On 5/19/24 3:49 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
We, basically, have two large inland areas (and three species
of elephants, two in Africa and one in Asia), Africa and India.
Elephants, as huge animals feared even by lions, tell us a story.
India's society is far more developed than Africa. Africa had two
problems. First, in Africa you had Australopithecus/Paranthropus, Homo
had to fight it. Second, Africa is enormous, it was conquered more
slowly.
So, India is where the most development of inland human
society happened.
Another thing, you don't hunt mammoths by chasing them over >> cliffs, if you want to eat them you will hunt them one by one. If you
want to get rid of them, because they are a menace, they are
destroying your crops, and things like that, then you would chase them
over cliff.
Remember that there were more elephant populations in the
past than there are today.
Africa had at least three: The bush elephants, the savanna elephants
and the North African elephant.
Asia has three populations today but there was at least one other:
The Syrian elephant!
Plus a dwarf elephant is well established within the Mediterranean.
Not sure if this changes anything for you...
On 20.5.2024. 0:51, JTEM wrote:
On 5/19/24 3:49 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
We, basically, have two large inland areas (and three
species of elephants, two in Africa and one in Asia), Africa and
India. Elephants, as huge animals feared even by lions, tell us a
story. India's society is far more developed than Africa. Africa had
two problems. First, in Africa you had Australopithecus/Paranthropus,
Homo had to fight it. Second, Africa is enormous, it was conquered
more slowly.
So, India is where the most development of inland human >>> society happened.
Another thing, you don't hunt mammoths by chasing them over
cliffs, if you want to eat them you will hunt them one by one. If you
want to get rid of them, because they are a menace, they are
destroying your crops, and things like that, then you would chase
them over cliff.
Remember that there were more elephant populations in the
past than there are today.
Africa had at least three: The bush elephants, the savanna elephants
and the North African elephant.
Asia has three populations today but there was at least one other:
The Syrian elephant!
Plus a dwarf elephant is well established within the Mediterranean.
Not sure if this changes anything for you...
I get my info from Wikipedia, where they say that they are three species of elephants, African bush and forest elephants, and Asian elephant, which makes sense. Dwarf elephant is a product of insular
dwarfism, and they are found on islands. Extinct are mammoths and
mastodons (which are adapted for cold).
But my point isn't on that, my point is on relationship between
humans and elephants. In Africa we don't have anything like in India.
My global point is in the difference between Asian and African
communities. At the first sight it is obvious that Asian is far more
advanced than African. I mean, in the whole of Africa you have as many
people as just in India, and not to mention Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Japan, Indonesia. And the societies are far more advanced in Asia. Now,
you may speculate that this is newer development. Well, I wouldn't
speculate that, I would say that this is a reflection of the development
in the last 2 my. But, of course, in my mind I see gradual evolution,
not evolution started by the divine spark somewhere in Africa by Adam
and Eve.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
In short, scientists see chimp, chimp lives in Africa, voila
we evolved from Africa.
Yes. This is something I complained about, bitterly, since even
BEFORE I jumped into the Aquatic Ape battles.
What I was initially responding to was the CONSTANT bickering with creationist over "We are apes! We evolved from apes!" I remember
pointing out that it's actually the other way around, at least in
the case of Chimps, where THEY evolved from US.
The way we say things dictate the way we think things. And this is
made (even more clear) in examples of "We are Apes, thus we
evolved from an Ape."
But we didn't. The Ape evolved from US. They lost their upright,
bipedal locomotion, evolved knuckle walking. They lost a more
human hand, adapting to the forest.
"We are an Ape! We evolved from Aped" causes people to think that
LCA was a Chimp, or at least looked very much like a Chimp, far
more so than we do...
"Species" is another term that warps thinking. Tell idiots that
Neanderthals were a "Different Species" and they are incapable
of imagining anything other than a relationship similar to their
mistaken views on Chimps.
As I like to sometimes point out: If we're more distantly
related to Orangutans than Gorillas, we must have split from
Orangutans FIRST, which implies an Asian origins. That that
is usually enough to make them wet their pants.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Regarding the concept of "species". It has nothing to do with
the ability to interbreed. Scientists differ animals that look
differently simply for practical reasons, and the naming is arbitrary,
nothing else.
