Erectus is not the path to modern humans, they
were modern humans!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12733395/

According to this study, it may be correct to say
that there has only been one single human
species on 2 million years now.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Human%20origins/page/5

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 04:12:41 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

Erectus is not the path to modern humans, they
were modern humans!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12733395/
According to this study, it may be correct to say
that there has only been one single human
species on 2 million years now.

H.erectus were certainly close relatives (Homo), but our direct ancestors?
Only DNA can tell.

The paper (see below) has many merits, but forgets the most important: australopiths were NO human ancestors, but closer relatives of Pan or Gorilla: -S.Afr.apiths likely belonged to Pan (e.g. fossil subgenus Australopithecus), -E.Afr.apiths (Lucy etc.) to Gorilla (e.g. fossil subgenus Praeanthropus).
Pan & Gorilla evolved largely in parallel, apparently
-from Pliocene "gracile", e.g. G.afarensis // P.africanus,
-to Pleistocene "robust", e.g. G.boisei // Pan robustus.

Neandertals are certainly sapiens, perhaps a different subspecies,
but I'd retain erectus as a different species?
and what happened to Pliocene Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma? a different species or simply erectus?

Revision hominids?? e.g.
-Oreopithecus = Graecopithecus? incl.Trachilos?...?
-Gorilla afarensis, boisei, gorilla(+beringei) ...
-Pan africanus, robustus, troglodytes(+paniscus)...
-Homo erectus(early-Pleist.+Pliocene??), sapiens(incl.neand.).

______


Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective
D Curnoe & A Thorne 2003 Homo 53:201-224
doi 10.1078/0018-442x-00051

Despite the remarkable developments in mol.biology over the past 3 decades, anthropological genetics has had only limited impact on systematics in human evolution.
Genetics
- offers the opportunity to objectively test taxonomies based on morphology,
- may be used to supplement conventional approaches to hominid systematics.
Our analyses, examining chromosomes & 46 estimates of genetic distance, indicate:
there may have been only c 4 spp on the direct line to modern humans, 5 spp in total.
This contrasts with current taxonomies recognising up to 23 spp.
The genetic proximity of humans & chimps has been used to suggest these spp are congeneric.
Our analysis of genetic distances between them is consistent with this proposal.
It is time that chimps, living humans & all fossil humans be classified in Homo.
The creation of new genera can no longer be a solution to the complexities of fossil morphologies.
Published genetic distances between common chimps & bonobos + evidence for interbreeding suggest they should be assigned to a single species.
The short distance between humans & chimps also places a strict limit on the nr of possible evolutionary 'side-branches' that might be recognised on the human lineage.
All fossil taxa were genetically very close to each other, and likely to have been below congeneric genetic distances seen for many mammals.
Our estimates of genetic divergence suggest:
periods of c 2 My are required to produce sufficient genetic distance to represent speciation:
Neanderthals & so-called H.erectus were genetically so close to contemporary H.sapiens, they were unlikely to have been separate species:
it is likely there was only 1 species of human (Hs) for most of the last 2 Ma. We estimate the divergence time of Hs from 16 genetic distances to be c 1.7 Ma, consistent with evidence for the earliest migration out of Africa.

These findings
- call into question the mitochondrial "Afr.Eve" hypothesis, based on a far more recent origin for Hs,
- show that Hs did not go through a bottleneck in their recent evolutionary history.
Given the large offset in evol.rates of molecules & morphology seen in human evolution, Homo spp are likely to be characterised by
- high levels of morphological variation &
- low levels of genetic variability:
molecular data suggest the limits for intra-specific morphological variation used by many PAs have been set too low.
The role of phenotypic plasticity has been greatly underestimated in human evolution.
We call into question the use of mtDNA for studies of human evolution.
This DNA is under strong selection, which violates the assumption of selective neutrality.
This issue should be addressed by geneticists, incl. a re-assessment of its use for molecular clocks.
There is a need for greater cooperation between PAs & anthropological geneticists, to better understand human evolution, and to bring PA into the mainstream of evol.biology.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

H.erectus were certainly close relatives (Homo), but our direct ancestors? Only DNA can tell.

