Brideshead and paleo anthropology revisited

[JTEM]

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144203370383

Flake. Tiny. And they described a polished hand axe, with
a handle, that re-writes history...

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144203370383
Flake. Tiny. And they described a polished hand axe, with
a handle, that re-writes history...

Don't talk BS, there is no way a sane person would go into deep sea
with a bark, or skin canoe, it has to be a dugout canoe, a canoe which
wouldn't take water. You need ground stone axe to make those:

[JTEM]

        Don't talk BS, there is no way a sane person would go into deep
sea with a bark, or skin canoe

Which did the monkeys use to cross between the old & new
worlds? Hmm?

The famous Eskimo kayak was made of animal skins on a
frame...

The first ocean travelers were likely victims of
happenstance: Natural disasters, storms, unknown
currents. They never wanted to venture into deep waters.
The trip chose them, not the other way around.

It's extremely unlikely that any archaic humans would have
crossed open waters. Even in roman times ships rarely
sailed out of view of land.

With sea level much lower, the land much larger and closer
together, the first Australians could probably see the wild
fires even if not the land itself. They knew the land was
there.

It was less "Venturing into the unknown" and more floating
across a stretch of water.

A dugout canoe is logic. A tree floats. So, make a place
to sit within it and YOU float... but it's not exactly
efficient.

Tree bark? Okay. Or animal hide...

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Don't talk BS, there is no way a sane person would go into
deep sea with a bark, or skin canoe

Which did the monkeys use to cross between the old & new
worlds? Hmm?
The famous Eskimo kayak was made of animal skins on a
frame...
The first ocean travelers were likely victims of
happenstance:  Natural disasters, storms, unknown
currents. They never wanted to venture into deep waters.
The trip chose them, not the other way around.
It's extremely unlikely that any archaic humans would have
crossed open waters. Even in roman times ships rarely
sailed out of view of land.
With sea level much lower, the land much larger and closer
together, the first Australians could probably see the wild
fires even if not the land itself. They knew the land was
there.
It was less "Venturing into the unknown" and more floating
across a stretch of water.
A dugout canoe is logic. A tree floats. So, make a place
to sit within it and YOU float... but it's not exactly
efficient.
Tree bark? Okay. Or animal hide...

There is so much wrong in what you've written.
Lets start with new world monkeys. It is obvious that they separated
very early, judging by nostrils. In fact, obviously, it can even be
before they became monkeys. In fact, this can even be convergent
evolution. Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has
primates. Now, if you take that leaping primates are adapted to trees
that have narrow canopy (these are the types of trees that were during
dinosaurs), and the monkeys are actually the adaptation to wide canopy
trees, you see that this adaptation can happen anywhere. for some reason
it didn't happen on Madagascar, but it could have happened in both,
Africa and South America, separately. Now, the wide canopy trees covered
the world after the extinction of dinosaurs, so after 65 mya. Now, I
proved that Mid-Atlantic Rift happened 35 mya, this is the time South
America separated from Antarctica. So, when you add everything together,
the scenario where monkeys go adrift from Africa to South America is
pretty unlikely, especially if you take into account that a lot of
individual animals should cross at the same time so the species can
survive. This "adrifting" is just another stupid and simple scientific
scenario based on available evidence, and refusing to use brain.
Regarding "the first travelers" idea, the emergence of humans in
Australia coincidence with the emergence of ground tools. If your idea
was right, humans would emerge in Australia anytime in the last 2
million years.
Regarding Roman times, you don't have the slightest idea, of course
they went to open waters, this was a must, otherwise they would be
attacked by pirates. Trust me, I am from Croatia, Venice had a lot of
problems because of Croatian pirates.
"Cornwall and Devon were important sources of tin for Europe and the
Mediterranean throughout ancient times and may have been the earliest
sources of tin in Western Europe, with evidence for trade to the Eastern
Mediterranean by the Late Bronze Age." Phoenicians were the major
maritime power in ancient times, see where are their ports. First they
were in Levant, then they were in Carthage. In both cases it was open
sea in front of them. It has to be that way, because otherwise pirates
would attack them.
I agree that they would see the fire from numerous volcanoes that are
there, but still I wouldn't go there in a canoe, no way. Yes, they could
float on a tree, which they couldn't steer. They didn't have a mean to
cut trees, and there are not a lot trees that float around, and you
never know which direction they would float, so, forget it, people
aren't stupid, they all have families, they wouldn't go there if there
isn't a secure way to do it. And especially they wouldn't go there just
so that they make stupid paleoanthropologists of 21st century happy.