That is the point. There is no means for determining "Different
Species." The one and only useful test is interbreeding, and
nobody considers that as definitive. But all other measures are
inferior and people STILL make definitive statements!
This is why I prefer the term "Population" as opposed to species.
If they are indeed different "Species," the term "Population" is
still accurate, as they would represent a different population.
And if they are the same species, they're STILL a different
population!
Regarding our evolution, of course chimps (and other apes, >> which all look similar, including orangs and gibbons)) didn't evolve
from us, but rather from the LCA which looked like us. It is just that
we retained that shape, while all the other apes adjusted to living on
trees, including orangutans and gibbons, which predate the split. See,
orangutans and chimps evolved the same way, and orangutans definitely
didn't evolve from us. So, we have nothing to do with the evolution of
chimps, just like we have nothing to do with the evolution of orangs.
I believe that humans invented Chimps.
The Homo line preyed upon the Pan line to such an extant that the
only surviving populations were in the forest. Without populations
outside the forest contributing to their gene pool, 100% of their
adaptation was towards the forest.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I think that what we have is alright.
It's clearly not. People are constantly arguing over whether
or not separate populations are different species. There was
a big (f)Lame war over in alt.atheism over DOGS, for Christ
sake! DOGS! They are presently considered one species and
that this species includes wolves... and the collective
went APE insisting that they were separate species!
Neanderthals!
There are people who argue that Pan should be done away with
entirely, that Chimps are included within the genus Homo...
I believe that humans invented Chimps.
The Homo line preyed upon the Pan line to such an extant that the
only surviving populations were in the forest. Without populations
outside the forest contributing to their gene pool, 100% of their
adaptation was towards the forest.
Something like that. But, their evolution was long, like 15 my.
Definitely NOT. At least not unless the vast majority of that
15 my includes BEFORE the LCA...
The "Molecular Clock" dating was originally placed at about
6 my, based on mtDNA. Just widening that to the y-chromosome
and they knocked a million years or more off the age. Then
taker a broader look across the genome they came up with a
4 million years ago date, +/- 300k. And THAT aligns perfectly
with the retrovirus data...
The oldest Chimp fossil, if it's even a Chimp, it's not at all
certain, is a goddamn tooth! And that's more like 0.5 my.
At least. I mean, in my view apes started to emerge starting at 35 mya,
That's about the age of the oldest monkey fossils.
when Triple rift system (East African Rift - Red Sea Rift - Gulf of
Aden Rift) started to emerge. Apes emerged on cliffs.
Monkeys were already diversifying in the Americas by then.
Some of them moved to trees, some remained on cliffs, we were on sea
cliffs, eating shellfish. 15 mya there were a lot of different apes,
cliff apes, tree apes, apes were the dominant species in the Old
World, since the whole world was forest, and apes were the biggest
primates. Then humans started to burn forest, and only apes in rain
forest, where precipitation/humidity is too high for burning, remained.
Don't see it.
Bipedalism arose first, then apes arose from those bipedal
ancestors.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
The oldest Chimp fossil, if it's even a Chimp, it's not at all
certain, is a goddamn tooth! And that's more like 0.5 my.
Discussing dating with somebody who *believes* in molecular >> clock has as much sense as discussing it with somebody who believes in
God.
Molecular dating EXAGGERATES AGE! Our mtDNA came under VERY HEAVY
selection because humans spread everywhere, and north in particular.
Cold environments and a different breeding strategy, more dependence
on old people, placed LOTS of pressure on our mtDNA to evolve but
only outside of warmer environments & populations with a quantity
over quality breeding strategy.
Thus, we had accelerated change in some places, and very slow,
gradual changes elsewhere but the Molecular Clock idiots assume
that BOTH changed as the exact same slow, gradual pace...
This is why it's so inaccurate.
You kind of have to already know how old each population is in order
to date them this way.
IF you identify a gene under no selective pressure, and can rule
out or factor in potential mutagens into your "Mutation Rate," you
could arrive at a reasonable number...
