All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net
|
see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes.
|
|
|
|
Not helping.
|
|
|
|
Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven:
see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing. |
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
Actually, this is close to what I am talking.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only superficially, something like this: https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is pre-history. On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
|
|
|
|
Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
But what made the difference between them & us? -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? -preadaptations, e.g. -- thick enamel of early hominoids? -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? _____ Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: Actually, this is close to what I am talking. Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only superficially, something like this: https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is pre-history. ______ On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven: > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing. |
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this situation demands ape adaptations:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe places for primates, because cats cannot climb those: https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106 It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff). There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing a lot of cliffs: https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53 This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes of this video): https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested). There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding. So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters. Now to the main question, what made humans? As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on chest, not on the back. Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into water to get enough of it. So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem *at all* for them to be bipedal: https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70 But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal. So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore. And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us. Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving for shellfish, apes didn't dive. On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. |
|
|
|
Mario,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
humans are worse climbers than apes & a fortiori monkeys, IOW, cliffs have nothing to do with human evolution. This idea is about as silly as the savanna idea. AFAICS, rifts were not necessary for anything in ape or human evolution specifically. You say "apes are pretty orthograde already", do you think: for climbing cliffs?? Thanks for the beautiful video of the bipedal gorilla. Early hominoids (apes) were vertical IMO, not for walking, but for wading + climbing arms overhead in the swamp forests where they fossilized. Sometimes they still are: google "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai". Adolph Schultz 1969: After birth, the spinal column begins to invade the thoracic cavity in the higher, but not in any lower primates, and thereby approaches the centre of gravity when the trunk is held upright ... facilitating the erect posture, which these primates can readily maintain in sitting, climbing and during occasional or prolonged locomotion.” Early apes fossilized in mangrove forests S & N of the Tethys, e.g. Heliopith & Austriacopith resp. This suggests aquarborealism: bipedal wading + vertical climbing (cf incipient aquarborealism in the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis). From aquarboreal (apes-australopiths) to littoral (archaic Homo) is evolutionarily no big step: perhaps early-Pleistocene lowering sea-levels created this new niche? Australopiths have IMO nothing to do specifically with the evolution of the genus Homo: -some or most so-called "habilis" fossils were australopiths IMO, -australopith thick enamel is primitive for (great) apes (durophagy), -australopith small canines are also primitive for (great) apes (idem), -australopith orthogrady is primitive for hominids (Pan-Homo-Gorilla), -broad pelvis (iliac flaring) is primitive for (great?) apes, -iliac lengthening evolved in parallel in Pongo // Pan // Gorilla. -knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan // Gorilla. --marc _____ Op 25/03/20 19:40 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this situation demands ape adaptations: https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe places for primates, because cats cannot climb those: https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106 It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff). There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing a lot of cliffs: https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53 This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes of this video): https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested). There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding. So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters. Now to the main question, what made humans? As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on chest, not on the back. Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into water to get enough of it. So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem *at all* for them to be bipedal: https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70 But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal. So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore. And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us. Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving for shellfish, apes didn't dive. On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. > But what made the difference between them & us? > -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? > -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? > -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? > -preadaptations, e.g. > -- thick enamel of early hominoids? > -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? > -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? > Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? > What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? > Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? > > _____ > > > Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > Actually, this is close to what I am talking. > Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: > https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE > > There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only > superficially, something like this: > https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 > > The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from > time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on > shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is > pre-history. > > > ______ > > On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven: > > > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing. |
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
Yes, I think apes were already orthograde because they climbed cliffs.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Extant great apes are adapted for climbing trees (just like you are saying, these are novel adaptations). The first apes were climbing cliffs, humans are excellent in climbing cliffs, and have adaptations for it. Rifting and apes emerged at the same time. There are crocs in in-land waters. I never heard that there is a fossilization bias for apes, but I did hear that there is a fossilization bias for swamps. I cannot find info about localities of Heliopith and Austriacopith, but the world was forested back then. It was much warmer, the precipitation was higher, and it wouldn't be a surprise that the whole world was pretty much flooded. This goes in favor of your theory, but this excludes the fossilization bias for apes. Everybody agree that Pierolapithecus is in the root of something. This is where they've found him: https://youtu.be/KLo5pb8QlfI And they also have found 14 my old gibbon at the same place. This place is strictly biased towards cliffs. Yes, Nasalis is aquarboreal (as much as it can be), and on its example you can see how is this functioning. Nasalis doesn't wade (too much), it doesn't feed in water. He is "...foliovare/frugivore, specializing in seed consumption.". He cannot live a life you are suggesting because of crocs. Isn't this obvious? He has to get out of the water as soon as possible. In water he doesn't have a chance. Regarding step towards littoral, this is what isn't a big step, big primate that sleeps on cliffs: https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88?t=225 No need to "create" niche, the niche is already here. Australopithecus and Homo: - they are almost the same, just like you are saying (Homo habilis and Australopithecus) - I agree on apes and durophagy - I don't know about canines - I agree that orthogrady is primitive - where do you found the info that iliac flaring is primitive for apes? - I agree about iliac lengthening - I agree about knuckle-walking On 15.4.2020. 21:22, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Mario, |
|
|
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
Graecopithecus was in the Northern end of an African faunule. Thailand Lufengpithecus were in a flora which was unbroken into Africa. Hominids do not recognize political or geological boundaries.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Mario Petrinovic
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:37 PM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net
Yes, I think apes were already orthograde because they climbed cliffs.
