Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

-stone tools
-dispersal -> Java
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-DHA etc. in seafood
-flat feet
-pachyosteosclerosis
-etc.

Only incredible idiots believe erectus hunted antelopes.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

-stone tools
-dispersal -> Java
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-DHA etc. in seafood
-flat feet
-pachyosteosclerosis
-etc.

Only incredible idiots believe erectus hunted antelopes.

ZERO doubt that this is true.

The only question is if there were populations that did not
exploit shellfish, or by pushing away from that niche they
evolved enough to become distinct from erectus.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680355372617400320

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

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 4:50:10 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

Crystalline streams, trout

-stone tools

Chimps

-dispersal -> Java

Land bridge from Malaya

-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"

Crystalline streams

-DHA etc. in seafood

Trout

-flat feet

Amazon forest tribes have flat feet for tree climbing

-pachyosteosclerosis

Irish elk

-etc.

Only incredible idiots believe erectus hunted antelopes.

Saiga

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

-stone tools
-dispersal -> Java
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-DHA etc. in seafood
-flat feet
-pachyosteosclerosis
-etc.

Only incredible idiots believe erectus

had a snorkel nose

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84762-0.pdf

Amplifcation of potential thermogenetic mechanisms in cetacean brains compared to artiodactyl brains

To elucidate factors underlying the evolution of large brains in
cetaceans, we
examined 16 brains from 14 cetartiodactyl species, with immunohistochemical techniques, for evidence of non-shivering thermogenesis. We show that, in comparison to the 11 artiodactyl brains studied (from 11 species), the 5 cetacean
brains (from 3 species), exhibit an expanded expression of uncoupling
protein 1
(UCP1, UCPs being mitochondrial inner membrane proteins that dissipate the proton gradient to generate heat) in cortical neurons, immunolocalization of UCP4 within a substantial proportion of glia throughout the brain, and an increased density of noradrenergic axonal boutons (noradrenaline
functioning to
control concentrations of and activate UCPs). Thus, cetacean brains studied possess multiple characteristics indicative of intensifed thermogenetic functionality that can be related to their current and historical
obligatory aquatic
niche. These fndings necessitate reassessment of our concepts regarding the reasons for large brain evolution and associated functional capacities in cetaceans.

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

Op vrijdag 1 april 2022 om 22:52:29 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

-stone tools
-dispersal -> Java
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-DHA etc. in seafood
-flat feet
-pachyosteosclerosis (POS)
-etc. ...

The only question is if there were populations that did not
exploit shellfish, or by pushing away from that niche they
evolved enough to become distinct from erectus.

POS He>Hn>Hs.
Less POS = less shellfish diving.
Apparently, Hn seasonally followed the rivers (Rhine, Meuse etc.) to the coast (salmon trek??).
Hs was +-not coastal/diving any more.

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

Op zaterdag 2 april 2022 om 02:25:27 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

...

large brains = cold water

Crystalline streams, trout

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = thermogenesis >< cold water?

-stone tools

Chimps

Yes occasionally = leftover? Pliocene??
H/P split c 5 Ma:
-P followed E.Afr.coasts -> inland Australopith & H.habilis? no POS
-H followed S.Asian coasts -> shellfish-diving = extreme POS in Pleistocene?

-dispersal -> Java

Land bridge from Malaya

Flores = oversea.

-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"

Crystalline streams

or marine

-DHA etc. in seafood

Trout

does not explain POS.

-flat feet

Amazon forest tribes have flat feet for tree climbing

No, not *for*.
All Hs have flat feet = relic of (semi)aquatic past.

-pachyosteosclerosis

Irish elk

Did Irish elk have POS??

Only incredible idiots believe erectus hunted antelopes.

Saiga

Saiga hunting by He was impososble: too heavy = slow.

The combination of larger brain, POS, platycephaly, Flores etc. leaves no doubt:
-He were predom.shellfish divers in salt water.
-Hn IMO seasonally followed the Rhine/Meuse... inland (salmon trek??).
-Hs no diving any more (CC Hs<Hn).

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

Op zaterdag 2 april 2022 om 08:08:24 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

-stone tools
-dispersal -> Java
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-DHA etc. in seafood
-flat feet
-pachyosteosclerosis
-etc.
Only incredible idiots believe erectus hunted antelopes.

