1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ANTHROPOLOGY.PALEO

  • Forthcoming: African Paleoecology and Human Evolution

    From Pandora@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 11 16:06:03 2022
    African Paleoecology and Human Evolution

    <https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/biological-anthropology-and-primatology/african-paleoecology-and-human-evolution?format=HB&isbn=9781107074033>

    Humans evolved in the dynamic landscapes of Africa under conditions of pronounced climatic, geological and environmental change during the
    past 7 million years. This book brings together detailed records of
    the paleontological and archaeological sites in Africa that provide
    the basic evidence for understanding the environments in which we
    evolved. Chapters cover specific sites, with comprehensive accounts of
    their geology, paleontology, paleobotany, and their ecological
    significance for our evolution. Other chapters provide important
    regional syntheses of past ecological conditions. This book is unique
    in merging a broad geographic scope (all of Africa) and deep time
    framework (the past 7 million years) in discussing the geological
    context and paleontological records of our evolution and that of
    organisms that evolved alongside our ancestors. It will offer
    important insights to anyone interested in human evolution, including researchers and graduate students in paleontology, archaeology,
    anthropology and geology.

    * Provides an overview of paleontological sites across the entire
    African continent from the late Miocene to the Recent, allowing
    readers to quickly access information about the species present at
    different hominin sites.

    * Offers numerous examples from multiple sources of environmental
    evidence to illustrate the most up-to-date methods of paleoecological
    data analysis.

    * Integrates data from different regions across Africa, enabling
    readers to gain an understanding of the evolving environmental
    conditions in Africa over the past 12 million years.

    * Presents accurate, georeferenced maps of all the sites in the
    various regions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Pandora on Fri Feb 11 17:12:20 2022
    Pandora wrote:

    Humans evolved in the dynamic landscapes of Africa

    No we didn't.

    Humans didn't evolve in any specific place.

    We are an amalgam -- "Hybrids" if you prefer. I myself prefer the
    distributive computing model were Africa is a single node.

    And what do you mean by "Humans" anyway?

    Erectus? Habilis? Something earlier?

    And how is it possible that humans could be in Asia AT LEAST 2
    million years ago, yet all our evolution only ever happened in
    southeast Africa?

    It's a ridiculous model, this Out of Africa purity. It's a simpleton
    model. Worse; it's just plain wrong. It doesn't answer questions,
    it ignores them! The physical evidence coming out of China,
    for example, the genetic evidence revealed in Australia; all of it
    ignored in the preservation of OoA purity...







    -- --

    Christ, people!

    https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pandora@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Feb 12 12:29:36 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:12:20 -0800 (PST), I Envy JTEM
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Pandora wrote:

    Humans evolved in the dynamic landscapes of Africa

    No we didn't.

    Aw, did that trigger your troll button?

    Humans didn't evolve in any specific place.

    Yes they did, they evolved on planet Earth, an insignificant pale blue
    dot: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap200214.html

    Within the confines of that tiny place 5 of the 7 million years of
    human evolution apparently were exclusively on the African continent,
    including the earliest putative members of Homo:

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1343

    Also the oldest known member of Homo erectus is from Africa:

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

    as well the oldest known representatives of Homo sapiens:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04275-8

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335

    We are an amalgam -- "Hybrids" if you prefer. I myself prefer the >distributive computing model were Africa is a single node.

    And what do you mean by "Humans" anyway?

    Sensu lato, everything closer to Homo than to Pan according to recent phylogenetic analyses such as in:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

    not the outdated, obsolete bullshit of Verhaegen, to which you have
    been sucking up without much comprehension.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From I Envy JTEM@21:1/5 to Pandora on Sat Feb 12 11:12:09 2022
    Pandora wrote:

    Humans didn't evolve in any specific place.

    Yes they did, they evolved on planet Earth, an insignificant pale blue

    Aw, did that trigger your troll button?

    You're not interested in discussion, on ever in enforcement of your
    dogma.

    Within the confines of that tiny place 5 of the 7 million years of
    human evolution

    Cites?

    apparently were exclusively on the African continent,
    including the earliest putative members of Homo:

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1343

    So they're claiming to find Homo here:

    https://goo.gl/maps/savJk3gSZtxPTyzf6

    Well that's precisely where Homo would be if it was moving to OR
    FROM Asia.

    You have to be trained, like on of Pavlov's dogs, to not see it. The
    location fits both models.

    Also the oldest known member of Homo erectus is from Africa:

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw7293

    Problem is, and you're proving this, that if you read ONE cite you
    think you know, but if you read two or more suddenly you're not
    sure anymore:

    https://popular-archaeology.com/article/the-remarkable-skulls-of-drimolen/

    : the small skull was that of a hominin, not of a baboon, as had previously
    : been suggested along with buck, hyaena, and others.

    And if you add reading comprehension into the mix -- read it in context -- NOBODY saw an erectus skull. Absolutely nobody. A lot of people looked
    at it and didn't even see a primate!

    AND EVEN IN YOUR OWN CITE, if you had bothered to read it, what it
    actually says is:

    : The DNH 134 cranium shares clear affinities with Homo erectus

    But you think you know. Because you read a cite. Or at least read a
    headline but, hey, why go further, right?

    "Science!"

    as well the oldest known representatives of Homo sapiens:

    Homo sapiens heidelbergensis?

    Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04275-8

    Again, exactly where they should be if they were going to OR COMING
    FROM Asia...

    But you're trained well. Very well.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335

    This doesn't fit any model that you think you're defending.

    We are an amalgam -- "Hybrids" if you prefer. I myself prefer the >distributive computing model were Africa is a single node.

    And what do you mean by "Humans" anyway?

    Sensu lato, everything closer to Homo than to Pan according to recent phylogenetic analyses such as in:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004724841830143X

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

    Neither are saying anything definitive.

    You can claim they are CONSISTENT WITH a favored model... models.

    That's the best science -- real science -- can usually offer for any one piece of the evidence.

    "Amongst the models this evidence is consistent with would me the one that
    I avocate."

    Big deal.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/675871863173480448

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)