- The atypical tooth wear in archaic Homo was caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- H.erectus was originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- Stephen Munro found engravings on seashells made by H.erectus, (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- Ear exostoses (archaic Homo) develop after years of cold water irrigation.
- Pachyosteosclerosis (He>Hn>Hs) is typically & exclusively seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- Drastic brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) is facilitated by seafood, e.g. docosahexaenoic acid DHA in shellfish.
- Homo’s stone tool use & manual dexterity is typical for molluscivores: sea-otters.
- Pleistocene Homo colonized overseas islands (Flores & later even Luzon).

IOW, only incredible imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
:-DDD

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

[email protected] wrote:

IOW, only incredible imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
:-DDD

Oh, I think it's settled. Nobody is defending such nonsense, not here,
and if anyone does they're simply being dogmatic.

Let's move past the dinkweeds...

I personally believe that "Modern Man" begins with erectus. Sure he
was tropical, meaning he wasn't adapted to colder climates, and
being tied to the water would be a good reason for that. But in a
sense we have that now with human populations, just not to the
same extant.

Probably the biggest adaptation was mtDNA lines. Our mtDNA is
the "power source" for the cells. The best example of why this is
would be the elderly. Why? Because many always seem to be cold.
This is because mtDNA slows down with age!

Slowing down = colder

That's why you get the clich'e of the kind old grandam with her
shawl...

So being a tropical species, our mtDNA started off pretty slow. We
didn't need it. We lived in warm environments were mtDNA keeping
us warmer might've been a severe disadvantage. But as we spread
out, got pushed inland, moved north well, changes to our mtDNA
would be quite beneficial.

RELATED: The longer your mtDNA line stays active, the better. If
you want "Elders," if you want grandparents and you want to live
in cold climates, you need your mtDNA to last longer before slowing
down. It's not a huge issue for tropical populations where it's warm
but, it sure helps up north!

So erectus was the first so called "Modern" man. They didn't have
the same mtDNA line(s), not yet, but is that really such a big deal?

No. No it isn't.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691353674855972864

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

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

IOW, only incredible imbeciles believe H.erectus ran after antelopes.
:-DDD

Oh, I think it's settled. Nobody is defending such nonsense, not here,
and if anyone does they're simply being dogmatic.

Let's move past the dinkweeds...

I personally believe that "Modern Man" begins with erectus. Sure he
was tropical, meaning he wasn't adapted to colder climates, and
being tied to the water would be a good reason for that. But in a
sense we have that now with human populations, just not to the
same extant.

Probably the biggest adaptation was mtDNA lines. Our mtDNA is
the "power source" for the cells. The best example of why this is
would be the elderly. Why? Because many always seem to be cold.
This is because mtDNA slows down with age!

Slowing down = colder

That's why you get the clich'e of the kind old grandam with her
shawl...

So being a tropical species, our mtDNA started off pretty slow. We
didn't need it. We lived in warm environments were mtDNA keeping
us warmer might've been a severe disadvantage. But as we spread
out, got pushed inland, moved north well, changes to our mtDNA
would be quite beneficial.

RELATED: The longer your mtDNA line stays active, the better. If
you want "Elders," if you want grandparents and you want to live
in cold climates, you need your mtDNA to last longer before slowing
down. It's not a huge issue for tropical populations where it's warm
but, it sure helps up north!

So erectus was the first so called "Modern" man. They didn't have
the same mtDNA line(s), not yet, but is that really such a big deal?

No. No it isn't.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691353674855972864

Homo: generalist omnivores.

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

Somebody:

Homo: generalist omnivores.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

Only increible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

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

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 3:37:29 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Somebody:

Homo: generalist omnivores.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

Only increible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

---
Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

TOOLS
The Guar Kepah Shell Middens Evidence and Questions

Shu Tieng Foo
2015, S. T. Foo (2015). "The Guar Kepah Shell Middens: Evidence and Questions." In Hidalgo Tan, N. (ed.), "Advancing Southeast Asian Archaeology 2013: Selected Papers from the First SEAMEO SPAFA International Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology,
Chonburi, Thailand 2013," pp. 114-128; 139.
324 Views
22 Pages
1 File ▾
Prehistoric Archaeology,
Southeast Asia,
Archaeology of shell middens,
Hoabinhian

This paper identifies and evaluates the lines of evidence for dating the Guar Kepah site, a group of three shell midden mounds located on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, along the border between the state of Kedah and Penang, and to the south of
the Muda River. The paper investigates available Holocene sea level evidence and radiocarbon dates for shell middens sites lo

Op dinsdag 2 augustus 2022 om 23:55:56 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Homo: generalist omnivores.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.
Only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

:-DDD
And you still confuse early-Pleistocene & Holocene???