Yes, my boy, of course:

had a snorkel nose

OI, BIG NOSE !
Marc Verhaegen
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities
including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded
and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins
of land and water. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food,
and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the
coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know
whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

POS He>Hn>Hs.
Less POS = less shellfish diving.
Apparently, Hn seasonally followed the rivers (Rhine, Meuse etc.) to the coast (salmon trek??).
Hs was +-not coastal/diving any more.

Well at least some populations of Neanderthals seemed to have
exploited the sea. We don't really know how big of a population
because they seemed to have vanished BEFORE the Holocene and
the rising sea levels.

Put short: Most of the coast is gone, drowned under the waves.

Neanderthals don't appear to have exploited salmon. Don't blame
them, salmon is quite yucky (that's a technical term) and when we
do see salmon being exploited it appears to be associated with
Cro Magnon, or at least very late and hybridized Neanderthals.

Not something I've invested a lot of time in. There could have been
changes to the environment, changes in the availability of food
driving Neanderthals to a less desirable source...

I'm absolutely convinced that there were inland populations
dependent upon meat and hunting. But these would have been
the most vulnerable to catastrophes, the least likely to have
left descendants.

Well, except through interbreeding with the coast.


-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680355372617400320

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

Op zaterdag 2 april 2022 om 08:49:25 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

POS He>Hn>Hs.
Less POS = less shellfish diving.
Apparently, Hn seasonally followed the rivers (Rhine, Meuse etc.) to the coast (salmon trek??).
Hs was +-not coastal/diving any more.

Well at least some populations of Neanderthals seemed to have
exploited the sea. We don't really know how big of a population
because they seemed to have vanished BEFORE the Holocene and
the rising sea levels.
Put short: Most of the coast is gone, drowned under the waves.

Yes.

Neanderthals don't appear to have exploited salmon. Don't blame
them, salmon is quite yucky (that's a technical term) and when we
do see salmon being exploited it appears to be associated with
Cro Magnon, or at least very late and hybridized Neanderthals.

Yes, possible. Hn had moderate POS, is found along rivers (Meuse) + coasts: I'd think they seasonally followed the Meuse/Rhine etc. to the sea,
and I very much like salmon... (and my grandmother had a hotel "De Zalm" :-)).

Not something I've invested a lot of time in. There could have been
changes to the environment, changes in the availability of food
driving Neanderthals to a less desirable source...

I'd think Hn had a very varied diet.

I'm absolutely convinced that there were inland populations
dependent upon meat and hunting.

I'm convinced there were no such populations during the Pleistocene:
we are slow, naked, vulnerable, labile, flat-footed, short-toothed etc.:
the opposite of hunting mammals.

IMO schematically
- early-Pleist.He = shallow diving
- mid-Pleist. Hn = wading + shallow-diving
- late-Pleist. Hs = predom.wading (e.g. longer tibias > Hn).

But these would have been
the most vulnerable to catastrophes, the least likely to have
left descendants.
Well, except through interbreeding with the coast.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm convinced there were no such populations during the Pleistocene:
we are slow, naked, vulnerable, labile, flat-footed, short-toothed etc.:
the opposite of hunting mammals.

IMO schematically
- early-Pleist.He = shallow diving
- mid-Pleist. Hn = wading + shallow-diving
- late-Pleist. Hs = predom.wading (e.g. longer tibias > Hn).

But these would have been
the most vulnerable to catastrophes, the least likely to have
left descendants.
Well, except through interbreeding with the coast.

Very true, but we do find them at inland site, we do find evidence for
hunting. I was completely against the hunting thing because throwing
spears had vanished entirely from the archaeological record. But then
the interwebs convinced me I was wrong. Even people active in this
group convinced me. See, maybe throwing spears vanished because
they found a better way!

Originally I thought throwing spears vanished because the primary
threat was other humans, and a man who throws his spear disarms
himself. One on one, you don't have to get very far from an attacker
before you can easily avoid an arrow fired from a bow. A spear is
easy to side step. So I thought THAT'S what happened: Survive humans
was more important than killing deer.

