Afro+anthropocentric prejudices:
1) Austalopiths are no human ancestors (anthropocentric prejudice), but were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla.
2) Out-of-Africa is wrong (afrocentric prejudice): Pliocene Homo lived along southern Asian coasts.
3) Miocene "apes" were no quadrupedal knuckle-walkers (anthropocentric prejudice), but swamp-forest dwellers, already "bipedal" (aquarboreal).
4) Plio-Pleistocene human ancestors did not live in savannas, certainly not hunting (afro+anthropocentric fantasy), but have always been waterside.
IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).
Google: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904 https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
marc verhaegen wrote:
Afro+anthropocentric prejudices:
1) Austalopiths are no human ancestors (anthropocentric prejudice), but were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla.
2) Out-of-Africa is wrong (afrocentric prejudice): Pliocene Homo lived along southern Asian coasts.
3) Miocene "apes" were no quadrupedal knuckle-walkers (anthropocentric prejudice), but swamp-forest dwellers, already "bipedal" (aquarboreal).
4) Plio-Pleistocene human ancestors did not live in savannas, certainly not hunting (afro+anthropocentric fantasy), but have always been waterside.
IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).
Google:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.
On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 05:59:46 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor> >>**************************************
While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been >>ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene). >>**************************************
Why believe any such thing, unless you WANT a very old divergence date?
And modern
humans arose less than 100k, maybe 100k, 100-200k and anything up to
400k. Plus humans left Africa 100k, 60k and 30k years ago. And when they
left they spread out via Coastal Dispersal and they didn't.
Anything else is *Crazy Talk*!
While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as >>early as 13 million years ago
Let the *Crazy Talk* continue.
jillery wrote:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor> >>**************************************
While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been >>ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene). >>**************************************
There is ZERO support for this claim. None what so ever. And it is the >furthest thing from consensus.
Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact. *****************************************************
While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as >>early as 13 million years ago
Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.
jillery wrote:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor>
**************************************
While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as >>>>early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been >>>>ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene). >>>>**************************************
There is ZERO support for this claim. None what so ever. And it is the >>>furthest thing from consensus.
*****************************************************
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact. >>*****************************************************
Yeah. This is called sarcasm.
S-A-R-C-A-S-A-M
I was making fun of you and other jackoffs.
So how us the support for your claims. Show us the fossils that support your >dating.
I'm laughing at you!
You're laughing at the idiot in the mirror.
JTEM trolled:
Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.
Yeah. This is called sarcasm.
S-A-R-C-A-S-A-M
I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
Savanna believer's "argument":
IIRC, this was a discussion of when Homo & Pan diverged...??
I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden:
- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).
Simple, no? :-)
It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know: >https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
jillery wrote:
JTEM trolled:
Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.
Hmm. All those different dates? DIFFERENT dates?
I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden: >- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).
Simple, no? :-)
It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know: >https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
I acknowledge that possibility.
I disagree it fits with all, or even
most, of the evidence; ex. genetic diversity of modern African vs. non-African human populations.
Those DIFFERENT dates identify a range.
"this" can't reasonably be considered a discussion when trolls
repeatedly delete relevant text.
jillery wrote:
Those DIFFERENT dates identify a range.
No, my little tire retreader. Those different dates expose the idiocy
that pretends to be a science.
And none of them are based on anything but assumptions.
I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden:
- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).
Simple, no? :-)
It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
antelope runner:
I acknowledge that possibility.
:-)
I disagree it fits with all, or even
most, of the evidence; ex. genetic diversity of modern African vs.
non-African human populations.
This is much much later: it has 0 to do with it.
jillery wrote:
"this" can't reasonably be considered a discussion when trolls
repeatedly delete relevant text.
Nothing you say is relevant
-- symptomatic but not relevant -- and
nobody is cancelling your posts. I guess we can add paranoia to
your already extensive list of flaws...
JTEM continues to
And YOUR date is based on
According to the Out of Africa (OOA) model of modern human origins, anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread across
the rest of the globe within the past ~100,000 years (202).
2. modern non-Africans evolved from a genetically restricted slice of
that African diversity more recently.
Your "waterside hypothesis" doesn't account for this distinction.
Insane and retarded, jillery wrote:
JTEM continues to
Do you have ANY idea what you're "Arguing" against, and why?
