|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1a0b:b0:758:95df:7459 with SMTP id bk11-20020a05620a1a0b00b0075895df7459mr1421059qkb.13.1683809247583;
Thu, 11 May 2023 05:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1386:b0:6ac:2725:c4a3 with SMTP id
d6-20020a056830138600b006ac2725c4a3mr292465otq.1.1683809247124; Thu, 11 May
2023 05:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=18.104.22.168; posting-account=pysjKgkAAACLegAdYDFznkqjgx_7vlUK
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 12:47:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77286
On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 14:40:13 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
As example of non-discussion.
> Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...-at-hot.ee:
> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:=20
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors=20
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??=20
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??=20
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???=20
> > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
> It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.
What is PA? One can improve obfuscation of TLA about 40 times by=20
"improving" it to "two letter abbreviation".=20
I do not see (despite searching) and you do not provide any evidence of
savanna hypothesis popularity. The lot simpler reasons of bipedality=20
is improved tool/weapon/armor carrying and usage convenience ... but
from obvious arguments you snip and run away.
> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well=20
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> Of course: google "aquarboreal"!
That is self-referencing spam. Go dive into some tropic swamp then tell
us if it was good idea on case you manage to survive.
> > > 4) had australopithecine ancestors??=20
> > And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.
> Yes, of course:=20
There is point to wade only when carrying something. Otherwise swimming
is lot more energy efficient. But same is about bipedal movement in any
environment. Our ancestors possibly did wade as occasionally as humans
> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:=20
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),=20
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,=20
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical =
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought=20
> > more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among=20
> > people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,=20
> > geocentrists and deep one worshipers.
Zero links to proof of popularity of savanna hypothesis. That is your
false dichotomy straw man argument. But limitless number of kooks can
be wrong about same thing, each in its own way and so there are no
> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that=20
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,=20
> > Where you concluded that we left forests?
> Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.
Still no idea what is your PA, and still no evidence besides some
kind of hostile stance towards that PA. Whatever PA can not add
any evidence that you do not have to you. Something happened,
rest of limitless possibilities did not. What happened happened
anyway in past and past is outside of sphere of influence of kooks.
> > Why? Forest is full=20
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to=20
> > trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all=20
> > forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.
> Lots of trees in my garden...
Attempt to dodge with joke ... agriculture is likely only about 30K years
old so references to it are irrelevant. Benefit of forest for hunter and
gatherer however was left undiscussed.
> > > 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),=20
> > > 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,=20
> > Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had=20
> > capability to climb?
> I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.
So you have no idea about that PA but still claim it. What is the point?=20
> > > 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are =E2=80=9Chominin=E2=80=9D (a=
nthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils=E2=80=A6??).=20
> > > But=20
> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=3Dvertical waders-climber=
s in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,=20
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that=20
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place=20
> > where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell=20
> > that crow did dive.
> You're still confusing=20
> - Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,=20
> - early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.
Genetic evidence shows that we are farther from orangutans and
gibbons than from African apes. There are no fossils or tool findings of
your early Pliocene aquatic ape in Asia. There are enough fossils
and tool findings of non-aquatic ape in Africa from that time. By late
Pliocene however our tool using ancestors were all over the place.
So everybody conclude that these came out of Africa and spread
during late Pliocene. You never discuss that. What have few seashells
from early Pleistocene Java to do with any of it? Untold explanation
of yours. I repeat, even crow can find seashells there.
> > > 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & po=
ngids still live in SE.Asia),=20
> > > 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatom=
y, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),=20
> > > 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble =
Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).=20
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-t=
> > > Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long =
legs=E2=80=A6) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms o=
> > > Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:=20
> > > c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels =3D coastal =
> > > c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + c=
limbing arms overhead =3D aquarboreal Hominoidea.=20
> > > c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=3D=
great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W=
> > > c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & homin=
id-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forest=
> > > c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanth=
ropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.=20
> > > c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused=
by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):=20
> > > =E2=80=93 Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaa=
l -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes=
> > > =E2=80=93 Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erect=
us -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shel=
> > > mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.=20
> > > Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravin=
gs, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),=20
> > > but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? =
mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?=20
> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried=20
> > these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn =
> > into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so mos=
> > animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go fi=
> > seashells in swamp. Good luck.
> You're still confusing=20
> - Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,=20
> - early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.=20
> aqua=3Dwater, arbor=3Dtree
Lot of animals can swim noticeable distances when needed and that does
not make them aquatic enough to be worth mentioning. We find lot of
h.erectus tools in non-coastal locations. Who carried those there and
why? So tell us story of your version of Pliocene that fits with evidence.
Do not run away with insults.
> > The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep=20
> > divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep divin=
> ?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??=20
> ?? *deep*divers??
I do not know who is sponsoring that savanna hypothesis. You never identify
them. You only use it as false dichotomy with your swamp ape.
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list