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

  • Ticks, Hair Loss & Non-Clinging Babies - BPism "explained" :-DDD

    From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 22 06:41:53 2022
    Ticks, Hair Loss, and Non-Clinging Babies:
    a Novel Tick-Based Hypothesis for the Evolutionary Divergence of Humans and Chimpanzees
    Jeffrey G Brown 2021 Life 1(5), 435 doi org/10.3390/life11050435

    Human straight-legged BPism represents one of the earliest events in the evol.split between Homo spp & Pan spp, although its selective basis is a mystery.
    A carrying-related hypothesis has recently been proposed:
    hominin hair-loss resulted in the inability of babies to cling to their mothers, requiring mothers to walk upright to carry their babies,
    but what drove the hair-loss that resulted in upright walking?
    Observers since Darwin have suggested: was our hair a defence against ticks?

    This review proposes & evaluates a novel tick-based evol.hypothesis:
    did forest fragmentation in hominin paleo-environments create conditions, favourable for tick proliferation, selecting for divergent anti-tick strategies:
    - hair-loss in hominins?
    - grooming behaviour in Pan?
    Did these divergent anti-tick strategies result in different methods for carrying babies, driving the Homo/Pan locomotor divergence?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pandora@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Dec 22 16:19:56 2022
    On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 06:41:53 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Ticks, Hair Loss, and Non-Clinging Babies:
    a Novel Tick-Based Hypothesis for the Evolutionary Divergence of Humans and Chimpanzees
    Jeffrey G Brown 2021 Life 1(5), 435 doi org/10.3390/life11050435

    Human straight-legged BPism represents one of the earliest events in the evol.split between Homo spp & Pan spp, although its selective basis is a mystery.
    A carrying-related hypothesis has recently been proposed:
    hominin hair-loss resulted in the inability of babies to cling to their mothers, requiring mothers to walk upright to carry their babies,
    but what drove the hair-loss that resulted in upright walking?
    Observers since Darwin have suggested: was our hair a defence against ticks?

    This review proposes & evaluates a novel tick-based evol.hypothesis:
    did forest fragmentation in hominin paleo-environments create conditions, favourable for tick proliferation, selecting for divergent anti-tick strategies:
    - hair-loss in hominins?
    - grooming behaviour in Pan?
    Did these divergent anti-tick strategies result in different methods for carrying babies, driving the Homo/Pan locomotor divergence?

    Another MD, "independent researcher", venturing outside his field,
    just like you.
    https://health.usnews.com/doctors/jeffrey-brown-868649

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 23 10:48:12 2022
    Ticks, Hair Loss, and Non-Clinging Babies:
    a Novel Tick-Based Hypothesis for the Evolutionary Divergence of Humans and Chimpanzees
    Jeffrey G Brown 2021 Life 1(5), 435 doi org/10.3390/life11050435

    ...

    Kudu runner:
    Another MD, "independent researcher", venturing outside his field,
    just like you.

    ??
    Grow up, my little boy, I posted this because it's about as likely as the savanna nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to Pandora on Fri Dec 23 14:48:01 2022
    Pandora wrote:

    Another MD, "independent researcher", venturing outside his field

    Paleo anthropology is the furthest thing from a real science.

    Nothing about it is legitimate.

    Here. The next time you read a paper from a paleo anthropologist
    you can wipe with this:

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704315883114364928

    How the fuck do you think they went GENERATIONS, despite the
    evidence, claiming that Neanderthals were a dead end that left
    no ancestors?

    HINT: It wasn't by a careful weighing of evidence that they got
    it so wrong... completely the opposite of what the evidence was
    showing.

    Here: Paleo anthropology isn't a science, it's a frigging dart board!

    "What do we make up this time?"

    "I dunno. Throw a dart & find out."

    https://scitechdaily.com/resolving-the-muddle-in-the-middle-experts-name-new-species-of-human-ancestor/

    They just make up shit. AND THEY ADMIT IT!

    "Well we just made up this new name, we're pretending it's a species,
    and we're applying it to a bunch of things which may or may not be
    related, though they sure look like they're not."

    And here you are, all offended, because people who are capable
    of breathing through their nose aren't certifiable. I mean, they are
    not certified as fakes, belonging to a club that wouldn't know
    science if it barked & humped their leg.

    Look. Paleo anthropology is all predicated on the jackass, Darwin.
    He said "Da guy, see, day guy ewalved in Africa" and the cud chewers
    have been at it ever since.

    Well. There was that one stop at Piltdown Man Lane, but they got
    over THAT idiocy then spent GENERATIONS preaching nonsense
    about Neanderthals... and now we've got make-believe species and,
    oo! What about Naledi breathing smoke & burying it's dead?

    Paleo anthropology: "We welcome you to Cracker Box Palace"

    The real world: "Don't microwave the cat! You can't dry it off that
    way. And your savanna origins idea is a pathetic cry for help."






    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704315883114364928

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