Just sent this to NS:

"The 10 biggest puzzles of human evolution"?
In 1960, NS published Alister Hardy's paper "Was Man more aquatic in the
past?"
After fifty years, the answer is: "Man was more littoral in the past":
during the Ice Ages, Homo erectus and relatives spread along coasts and
rivers as far as South Africa, England and Indonesia, their fossils are
nearly invariably found next to edible shellfish (google "econiche Homo"),
and they even reached the island of Flores 19 km oversea, more than half a
million years before boats are known.
Perhaps this insight can answer the first 7 of NS's 10 questions:
1) "Why aren't we more like chimps?"
Because our ancestors uniquely adapted to beach-combing, wading and diving
for seafood when they trekked along the shores?
2) "Why did we become bipedal?"
The Miocene ape Morotopithecus twenty million years ago already had a
vertical spine, and gibbons hanging from and walking over branches are
still vertical. Did a diving lifestyle - with our head, spine and legs on
one line for better streamlining - hinder a reversion to more
quadrupedality, for instance, to knuckle-walking as in chimps and gorillas?
3) "Why was technological development so slow?"
Was our stone tool use adapted to opening shells (as in sea otters) and
butchering carcasses of stranded whales, and herbivores killed or drowned
in mud or shallow water?
4) "When did language evolve?"
In small steps at different times? And isn't it still evolving? Human
language can be analysed into four basic elements:
- musical skills - with vowels, tone, rhythm and dialog - as already seen
in gibbon song,
- voluntary breathing control, as in sea mammals diving,
- large brains (see your next question),
- a small mouth for consumption of slippery foods: our mouth can be closed
at different places and so was preadapted to the pronunciation of a large
variety of labial, dental, velar and other consonants.
5) "Why are our brains so big?"
Isn't a littoral diet extremely rich in brain-specific nutrients such as
DHA? And why do otters and seals have relatively bigger brains than
weasels or dogs?
6) "Why did we lose our fur?"
Didn't most or all medium- and lager-sized tropical semi-aquatics lose
their fur?
7) "Why did we go global?"
Following the coasts for littoral foods?
Extensive answers to these 7 puzzles can be found in
- our recent ebook "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after
Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution" (Mario
Vaneechoutte ed. 2011 Bentham Publ.),
- our recent paper "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently
collected sessile littoral foods" (HOMO J.compar.hum.Biol.62:237-247,
2011).

_______


I couldn't resist.
Short answers:

Why aren't we more like chimps?
Diving for seafood.

Why did we become bipedal?
(Aqu)arboreal + diving (followed by tool-using waders?)

Why was technological development so slow?
Is it slow??  Is tool use development slow in sea-otters?

When did language evolve?
Pleistocene.  Is still evolving.  Why no why-question here?

Why are our brains so big?
Changing lifestyle, diving, few predators, DHA...

Why did we lose our fur?
Medium-sized tropical semi-aquatic.

Why did we go global?
Following the coasts for littoral foods.

Are some of us hybrids?
Apparently (+ Hn + Hd).

Are other hominins alive today?
Apparently not.

Did we kill off neanderthals?
Directly or indirectly.

A recent article in Proceedings of the Royal Society B investigates the genetic
origins of Madagascar's natives. Its findings support theories that the island
was settled very late in the history of mankind.

Quote from abstract:
The settlement of Madagascar is one of the most unusual, and least understood,
episodes in human prehistory. Madagascar was one of the last landmasses to be
reached by people...
Close quote.

  While this island is only a few miles East of the birth place of mankind he
apparently did not reach Madagascar's shore till perhaps as late as 800 A.D. by
genetic reckoning (according to this article). And then, only from much more
distant Indonesia. Curious that no aquatic apes ever made the crossing. Even
during the periods of reduced sea levels during glacial extremes.
I am surprised that opponents of the aquatic theory have not brought this into
the debate.

It is also curious that none of the early civilizations in this region ever
tumbled on to Madagascar's shores. We are learning that they were much more
accomplished boatmen than previously believed. Perhaps supporting theories that
the fabled land of Punt was on the Indian subcontinent and not along the Eastern
coast of Africa. Even modest ship traffic along this coast should have brought
an occasional ship to within sight of this large island.

Title: A small cohort of Island Southeast Asian women founded Madagascar.
Published March 21, 2012.

Previous post: Off The Shelf.
Terry

Source: The New York Times
(no mention of AAT but: "at the time this hominin lived, the region had many
lakes and streams with wooded shores")
March 28, 2012
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Now it seems that Lucy shared eastern Africa with another prehuman species, one
that may have spent more time in trees than on the ground.

