The demise of the giant ape Gigantopithecus blacki

[Primum Sapienti]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06900-0.pdf
10 January 2024

Abstract
The largest ever primate and one of the largest of
the southeast Asian megafauna, Gigantopithecus
blacki1, persisted in China from about 2.0 million
years until the late middle Pleistocene when it
became extinct2,3,4. Its demise is enigmatic
considering that it was one of the few Asian great
apes to go extinct in the last 2.6 million years,
whereas others, including orangutan, survived
until the present5. The cause of the disappearance
of G. blacki remains unresolved but could shed
light on primate resilience and the fate of
megafauna in this region6. Here we applied three
multidisciplinary analyses—timing, past
environments and behaviour—to 22 caves in southern
China. We used 157 radiometric ages from six dating
techniques to establish a timeline for the demise
of G. blacki. We show that from 2.3 million years
ago the environment was a mosaic of forests and
grasses, providing ideal conditions for thriving
G. blacki populations. However, just before and
during the extinction window between 295,000 and
215,000  years ago there was enhanced environmental
variability from increased seasonality, which
caused changes in plant communities and an increase
in open forest environments. Although its close
relative Pongo weidenreichi managed to adapt its
dietary preferences and behaviour to this
variability, G. blacki showed signs of chronic
stress and dwindling populations. Ultimately its
struggle to adapt led to the extinction of the
greatest primate to ever inhabit the Earth.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

It's not science. It's propaganda.

The "Cite" is literally saying nothing. "Gee, they're dead and
we don't know why."

Read your own cite. It went extinct between 200 and 300
thousand years ago, but the current ice age with this
glacial/interglacial cycle began significantly earlier. So
if Kwimate Cha-Ching ("Hand me another research grant!")
killed them off, why not hundreds of thousands of years
earlier?

The 2.6 million year span they mention? That is the
conventional start of this Quaternary Period: 2.6
million years ago.

But it's literally not telling you anything: "We don't know
why it went extinct, KWIMATE CHA-CHING!"

Here:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016

One had tools and smarts. The other went extinct.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/738875614392680448

[Marc Verhaegen]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
It's not science. It's propaganda.
The "Cite" is literally saying nothing. "Gee, they're dead and
we don't know why."
Read your own cite. It went extinct between 200 and 300
thousand years ago, but the current ice age with this
glacial/interglacial cycle began significantly earlier. So
if Kwimate Cha-Ching ("Hand me another research grant!")
killed them off, why not hundreds of 1000s of years earlier?
The 2.6 million year span they mention? That is the
conventional start of this Quaternary Period: 2.6 Ma.
But it's literally not telling you anything: "We don't know
why it went extinct, KWIMATE CHA-CHING!"
Here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
One had tools and smarts. The other went extinct.

Yes, they say it themselves:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06900-0.pdf
"The cause of the disappearance of G.blacki remains unresolved".

But I wonder: was Gi.blacki cf.very large size still aquarboreal?
semi-aquatic? swimming? diving?? diet of aquatic plants??

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
It's not science. It's propaganda.
The "Cite" is literally saying nothing. "Gee, they're dead and
we don't know why."
Read your own cite. It went extinct between 200 and 300
thousand years ago, but the current ice age with this
glacial/interglacial cycle began significantly earlier. So
if Kwimate Cha-Ching ("Hand me another research grant!")
killed them off, why not hundreds of 1000s of years earlier?
The 2.6 million year span they mention? That is the
conventional start of this Quaternary Period: 2.6 Ma.
But it's literally not telling you anything: "We don't know
why it went extinct, KWIMATE CHA-CHING!"
Here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
One had tools and smarts. The other went extinct.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06900-0.pdf
"The cause of the disappearance of G.blacki remains unresolved".

How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.

". We used 157 radiometric ages from six dating
techniques to establish a timeline for the demise
of G. blacki. We show that from 2.3 million years
ago the environment was a mosaic of forests and
grasses, providing ideal conditions for thriving
G. blacki populations. However, just before and
during the extinction window between 295,000 and
215,000  years ago there was enhanced environmental
variability from increased seasonality, which
caused changes in plant communities and an increase
in open forest environments."