This is why I default to the lowest/youngest age within a given
range, and even then not the likely inaccuracies.
I actually place the last common ancestor at about 3.7 million
years ago...
At least. I mean, in my view apes started to emerge starting at 35 mya, >>>That's about the age of the oldest monkey fossils.
when Triple rift system (East African Rift - Red Sea Rift - Gulf of
Aden Rift) started to emerge. Apes emerged on cliffs.
Monkeys were already diversifying in the Americas by then.
Isn't this contrary to what you wrote above?
No. It's not.
You're placing the start of Apes at the age of the single oldest
monkey fossils ever found. What I'm saying is that these monkey
fossils render a 35 my start for apes unlikely.
Nobody posits an American origin for Apes. Most say Africa, of
those that do not most name Asia, some name Europe.
I think you've got good candidates for a starting point there,
but the dating seems off.
Bipedalism arose first, then apes arose from those bipedal
ancestors.
I really cannot understand how somebody can claim this,
looking at our pelvis. Apes, definitely, never had our pelvis. The end
of story.
The Great Apes are secondarily knuckle walkers. Their ancestors
did not move that way.
On 22.5.2024. 9:37, JTEM wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Hm, dating method should be consistent, evolution doesn't >>> work in that matter. Furthermore, you are postulating something for
which you don't have the slightest evidence.
Are you out of your mind?
Molecular dating had pretty consistently exaggerated age from
the earliest such studies. And, as Prof. Wolpoff has pointed
out, for one rather obvious reason: It assumes that mtDNA is
not subject to selection.
Period.
Selection doesn't happen in timely manner, if this is the right
term. It doesn't happen like clock, it happens according to
circumstances. And "mutations" are malfunctions. And this was proved by
the only time they've seen mutation developed, in some Himalayan people.
So, all this has only superficial connection to evolution. This all is
just a just-so story, nothing more, wishful thinking of people who
really want that something "from above" affects our evolution. Evolution
is interaction between an organism and its surroundings, and mutations
isn't the mechanism by which it performs. All this is just a fairy tale invented and supported by Vatican.
I mean, there are mutations, for sure, and there is a color of an
eye, yet, can you date anything based on the color of an eye?
There's no such thing as "Molecular Dating" that looks at an
eye color. It's looking at DNA.
At it's best it's working out the number of mutations needed
to get from here-to-there. And then it assumes a steady,
constant rate of mutation. So even if they got the number of
mutations right, their underlying assumption is wrong.
There is such a thing as "Mutagens." These will alter -- mutate
-- DNA even when there's no selective pressure to do so.
Maybe they exist in an environment, maybe they don't...
Move a population to a new environment and you just placed
selective pressures on DNA to change.
Our mtDNA was under a great deal of selective pressure, in some
populations, not so much in others...
You're placing the start of Apes at the age of the single oldest
monkey fossils ever found. What I'm saying is that these monkey
fossils render a 35 my start for apes unlikely.
Nobody posits an American origin for Apes. Most say Africa, of
those that do not most name Asia, some name Europe.
I think you've got good candidates for a starting point there,
but the dating seems off.
Yes, you are saying that apes emerged after African and >>> South American monkeys diverged.
I'm saying that monkeys emerged FIRST. So the closer we get to
the origins of monkeys, the less likely we're near the origins
of Apes.
No, it isn't "less likely" at all. Apes evolved in completely different circumstances, and they are completely different animals.
Monkeys are like typical quadrupeds, apes are something completely
different. The form of monkeys is much closer to the form of cats than
to the form of apes, apes are completely different animals, they evolved
in completely different circumstances, and their origin is when those circumstances happened in Africa, obviously they didn't happen in South America. What is the difference between Africa and South America?
African Rifting. Rifting produced apes, when rifting happened, apes
happened. It has nothing to do with the origins of monkeys.
So, where is the problem?
I just spelled it out again.
The Great Apes are secondarily knuckle walkers. Their ancestors
did not move that way.
I don't understand? Everybody can be "bipedal", and
especially orthograde apes, but we have shorter pelvis in
Oreopithecus (8mya), and Danuvius (11.6 mya) was habitual biped. So,
that clock of yours is waaaay too wrong, why you *believe* in it, at
all?
