Bioko and Afar are both good candidates for AAT location.  
Arguments for Bioko as opposed to Afar:
1. Bioko was and still is an island, without large predators. An easy place for apes to be isolated suddenly by accident, and a safe place to evolve over a very long time scale, many million years.
2. Bioko is in the range of chimpanzees. The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees could easily get isolated there, but not in Afar.
3. Humans never got infected by the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) which Elaine Morgan called the "Baboon Marker". I think all primates in east and south Africa were exposed to SIV, but not some of the primates in western Africa, and not the ones on Bioko.
4. The sun is always very strong in Afar, but Bioko is almost always cloudy. I think an aquatic ape in Afar would not lose its body hair, which is important for sun protection. 
But again, I agree, that Afar and Bioko are both good possibilities. 

        You are actually mentioning arguments against Bioko.

        First, as I can read in Wikipedia, Bioko became separated from mainland only 10 kya.

        But, it doesn't matter, your main idea is the idea of isolation. Take a look at Tusco-Sardinian island, where Oreopithecus lived. As soon as this island connected to mainland, the mainland ecology wiped off the ecology of this island. Take a look at Galapagos, or Sulawesi. Find any place on Earth where island fauna managed to survive after the contact with mainland fauna. Simply, mainland fauna is more competitive, and island fauna doesn't have a chance in confrontation with mainland fauna. Plus, you have to be in contact with predators, otherwise you will not know how to deal with them.

        Regarding "Baboon Marker", we have Trahilos footprints on Crete, 5.6 mya. So, humans evolved before that. How old should be "Baboon marker"?

        Our cooling mechanism is adapted to breeze. Breeze you have on any coast. Breeze keeps humans cold. Also, salt crystals damage fur. Damaged fur cannot perform cooling protection, because it cannot keep the layer of cold air around body. So, if it cannot perform cooling function, then it is just an unnecessary weight.

On 30.3.2020. 23:18, Allan Krill wrote:

Bioko and Afar are both good candidates for AAT location.  
Arguments for Bioko as opposed to Afar:
1. Bioko was and still is an island, without large predators. An easy place for apes to be isolated suddenly by accident, and a safe place to evolve over a very long time scale, many million years.
2. Bioko is in the range of chimpanzees. The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees could easily get isolated there, but not in Afar.
3. Humans never got infected by the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) which Elaine Morgan called the "Baboon Marker". I think all primates in east and south Africa were exposed to SIV, but not some of the primates in western Africa, and not the ones on Bioko.
4. The sun is always very strong in Afar, but Bioko is almost always cloudy. I think an aquatic ape in Afar would not lose its body hair, which is important for sun protection. 
But again, I agree, that Afar and Bioko are both good possibilities. 

Bioko last became separated from the mainland only 10 kya. But as you see in Figure 4 here: A paradigme for the evolution of human features Bioko was separated many times from the mainland, for long periods. And Bioko was always separated before about 2.5 mya. At any time when it was separated, a small volcanic island could have appeared just away from the other parts of Bioko. This new small volcanic island would be barren for a while. If chimpanzees rafted to a small island, and could not swim over to the big island where there was food, they would be forced to eat marine foods. 

It is true that island fauna do not usually survive once there is contact with the mainland. But humans were were quick learners, and they populated the entire globe. They do not follow the usual rules. Most humans were probably eaten by predators once they came to the mainland, but some must have survived. Without isolation on an island, there would be no reason to adopt a marine diet and habitat. Galapagos and the marine iguana is such a good example, because there are no other lizards that have chosen a marine diet. 

Dogs and other animals can shake off most of the seawater, and then fluff up their fur. I don't think salt crystal damage would be significant. Fur is important for sun protection. In the desert and hot sun, animals need fur, and humans need clothing. Breeze helps with evaporative cooling, but there will be evaporation also without a breeze. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:14 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
DNA shows clearly that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like ancestor. That ancestor evolved from a gorilla-chimpanzee-like ancestor. Chimpanzees and gorillas and their immediate ancestors have lived mainly where we find them now. It is not logical to look for fossils in Europe ("across the street") for something that was dropped in central-western Africa. But scientists, and journalists, and places in Europe that want some media attention, will suggest that their fossils are exciting in the context of human evolution.

