what is certain:
1) early Hominoidea became aquarboreal
2) H.erectus>H.neand. frequently dived

what is very likely:
1) afarensis+boisei = closer relatives of G>HP
africanus+robustus = closer relatives of P>H>G
2) archaic Homo dived mostly for shellfish

what is likely IMO:
1) Hominoidea became aquarboreal on Indian island archipels
India further underneath Eurasia split lesser=E & great=W apes
Mesopotamian Seaway closure split pongids=E & hominids=W
Red Sea Afr.Rift fm split G=Rift & HP=Red-Sea
Red Sea opening into Ind.Ocean split Pan=E.Afr. & Homo=S.Asia
2) we became frequently shallow-diving early-Pleist. in S.Asia

what is not impossible:
1) the Zanclean mega-flood opened Red Sea -> Ind.Ocean 5.3 Ma = H/P

(published in my book "De Evolutie van de Mens" 2022)

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

[email protected] wrote:

what is very likely:
1) afarensis+boisei = closer relatives of G>HP
africanus+robustus = closer relatives of P>H>G
2) archaic Homo dived mostly for shellfish

I don't think they had to dive. They could have. But they didn't have to
and they certainly did not... not for a very long time.

They spread everywhere from Oceania to southern Africa. That suggests
they were not following a sustainable model. Not yet. To me the diving is because of either...

A) They had no choice. "Climate Change," like the glacial/interglacial
cycle, prevented them from migrating after food got a little scarce. So
they either had to learn to exploit the sea BELOW the low tide mark
(diving) or push inland and adapt to a brand new environment and new
food sources.

B) They just plained liked one type of shellfish better than others, and
were willing to do more, work harder, take more risks to get it.

I find this incredibly easy to believe. Even grazing mammals show a
preference for some plants over others. Why wouldn't our ancestors,
already sporting bigger brains (even if not technically "Big" by our
standards) just from all the DHA they'd been eating?

C) Both. They could have developed a taste, so to speak, for a
particular type of shellfish, and were willing to explore under the waves
to find it after picking the low-tide line clean, AND nature may have at
least periodically bottled them up, prevented them from migrating along
the beach after consuming all the easy pickings.

Maybe it's my own bias, but I see diving as a move to a more
sustainable lifestyle, as opposed to picking a stretch clean then moving
on.

YMMV.


-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703957678535376896

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

Op zondag 18 december 2022 om 09:16:29 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

what is very likely:
1) afarensis+boisei = closer relatives of G>HP
africanus+robustus = closer relatives of P>H>G
2) archaic Homo dived mostly for shellfish

I don't think they had to dive. They could have. But they didn't have to
and they certainly did not... not for a very long time.

Pliocene, we simply don't know, but early-Pleist.H.erectus did:
- every human can still easily learn to swim underwater for almost a minute,
- erectus' pachyosteosclerosis leaves 0 doubt, these people dived regularly,
- erectus' anatomy fully supposts this, and completely disproves the idiotic running ideas:
broad & heavy body, long femoral necks, valgus knees, flat feet, short toes, nose, no chin, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy etc.etc.:
only incredible imbeciles deny H.erectus dived regularly.

They spread everywhere from Oceania to southern Africa. That suggests
they were not following a sustainable model.

Archaic Homo early-Pleist. simply followed the coasts,
scientifically there is 0 doubt about this.
From the coasts, different Homo branches (initially seasonally) went inland along rivers,
e.g. H.neanderth.: Rhine, Meuse, Thames etc.

_______

Not yet. To me the diving is
because of either...

A) They had no choice. "Climate Change," like the glacial/interglacial
cycle, prevented them from migrating after food got a little scarce. So
they either had to learn to exploit the sea BELOW the low tide mark
(diving) or push inland and adapt to a brand new environment and new
food sources.

B) They just plained liked one type of shellfish better than others, and
were willing to do more, work harder, take more risks to get it.

I find this incredibly easy to believe. Even grazing mammals show a preference for some plants over others. Why wouldn't our ancestors,
already sporting bigger brains (even if not technically "Big" by our standards) just from all the DHA they'd been eating?

C) Both. They could have developed a taste, so to speak, for a
particular type of shellfish, and were willing to explore under the waves
to find it after picking the low-tide line clean, AND nature may have at least periodically bottled them up, prevented them from migrating along
the beach after consuming all the easy pickings.

Maybe it's my own bias, but I see diving as a move to a more
sustainable lifestyle, as opposed to picking a stretch clean then moving
on.