Extant great apes are adapted for climbing trees (just like you are saying, these are novel adaptations). The first apes were climbing cliffs, humans are excellent in climbing cliffs, and have adaptations for it.
Rifting and apes emerged at the same time.
There are crocs in in-land waters.
I never heard that there is a fossilization bias for apes, but I did hear that there is a fossilization bias for swamps. I cannot find info about localities of Heliopith and Austriacopith, but the world was forested back then. It was much warmer, the precipitation was higher, and it wouldn't be a surprise that the whole world was pretty much flooded. This goes in favor of your theory, but this excludes the fossilization bias for apes.
Everybody agree that Pierolapithecus is in the root of something. This is where they've found him:
https://youtu.be/KLo5pb8QlfI
And they also have found 14 my old gibbon at the same place. This place is strictly biased towards cliffs.
Yes, Nasalis is aquarboreal (as much as it can be), and on its example you can see how is this functioning. Nasalis doesn't wade (too much), it doesn't feed in water. He is "..foliovare/frugivore, specializing in seed consumption.". He cannot live a life you are suggesting because of crocs. Isn't this obvious? He has to get out of the water as soon as possible. In water he doesn't have a chance.
Regarding step towards littoral, this is what isn't a big step, big primate that sleeps on cliffs:
https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88?t=225
No need to "create" niche, the niche is already here.
Australopithecus and Homo:
- they are almost the same, just like you are saying (Homo habilis and Australopithecus)
- I agree on apes and durophagy
- I don't know about canines
- I agree that orthogrady is primitive
- where do you found the info that iliac flaring is primitive for apes?
- I agree about iliac lengthening
- I agree about knuckle-walking
On 15.4.2020. 21:22, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > Mario, > humans are worse climbers than apes & a fortiori monkeys, > IOW, cliffs have nothing to do with human evolution. > This idea is about as silly as the savanna idea. > > AFAICS, rifts were not necessary for anything in ape or human evolution specifically. > You say "apes are pretty orthograde already", do you think: for climbing cliffs?? > > Thanks for the beautiful video of the bipedal gorilla. > Early hominoids (apes) were vertical IMO, not for walking, but for wading + climbing arms overhead in the swamp forests where they fossilized. > Sometimes they still are: google "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai". > > Adolph Schultz 1969: > After birth, the spinal column begins to invade the thoracic cavity in the higher, but not in any lower primates, and thereby approaches the centre of gravity when the trunk is held upright ... facilitating the erect posture, which these primates can readily maintain in sitting, climbing and during occasional or prolonged locomotion.” > > Early apes fossilized in mangrove forests S & N of the Tethys, e.g. Heliopith & Austriacopith resp. > This suggests aquarborealism: bipedal wading + vertical climbing > (cf incipient aquarborealism in the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis). > >From aquarboreal (apes-australopiths) to littoral (archaic Homo) is evolutionarily no big step: > perhaps early-Pleistocene lowering sea-levels created this new niche? > > Australopiths have IMO nothing to do specifically with the evolution of the genus Homo: > -some or most so-called "habilis" fossils were australopiths IMO, > -australopith thick enamel is primitive for (great) apes (durophagy), > -australopith small canines are also primitive for (great) apes (idem), > -australopith orthogrady is primitive for hominids (Pan-Homo-Gorilla), > -broad pelvis (iliac flaring) is primitive for (great?) apes, > -iliac lengthening evolved in parallel in Pongo // Pan // Gorilla. > -knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan // Gorilla. > > --marc > > _____ > > > Op 25/03/20 19:40 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have > big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body > plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this > situation demands ape adaptations: > > https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM > > So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't > have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but > it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? > Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe > places for primates, because cats cannot climb those: > > https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106 > > It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear > is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff). > > There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing > a lot of cliffs: > > https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53 > > This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes > of this video): > > https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY > > This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open > environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested). > > There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf > of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding. > > So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was > klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian > side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had > big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters. > > Now to the main question, what made humans? > > As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty > orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on > chest, not on the back. > > Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so > vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle > > Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an > animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* > shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on > cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only > on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into > water to get enough of it. > > So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem > *at all* for them to be bipedal: > > https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo > > https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70 > > But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not > that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be > special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I > so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually > problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We > *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis > doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal. > > So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the > pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore. > > And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, > which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces > of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full > with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is > how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us. > > Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't > want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to > get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't > have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that > way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem > to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt > crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes > too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving > for shellfish, apes didn't dive. > > > On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. > > But what made the difference between them & us? > > -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? > > -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? > > -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? > > -preadaptations, e.g. > > -- thick enamel of early hominoids? > > -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? > > -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? > > Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? > > What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? > > Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? > > > > _____ > > > > > > Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > > > Actually, this is close to what I am talking. > > Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: > > https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE > > > > There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only > > superficially, something like this: > > https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 > > > > The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from > > time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on > > shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is > > pre-history. > > > > > > ______ > > > > On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > > > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven: > > > > > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > > > > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing. > > > > > >
|
|
|
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
Homo naledi is recent enough the current topography should be similar to the times of Homo naledi. The Homo naledi foot is very similar to the AMHS foot. But out of the median in robustness of the second and fifth metatarsals relative to the interior of the foot. As in adapted to taking blows to the sides of the feet. Such as for scrambling up rocky faces to escape attacks. Homo floresiensis at about 700kya Mata Menge is in a Xeric (desert) environment. I expect they sometimes scrambled up trees / cliffs to escape attacks.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 1:22 PM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net
Mario, humans are worse climbers than apes & a fortiori monkeys, IOW, cliffs have nothing to do with human evolution. This idea is about as silly as the savanna idea.