But I think I was wrong.

Ambush hunting would be more effective AND SAFER than even spear
throwing.

Sit in a tree branch above a game trail, maybe even plant some bait,
and stab down on unsuspecting animal. It's quite effective. Will kill a
bear in under 30 seconds. Best used with a long, sharp blade. That
way the lever action of the spear shaft cuts a huge swath out of the
animal.

Stabbing spears are also good for fishing, btw. A barbed point is common
so the fish doesn't fall off but even that much is unnecessary...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680203064431558656

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

Op zondag 3 april 2022 om 00:03:08 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

I'm convinced there were no such populations during the Pleistocene:
we are slow, naked, vulnerable, labile, flat-footed, short-toothed etc.: the opposite of hunting mammals.
IMO schematically
- early-Pleist.He = shallow diving
- mid-Pleist. Hn = wading + shallow-diving
- late-Pleist. Hs = predom.wading (e.g. longer tibias > Hn).

But these would have been
the most vulnerable to catastrophes, the least likely to have
left descendants.
Well, except through interbreeding with the coast.

Very true, but we do find them at inland site, we do find evidence for hunting. I was completely against the hunting thing because throwing
spears had vanished entirely from the archaeological record. But then
the interwebs convinced me I was wrong. Even people active in this
group convinced me. See, maybe throwing spears vanished because
they found a better way!

AFAIK evidence for hunting = 0.
Zero. Nada. Niente.
Only in the prejudiced minds of antelope runners.

Stranded whale butchering, yes:
"Exploitation d'un grand cétacé au Paléolithique ancien:
le site de Dungo V à Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola)"
Manuel Gutierrez, Claude Guérin, Maria Léna & Maria Piedade da Jesus 2001 CRAS 332:357
The almost complete skeleton of a large whale (Balaenoptera sp.) was found closely ass.x 57 Lower Palaeolithic artefacts near Baia Farta, at an altitude of 65 m, 3 km from the present shoreline.
It constitutes the oldest evidence of the exploitation of a stranded whale by Palaeolithic people.

:-D

_______

Originally I thought throwing spears vanished because the primary
threat was other humans, and a man who throws his spear disarms
himself. One on one, you don't have to get very far from an attacker
before you can easily avoid an arrow fired from a bow. A spear is
easy to side step. So I thought THAT'S what happened: Survive humans
was more important than killing deer.

But I think I was wrong.

Ambush hunting would be more effective AND SAFER than even spear
throwing.

Sit in a tree branch above a game trail, maybe even plant some bait,
and stab down on unsuspecting animal. It's quite effective. Will kill a
bear in under 30 seconds. Best used with a long, sharp blade. That
way the lever action of the spear shaft cuts a huge swath out of the
animal.

Stabbing spears are also good for fishing, btw. A barbed point is common
so the fish doesn't fall off but even that much is unnecessary...

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

AFAIK evidence for hunting = 0.
Zero. Nada. Niente.
Only in the prejudiced minds of antelope runners.

: There are several lines of evidence indicating that Neanderthals were capable hunters whose diets
: were dominated by meat. First is the faunal evidence from various sites, which indicates that they
: hunted and butchered red deer (Cervus elaphus), horse (Equus sp.), bison (Bison priscus), wooly
: rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), and many other species of large and medium-sized ungulates
: (Patou-Mathis 2000). They focused on prime-aged adult prey, as opposed to juveniles and older
: adults, which are typically the target of cursorial predators (Stiner 2006).

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/neanderthal-behavior-59267999/

REMEMBER: I despise linear models.

I don't think in terms of "Species" -- "Neanderthals were THIS and THAT" -- but in
terms of populations. It's pretty clear that we had Neanderthal populations heavily
exploiting the sea. But we also had inland populations that appear to be heavily
reliant on hunting for meat.

The coastal population is the more likely to have left descendants alive today, especially
the southern most populations. They were the best insulated from natural catastrophes
and had the most secure food supply.

Stranded whale butchering, yes:

'
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805474105

Absolutely. And we absolutely find evidence for the hunting of inland animals. So the
trick here is to find an answer that explains/incorporates both.

