When we became bipedal

[Mario Petrinovic]

Since abducted toe bipedals, like Oreopithecus, are in Africa, and
didn't use fire, we became bipedal before we started to use fire, while
we were still in Africa, before we moved to Europe (we started to use
fire in Europe, 15 mya). This means that we became bipedal very early
(before 15 mya). Why not, if we ate shellfish, and you become bipedal
when you exit sea with shellfish in hands, that way it is possible to
produce bipedality very early, almost immediately after we started to
eat shellfish.

[JTEM]

        Since abducted toe bipedals, like Oreopithecus, are in Africa,
and didn't use fire, we became bipedal before we started to use fire,
while we were still in Africa

Or Asia, according to many.

Or Europe, according to some.

"How many a-priori assumptions can I shove into a statement?"

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Since abducted toe bipedals, like Oreopithecus, are in
Africa, and didn't use fire, we became bipedal before we started to
use fire, while we were still in Africa

Or Asia, according to many.
Or Europe, according to some.
"How many a-priori assumptions can I shove into a statement?"

As far as I know, apes are from Africa. So, here we have two types of
bipedality, adducted and abducted big toe bipedality. It is obvious that
abducted big toe bipedality never left Africa. So, bipedality has to be
from Africa.

[JTEM]

        As far as I know, apes are from Africa.

We diverged from orangutans earlier than chimps or gorillas.

According to "Science," at least when it supports an agenda,
this means we came from Asia. Our ancestors were in Asia
long before the common ancestor to gorillas or chimps.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         As far as I know, apes are from Africa.

We diverged from orangutans earlier than chimps or gorillas.
According to "Science," at least when it supports an agenda,
this means we came from Asia. Our ancestors were in Asia
long before the common ancestor to gorillas or chimps.

Not at all, you are inventing things. Read about "klinorhynchy"
(humans, chimps, gorillas), and "airorhynchy" (orangutans). It is
obvious, from DNA also, that chimps are our first cousins.

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM

         As far as I know, apes are from Africa.

We diverged from orangutans earlier than chimps or gorillas.
According to "Science," at least when it supports an agenda,
this means we came from Asia. Our ancestors were in Asia
long before the common ancestor to gorillas or chimps.

        Not at all, you are inventing things. Read about "klinorhynchy"
(humans, chimps, gorillas), and "airorhynchy" (orangutans). It is
obvious, from DNA also, that chimps are our first cousins.

Which still requires that we started out in Asia, because we
diverged from Chimps LAST, not first.

But I disagree with the whole "Chimp" thing. I believe that the
good Doctor is a lot closer to right than nearly everyone else
on the planet... except for me.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM

         As far as I know, apes are from Africa.

We diverged from orangutans earlier than chimps or gorillas.
According to "Science," at least when it supports an agenda,
this means we came from Asia. Our ancestors were in Asia
long before the common ancestor to gorillas or chimps.

         Not at all, you are inventing things. Read about
"klinorhynchy" (humans, chimps, gorillas), and "airorhynchy"
(orangutans). It is obvious, from DNA also, that chimps are our first
cousins.

Which still requires that we started out in Asia, because we
diverged from Chimps LAST, not first.
But I disagree with the whole "Chimp" thing. I believe that the
good Doctor is a lot closer to right than nearly everyone else
on the planet... except for me.

Because you don't know a sh.t, and the "good doctor" doesn't know enough.

[JTEM]

        Because you don't know

I know that the oldest supposed Chimp fossil is *Way*
younger than humans. And the retrovirus evidence
really does support a split around 4 million years
ago or less. And it supports the notion that our
ancestors weren't in Africa at the time.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Because you don't know

I know that the oldest supposed Chimp fossil is *Way*
younger than humans. And the retrovirus evidence
really does support a split around 4 million years
ago or less. And it supports the notion that our
ancestors weren't in Africa at the time.

Ah, you know sooo much. Apes were the predominant species in canopy in
Miocene, and at that time the whole life was in canopy, as far as I
know, because the whole world was forested, there were no meadows.
During Vallesian crisis all those Miocene apes went extinct. Except for
our relatives and ancestors. Today apes still live on trees, SE Asian
apes live in canopy.
So, you are telling me what? That our ancestors survived Miocene
carnage only to move back onto trees? No, apes survived only in rain
forests, where people don't live. When our ancestors emerged open
environment emerged, everybody tells you that.
So, first you had bipedal ancestors, then what? Suddenly those bipeds
decided to climb trees. Don't you say. Today's apes are the survived
remnants of Miocene apes. We are bipeds, Danuvius (11.6 mya) is a biped.
Where your brain collides with the facts?

[JTEM]

        Ah, you know sooo much. Apes were the predominant species in
canopy in Miocene, and at that time the whole

Pure conjecture.

I'm not disputing your right to conjecture, only noting that there
is better conjecture... ideas that are not so reliant on a lack of
information.

I subscribe to the good Doctor's model, or a variant there of, where
"Apes" evolved from a bipedal ancestor.