AFAICS, rifts were not necessary for anything in ape or human evolution specifically. You say "apes are pretty orthograde already", do you think: for climbing cliffs??
Thanks for the beautiful video of the bipedal gorilla. Early hominoids (apes) were vertical IMO, not for walking, but for wading + climbing arms overhead in the swamp forests where they fossilized. Sometimes they still are: google "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai".
Adolph Schultz 1969: After birth, the spinal column begins to invade the thoracic cavity in the higher, but not in any lower primates, and thereby approaches the centre of gravity when the trunk is held upright ... facilitating the erect posture, which these primates can readily maintain in sitting, climbing and during occasional or prolonged locomotion.”
Early apes fossilized in mangrove forests S & N of the Tethys, e.g. Heliopith & Austriacopith resp. This suggests aquarborealism: bipedal wading + vertical climbing (cf incipient aquarborealism in the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis). From aquarboreal (apes-australopiths) to littoral (archaic Homo) is evolutionarily no big step: perhaps early-Pleistocene lowering sea-levels created this new niche?
Australopiths have IMO nothing to do specifically with the evolution of the genus Homo: -some or most so-called "habilis" fossils were australopiths IMO, -australopith thick enamel is primitive for (great) apes (durophagy), -australopith small canines are also primitive for (great) apes (idem), -australopith orthogrady is primitive for hominids (Pan-Homo-Gorilla), -broad pelvis (iliac flaring) is primitive for (great?) apes, -iliac lengthening evolved in parallel in Pongo // Pan // Gorilla. -knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan // Gorilla.
--marc
_____
Op 25/03/20 19:40 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven:
First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this situation demands ape adaptations:
https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM
So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe places for primates, because cats cannot climb those:
https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106
It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff).
There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing a lot of cliffs:
https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53
This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes of this video):
https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY
This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested).
There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding.
So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters.
Now to the main question, what made humans?
As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on chest, not on the back.
Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle
Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into water to get enough of it.
So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem *at all* for them to be bipedal:
https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo
https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70
But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal.
So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore.
And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us.
Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving for shellfish, apes didn't dive.
On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. > But what made the difference between them & us? > -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? > -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? > -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? > -preadaptations, e.g. > -- thick enamel of early hominoids? > -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? > -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? > Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? > What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? > Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? > > _____ > > > Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > Actually, this is close to what I am talking. > Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: > https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE > > There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only > superficially, something like this: > https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 > > The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from > time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on > shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is > pre-history. > > > ______ > > On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven: > > > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing.
|
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
I don't know about Lufengipthecus, but the environment of Graecopithecus/Ouranopithecus was very specific. It is an open environment, "impoverished". The first such environment. This environment had spread around Mediterranean, and ended up as savanna. So, no, this wasn't "African faunule" at the time.
On 16.4.2020. 2:09,
alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
|
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
One of major adaptations humans have, as opposed to apes, are in foot. The center line in all (most?) animals (and apes) goes through third toe, in humans it is shifted towards big toe. Further, somebody could think that our big toe lengthened, to be in line with the rest of toes. Actually, the opposite is true, the rest of our toes were cut off to the length of big toe. Further, it isn't our big toe that adducted to the foot, again, it is the opposite, it is actually the whole foot that adducted to the big toe. Everything is nicely described in book "Human Evolutionary Anatomy", Leslie Aiello/Christopher Dean, figure 23-16 (second paperback edition). All those human adaptations are just made for cliff climbing (paleoanthropologists ascribe those to toe-off phase of walking). In primates, the most robust toe is big toe. In climbing cliffs you have to put all your weight on a cliff bulge. You would use the most robust toe for this, the big toe. The rest of toes were cut off, in a shape of arrow, so that the tip of arrow is big toe (and second toe). Of course, your center line shifts towards big toe. The big toe is all that is important in human foot. The stiffening of foot only helps, because in this situation foot acts like leverage. So, our adaptations are just made for cliff climbing. If
you add short, dexterous fingers to this, you have the whole
package. Also, wide rib cage is just made for this. Also,
orthogrady is just made for this. In short, *everything* in our
body is just made for this.
