https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/ancient-port-structures/silting-up/

This is related to over exploitation: The silting up of
ancient harbors.

The stripping of trees, runoff from farm lands... it
contributes greatly to runoff, which results in
silted over harbors. But...

BUT...

But it also happens naturally.

And, get this, these are THE VERY BEST places to
look for fossils and other archaeology!

Okay, so the find usually suck in quality. What gets
laid down in such deposits is effectively debris.

It is debris.

It's tumbled, scraped on rocks, bones are broken,
things get smashed... only partial finds.

No "Fully Articulated Skeletons" here!

But you find them. The smallest, partial (broken)
pieces but you find them.

THIS is where you'd find Chimp fossils if they existed.

You'd located were the rivers used to be, find where
their deltas were lying and dig through all that cemented
up discharge; chimps fossils are in there!

If they existed, that is.

If Chimps were around a million years ago, or three
million or 5.5 million then just find where the rivers
used to be, the ones that traversed their habitat, locate
the old deltas and start digging.

I don't think you'll find them.

Or, more accurately; I'm pretty sure that we already did
find them. They just don't look like what we want them
to look like so we call them something else.

That is, I am reasonably certain that the ancestor to
today's modern chimps, the ones living, say, 3 million
years ago, don't look like modern chimps. They don't
look like chimps or at least what people want them to
look like. So we find them and decide that they're
something else.

We've been doing the same thing with Denisovans for
decades. At least.

According to present claims for age and range, a great
many finds attributed to other populations, and yes that
means erectus, had to have been what we now call
Denisovan...

And, what get's me is that people are so averse to thought,
so well trained, that they can look at the dates, look at the
age of finds and insists that, no, we never got anything
wrong. Yes. Even as they insists Denisovans were living
there [blah-blah] thousands of years ago doesn't mean if
we find something archaic it's Denisovan.

Kind of does. Strictly speaking, more than one population
can exist within close proximity, for some value of "Close,"
but if Denisovans were there, if they were making tools, if
they were hunting and butchering animals, if they were
making homes or campsites then we had to be finding
them along with any other population present. We were
just mislabelling them.

Like we're still doing with Chimps.

::Discuss::



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687778124367380480

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Paleo-anthropologists (PAs) find everywhere "human ancestors" (e.g. Lucy :-D) but never chimp or bonobo or gorilla ancestors.
This is impossible, of course, but they think so because they believe we evolved from some sort of chimp:
every hominid fossil that is not entrely apelike is believed to be "on the way to humans", IOW, to be a human ancestor.
Nonsense, of course: both Pan & Homo had a common ancestor some 5 Ma that was neither human nor chimp.
A simple comparison (my Hum.Evol.1994 & 1996 papers) shows
- that africanus & robustus looked more like Pan than like Gorilla or Homo,
- and afarensis & boisei looked more like Gorilla than like Pan or certainly Homo.
IOW, Plio-Pleistocene Africa was full of fossil Gorilla & Pan,
but PAs can't understand that Pan & Gorilla partly evolved in parallel to become more present-day-apelike.
Most traditional PAs are incredibly anthropo-, afro- & egocentric.

Oh, I agree. Totally. At this point I'm interested in the "How."

I can't help but insist that the very same "Dynamics" that lead to separate
and distinct populations such as Neanderthals & Denisovans was also
at work in the more distant past. That, chimps came about the same way Neanderthals came about, only there was that funky Chromosome fusion
getting in the way of reproduction.

Probably other things too, certainly social (cultural) barriers, but Chimps were probably no different from the Homo line than Neanderthals were
from so-called "Moderns," right up until the Chromosome divide. Then interbreeding stopped, or at least slowed to a point of irrelevancy, where
upon our ancestors just had to our compete (eat?) any on the Pan side
that lived outside the forest canopy.

There. That's it. Instantly all their selective pressure was towards forest adaptations.

DISCLAIMER: I'm the first to admit that I detest linear models AND I'm
clearly of the mindset that science is repeatable. That, if we have a
mechanism that lead to distinctions such as Neanderthals vs. so called "Moderns" then that mechanism didn't fall out of the sky only 200,000
years ago, then vanish the moment Neanderthals sprung up. The same
forces, EVO-FREAKING-LUTION, were still at work, still working the same
way they had always worked and will always work.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687864248003592192

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

Op donderdag 23 juni 2022 om 16:41:23 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:

https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/ancient-port-structures/silting-up/

Paleo-anthropologists (PAs) find everywhere "human ancestors" (e.g. Lucy :-D) but never chimp or bonobo or gorilla ancestors.
This is impossible, of course, but they think so because they believe we evolved from some sort of chimp:
every hominid fossil that is not entrely apelike is believed to be "on the way to humans", IOW, to be a human ancestor.
Nonsense, of course: both Pan & Homo had a common ancestor some 5 Ma that was neither human nor chimp.
A simple comparison (my Hum.Evol.1994 & 1996 papers) shows
- that africanus & robustus looked more like Pan than like Gorilla or Homo,
- and afarensis & boisei looked more like Gorilla than like Pan or certainly Homo.
IOW, Plio-Pleistocene Africa was full of fossil Gorilla & Pan,
but PAs can't understand that Pan & Gorilla partly evolved in parallel to become more present-day-apelike.
Most traditional PAs are incredibly anthropo-, afro- & egocentric.

This is related to over exploitation: The silting up of
ancient harbors.
The stripping of trees, runoff from farm lands... it
contributes greatly to runoff, which results in
silted over harbors. But...
BUT...
But it also happens naturally.
And, get this, these are THE VERY BEST places to
look for fossils and other archaeology!
Okay, so the find usually suck in quality. What gets
laid down in such deposits is effectively debris.
It is debris.
It's tumbled, scraped on rocks, bones are broken,
things get smashed... only partial finds.
No "Fully Articulated Skeletons" here!
But you find them. The smallest, partial (broken)
pieces but you find them.
THIS is where you'd find Chimp fossils if they existed.
You'd located were the rivers used to be, find where
their deltas were lying and dig through all that cemented
up discharge; chimps fossils are in there!
If they existed, that is.
If Chimps were around a million years ago, or three
million or 5.5 million then just find where the rivers
used to be, the ones that traversed their habitat, locate
the old deltas and start digging.
I don't think you'll find them.
Or, more accurately; I'm pretty sure that we already did
find them. They just don't look like what we want them
to look like so we call them something else.

Yes...

That is, I am reasonably certain that the ancestor to
today's modern chimps, the ones living, say, 3 million
years ago, don't look like modern chimps. They don't
look like chimps or at least what people want them to
look like. So we find them and decide that they're
something else.
We've been doing the same thing with Denisovans for
decades. At least.
According to present claims for age and range, a great
many finds attributed to other populations, and yes that
means erectus, had to have been what we now call
Denisovan...

H.erectus was early-Pleistocene, denisovans late-Pleistocene.

And, what get's me is that people are so averse to thought,
so well trained, that they can look at the dates, look at the
age of finds and insists that, no, we never got anything
wrong. Yes. Even as they insists Denisovans were living
there [blah-blah] thousands of years ago doesn't mean if
we find something archaic it's Denisovan.
Kind of does. Strictly speaking, more than one population
can exist within close proximity, for some value of "Close,"
but if Denisovans were there, if they were making tools, if
they were hunting and butchering animals, if they were
making homes or campsites then we had to be finding
them along with any other population present. We were
just mislabelling them.
Like we're still doing with Chimps.
::Discuss::
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687778124367380480

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