[JTEM]

        There is so much wrong in what you've written.

The only thing "Wrong" is that I was bothering to reply to you.

        Lets start with new world monkeys. It is obvious that they
separated very early, judging by nostrils.

You'd have to define "Early."

In fact, obviously, it can
even be before they became monkeys.

The oldest monkey fossils are New World monkeys.

Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has
primates.

Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.

So you see the issue: Dugout Canoes are not necessary.

        Regarding "the first travelers" idea, the emergence of humans
in Australia coincidence with the emergence of ground tools. If your
idea was right, humans would emerge in Australia anytime in the last 2
million years.

Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...

Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.

So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.

        Regarding Roman times, you don't have the slightest idea, of
course they went to open waters

You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly
every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely
to ever materialize.

What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks"
of their day: Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port.

There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water,
do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.

Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!

        "Cornwall and Devon were important sources of tin for Europe
and the Mediterranean throughout ancient times and may have been the
earliest sources of tin in Western Europe, with evidence for trade to
the Eastern Mediterranean by the Late Bronze Age."

Oh! I keep forgetting you're retarded!

You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination
part is.

But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         There is so much wrong in what you've written.

The only thing "Wrong" is that I was bothering to reply to you.

         Lets start with new world monkeys. It is obvious that they
separated very early, judging by nostrils.

You'd have to define "Early."

In fact, obviously, it can even be before they became monkeys.

The oldest monkey fossils are New World monkeys.

Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates.

Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.
So you see the issue:  Dugout Canoes are not necessary.

The dating, of course, doesn't give you the ultimate number. How old
is the second oldest? 50 mya? So, if they didn't find the 70 mya, they
would think the date is 50 mya.

Post by JTEM

         Regarding "the first travelers" idea, the emergence of humans
in Australia coincidence with the emergence of ground tools. If your
idea was right, humans would emerge in Australia anytime in the last 2
million years.

Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...
Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.
So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.

I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse case than
South America.

Post by JTEM

         Regarding Roman times, you don't have the slightest idea, of
course they went to open waters

You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly
every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely
to ever materialize.
What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks"
of their day:  Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port.
There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water,
do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.
Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!

It is you who doesn't understand the piracy problem at all. Even today
we have piracy in some passageways, like Singapore Strait, off the coast
of Peru, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea,
South China Sea.

Post by JTEM

         "Cornwall and Devon were important sources of tin for Europe
and the Mediterranean throughout ancient times and may have been the
earliest sources of tin in Western Europe, with evidence for trade to
the Eastern Mediterranean by the Late Bronze Age."

Oh! I keep forgetting you're retarded!
You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination
part is.
But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.

They found traces of Minoans in Norway, "The Greek historian Herodotus
wrote that the Phoenicians sailed around the British Isles on their way
to the tin mines of Cornwall.".

[JTEM]

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
]

Post by JTEM

Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates.

Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.
So you see the issue:  Dugout Canoes are not necessary.

        The dating, of course, doesn't give you the ultimate number.

Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.

Post by JTEM
Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...
Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.
So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.

        I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse case
than South America.

Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?

Post by JTEM
You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly
every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely
to ever materialize.
What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks"
of their day:  Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port.
There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water,
do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.
Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!

        It is you who doesn't understand the piracy problem at all.
Even today we have piracy in some passageways, like Singapore Strait,
off the coast of Peru, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, the Gulf
of Guinea, South China Sea.

And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.

Post by JTEM
You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
 From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination
part is.
But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.

        They found traces of Minoans in Norway,

No. Someone claimed that they found carvings. But there's claims like
that everywhere!

"The Greek historian
Herodotus wrote that the Phoenicians sailed around the British Isles on
their way to the tin mines of Cornwall.".

I'm willing to say that you're confused and meant this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiterides

Traders are known to have invented tall tales to mask the true location
of their products - and hence eliminate competition - but science has
gotten pretty good at pinpointing the origins of metals.

It's pretty easy, with the right equipment and a database of results...

A hand held device can tell you the composition of a metal -- it's
purity and it's impurities -- then you just match that to a source...

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM
]

Post by JTEM

Madagascar separated from mainland 180 mya, and it has primates.

Lemurs are only dated back there about 70 million years,
quite a long spell after you 180 million year mark.
So you see the issue:  Dugout Canoes are not necessary.

