I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article >https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl.
e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g.
humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that "The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
--For ape evolution (Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea), google "aquarboreal".
--For human evolution s.s. , google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
On 2023-03-28 11:45:46 +0000, marc verhaegen said:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl.
e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g.
humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.
--For ape evolution (Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea), google "aquarboreal".
--For human evolution s.s. , google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 16:25:41 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-03-28 11:45:46 +0000, marc verhaegen said:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. >>> e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. >>> humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. Being plantigrade (or standing plantigrade on hind legs like kangaroos)That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.
gives advantage for doing things that are not related or specific to
being waterside.
So you just ask others to google for places where you restate your ungrounded fantasies. But why? Anyone who needs fantasies about
Deep Ones should read H.P. Lovecraft instead as he was better
fantasy writer.
Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-03-28 11:45:46 +0000, marc verhaegen said:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. >>> e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. >>> humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 9:35:41?AM UTC-7, Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 16:25:41 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> > > On 2023-03-28 11:45:46 +0000, marc verhaegen said:Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. Being
It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. >> > > >>> e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. >> > > >>> humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.
plantigrade (or standing plantigrade on hind legs like kangaroos)
gives advantage for doing things that are not related or specific to
being waterside.
So you just ask others to google for places where you restate your
ungrounded fantasies. But why? Anyone who needs fantasies about
Deep Ones should read H.P. Lovecraft instead as he was better
fantasy writer.
Good advice. The Great Old Ones were plantigrade, not sure about Chthulu.
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that >"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. >>> e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. >>> humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past".
Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. ...
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 16:25:41 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-03-28 11:45:46 +0000, marc verhaegen said:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal
adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. >>> e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. >>> humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.
It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.
Majority of plantigrade animals do not live waterside life. Being plantigrade (or standing plantigrade on hind legs like kangaroos)
gives advantage for doing things that are not related or specific to
being waterside.
So you just ask others to google for places where you restate your ungrounded fantasies.
Bipedal locomotion in zoo apes:
Revisiting the hylobatian model for bipedal origins
Kyle H Rosen, Caroline E Jones & Jeremy M DeSilva 2022
Evol.Hum.Sci. doi org/10.1017/ehs.2022.9
Oreo-, Ourano-, Graecopith were probably hominid & aquarboreal,
But why? Anyone who needs fantasies about
Deep Ones should read H.P. Lovecraft instead as he was better
fantasy writer.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
So you assert. Repeatedly. But I see no reference to any
actual evidence that that is correct, your unsupported
assertions not being evidence.
Your "evidence" seems even less compelling than the Aquatic
Ape Theory (which isn't a theory at all; it's strictly
conjecture). Do you even know what objective evidence *is*?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
He did a lot better on another thread. I included an excerpt from an evaluation of some ideas of Marc by me
there in reply to Öö Tiib. The whole evaluation, a reply to a post by Marc, can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E8Gn9fl3jo4/m/1w5spVNqAgAJ
Re: Miocene Hominoidea (earliest apes) were already bipedal
Mar 28, 2023, 4:10:41 PM
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
So you assert. Repeatedly. But I see no reference to any
actual evidence that that is correct, your unsupported
assertions not being evidence.
Your "evidence" seems even less compelling than the Aquatic
Ape Theory (which isn't a theory at all; it's strictly
conjecture).
Do you even know what objective evidence *is*?
Comparative evidence is objective evidence:
- Cursorial tetrapods (bi- & quadrupedal) run on their hooves (many herbivores) or toes (carnivores), mostly of the middle toes, not on their heels.
- Swimming (and/or perhaps wading?) tetrapods swim with flat feet, with rel.long first and/or last digital rays.
Comparatively & objectively, our feet are swimming-feet evolving into walking-feet.
That implies that the transition from swimming to walking was not very long ago, e.g.
-- early-Pleistocene H.erectus was predom.diving (POS, ear exostoses, shell engravings etc.etc.),
-- mid-Pleistocene H.neanderthalensis was already frequently wading (seasonally coast->river?),
-- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens is predom.walking (but still: Moken etc.).
Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 20:30:41 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:--
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:So you assert. Repeatedly. But I see no reference to any
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
actual evidence that that is correct, your unsupported
assertions not being evidence.
Your "evidence" seems even less compelling than the Aquatic
Ape Theory (which isn't a theory at all; it's strictly
conjecture). Do you even know what objective evidence *is*?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
So basically, you look at a particular piece of anatomy and
conclude that it supports your conjecture, ignoring the
mountains of evidence that Homo evolved in East Africa, ...
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 7:35:06 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
...
He did a lot better on another thread. I included an excerpt from an evaluation of some ideas of Marc by me
there in reply to Öö Tiib. The whole evaluation, a reply to a post by Marc, can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/E8Gn9fl3jo4/m/1w5spVNqAgAJ
Re: Miocene Hominoidea (earliest apes) were already bipedal
Mar 28, 2023, 4:10:41 P
Why not leave the "littoralist" alone to frolic with his worthy adversaries in sci.paleo.anthropology?
His advice to "google [...] verhaegen" is good. He's a fairly well-known crank of long standing.
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
So basically, you look at a particular piece of anatomy and
conclude that it supports your conjecture, ignoring the
mountains of evidence that Homo evolved in East Africa, the
fact that there are no known examples of either Pan or Homo
who wade/swim more than occasionally, *and* the fact that
our feet are well-adapted (not perfectly; nothing in biology
is "perfectly adapted") for the running/walking life on open
plains, specifically including the arch you trumpet as some
sort of evidence of wading as a primary occupation.