The paper (see below) has many merits, but forgets the most important: australopiths were NO human ancestors, but closer relatives of Pan or Gorilla:
-S.Afr.apiths likely belonged to Pan (e.g. fossil subgenus Australopithecus), -E.Afr.apiths (Lucy etc.) to Gorilla (e.g. fossil subgenus Praeanthropus). Pan & Gorilla evolved largely in parallel, apparently
-from Pliocene "gracile", e.g. G.afarensis // P.africanus,
-to Pleistocene "robust", e.g. G.boisei // Pan robustus.

Neandertals are certainly sapiens, perhaps a different subspecies,
but I'd retain erectus as a different species?
and what happened to Pliocene Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma? a different species or simply erectus?

Separate Population != Separate Species

When populations split they are both free to pursue their own biological developments, evolutionary path. They each acquire their own unique mutations/adaptations. But they're still one species. Think of it this way:

Throw a fence around China, don't let anyone in or out. They are now a
separate population, developing/evolving without the genetic influence
from other populations. They are not a different species. But...

But they will be. Eventually.

After a thousand years? Or 10 thousand? A million years? Eventually,
being isolated and hence distinct, they will become a separate and
distinct species.

So when humans "Split" from chimps, that is not the point when we were "Different Species." AND, it was less than 5 million years ago.

The "Split" is usually dated by way of some imaginary mtDNA molecular
clock. But applying the same rules elsewhere on the genome we get
younger dates.

The "Split" was certainly more like 4 million years ago -- 3.7 million -- and could have been even younger... Maybe a million years younger, I dunno.

Is it that important?

I imagine, and this is just a rough estimate or even guess, that it took
about a million years or more for Homo to evolve into erectus after the
split. If the study I cited is accurate, we could call it 2 million years. So that would place the split around 3.7 or 3.8 million years ago, RIGHT IN
LINE with the X Chromosome dating on the Homo/Pan split.

But, again, the study I cited is asking us to consider the possibility that there never was a Homo/Pan split. That, the LCA was Homo and Chimps
are Homo, Pan is a misnomer.

I dunno. I'm wasting a lot of time talking about Chimps here...

Personally I think Aquatic Ape arrives on the scene prior to the split with chimps. And why not? The common ancestor was upright, almost
certainly used tools. The most intriguing fact for me though is the
complete absence of chimp fossils. To me this strongly implies
something quite important:

It implies that we have found Chimp fossils! It implies, as in the case
of Denisovans, we've been finding early Chimps or evidence of same
all along, and we just never new what we were looking at.

So, riding that sled as far down the hill as we can go...

This in turn implies that early Chimps didn't look like Chimps, they
looked like Homo?

Sediba? Something like that?







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/84663014743

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 22:15:49 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

H.erectus were certainly close relatives (Homo), but our direct ancestors? Only DNA can tell.
The paper (see below) has many merits, but forgets the most important: australopiths were NO human ancestors, but closer relatives of Pan or Gorilla:
-S.Afr.apiths likely belonged to Pan (e.g. fossil subgenus Australopithecus),
-E.Afr.apiths (Lucy etc.) to Gorilla (e.g. fossil subgenus Praeanthropus). Pan & Gorilla evolved largely in parallel, apparently
-from Pliocene "gracile", e.g. G.afarensis // P.africanus,
-to Pleistocene "robust", e.g. G.boisei // Pan robustus.
Neandertals are certainly sapiens, perhaps a different subspecies,
but I'd retain erectus as a different species?
and what happened to Pliocene Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma? a different species or simply erectus?

Separate Population != Separate Species

When populations split they are both free to pursue their own biological developments, evolutionary path. They each acquire their own unique mutations/adaptations. But they're still one species. Think of it this way: Throw a fence around China, don't let anyone in or out. They are now a separate population, developing/evolving without the genetic influence
from other populations. They are not a different species. But...
But they will be. Eventually.
After a thousand years? Or 10 thousand? A million years? Eventually,
being isolated and hence distinct, they will become a separate and
distinct species.
So when humans "Split" from chimps, that is not the point when we were "Different Species." AND, it was less than 5 million years ago.
The "Split" is usually dated by way of some imaginary mtDNA molecular
clock. But applying the same rules elsewhere on the genome we get
younger dates.
The "Split" was certainly more like 4 million years ago -- 3.7 million -- and
could have been even younger... Maybe a million years younger, I dunno.