         The dating, of course, doesn't give you the ultimate number.

Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.

Still it doesn't matter. There is a fossil record bias, a lot of
animals we will never find. We do have the outcome, today's world, and
we have to use logic to figure out how today's world emerged, not
constrain our thinking solely on fossil record, although fossil record
is extremely helpful.

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
Well we both know that Australia is a special case, that famous
Wallace Line going on, which is probably why you're ignoring my
point about seeing the wild fires...
Assuming they did arrive much later, Australia was still much larger,
sea level lower -- the land closer together -- and they would have
known the land was there because they could see the evidence from the
wild fires.
So, Australia being the one and only example where they likely
couldn't have just grabbed a log, held on & started kicking with their
feet, they didn't need anything particularly sea worthy. Just something
that would have allowed them to rest.

         I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse case
than South America.

Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?

What is the "Wallace line" to you? A lot of animals never cross it.
How is Wallace line worse than Atlantic Ocean? In your eyes Wallace line
is wide all the way to Mars, while Atlantic Ocean is just a little pond. Hm.

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
You being brain damaged you missed the fact that I said that they hardly
every sailed beyond view of the land. And they didn't. Communication
sucked, there was no such thing as weather reports and help was unlikely
to ever materialize.
What morons like you do is forget WHAT a ship was and WHY is was so
useful to the romans. Fact is, it was a trail car. A railroad car. You
could carry far more weight -- VASTLY more weight -- on water and with
a tiny fraction of the effort. So ships were trains of even the "Trucks"
of their day:  Load them up in THIS port, cart it all over to THAT port.
There were some point where you probably wanted to cross the open water,
do to time. But a smart sailor would avoid it.
Besides the all-to-real threat of storms, pirates and other problems,
there's a limited amount of food and water you can take with you!

         It is you who doesn't understand the piracy problem at all.
Even today we have piracy in some passageways, like Singapore Strait,
off the coast of Peru, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, the
Gulf of Guinea, South China Sea.

And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.

You really don't know those things. Pirates have fast boats, and they
are armed. You can call for help, no problemo, pirates don't care, lol.
When do you think that help will arrive?

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
You bring it from Cornwall to the coast. Then, following the coast you
reach a point with a very short crossing distance, then then cross.
 From there, you unload or follow the coast to whatever your destination
part is.
But, your trip was almost all within eyesight of the coast.

         They found traces of Minoans in Norway,

No. Someone claimed that they found carvings. But there's claims like
that everywhere!

"The Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the Phoenicians sailed
around the British Isles on their way to the tin mines of Cornwall.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiterides
Traders are known to have invented tall tales to mask the true location
of their products - and hence eliminate competition - but science has
gotten pretty good at pinpointing the origins of metals.
It's pretty easy, with the right equipment and a database of results...
A hand held device can tell you the composition of a metal -- it's
purity and it's impurities -- then you just match that to a source...

Yes, but: "Control of the tin trade seems to have been in Phoenician
hands, and they kept their sources secret.". If the source was nearer,
it wouldn't be a secret. Probably you can determine the source of unused
tin, but what about tin which was smelted into bronze.

[JTEM]

Post by JTEM
Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.

        Still it doesn't matter. There is a fossil record bias, a lot
of animals we will never find. We do have the outcome, today's world,
and we have to use logic to figure out how today's world emerged, not
constrain our thinking solely on fossil record, although fossil record
is extremely helpful.

That's called an "Argument from ignorance."

Post by JTEM

         I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse
case than South America.

Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?

        What is the "Wallace line" to you? A lot of animals never cross
it. How is Wallace line worse than Atlantic Ocean? In your eyes Wallace
line is wide all the way to Mars, while Atlantic Ocean is just a little
pond. Hm.

Typical narcissist...

"Wallace line? NO! Everyone is wrong about that! No difference what
so ever. None. And I even said so!"

Post by JTEM
And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.

        You really don't know those things.

A cat sprayed in your mouth, didn't it?

Just like you spray your narcissism... "No! Can't admit ANYTHING! Can't
back off a single inch or.. or.. OR ELSE!"

        Yes, but: "Control of the tin trade seems to have been in
Phoenician hands, and they kept their sources secret.". If the source
was nearer, it wouldn't be a secret. Probably you can determine the
source of unused tin, but what about tin which was smelted into bronze.