As for the idea that Homo evolved in Asia, that was indeed
the consensus until around 1950, when the evidence began to
accumulate regarding East Africa, and the "out of Asia"
crowd finally conceded.
Sigh...
0 evidence:
-"bonobo wading",
-"gorilla wading",
-"Moken diving".
Pan // Gorilla evolved in Africa.
Pliocene Homo followed S.Asian coasts.
"Homo"habilis was probably not Homo.
Homo ergaster might have been Homo.
Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs.
Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you removePlease do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.
material you wish to ignore>
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.
Bob Casanova wrote:
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs.
Omg, you're such a fucking idiot!
"Failing to exactly mirror the status quo is exactly like claiming
the earth is flat!"
Do you honestly believe that?
Are you genuinely THAT stupid?
Or do you admit to resorting to pathetic smears rather than
try and form an argument?
Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
Ironically, you not only lack physical evidence but have plenty
that debunks your idiotic views.
There's the Chromosome 11 insert, vastly older than any supposed "Mitochondrial Eve," establishing a Eurasian origins of modern
man.
There's "Coastal Dispersal" which *Is* Aquatic Ape by a
different name.
Oo! DHA! We need it. Yet, supposedly the genes that allow us to
synthesize it as well as we do -- which isn't very good at all -- is
only 80k years old.
So, where else BUT "Aquatic Ape" were we getting it?
Can't answer?
But you're still certain you know everything? Of
course you are! That's how the rest of us know you're such a
waste product...
On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 13:45:06 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you removePlease do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.
material you wish to ignore>
You are wasting our time.
I said "Majority of plantigrade animals
do not live waterside life." You snipped it because it does not fit
with your boneheaded dogmas. You can not address facts but
that is somehow fault of others.
Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.
You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.
Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.
My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
knowing about it in the first place.
Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.
Peter Nyikos
PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidence
to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:25:06 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.
You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so
he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.
Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.
My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
knowing about it in the first place.
Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.
Peter Nyikos
PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidenceTell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation by
to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07 PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation bySurely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07 PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG,Surely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern
but I'll make a good imitation by
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time.
When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of
systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the
other way round :o)
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the
illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07 PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation bySurely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:Its not so much GG users as the crappy interface. I had used DejaNews back >in the day and Google went and ruined that idea.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, >>>> but I'll make a good imitation bySurely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern >>> times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time.
When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the >>> other way round :o)
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the
illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07 PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, >>> but I'll make a good imitation bySurely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern >> times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. >>> When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the >> other way round :o)
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.
It’s not so much GG users as the crappy interface. I had used DejaNews back
in the day and Google went and ruined that idea.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:25:06?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation by
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:45:06?AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.
You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so
he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.
Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.
My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
knowing about it in the first place.
Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.
Peter Nyikos
PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidence
to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
Surely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation bySurely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 12:51:28 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:40:07?PM UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
Tell you what: I don't use killfiles, since I'm a troglodyte using GG, but I'll make a good imitation bySurely that would be the other way round? You are such a child of modern times that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the other way round :o)
promising I won't even look at what you post for some undefined time. When in the future I check back,
if I see the same rubbish being posted, I'll continue on that line.
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.Based on GG's UI history, my impression is Google uses GG to
discourage Usenet, much as international corporations and expansionist despots use the law to discourage native human rights.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.
You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.
Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.
My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
knowing about it in the first place.
Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.
Peter Nyikos
PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidence
to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?
On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.
Op maandag 3 april 2023 om 02:45:09 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:
On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually??
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.
Very wrong IMO: the usual, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies (gorilla+chimp=forest=QP >< human=savanna=bipedal) are easily falsified, e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no sea-shells in the savanna!,
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- etc.etc.:
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
On Monday, 3 April 2023 at 13:55:09 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc., - fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.
Very wrong IMO: the usual, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies (gorilla+chimp=forest=QP >< human=savanna=bipedal) are easily falsified, e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no sea-shells in the savanna!,
So you suggest that on Java it was difficult to find sea-shells?
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
Only Deep Ones use stone tools? Wrong. Even crows (birds) do sometimes.
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
Boars sometimes swim 80 km, Elephants 40 km, 18 km is doable for deer.
- Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),
Maybe "huge" ... but clearly stupid, dogmatic and bone-headed to this day as you demonstrate. Incapable to discuss, incapable to address facts.
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
Again that Java?
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
That is what you say that humans have massive pachyosteosclerosis.
- etc.etc.:
These so far were "best"?
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
Zero doubt == bone headed dogma.
Op maandag 3 april 2023 om 13:45:09 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:
On Monday, 3 April 2023 at 13:55:09 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions", but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.Very wrong IMO: the usual, unscientific, outdated afro+anthropocentric savanna fantasies (gorilla+chimp=forest=QP >< human=savanna=bipedal) are easily falsified, e.g.
- shell engravings, made by H.erectus, google "Joordens Munro": no sea-shells in the savanna!,
So you suggest that on Java it was difficult to find sea-shells?
No, to the contrary: did you mis-read?
- stone tools, used by archaic Homo,
Only Deep Ones use stone tools? Wrong. Even crows (birds) do sometimes.OK.
- Pleistocene island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
Boars sometimes swim 80 km, Elephants 40 km, 18 km is doable for deer.
OK.
And for a chimp?
- Homo's huge brain (cf. DHA in seafoods, cf. sea-otter brain > river-otter > weasel),
Maybe "huge" ... but clearly stupid, dogmatic and bone-headed to this day as???
you demonstrate. Incapable to discuss, incapable to address facts.