A H/P split c 5 Ma (Messinian solinity crisis??) fits with
- HP/G 7-8 Ma (G=Praeanthropus following the incipient Rift??),
- hominid/pongid c 15 Ma (Mesopotamian Seaway closure??) etc.

Is it that important?
I imagine, and this is just a rough estimate or even guess, that it took about a million years or more for Homo to evolve into erectus after the split. If the study I cited is accurate, we could call it 2 million years. So
that would place the split around 3.7 or 3.8 million years ago, RIGHT IN LINE with the X Chromosome dating on the Homo/Pan split.
But, again, the study I cited is asking us to consider the possibility that there never was a Homo/Pan split. That, the LCA was Homo and Chimps
are Homo, Pan is a misnomer.

No, the authors still believe apiths were human ancestors.
I showed this is wrong, see my Hum.Evol.papers, esp.
--- 1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
Since apiths display humanlike traits (e.g. short ilia, rel.small front teeth, thick molar enamel), they are usu.assumed to be related to H rather than to P or G.
But this assumption is not supported by many other of their features.
I briefly survey the literature concerning cranio-dental comparisons of apith spp with bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature.
It will be argued (albeit on fragmentary data):
- the large apiths of E.Africa were in many instances anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to G than to P or H,
- the S.African apiths nearer to P & H than to G.
An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided.
It is suggested that the evidence concerning the relation of the different apiths with humans, chimps & gorillas should be re-evaluated.
--- 1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
This paper attempt

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Humans have always been tied to the forest, and will always be tied to the forest.

We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

And, seriously, if you have to tie them up that means they don't want to be there!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Climate%20Change

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 22:15:49 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

H.erectus were certainly close relatives (Homo), but our direct ancestors?
Only DNA can tell.
The paper (see below) has many merits, but forgets the most important: australopiths were NO human ancestors, but closer relatives of Pan or Gorilla:
-S.Afr.apiths likely belonged to Pan (e.g. fossil subgenus Australopithecus),
-E.Afr.apiths (Lucy etc.) to Gorilla (e.g. fossil subgenus Praeanthropus).
Pan & Gorilla evolved largely in parallel, apparently
-from Pliocene "gracile", e.g. G.afarensis // P.africanus,
-to Pleistocene "robust", e.g. G.boisei // Pan robustus.
Neandertals are certainly sapiens, perhaps a different subspecies,
but I'd retain erectus as a different species?
and what happened to Pliocene Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma? a different species or simply erectus?

Separate Population != Separate Species

When populations split they are both free to pursue their own biological developments, evolutionary path. They each acquire their own unique mutations/adaptations. But they're still one species. Think of it this way:
Throw a fence around China, don't let anyone in or out. They are now a separate population, developing/evolving without the genetic influence from other populations. They are not a different species. But...
But they will be. Eventually.
After a thousand years? Or 10 thousand? A million years? Eventually,
being isolated and hence distinct, they will become a separate and distinct species.
So when humans "Split" from chimps, that is not the point when we were "Different Species." AND, it was less than 5 million years ago.
The "Split" is usually dated by way of some imaginary mtDNA molecular clock. But applying the same rules elsewhere on the genome we get
younger dates.
The "Split" was certainly more like 4 million years ago -- 3.7 million -- and
could have been even younger... Maybe a million years younger, I dunno.

A H/P split c 5 Ma (Messinian solinity crisis??) fits with
- HP/G 7-8 Ma (G=Praeanthropus following the incipient Rift??),
- hominid/pongid c 15 Ma (Mesopotamian Seaway closure??) etc.