A 3.4-million-year-old fossil foot found in Ethiopia appears to settle the
long-disputed question of whether there was only a single line of hominins —
species more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees — between four
million and three million years ago. The fossil record for that period had been
virtually limited to the species Australopithecus afarensis, made famous by the
3.2-million-year-old Lucy skeleton.

Of perhaps more importance, scientists report in the journal Nature, published
online Wednesday, the newfound foot not only belonged to a different species but
also had evolved a distinctive mode of locomotion, which scientists described as
"equivocal." It clung to the trees and never adapted to terrestrial mobility
outright.

The Lucy species had long before evolved almost humanlike upright walking,
bipedality, as attested by the Laetoli footprints in Tanzania from as early as
3.7 million years ago. This other species was still built for climbing trees and
grasping limbs. It was capable of walking, though less efficiently and probably
at an awkward gait.

At a pivotal period in prehuman evolution, the discoverers concluded, two lines
of hominins practiced contrasting locomotion behavior. Their feet, mostly, told
the tale: the divergent, opposable big toe, long digits and other bones of the
newfound species did not match the feet of afarensis. Lucy's foot had a strong
arch and the big toe was lined up with the other four digits, much like the feet
of modern humans and all critical for effective bipedality, while retaining some
agility for climbing trees.

Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a paleoanthropologist at the Cleveland Museum of
Natural History in Ohio, and his colleagues said the species the foot belonged
to remains undetermined, for lack of any cranial or dental remains associated
with the specimen. But they said the foot was strikingly similar to the earlier
hominin Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed Ardi, which lived 4.4 million years ago,
also in what is now Ethiopia.

Ardi's foot also had a divergent big toe, similar to those of apes and gorillas,
for tree climbing, though Ardi was an occasional upright walker.

Daniel E. Lieberman, a human evolutionary biologist at Harvard who was not
involved in the research, wrote in a commentary for the journal that the hominin
foot "is a valuable addition to the fossil record as it extends the existence of
Ardipithecus-like feet by a million years."

This and other recent discoveries, Dr. Lieberman said, indicate "that there was
more diversity in hominin locomotion than we had previously thought, and not all
of it took place on the ground."

Donald C. Johanson, the discoverer of the original afarensis specimen Lucy,
admired this new member of the rarefied fossil kingdom. "It's a lovely little
foot to have," he said, agreeing that its similarity to the Ardipithecus mode of
locomotion suggested the existence of "two parallel lineages in this long time
period."

Dr. Johanson, who is the founding director of the Institute of Human Origins at
Arizona State University, discovered the Lucy skeleton in 1974, only 30 miles
from the site of this latest find. In February 2009, at a place in the central
Afar region known as Burtele, a member of Dr. Haile-Selassie's team, Stephanie
Melillo, spotted the first bone fragment eroding out of sandstone.

Eventually, eight bones of a hominin foot's usual 27 were recovered and
analyzed. It was a right foot, and, there being no duplication of parts, it was
thought to be from a single individual. Finding any hominin foot bones that old
is rare, Dr. Haile-Selassie said. They are small and delicate, especially
vulnerable to scavenging and decay.

Beverly Z. Saylor of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, a team member
and an author of the report, said that at the time this hominin lived, the
region had many lakes and streams with wooded shores, thus ample opportunities
for arboreal habits. The dating of sediments where the bones were embedded was
conducted by the Berkeley Geochronology Center in California.

Another author, Bruce M. Latimer of Case Western Reserve, said the findings
clearly showed that the adaptation to bipedality, though considered one of the
decisive transitions in early human evolution, was not a single, isolated event.
One group, the Lucy species, relinquished the arboreal habitat and became
functionally committed, long-distance walkers. For reasons unknown, another
group, represented by the Burtele foot, maintained a climbing foot and stayed at
least part time in the trees.

In hindsight, Dr. Latimer said, "it is apparent which group succeeded." Homo
erectus appears to have been the first to walk on a fully modern foot.

The discoverers themselves, as well as other paleoanthropologists, cited the
need for more fossils to determine to bodies that went with such a foot and
their possible relationship with the much earlier Ardipithecus.

"The implications of this limb diversity for human evolution," Dr. Lieberman
wrote, "will require researchers to continue getting their feet dirty in the
field and the lab."

Dr. Johanson said the Burtele site was a relatively new area of exploration and
so the prospects were good for "finding the critical teeth and jaws needed as
the next step."

Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History
in Manhattan, who said he thought the Burtele foot "really interesting" and
confirmation of hints of diversity in hominin mobility at this period, still
cautioned against "jumping to too many conclusions as yet."

New fossil discoveries are not always blessed with immediate consensus. When the
3.5-million-year-old Kenyanthropus platyops was found in Kenya a decade ago, the
discoverers reported that it indicated the presence of another species alongside
Australopithecus, but that interpretation remains in some doubt. Likewise, a few
scientists remain skeptical of the status of Ardipithecus as a hominin; they
argue that it was actually an ape that evolved limited bipedalism.

Dr. Lieberman seemed to be touched also by an unscientific atavistic influence.

"Human evolution is often portrayed as a triumph of bipedalism, but who among us
has not occasionally regretted our species' comparative clumsiness in trees?" he
wrote. "I, for one, am pleased to know that some hominins retained feet well
adapted for arboreality millions of years after we started to walk on two feet."

Thanks a lot, mcotoole.

I guess this new fossil is one of the many hominid (sensu HPG) relatives
then in Ethiopia, not unexpected, more or less aquarboreal, probably not
more related to H than to P or G.
PAs keep neglecting the possibility that P & G ancestors were more
orthograde (vertical spine) &/or more bipedal (no synonym of orthograde).

"Lucy's foot had a strong arch and the big toe was lined up with the other
four digits, much like the feet of modern humans and all critical for
effective bipedality...": the usual nonsense: BPity is less effective than
QPity, and plantigrady than digiti- & a fortiori unguligrady.
They reason: human are the only BP mammals and have "a strong arch & the big
toe lined up with the other 4 toes", hence the arch & long big toe are for
BPism ¡V a frequent logical mistake (confusing "after" with "because").

When PAs find a new fossil, they compare to humans, but all fossil hominids
had a few human-like features: the further we go back in time, the more P
ancestors look like H ancestors.
We have to look not inside Homo, but outside Homo (what Hardy was doing):
AFAIK foot arches & long outer digital rays are in all animals for swimming,
in fact, they hinder fast or long running.

--marc

_______

The New York Times
(no mention of AAT but: "at the time this hominin lived, the region had many
lakes and streams with wooded shores")
March 28, 2012
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Now it seems that Lucy shared eastern Africa with another prehuman species,
one that may have spent more time in trees than on the ground.

A 3.4-million-year-old fossil foot found in Ethiopia appears to settle the
long-disputed question of whether there was only a single line of hominins ?
species more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees ? between four
million and three million years ago. The fossil record for that period had
been virtually limited to the species Australopithecus afarensis, made
famous by the 3.2-million-year-old Lucy skeleton.

Of perhaps more importance, scientists report in the journal Nature,
published online Wednesday, the newfound foot not only belonged to a
different species but also had evolved a distinctive mode of locomotion,
which scientists described as "equivocal." It clung to the trees and never
adapted to terrestrial mobility outright.

The Lucy species had long before evolved almost humanlike upright walking,
bipedality, as attested by the Laetoli footprints in Tanzania from as early
as 3.7 million years ago. This other species was still built for climbing
trees and grasping limbs. It was capable of walking, though less efficiently
and probably at an awkward gait.

At a pivotal period in prehuman evolution, the discoverers concluded, two
lines of hominins practiced contrasting locomotion behavior. Their feet,
mostly, told the tale: the divergent, opposable big toe, long digits and
other bones of the newfound species did not match the feet of afarensis.
Lucy's foot had a strong arch and the big toe was lined up with the other
four digits, much like the feet of modern humans and all critical for
effective bipedality, while retaining some agility for climbing trees.

Yohannes Haile-Selassie, a paleoanthropologist at the Cleveland Museum of
Natural History in Ohio, and his colleagues said the species the foot
belonged to remains undetermined, for lack of any cranial or dental remains
associated with the specimen. But they said the foot was strikingly similar
to the earlier hominin Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed Ardi, which lived 4.4
million years ago, also in what is now Ethiopia.

Ardi's foot also had a divergent big toe, similar to those of apes and
gorillas, for tree climbing, though Ardi was an occasional upright walker.

Daniel E. Lieberman, a human evolutionary biologist at Harvard who was not
involved in the research, wrote in a commentary for the journal that the
hominin foot "is a valuable addition to the fossil record as it extends the
existence of Ardipithecus-like feet by a million years."