- Pleistocene intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa,
Again that Java?Never heard of Mojokerto??
- pachy-osteo-sclerosis in archaic Homo is *exclusively* seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
That is what you say that humans have massive pachyosteosclerosis.
?? H.erectus: H.sapiens are +-not semi-aquatic any more, as you might know?
- etc.etc.:
These so far were "best"???
This is only fossil evidence, of course.
human physiology & anatomy leave 0 doubt that our ancestors regularly dived, most likely often for shellfish, probably maximally early-Pleistocene,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo"
or "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
Zero doubt == bone headed dogma.
Yes, clearly: the savanna = incredible nonsense.
Thanks for confirming our view...
:-DDD
broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 2:05:07 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote to erik simpson:
You are such a child of modern times
that you only know the www and how to use it, not the type of
systems us troglodytes grew up with? GG users are out of Usenet, not the >> other way round :o)
I hadn't thought of it before, but the snarky comments about the illiterati who use GG do have a sort of cranky old fart, "kids these days" vibe to them.
It’s not so much GG users as the crappy interface. I had used DejaNews back
in the day and Google went and ruined that idea.
On 4/2/23 6:22 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions",
no doubt, our early-Pleistocene "archaic" ancestors frequently dived for e.g. shellfish:
- shell engravings in Dubois" collection, google "Joordens Munro",
- island colonisations (Flores >18 km oversea),
- fast early-Pleist. intercontinental dispersal: Java, Europe, Africa... = along coasts,
- H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (thick bone dense) = only in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods,
- archaic Homo's platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = hydrodynamic streamlining,
- flat feet = all frequently swimming tetrapods,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false.
What evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Hi Peter, I can't follow all these "discussions",
but the case is crystal-clear:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
- etc.etc. - too long to repeat it all here, but google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Op vrijdag 31 maart 2023 om 15:25:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
Below, I show Marc an example of what is known as "tough love." I hope he responds favorably.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 30 maart 2023 om 00:25:05 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
Somebody who believes he's from E.Africa:
<snip restored; I can do the same again if you remove
material you wish to ignore>
Please do: I'm wasting my time with uninformed people.
On this thread, they have YOU to blame for being uninformed.
You could have informed them the way I informed Bob Casanova and Erik Simpson.
But, unbeknownst to you (and to me until yesterday) Bob has me killfiled, so
he saw NOTHING of what I told him about the evidence for the waterside hypothesis.
Nor, for the same reason, has he seen what I showed Erik Simpson of what JTEM
posted about the evidence for that hypothesis. Erik has not replied to that post of mine,
and if he does, I expect him to snip what JTEM wrote.
My suggestion to you is to take the solid scientific material I showed Bob Casanova and repeat it
in reply to him WITHOUT mentioning my name. After all, it is you to whom I am indebted for
knowing about it in the first place.
Do the same with what I posted to Erik about JTEM's contribution to my knowledge.
It might be wise to omit JTEM's name as well as mine.
Peter Nyikos
PS Please don't mention the longitudinal arch unless you have serious anatomical evidence
to show WHY your explanation is superior to any that the "Out of Africa" theorists could come up with.
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?
The fossil and associated evidence which shows that Homo
evolved in East Africa, perhaps?
Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast. Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.
Mark Isaak wrote:
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?
It's already refuted the alternative.
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
Mark Isaak wrote:
It is possible to make long lists of evidence in support of virtually
any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is true or false. What
evidence would *refute* your hypothesis?
It's already refuted the alternative.
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources!
We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name!
They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
probably began long before that.
It's already refuted the alternative.
Failure to answer the question noted.
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official sources!
Vegans beware! :-)
But do cite some of those sources
So neither you nor Marc have an answer to my question. Noted.
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
Hmm. We don't get enough DHA, and we're thriving.
Maybe ancient
hominids could thrive without getting the optimum amount, either.
Even granting the need for DHA, harvesting seafood does not imply
Aquatic Ape.
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
So since I have walked along a seashore myself
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:30:41 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com>:
Op maandag 27 maart 2023 om 23:45:40 UTC+2 schreef Bob Casanova:
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
google e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims. Bob C.
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
So you assert. Repeatedly. But I see no reference to any
actual evidence that that is correct, your unsupported
assertions not being evidence.
Your "evidence" seems even less compelling than the Aquatic
Ape Theory (which isn't a theory at all; it's strictly
conjecture).
It is a "theory" in the sense that it brings together a number of unrelated facts
to bear on the same issue. These include the need for DHA/omega-3 fatty acids
for the development and size increase of our brains [1], the evolution of bipedalism
made possible by habitual wading [2], and the density of our bones, shared with
aquatic and semiaquatic amniotes. [3] However, this business about the arch of the feet
is a new one on me, and does not belong to the theory [yet?] inasmuch as Marc
has not given an iota of anatomical explanation of why it is relevant to the "waterside past."
[1] seafood is rich in it, hence the coastal dispersal part of the theory. For our need
for our brains, see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/
[2] gradual evolution in the Darwinian [not Lamarckian] sense, the idea being that those individuals who spent more time waist-deep (or deeper) in the water
had a better chance of finding seafood than those spending less time,
and had a higher fertility rate.