In other words, an early Waterside (Aquatic Ape) evolved FIRST, then
what we call apes began to split off... and this "Splitting off" was
a process that never ended during the entire evolution, right up to
so called "Modern Man."

It works. It fits.

"Da wived in jungles" does not.

We did not evolve in the tree tops any more than we evolved on the
savanna, i.e. "not at all."

        So, first you had bipedal ancestors, then what?

Actually, FIRST we had waterside (Aquatic Ape)

The good Doctor has a plausible start: Insular Isolation

Isolation of a group on an island is strongly associated with Insular
Dwarfism, but not only is it also associated with Insular Gigantism
but is has been argued that Gigantism precedes Dwarfism....

FIRST they get large, because of the lack of predators AND the fact
that they are in competition with each other... themselves.

So they get big. Selective pressures are on "Big"

THEN what normally happens is that these BIGGER animals with no
natural predators exhaust all their resources. Suddenly the selective
pressures are on SMALL... Dwarfism. But what if...

What if these larger animals, instead of exhausting resources and
growing small, what if these animals INSTEAD turned to exploiting
the sea? With this new high protein diet they could grow even
larger!

No downward pressures, they continue to experience all the selective
pressures on "Bigger."

There. We go from a fruit & nut eating tree monkey to something much
larger, consuming protein...

THEN we add the usual Aquatic Ape arguments on upright posture,
bipedalism, larger brain...

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Ah, you know sooo much. Apes were the predominant species in
canopy in Miocene, and at that time the whole

Pure conjecture.
I'm not disputing your right to conjecture, only noting that there
is better conjecture... ideas that are not so reliant on a lack of
information.
I subscribe to the good Doctor's model, or a variant there of, where
"Apes" evolved from a bipedal ancestor.
In other words, an early Waterside (Aquatic Ape) evolved FIRST, then
what we call apes began to split off... and this "Splitting off" was
a process that never ended during the entire evolution, right up to
so called "Modern Man."
It works. It fits.
"Da wived in jungles" does not.
We did not evolve in the tree tops any more than we evolved on the
savanna, i.e. "not at all."

         So, first you had bipedal ancestors, then what?

Actually, FIRST we had waterside (Aquatic Ape)
The good Doctor has a plausible start:  Insular Isolation
Isolation of a group on an island is strongly associated with Insular
Dwarfism, but not only is it also associated with Insular Gigantism
but is has been argued that Gigantism precedes Dwarfism....
FIRST they get large, because of the lack of predators AND the fact
that they are in competition with each other... themselves.
So they get big. Selective pressures are on "Big"
THEN what normally happens is that these BIGGER animals with no
natural predators exhaust all their resources. Suddenly the selective
pressures are on SMALL... Dwarfism. But what if...
What if these larger animals, instead of exhausting resources and
growing small, what if these animals INSTEAD turned to exploiting
the sea?  With this new high protein diet they could grow even
larger!
No downward pressures, they continue to experience all the selective
pressures on "Bigger."
There. We go from a fruit & nut eating tree monkey to something much
larger, consuming protein...
THEN we add the usual Aquatic Ape arguments on upright posture,
bipedalism, larger brain...

Animals are different on islands because on islands you lack
predators. Do you know of any animal that evolved on islands that
survived on mainland? Of course, not. Good Dr. Moreau's island.

[JTEM]

        Animals are different on islands because on islands you lack
predators. Do you know of any animal that evolved on islands that
survived on mainland? Of course, not. Good Dr. Moreau's island.

We don't know where ANY animals evolved. At best we assume that it
evolved where we found the fossil... at best.

If we consider Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium, it's entirely plausible
that all the animal species evolved in this manner -- isolation at
least, regardless of whether or not the isolation stems from an
island habitat or some other reason...

To quote the good Doctor:

"Isolation is the engine of evolution."

If there's a population in the forest and one on the plains, and
they're interbreeding like bunnies on Viagra, then the forest
population is under exactly as much pressure to evolve in adaption
to the plains as it is the forest... likewise for the population
living on the plains. But isolate these groups and 100% of the
selective pressure is on adapting to their unique environment.

This is how humans invented Chimps, btw.

Chimps are descended from Aquatic Ape ancestors who wandered inland
at the horn of Africa -- following freshwater sources emptying at
the coast.

They were only partially isolated though, at best, with periodic
new arrivals from the waterside group constantly re-introducing
DNA from the parent population.

However, as these Chimp ancestors spread west (and south) they
were reducing the influx of fresh DNA, allowed to adapt with
relative purity... becoming less and less like their parent AA
population.

This concept is known as a "Ring Species." It doesn't require a
ring, though a ring does perfectly illustrate the situation...

Around 4 million years ago (3.7 million years) there was a retrovirus
that devastated Africa, the further east the worse it got.

Either the Eurasians had no immunity at all and any that reached
Africa were killed off, or this was a period when the crossing from
Yemen was particularly difficult...

It was at this point where the Chimp ancestors went from a
distinct population to a separate species.