My little boy, H.erectus was molluscivore (see above):
IOW, of course, H.sapiens can eat molluscs!
Are you really that dumb??

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

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 6:22:51 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Op dinsdag 2 augustus 2022 om 23:55:56 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Homo: generalist omnivores.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231). - ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.
Only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

:-DDD
And you still confuse early-Pleistocene & Holocene???

Why are you confusing them? Homo is and always has been a sheltered ground ape with slow brachiating ancestors.

My little boy, H.erectus was molluscivore (see above):
IOW, of course, H.sapiens can eat molluscs!
Are you really that dumb??

Odobenus is and has always been a molluscivore, Homo is and has always been a generalist omnivore.

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

Op woensdag 3 augustus 2022 om 12:24:56 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Homo: generalist omnivores.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.
Only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

:-DDD
And you still confuse early-Pleistocene & Holocene???

Why are you confusing them? Homo is and always has been a sheltered ground ape

:-DDD

with slow brachiating ancestors.

Brachiation is per definition fast...
Sigh...

My little boy, H.erectus was molluscivore (see above):
IOW, of course, H.sapiens can eat molluscs!
Are you really that dumb??

Odobenus is and has always been a molluscivore,

No, my little boy, Odobenus also had ancestors.
Don't you understand "always"??
:-DDD

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

Op dinsdag 2 augustus 2022 om 21:37:29 UTC+2 schreef [email protected]:

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

But if erectus was only a molluscivore, why did he made engravings?

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

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 11:57:16 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Op woensdag 3 augustus 2022 om 12:24:56 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

Homo: generalist omnivores.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.
Only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

:-DDD
And you still confuse early-Pleistocene & Holocene???

Why are you confusing them? Homo is and always has been a sheltered ground ape

:-DDD

with slow brachiating ancestors.

Brachiation is per definition fast...

No, little mermaid.

Continuous contact aka slow brachiation

This form of brachiation occurs when the primate is moving at slower speeds and is characterized by the animal maintaining constant contact with a handhold, such as a tree branch.[6] This gait type utilizes the passive exchange between two types of
energy, gravitational potential and translational kinetic, to propel the animal forward at a low mechanical cost.[6] This mode of brachiation has been compared to the movement patterns of bipedal walking in humans.[7]

Ricochetal aka fast brachiation

This type of brachiation is used by primates to move at faster speeds and is characterized by a flight phase between each contact with a handhold.[8] Ricochetal brachiation uses an exchange of translational and rotational kinetic energy to move forward,
and is compared to a "whip-like" motion.[7] Due to its aerial phase, ricochetal brachiation is similar to bipedal running in humans.[7]

Sigh...

My take a nap, little mermaid..

My little boy, H.erectus was molluscivore (see above):
IOW, of course, H.sapiens can eat molluscs!
Are you really that dumb??

Odobenus is and has always been a molluscivore,

No,

Wrong again my little boy,

Odobenus also had ancestors.

????

Don't you understand "always"??
:-DDD

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

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Op dinsdag 2 augustus 2022 om 21:37:29 UTC+2 schreef [email protected]:

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- tooth caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- originally found amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses are caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

But if erectus was only a molluscivore, why did he made engravings?

No real molluscivore does that, but many Homo did and still does that on all surfaces eg. Ochre (nonedible!!)

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

Op woensdag 3 augustus 2022 om 19:21:49 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:


H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- dental damage caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- fossilized amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses, caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

Only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

:-DDD
And you still confuse early-Pleistocene & Holocene???

Why are you confusing them? Homo is and always has been a sheltered ground ape

:-DDD

with slow brachiating ancestors.

Brachiation is per definition fast...

No, little mermaid.

Sigh.
Why am Iosing my time with this sheltered ground ape??
"Brachiation = specialized form of arboreal locomotion in which movement is accomplished by swinging from one hold to another by the arms."

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

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 2:41:44 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Op woensdag 3 augustus 2022 om 19:21:49 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
- dental damage caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- fossilized amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses, caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

Only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous.

Homo: generalist omnivore.

Homo: generalist omnivore.
Shellfish mounds = guar kepah
In Malaysia's west coast
(I was there in 1982 while a student at Univ. Malaya)

:-DDD
And you still confuse early-Pleistocene & Holocene???