[3] Technical term: pachyosteosclerosis. Shared with seacows (dugongs and manatees), the extinct Plesiosauria and Mesosauria and extinct aquatic sloths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyosteosclerosis
The last example, a semiaquatic sloth is especially intriguing. Not only was it just a bit taller
than a very tall human, but the extensive entry on it includes habits attributed to it by
the Aquatic Ape theorists. Coincidentally, it was contemporary with early hominini: 7-3 mya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocnus
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
probably began long before that.
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast. Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.
beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]"flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:
"The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern
[...]Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 ."
"The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60 with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.[2]
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
Weak connection.
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
Another weak connection.
Mark Isaak wrote:
So neither you nor Marc have an answer to my question. Noted.
Lol! I just pointed out that your precious savanna nonsense is
falsified! It's debunked!
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
Hmm. We don't get enough DHA, and we're thriving.
Did you Google it?
https://www.thorne.com/take-5-daily/article/what-does-dha-do-for-your-brain
Honestly, you look like a goddamn idiot. You're trying to dispute things which are WELL established. Because they threaten your precious
narrative.
Accept science. Accept reality. Then move on with your life.
Maybe ancient
hominids could thrive without getting the optimum amount, either.
I'll try again, and later I could explain it yet again but, the mutation
that allows us to synthesize DHA as well as we do, which isn't all
that good, just plain isn't that old. Your "Molecular Clock" nutters
put it at 80k years.
Even granting the need for DHA, harvesting seafood does not imply
Aquatic Ape.
No. It does. It is Aquatic Ape.
Nutters insist that one toe hit a savanna and a chimp was transformed
into a man. At the same time, MILLIONS of years exploiting the sea,
living waterside had precisely ZERO impact on human development.
You're crazy.
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
So since I have walked along a seashore myself
Wait. You don't know what "Coastal Dispersal" is? You're honestly THAT ignorant? You are devoid of knowledge on the topic of human origins,
and you're proud of this fact?
Wow. You're crazy.
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 03:55:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
...
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves
(most herbivores),> > they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY
fast.> Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.
- kangaroos hop = ex-arboreal? very unlike human BPism,
- bears also spend?spent much time in water (salmon!? cf.H.neand.?),
but don't have our flat feet.
flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving
water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long
,"fingers," one less than half as long,> and its 1st and 5th fingers
are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex
("thumb")> and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even
further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative> no more fully aquatic than
an otter, we get:> "The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first
metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second
7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0
in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern beaked whales,
the thumb is short and slender.[2]"> [...]> "The toes are also
relatively long,[6]: 59–60 with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 >> in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust
than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a
convex hoof.[2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet
are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed
feet.[6]: 60 ."> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
Yes, that conforms our view: we were at best only very beginning (semi?)aquatics, still POS etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates> > -> Miocene
aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo ->
late-Pleist.wading-walking:
That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.:-DDD Not my problem!
Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.Relatively.
They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.
...
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 03:55:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
...
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.
- kangaroos hop = ex-arboreal? very unlike human BPism,
- bears also spend?spent much time in water (salmon!? cf.H.neand.?), but don't have our flat feet.
beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]"flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:
"The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern
2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 ."[...]
"The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60 with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.[
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
Yes, that conforms our view: we were at best only very beginning (semi?)aquatics, still POS etc.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.:-DDD Not my problem!
Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.
Relatively.
They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.
...
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
Weak connection.
Stone tools & handiness: convergence.
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
Another weak connection.
Not "weak" IMO: convergence:
e.g. Stephen Munro proposed this diving-cycle, probably early-Pleist.
cf human breathing rhythm (in hyperventilation + in nasal mucosa) of c 90 seconds:
- back-floating, nose up (cf. POS occiput), opening shellfish + hyperventilating,
- strongly exhaling -> diving head first, nostrils closed by prognathism,
- squatting?kneeling on bottom, collecting shellfish,
- pushing-off -> ascending nose-first -> back-floating.
Google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 08:10:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
...
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already
ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
probably began long before that.
Our waterside past had at least 2 rather different phases:
aquarboreal -> shallow-diving:
schematically (very short):
0) ancestral Primates & Catarrhini = arboreal,
1) at least early-Miocene S-Asia: Hominoidea -> aquarboreal (google),
2) only?early-Pleist. S-Asia: archaic Homo + shallow-diving + shellfish collection,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
You're confusing continental drift with plate tectonics.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
You're confusing continental drift with plate tectonics.The latter is an explanation of the former.
So they're the same thing.
it would be fascinating, however, to hear you defend your
comments...
Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:45:11 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 03:55:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
cursorial tetrapods run/jump on their toes (most carnivores) or hooves (most herbivores),
they don't have flat feet like we (still) do:
Kangaroos are about as plantigrade as we are, AFAIK, but can hop VERY fast.
Also, bears are plantigrade but can run much faster than we can.
- kangaroos hop = ex-arboreal? very unlike human BPism,
And very unlike orangutan rudimentary semi-BPism. You have no evidence that they devolved from true BPism. Nothing like that is evident in Sivapithecus, is there?
But if they did not devolve, then what are doing closer to humans than to hylobatids?
- bears also spend?spent much time in water (salmon!? cf.H.neand.?), but don't have our flat feet.
Do you deny that they are plantigrade?
Also, when they run, they are quadrupedal. So spending much time in water is irrelevant.
By the way, how much is your "much time in water" supposed to encompass? 10%? For brown bears,
including grizzly bears, I would say it is closer to 1%.
beaked whales, the thumb is short and slender.[2]" ...flat feet + rel.long 1st & 5th toes are (always?) for swimming (moving water), from pinnipeds to ducks etc.
