https://whattalks.com/talks
https://whattalks.com/talks
Yes I can't believe I did it, managed to be up at 7am on a Sunday
Morning and I had my camera off because I really was in my
underwear! But, thanks for a great talk!
LOTS to think about, to digest...
mid-Pleist.diving-wading Hn
late-Pleist.wading-walking Hs.
(My wife & son said my voice in my WHAT talk was too slow & monotomous - I'll never be a good speaker...)
Op maandag 14 februari 2022 om 00:30:51 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://whattalks.com/talks
Yes I can't believe I did it, managed to be up at 7am on a Sunday:-) Thanks, John.
Morning and I had my camera off because I really was in my
underwear! But, thanks for a great talk!
LOTS to think about, to digest...
The most important of my talk is very simple:
AFAWK pachy-osteo-sclerosis is always & only seen in every tetrapod that begins to become aquatic, esp. in sea-water (heavier than fresh water):
first, bones become thicker (pachy-), soon they become also denser (-sclerosis),
but as Pinnipedia, Cetacea etc. become faster & deeper swimmers, they completely lose POS, and their bones become the opposite: lighter.
Only slow + shallow divers for sessile foods remain POS: Sirenia.
IOW, only pure idiots deny erectus were slow+shallow divers.
Probably mostly for shellfish: larger brain, stone use.
Very broad bodies, dorso-ventrally flattened, large lungs, good femoral abduction etc., incapable of running fast.
Archaic Homo typically fossilized in shallow waters,
Neandertals were a lot less POS than erectus, generally they dwelt in colder waters (ear exostoses):
did they seasonally follow the rivers (+ salmon?) inland? diving & wading?
Homo's evolution in short, schematically:
early-Pleistocene shallow-diving He
mid-Pleist.diving-wading Hn
late-Pleist.wading-walking Hs.
(The different "habilis" fossils are probably an amalgam of different spp: early Homo, female boisei, gracile apiths...)
In any case, only complete fools believe H.erecctus ran after antelopes.
(My wife & son said my voice in my WHAT talk was too slow & monotomous - I'll never be a good speaker...)
And why should we care?
On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:31:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
Op maandag 14 februari 2022 om 00:30:51 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://whattalks.com/talks
Yes I can't believe I did it, managed to be up at 7am on a Sunday
Morning and I had my camera off because I really was in my
underwear! But, thanks for a great talk!
LOTS to think about, to digest...
:-) Thanks, John.
The most important of my talk is very simple:
AFAWK pachy-osteo-sclerosis is always & only seen in every tetrapod that begins to become aquatic, esp. in sea-water (heavier than fresh water):
first, bones become thicker (pachy-), soon they become also denser (-sclerosis),
but as Pinnipedia, Cetacea etc. become faster & deeper swimmers, they completely lose POS, and their bones become the opposite: lighter.
Only slow + shallow divers for sessile foods remain POS: Sirenia.
Central West African manatees and humans have extremely dense bones, they both swim.
IOW, only pure idiots deny erectus were slow+shallow divers.
H erectus was a ground ape that probably dabbled in open water while avoiding large crocs. Small shallow streams were far safer than elsewhere.
Probably mostly for shellfish: larger brain, stone use.
Very broad bodies, dorso-ventrally flattened, large lungs, good femoral abduction etc., incapable of running fast.
Central west African humans are fast sprinters.
Archaic Homo typically fossilized in shallow waters,
Of course, shallow *freshwater*. Homo had no deep-water vessels then.
from Peking to Java to Flores to Dmanisi to Petralona to Flores to... Neandertals were a lot less POS than erectus, generally they dwelt in colder waters (ear exostoses):
did they seasonally follow the rivers (+ salmon?) inland? diving & wading?
Of course, heavy bones for slow awkward walkers, lighter bones for faster walkers, gracile bones for running Hs.
Homo's evolution in short, schematically:
early-Pleistocene shallow-diving He
mid-Pleist.diving-wading Hn(The different "habilis" fossils are probably an amalgam of different spp: early Homo, female boisei, gracile apiths...)
late-Pleist.wading-walking Hs.
In any case, only complete fools believe H.erecctus ran after antelopes. (My wife & son said my voice in my WHAT talk was too slow & monotomous - I'll never be a good speaker...)
:-D
There's not the slightest doubt: H.erectus regularly dived for sessile foods (POS), probably mostly shellfish
(stone tools, large brain).
:-D
There's not the slightest doubt: H.erectus regularly dived for sessile foods (POS), probably mostly shellfish
(stone tools, large brain).
I can't help myself -- I'm out of control here -- but when someone like you says that I naturally just
leap to the implications.
Okay. They were diving. Why?
Necessity? Like, during an interglacial sea level rose, drowning out ridiculous amounts of land,
perhaps trapping them within a confined range where they could no long freely migrate great
distances, thus had to exploit the sea in new ways?
"Diving" would have granted them access to deeper water, additional species to dine on. Or, like
modern man today, only on a micro scale, they could have eaten the easily obtained seafoods
to extinction?
Sort of like, up to 100 years ago or so, lobsters weren't "Fished" they were picked up along the
beach, in tidal pools.
But, one EXTREMELY overlooked aspect of Aquatic Ape is that the sea can support a larger
population density than inland hunter-gathering.