Is it that important?
I imagine, and this is just a rough estimate or even guess, that it took about a million years or more for Homo to evolve into erectus after the split. If the study I cited is accurate, we could call it 2 million years. So
that would place the split around 3.7 or 3.8 million years ago, RIGHT IN LINE with the X Chromosome dating on the Homo/Pan split.
But, again, the study I cited is asking us to consider the possibility that
there never was a Homo/Pan split. That, the LCA was Homo and Chimps
are Homo, Pan is a misnomer.

No, the authors still believe apiths were human ancestors.
I showed this is wrong, see my Hum.Evol.papers, esp.
--- 1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
Since apiths display humanlike traits (e.g. short ilia, rel.small front teeth, thick molar enamel), they are usu.assumed to be related to H rather than to P or G.
But this assumption is not supported by many other of their features.
I briefly survey the literature concerning cranio-dental comparisons of apith spp with bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature.
It will be argued (albeit on fragmentary data):
- the large apiths of E.Africa were in many instances anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to G than to P or H,
- the S.African apiths nearer to P & H than to G.
An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided.
It is suggested that the evidence concerning the relation of the different apiths with humans, chimps & gorillas should be re-evaluated.
--- 1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil & living species of hominoids.
The comparison is based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain 1986).
The conclusions are:
- cranio-dentally, the australopithecine spp are a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans,
- overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.

I dunno. I'm wasting a lot of time talking about Chimps here...
Personally I think Aquatic Ape arrives on the scene prior to the split with
chimps. And why not? The common ancestor was upright, almost
certainly used tools. The most intriguing fact for me though is the complete absence of chimp fossils.

Not so: we have plenty of Pan & Gorilla fossils, see my Hum.Evol.papers.
The "absence" of chimp fossils is only due to the traditional unscientific anthropocentrism.

To me this strongly implies something quite important:
It implies that we have found Chimp fossils! It implies, as in the case
of Denisovans, we've been finding early Chimps or evidence of same
all along, and we just never new what we were looking at.
So, riding that sled as far down the hill as we can go...
This in turn implies that early Chimps didn't look like Chimps, they looked like Homo?
Sediba? Something like that?

Miocene hominoids were already aquarboreal, (BP wading-climbing)
google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
But when did we ("Homo") leave the trees +-completely & began freqently diving (POS)?

Stupid strawman question of no relevance to human evolution.

Humans have always been tied to the forest, and will always be tied to the forest.

We simply made the forest canopy portable, and brought it wherever we went.

The US flag on the moon is a direct derivative.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 2:15:22 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Some nutcase here (can't be bothered to
work out who) wrote

australopiths were NO human ancestors, but closer relatives of Pan or Gorilla:

I quite often draft replies to this newsgroup
-- largely to clarify my own thinking --- but
then I just don't bother to post them.

Would you get into a serious conversation
with someone who has total faith in the last
US Presidential election being stolen? Or
with someone looking for the site of Noah's
Ark or of Sodom and the "Pillar of Salt"?

The "absence" of chimp fossils is only due to the traditional unscientific anthropocentrism.

Why are there no chimp fossils?

It's not hard to answer. Chimps can't swim
(an inability so rare that it's almost unknown
among vertebrates) and so hate bodies of
water. They don't sleep over them, especially
when feeling poorly. When they die, their
bodies fall to the ground, usually into
vegetation. While alive, they are nearly
always safe from floods. There is very little
likelihood that their bodies will end up in
water or covered by mud or sand.

But when did we ("Homo") leave the trees +-completely & began freqently diving (POS)?

There's no evidence that our ancestors got
into diving, as a regular activity. The homo
line evolved a quite distinct set of capacities
or advantages that allowed the taxon to
survive and prosper. Swimming or diving
was never a more-than-occasional part of
that set. Like other apes we are not born
with a swimming capacity. We need
training and many humans never get it.
If humans (& human ancestors) had swum
regularly, there would have been strong
selection favouring a 'natural' inherited
capacity to swim. There was EITHER no
such selection OR there were contrary
forces against a swimming capacity.
(Possibly young children who were better
swimmers were substantially more
subject to accidental drownings.)

Humans have always been tied to the forest, and will always be tied to the forest.