Whales and dolphins don't follow that pattern. Dolphins have two long ,"fingers," one less than half as long,
and its 1st and 5th fingers are vestigial. Even the archaeocete *Durodon* had a very small pollex ("thumb")
and three toes, probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Going back even further, to *Ambulocetus*, a whale relative
no more fully aquatic than an otter, we get:
"The hand had five widely spaced digits. The first metacarpal (which is in the thumb) is 5.2 cm (2.0 in) long, the second 7.6 cm (3.0 in), the third 10.5 cm (4.1 in), the fourth 10.2 cm (4.0 in),[2] and the fifth 6.39 cm (2.52 in).[5] Like modern
[2] Like seals, the phalanges of both the hands and feet are flattened, which may have streamlined them to allow for webbed feet.[6]: 60 .""The toes are also relatively long,[6]: 59–60 with the fourth digit measuring 17 cm (6.7 in) in length. The fifth digit is slightly shorter and much less robust than the fourth. The phalanges of the toes are short, and end with a convex hoof.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
Yes, that conforms our view: we were at best only very beginning (semi?)aquatics, still POS etc.
No, it does not conform: Ambulocetus's 1st toes (halluxes), and UNLIKE OURS, are relatively short, not relatively long.
And its 5th toes don't look to be only "slightly" shorter in the following Jpeg:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Ambulocetus_natans_hindlimb.JPG
The one preserved bone from the 5th toe is much shorter than the corresponding bones from the fourth and third.
It isn't the first time that I've seen text clash with pictures in an article about long-extinct animals.
Most likely, our evolution went from arboreal primates
Miocene aquarboreal Hominoidea -> early-Pleist.shallow-diving "archaic"Homo -> late-Pleist.wading-walking:
That's your "waterside" hypothesis, which few anthropologists endorse.
:-DDD Not my problem!
Yes, it is; if ever you want to convince open-minded people about how your hypothesis is better,
you need to make better use of your evidence than you are doing here.
Initially, few geologists endorsed plate tectonics...
Wegener and DuToit had VASTLY better evidence for continental drift [1]
than you and JTEM have for your "Out of Asia" hypothesis;
moreover, "endorsed" is misleading. [2]
[1] "plate tectonics" is an anachronism. NOBODY thought it existed until evidence accumulated in the late 1950's about sea floor spreading
and subduction.
[2] It is precisely because Wegener and DuToit hadn't a clue about
plate tectonics that they were at a loss for a convincing *mechanism*
for continental drift. Once geologists understood the evidence for
plate tectonics, they were won over to continental drift *en* *masse*.
- Homo's drastic brain enlargement required aquatic foods + DHA etc.,
Elephants have brains much larger than ours, without any such benefit.
Relatively.
But you are saying that they required aquatic foods.
And more than we do,
thanks to absolute (not relative) largeness.
You need to think more like a medical researcher and less like a general practitioner
with little insight into the difference between "absolute" and "relative."
Unlike a notorious "Dr. Dr." in talk.origins, you do not have a Ph.D.
in addition to your MD.
They don't have to be fast, they grow slowly, had (semi)aq.ancestors etc.
The ancestors were herbivores; be prepared to go against the
dominant conventional wisdom if you disagree.
The fact that sirenians are pure herbivores does little for your cause.
- Homo's stone tool use & extreme handiness cf. sea-otters,
Weak connection.
Stone tools & handiness: convergence.
Part of the weakness is that sea otters don't make stone TOOLS. They take stones as they come; nor do they need to do more than that, given their diet.
- external nose + large peri-nasal air sinuses (Hn>Hs) = frequent back-floating cf. sea-otters,
Another weak connection.
Not "weak" IMO: convergence:
Turtles and oysters converge on being shelled. Very weak.
Hey, here's an idea: show that coast-following humans got DHA from sea turtles. :)
Seriously, you have no evidence that sea turtles are rich in DHA, do you?
e.g. Stephen Munro proposed this diving-cycle, probably early-Pleist.
If you want me to take claims like this seriously, you need to provide references.
cf human breathing rhythm (in hyperventilation + in nasal mucosa) of c 90 seconds:
- back-floating, nose up (cf. POS occiput), opening shellfish + hyperventilating,
You drag all kinds of disconnected things into your theory with no rhyme or reason.
Where do you get the idea that we hyperventilate when we open oysters?
- strongly exhaling -> diving head first, nostrils closed by prognathism,
Very experienced divers are able to coordinate closing of nostrils with strong
exhalation while diving. I never could do it.
Also, shellfish are typically on rocky shores. Diving head first is suicidal in such places.Interesting thought, thanks.
- squatting?kneeling on bottom, collecting shellfish,
After having EXHALED, to keep from floating up. How long do you
estimate they could keep underwater with flat lungs?
- pushing-off -> ascending nose-first -> back-floating.
Google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
After seeing how scattershot you are here, I want text that
I can ARGUE with. When will you start providing some from these
precious articles of yours that you are too lazy to quote from?
You know(?) my view, see my 2022 book p.299-300:
- c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = full of coastal forests:
Catarrhini reaching these forests became aquarboreal Hominoidea:
broad build, vertical posture, bipedal wading, tail loss, climbing arms overhead etc.
- c 20 Ma India underneath Eurasia split hylobatids (E) & other hominids (W) in Tethys Ocean coastal forests,
- c 15 Ma the Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W):
pongids forced hylobatids higher into the trees -> brachiating,
hominids of Medit.-Black...Sea died out except in Red Sea Gorilla-Homo-Pan ancestors:
- c 8 Ma Gorilla followed incipient northern Rift -> Afar -> Lucy etc.