This and other recent discoveries, Dr. Lieberman said, indicate "that there
was more diversity in hominin locomotion than we had previously thought, and
not all of it took place on the ground."

Donald C. Johanson, the discoverer of the original afarensis specimen Lucy,
admired this new member of the rarefied fossil kingdom. "It's a lovely
little foot to have," he said, agreeing that its similarity to the
Ardipithecus mode of locomotion suggested the existence of "two parallel
lineages in this long time period."

Dr. Johanson, who is the founding director of the Institute of Human Origins
at Arizona State University, discovered the Lucy skeleton in 1974, only 30
miles from the site of this latest find. In February 2009, at a place in the
central Afar region known as Burtele, a member of Dr. Haile-Selassie's team,
Stephanie Melillo, spotted the first bone fragment eroding out of sandstone.

Eventually, eight bones of a hominin foot's usual 27 were recovered and
analyzed. It was a right foot, and, there being no duplication of parts, it
was thought to be from a single individual. Finding any hominin foot bones
that old is rare, Dr. Haile-Selassie said. They are small and delicate,
especially vulnerable to scavenging and decay.

Beverly Z. Saylor of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, a team
member and an author of the report, said that at the time this hominin
lived, the region had many lakes and streams with wooded shores, thus ample
opportunities for arboreal habits. The dating of sediments where the bones
were embedded was conducted by the Berkeley Geochronology Center in
California.

Another author, Bruce M. Latimer of Case Western Reserve, said the findings
clearly showed that the adaptation to bipedality, though considered one of
the decisive transitions in early human evolution, was not a single,
isolated event. One group, the Lucy species, relinquished the arboreal
habitat and became functionally committed, long-distance walkers. For
reasons unknown, another group, represented by the Burtele foot, maintained
a climbing foot and stayed at least part time in the trees.

In hindsight, Dr. Latimer said, "it is apparent which group succeeded." Homo
erectus appears to have been the first to walk on a fully modern foot.

The discoverers themselves, as well as other paleoanthropologists, cited the
need for more fossils to determine to bodies that went with such a foot and
their possible relationship with the much earlier Ardipithecus.

"The implications of this limb diversity for human evolution," Dr. Lieberman
wrote, "will require researchers to continue getting their feet dirty in the
field and the lab."

Dr. Johanson said the Burtele site was a relatively new area of exploration
and so the prospects were good for "finding the critical teeth and jaws
needed as the next step."

Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural
History in Manhattan, who said he thought the Burtele foot "really
interesting" and confirmation of hints of diversity in hominin mobility at
this period, still cautioned against "jumping to too many conclusions as
yet."

New fossil discoveries are not always blessed with immediate consensus. When
the 3.5-million-year-old Kenyanthropus platyops was found in Kenya a decade
ago, the discoverers reported that it indicated the presence of another
species alongside Australopithecus, but that interpretation remains in some
doubt. Likewise, a few scientists remain skeptical of the status of
Ardipithecus as a hominin; they argue that it was actually an ape that
evolved limited bipedalism.

Dr. Lieberman seemed to be touched also by an unscientific atavistic
influence.

"Human evolution is often portrayed as a triumph of bipedalism, but who
among us has not occasionally regretted our species' comparative clumsiness
in trees?" he wrote. "I, for one, am pleased to know that some hominins
retained feet well adapted for arboreality millions of years after we
started to walk on two feet."





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Terry.

A small cohort of Island Southeast Asian women founded Madagascar
MP Cox cs 2012 Proc.R.Soc.B doi 10.1098/rspb.2012.0012
The settlement of Madagascar is one of the most unusual, and least
understood, episodes in human prehistory.
Madagascar was one of the last landmasses to be reached by people, and
despite the island's location just off the east coast of Africa,
Evidence from genetics, language & culture all attests that it was settled
jointly by Africans & more surprisingly Indonesians.
Extremely little is known about the settlement process itself.
Here, we report broad geographical screening of Malagasy & Indonesian
genetic variation,
we infer a statistically robust coalescent model of the island's initial
settlement.
Maximum-likelihood estimates favour that Madagascar was settled c 1200
years ago by c 30 women, c 93 % of Indonesian descent.
This highly restricted founding population raises the possibility that
Madagascar was settled not as a large-scale planned colonization event
from Indonesia,
but rather through a small, perhaps even unintended, trans-oceanic
crossing.