It seems to me that the same forces/process that created all these different groups
(populations) -- Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc -- was still at work. And why wouldn't it
be? So we had Neanderthals living inland, we had Neanderthals living in the coast and
we had earth changes that favored the coastal populations right up to the advent of
agriculture, before the advantage finally swung to the inland groups.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680462026281254912

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

Op maandag 4 april 2022 om 01:30:43 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

AFAIK evidence for hunting = 0.
Zero. Nada. Niente.
Only in the prejudiced minds of antelope runners.

: There are several lines of evidence indicating that Neanderthals were capable hunters whose diets
: were dominated by meat. First is the faunal evidence from various sites, which indicates that they

Yes, I meant apiths & erectus etc. on "savanna".

But Hn biology (POS, CC etc.) shows they too were (at least parttime) still shallow divers.
But they were smarter than we think: we can't exclude occasional meaeating: stranded whales etc.
But being fossilized together with other mammals doesn't prove they were "prey".
Hn were too heavy & slow & flat-footed etc. to be good hunters. But fire etc.??

: hunted and butchered red deer (Cervus elaphus), horse (Equus sp.), bison (Bison priscus), wooly
: rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), and many other species of large and medium-sized ungulates
: (Patou-Mathis 2000). They focused on prime-aged adult prey, as opposed to juveniles and older
: adults, which are typically the target of cursorial predators (Stiner 2006).
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/neanderthal-behavior-59267999/

Anthropocentrism?

REMEMBER: I despise linear models.
I don't think in terms of "Species" -- "Neanderthals were THIS and THAT" -- but in
terms of populations. It's pretty clear that we had Neanderthal populations heavily
exploiting the sea. But we also had inland populations that appear to be heavily
reliant on hunting for meat.
The coastal population is the more likely to have left descendants alive today, especially
the southern most populations. They were the best insulated from natural catastrophes
and had the most secure food supply.

Stranded whale butchering, yes: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0805474105

Absolutely. And we absolutely find evidence for the hunting of inland animals. So the
trick here is to find an answer that explains/incorporates both.
It seems to me that the same forces/process that created all these different groups
(populations) -- Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc -- was still at work. And why wouldn't it
be? So we had Neanderthals living inland, we had Neanderthals living in the coast and
we had earth changes that favored the coastal populations right up to the advent of
agriculture, before the advantage finally swung to the inland groups.

I'd think Hn seasonally followed the river (Rhine, Meuse...) inland.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

I'd think Hn seasonally followed the river (Rhine, Meuse...) inland.

I don't see much evidence for seasonal migration. Neanderthals certainly MIGRATED, meaning they spread into new territories, but I don't see much
for seasonal migrations. Animal herders had no choice, at least they didn't before agriculture.

Neanderthals seem more territorial than so called moderns.


-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680571025954603008

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Hn were no herders?!

It has been claimed that they practiced a sort of semi or proto domestication, similar to Mongolian horses, though even less structured.

Reindeer are supposedly very gentle, for a "Wild" animal. It has been suggested that they may have even milked them. And it has been offered as an explanation for how/why they appeared to take down animals in their prime: They weren't hunting, they were selecting!

It /Sounds/ good but I don't have access to the evidence, and from what I can gleam they seem to have been just as "Selective" with other prey. So that's a very strong case against the proto domestication.

But they did seem to be selecting animals, picking out which they wanted to kill/butcher. So SOMETHING was going on! They were selecting their targets. Their hunting methods were sophisticated enough that they could get the
best animals and not the most accessible.

But, like I keep say, I don't see "A" Neanderthal population but many. Some were no doubt committed inland hunters, some committed shoreline
foragers and some maybe between them. Just because we are all but in
certainty descended from the waterside populations doesn't mean that there weren't others.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680631634399264768

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

Op maandag 4 april 2022 om 18:35:38 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

I'd think Hn seasonally followed the river (Rhine, Meuse...) inland.

I don't see much evidence for seasonal migration. Neanderthals certainly MIGRATED, meaning they spread into new territories, but I don't see much
for seasonal migrations. Animal herders had no choice, at least they didn't before agriculture.
Neanderthals seem more territorial than so called moderns.