Why are you confusing them? Homo is and always has been a sheltered ground ape

:-DDD

with slow brachiating ancestors.

Brachiation is per definition fast...

No, little mermaid.

Sigh.
Why am Iosing my time with this sheltered ground ape??

Because you are wrong again.

"Brachiation = specialized form of arboreal locomotion in which movement is accomplished by swinging from one hold to another by the arms."

Continuous vs ricochet = slow vs fast. Even a mermaid should understand the huge difference. Human ancestors never used fast brachiation but certainly hominoid ancestors used slow brachiation, resulting in broad shoulders, unlike your dolphins, sea
otters, walruses and wading birds.

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

Op woensdag 3 augustus 2022 om 22:18:25 UTC+2 schreef sheltered ground ape:

Homo: generalist omnivore.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
8 *independant* indications:
only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous:
- dental damage caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- fossilized amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses, caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.

...

"Brachiation = specialized form of arboreal locomotion in which movement is accomplished by swinging from one hold to another by the arms."

Continuous vs ricochet = slow vs fast. Even a mermaid should understand the huge difference. Human ancestors never used fast brachiation but certainly hominoid ancestors used slow brachiation, resulting in broad shoulders, unlike your dolphins, sea

otters, walruses and wading birds.

My little little boy,
don't you really understand "aquarboreal"??
-aqua=water,
-arbor=tree:
IOW, Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea climbed arms overhead in the trees above the swamp,
but calling this "brachiation" is wrong.

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

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Op woensdag 3 augustus 2022 om 22:18:25 UTC+2 schreef sheltered ground ape:

Homo: generalist omnivore.

H.sapiens = omnivore, yes cf. our complex evolution,
H.erectus = molluscivore:
8 *independant* indications:
only incredible imbeciles deny erectus was molluscivorous:
- dental damage caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks" (Towle cs 2022 doi 10.1002/ajpa.24500).
- fossilized amid shellfish & barnacles: Mojokerto.
- made engravings on seashells (Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228–231).
- ear exostoses, caused by cold water irrigation.
- pachyosteosclerosis = slow+shallow-diving (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101–120).
- brain enlargement (dolphins & pinnipeds) = seafood (DHA).
- stone tool use & manual dexterity cf. sea-otters.
- island colonizations far oversea.
...

"Brachiation = specialized form of arboreal locomotion in which movement is accomplished by swinging from one hold to another by the arms."

Continuous vs ricochet = slow vs fast. Even a mermaid should understand the huge difference. Human ancestors never used fast brachiation but certainly hominoid ancestors used slow brachiation, resulting in broad shoulders, unlike your dolphins, sea

otters, walruses and wading birds.

My little little boy,
don't you really understand "aquarboreal"??

Nobody does.

-aqua=water,
-arbor=tree:
IOW, Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea climbed arms overhead in the trees above the swamp,
but calling this "brachiation" is wrong.

Slow continuous brachiation: hands grasp with thumb grip: hominoid ancestors Fast ricochet brachiation: hands are open hooks with no thumb grip: gibbons
No silly detours!

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

On Thursday 4 August 2022 at 14:12:30 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Slow continuous brachiation: hands grasp with thumb grip: hominoid ancestors Fast ricochet brachiation: hands are open hooks with no thumb grip: gibbons No silly detours!

You're creating a false dichotomy. There
are a whole range of speeds (and potential
speeds) between the extremely fast
ricochet brachiation of gibbons and the
slow one of large male orangutans or
orangutans. Juvenile chimps and gorillas
can brachiate at speed -- if, obviously,
not as well as gibbons. That speed is, no
doubt, often of great assistance to them
when getting away from bullying larger
adults, or predators like leopards.

The reason that large male orangs and
gorillas rarely brachiate (with any pretence
of speed) is that size matters.

Brachiation almost certainly evolved first
as the very fast motion. Later, once that
niche was fully occupied, there was room
for larger, slower apes lower down in the
canopy. We see this evolutionary trend
in operation with the siamang gibbon

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

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:52:49 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

On Thursday 4 August 2022 at 14:12:30 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Slow continuous brachiation: hands grasp with thumb grip: hominoid ancestors
Fast ricochet brachiation: hands are open hooks with no thumb grip: gibbons No silly detours!

You're creating a false dichotomy.

Nope, as wikipedia states, two types of brachiation exist in hominoids. Of course there is a range between them, just as there is a range between walking and running. Both walking and slow brachiation preceded high-speed bipedal/bimanual locomotion.