YMMV.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703957678535376896

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

what is very likely:
1) afarensis+boisei = closer relatives of G>HP
africanus+robustus = closer relatives of P>H>G
2) archaic Homo dived mostly for shellfish

I don't think they had to dive. They could have. But they didn't have to and they certainly did not... not for a very long time.

Pliocene, we simply don't know, but early-Pleist.H.erectus did:
- every human can still easily learn to swim underwater for almost a minute, - erectus' pachyosteosclerosis leaves 0 doubt, these people dived regularly, - erectus' anatomy fully supports this, and completely disproves the idiotic running ideas:
broad & heavy body, long femoral necks, valgus knees, flat feet, short toes, nose, no chin, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy etc.etc.:
only incredible imbeciles deny H.erectus dived regularly.

They spread everywhere from Oceania to southern Africa. That suggests
they were not following a sustainable model.

Archaic Homo early-Pleist. simply followed the coasts,
scientifically there is 0 doubt about this.
From the coasts, different Homo branches (initially seasonally?) went inland along rivers,
e.g. H.neanderth.: Rhine, Meuse, Thames etc.

Thinking aloud:
But what about NaCl? We need salt, but not too much.
H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (POS He>Hn>Hs) suggests they dived mostly (exclusively??) in salt water = early-Pleist.?

From my 2022 book:
-... all Catarrhini have eccrine glands (salt-excreting) over the body (not only on palms-soles as in Carnivora & Rodentia), but in monkeys, the eccrines are less dense & less active. The scient.literature isn't always clear: Hs have more eccrines than
other Catarrhini, but Gorilla & Pan seem to have had more eccrines > pongids & other Catarrhini. Cetacea & Sirenia don't have such eccrines, but otarids (sea-lions...) have abundant sweat glands (apo- & eccrine) on their naked hind-flippers.
- ... max.urine concentration: beaver ~600 mOsmol/l, pig ~1100, Hs ~1400, fish-eating dolphin ~1700, squid-eating ~1800, horse ~1900, cat ~3200, kangaroorat ~4600 ... IOW, we need water++ Only complete idiots believe our ancestors lived in savannas.
Hs kidney anatomy (~12 papils/kidney) tells the same story: we resemble here swine & manatees. Human fetuses have lobbed kidneys (renculi, as in most sea-mammals), but soon after birth, our kidney surface becomes smooth

IMO, Miocene hominids s.s. (at least after c 10 Ma?) lived in coastal forests along the (incipient?) Red Sea.
Gorilla followed the incipient N-Rift after 8 or 7 Ma -> Orrorin, Sahelanthr., Praeanthr.afar.->anam.->boisei etc.
The Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean c 5.3 Ma:
- Homo->left=S-Asian coasts,
- Pan->right=E.Afr.coasts & entered Africa via the incipient S-Rift (after c 4 Ma? //Gorilla N-Rift) ->Australopith.s.s.africanus->robustus.
Fruits contain a lot of (mostly non-salt?) water.
Did our regular diving (POS) only begin early-Pleist.? Gradually (mid-?late-Pleist.), we followed the rivers inland, initially seasonally?

In any case, the savanna story is ridiculous nonsense.

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

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:41:45 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote:

what is very likely:
1) afarensis+boisei = closer relatives of G>HP
africanus+robustus = closer relatives of P>H>G
2) archaic Homo dived mostly for shellfish

I don't think they had to dive. They could have. But they didn't have to and they certainly did not... not for a very long time.

Pliocene, we simply don't know, but early-Pleist.H.erectus did:
- every human can still easily learn to swim underwater for almost a minute,
- erectus' pachyosteosclerosis leaves 0 doubt, these people dived regularly,
- erectus' anatomy fully supports this, and completely disproves the idiotic running ideas:
broad & heavy body, long femoral necks, valgus knees, flat feet, short toes,
nose, no chin, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy etc.etc.:
only incredible imbeciles deny H.erectus dived regularly.

They spread everywhere from Oceania to southern Africa. That suggests they were not following a sustainable model.

Archaic Homo early-Pleist. simply followed the coasts,
scientifically there is 0 doubt about this.
From the coasts, different Homo branches (initially seasonally?) went inland along rivers,
e.g. H.neanderth.: Rhine, Meuse, Thames etc.

Thinking aloud:
But what about NaCl? We need salt, but not too much.
H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis (POS He>Hn>Hs) suggests they dived mostly (exclusively??) in salt water = early-Pleist.?