Maybe "Sub Species" is more accurate, I dunno. When I say "Species"
I mean "They banged." When I say "Sub Species" I mean "They could
bang if they wanted to, but instead one of them ate the other."

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Animals are different on islands because on islands you lack
predators. Do you know of any animal that evolved on islands that
survived on mainland? Of course, not. Good Dr. Moreau's island.

We don't know where ANY animals evolved. At best we assume that it
evolved where we found the fossil... at best.
If we consider Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium, it's entirely plausible
that all the animal species evolved in this manner -- isolation at
least, regardless of whether or not the isolation stems from an
island habitat or some other reason...
"Isolation is the engine of evolution."
If there's a population in the forest and one on the plains, and
they're interbreeding like bunnies on Viagra, then the forest
population is under exactly as much pressure to evolve in adaption
to the plains as it is the forest... likewise for the population
living on the plains. But isolate these groups and 100% of the
selective pressure is on adapting to their unique environment.
This is how humans invented Chimps, btw.
Chimps are descended from Aquatic Ape ancestors who wandered inland
at the horn of Africa -- following freshwater sources emptying at
the coast.
They were only partially isolated though, at best, with periodic
new arrivals from the waterside group constantly re-introducing
DNA from the parent population.
However, as these Chimp ancestors spread west (and south) they
were reducing the influx of fresh DNA, allowed to adapt with
relative purity... becoming less and less like their parent AA
population.
This concept is known as a "Ring Species." It doesn't require a
ring, though a ring does perfectly illustrate the situation...
Around 4 million years ago (3.7 million years) there was a retrovirus
that devastated Africa, the further east the worse it got.
Either the Eurasians had no immunity at all and any that reached
Africa were killed off, or this was a period when the crossing from
Yemen was particularly difficult...
It was at this point where the Chimp ancestors went from a
distinct population to a separate species.
Maybe "Sub Species" is more accurate, I dunno. When I say "Species"
I mean "They banged." When I say "Sub Species" I mean "They could
bang if they wanted to, but instead one of them ate the other."

The main argument pro AAT is SC fat. So, you are telling me that
chimps had SC fat? Their babies were fat, and they cried? They were
eating shellfish? Did they have wings, and lost it?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Animals are different on islands because on islands you lack
predators. Do you know of any animal that evolved on islands that
survived on mainland? Of course, not. Good Dr. Moreau's island.

We don't know where ANY animals evolved. At best we assume that it
evolved where we found the fossil... at best.
If we consider Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium, it's entirely plausible
that all the animal species evolved in this manner -- isolation at
least, regardless of whether or not the isolation stems from an
island habitat or some other reason...
"Isolation is the engine of evolution."
If there's a population in the forest and one on the plains, and
they're interbreeding like bunnies on Viagra, then the forest
population is under exactly as much pressure to evolve in adaption
to the plains as it is the forest... likewise for the population
living on the plains. But isolate these groups and 100% of the
selective pressure is on adapting to their unique environment.
This is how humans invented Chimps, btw.
Chimps are descended from Aquatic Ape ancestors who wandered inland
at the horn of Africa -- following freshwater sources emptying at
the coast.
They were only partially isolated though, at best, with periodic
new arrivals from the waterside group constantly re-introducing
DNA from the parent population.
However, as these Chimp ancestors spread west (and south) they
were reducing the influx of fresh DNA, allowed to adapt with
relative purity... becoming less and less like their parent AA
population.
This concept is known as a "Ring Species." It doesn't require a
ring, though a ring does perfectly illustrate the situation...
Around 4 million years ago (3.7 million years) there was a retrovirus
that devastated Africa, the further east the worse it got.
Either the Eurasians had no immunity at all and any that reached
Africa were killed off, or this was a period when the crossing from
Yemen was particularly difficult...
It was at this point where the Chimp ancestors went from a
distinct population to a separate species.
Maybe "Sub Species" is more accurate, I dunno. When I say "Species"
I mean "They banged." When I say "Sub Species" I mean "They could
bang if they wanted to, but instead one of them ate the other."

        The main argument pro AAT is SC fat. So, you are telling me
that chimps had SC fat? Their babies were fat, and they cried? They were
eating shellfish? Did they have wings, and lost it?

Oh yes, they were bipedal, and now they are quadrumanual. First they
didn't have lumbar curve, then they had lumbar curve, and then they lost
it again. First they had long canines, then they lost canines, but then
they grew it again. First they had long pelvises, then they shortened
them, then they lengthened them again. This is not a ring, this is a
yo-yo. And, what is even more important, not a single trace of those
mayor changes left.

[JTEM]

        Oh yes, they were bipedal, and now they are quadrumanual.

No, they're secondarily knuckle walkers.

[JTEM]

        The main argument pro AAT is SC fat. So, you are telling me
that chimps had SC fat?

Wrong. But whatever.

Their babies were fat, and they cried?

Considering how the dating I gave was more than a million years
before the genus Homo, were our ancestors fat crying babies?

How could you tell?

They were
eating shellfish?

Their ancestors. Yes.