"By about 300 ka there is evidence of a struggling
G. blacki population as the number of G. blacki
caves and teeth reduced (Fig. 3c), indicating a
dwindling population. The stark change in the
teeth banding of G. blacki indicates chronic stress
in the population (Fig. 2d(iv)–(v)) and changes
from its preferred dietary behaviour (Fig. 2c and
Extended Data Fig. 10f,g) indicate that G. blacki
was struggling to respond to the environmental
changes on a potentially shrinking territory20.
It would seem that its forest refugia changed its
structure and became too open and disturbed for
this species to sustain itself."

A nicely laid out case.

Can you or your film school acolyte tell us precisely
why and how other species died out? Say, Brontops?
Cynognathus? No?

Perhaps you are jealous at the depth and extent
of their analysis. All you have is snorkel noses...

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Post by Primum Sapienti
How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.

But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.
It's above your reading level but give it a try:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf

And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.

Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!

And here you go, again:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016

There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740591652167663616

[Marc Verhaegen]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Primum Sapienti
How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.> But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?
You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM

Anthropology without waterside adaptations = geology without plate tectonics.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Post by Marc Verhaegen
We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM

Sometimes I have this dream where the idiots defending
the status quo aren't serious. They realize that the good
Doctor has valid points. Maybe they just disagree with you
on the details and NOT on the overall point of Aquatic Ape.
But they can't admit it, not without jeopardizing publication,
grants and of course academic status.

Let's face it: Aquatic Ape is right. We're just arguing over
the nitty gritty... the details.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740429495655432192

[Marc Verhaegen]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Marc Verhaegen
We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM

Sometimes I have this dream where the idiots defending
the status quo aren't serious. They realize that the good
Doctor has valid points. Maybe they just disagree with you
on the details and NOT on the overall point of Aquatic Ape.
But they can't admit it, not without jeopardizing publication,
grants and of course academic status.
Let's face it: Aquatic Ape is right. We're just arguing over
the nitty gritty... the details.

Yes, but the details are often most interesting... :-)
Why do hylobatids have unexpectedly long gestation?
Why do we have a philtrum in our upper lip?
Etc.etc.

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Marc Verhaegen
We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM

Sometimes I have this dream where the idiots defending
the status quo aren't serious. They realize that the good
Doctor has valid points. Maybe they just disagree with you
on the details and NOT on the overall point of Aquatic Ape.
But they can't admit it, not without jeopardizing publication,
grants and of course academic status.
Let's face it: Aquatic Ape is right. We're just arguing over
the nitty gritty... the details.

Let's face it - aa attracts people like you who believe in
space aliens and Nostra-dumbass and creationism

Go back to film school.

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
Let's face it

You worship Out of Africa purity & savanna retardation. I don't
think there's much, if anything, you could face.

Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks
agree with it. It's how they say humanity spread. A few
claim that it has been confirmed with finds along the
Arabian peninsular. Of course, our ancestors were already
in China more than 2 million years ago. The retrovirus
evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741817533268656128

[Marc Verhaegen]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks
agree with it. It's how they say humanity spread. A few
claim that it has been confirmed with finds along the
Arabian peninsular. Of course, our ancestors were already
in China more than 2 million years ago. The retrovirus
evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation.

Yes, at least.
What happened is not so difficult if we use comparative anatomy + (very incomplete) fossil evidence:
Hominoidea ("apes"): large size, very long arms, complete tail loss, vertical & centrally-placed spine, shortened lumbar spine, very wide pelvis & thorax + sternum (Hominoidea=Latisternalia):
IOW, early-Miocene, possibly late-Oligocene Hominoidea were already upright: bipedally wading + climbing arms overhead in coastal forests.
This is clear for everybody with a *little* bit of anatomical insight.