- ?5.33 Ma (Zanclean mega-flood cf. Francesca Mansfield) the Red Sea opened into the Gulf:
Pan went right -> E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift -> Transvaal -> Taung etc. Homo went left -> S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.H.erectus shallow-diving for shellfish. :-)
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
No.
The continents are moving because they are the above-water
portion of a plate.
The plate is in motion.
These are not separate entities.
JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"
on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.
JTEM isn't saying "No" to anything to which
The continents are moving because they are the above-water
portion of a plate.
That is not the geological definition of "continents."
JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"...
on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.
On 4/5/23 7:51 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:...
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 08:10:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They
were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already >> ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
probably began long before that.
Our waterside past had at least 2 rather different phases:
aquarboreal -> shallow-diving:
schematically (very short):
0) ancestral Primates & Catarrhini = arboreal,
1) at least early-Miocene S-Asia: Hominoidea -> aquarboreal (google),
2) only?early-Pleist. S-Asia: archaic Homo + shallow-diving + shellfish collection,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Okay, I did that, and I keep finding articles such as Boivin et al.,
"Human dispersal across diverse environments of Asia during the Upper Pleistocene", _Quaternary International_ 300 (2013): 32-47. None of
which give a great deal of support to your view. The consensus re
Pleistocene Homo dispersal seems to be that it is complicated, and it is uncertain. Two things I have *not* noticed you saying.-- Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 18:15:12 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
...
JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"...
on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.
??
And what is a "tangent"?
Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 00:55:11 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:
On 4/5/23 7:51 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:...
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 08:10:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official
sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than
we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape.
Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal"
is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set >> out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They >> were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already
ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape"
probably began long before that.
Our waterside past had at least 2 rather different phases:
aquarboreal -> shallow-diving:
schematically (very short):
0) ancestral Primates & Catarrhini = arboreal,
1) at least early-Miocene S-Asia: Hominoidea -> aquarboreal (google),
2) only?early-Pleist. S-Asia: archaic Homo + shallow-diving + shellfish collection,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Okay, I did that, and I keep finding articles such as Boivin et al., "Human dispersal across diverse environments of Asia during the Upper Pleistocene", _Quaternary International_ 300 (2013): 32-47. None of
which give a great deal of support to your view.
The consensus re
Pleistocene Homo dispersal seems to be that it is complicated, and it is uncertain. Two things I have *not* noticed you saying.-- Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
OK, then see https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 00:55:11 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:
On 4/5/23 7:51 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:...
Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 08:10:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
Our brains need DHA. We don't get enough now, according to official >> sources! We're below optimum. Yet we're already 80k years AFTER
a genetic mutation that allows us to synthesize it *Way* better than >> we could without it. This leaves aquatic resources as a MUST.
We needed the DHA to grow our brains, we needed to evolve under
circumstances where it was MORE, not less, abundant... Aquatic Ape. >> Seafood is "Brain food."
Another screaming/bleeding obvious fact is that "Coastal Dispersal" >> is accepted and it's just Aquatic Ape by another name! They didn't set
out to disperse. They weren't following a map. They were living. They >> were eating. They picked a stretch of coast clean and then move
along.
When did this all start? Well. MILLIONS of years ago! There were already
ancestors in China more than 2 million years ago! And "Aquatic Ape" >> probably began long before that.
Our waterside past had at least 2 rather different phases:
aquarboreal -> shallow-diving:
schematically (very short):
0) ancestral Primates & Catarrhini = arboreal,
1) at least early-Miocene S-Asia: Hominoidea -> aquarboreal (google), 2) only?early-Pleist. S-Asia: archaic Homo + shallow-diving + shellfish collection,
google e.g. "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo".
Okay, I did that, and I keep finding articles such as Boivin et al., "Human dispersal across diverse environments of Asia during the Upper Pleistocene", _Quaternary International_ 300 (2013): 32-47. None of which give a great deal of support to your view.
Marc, you made no attempt to answer the following comment by Mark:
The consensus re
Pleistocene Homo dispersal seems to be that it is complicated, and it is uncertain. Two things I have *not* noticed you saying.-- Mark Isaak "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
OK, then see https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of which Mark wrote.
The whole linked article does not give one reason why early Homo could not have
had a waterside past/coastal dispersal in Africa instead of Asia.
If that was your best shot at "Out of Asia" then you have to contend with African apes
closer to us biochemically than orangutans.
You have to argue that Sahelantropus,
Ardipithecus and Australopithecus ONLY gave rise to chimps and gorillas and
NOT to Homo. If you were to jettison this "Out of Asia" hypothesis, then you could
argue that these gave rise to and chimps and gorillas "and perhaps Homo," and find
a less hostile audience for the other parts of your theory -- and much less hostile
if you leave out "perhaps".
Think about it: you could still hang on to most of your highly heterogeneous theory and jettison a few features at the same time.
And think about this too: there is hardly any surer turnoff for someone than to be given an article to look at and to discover that it does not answer his question.
You would be well advised to take a look at the article first and to try and find a part
that does answer it. And if you succeed in finding one, QUOTE IT.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue of which Mark wrote.
The whole linked article does not give one reason why early Homo could not have
had a waterside past/coastal dispersal in Africa instead of Asia.
If that was your best shot at "Out of Asia" then
You repeatedly post this assertion, as flat-Earthers post
theirs. Just curious; do you have any actual physical
objective evidence supporting your beliefs, or is it all
subjective and a desperate desire to *not* have an African
ancestry, no matter how remote in time? I ask because all
the evidence I've read about, from paleontology to genetics,
contradicts your claims.