Hn were no herders?!
Their biology is clear: flat feet, short tibias, platycephaly, big nose, large lungs, very broad pelvis, etc.
The big nose + large parnasal sinuses & the heavy occiput (POS) show they frequently back-floated.
Moderate POS & large CC leave no doubt: Hn still frequently dived in cold & salt water.
And they're typically found at coasts & rivers: salmon trek??

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op zaterdag 2 april 2022 om 08:08:24 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:

Manger cs 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486
large brains = cold water

-stone tools
-dispersal -> Java
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-DHA etc. in seafood
-flat feet
-pachyosteosclerosis
-etc.
Only incredible idiots believe erectus hunted antelopes.

Yes, my boy, of course:

had a snorkel nose

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq0250.full
Nasalization by Nasalis larvatus: Larger noses audiovisually advertise conspecifics in proboscis monkeys
Science Advances 21 Feb 2018:

Abstract
Male proboscis monkeys have uniquely enlarged noses that are prominent adornments, which may have evolved through their sexually competitive
harem group social system. Nevertheless, the ecological roles of the
signals encoded by enlarged noses remain unclear. We found significant correlations among nose, body, and testis sizes and a clear link between
nose size and number of harem females. Therefore, there is evidence
supporting both male-male competition and female choice as causal factors
in the evolution of enlarged male noses. We also observed that nasal enlargement systematically modifies the resonance properties of male vocalizations, which probably encode male quality. Our results indicate
that the audiovisual contributions of enlarged male noses serve as advertisements to females in their mate selection. This is the first
primate research to evaluate the evolutionary processes involved in
linking morphology, acoustics, and socioecology with unique masculine characteristics.




https://www.menshealth.com/uk/sex/a36339905/bigger-penis-large-noses/
Men With Larger Noses Have Bigger Penises, According to New Study
Your beak may be giving away more than you think

BY MEN'S HEALTH 05/05/2021
Published in the medical journal Basic and Clinical Andrology, the
researchers of the study found that men with larger noses had a ‘stretched penile length’ of at least 5.3 inches, while men with smaller noses had a penis length of 4.1 inches erect.

The team of researchers drew this conclusion by looking at the dead corpses of 126 men within three days of death and measured different parts of their body. After taking into account varying factors such height, weight and measurements of the penis (there were no links between feet size and appendage size, before you ask), the authors of the study then worked out the "stretched penile length" (SPL) of each cadaver. This was measured by, and sorry to be so graphic, by pulling the penis up as far as it would go. Hopefully they
used gloves.



https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-021-00121-z
Nose size indicates maximum penile length

Abstract
Background
In a previous report, we investigated whether the size of male genitalia similarly exposed to serum testosterone during aging could change with
age and found that penile length almost stopped increasing during
adolescence and decreased in older males. In this report, to determine
what factors other than age are related to penile length, we performed
a multivariate analysis of the relationships between stretched penile
length (SPL) and other measurements of genital organs, nose size, height
and body weight in 126 adults in their 30s–50s.

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

Some idiot thinks he's a proboscis monkey:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq0250.full
Nasalization by Nasalis larvatus: Larger noses audiovisually advertise conspecifics in proboscis monkeys
Science Advances 21 Feb 2018

OI, BIG NOSE !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities
including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded
and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins
of land and water. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food,
and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the
coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know
whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

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

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:44:28 AM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Some aquarboreal idiot thinks he's a proboscis monkey:

(fixed)

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq0250.full
Nasalization by Nasalis larvatus: Larger noses audiovisually advertise conspecifics in proboscis monkeys
Science Advances 21 Feb 2018

OI, BIG NOSE !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.

Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities
including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded

and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins
of land and water. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food,
and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the

coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know
whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).

This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Some idiot thinks he's a proboscis monkey:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq0250.full
Nasalization by Nasalis larvatus: Larger noses audiovisually advertise
conspecifics in proboscis monkeys
Science Advances 21 Feb 2018

OI, BIG NOSE !

Are saiga aquatic?

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

Somebody:

Are saiga aquatic?

??
Why do you think that, my boy??

OI, BIG NOSE !
New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities
including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded
and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins
of land and water. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food,
and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the
coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know
whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

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