From my 2022 book:
-... all Catarrhini have eccrine glands (salt-excreting) over the body (not only on palms-soles as in Carnivora & Rodentia), but in monkeys, the eccrines are less dense & less active. The scient.literature isn't always clear: Hs have more eccrines than

other Catarrhini, but Gorilla & Pan seem to have had more eccrines > pongids & other Catarrhini. Cetacea & Sirenia don't have such eccrines, but otarids (sea-lions...) have abundant sweat glands (apo- & eccrine) on their naked hind-flippers.

- ... max.urine concentration: beaver ~600 mOsmol/l, pig ~1100, Hs ~1400, fish-eating dolphin ~1700, squid-eating ~1800, horse ~1900, cat ~3200, kangaroorat ~4600 ... IOW, we need water++ Only complete idiots believe our ancestors lived in savannas. Hs

kidney anatomy (~12 papils/kidney) tells the same story: we resemble here swine & manatees. Human fetuses have lobbed kidneys (renculi, as in most sea-mammals), but soon after birth, our kidney surface becomes smooth

IMO, Miocene hominids s.s. (at least after c 10 Ma?) lived in coastal forests along the (incipient?) Red Sea.
Gorilla followed the incipient N-Rift after 8 or 7 Ma -> Orrorin, Sahelanthr., Praeanthr.afar.->anam.->boisei etc.
The Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean c 5.3 Ma:
- Homo->left=S-Asian coasts,
- Pan->right=E.Afr.coasts & entered Africa via the incipient S-Rift (after c 4 Ma? //Gorilla N-Rift) ->Australopith.s.s.africanus->robustus.
Fruits contain a lot of (mostly non-salt?) water.
Did our regular diving (POS) only begin early-Pleist.? Gradually (mid-?late-Pleist.), we followed the rivers inland, initially seasonally?

In any case, the savanna story is ridiculous nonsense.

Buy polka dot shroom bars
Polkadot chocolate helps you conquer your day or make it an adventure depending on how you choose to dose. Polka dot magic belgian chocolate bars are not only delicious, but also very powerful. These mushroom chocolates are equivalent to 4 grams of
Psilocybin & Psilocin from Psychedelic Mushrooms. Aside from the full-fledged high of eating a number of chocolates, these are helpful for those who are fans of microdosing, as the chocolate hide the fungi flavor and you can eat 1 square at a time. Now
available here at affordable prices. Being the official producers and suppliers of polka dot chocolate bars, it has also come to our attention that magic mushrooms have been decriminalized in Washington, DC. Each bar contains 15 easily-breakable pieces.

Polka dot shroom bars review
To continue, this is 1 of the oldest and safest medicines in the world. This psilocybin and psilocin from psychedelic mushrooms reduces stress, depression, stimulate brain cell growth. She will also increase focus, and sharpen your senses.

POLKADOT CHOCOLATE DOSAGE

MICRODOSE: 1-3 PIECES. STIMULATE THE MIND.

THERAPEUTIC: 4-9 PIECES. MINDFUL AND ELEVATED.

GOD MODE: 10-15 PIECES. WALLS MIGHT MELT.

Micro dosing psychedelics is the practice of consuming very low, sub-hallucinogenic doses of a psychedelic substance. Substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mushroom chocolates or psilocybin containing mushrooms. Polka dot shroom bars have
different verities. Each flavor taste different since they all have different ingredients. With the Cinnamon toast crunch flavor, the main ingredients are mushrooms, a naturally flavored chocolate sweetened wheat and rice cereal with a hint of cinnamon.
This mushroom chocolate bar has a sweet taste due to a whopping 17 grams of sugar and 6 grams of sugar that is present in the chocolate bar.




Polka dot chocolate bars at https://rythmsofficial.com/
Buy Polka dot chocolate bars
Buy trippy flip mushroom chocolates

We provide next-day overnight drop-off at your secured delivery address with no signature required. You don’t sign up for a package and delivery is 100% secured and guaranteed, 100% money back if anything happens with the package or the package not
deliver, and with the help and confirmation from the delivery company, we reship within 4 days or refund money back if you will not like to use our services.
Phone N0: +15156614951

https://rythmsofficial.com/product/polka-dot-mushroom-bars/

where to buy mushroom chocolate

buy mushroom chocolate bar

where can i buy mushroom chocolate

buy mushroom chocolate

where to buy mushroom chocolate bars

buy mushroom chocolate bars

where can you buy mushroom chocolate

can you buy mushroom chocolate i colorado

can you buy mushroom chocolate

how to buy mushroom chocolate

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