There

are a whole range of speeds (and potential
speeds) between the extremely fast
ricochet brachiation of gibbons and the
slow one of large male orangutans or
orangutans. Juvenile chimps and gorillas
can brachiate at speed -- if, obviously,
not as well as gibbons. That speed is, no
doubt, often of great assistance to them
when getting away from bullying larger
adults, or predators like leopards.

The reason that large male orangs and
gorillas rarely brachiate (with any pretence
of speed) is that size matters.

Orangs in emergency (getting shot) can brachiate fast, but that is extremely rare.

Brachiation almost certainly evolved first
as the very fast motion.

PC fantasy time again. Let's pretend that super-fast flapping hummingbirds preceded slow flapping dinobirds!! ON AN ISLAND!! YES!!

Later, once that

niche was fully occupied, there was room
for larger, slower apes lower down in the
canopy.

We call this Detour From Logic. If it were true, African apes and Homo shrunk their arms drastically. No evidence of such a thing. Instead our arms and hands are more monkey-like, for grasping, rather than hooking like gibbons.

We see this evolutionary trend

in operation with the siamang.

Brachiation began with slow brachiation which still continues in all great hominoids, fast brachiation evolved specifically in SEAsian tropical forest canopy where hanging fruit kept hominoids high above the ground where Asian monkey groups dominated.

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

On Thursday 4 August 2022 at 15:55:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Slow continuous brachiation: hands grasp with thumb grip: hominoid ancestors
Fast ricochet brachiation: hands are open hooks with no thumb grip: gibbons >>> No silly detours!

You're creating a false dichotomy.

Nope, as wikipedia states, two types of brachiation exist in hominoids. Of course there is a range between them, just as there is a range between walking and running.

It is, of course, a distinction that can
be made. But it misses the point.
I've seen juvenile gorillas and chimps
brachiating (in playing -- a kind of
competition). But they largely lose
that capacity when they grow up and
put on adult weight. In the right
circumstances a population could
revert to being fast brachiatiors.

Both walking and slow brachiation preceded high-
speed bipedal/bimanual locomotion.

At the level of the individual -- ontogeny
-- this is true. But it's bad logic to extend
that to phylogeny.

[..]

Later, once that
niche was fully occupied, there was room
for larger, slower apes lower down in the
canopy.

We call this Detour From Logic. If it were true, African apes and Homo
shrunk their arms drastically.

Few things in evolution are more simple
than a change in limb length. Look
around you at modern humans. They
show an extraordinary degree of
variation (the individuals of most species
are close to identical in body shape and
limb length). It is clear that the selective
forces operating on humans, (and on
hominins?) in this respect, have been
very weak.

However, the ape body form is very
different from the monkey -- or the
standard primate or standard terrestrial
mammalian form. A huge change in
morphology requires a huge justification.
'Slow brachiation' does NOT provide one.

No evidence of such a thing. Instead our arms and hands are more
monkey-like, for grasping, rather than hooking like gibbons.

No one (apart from some dopes)
doubts that we descended from some
kind of chimp (possibly before that
from gibbons). For several million
years our ancestors had hook-type
hands. so I don't get your point here.

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

somebody:

No one (apart from some dopes)
doubts that we descended from some
kind of chimp (possibly before that
from gibbons). For several million
years our ancestors had hook-type
hands. so I don't get your point here.

???
Some kind of chimp???
Do you *really* still believe that???

No, my boy, chimps, bonobos & humans descend from an aquarboreal ancestor c 5 Ma:
a bipedally wading hominid with flat feet, no long canines, no hook hands...

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

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3:53:51 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

On Thursday 4 August 2022 at 15:55:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Slow continuous brachiation: hands grasp with thumb grip: hominoid ancestors
Fast ricochet brachiation: hands are open hooks with no thumb grip: gibbons
No silly detours!

You're creating a false dichotomy.

Nope, as wikipedia states, two types of brachiation exist in hominoids. Of course there is a range between them, just as there is a range between walking and running.

It is, of course, a distinction that can
be made. But it misses the point.

Wrong.

I've seen juvenile gorillas and chimps
brachiating (in playing -- a kind of
competition). But they largely lose
that capacity when they grow up and
put on adult weight. In the right
circumstances a population could
revert to being fast brachiatiors.

Slow brachiation is ancestral to hominoids, fast brachiation to hylobatids.

Both walking and slow brachiation preceded high-
speed bipedal/bimanual locomotion.

