On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 5:08:44 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (goolge) "aquarboreal":
this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense. Crab-eating macaques
and brazzas monkeys show that aquarboreal traits are fantasy-based, not biology-based.
Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (google) "aquarboreal":
this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.
...
Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (google) "aquarboreal":
this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
My little littleClaiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.
Miocene Hominoidea were originally vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests, their descendants followed different ways:
-knuckle-walkers on the forest floor,
-shallow-water divers,
-fast brachiators,
-slow branch-hangers,
-vertical bipeds on land.
Only incredible imbeciles believe their ancestors ran after antelopes on the African savannas.
These quotes are from the topic
Do monogamous spp live longer than related pylygynous spp?
They are entirely typical of the exchanges
in this newsgroup, not just from the two
posters quoted, but from nearly everyone.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 5:08:44 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (goolge) "aquarboreal":
this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense. Crab-eating macaques
and brazzas monkeys show that aquarboreal traits are fantasy-based, not biology-based.
Have you noticed that in these 'evolutionary
theories' there's never the slightest attempt
to set out the selective pressures?
So the wet-ape theorist says that early
hominins (or pre-hominin?) walked along
water-courses (or such-like) and each
generation got a little better at it, and so,
and so (very vaguely) they changed their
entire anatomy. No reason is ever
proposed as to why those with (say) a
more centralised spine would have been
selected over those with the standard
primate body plan. Likewise for all the
other truly drastic alterations. It seems
that evolution would have gone in the
way the theorist wants, just because
that's what the theorist wants.
It's the same with his critic, Daud
Deden here.
different evolutionary scenario, but
with the same total absence of any kind
of selective pressure. In his view in each
generation the taxon moved in the
direction he imagines, just because
that's what he wants to imagine.
Neither has the beginnings of a grasp
of the degree of intense competition
between individuals (and sometimes
groups) that is always present. It usually
operates as a conserving force, keeping
individuals tightly bound to the niche
that their species currently occupies.
Very rarely this competition enforces
revolutionary changes, nearly always
when a population finds a new niche
which requires different behaviours
and, over generations, changes in
morphology. Evolutionary theorists
should be able to outline the selective
mechanisms. For example, how were
individuals with more centralised
spines better suited than their fellows.
Since some find it difficult to grasp the
basic principles of selection as they
operate in nature consider instead the
'evolution' of WW2 fighter planes. They
got better and better, with new versions
at least every year. This was forced,
because the enemy was doing the same
and new 'generations' of planes could
readily shoot down earlier ones. Speed
was nearly always a crucial factor.
It was much the same when one small
isolated group of monkeys began to
brachiate. Those, that could do it best,
were faster in the trees, and could escape
the attacks and threats of larger, clumsier
conspecifics. They could exploit food
resouces (effectively barred to others)
and get more mating opportunities.
Over many generations selection would
have altered their body shape,
centralising their spines, shifting their
scapulas, and losing their tails.
As soon as their isolation ended, they
occupied the gibbon niche throughout
the forests of South-East Asia. They
gave rise to larger versions (akin to the
siamang) and then to orangutans and
other apes. These occupied niches lower
down in the canopy.
To argue against this you need to specify
the _selective_advantages_ in your own
scenario -- how wading in streams (or
slow brachiation or whatever) would,
over many generations, centralise the
spine, lose the tail, and bring about all
the other major morphological changes.
Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.
My little little boy, it's not difficult, even for you:
Miocene Hominoidea were originally vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,
their descendants followed different ways:
-knuckle-walkers on the forest floor,
-shallow-water divers,
-fast brachiators,
-slow branch-hangers,
-vertical bipeds on land.
Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense.
My little little boy, it's not difficult, even for you:
You haven't got the point. Mere bald
assertions are not good enough.
You need to present evolutionary arguments
showing how selection worked (or was
likely to have worked).
Miocene Hominoidea were originally vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests,
WHY did some more-or-less standard
monkey (something like a baboon?)
BECOME a vertical wader-climber in a
swamp forest? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the costs?
their descendants followed different ways:
-knuckle-walkers on the forest floor,
WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a knuckle-walker on
the forest floor? When? What were
the selective pressures? The benefits?
And the costs?
-shallow-water divers,
WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a shallow-water diver?
When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the costs?
-fast brachiators,
WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a fast brachiator?
When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the costs?
-slow branch-hangers,
WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a slow branch hanger?
When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the costs?
-vertical bipeds on land.
WHY did this supposed vertical wader-
climber BECOME a vertical biped on
land? When? What were the selective
pressures? The benefits? And the costs?
Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.
Gibbon ancestors brachiation changed their skeletal breadth.
On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 7:14:32 AM UTC-4, yelw...@gmail.com wrote:
These quotes are from the topic
Do monogamous spp live longer than related pylygynous spp?