Where did this happen?
My *hypothesis* :-) cf plate tectonics!
When Afro-Arabia approached Eurasia, this formed island archipels + plenty of coastal forests:
Catarrhini that reached these islands became fully "aquarboreal" (google!!):
- hylobatids (different branches?) first reached S.Asia --> SE.Asia,
- when Arabia reached Eurasia, this splt the Tethys Ocean in
E: Indian Ocean coastal forests->inland along rivers...: pongids-sivapiths,
W: Medit.Sea coastal forests->inland along rivers...: hominids-dryopiths.
This explains Trachilos BP footprints, Oreopith "swamp ape" etc.etc.
Hominids s.s.(HPG) only survived in the incipient Red Sea:
--Gorilla 8-7 Ma followed the incipient N-Rift -> Afar: Lucy cs,
--when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf/Aden (5.3 Ma? Zanclean mega-flood),
Pan turned right -> E.Afr.coastal forests -> incipient S-Rift -> Transvaal: Taung cs,
Homo turned left -> H.erectus early-Pleist.Java->China, Flores etc.: Pleist.coastal dispersal Old World.
This explains:
- no Pliocene African retroviral DNA in humans,
- parallel evolution Gorilla//Pan = Praeanthropus//Australopithecus:
--late-Pliocene "gracile" afarensis//africanus,
--early-Pleist. "robust" boisei//robustus,
--Pleist.(cool+dry) knuckle-walking Gorilla//Pan.

Simple, no?
Even imbecilic kudu runners can understand this?? :-DDD

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
Let's face it

You worship Out of Africa purity & savanna retardation. I don't

You worship mv. Get help.

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
think there's much, if anything, you could face.
Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks

It's quackology. Along with your space aliens and
Nostradamus Nonsense.

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
agree with it. It's how they say humanity spread. A few

We live on land and traveled on land. Ancestors did not swim
around the world.

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
claim that it has been confirmed with finds along the
Arabian peninsular. Of course, our ancestors were already
in China more than 2 million years ago. The retrovirus

Well inland. erectus finds in South Africa in the same
time frame


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
3 Apr 2020

Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
and early Homo erectus in South Africa

"The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with
Homo erectus, whereas the DNH 152 cranium represents
P. robustus. Stratigraphic analysis of the Drimolen
Main Quarry deposits indicates that unlike many
other South African sites, there was only one major
phase of relatively short deposition between ~2.04
million years ago and ~1.95 million years ago. ...
The DNH 134 cranium shares affinities with H.
erectus and predates all known specimens in that
species."

"The DNH 134 Homo cranium has affinities with H.
erectus and extends the species’ temporal range
by ~200,000 to 150,000 years. DNH 134 being older
than A. sediba complicates the likelihood of this
species being ancestral to Homo in South Africa,
as previously suggested. With the oldest occurrence
of H. erectus at the southern tip of Africa, this
argues against a suggested Asian origin for H.
erectus."

"We interpret the occurrence of Homo aff. erectus
at this time in South Africa, and soon after at
Dmanisi (73), as evidence for a major range
expansion of this species (covering at least 8000
km) both out of and within Africa around 2.0 to
1.8 Ma ago."

Ancestors went east later

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation

What evidence is that?

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Post by Primum Sapienti
You worship mv. Get help.

I came to Aquatic Ape quite independently to him, through
MultiRegionalism.

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
Aquatic Ape is necessary. Even Out of Africa purity freaks

It's quackology.

Out of Africa purity? Of course! Pure rubbish. It's pseudo
scientific excrement. For starters, the "African" population
isn't a separate species at all. Much of the "African" DNA
arrived in Africa via Aquatic Ape, from Eurasia.

Post by Primum Sapienti
Along with your space aliens and
Nostradamus Nonsense.

You never do miss an opportunity to parade your lack of
reading comprehension. Why's that?

Post by Primum Sapienti
We live on land and traveled on land.

Okay. "Aquatic Ape" isn't French for "Sea Monkeys." It's
acknowledging the fact that our ancestors followed the
coast, exploited the sea.

Post by Primum Sapienti
Ancestors did not swim
around the world.

If you weren't arguably retarded you might recall any one
of the very many times "Coastal Dispersal" was invoked,
including within this very thread.

"Coastal Dispersal," btw, is mainstream.

Post by Primum Sapienti
Well inland.

Do you mean that the not-at-all-first-generation tools
were found well inland? But they're not first generation
tools. So the ancestral population who left them evolved
somewhere else. And as you insist that they came from
Africa, and the mainstream says they moved around via
"Coastal Dispersal," guess where that inland group came
from?