As I read about Graecopithecus and Ouranothipthcus, I think that almost no one really believes that they are relevant for human evolution. Graecopithecus seems to be known from only one fossil find and is of a very uncertain age. That loose fossil could have been found anywhere, and just claimed to be from that place in Greece. Why waste your energy putting faith in such things? This is like those who believe in religious relics. Obviously such an exciting claim can be a "success" for the person who publishes something about it, and for the place where it was supposed to be found, but it is not science to believe something like this that cannot be tested and repeated by independent and impartial scientists.

I have added two new lines of text to my cartoon at anthropogeny.net: Question: "What are you finding here?"  Answer: "Lots of interesting fragments!"  Of course you can find interesting fragments various places, and it can be exciting when others say they found them. But DNA tells us very clearly that fragments 7-9 Ma old that are found in Europe are not the ancestors of humans. If you do not accept the DNA dating evidence, and the DNA evidence that says we are very closely related to chimpanzees, then I think you are functioning like a religious believer. Even though you are a scholar (many priests are excellent scholars) with lots of detailed knowledge and much good understanding, you are not making sense as a scientist if you believe these things and deny the DNA results.

        I think you are confusing something. First of all, the Molecular Clock dating was based on the Genetic Mutation Theory. It is actually this theory that is postulated by a religious fanatic, Catholic priest Gregor Mendel. This theory was response to Darwin's theory. Darwin published his theory 1859., Mendel 1866.. If you take that it took few years for Mendel to make his experiments, you can see that this is actually the immediate response from Catholic church to Darwin. The problem with those experiments is that they are all fake. Never-the-less, science accepted this theory, which is in direct confrontation to Darwin's theory.

        But, the problem is, to take your words, that it couldn't be tested in real life. Then, finally, scientists got the opportunity to test this theory in real life, they found some mutations on high altitude living people in Himalayas. And, it turned out that this theory *doesn't* work in real life. So, now scientists are trying to find some compromise between this theory and Darwin's theory, but again, this will not work. Darwin's theory is the correct one, the Genetic Mutation Theory is the wrong one.

        Situation with Molecular Clock is even much worse. This clock showed to be, not always wrong, but always *vastly* wrong. I believe that nowadays nobody takes molecular clock seriously. If you know somebody who takes it seriously, please show him to me, so that I can have some laugh.

        My approach towards those theories (the Genetic Mutation Theory and the Molecular Clock)? From the day 1 I claimed that those theories are biblistic, and nothing else. I even didn't know that the author is Catholic priest at that time, it was obvious to me that this is just a biblistic bullshit.

        So, the misconceptions upon which you are basing your theory are actually rooted in religious fanatism.

        Regarding Graecopithecus, they have found it in 1944., and they never included it in our ancestry. Never until very recently (just a few years back). If they didn't do it for 70 years, and they did do it today, believe me, they have very strong reason for doing that now. So, actually, almost nobody (I was almost the only one) believed that Graecopithecus was our ancestor, until today, when they are so sure, that they are mentioning it as our ancestor in Wikipedia. It wouldn't happen if the majority of people doesn't believe in this, today.

        So, all your views are some 10 years old. A lot of things changed lately, and each and every change was in favor of my views. I had a lot of problems to explain my theories 10 years ago, nobody wanted to listen, exactly because of Genetic Mutation Theory, and Molecular Clock. But today, serious people know that those two things are finished, wrong. You are lagging behind some 10 years (at least). Try to keep up.

On 31.3.2020. 16:02, Allan Krill wrote:

As I read about Graecopithecus and Ouranothipthcus, I think that almost no one really believes that they are relevant for human evolution. Graecopithecus seems to be known from only one fossil find and is of a very uncertain age. That loose fossil could have been found anywhere, and just claimed to be from that place in Greece. Why waste your energy putting faith in such things? This is like those who believe in religious relics. Obviously such an exciting claim can be a "success" for the person who publishes something about it, and for the place where it was supposed to be found, but it is not science to believe something like this that cannot be tested and repeated by independent and impartial scientists.

I have added two new lines of text to my cartoon at anthropogeny.net: Question: "What are you finding here?"  Answer: "Lots of interesting fragments!"  Of course you can find interesting fragments various places, and it can be exciting when others say they found them. But DNA tells us very clearly that fragments 7-9 Ma old that are found in Europe are not the ancestors of humans. If you do not accept the DNA dating evidence, and the DNA evidence that says we are very closely related to chimpanzees, then I think you are functioning like a religious believer. Even though you are a scholar (many priests are excellent scholars) with lots of detailed knowledge and much good understanding, you are not making sense as a scientist if you believe these things and deny the DNA results.