Compared to the inland hunter-gatherer lifestyle the status quo loves, the sea offers a HUGE
abundance of food with less work. So...
They could afford to get picky. They could ignore easily obtained foods for a preferred type
(species) of seafood. Chances are they still wouldn't be exerting more effort than their
inland counterparts, and they could always fall back on the easier sources if necessary. So
maybe they were diving to obtain a specific food they could not find along the beach... or
could no longer find.
Any idea?
Any suggestions for what food they may have wanted but couldn't find along the beach?
Oysters? They seem to be a favorite of humans...
Mussels, too, but I would favor oysters.
Yes? No? Maybe?
Meanwhile Homo remained in Red Sea?
Did shell-beds become more abundant.when temperatures dropped (Pleist.)??
In any case, H.erectus became pachy-osteo-sclerotic (POS) = only explained by slow-shallow-diving for sessile foods, no doubt incl. shellfish (larger brain, stone tools).
Perhaps opportunity rather than "necessity"?
But, one EXTREMELY overlooked aspect of Aquatic Ape is that the sea can support a larger
population density than inland hunter-gathering.
Of course: why "overlooked"?
Meanwhile Homo remained in Red Sea?
Did shell-beds become more abundant.when temperatures dropped (Pleist.)?? In any case, H.erectus became pachy-osteo-sclerotic (POS) = only explained by slow-shallow-diving for sessile foods, no doubt incl. shellfish (larger brain, stone tools).
Perhaps opportunity rather than "necessity"?
There's 2 models here. Or maybe a 3rd, if you could a mixture of the 2
as our 3rd model...
#1. The interglacial periods (punctuating the glacial periods), like our present
Holocene, erased large stretches of coastline, trapping populations within a limited area (or on islands) and they were forced to dive for food as soon as they exhausted that was available along the shore line.
Makes sense.
#2. They got picky. They loved Oysters, say, and were willing to dive down to get them.
But, one EXTREMELY overlooked aspect of Aquatic Ape is that the sea can support a larger
population density than inland hunter-gathering.
Of course: why "overlooked"?
Greater breading population, greater genetic diversity -- more likely for beneficial mutations
to arise. But also...
The larger a breeding population, the more vulnerable to fluctuations in the food supply.
Can you see this?
Aquatic Ape not only tells us HOW and WHY our ancestors spread across the globe, but
why they kept moving inland!
Right?
We know they were on the beaches. We know they were wandering from end to end,
even moving in both directions it seemed... following the coast. And aquatic ape
explains all that. But we also know that there were all these DIFFERENT or DISTINCT
populations everywhere -- inland populations. So where'd they come from?
Well they have to exist if aquatic ape is right. Neanderthals, Denisovans... whatever
was living in Oceana that we call Denisovan but was as genetically distinct from the
Denisovans as the Denisovans were from the Neanderthals... inland China... Etc.
The sea can support much larger population densities than inland hunting & gathering,
bigger numbers -- larger populations -- but bigger groups are more vulnerable to
fluctuations in the food supply. And even the (regular?) glacial/glacial cycle that has
come to characterize the Quaternary Period would alone be likely to have created these
fluctuations as the seas periodically grew or shrunk.
Add to that conflicts, disease, natural disasters...
So people would have to peeling off from these larger coastal groups pretty regularly,
moving inland and establishing new lifestyles... adapting... evolving on their own...
ONLY TO EVENTUALLY BE RECONNECTED TO COASTAL POPULATIONS AND EXCHANGE
DNA.
So we have a fusion here of Aquatic Ape & Multi Regionalism (regional continuity).
THE COASTAL POPULATION is our population. It's the one that links the Australians with
the Africans and everyone in between. The coastal population is the one that is actually
ancestral to us all. I can have Neanderthals, the Australian aborigine can carry Denisovan
or erectus (I dunno) but we both are connected through the coastal population, aquatic
ape.
I'd think different side-branches of "archaic"(coastal+POS) Homo populations repeatedly followed the rivers inland in //,
but did this happen more frequently during glacials? or during interglacials?
We know they were on the beaches. We know they were wandering from end to end,
even moving in both directions it seemed... following the coast. And aquatic ape
explains all that. But we also know that there were all these DIFFERENT or DISTINCT
populations everywhere -- inland populations. So where'd they come from?
From the coasts, e.g. following the salmon trek, bipedally-wading??
So we have a fusion here of Aquatic Ape & Multi Regionalism (regional continuity).
THE COASTAL POPULATION is our population. It's the one that links the Australians with
the Africans and everyone in between. The coastal population is the one that is actually
ancestral to us all. I can have Neanderthals, the Australian aborigine can carry Denisovan
or erectus (I dunno) but we both are connected through the coastal population, aquatic
ape.
IMO "aq.ape" is a wrong & confusing term:
Pleistocene Homo was basically *littoral*, diving for shallow-sessile foods (POS), most likely incl.shellfish (stone tools, large brain), but possibly also seaweeds etc. & even land-based foods.
POS tetrapods are not fully aquatic (except Sirenia), but "incipiently"aquatic. So was H.erectus.
Did they venture inland again & again along rivers all over the (sub)tropical Old World, more during interglacials?
Primum Sapienti wrote:
And why should we care?
Why should we not care?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (4 / 12) |
| Uptime: | 53:42:27 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,610 |
| Posted today: | 2 |