At the level of the individual -- ontogeny
-- this is true. But it's bad logic to extend
that to phylogeny.

It is, obviously, a general hominoid trait.

[..]

Later, once that
niche was fully occupied, there was room
for larger, slower apes lower down in the
canopy.

We call this Detour From Logic. If it were true, African apes and Homo shrunk their arms drastically.

We call this idiocy. Slow brachiators did not have extremely long arms.

Few things in evolution are more simple
than a change in limb length. Look
around you at modern humans. They
show an extraordinary degree of
variation (the individuals of most species
are close to identical in body shape and
limb length). It is clear that the selective
forces operating on humans, (and on
hominins?) in this respect, have been
very weak.

However, the ape body form is very
different from the monkey -- or the
standard primate or standard terrestrial
mammalian form. A huge change in
morphology requires a huge justification.
'Slow brachiation' does NOT provide one.

No evidence of such a thing.

Max stupid.

Instead our arms and hands are more

monkey-like, for grasping, rather than hooking like gibbons.

No one (apart from some dopes)
doubts that we descended from some
kind of chimp (possibly before that
from gibbons). For several million
years our ancestors had hook-type
hands. so I don't get your point here.

Delusional too.

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

Op woensdag 10 augustus 2022 om 03:01:07 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

...

Delusional too.

Yes, yes, my boy, you're very delusional.
It's really not difficult, even I could understand,
it's simple:
- early Hominoidea adapted to wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
- H.erectus often dived for shallow-water shellfish (= so-called "aq.ape", but no ape any more, and only semi-aquatic),
- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens waded-walked.

Only incredible idiots are so delusional to believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

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

On Wednesday 10 August 2022 at 10:28:48 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:

It's really not difficult, even I could understand,
it's simple:
- early Hominoidea adapted to wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,

How come this taxon is no longer around?

What reason do you have to postulate its
existence? What evidence for its existence
can you provide?

- H.erectus often dived for shallow-water shellfish (= so-called "aq.ape", but no ape any more, and only semi-aquatic),

How come this taxon is no longer around?
"No ape any more"; what does that mean?
Are humans not apes?

- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens waded-walked.

How come this taxon is no longer around?
Or, in this case -- assuming you believe that
modern h.sap is the same species -- how
come there are no wading-walking
populations?

I know I'm going to regret engaging with
you.

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

On Wednesday 10 August 2022 at 02:01:07 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

In the right
circumstances a population could
revert to being fast brachiatiors.

Slow brachiation is ancestral to hominoids, fast brachiation to hylobatids.

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

Why do you always dodge the question of
what were the enormous benefits to the
first ape populations -- that brought about
the huge changes in morphology?

We call this Detour From Logic. If it were true, African apes and Homo
shrunk their arms drastically.

We call this idiocy. Slow brachiators did not have extremely long arms.

You appear to be replying to your own
words.

Slow brachiators did not have extremely long arms.

Slow brachiators have long arms but
not 'very long arms' (like gibbons). They
don't need them.

A huge change in
morphology requires a huge justification.
'Slow brachiation' does NOT provide one.

No evidence of such a thing.

Max stupid.

I get it that you don't like my arguments.
But you should not be so inarticulate.

For several million
years our ancestors had hook-type
hands. so I don't get your point here.

Delusional too.

All apes have hook-like hands -- except
for one most peculiar (and highly
derived) taxon. Yet, it seems, you want
to propose that all of them (chimps,
gorillas, orangs, multitudes of fossil
apes, and gibbons) were the odd ones
out; there was one 'good' strain, that
kept its non-hook-like hands all the
way through -- from the monkeys, and
all the other apes split off from it at
various times.

And that's not 'delusional'?

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

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 5:28:48 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

Op woensdag 10 augustus 2022 om 03:01:07 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

...

Delusional too.

Yes, yes, my boy, you're very delusional.

Alzheimers?

It's really not difficult, even I could understand,

Mermaids?

it's simple:
- early Hominoidea adapted to wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
- H.erectus often dived for shallow-water shellfish (= so-called "aq.ape", but no ape any more, and only semi-aquatic),
- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens waded-walked.

Only incredible idiots are so delusional to believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

You think pleistocene Homo couldn't run? Of course they could run. But they trapped antelope in rainforests, along with swine, deer, turtle, fish, etc. Still do.

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

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:18:44 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

On Wednesday 10 August 2022 at 02:01:07 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

In the right
circumstances a population could
revert to being fast brachiatiors.

