(google "WHAT talks Bert Chan")

Let's agree to disagree, Algis: H.sapiens & H.neand. might still be different subspp (interfertile), but Hs & H.erectus were clearly different spp, e.g. CC 1300 cc vs 800 cc! The Homo-Pan LCA 5 Ma was "aquarboreal" (google), i.e. often wading-climbing,
but we don't whether & how often & how exactly they swam or dived, or used stone tools to open shellfish, etc.
Google "crab-eating macaque Attenborough" or so: Macaca fascicularis at first sight looks very much like other macaques, but when we see how amazingly well they dive & open shellfish, how much more must H.erectus have been adapted to diving!

POS is a very specific adapation, it's exclusively seen in show+shallow-diving spp (always in salt water?): whether H.erectus were our direct ancestors, or only nephews of ours, they most likely dived all day long (mostly for shellfish?), at least during
certain seasons, I'd think they even slept floating then, belly-up, see their very heavy occiput & big nose. They were clearly different from us: POS, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, shorter tibias etc.etc. Fossils in SE-Asia, as far as Flores.

This remarkably fits the retroviral data (that human Pliocene ancestors were absent from Africa).

Apiths OTOH were apparently still aquarboreal, but they're not our ancestors, of course, as I showed in several articles. Statistically alone, it's already incredibly prejudiced (anthropocentric) to believe that all 100s of Pliocene hominid fossils are
close relatives of 1 extant hominid species (us, of course), and that the 4 extant African hominid spp had virtually 0 fossils! Only 1 (Eurasian rather than African!) species had all the fossils!? 4 hominid spp (chimp, bonobo, low+highland gorilla) had
virtually 0 fossils!? how prejudiced is that!?
--Many PAs still confuse apelike=primitive, but apes live today!
--They believe apiths=BP, hence "hominin" (sensu "closer relatives of us than of apes"), but all Miocene Hominoidea were "BP" (google "aquarboreal").
Moreover, detailed descriptions & measurements leave no doubt: apiths resemble Afr.apes a lot more than they resemble us. AFAWCS, afarensis->boisei were fossil Gorilla (Praeanthropus), and africanus->robustus were fossil Pan (Australopithecus), both
lineages evolved apparently often in parallel: northern vs southern Rift? both lineages from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust"? (why?)

The most likely evolution IMO: the HPG-LCA 10-8 Ma lived in coastal forests of the incipient Red Sea. When the northern Rift began to form (EARS), Gorilla ancestors followed it -> Orrorin, Lucy etc. Late-Miocene HP remained in the Red Sea swamp forests,
but when the Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean (possibly 5.33 Ma? Zanclean flood), Pan went right, Homo went left. Simple, no?

Traditional PA (paleo-anthropology) is incredibly biased (comparable to old-fashoned geology before plate tectonics?): sick of afro- & anthropo-centrism! Apiths have nothing to do with Homo, but everything with Pan & Gorilla.

BTW, out terrestrial BPism is not very efficient: it's only because we have tools & clothes & weapons & shoes that Hs is so mighty.
Of course, Hs can ride bikes, but that doesn't mean early-Pleist.H.erectus was a runner: we were no triathlonners, we are today! We're very different from erectus: no POS, longer legs, less flat feet, narrower pelvis, shorter & less horizontal femoral
necks, less X-knees etc.

Why doesn't H.erectus still dive today, you ask?? >99 % of all spp are extinct, Algis! Why don't we see Oreopith, or Lucy, or Taung, or...any more? And why do you believe "they reverted to dry land"?? (Has erectus DNA been isolated?)
...
What we know is simply: c 2 Ma there were close relatives of us (closer than of Pan) who had POS etc.: no doubt, H.erectus often dived, shallow+slow.

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

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

(google "WHAT talks Bert Chan")

Let's agree to disagree, Algis: H.sapiens & H.neand. might still be different subspp
(interfertile), but Hs & H.erectus were clearly different spp, e.g. CC 1300 cc vs 800 cc!
The Homo-Pan LCA 5 Ma was "aquarboreal" (google), i.e. often wading-climbing, but we don't whether & how often & how exactly they swam or dived, or used stone
tools to open shellfish, etc. Google "crab-eating macaque Attenborough" or so:
Macaca fascicularis at first sight looks very much like other macaques, but when
we see how amazingly well they dive & open shellfish, how much more must H.erectus have been adapted to diving!

There's two issues. The first is the "Big Picture." This is something we all agree on.

The second issue is the minutia -- the nitty gritty, the details! This is something we
will be arguing about forever.

For instances, one reason why I came to Aquatic Ape so fully is because it fits other ideas like a glove.

Multi Regionalism, for example. Punctuated Equilibrium for another. Coastal Dispersal. Even r/K Selection. There's evidence for all these things, great arguments
for them, and Aquatic Ape says, "Yes, you can see what you're seeing, here's why!"

Aquatic Ape provides a model that explains why we are so similar to Chimps, and how that happened. It even explains why we don't find millions-of-years-old Chimp
fossils!

But it all starts with Aquatic Ape, so someone can disagree with everything I just
said and still agree that Aquatic Ape is the right answer...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706229766570770432

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

Op donderdag 12 januari 2023 om 22:21:43 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

(google "WHAT talks Bert Chan")
Let's agree to disagree, Algis: H.sapiens & H.neand. might still be different subspp
(interfertile), but Hs & H.erectus were clearly different spp, e.g. CC 1300 cc vs 800 cc!
The Homo-Pan LCA 5 Ma was "aquarboreal" (google), i.e. often wading-climbing,
but we don't whether & how often & how exactly they swam or dived, or used stone
tools to open shellfish, etc. Google "crab-eating macaque Attenborough" or so:
Macaca fascicularis at first sight looks very much like other macaques, but when
we see how amazingly well they dive & open shellfish, how much more must H.erectus have been adapted to diving!

There's two issues. The first is the "Big Picture." This is something we all agree on.
The second issue is the minutia -- the nitty gritty, the details! This is something we
will be arguing about forever.
For instances, one reason why I came to Aquatic Ape so fully is because it fits
other ideas like a glove.
Multi Regionalism, for example. Punctuated Equilibrium for another. Coastal Dispersal. Even r/K Selection. There's evidence for all these things, great arguments
for them, and Aquatic Ape says, "Yes, you can see what you're seeing, here's why!"
Aquatic Ape provides a model that explains why we are so similar to Chimps, and
how that happened. It even explains why we don't find millions-of-years-old Chimp
fossils!
But it all starts with Aquatic Ape, so someone can disagree with everything I just
said and still agree that Aquatic Ape is the right answer...

Yes, that's obvious: AATers often disagree, but we all agree:
the savanna nonsense is the most ridiculeous nonsense thinkable.
:-DDD

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