Pulling you back to the conversation: The issue was never distance.
What you were pretending to be addressing was the fact that the ancients
rarely sailed beyond sight of land. As a narcissist, you can't concede
the point and you can't admit that you're wrong so you had to convince
yourself that it was something else you were claiming... this distance
thing.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
Yes but even if it's off by 100% that's still 40 million years shy of
your number... without a dugout canoe in sight.

         Still it doesn't matter. There is a fossil record bias, a lot
of animals we will never find. We do have the outcome, today's world,
and we have to use logic to figure out how today's world emerged, not
constrain our thinking solely on fossil record, although fossil record
is extremely helpful.

That's called an "Argument from ignorance."

No, I didn't use ignorance as an argument, I used logic as argument.
Per logic, Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line. On which
you replied that it is the other way around, and that you have evidence
for this. Jesus christ.

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM

         I really don't see in which way Australia would be worse
case than South America.

Maybe it has something to do with the Wallace Line? You think that may
be why I brought it up? Hmm?

         What is the "Wallace line" to you? A lot of animals never
cross it. How is Wallace line worse than Atlantic Ocean? In your eyes
Wallace line is wide all the way to Mars, while Atlantic Ocean is just
a little pond. Hm.

Typical narcissist...
"Wallace line? NO!  Everyone is wrong about that! No difference what
so ever. None. And I even said so!"

I don't understand this bubbling.

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
And we don't have RADAR to warn us of the proximity of other ships, and
we lack radio and satellite communications to call for help, just like
in ancient times. That, or you're being a tit. Again.

         You really don't know those things.

A cat sprayed in your mouth, didn't it?
Just like you spray your narcissism... "No! Can't admit ANYTHING! Can't
back off a single inch or.. or.. OR ELSE!"

         Yes, but: "Control of the tin trade seems to have been in
Phoenician hands, and they kept their sources secret.". If the source
was nearer, it wouldn't be a secret. Probably you can determine the
source of unused tin, but what about tin which was smelted into bronze.

Pulling you back to the conversation:  The issue was never distance.
What you were pretending to be addressing was the fact that the ancients
rarely sailed beyond sight of land. As a narcissist, you can't concede
the point and you can't admit that you're wrong so you had to convince
yourself that it was something else you were claiming... this distance
thing.

So, why they built the Lighthouse of Alexandria?
Here you have a paper where they research Bay of Biscay in Bronze Age.
I didn't read the whole paper (it has 828 pages, and it doesn't talk
only about maritime trade), I only saw some tables. You can see on page
35 that sailors were going in paddled boats directly from Brittany to NW
Iberia by sea crossing, and back from NW Iberia to Brittany following
coast (probably you cannot do it by sea crossing in this direction
because of winds and currents), the sea crossing from Brittany to NW
Iberia took 10 - 12 days.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:50889eba-3a33-4494-93f7-f68d7a85dd46

[JTEM]

        No, I didn't use ignorance as an argument, I used logic as
argument. Per logic, Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line.

Which is ignorance, not logic. It's not "Logical" to "Argue" what
you think should be the case, ignoring what is the case.

        So, why they built the Lighthouse of Alexandria?

So you also have no idea what a lighthouse is, what it's used for...

        Here you have a paper where they research Bay of Biscay in
Bronze Age. I didn't read the whole paper (it has 828 pages, and it
doesn't talk only about maritime trade), I only saw some tables. You can
see on page 35 that sailors were going in paddled boats directly from
Brittany to NW Iberia by sea crossing

These tables that tell you this... are they in the room right now?

Honey, look at a map. You just follow the coast.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         No, I didn't use ignorance as an argument, I used logic as
argument. Per logic, Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line.

Which is ignorance, not logic. It's not "Logical" to "Argue" what
you think should be the case, ignoring what is the case.

I think that it should be the case that Atlantic Ocean is far wider
than the Wallace line, but it actually isn't? Are you crazy? Are you
narcissist?

Post by JTEM

         So, why they built the Lighthouse of Alexandria?

So you also have no idea what a lighthouse is, what it's used for...

         Here you have a paper where they research Bay of Biscay in
Bronze Age. I didn't read the whole paper (it has 828 pages, and it
doesn't talk only about maritime trade), I only saw some tables. You
can see on page 35 that sailors were going in paddled boats directly
from Brittany to NW Iberia by sea crossing

These tables that tell you this... are they in the room right now?
Honey, look at a map. You just follow the coast.