Post by Primum Sapienti
erectus finds in South Africa in the same
time frame

No. That's idiocy.

An undergrad student said a juvenile skull fragment most
closely resembled erectus. But it was a juvenile and it
wasn't found with erectus but Paranthropus. So you have
an anomalous find which, had it survived, would likely
have turned out to look very different...

Post by Primum Sapienti
Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
and early Homo erectus in South Africa

No. That is referred to as "Circular." It's saying that this
skull which nobody looked at and saw erectus, at least
until an undergrade said it looked most like erectus, is
proof that erectus lived there. Well. Identify it as
something else.

Get rid of the anomaly.

It's pretty simple: "Gee. This skull came from an
individual that had yet to grow it's sagital crest.

There. Done.

Post by Primum Sapienti
"The DNH 134 Homo cranium

Again, another circular argument. "It's a Homo skull
because we said it was a Homo skull, so that proves
erectus was there!"

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
evidence points to a (roughly) 3.7 million year occupation

What evidence is that?

Are you profoundly stupid? Suffering from dementia? Or
are you intentionally pretending that you're unaware of the
retrovirus evidence?

Or all of the above, I suppose...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/742798356654473216

[Marc Verhaegen]

This idiot is wasting our time, JTEM: he assumes Drimolen DHN-134 is erectus... :-DDD
No platycephaly, no pachyosteosclerosis: these fools call all hominid fossils they find "Homo" & "human ancestors": they believe bonobos, chimps & gorillas can't have fossil relatives... :-DDD
Most likely a robustus child.
In any case, H.erectus then was in SE.Asia: Mojokerto etc.:

"Have we been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not our ancestors"
M Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropol.2(1), 10007 open access
doi org/10.35534/natanthropol.2023.10007
... upright posture/gait is already present to different degrees even in Miocene apes : hominoid orthogrady is a primitive characteristic : knuckle-walking has evolved in parallel, independently in both Pan // Gorilla ... numerous similarities between australopiths & extant African apes ... not our direct ancestors ...

"Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian origin of man"
RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8
... OWMs & apes incl. man possess, as a normal component of their cellular DNA, virogenes related to the RNA of a vims isolated from baboons (this) distinguishes those OWMs & apes that have evolved in Africa from those that have evolved in Asia. Among the apes, only gorilla & chimp seem by these criteria to be African - gibbon, orang & man are identified as Asian: most of man's evolution has occurred outside Africa.

"Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes but not humans and orangutans"
CT Yohn cs 2005 doi 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
... Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus-1 (PTERV1) has become integrated in the germ-line of Afr.gr.ape & OWM spp, but is absent from human & Asian ape genomes ... a RV infection bombarded chimp & gorilla genomes independently & concurrently, 3-4 Ma ...

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Marc Verhaegen
This idiot is wasting our time, JTEM: he assumes Drimolen DHN-134 is

erectus... :-DDD

From a post by Pandora Dec 27:
quote...
This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
cranial capacity 450 cc):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2

Compare to DNH 134:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2

Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
differences that would exclude DNH 134 from being a male A. robustus.

endquote...

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Primum Sapienti
You worship mv. Get help.

I came to Aquatic Ape quite independently to him, through

Along with space aliens and NostraDumbAss. Nuff said.

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Primum Sapienti
You worship mv. Get help.

I came to Aquatic Ape quite independently to him, through

Along with space aliens and NostraDumbAss. Nuff said.

You have the reading comprehension of a dead gnat, seeing how
I have often & forcefully argued AGAINST aliens visiting the
earth, and refer to Nostradamus "prophecies" as POSTecies.


You're testifying to the fact that you're an emotional spazz,
a troll. You seek negative attention.

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti
This is what a male A. robustus from Drimolen looks like (DNH 155,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01319-6/figures/2
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293#F2

The former is an adult, the latter is a juvenile. The sagittal
Crest doesn't develop in Gorillas until early adulthood, and
we would expect a similar situation with Paranthropus robustus.

This has all been addressed in the past, more than once.

