:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 01:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=22.214.171.124; posting-account=pysjKgkAAACLegAdYDFznkqjgx_7vlUK
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:46:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77225
On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 09:24:27 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...-at-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...
Show me what textbooks teach that our ancestors went into
savanna to chase antelopes? Or what you mean by spoon-feeding
generations? Demonstrate evidence of that. It is hypothesis ... not
very popular, used as straw-man. We have evidence that other
bipedal apes went extinct, were perhaps killed by h.sapiens, no
evidence that those were deep ones however. Rest of extant apes
use tools or carry big stuff only occasionally.
> > You typically use it as straw man.
> It's not a straw man. "Da bipedalism came in trees" is pretty new
> and idiotic.
It is Marcs favorite straw man. Idiotic ape that did run around
imagining being cheetah? Who advocates that idea that Marc keeps
bringing up? Lot of apes are idiots, but majority are smarter than that.
> > 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."
Yes, trees were common, lot of land was forests. So why these
features were supposedly vestigial (not in use)? What is the
reason to avoid trees not to climb a tree for to get some nuts,
fruits, baby birds or eggs? Is it because deep ones do not climb, these
have to dive? But the whole idea of deep ones is not supported
> > > 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?
What? I do read scientific articles these are not based on some kind
of fantasies about deep ones and mermaids like Marks garbage is.
> > > 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!"
Yep. I live in city but my brother lives near city in edge of forest. Has to
drive to workplace bit longer but is happy about it. What is so bad
about forest (if it exists)? Forest is IMHO good place. When your country's
imperialist philosophy needed charcoal for making lot of iron and steel
weaponry then you were taken it away. That was only recently, why you do
not read books?
> > > 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:
So eggs, birds, meat, seeds and nuts contain no DHA? Forest takes
indeed bit a brain to navigate in. Most forest animals are noticeably
smarter than most of those of plains or water. Unsure why you think
that forest inhibits brain development.
> Coastal dispersal.
Also nearby coast is useful, tidal forces can bring or help to trap lot
of useful things. But living on coast is hard, forest near coast is
lot better and safer. However all the evidence of deep ones and
swamp mermaids that Marc pushes is simply missing.
> 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.
It is present elsewhere. One who does not eat seafood and fish does
not get brain damage or development issues because of that. Also
fish is possible to catch, trap or spear without need to swim nor dive.
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list