Cherry pie, page 35, just a little read, direct route over open sea
from Brittany to NW Iberia, 10 - 12 days, Bronze Age. They would go the
same way back too, only if it isn't for unfavorable currents and winds.
"As a narcissist, you can't concede
the point and you can't admit that you're wrong so you had to convince
yourself that it was something else you were claiming..."

[JTEM]

        I think that it should be the case that Atlantic Ocean is far
wider than the Wallace line, but it actually isn't? Are you crazy? Are
you narcissist?

What you think isn't relevant. Monkeys are found on both sides
of the Atlantic. They are not found on the other side of the
Wallace Line.

So no matter what you want to argue, the crossing was made in
the Atlantic.

Post by JTEM
Honey, look at a map. You just follow the coast.

        Cherry pie, page 35, just a little read, direct route over open
sea from Brittany to NW Iberia, 10 - 12 days, Bronze Age.

And very few if any would ever do that.

Open sea and get caught in a storm? Death. Hugging the coast and a
storm brews up? Beach yourself and wait it out.

Just look at the map. They had zero incentive to do anything but
sail within sight of the coast.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         I think that it should be the case that Atlantic Ocean is far
wider than the Wallace line, but it actually isn't? Are you crazy? Are
you narcissist?

What you think isn't relevant. Monkeys are found on both sides
of the Atlantic. They are not found on the other side of the
Wallace Line.
So no matter what you want to argue, the crossing was made in
the Atlantic.

Don't you get it, what you (and everybody else) is saying doesn't have
the slightest of senses. They did manage to cross huge Atlantic Ocean,
but they didn't manage to cross narrow Wallace Line?
Don't you get it, there was *no* crossing between Africa and South
America, just like there was *no* crossing between Africa and
Madagascar, in the time leaping primates were active. Monkeys from
Africa *never* crossed to Madagascar, monkeys *never* crossed Wallace
Line, but they did cross by far the widest of them all, Atlantic Ocean?
No, in the time their ancestors moved from Africa to South America there
was *no* crossing, for god's sake, it was all connected to Antarctica.
Do you get it (finally)? The link between South America and Antarctica
broke only 35 mya.

Post by JTEM

Post by JTEM
Honey, look at a map. You just follow the coast.

         Cherry pie, page 35, just a little read, direct route over
open sea from Brittany to NW Iberia, 10 - 12 days, Bronze Age.

And very few if any would ever do that.
Open sea and get caught in a storm? Death. Hugging the coast and a
storm brews up?  Beach yourself and wait it out.
Just look at the map. They had zero incentive to do anything but
sail within sight of the coast.

Jesus, on that map you have standard routes. They said that this
crossing was made only during summer, when conditions are good. On
Mediterranean you mostly have good conditions, Mediterranean is closed
sea. You can go away from land, but still you are always relatively
close to land, much closer than that route from Brittany to NW Iberia,
and, for sure, there isn't a possibility that you will end up in the
open ocean. You have the wrong idea, but you are narcissist and you
don't want to admit it.

[JTEM]

        Don't you get it, what you (and everybody else) is saying
doesn't have the slightest of senses.

I stated what is: Monkeys are on both sides of the Atlantic, but they
are not on the other side of the Wallace Line.

Your "Ideas," if I may call them that, ignore reality.

[Mario Petrinovic]

         Don't you get it, what you (and everybody else) is saying
doesn't have the slightest of senses.

I stated what is:  Monkeys are on both sides of the Atlantic, but they
are not on the other side of the Wallace Line.
Your "Ideas," if I may call them that, ignore reality.

No, I completely agree with the reality, yes, monkeys are at the both
sides of Atlantic, but they didn't cross the Wallace Line. The problem
is that from that reality you drew a conclusion that monkeys crossed the
wide water, yet they were unable to cross narrow water. I am still
puzzled, first, how somebody can draw such illogical conclusion, and
second, how somebody doesn't see the illogicity of it, even if it is
repeatedly pointed out to her? It is like saying one million is smaller
than one hundred, and insisting on it. Why? I mean, even if you would
have some other idea, you cannot insist in that my logic is wrong,
because one million *isn't* smaller than one hundred, whichever way you
put it. If I say that Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line,
I, simply, cannot be wrong, and you insist that I am wrong at that.
Jesus Christ.

[JTEM]

        No, I completely agree with the reality, yes, monkeys are at
the both sides of Atlantic, but they didn't cross the Wallace Line. The
problem is that from that reality you drew a conclusion that monkeys
crossed the wide water, yet they were unable to cross narrow water. I am
still puzzled, first, how somebody can draw such illogical conclusion

Look. I appreciate the point about the evidence. That, two people might
look at the exact same evidence and come to wildly differently
conclusions, assuring us that both can't be right.