If you're not a troll and you're not a dogmatic fool trying
to protect his religious beliefs, you can prove it by starting
to incorporate known information in your remarks... especially
known information that renders yours comments moot.

Post by Primum Sapienti
Even a nincompoop like you should be able to notice the major
differences

Between an adult and a juvenile? Yeah, even a nincompoop
shouldn't be making the error you just made, again.


So stop it already.

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti
Well inland. erectus finds in South Africa in the same
time frame

So we find a juvenile skull associated with Paranthropus
robustus, in South Africa, and absolutely NOBODY saw any
erectus skull...until significantly later when an
undergraduate said it was closest to erectus.

Wow. Enough to give you goosebumps, right?

Post by Primum Sapienti
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293
3 Apr 2020
Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
and early Homo erectus in South Africa

Erectus is a contemporary of erectus? Are you sure?

Wow.

If you look real hard I bet even the likes of you can
spot the circular reasoning in that one.

But, you're just repeating the exact same claim without
addressing the known facts. Such as absolutely NOBODY
ever saw erectus here until an undergraduate decided it
was closest to erectus or at least closer.

Post by Primum Sapienti
"The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with
Homo erectus

Modern humans share clear affinities with Chimps, for
crying out loud...

The usual claim is, what? Roughly 25% of our DNA in
common with bananas...

, whereas the DNH 152 cranium represents

Post by Primum Sapienti
P. robustus. Stratigraphic analysis of the Drimolen
Main Quarry deposits indicates that unlike many
other South African sites, there was only one major
phase of relatively short deposition between ~2.04
million years ago and ~1.95 million years ago. ...
The DNH 134 cranium shares affinities with H.
erectus and predates all known specimens in that
species."

It's a juvenile.

Again: It's a juvenile.

One more time: It's a juvenile.

It's a juvenile found in association with Paranthropus
robustus and absolutely NOBODY who was there, who looked
at it thought they were seeing an erectus skull.

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Marc Verhaegen

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Primum Sapienti
How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.> But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?
You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

We're losing our time with these empty netloons, JTEM
Anthropology without waterside adaptations = geology without plate tectonics.

Like this

<Loading Image...>

:=}

[Marc Verhaegen]

Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
modern insights:
google
- David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
- Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
- aquarboreal
- seafood, diving, song & speech
- Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not our ancestors” open access https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94

[erik simpson]

Post by Marc Verhaegen
Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
google
- David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
- Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
- aquarboreal
- seafood, diving, song & speech
- Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not our ancestors” open access https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94

That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by Marc Verhaegen
Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
google
- David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
- Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
- aquarboreal
- seafood, diving, song & speech
- Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been
barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not
our ancestors” open access  https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94

 That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Nice catch.

[Marc Verhaegen]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by erik simpson

Post by Marc Verhaegen
Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
google
- David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
- Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
- aquarboreal
- seafood, diving, song & speech
- Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been
barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not
our ancestors” open access https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94

That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Nice catch.

:-DDD
Who of these 2 imbeciles is most stupid??

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by Marc Verhaegen
- Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we
been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are
probably not our ancestors” open access
https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94

  That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

Nice catch.

It's not a catch at all. The fact is that for an extremely long
time the mainstream was denouncing Lucy and her ilk as an
evolutionary cousin, NOT an ancestor. Now, for ten bonus doses
of your medication explain to us WHY it was dismissed as an
evolutionary cousin and WHY did they switch to calling it an
ancestor?

[Marc Verhaegen]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Marc Verhaegen
Ape+human evolution & speech origins,
modern insights: google
- David Attenborough Marc Verhaegen
- Gondwanatalks Verhaegen
- aquarboreal
- seafood, diving, song & speech
- Mario Vaneechoutte cs 2024 Nature Anthropology 2,10007 “Have we been barking up the wrong ancestral tree? Australopithecines are probably not our ancestors” open access https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/94

That's a Chinese "predatory journal", and the article is crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

:-DDD

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti
Like this
<https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg>

You've been challenged in the past, only to run away on tippy
toes like a little fleeing a spider, but I'll challenge you
again:

Explain everything in the image using your savanna idiocy.