On 16.4.2020. 2:13,
alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
|
|
|
|
One of major adaptations humans have, as opposed to apes, are in foot.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
?? SC Coon 1954 "The story of man" Knopf NY p.12: "The embryo (=fetus --mv) of a chimpanzee at one stage has a foot resembling that of man in that its great toe points forward for walking (=wading/swimming --mv) rather than backward for grasping. Only as it approaches its birth (not embryo!) does its foot acquire the appearance of a hand. At no stage of its development does the human foot resemble that of an adult ape." IOW, ape feet evolved further than human feet: we still have to walk with swimming-wading feet... ______ The center line in all (most?) animals (and apes) goes through third toe, in humans it is shifted towards big toe. Further, somebody could think that our big toe lengthened, to be in line with the rest of toes. Actually, the opposite is true, the rest of our toes were cut off to the length of big toe. Further, it isn't our big toe that adducted to the foot, again, it is the opposite, it is actually the whole foot that adducted to the big toe. Everything is nicely described in book "Human Evolutionary Anatomy", Leslie Aiello/Christopher Dean, figure 23-16 (second paperback edition). All those human adaptations are just made for cliff climbing (paleoanthropologists ascribe those to toe-off phase of walking). In primates, the most robust toe is big toe. In climbing cliffs you have to put all your weight on a cliff bulge. You would use the most robust toe for this, the big toe. The rest of toes were cut off, in a shape of arrow, so that the tip of arrow is big toe (and second toe). Of course, your center line shifts towards big toe. The big toe is all that is important in human foot. The stiffening of foot only helps, because in this situation foot acts like leverage. So, our adaptations are just made for cliff climbing. If you add short, dexterous fingers to this, you have the whole package. Also, wide rib cage is just made for this. Also, orthogrady is just made for this. In short, *everything* in our body is just made for this. On 16.4.2020. 2:13, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Homo naledi is recent enough the current topography should be similar to the times of Homo naledi. The Homo naledi foot is very similar to the AMHS foot. But out of the median in robustness of the second and fifth metatarsals relative to the interior of the foot. As in adapted to taking blows to the sides of the feet. Such as for scrambling up rocky faces to escape attacks. Homo floresiensis at about 700kya Mata Menge is in a Xeric (desert) environment. I expect they sometimes scrambled up trees / cliffs to escape attacks. Sent from https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10 From: mailto:m_verhaegen@... Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 1:22 PM To: mailto:AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net Mario, humans are worse climbers than apes & a fortiori monkeys, IOW, cliffs have nothing to do with human evolution. This idea is about as silly as the savanna idea. AFAICS, rifts were not necessary for anything in ape or human evolution specifically. You say "apes are pretty orthograde already", do you think: for climbing cliffs?? Thanks for the beautiful video of the bipedal gorilla. Early hominoids (apes) were vertical IMO, not for walking, but for wading + climbing arms overhead in the swamp forests where they fossilized. Sometimes they still are: google "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai". Adolph Schultz 1969: After birth, the spinal column begins to invade the thoracic cavity in the higher, but not in any lower primates, and thereby approaches the centre of gravity when the trunk is held upright ... facilitating the erect posture, which these primates can readily maintain in sitting, climbing and during occasional or prolonged locomotion.” Early apes fossilized in mangrove forests S & N of the Tethys, e.g. Heliopith & Austriacopith resp. This suggests aquarborealism: bipedal wading + vertical climbing (cf incipient aquarborealism in the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis). From aquarboreal (apes-australopiths) to littoral (archaic Homo) is evolutionarily no big step: perhaps early-Pleistocene lowering sea-levels created this new niche? Australopiths have IMO nothing to do specifically with the evolution of the genus Homo: -some or most so-called "habilis" fossils were australopiths IMO, -australopith thick enamel is primitive for (great) apes (durophagy), -australopith small canines are also primitive for (great) apes (idem), -australopith orthogrady is primitive for hominids (Pan-Homo-Gorilla), -broad pelvis (iliac flaring) is primitive for (great?) apes, -iliac lengthening evolved in parallel in Pongo // Pan // Gorilla. -knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan // Gorilla. --marc _____ Op 25/03/20 19:40 heeft Mario Petrinovic mailto:AAT@...@zg.htnet.hr geschreven: First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this situation demands ape adaptations: https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe places for primates, because cats cannot climb those: https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106 It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff). There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing a lot of cliffs: https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53 This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes of this video): https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested). There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding. So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters. Now to the main question, what made humans? As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on chest, not on the back. Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into water to get enough of it. So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem *at all* for them to be bipedal: https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70 But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal. So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore. And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us. Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving for shellfish, apes didn't dive. On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. > But what made the difference between them & us? > -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? > -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? > -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? > -preadaptations, e.g. > -- thick enamel of early hominoids? > -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? > -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? > Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? > What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? > Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? > > _____ > > > Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic mailto:AAT@...