In fact, Aquatic Ape is a great example! If you examine evidence with
a steadfast savanna "model" (pretending there is even a model) in mind,
you come to radically different conclusion than someone who recognizes
the reality of Aquatic Ape. But...

Doing the quick Google thing, one cite claimed that the south Atlantic
opened maybe 140 million years ago. So that would have been your last
opportunity for monkeys to simply stroll between the continents.

Of course there's the other side, from Asia into north America, but I
couldn't find any hint of North American monkey species that's within
some millions of years from South American finds, which are 35 million
years old if not older.

No, it doesn't look like they were present in the Americas for
significantly longer. Which means we have an upward limit on their
residence here in the Americas, and that limit does not open itself
up to a lot of marching from Africa.

and second, how somebody doesn't see the illogicity of it, even if it is
repeatedly pointed out to her?

I'm not sure what your vagina has to do with anything. But, crossings
were made. It's really just a matter of direction and path.

The model I favor says they evolved in South America and then likely
spread to Asia and on into Africa.

If I say that Atlantic Ocean is far wider than the Wallace Line,
I, simply, cannot be wrong

Your clitoris is on the outside. If your man isn't satisfying you it
has nothing to do with size. I mean, for Christ's sake, LESBIANS
have no problem giving each other orgasms and they don't have any penis,
never mind a big one. So get off the size kick, lady.

Monkeys are far from the only species that failed to cross the wallace
line. And we know for a fact that there were water crossings just from
looking at Madagascar alone!

[JTEM]

        Actually, it doesn't have to be connected over Antarctica, on
this map you will see that Africa and South America had some kind of
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11959-7/figures/5

The status quo hasn't even caught up to the facts yet and you're already
placing the New World/Old World split back to 80 million years ago?

Why don't you just admit that you're wrong?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         Actually, it doesn't have to be connected over Antarctica, on
this map you will see that Africa and South America had some kind of
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11959-7/figures/5

The status quo hasn't even caught up to the facts yet and you're already
placing the New World/Old World split back to 80 million years ago?
Why don't you just admit that you're wrong?

No, I didn't say that New World/Old World monkeys split was 80 million
years ago, I am saying that split between the New World/Old World
primates happened 80 mya, monkeys emerged only after 66 mya. I am saying
that after 66 mya leaping primates turned into over branch monkey
because after 66 mya wide canopy trees prevailed. And this happened on
the whole planet, in both, South America and in Africa. So, I am saying
that leaping primates of Africa and South America split 80 mya, and then
they had convergent evolution. Judging by different characteristics they
have, different nostrils, prehensile tail, this looks exactly like
convergent evolution. Actually, the nostrils formed after the split,
obviously.
So, we have wet-nosed primates (Strepsirrhini), and we have dry-nosed
primates (Haplorhini). It is obvious that the nose in the New World
monkeys formed differently than the nose in the Old World monkeys, hence
the split happened before nose formed, hence the split between the New
World primates and the Old World primates happened while those primates
were still wet-nosed (Strepsirrhini), hence, before 66 mya.
Jesus, I know that this is to hard for you, but hey, try to figure out it.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         I think that it should be the case that Atlantic Ocean is
far wider than the Wallace line, but it actually isn't? Are you
crazy? Are you narcissist?

What you think isn't relevant. Monkeys are found on both sides
of the Atlantic. They are not found on the other side of the
Wallace Line.
So no matter what you want to argue, the crossing was made in
the Atlantic.

        Don't you get it, what you (and everybody else) is saying
doesn't have the slightest of senses. They did manage to cross huge
Atlantic Ocean, but they didn't manage to cross narrow Wallace Line?
        Don't you get it, there was *no* crossing between Africa and
South America, just like there was *no* crossing between Africa and
Madagascar, in the time leaping primates were active. Monkeys from
Africa *never* crossed to Madagascar, monkeys *never* crossed Wallace
Line, but they did cross by far the widest of them all, Atlantic Ocean?
No, in the time their ancestors moved from Africa to South America there
was *no* crossing, for god's sake, it was all connected to Antarctica.
Do you get it (finally)? The link between South America and Antarctica
broke only 35 mya.

Actually, it doesn't have to be connected over Antarctica, on this map
you will see that Africa and South America had some kind of connection
80 mya:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11959-7/figures/5