You don't. Go ahead. Spell it out. Explain WHAT you're disagreeing
with and why.
You're just an idiot acting out.
It's okay to cheat, go back and look, but you're either going to
remain just as confused or, if you see your problem, you will
never scrape together the maturity to admit it.
jillery wrote:
According to the Out of Africa (OOA) model of modern human origins,
anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread across
the rest of the globe within the past ~100,000 years (202).
How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now,
and appearance is all you're going by.
Literally.
But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our >genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just >claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.
2. modern non-Africans evolved from a genetically restricted slice of
that African diversity more recently.
Actually, BILLIONS of people walking around right now preserve the evidence >of the "Mitochondrial Eve" far older than the one in the Out of Africa purity >model, and it's Eurasian in origins. This far older than your "past 100k~" and >actually supposed the argument that your "Out of Africa" population was >itself descended from a far earlier Eurasian group.
Well. Potentially Melanesian. But you get the point.
Sticking with YOUR dating, YOUR argument, you have to be wrong. The origins >had to be outside of Africa.
Your "waterside hypothesis" doesn't account for this distinction.
Actually it explains it perfectly.
"Waterside" aka "Littoral" aka "Aquatic Ape" and even aka "Coastal Dispersal" >says that we had ancestors exploiting the sea. They sort of combined hunting >and gathering into one, picking up shellfish -- living animals, so to speak --
and scavenging beached.. anything.
They ate and moved on.
Occasionally groups pushed inland for various reasons, this happening with >regular frequency and greater necessity once our present Quaternary Period >began, our present ice age.
The breaking off and pushing inland would have started almost immediately, >and probably account for the rise of apes altogether.
Some of the earlier break away groups, from our perspective, would have
been Ardi and Lucy. Some of the last would have been the peopling of the >Americas, where the first were to arrive along the coast only to eventually >push inland.
Adaptation by break away groups was probably helped along by interbreeding >with the descendants of groups that had pushed inland earlier.
There was likely bottlenecks, the chromosome fusion being amongst the
most recent, putting the brakes on interbreeding with more "Primitive"
forms and resetting this whole process... which just started all over again >giving rise to our immediate ancestors, such as Neanderthals and
Denisovans.
So Aquatic Ape, Waterside (etc) explains your "fossil record" AS WELL AS
the things you left out, AND the DNA evidence AND explains how brains >dependent upon DHA could evolve under circumstances where, IN YOUR
CASE, it just didn't exist, but exploiting marine resources granted it in >great abundance.
So the good Doctor explains everything and you have to leave out entire
tomes worth of facts & evidence to make your model of human evolution
work at all.
You deleted it.
You're
JTEM wrote:
How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now, >and appearance is all you're going by.
Literally.
Incorrect.
Also, "appearance" doesn't inform how long it took.
But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our >genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just >claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.
The "claim" distinguishes between anatomically modern humans and
culturally modern humans.
While their fossils are indistinguishable,
jillery wrote:
JTEM wrote:
How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now, >> >and appearance is all you're going by.
Literally.
Incorrect.
No. It's exactly correct.
Also, "appearance" doesn't inform how long it took.
I just said that.
But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our >> >genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just >> >claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.
The "claim" distinguishes between anatomically modern humans and
culturally modern humans.
No. The claim is that archaic Homo was a modern human.
While their fossils are indistinguishable,
Wrong. Dead wrong. Blithering idiot wrong.
They never look "Modern" at all. Again, their traits supposedly land
within a range that encompasses modern humans.
But this is so fake! By calling an archaic Homo a "Modern human" you
just inserted their traits within that range! You can fudge this all you >want, create all kinds of "Breakthrough Discoveries" if you want.
This is NOT a real science, after all. Who cares if you're right or wrong? >It's not going to cost you a military contract, nobody is going to die and >you weren't going to create an all new industry with it anyway...
It's not a real science. It's a Sample/Selection/Preservation bias.
It breaks a fundamental rule of science, doesn't pass the duck test!
It's sampling is bogus.
jillery wrote:
You deleted it.
I couldn't have castrated you. You never had any to begin with.
You're
Again, what are you pretending that I said? You know, what you
need to tell yourself you're "Disagreeing" with?
Again, what are you pretending that I said? You know, what you
need to tell yourself you're "Disagreeing" with?
You first.
Lol! Pussy.