Slow brachiation is ancestral to hominoids, fast brachiation to hylobatids.

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.

Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.

One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

Why do you always dodge the question of
what were the enormous benefits to the
first ape populations --

Your selective amnesia makes you ignorant.

Hanging fruit -> hanging bimanual & upright bipedal arboreal apes had access which monkeys didn't.

How many times have I informed you of this?

that brought about

the huge changes in morphology?

We call this Detour From Logic. If it were true, African apes and Homo >>> shrunk their arms drastically.

We call this idiocy. Slow brachiators did not have extremely long arms.

You appear to be replying to your own
words.

Why are you so needy?

Slow brachiators did not have extremely long arms.

Slow brachiators have long arms but
not 'very long arms' (like gibbons).

Repeating my words.

They

don't need them.

Why are you so needy?

A huge change in
morphology requires a huge justification.
'Slow brachiation' does NOT provide one.

No evidence of such a thing.

Max stupid.

I get it that you don't like my arguments.

You don't have arguments, you have amnesia.

But you should not be so inarticulate.

For several million
years our ancestors had hook-type
hands. so I don't get your point here.

Delusional too.

All apes have hook-like hands -- except
for one most peculiar (and highly
derived) taxon. Yet, it seems, you want
to propose that all of them (chimps,
gorillas, orangs, multitudes of fossil
apes, and gibbons) were the odd ones
out; there was one 'good' strain, that
kept its non-hook-like hands all the
way through -- from the monkeys, and
all the other apes split off from it at
various times.

And that's not 'delusional'?

PC is so full of bullshit he couldn't dive for a dollar.

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

On Thursday 11 August 2022 at 04:35:52 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.

Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.

Why not invent yet another taxon, to
fill in an awkward gap in whatever
theory it is that you are promoting at
the moment?

One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

This is known as parsimony.

Why do you always dodge the question of
what were the enormous benefits to the
first ape populations --

Your selective amnesia makes you ignorant.

If you had answered in this way before,
I'd have responded as I'm going to now.
I didn't, because you've never provided
this daft answer.

Hanging fruit -> hanging bimanual & upright bipedal arboreal apes had access which monkeys didn't.

Trees produce fruit so it can get eaten.
If there are now some bunches located
better for apes (rather than monkeys)
-- which I doubt -- they only came
into existence AFTER apes began to
consume the fruit. It was (or would
have been) a co-evolution of fruit trees
with apes.

So there were NO bunches of fruit more
accessible to apes (as against monkeys)
when apes first evolved.

Even if there were a few, it would still
not justify the enormous changes in
morphology that we see. The distance
between the trivial benefits (as you see
them) and the enormous costs could
scarcely be greater.

How many times have I informed you of this?

Never. It's an epic failure in the Principles
of Evolution 101. Sorry, but you'll have to
take the course again next year. This time
try harder.

All apes have hook-like hands -- except
for one most peculiar (and highly
derived) taxon. Yet, it seems, you want
to propose that all of them (chimps,
gorillas, orangs, multitudes of fossil
apes, and gibbons) were the odd ones
out; there was one 'good' strain, that
kept its non-hook-like hands all the
way through -- from the monkeys, and
all the other apes split off from it at
various times.

And that's not 'delusional'?

PC is so full of bullshit he couldn't dive for a dollar.

Such an articulate, well-reasoned
response! A bit like Trump taking
the Fifth. Any attempt at an answer
would land you in trouble.

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

...

it's simple:
- early Hominoidea adapted to wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
- H.erectus often dived for shallow-water shellfish (= so-called "aq.ape", but no ape any more, and only semi-aquatic),
- late-Pleistocene H.sapiens waded-walked.
Only incredible idiots are so delusional to believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes.

You think pleistocene Homo couldn't run?

Late-Pleistocene Homo can run, of course, although rather slowly:
real runners are horses, antelopes, hunting-dogs etc.: narrow feet, narrow bodies, lightly-built, run twice as fast as humans.

Early-Pleistocene H.erectus was an extremely poor runner:
- feet even fltter than ours,
- shorter legs,
- wider pelvis,
- heavier bones,
- etc.

Only self-declared "scientists" who don't know anything of biology believe Pleistocene Homo ran after antelopes.

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

...

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

No, no: hylobatids & great apes had a LCA, probably some 20 Ma.
This LCA was no hylobatid, and no great ape.
Comparative anatomy shows it waded bipedally in forest swamps, and climbed arms overhead in the branches above the swamp.
Questions that remain are: where did it live? in which swamp forests exactly? Most likely IMO, they lived in coastal forests (did mangroves already exist?), I'd think somewhere around what is now India.