I just sent this:
Dear professors Hatala, Gatesy and Falkingham,
I just read with interest your article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01929-2
"Arched footprints preserve the motions of fossil hominin feet",
beginning with
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot is viewed as a pivotal adaptation for bipedal walking and running."
IOO, this is confusing cause and consequence:
- runners (bipedal or quadrupedal) are unguli- or digitigrade, incl. e.g. kangaroos,
- walkers (bipedal or quadrupedal) are often plantigrade, incl. e.g. humans, sealions.
IOO, a more correct sentence had been:
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past",
With best wishes --marc verhaegen
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
But your narcissism is causing you to pretend that these subject have never been
Op donderdag 6 april 2023 om 18:15:12 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
...
JTEM is afraid to confront my words, and Marc's stupid misuse of the term "plate tectonics,"...
on which I had corrected him back in March, so he snips EVERYTHING I wrote, and goes off on a tangent.
??
And what is a "tangent"?
Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.
marc verhaegen wrote:
Please keep running after your kudu with your flat feet, and don't waste our time.
What flat feet? That's a pathological condition.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evolving-arch-across-foot-width-helped-hominids-walk-upright
FEBRUARY 26, 2020 AT 11:00 AM
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
be a big part of the reason that people can walk and run
upright, a new study suggests.
People have a prominent arch along the insides of their
feet from ball to heel a structure that helps make feet
stiff to withstand forces on the foot caused by walking
and running. But theres another, less obvious arch. Bones
in the middle of the foot, called metatarsals, are arranged
in a curve across the foots width. This bend, called the
transverse tarsal arch, stiffens the foot lengthwise and
may have evolved more than 3.4 million years ago, a step
toward ancient hominids gaining the ability to walk and
run on two feet unlike other primates, researchers report
February 26 in Nature.
...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2053-y.epdf?sharing_token=8fdNcdSoqcNmQjgfx3xYodRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NVMPezm1RfOIjZtVfh8mUr4C00OQMCMXXfQblN4-IlqhoONQ-k7dS2CGzWUhaoUXADruPjjfesHR7Lc0pSqyPfL4DIZgySR9JN3LlM2rtI0syrVMZhIHC6aggXW9iTOeCfvMveG6J6O0SnJJTirScmMUfk7bvVEHFslo95j0KmPv7Gmb0BVbBNuddxan9GuX8%3D&tracking_referrer=www.sciencenews.org
Stiffness of the human foot and evolution of the
transverse arch
Published: 26 February 2020
The stiff human foot enables an efficient push-off
when walking or running, and was critical for the
evolution of bipedalism. The uniquely arched
morphology of the human midfoot is thought to stiffen
it, whereas other primates have flat feet that bend
severely in the midfoot. However, the relationship
between midfoot geometry and stiffness remains debated
in foot biomechanics, podiatry and palaeontology.
These debates centre on the medial longitudinal arch
and have not considered whether stiffness is affected
by the second, transverse tarsal arch of the human
foot. Here we show that the transverse tarsal arch,
acting through the inter-metatarsal tissues, is
responsible for more than 40% of the longitudinal
stiffness of the foot. The underlying principle
resembles a floppy currency note that stiffens
considerably when it curls transversally. We derive a
dimensionless curvature parameter that governs the
stiffness contribution of the transverse tarsal arch,
demonstrate its predictive power using mechanical
models of the foot and find its skeletal correlate in
hominin feet. In the foot, the material properties of
the inter-metatarsal tissues and the mobility of the
metatarsals may additionally influence the longitudinal
stiffness of the foot and thus the curvature-stiffness
relationship of the transverse tarsal arch. By analysing
fossils, we track the evolution of the curvature
parameter among extinct hominins and show that a
human-like transverse arch was a key step in the
evolution of human bipedalism that predates the genus
Homo by at least 1.5 million years. This renewed
understanding of the foot may improve the clinical
treatment of flatfoot disorders, the design of robotic
feet and the study of foot function in locomotion.
Just a note:
Basically changing the topic to something unrelated
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
Someone who
Pro Plyd wrote:
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
status quo, refuted as it were.
Pro Plyd wrote:
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
status quo, refuted as it were.
Pro Plyd wrote:
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
status quo, refuted as it were.
Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 15:05:41 UTC+2 schreef Athel Cornish-Bowden:
If you had googled e.g. "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English", you had known that
"The longitudinal arch of the human foot, used today for bipedal
walking and running, is a consequence of our waterside past":
That's an opinion. Bob Casanova was asking for evidence.
It's evidence, but too much to reproduce it all here again.
Op zaterdag 15 april 2023 om 22:05:21 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
Pro Plyd wrote:
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
status quo, refuted as it were.
We're wasting our time, JTEM.
1) Miocene Hominoidea already waded+climbed bipedally=vertically in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal"
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
2) Humans are plantigrade = flat-footed,
but
- cursorial herbivores = unguligrade,
- cursorial carnivores = digitigrade,
IOW,
only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after African antelopes.
The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.
Characteristics of human ancestors are relevant
The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.
Goddamnit, you ALWAYS pull this shit!
It's one and the same. Homo did not evolve on Mars.
Here. Try this. Seriously, try this: "Common Ancestor."
It's not like bipedalism arose separately in Homo. Bipedalism
predates Homo. It existed first, this bipedalism, AND THEN
Homo arose, according to your very own gospels.
jillery wrote:
The topic in this thread the origin of *human* bipedalism.