@zg.htnet.hr geschreven: > > Actually, this is close to what I am talking. > Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: > https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE > > There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only > superficially, something like this: > https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 > > The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from > time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on > shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is > pre-history. > > > ______ > > On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill mailto:AAT@...@ntnu.no geschreven: > > > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing. |
|
|
|
Lakes & wetlands & lagoons are also open environments.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
J Carney cs 1971 "Late australopithecine from Baringo District, Kenya" Nature 230:509-514 on the Chesowanja boisei: "The fossiliferous sediments were deposited in a lagoon ... Abundant root casts ... suggest that the embayment was flanked by reeds and the presence of calcareous algae indicates that the lagoon was warm and shallow. Bellamya and catfish are animals tolerant of relatively stagnant water, and such situation would also be suitable for turtles and crocodiles." Lufengpith lived in freshwater marshes or forests, probably comparable to where European drypiths lived. No hominoid ever lived in dry savanna. Helio- & Austriacopith & much later Oreopith fossilized in coastal forests. Australopiths lived in wetlands: KE Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322 "Early hominid evolution and ecological change through the African Plio-Pleistocene" "Reconstructed habitats show that Australopithecus species existed in fairly wooded, well-watered regions. Paranthropus species lived in similar environs and also in more open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands." Google "bonobo wading" & "gorilla bai" illustrations. Lucy fossilized amid crab claws & crocodile eggs. Few crocodiles climb cliffs. ______ Van: <AAT@groups.io> namens Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...> Beantwoorden - Aan: <AAT@groups.io> Datum: donderdag 16 april 2020 08:28 Aan: <AAT@groups.io> Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net I don't know about Lufengpithecus, but the environment of Graecopithecus/Ouranopithecus was very specific. It is an open environment, "impoverished". The first such environment. This environment had spread around Mediterranean, and ended up as savanna. So, no, this wasn't "African faunule" at the time. On 16.4.2020. 2:09, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Graecopithecus was in the Northern end of an African faunule. Thailand Lufengpithecus were in a flora which was unbroken into Africa. Hominids do not recognize political or geological boundaries. Sent from https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10 From: mailto:mario.petrinovic1@... Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 4:37 PM To: mailto:AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net Yes, I think apes were already orthograde because they climbed cliffs. Extant great apes are adapted for climbing trees (just like you are saying, these are novel adaptations). The first apes were climbing cliffs, humans are excellent in climbing cliffs, and have adaptations for it. Rifting and apes emerged at the same time. There are crocs in in-land waters. I never heard that there is a fossilization bias for apes, but I did hear that there is a fossilization bias for swamps. I cannot find info about localities of Heliopith and Austriacopith, but the world was forested back then. It was much warmer, the precipitation was higher, and it wouldn't be a surprise that the whole world was pretty much flooded. This goes in favor of your theory, but this excludes the fossilization bias for apes. Everybody agree that Pierolapithecus is in the root of something. This is where they've found him: https://youtu.be/KLo5pb8QlfI And they also have found 14 my old gibbon at the same place. This place is strictly biased towards cliffs. Yes, Nasalis is aquarboreal (as much as it can be), and on its example you can see how is this functioning. Nasalis doesn't wade (too much), it doesn't feed in water. He is "..foliovare/frugivore, specializing in seed consumption.". He cannot live a life you are suggesting because of crocs. Isn't this obvious? He has to get out of the water as soon as possible. In water he doesn't have a chance. Regarding step towards littoral, this is what isn't a big step, big primate that sleeps on cliffs: https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88?t=225 No need to "create" niche, the niche is already here. Australopithecus and Homo: - they are almost the same, just like you are saying (Homo habilis and Australopithecus) - I agree on apes and durophagy - I don't know about canines - I agree that orthogrady is primitive - where do you found the info that iliac flaring is primitive for apes? - I agree about iliac lengthening - I agree about knuckle-walking On 15.4.2020. 21:22, Marc Verhaegen wrote: Mario, |
|
|
|
“not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi? Verhaegen” And see Carleton Coon on prenatal chimp feet resembling human feet.
Flores could only be reached overseas. archaic Homo were good swimmers, a lot better than sapiens.
--marc
Van: <AAT@groups.io> namens alandarwinvanarsdale <alandarwinvanarsdale@...>
Homo naledi is recent enough the current topography should be similar to the times of Homo naledi. The Homo naledi foot is very similar to the AMHS foot. But out of the median in robustness of the second and fifth metatarsals relative to the interior of the foot. As in adapted to taking blows to the sides of the feet. Such as for scrambling up rocky faces to escape attacks. Homo floresiensis at about 700kya Mata Menge is in a Xeric (desert) environment. I expect they sometimes scrambled up trees / cliffs to escape attacks.
From: Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 1:22 PM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. See anthropogeny.net
Mario, humans are worse climbers than apes & a fortiori monkeys, IOW, cliffs have nothing to do with human evolution. This idea is about as silly as the savanna idea.
AFAICS, rifts were not necessary for anything in ape or human evolution specifically. You say "apes are pretty orthograde already", do you think: for climbing cliffs??