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

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 9:20:32 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:

On Thursday 11 August 2022 at 04:35:52 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.

Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.

Why not invent yet another taxon, to
fill in an awkward gap in whatever
theory it is that you are promoting at
the moment?

Hylobatids & Homo share archaic traits subsequently lost in swamp forest great apes, these are early hominoid primitive traits & morphologies still retained by H & H. No reason for new taxa designations.

One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

This is known as parsimony.

I taught you parsimony.

Why do you always dodge the question of
what were the enormous benefits to the
first ape populations --

Your selective amnesia makes you ignorant.

If you had answered in this way before,
I'd have responded as I'm going to now.
I didn't, because you've never provided
this daft answer.

You're dribbling.

Hanging fruit -> hanging bimanual & upright bipedal arboreal apes had access which monkeys didn't.

Trees produce fruit so it can get eaten.
If there are now some bunches located
better for apes (rather than monkeys)
-- which I doubt -- they only came
into existence AFTER apes began to
consume the fruit. It was (or would
have been) a co-evolution of fruit trees
with apes.

Preceded by fruit bats, which had access to hanging fruit at branch tips difficult for monkeys to get.

So there were NO bunches of fruit more
accessible to apes (as against monkeys)
when apes first evolved.

False.

Even if there were a few, it would still
not justify the enormous changes in
morphology that we see.

Of course it would. Apes supplanted fruit bats & monkeys in getting access to hanging fruit not at branch tips.

The distance

between the trivial benefits (as you see
them) and the enormous costs could
scarcely be greater.

Wrong.

How many times have I informed you of this?

Never.

Pretending again.
It's an epic failure in the Principles

of Evolution 101.

You reject reality.
Sorry, but you'll have to

take the course again next year. This time
try harder.

Empty verbiage.

All apes have hook-like hands -- except
for one most peculiar (and highly
derived) taxon. Yet, it seems, you want
to propose that all of them (chimps,
gorillas, orangs, multitudes of fossil
apes, and gibbons) were the odd ones
out; there was one 'good' strain, that
kept its non-hook-like hands all the
way through -- from the monkeys, and
all the other apes split off from it at
various times.

And that's not 'delusional'?

PC is so full of bullshit he couldn't dive for a dollar.

Such an articulate, well-reasoned
response!

Thanks for the compliment.

A bit like Trump taking

the Fifth. Any attempt at an answer
would land you in trouble.

I can't answer pseudoscience. Where have all the biologists gone?

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

On Thursday 11 August 2022 at 20:33:07 UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

No, no: hylobatids & great apes had a LCA, probably some 20 Ma.
This LCA was no hylobatid, and no great ape.

Why not invent a new, wholly
different, wholly unknown species?

That is NOT parsimonious.

It fits another of your curious habits:
when it's agreed that the phylogeny of a
well-known taxon split you routinely
imagine there was an LCA of an
unknown nature at the splitting point
(but you always shove in some swamp
or watery aspect). This is in addition to
your other mental habit of assuming
that one branch went east and the
other west -- or north/south.

Evolution does not work like that. We
can see incipient stages in action. Take
seagulls. New populations (that don't
interbreed with normal seagulls) are
now occupying cities, often far from
the coast. They nest on roofs, and feed
on garbage dumps. In time (if humans
don't change their ways) there will be
a new species of City Gulls.

No LCA. No north/south, nor east/west
split.

There are two more parsimonious
theories: (a) large apes evolved from
large monkeys (let's say baboon-like)
(b) gibbons evolved from small or
medium sized monkeys.

Comparative anatomy shows it waded bipedally in forest swamps, and climbed arms
overhead in the branches above the swamp.

"Comparative anatomy" involving
an imaginary species is worse than
a waste of time.

Questions that remain are: where did it live? in which swamp forests exactly? Most likely IMO, they lived in coastal forests (did mangroves already exist?)

Mangrove forests certainly existed,
but they are hostile to mammalian
(and many other) species, especially
primates. They lack fresh water.

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

On Friday 12 August 2022 at 07:39:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.

Wrong again, hylobatids are hominoids, hominoids descend from slow-brachiating bipedal arboreal apes.

.
Why not invent yet another taxon, to
fill in an awkward gap in whatever
theory it is that you are promoting at
the moment?