You re-re-re-reposted a long refuted Wiki cite which contradicted fact, >claiming fossil evidence when there is none. You CHERRY PICKED
this cite because you wanted a very old date, to contradict the 3.7
million year date I suggested. That's why you wanted old. That's why
you intentionally ignored countless cites offering different dates to
focus like a laser beam on the piece of crap we call Wiki.
the god like JTEM bestowed upon us:
You re-re-re-reposted a long refuted Wiki cite which contradicted fact, >claiming fossil evidence when there is none. You CHERRY PICKED
this cite because you wanted a very old date, to contradict the 3.7
million year date I suggested. That's why you wanted old. That's why
you intentionally ignored countless cites offering different dates to
focus like a laser beam on the piece of crap we call Wiki.
None of the above is factually correct.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/N0q0u56Xbh4/m/ts-yTrIXBQAJ
You posted that cite a rock bottom minimum three times, though it was
refuted after the first. You just ignore anything that doesn't agree with >your agenda and repeat the bullshit.
Look. Count the quote marks, keeping in mind the first time something
is posted there are none. So a rock bottom minimum of three times.
The cite cherry picks the oldest and all but ignored dating for the LCA,
and references non existing fossils.
It's worthless. But you had to know that because Wiki is not and never
has been a legitimate cite. It's "Authored" by a handful of troll and is >subject to easy monetary influences.
It's just not a real cite. No professor would ever accept Wiki as a cite.
No high school teacher either.
JTEM, whom I worship as a deity gifted us: >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/N0q0u56Xbh4/m/ts-yTrIXBQAJ
Brain damaged, or maybe that's just an excuse, jillery wrote:
Yup. The shit head just keeps reposting the same idiocy.
The oldest of old, the first "Chimp" fossil is no more than a tooth, hardly the
best evidence for anything, and it's only about half a million years old. So >keep cherry picking the oldest estimated date for the LCA that you could >find. That just makes your position more idiotic.
Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.
savanna believers' "arguments":
Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.
Sigh...
aquaboreal believers "arguments":
kudu runners' arguments:
aquaboreal believers "arguments":
???
It's aqua+arbor, my little boy: water+tree.
Google:**************************
-aquarboreal
GondwanaTalks Verhaegen
kudu runners' arguments:
aquaboreal believers "arguments":
???
It's aqua+arbor, my little boy: water+tree.
Your spelling flame is all wet:
**************************
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:03:39 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen ><littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
Google:**************************
-aquarboreal
The love of my life, JTEM gifted me with:
The oldest of old, the first "Chimp" fossil is no more than a tooth, hardly the
best evidence for anything, and it's only about half a million years old. So >keep cherry picking the oldest estimated date for the LCA that you could >find. That just makes your position more idiotic.
Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.
Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.
Op zaterdag 22 april 2023 om 14:35:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
...
JTEM, why "argue" with uninformed fanatics who use "arguments" like this:
Hmmm... let's review just SOME of the "arguments" your sock puppet
uses:
You failed again. You proved that you're a fraud, again.
Sez the
You didn't even try to deny much less defend your
incredibly stupid actions.
You first.childish you are?
Lol! Are you honestly so damaged you can't see how ridiculously
I'm laughing at you.
You're laughing at the person in the mirror.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
You "Cited" 13 million years or more, claiming that this was supported
by fossils.
Your cite shows you're lying.
jillery wrote:
Your cite shows you're lying.
It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
6.3 million years.
YOU pretended it was 13. And 14.
Depending on alter.
It does NOT.
Mentally unhinged, frightened & defensive, jillery lied:
It does NOT.
Does not.. what?
On Tue, 2 May 2023 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
jillery wrote:
Your cite shows you're lying.
It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
6.3 million years.
It does NOT.
YOU pretended it was 13. And 14.
I did NOT.
Depending on alter.
You're lying.****************************************
JTEM truthed:
It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
6.3 million years.
It does NOT.
Massive personality disorder, jillery wrote:
JTEM truthed:
It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
6.3 million years.
It does NOT.
: The split happened 6.3 million years ago at the earliest,
: say the scientists.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
Wow. It does absolutely refute you.
JTEM, a veritable god to me wrote:
: The split happened 6.3 million years ago at the earliest,
: say the scientists. >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
Wow. It does absolutely refute you.
Your post
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:04:09 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,106 |