Thanks for the beautiful video of the bipedal gorilla. Early hominoids (apes) were vertical IMO, not for walking, but for wading + climbing arms overhead in the swamp forests where they fossilized. Sometimes they still are: google "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai".
Adolph Schultz 1969: After birth, the spinal column begins to invade the thoracic cavity in the higher, but not in any lower primates, and thereby approaches the centre of gravity when the trunk is held upright ... facilitating the erect posture, which these primates can readily maintain in sitting, climbing and during occasional or prolonged locomotion.”
Early apes fossilized in mangrove forests S & N of the Tethys, e.g. Heliopith & Austriacopith resp. This suggests aquarborealism: bipedal wading + vertical climbing (cf incipient aquarborealism in the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis). From aquarboreal (apes-australopiths) to littoral (archaic Homo) is evolutionarily no big step: perhaps early-Pleistocene lowering sea-levels created this new niche?
Australopiths have IMO nothing to do specifically with the evolution of the genus Homo: -some or most so-called "habilis" fossils were australopiths IMO, -australopith thick enamel is primitive for (great) apes (durophagy), -australopith small canines are also primitive for (great) apes (idem), -australopith orthogrady is primitive for hominids (Pan-Homo-Gorilla), -broad pelvis (iliac flaring) is primitive for (great?) apes, -iliac lengthening evolved in parallel in Pongo // Pan // Gorilla. -knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan // Gorilla.
--marc
_____
Op 25/03/20 19:40 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven:
First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this situation demands ape adaptations:
https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM
So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe places for primates, because cats cannot climb those:
https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106
It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff).
There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing a lot of cliffs:
https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53
This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes of this video):
https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY
This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested).
There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding.
So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters.
Now to the main question, what made humans?
As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on chest, not on the back.
Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle
Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into water to get enough of it.
So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem *at all* for them to be bipedal:
https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo
https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70
But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal.
So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore.
And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us.
Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving for shellfish, apes didn't dive.
On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. > But what made the difference between them & us? > -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? > -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? > -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? > -preadaptations, e.g. > -- thick enamel of early hominoids? > -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? > -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? > Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? > What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? > Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? > > _____ > > > Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > Actually, this is close to what I am talking. > Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: > https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE > > There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only > superficially, something like this: > https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 > > The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from > time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on > shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is > pre-history. > > > ______ > > On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven: > > > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing.
|
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
No, the point is in the shift of centre line. IIRC, even the abducted big toe bipedal species have that shift. They also have stiff foot, which apes don't have.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
IOW, ape and human feet did evolve in different directions. And abducted big toe bipedals are with human adaptations (except only that they have abducted big toe, and nothing else, they even don't have good grasping ability with this foot). Their foot is made for walking, unlike the foot of apes. On 16.4.2020. 14:27, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
One of major adaptations humans have, as opposed to apes, are in foot. |
|
|
|
Op 16/04/20 00:38 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Yes, I think apes were already orthograde because they climbed cliffs. Extant great apes are adapted for climbing trees (just like you are saying, these are novel adaptations). The first apes were climbing cliffs, humans are excellent in climbing cliffs, and have adaptations for it. Rifting and apes emerged at the same time. There are crocs in in-land waters. I never heard that there is a fossilization bias for apes, but I did hear that there is a fossilization bias for swamps. I cannot find info about localities of Heliopith and Austriacopith, Heliopithecus leakeyi 17 Ma = Afropithecus = Morotopithecus? S-Tethys coast P Andrews, WR Hamilton & PJ Whybrow 1978 Nature 274:249-251 "Dryopithecines from the Miocene of Saudi Arabia" Saudi Ape, Ad-Dabtiyah, Persian Gulf: "oldest great hominoid outside Africa ... found in a fluviatile coastal plain, amid a proboscidean, hyracoid, 2 rhino