.
Hylobatids & Homo share archaic traits subsequently lost in swamp forest great apes, these
are early hominoid primitive traits & morphologies still retained by H & H. No reason for new
taxa designations.

Evolution is extremely conservative,
BUT it allows change when essential,
and it can revert to a previous state
without too much trouble. Large
apes need a short, inflexible body in
order to climb fast and effectively.
So they changed from their gibbon
ancestors. Homo, springing from
a large ape, reverted to a longer
more flexible back, better suited for
walking distances on the ground.

Similarly, homo lost the long arm
with hook-like hands, when it
ceased to be tree-dwelling, reverting
to an early primate pattern.

One came first, and the other evolved
from it.

This is known as parsimony.

I taught you parsimony.

You've never understood it. When
I point out how defective your
grasp of it is, you claim: "That's
not parsimony", and then say no
more -- as here.

[..]

Trees produce fruit so it can get eaten.
If there are now some bunches located
better for apes (rather than monkeys)
-- which I doubt -- they only came
into existence AFTER apes began to
consume the fruit. It was (or would
have been) a co-evolution of fruit trees
with apes.

Preceded by fruit bats, which had access to hanging fruit at branch tips difficult for monkeys to get.

Difficult for most primates, especially
a large one. A small gibbon could
probably get to them.

So there were NO bunches of fruit more
accessible to apes (as against monkeys)
when apes first evolved.

.
False.

Even if there were a few, it would still
not justify the enormous changes in
morphology that we see.

Of course it would. Apes supplanted fruit bats & monkeys in getting access to hanging fruit not at branch tips.

Lesser apes (i.e. gibbons) might have
done that. Certainly not larger ones.

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

Op zondag 14 augustus 2022 om 18:29:52 UTC+2 schreef [email protected]:

The question is whether hominoids
evolved from hylobatids or vice versa.
One came first, and the other evolved from it.

It's extremely unlikely that 1 branch had undergone a lot of evolution, and the other branch 0.

No, no: hylobatids & great apes had a LCA, probably some 20 Ma.
This LCA was no hylobatid, and no great ape.

Why not invent a new, wholly
different, wholly unknown species?
That is NOT parsimonious.

0 invention: facts:
very wide pelvis, thorax & sternum,
centrally-placed spine with less lumbar, more sacral & less coccygal vertebrae, etc.etc.

It fits another of your curious habits:
when it's agreed that the phylogeny of a
well-known taxon split you routinely
imagine there was an LCA of an
unknown nature at the splitting point
(but you always shove in some swamp
or watery aspect).

Unkown??
I had predicted aquarboreal Miocene Hominoidea a few years before the wading Ndoki gorillas had been discovered!

This is in addition to
your other mental habit of assuming
that one branch went east and the
other west -- or north/south.

Not my fault that hylobatids live in SE.Asia, and that sivapiths-pongids lived E of dryopiths-hominids, etc.etc.

Evolution does not work like that.

Do you really believe plate tectonics can't have influence on evolution???

We can see incipient stages in action. Take
seagulls. New populations (that don't
interbreed with normal seagulls) are
now occupying cities, often far from
the coast. They nest on roofs, and feed
on garbage dumps. In time (if humans
don't change their ways) there will be
a new species of City Gulls.

Yes, many Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea simply followed lakes/rivers/swamp... inland in parallel, just like your seagulls.

No LCA. No north/south, nor east/west split.

??? There are always LCAs, of course.

There are two more parsimonious
theories: (a) large apes evolved from
large monkeys (let's say baboon-like)
(b) gibbons evolved from small or
medium sized monkeys.

:-DDD

Hylobatids & gr.apes are closely related.
All hominoids have numerous hominoid innovations, not seen in monkeys,
e.g. Hominoidea=Latisternalia:
wide sternum, as the old primatologists already saw (but you don't even see this?!).

Comparative anatomy shows it waded bipedally in forest swamps, and climbed arms
overhead in the branches above the swamp.

"Comparative anatomy" involving
an imaginary species is worse than
a waste of time.

Imaginary??
*You* are imaginary & a waste of time!

Questions that remain are: where did it live? in which swamp forests exactly?
Most likely IMO, they lived in coastal forests (did mangroves already exist?)

Mangrove forests certainly existed,
but they are hostile to mammalian
(and many other) species, especially
primates. They lack fresh water.

Nasalis regularly wades bipedally in salt water.
I don't know whether Hominoidea originally lived in fresh- or salt-water forests,
but salt-water is more likely IMO, cf. Nasalis.

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