Because, as has been pointed out to you before, but you're
a troll so why would you consider it: Aquatic Ape doesn't
have to be perfect. It doesn't even have to be good. It just
as to be better than all the alternatives, and it is.

[Primum Sapienti]

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Primum Sapienti
How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.

But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.

Yes, they did.

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

I said no such thing. I only posted a link to the paper.

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

You finished last in film school, didn't you?

Did you bother to read your own link?

"...Homo and Gigantopithecus co-occur at Tham Khuyen
about a half million years ago."

Now, from the other paper's abstract:

"... just before and during the extinction window
between 295,000 and 215,000  years ago there was
enhanced environmental variability..."

You do understand that half a million years ago is
OLDER than 295kya to 215kya?

Johnny Johnny Johnny - what ARE we going to do with you?

[JTEM is so reasonable]

Post by Primum Sapienti
Yes, they did.

Quote them. Copy & paste the words they used in their "detailed analysis
of conditions during which G. lived."

Put another way: You're impotent.

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

I said no such thing.

Yes you did. But you lack reading comprehension and a grasp of
basic English.

: However, just before and during the extinction window
: between 295,000 and 215,000 years ago there was enhanced
: environmental variability from increased seasonality, which
: caused changes in plant communities and an increase in open
: forest environments.

The above is quoted from YOUR post. It's not true. We both know
it's not true because the Glacial/Interglacial cycle is significantly
older.

Post by Primum Sapienti
I only posted a link to the paper.

You're not even aware that you posted PARAGRAPHS of text?

Wow. You're worse than I thought and, believe me, that's saying
a lot!

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

You finished last in film school, didn't you?

Awesome! The worse you make me out to be, the more
pathetic standing in my shadow like you are.

Post by Primum Sapienti
"...Homo and Gigantopithecus co-occur at Tham Khuyen
about a half million years ago."
"... just before and during the extinction window
between 295,000 and 215,000  years ago there was
enhanced environmental variability..."

It's not detailed and it's not correct. You're just a drone, throwing
aside what it knows in order to be obedient.

Post by Primum Sapienti
You do understand that half a million years ago is
OLDER than 295kya to 215kya?

Lord knows, you're not bright but what is it you think you're
saying here?

There are literally countless species driven instinct at least in part
due to human activity. Rarely if ever it's immediate. When did
humans enter North Africa? When did the North African Elephants
go extinct? When did the bears die out?

You are a blithering idiot. You're so hungry to be "Right" --
starving, actually -- that you forgot that we're supposed to discover
the truth, not dictate it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741817533268656128

[JTEM]

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable

Post by Primum Sapienti
How nice that they presented detailed analysis of
conditions during which G. lived.

But they didn't. Are you honestly THAT dense? Here.

Yes, they did.

Prove it. Copy & paste the words. Because they never
presented a detailed analysis of anything in your
cite.

But, again, copy and paste this detailed analysis, from
your cite.

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf
And you think that the climate was stable until
roughly 300k years ago? Because... why?

I said no such thing. I only posted a link to the paper.

You claim that they give a detailed analysis of conditions,
and your cite claims it was Kwimate Cha-Ching! that killed
them off, so that requires that #1 Kwimate Cha-Ching! began
300k years ago and that they provided details of their
analysis of this fact.

Post by Primum Sapienti

Post by JTEM is so reasonable
You have literally set aside absolutely everything you
know about the climate, the Quaternary Period,
the evolution of the genus Homo just so that you can
lap your greedy tongue at the ass crack of the media.
Wow. Dd you get tenure? Is that it? Because it sure
looks like you did!
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.93.7.3016
There. Absolutely ZERO explanation missing.

You finished last in film school, didn't you?

Wow you said that and now the entire history of the
Quaternary Period, the Glacial/Interglacial cycle has
gone away!

Amazing. One day you must tell us how you do it...

Post by Primum Sapienti
"...Homo and Gigantopithecus co-occur at Tham Khuyen
about a half million years ago."

And co-occurrence needs to exist PRIOR TO the former
driving the latter extinct. You do know this, right?

Post by Primum Sapienti
"... just before and during the extinction window
between 295,000 and 215,000  years ago there was
enhanced environmental variability..."