spp, tragulid Dorcatherium & boselaphids, giraffoid, 2 suid spp, chelonia, cocodile & fish. These spp suggest waterside forests or thick vegetation. The proboscidean was Platybelodon, which had much broadened lower tusks supposedly for digging plants at the bottom of shallow waters. The rhinos are Brachypotherium & Aceratherium, a Dicerorhinus-like rhino" (Sumatran rhino) JG Else & PC Lee 1986 "Primate Evolution" CUP p.86 "their habitat seems to have been near the tropical shores of the Tethys epi-continental sea" Austriacopithecus suessi 14 Ma = Griphopithecus? N-Tethys coast P Holec & RJ Emry 2003 ch.24 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist.279:625-631 "Another Molar of the Miocene Hominid Griphopithecus suessi from the Type Locality at Sandberg, Slovakia" Devínska Nová Ves = Neudorf-a/d-March, Bratislava, earliest MN6 : "transgressive sequence of nearshore marine sediments with lenses of cross-bedded estuarine deposits that are Upper Badenian in terms of the Central-Para-Tethyan marine bio-stratigraphy ... These littoral marine sediments contain abundant fossils, predom.of marine invertebrates. Less common are marine vertebrates incl.fishes, sharks, Phocidae, sirenians & cetaceans, & the remains of terrestrial vertebrates are also found occasionally ... mollusks, eg, lamellibranchs Pecten aduncus, Flabellipecten solarium, Chlamys multistriata, Panopea menardi, gastropods Gibulla triangulata, Calliostoma trigonum, Astraea meynardi etc." "The modest abundance of terrestrial mammals in marine sediments at Sandberg indicates nearshore deposition ... this range was a peninsula or archipelago extending into the Para-Tethyan Sea" _____ but the world was forested back then. It was much warmer, the precipitation was higher, and it wouldn't be a surprise that the whole world was pretty much flooded. This goes in favor of your theory, but this excludes the fossilization bias for apes. Everybody agree that Pierolapithecus is in the root of something. This is where they've found him: https://youtu.be/KLo5pb8QlfI And they also have found 14 my old gibbon at the same place. This place is strictly biased towards cliffs. Yes, Nasalis is aquarboreal (as much as it can be), and on its example you can see how is this functioning. Nasalis doesn't wade (too much), it doesn't feed in water. He is "...foliovare/frugivore, specializing in seed consumption.". He cannot live a life you are suggesting because of crocs. Isn't this obvious? He has to get out of the water as soon as possible. In water he doesn't have a chance. Regarding step towards littoral, this is what isn't a big step, big primate that sleeps on cliffs: https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88?t=225 No need to "create" niche, the niche is already here. Australopithecus and Homo: - they are almost the same, just like you are saying (Homo habilis and Australopithecus) - I agree on apes and durophagy - I don't know about canines - I agree that orthogrady is primitive - where do you found the info that iliac flaring is primitive for apes? - I agree about iliac lengthening - I agree about knuckle-walking On 15.4.2020. 21:22, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Mario, > humans are worse climbers than apes & a fortiori monkeys, > IOW, cliffs have nothing to do with human evolution. > This idea is about as silly as the savanna idea. > > AFAICS, rifts were not necessary for anything in ape or human evolution specifically. > You say "apes are pretty orthograde already", do you think: for climbing cliffs?? > > Thanks for the beautiful video of the bipedal gorilla. > Early hominoids (apes) were vertical IMO, not for walking, but for wading + climbing arms overhead in the swamp forests where they fossilized. > Sometimes they still are: google "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai". > > Adolph Schultz 1969: > After birth, the spinal column begins to invade the thoracic cavity in the higher, but not in any lower primates, and thereby approaches the centre of gravity when the trunk is held upright ... facilitating the erect posture, which these primates can readily maintain in sitting, climbing and during occasional or prolonged locomotion.” > > Early apes fossilized in mangrove forests S & N of the Tethys, e.g. Heliopith & Austriacopith resp. > This suggests aquarborealism: bipedal wading + vertical climbing > (cf incipient aquarborealism in the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis). > >From aquarboreal (apes-australopiths) to littoral (archaic Homo) is evolutionarily no big step: > perhaps early-Pleistocene lowering sea-levels created this new niche? > > Australopiths have IMO nothing to do specifically with the evolution of the genus Homo: > -some or most so-called "habilis" fossils were australopiths IMO, > -australopith thick enamel is primitive for (great) apes (durophagy), > -australopith small canines are also primitive for (great) apes (idem), > -australopith orthogrady is primitive for hominids (Pan-Homo-Gorilla), > -broad pelvis (iliac flaring) is primitive for (great?) apes, > -iliac lengthening evolved in parallel in Pongo // Pan // Gorilla. > -knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan // Gorilla. > > --marc > > _____ > > > Op 25/03/20 19:40 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > First, rifting is the key for the emergence of apes. We do have > big monkeys (lets say, Proboscis monkey), but they don't have ape body > plan, ape adaptations in chest, and in limb mobility. In my view, this > situation demands ape adaptations: > > https://youtu.be/xAB9-VGIkzM > > So, this made apes. Because of rifting. South America doesn't > have rifting. Rifting is rare on land (usually it happens in ocean), but > it did happen in Africa. Why is rifting significant for primates? > Because rifting produces vertical cliffs. Vertical cliffs are safe > places for primates, because cats cannot climb those: > > https://youtu.be/9letjf7ZZGA?t=106 > > It isn't coincidence that the most annoying sound for human ear > is scratching nails on a school board (simulating claws on a cliff). > > There weren't only a few cliffs, rifting is actually producing > a lot of cliffs: > > https://youtu.be/PoV4qSwg7nc?t=53 > > This can be home to a lot primates (watch the first 3 minutes > of this video): > > https://youtu.be/Ju7gujK8yrY > > This is what