Hmm. I say I think it's wrong, that the LCA is WAY younger and you
think I just said "This molecular clock stuff is amazingly accurate!"
I'd say you're trolling but that would be redundant.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Hm, dating method should be consistent, evolution doesn't >> work in that matter. Furthermore, you are postulating something for
which you don't have the slightest evidence.
Are you out of your mind?
Molecular dating had pretty consistently exaggerated age from
the earliest such studies. And, as Prof. Wolpoff has pointed
out, for one rather obvious reason: It assumes that mtDNA is
not subject to selection.
Period.
I mean, there are mutations, for sure, and there is a color of an eye,
yet, can you date anything based on the color of an eye?
There's no such thing as "Molecular Dating" that looks at an
eye color. It's looking at DNA.
At it's best it's working out the number of mutations needed
to get from here-to-there. And then it assumes a steady,
constant rate of mutation. So even if they got the number of
mutations right, their underlying assumption is wrong.
There is such a thing as "Mutagens." These will alter -- mutate
-- DNA even when there's no selective pressure to do so.
Maybe they exist in an environment, maybe they don't...
Move a population to a new environment and you just placed
selective pressures on DNA to change.
Our mtDNA was under a great deal of selective pressure, in some
populations, not so much in others...
You're placing the start of Apes at the age of the single oldest
monkey fossils ever found. What I'm saying is that these monkey
fossils render a 35 my start for apes unlikely.
Nobody posits an American origin for Apes. Most say Africa, of
those that do not most name Asia, some name Europe.
I think you've got good candidates for a starting point there,
but the dating seems off.
Yes, you are saying that apes emerged after African and South
American monkeys diverged.
I'm saying that monkeys emerged FIRST. So the closer we get to
the origins of monkeys, the less likely we're near the origins
of Apes.
So, where is the problem?
I just spelled it out again.
The Great Apes are secondarily knuckle walkers. Their ancestors
did not move that way.
I don't understand? Everybody can be "bipedal", and
especially orthograde apes, but we have shorter pelvis in Oreopithecus
(8mya), and Danuvius (11.6 mya) was habitual biped. So, that clock of
yours is waaaay too wrong, why you *believe* in it, at all?
Hmm. I say I think it's wrong, that the LCA is WAY younger and you
think I just said "This molecular clock stuff is amazingly accurate!"
I'd say you're trolling but that would be redundant.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Selection doesn't happen in timely manner
If you mean "There is no molecular clock," I know. I've always
known. Here I've been discussing WHY.
I'm saying that monkeys emerged FIRST. So the closer we get to
the origins of monkeys, the less likely we're near the origins
of Apes.
No, it isn't "less likely" at all.
Of course it is.
FIRST the monkeys evolved, and then an entire new genus of
mammals arose, and then Apes split off from them.
Apes evolved in completely different circumstances
No. You've wandered off the page here.
Apes didn't evolve at all until AFTER monkeys evolved and AFTER
bipedalism.
Stop trolling.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I don't get whether you really don't know anything, or what?
We have the evidence of human-like bipedalism 11,6 mya.
And apes would have /Followed/ (come after) that bipedalism.
Meanwhile, we have monkeys already in South America and
diversified at least 35 million years ago...
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I don't get whether you really don't know anything, or >>>> what? We have the evidence of human-like bipedalism 11,6 mya.
And apes would have /Followed/ (come after) that bipedalism.
Meanwhile, we have monkeys already in South America and
diversified at least 35 million years ago...
Jesus, we have Homo sapiens 10 my after that, so what?
You can't follow even your own half of a conversation.
Prior to this moment, you were idiotically claiming that apes arose
right after Monkeys, so more than 30 million years ago.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Prior to this moment, you were idiotically claiming that apes arose
right after Monkeys, so more than 30 million years ago.
No, I didn't claim anything like that
Me:
I'm saying that monkeys emerged FIRST. So the closer we get to
the origins of monkeys, the less likely we're near the origins
of Apes.
This "Mario" alter:
No, it isn't "less likely" at all.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:59:43 |
| Calls: | 9,775 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,186,607 |