Goddamnit, you ALWAYS pull this shit!
It's one and the same. Homo did not evolve on Mars.
Here. Try this. Seriously, try this: "Common Ancestor."
It's not like bipedalism arose separately in Homo. Bipedalism
predates Homo. It existed first, this bipedalism, AND THEN
Homo arose, according to your very own gospels.
Characteristics of human ancestors are relevant
No. The bipedalism was a done deal. It was set.
marc verhaegen wrote:
Op zaterdag 15 april 2023 om 22:05:21 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
Pro Plyd wrote:
The arch running across the width of the human foot might
Bipedalism predates humans and the human foot.
If a million years of selective pressure, walking upright, couldn't
result in a foot like ours, why would it suddenly change?
Clearly your "Model" doesn't work. The good Doctor offers a
different model, and instead of examining it you vomit the
status quo, refuted as it were.
We're wasting our time, JTEM.
1) Miocene Hominoidea already waded+climbed bipedally=vertically in swamp forests, google "aquarboreal"
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
2) Humans are plantigrade = flat-footed,
but
- cursorial herbivores = unguligrade,
- cursorial carnivores = digitigrade,
IOW,
only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleist.ancestors ran after African antelopes.
We are not flat footed. If you think we are, then prove it.
Or do you NOT know what flat feet are?
https://ptsdlawyers.com/va-disability-for-flat-feet-pes-planus/
Arches in australopithecus
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evolving-arch-across-foot-width-helped-hominids-walk-upright
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
The arch running across the width of the human foot
might be a big part of the reason that people can walk
and run upright, a new study suggests.
People have a prominent arch along the insides of their
feet from ball to heel — a structure that helps make
feet stiff to withstand forces on the foot caused by
walking and running. But there’s another, less obvious
arch. Bones in the middle of the foot, called metatarsals,
are arranged in a curve across the foot’s width. This
bend, called the transverse tarsal arch, stiffens the
foot lengthwise and may have evolved more than 3.4 million
years ago, a step toward ancient hominids gaining the
ability to walk and run on two feet unlike other primates,
researchers report February 26 in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2053-y
Published: 26 February 2020
Stiffness of the human foot and evolution of the transverse arch
Abstract
The stiff human foot enables an efficient push-off when
walking or running, and was critical for the evolution of
bipedalism. The uniquely arched morphology of the human
midfoot is thought to stiffen it, whereas other primates
have flat feet that bend severely in the midfoot. However,
the relationship between midfoot geometry and stiffness
remains debated in foot biomechanics, podiatry and
palaeontology. These debates centre on the medial
longitudinal arch and have not considered whether
stiffness is affected by the second, transverse tarsal
arch of the human foot. Here we show that the transverse
tarsal arch, acting through the inter-metatarsal
tissues, is responsible for more than 40% of the
longitudinal stiffness of the foot. The underlying
principle resembles a floppy currency note that
stiffens considerably when it curls transversally. We
derive a dimensionless curvature parameter that governs
the stiffness contribution of the transverse tarsal arch,
demonstrate its predictive power using mechanical models
of the foot and find its skeletal correlate in hominin
feet. In the foot, the material properties of the
inter-metatarsal tissues and the mobility of the
metatarsals may additionally influence the longitudinal
stiffness of the foot and thus the curvature–stiffness
relationship of the transverse tarsal arch. By analysing
fossils, we track the evolution of the curvature
parameter among extinct hominins and show that a
human-like transverse arch was a key step in the
evolution of human bipedalism that predates the genus
Homo by at least 1.5 million years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21311018/
2011 Feb 11
Complete fourth metatarsal and arches in the foot of
Australopithecus afarensis
Abstract
The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is
a hallmark of human evolution. A key correlate of human
bipedalism is the development of longitudinal and
transverse arches of the foot that provide a rigid
propulsive lever and critical shock absorption during
striding bipedal gait. Evidence for arches in the
earliest well-known Australopithecus species, A.
afarensis, has long been debated. A complete fourth
metatarsal of A. afarensis was recently discovered at
Hadar, Ethiopia. It exhibits torsion of the head
relative to the base, a direct correlate of a
transverse arch in humans. The orientation of the
proximal and distal ends of the bone reflects a
longitudinal arch. Further, the deep, flat base and
tarsal facets imply that its midfoot had no ape-like
midtarsal break. These features show that the A.
afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern
humans and support the hypothesis that this species
was a committed terrestrial biped.
You got a reply, "doc", back it up. Your pasting in
old stuff over and over only shows the bankruptcy of
your position.
Pro Plyd wrote:
Never heard of ostriches?
They are believed to have evolved from a type of crane or
"Crane Like" bird: A waterfowl.
Together with his colleague Nikita Zelenkov from the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Senckenberg scientist
Gerald Mayr examined bird fossils from Central Asia
that had previously been considered relatives of the
cranes.
Pro Plyd wrote:
Wading is just walking in water.
Wading is allowing you to cross deeper water
Pro Plyd wrote:
Wading is just walking in water. Leg length does not matter. If
Wading is significantly increasing the depth of water Homo could
cross and/or explore.
Pro Plyd wrote:
Together with his colleague Nikita Zelenkov from the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Senckenberg scientist
Gerald Mayr examined bird fossils from Central Asia
that had previously been considered relatives of the
cranes.
It's a frigging waterfowl, you jackass. You're so fucked up,
so mentally deranged, so stupid that you can't shut it off
even knowing that your snout is going to get rubbed in
your mess.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:29:06 |
| Calls: | 9,828 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,776 |