No there wasn't. The Quaternary Period, the present ice
age, the Glacial/Interglacial cycle began long before
then.

You should try addressing information that refutes you,
instead of acting dogmatic.

[Jack Banny]

Xanax for sale
buy magic mushrooms
Magic mushroom for sale
buy golden teacher mushrooms

https://psychedelicmins.com/product/xanax-for-sale/

https://psychedelicmins.com/product/vyvanse-50mg/

https://psychedelicmins.com/product/buy-hydromorphone-8mg-online/

https://psychedelicmins.com/

Psychedelic drugs, also known as hallucinogens, are a class of psychoactive substances that can alter an individual’s perception, mood, and cognitive processes. These substances have been used for centuries in various cultural and religious practices, and they continue to be a subject of scientific research and debate due to their potential therapeutic effects and risks. This comprehensive overview will delve into the history, types, effects, therapeutic potential, risks, and current research surrounding psychedelic drugs.

Clic this Link To Buy; https://psychedelicmins.com/

History of Psychedelic Drugs

The use of psychedelic substances dates back to ancient civilizations where they were often used in religious or spiritual ceremonies. For example, peyote has been used by Native American tribes in rituals for thousands of years. In the 20th century, psychedelics gained popularity in Western cultures during the counterculture movement of the 1960s. Substances such as LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) and psilocybin mushrooms became associated with the hippie movement and were widely used recreationally. However, due to concerns about their safety and potential for abuse, many psychedelics were classified as illegal substances in the following decades.

Clic this Link To Buy; https://psychedelicmins.com/

Types of Psychedelic Drugs

There are various types of psychedelic drugs, each with its own unique chemical structure and effects on the brain. Some well-known psychedelics include:

LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide): LSD is a synthetic compound that is known for its powerful hallucinogenic effects. It is one of the most potent mood-changing chemicals and is derived from ergot, a fungus that grows on rye.

Psilocybin Mushrooms: Psilocybin is a naturally occurring compound found in certain species of mushrooms. When ingested, psilocybin is converted to psilocin in the body, leading to altered perception and sensory experiences.

MDMA (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine): While not traditionally classified as a classic psychedelic, MDMA is known for its empathogenic effects and has been studied for its potential therapeutic benefits in treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

DMT (Dimethyltryptamine): DMT is a powerful hallucinogenic compound found in various plants and animals. It can also be synthesized for recreational use and is known for producing intense but short-lived psychedelic experiences.

Peyote: Peyote contains mescaline, a naturally occurring psychedelic alkaloid. It has been used by indigenous peoples in North America for ceremonial purposes.

Effects of Psychedelic Drugs

The effects of psychedelic drugs can vary widely depending on the specific substance, dosage, set (mental state), setting (environment), and individual differences. Common effects may include alterations in sensory perception, changes in thought patterns, emotional shifts, and profound spiritual or mystical experiences. These substances can induce visual and auditory hallucinations, synesthesia (cross-sensory experiences), and ego dissolution.

Clic this Link To Buy; https://psychedelicmins.com/

Therapeutic Potential

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs for mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, and end-of-life distress. Clinical trials have shown promising results with substances like psilocybin showing rapid and sustained antidepressant effects in treatment-resistant depression. MDMA-assisted therapy has also demonstrated effectiveness in addressing PTSD symptoms.

Clic this Link To Buy; https://psychedelicmins.com/

Risks and Considerations

Despite their potential therapeutic benefits, psychedelic drugs are not without risks. They can induce intense psychological experiences that may be overwhelming or distressing for some individuals. Additionally, there are potential risks associated with unsupervised or recreational use, including adverse psychological reactions, exacerbation of underlying mental health conditions, and rare but serious medical complications.


Clic this Link To Buy; https://psychedelicmins.com/

cubensis mushrooms for sale
gummy mushrooms
thc drink syrup
changa dmt

<a href="https://psychedelicmins.com/product/gummy mushrooms" rel="dofollow">gummy mushrooms</a>
<a href="https://psychedelicmins.com/product/thc drink syrup" rel="dofollow">thc drink syrup</a>
<a href="https://psychedelicmins.com/product/
cubensis mushrooms for sale" rel="dofollow">