produced gibbons (in those times there wasn't open > environment, for which baboons are adapted, everything was forested). > > There were three rifts, East African Rift, Red Sea rift, Gulf > of Aden Rift. The two latter got flooded. This made Great Apes, flooding. > > So, this separated apes into two separated groups, one was > klinorhinchy (the African side), the other was airorhinchy (the Arabian > side). See, this scenario explains this dichotomy. On each side you had > big leaf eater (gorilla, Gigantopithecus), and fruit/shellfish eaters. > > Now to the main question, what made humans? > > As you can see, cliff climbing already makes you pretty > orthograde. Gelada baboon is so orthograde that it has sexual signs on > chest, not on the back. > > Now, the difference is in the Afar region. Afar region is so > vulcanic, that the whole region is actually made by volcano flow: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afar_Triangle > > Because of constant fire, there is a shortage of food. But an > animal that is already used to eat shellfish can continue to eat *only* > shellfish. So, this is the difference, African apes were living on > cliffs north of Afar. Those that lived around Afar had to subside only > on shellfish, at least for some time. So, they had to go deeper into > water to get enough of it. > > So, apes are pretty orthograde already, and it isn't problem > *at all* for them to be bipedal: > > https://youtu.be/YhMkhSQ4WHo > > https://youtu.be/9MrdADW4B70 > > But, bipedality is the thing that separates us. Why? It is not > that it is problem to be bipedal, not at all, you don't have to be > special ape for that. It is actually the other way around (Jesus, am I > so twisted, or is it the whole world that is twisted?). It is actually > problem for humans to be quadrupedal, this is the difference, :) . We > *cannot* be quadrupedal because we have such a pelvis, our pelvis > doesn't allow us to be quadrupedal. > > So, it isn't our bipedality that produced our pelvis, the > pelvis came first, because of pelvis we cannot be quadrupedal anymore. > > And what made our pelvis is the force that comes from behind, > which forces our muscles to pull our pelvis back. These are the forces > of waves that come from behind, when you are exiting sea with hands full > with shellfish. So, we *had to* adapt for this movements because this is > how we were feeding, quadrupedality was less important to us. > > Why didn't other apes become fatter and more naked? They didn't > want to. This is a *huge* adaptation. See how chacma baboons avoid to > get into water. Chacma baboons can have shark eggs any day, they don't > have to wait for tide. So, why they are waiting for tide? Because that > way they don't get wet. It isn't problem to get wet, it is the problem > to get wet by sea. Why? Because, when sea dries out it leaves salt > crystals. Salt crystals damage fur. Humans did go deeper, probably apes > too, this is why apes have such a strange fur, but humans went diving > for shellfish, apes didn't dive. > > > On 25.3.2020. 17:54, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > Amazing, thanks a lot, Mario. > > But what made the difference between them & us? > > -between cliff-climbing gibbons & littoral Homo? > > -between mussel-eating chacma baboons & littoral Homo? > > -the combination vertic.climbing + seafood? > > -preadaptations, e.g. > > -- thick enamel of early hominoids? > > -- wading bonobos & lowland gorillas? > > -- living in swamp/mangrove/flooded forests? > > Why did our ancestors adapt so much more to diving etc.? > > What hindered the chacma baboons to become littoral animals? > > Why didn't they become fatter & more naked? > > > > _____ > > > > > > Op 24/03/20 02:25 heeft Mario Petrinovic <AAT@groups.io namens mario.petrinovic1@...> geschreven: > > > > Actually, this is close to what I am talking. > > Per my view, we evolved on Red Sea rift. Something like this: > > https://youtu.be/mvzQla0KItE > > > > There, apes started to feed on shellfish. But only > > superficially, something like this: > > https://youtu.be/ZMFLjx47G88 > > > > The problem was, there is a heavy volcanism in the Afar region. So, from > > time to time, apes that were living there had to subside only on > > shellfish. After some time they accustomed to it, and the rest is > > pre-history. > > > > > > ______ > > > > On 20.3.2020. 22:04, Marc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > > > Op 20/03/20 17:47 heeft Allan Krill <AAT@groups.io namens krill@...> geschreven: > > > > > > see http://anthropogeny.net All hominin fossils may be hybrids of aquatic ancestors and African apes. > > > > > > No, Allan, that's impossible biologically. And it explains nothing. > > > > > > |
|
|
|
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@...>
I did find info on Lufengpitheucs. Lufengiptheucs was pongine (supposedly), with some dryopithecine adaptations. That's alright for me, I do claim that ancestor of today's apes is somebody like dryopithecus. A lot of Miocene apes were dryopithecus like, living in forests. These are the ancestors of today's apes.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
But, there is another line, thick enameled line. They put everybody into tribe Dryopithecine, but this is only because they thing that the LCA of chimp/gorilla/ humans was later than this. It wasn't later. Miocene dryopithecus-like apes got extinct with Vallesian crisis, while thick enameled bipedals (Ouranopithecus. Graecopithecus and laters) emerged. Possibly Pierolapithecus also wasn't a dryopithecine, per my view, although all of them are classified as Dryopithecines. My idea is that those bipedals managed to survive in open environments with the help of fire. My idea is that it is them who feed on burned meet, the burned meet of dryopithecus-like apes, the apes that lived on trees. Those that used fire lived on cliffs. As far as I know, lagoon is good for fossilization. All animals fossilize easily waterside. This is how fossilization works. I said, I didn't hear that apes are different in that respect from other animals. So taking that some animal fossilized in such conditions isn't a proof of its aquaticism, then, most of fossils would be aquatic. On 16.4.2020. 14:31, Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Lakes & wetlands & lagoons are also open environments. |
|
|