A crazy and unevidenced opinion -- if not as
crazy or as unevidenced as most opinions
around here. If predators were around, no
habitat would be more dangerous to
ground-based hominins.

The US flag on the moon is a direct derivative.

The analogy of forest = flag-pole is
illustrative.

We simply made the forest canopy portable, and brought it wherever we went.

Is there one other person in the world who
thinks that this is reasonable?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 2:15:22 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Some nutcase here (can't be bothered to
work out who) wrote

australopiths were NO human ancestors, but closer relatives of Pan or Gorilla:

I quite often draft replies to this newsgroup
-- largely to clarify my own thinking --- but
then I just don't bother to post them.

Would you get into a serious conversation
with someone who has total faith in the last
US Presidential election being stolen? Or
with someone looking for the site of Noah's
Ark or of Sodom and the "Pillar of Salt"?

The "absence" of chimp fossils is only due to the traditional unscientific anthropocentrism.

Why are there no chimp fossils?

It's not hard to answer. Chimps can't swim
(an inability so rare that it's almost unknown
among vertebrates) and so hate bodies of
water. They don't sleep over them, especially
when feeling poorly. When they die, their
bodies fall to the ground, usually into
vegetation. While alive, they are nearly
always safe from floods. There is very little
likelihood that their bodies will end up in
water or covered by mud or sand.

But when did we ("Homo") leave the trees +-completely & began freqently diving (POS)?

There's no evidence that our ancestors got
into diving, as a regular activity. The homo
line evolved a quite distinct set of capacities
or advantages that allowed the taxon to
survive and prosper. Swimming or diving
was never a more-than-occasional part of
that set. Like other apes we are not born
with a swimming capacity. We need
training and many humans never get it.
If humans (& human ancestors) had swum
regularly, there would have been strong
selection favouring a 'natural' inherited
capacity to swim. There was EITHER no
such selection OR there were contrary
forces against a swimming capacity.
(Possibly young children who were better
swimmers were substantially more
subject to accidental drownings.)

Humans have always been tied to the forest, and will always be tied to the forest.

A crazy and unevidenced opinion -- if not as
crazy or as unevidenced as most opinions
around here. If predators were around, no
habitat would be more dangerous to
ground-based hominins.

Homo became the prime predator in forests with thrusting spears and shields, but not in open areas where fast-chasing quadrupeds dominated, until the atlatl spearthrower and bow + arrow were developed in the Holocene.
In forests, ticks, mites, fleas, mosquitoes, leeches, parasites were more dangerous than large predators most of the time.

The US flag on the moon is a direct derivative.

The analogy of forest = flag-pole is
illustrative.

Forest and forest products...

We simply made the forest canopy portable, and brought it wherever we went.

Is there one other person in the world who
thinks that this is reasonable?

Look out your cubicle during rain or bright sun, watch the humans with their umbrellas go by.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday 24 January 2022 at 02:50:21 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Homo became the prime predator in forests with thrusting spears and
shields, but not in open areas where fast-chasing quadrupeds dominated,
until the atlatl spearthrower and bow + arrow were developed in the
Holocene. In forests, ticks, mites, fleas, mosquitoes, leeches, parasites were
more dangerous than large predators most of the time.

Could you cope with a polar bear or a grizzly
armed only with a spear and shield? Of course
not. Could you raise a family in their presence?
Would your hominin wife with your small infants
remain with you if such predators were around?

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 7:10:12 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Monday 24 January 2022 at 02:50:21 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Homo became the prime predator in forests with thrusting spears and shields, but not in open areas where fast-chasing quadrupeds dominated, until the atlatl spearthrower and bow + arrow were developed in the Holocene. In forests, ticks, mites, fleas, mosquitoes, leeches, parasites were
more dangerous than large predators most of the time.

Could you cope with a polar bear or a grizzly
armed only with a spear and shield?

The groups dealt effectively with local predators and scavengers, as I've well described multiple times.

Of course

not. Could you raise a family in their presence?

The groups did.

Would your hominin wife with your small infants
remain with you if such predators were around?

The wives with their sharp digging stick/spears & mobile shields.