They are entirely typical of the exchanges
in this newsgroup, not just from the two
posters quoted, but from nearly everyone.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 5:08:44 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, thanks, left-over from our ancestors' coastal dispersal, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Mio-Pliocene hominoids were (goolge) "aquarboreal":
this explains their centrally-placed spine, upright posture, very wide pelvis-thorax-sternum, fused sternum, less lumbar &
more sacral vertebrae, tail loss, long limbs + lateral movements etc.
Claiming brachiation-related features are aquarboreal is nonsense. Crab-eating macaques
and brazzas monkeys show that aquarboreal traits are fantasy-based, not biology-based.
Have you noticed that in these 'evolutionary
theories' there's never the slightest attempt
to set out the selective pressures?
So the wet-ape theorist says that early
hominins (or pre-hominin?) walked along
water-courses (or such-like) and each
generation got a little better at it, and so,
and so (very vaguely) they changed their
entire anatomy. No reason is ever
proposed as to why those with (say) a
more centralised spine would have been
selected over those with the standard
primate body plan. Likewise for all the
other truly drastic alterations. It seems
that evolution would have gone in the
way the theorist wants, just because
that's what the theorist wants.
It's the same with his critic, DaudFantasy fiction time, kiddies:
Deden here.
Daud envisages a very
different evolutionary scenario, but
with the same total absence of any kind
of selective pressure. In his view in each
generation the taxon moved in the
direction he imagines, just because
that's what he wants to imagine.
Neither has the beginnings of a grasp
of the degree of intense competition
between individuals (and sometimes
groups) that is always present. It usually
operates as a conserving force, keeping
individuals tightly bound to the niche
that their species currently occupies.
Very rarely this competition enforces
revolutionary changes, nearly always
when a population finds a new niche
which requires different behaviours
and, over generations, changes in
morphology. Evolutionary theorists
should be able to outline the selective
mechanisms. For example, how were
individuals with more centralised
spines better suited than their fellows.
Since some find it difficult to grasp the
basic principles of selection as they
operate in nature consider instead the
'evolution' of WW2 fighter planes. They
got better and better, with new versions
at least every year. This was forced,
because the enemy was doing the same
and new 'generations' of planes could
readily shoot down earlier ones. Speed
was nearly always a crucial factor.
It was much the same when one small
isolated group of monkeys began to
brachiate. Those, that could do it best,
were faster in the trees, and could escape
the attacks and threats of larger, clumsier
conspecifics. They could exploit food
resouces (effectively barred to others)
and get more mating opportunities.
Over many generations selection would
have altered their body shape,
centralising their spines, shifting their
scapulas, and losing their tails.
As soon as their isolation ended, they
occupied the gibbon niche throughout
the forests of South-East Asia. They
gave rise to larger versions (akin to the
siamang) and then to orangutans and
other apes. These occupied niches lower
down in the canopy.
To argue against this you need to specify
the _selective_advantages_ in your own
scenario -- how wading in streams (or
slow brachiation or whatever) would,
over many generations, centralise the
spine, lose the tail, and bring about all
the other major morphological changes.
1) India approaching Eurasia: fm of island archipels, full of coastal forests:
India had slammed into Eurasia
cercopithecoid/hominoid split:
catarrhines reaching these became vertical waders-climbers: Hominoidea: larger size, vertical spine, very broad pelvis, thorax & sternum (Hominoidea=Latisternalia), tail loss etc.
for wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead.
2) India further under Eurasia = split great/lesser apes = W/E:
great apes colonized W-Tethys coastal forests.
3) Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma = split hominids/pongids = W/E:
hominids colonized Med.Sea coastal forests.
4) Med.drying: only Red Sea hominids survived.
1) India approaching Eurasia: fm of island archipels, full of coastal forests:
India had slammed into Eurasia
Himalayas began 47 Ma. https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/scientists_date_birth_of_himalayas_from_newly_discovered_microplate
cercopithecoid/hominoid split:
catarrhines reaching these became vertical waders-climbers: Hominoidea: larger size, vertical spine, very broad pelvis, thorax & sternum (Hominoidea=Latisternalia), tail loss etc.
for wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead.
These huge changes in morphology are
all for "wading bipedally" and "climbing
arms overhead" . . ?
Baboons can wade.
Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.My little little boy (please try to grow up), I can climb a tree, yet I'm no ape.
Gibbon ancestors brachiation changed their skeletal breadth.I'm not interested in your confabulations.
Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.
My little little boy (please try to grow up), I can climb a tree, yet I'm no ape.
You are, and you have the standard hominoid breadth due to slow brachiating ancestors.
Op vrijdag 29 juli 2022 om 01:09:53 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
Both monkeys wade upright and climb in tropical rainforests, but did not change their skeletal breadth.
My little little boy (please try to grow up), I can climb a tree, yet I'm no ape.
You are, and you have the standard hominoid breadth due to slow brachiating ancestors.Yes
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 495 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:09:08 |
| Calls: | 9,745 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,742 |
| Messages: | 6,184,218 |