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

  • Traditional PA mistakes: afro+anthropocentric prejudices:

    From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 6 01:42:04 2023
    Afro+anthropocentric prejudices:
    -- Austalopiths are no human ancestors (anthropocentric prejudice), but were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla.
    -- Out-of-Africa is wrong (afrocentric prejudice): Pliocene Homo lived along southern Asian coasts.
    -- Miocene "apes" were no quadrupedal knuckle-walkers (anthropocentric prejudice), but swamp-forest dwellers, already "bipedal" (aquarboreal).
    -- Plio-Pleistocene human ancestors did not live in savannas, certainly not hunting (afro+anthropocentric fantasy), but have always been waterside.

    IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).

    Google:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904 https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Apr 6 14:37:47 2023
    [email protected] wrote:

    IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as
    wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).

    The funny thing is, though Coastal Dispersal is mainstream, and I've only ever encountered one or two people denying it in my entire life, the savanna idiots are far too deeply brainwashed to take it to the next level: Aquatic Ape.

    They seem to believe that our ancestors were carrying around a savanna on
    their back, to feed from when they got hungry, and in any case no amount of time waterside could allow them to adapt at all...

    It's this blind, totally religious "Leap of Faith" the savanna crowd makes...




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Solving Tornadoes@21:1/5 to JTEM is so reasonable on Fri Apr 7 00:04:48 2023
    On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 2:37:49 PM UTC-7, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
    [email protected] wrote:

    IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as
    wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).
    The funny thing is, though Coastal Dispersal is mainstream, and I've only ever
    encountered one or two people denying it in my entire life, the savanna idiots
    are far too deeply brainwashed to take it to the next level: Aquatic Ape.

    They seem to believe that our ancestors were carrying around a savanna on their back, to feed from when they got hungry, and in any case no amount of time waterside could allow them to adapt at all...

    It's this blind, totally religious "Leap of Faith" the savanna crowd makes...

    According to most interpretations of the fossil evidence, there appears to not have been much dispersal of any kind in the earliest years of hominid evolution.

    So, your dumbass theory has the origins of humans being the result of a process that won't begin for millions of years.

    Uh, ur, . . . duh doy dee doy doy.

    It's stuff like this that makes it hard to take you or any aquatic-aper seriously.

    James McGinn / Genius

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to Solving Tornadoes on Fri Apr 7 14:13:52 2023
    Solving Tornadoes wrote:

    According to most interpretations of the fossil evidence,

    Oh, let's be abundantly clear on this matter: THERE IS NO FOSSIL
    EVIDENCE!

    The oldest, by far, fossil of a Chimp is half a million years old, not
    far off from the ridiculous dates given for "Modern Man" in the
    present.

    WE'RE TALKING TEETH!

    Are teeth the best evidence?

    No.

    Are teeth the second best evidence?

    No.

    There is a HUGE range in dentition amongst human beings RIGHT
    NOW. They not only differ greatly in size but even in number!

    There is no one number that applies to human teeth! There is the
    norm, yes, and then there are plenty of exceptions. In the past those exceptions would have easily become the norm for a specific
    population, in a specific place... all that inbreeding.. the quarks
    rising to the top.

    This is related to the "Founder Effect."

    Or just the Hapsburgs, all their famous inbreeding and the results...

    there appears to not have been much dispersal of any kind in the
    earliest years of hominid evolution.

    "Appears?"

    Bull.

    THERE! IS! a sample/selection/preservation.

    Paleo anthropology is NOT a science. Science is in the process, the
    methodology and here you testify that jackwads don't do proper
    scientific sampling and STILL come to conclusions based on fossils
    that don't exist!





    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

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