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears

Nope, they were much more like black bears, sun bears & panda bears, all of which are easily chased away by noisy armed groups. Stop fantasizing about open-plains hyper-carnivorous predators that never lived in tropical forests.

Once more: Stop fantasizing about open-plains hyper-carnivorous predators that never lived in tropical forests.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday 25 January 2022 at 06:43:32 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Could you cope with a polar bear or a grizzly
armed only with a spear and shield?

The groups dealt effectively with local predators and scavengers, as I've well
described multiple times.

In forests predators can hide and ambush.
Hominins would never have time to form
groups. Quadrupeds can move through
bush much more easily and much faster
than any biped. No hominin child would
ever be safe.

Could you raise a family in their presence?

The groups did.

Groups of bipeds in a forest are no more
than groups of ready meals for large
predators.

Would your hominin wife with your small infants
remain with you if such predators were around?

The wives with their sharp digging stick/spears & mobile shields.

While holding on to their infants?

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears

Nope, they were much more like black bears, sun bears & panda bears, all
of which are easily chased away by noisy armed groups.

Why do you think this? It's crazy, as
well as massively un-informed. Google
"Lars Werdelin" "extinctions".
Or see: https://www.mn.uio.no/cees/english/research/news/events/research/guest-lectures/friday-seminars/2007-2020/2014/werdelin.html

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057944

" . . Our ancestors have been common throughout eastern Africa for several million years
and during this time there were multiple extinctions according to Lars Werdelin, co-
author and expert on African fossils.
By investigating the African fossils, we can see a drastic reduction in the number of large
carnivores, a decrease that started about 4 million years ago . . "

Werdelin is right in the sense that our ancestors
were common enough to wreak havoc on all
the large omnivore species that (like modern
bears) roamed everywhere, including forests.
(They didn't bother so much about the pure
carnivores.) However, he's wrong to suggest
that they were 'common' in the sense of being
common fauna. They weren't. Their fossil
remains are absolutely minimal -- maybe one
millionth of those of (say) hyena.

Stop fantasizing about open-plains hyper-carnivorous predators that never lived in tropical forests.

I follow Werdelin here. Our ancestors didn't
bother much about the hyper-carnivores.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 6:29:02 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:

On Tuesday 25 January 2022 at 06:43:32 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Could you cope with a polar bear or a grizzly
armed only with a spear and shield?

The groups dealt effectively with local predators and scavengers, as I've well
described multiple times.

In forests predators can hide and ambush.

Homo and other predators.

Hominins would never have time to form
groups.

They were always grouped, sleeping around a climbable tree (later campfire) in pairs (ma & infant, pa & toddler),
foraging, trekking together.

Quadrupeds can move through

bush much more easily and much faster
than any biped.

Irrelevant. Ostrich & kiwi beat hare & tortoise.
Any attack on the group was near-suicide even if prey was killed.

No hominin child would

ever be safe.

Children were shielded.

Could you raise a family in their presence?

The groups did.

Groups of bipeds in a forest are no more
than groups of ready meals for large
predators.

Take your meds.

Would your hominin wife with your small infants
remain with you if such predators were around?

The wives with their sharp digging stick/spears & mobile shields.

While holding on to their infants?

Shielded with sharp stick inside, or en mass with infants at center.

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears

Nope, they were much more like black bears, sun bears & panda bears, all
of which are easily chased away by noisy armed groups.

Why do you think this?

Do some research before making nonsense claims.

It's crazy, as

well as massively un-informed. Google
"Lars Werdelin" "extinctions".

Homo beat the big omnivores.

Or see: https://www.mn.uio.no/cees/english/research/news/events/research/guest-lectures/friday-seminars/2007-2020/2014/werdelin.html

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057944

" . . Our ancestors have been common throughout eastern Africa for several million years
and during this time there were multiple extinctions according to Lars Werdelin, co-
author and expert on African fossils.
By investigating the African fossils, we can see a drastic reduction in the number of large
carnivores, a decrease that started about 4 million years ago . . "

Werdelin is right in the sense that our ancestors
were common enough to wreak havoc on all
the large omnivore species that (like modern
bears) roamed everywhere, including forests.
(They didn't bother so much about the pure
carnivores.) However, he's wrong to suggest
that they were 'common' in the sense of being
common fauna. They weren't. Their fossil
remains are absolutely minimal -- maybe one
millionth of those of (say) hyena.

Stop fantasizing about open-plains hyper-carnivorous predators that never lived in tropical forests.

I follow Werdelin here. Our ancestors didn't
bother much about the hyper-carnivores.

There weren't any in the forest where Homo dwelt near shallow crystalline streams.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul Crowley wrote:

On Monday 24 January 2022 at 02:50:21 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Homo became the prime predator in forests with thrusting spears and
shields, but not in open areas where fast-chasing quadrupeds dominated,
until the atlatl spearthrower and bow + arrow were developed in the
Holocene. In forests, ticks, mites, fleas, mosquitoes, leeches, parasites were
more dangerous than large predators most of the time.

Could you cope with a polar bear or a grizzly
armed only with a spear and shield? Of course
not. Could you raise a family in their presence?
Would your hominin wife with your small infants
remain with you if such predators were around?

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears.

Primates are social animals and gang up on predators.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 05:08:36 UTC, Primum Sapienti wrote:

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears.

Primates are social animals and gang up on predators.

Macaques and langurs are social animals
but they don't (except rarely) gang up on
leopards. They run. Chimps don't gang up
on lions. A single lion can keep a chimp
band up in a tree while it waits at the base.

The notion that pathetically weak slow
hominins -- incapable of scrambling up a
tree (chimp fashion) while their infants held
on -- could 'gang up' on the huge omnivores
that roamed the African mainland ~5 ma, is
close to insane.

But it's the best you've got.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday 26 January 2022 at 00:25:05 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Hominins would never have time to form
groups.

They were always grouped, sleeping around a climbable tree (later
campfire) in pairs (ma & infant, pa & toddler), foraging, trekking together.

I assumed you were talking of 20+ groups of
hominins -- not just two parents with their kids.

Your scenario is ridiculous, and gets worse by
the minute. Primates have a weak sense of
smell, and almost no night-sight -- unlike the
great bulk of terrestrial mammals who've
evolved and kept those senses over tens of
millions of years. A primate on the ground
has virtually no protection against such
predators -- which is why they stay up in the
trees, or (in the case of adult male gorillas)
grow to enormous size.

If hominins had stayed in the forest they'd
have retained their (quadrupedal) speed on
the ground, and their ability to scamper up
the nearest tree, with their infants holding
on. IOW -- they'd have stayed as chimps.

Quadrupeds can move through
bush much more easily and much faster
than any biped.

Irrelevant. Ostrich & kiwi beat hare & tortoise.

Ostriches don't go into forests. They stay in
the open where they can use their speed.
Kiwis evolved in the absence of mammalian
predators.

Any attack on the group was near-suicide even if prey was killed.

How can you say anything so stupid?

The omnivores (and carnivores) ranging Pliocene
and Pleistocene forests were at least as large
and as dangerous as polar & grizzly bears

Nope, they were much more like black bears, sun bears & panda bears, all >>> of which are easily chased away by noisy armed groups.

Why do you think this?

Do some research before making nonsense claims.

Quote some research that claims Africa didn't have
large omnivores before 3 ma. I've quoted that
of Werdelin et al., showing that there were
numerous such species.

Homo beat the big omnivores.

All hominins set about poisoning the big omnivores.
They eventually drove them to extinction -- after
several million years (& mostly before homo. But
they first had to 'live with them' (in some sense) --
and they didn't do that by sleeping with their
families on the ground in forests at night.

I follow Werdelin here. Our ancestors didn't
bother much about the hyper-carnivores.

There weren't any in the forest where Homo dwelt near shallow crystalline streams.

There would have been some in the forest --
in much the same way as tigers live in
forests in Asia, or lions in Africa roam
through them at times. Homo (and other
hominins) would have poisoned them as
well, and they'd have found it was healthier
to keep to the open plains.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)