A recent article in Proceedings of the Royal Society B investigates the
genetic origins of Madagascar's natives. Its findings support theories
that the island was settled very late in the history of mankind.
Quote from abstract:
The settlement of Madagascar is one of the most unusual, and least
understood, episodes in human prehistory. Madagascar was one of the last
landmasses to be reached by people...
Close quote.
While this island is only a few miles East of the birth place of mankind
he apparently did not reach Madagascar's shore till perhaps as late as 800
A.D. by genetic reckoning (according to this article). And then, only from
much more distant Indonesia. Curious that no aquatic apes ever made the
crossing. Even during the periods of reduced sea levels during glacial
extremes.
I am surprised that opponents of the aquatic theory have not brought this
into the debate.
It is also curious that none of the early civilizations in this region
ever tumbled on to Madagascar's shores. We are learning that they were
much more accomplished boatmen than previously believed. Perhaps
supporting theories that the fabled land of Punt was on the Indian
subcontinent and not along the Eastern coast of Africa. Even modest ship
traffic along this coast should have brought an occasional ship to within
sight of this large island.
Title: A small cohort of Island Southeast Asian women founded Madagascar.
Published March 21, 2012.
Previous post: Off The Shelf.
Terry


Wiki: "250 miles off the eastern coast of Africa".
If they bring it up, our answer could be: you need good boats to cross
these 250 miles (but what about sea currents?), which strengthens our view
that Homo 800 or 900 ka didn't need boats to swim to Flores (island gap
with Java etc c 20 km).

--marc

>Ahhh, But It is a trick question. Answer: Homo never was in Africa until it
arrived as homo ergaster (Turkana boy).

Homo is everything more closely related to H than to P.
Very likely H & P split in Africa, so H originated in Africa.
After the split (c 5 Ma), there is evidence that our ancestors (who belonged
to Homo) were not in Africa between 4 & 3 Ma (Yohn PLoS).

>Here are 3 insurmountable reasons: 1) every human has genes that have a point
of origin in China 2.4 and then 1.8 Ma. 2) there is no evidence other than a few
oddly shaped stones that Homo was in Africa before it invaded as H.ergaster ~1.6
Ma. So our tiny ancestors left Africa (without swimming adaptations) travels to
china and then reinvades 6 feet tall with 100+ adaptations?  (Laughable)

China? 6 ft tall??
Stones are irrelevant IMO: chimps crack nuts with stones, and all great apes
use tools.

3) the PTERV (only one of three retro viruses identified) record excludes
any Homo development in Africa between 3 to 6 Ma.

3-6 Ma? Yohn cs 2005 say between (at least) 4 & 3 Ma. But I'm no
theor.evol.biologist...

>Ernst Mayr was right correct,  -allopatric speciation.

Mayr was wrong in a few instances.
- Isopatric speciation is is very well possible: adaptive radiation (eg,
different feeding optima).
- Allopatric speciation (more frequent than isopatric speciaiton?) more
often gives parallel evolution //.
My impression:  the central forest was isolated from the littoral forest by
an "arid corridor" (Jon.Kingdon):
- central forest swamps (Kongo-Nile-Rift) = Gorilla spp,
- coastal forest along Ind.Ocean = Homo-Pan spp: Pan evolved +-in // to
Gorilla, but Homo "soon" left to S.Asian coastal forests, and later (with
Ice Ages??) adapted to frequent diving, some Homo branches returned to
African inland with high sea levels: c 2.5, 1.8 & 1.1 Ma? Lake Turkana had
marine connections (at least) c 1.8 Ma (stingrays appeared in Turkana,
together with erectus c 1.8 Ma).

>Homo needed incredible amounts of distance and time to speciate to 46
chromosomes.  We are a highly mobile creature.  Our foot and brain needed a very
long time to adapt.

Possible the human foot is more primitive than the Afr.ape feet (which
reverted to a more monkey-like foot): newborn chimps have more humanlike
feet (Bolk, Coon).

>The main point is that the chimpanzee radiation did not occur from Africa but
rather ENDED in Africa. A more human like creature went to Africa and then
became quadrupedal. That is why from the chimp species looks more human like
from west to east, it's origin was a human like body plan from Asia. (West)
Common chimp, Bonobo, Ardi, Australopithecus (east).

Morphology suggests (see my Hum.Evol.papers + later evidence):
- africanus & robustus in S.Africa belonged to Pan,
- afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei (& others? anamensis etc.) to Gorilla.

>There have been 5 great radiations of the great ape (hominid) body plan: 1) 21
Ma orang/moroto (Filler 2004).  2) Gorilla ancestors 10-17 Ma.   3) Our human
ancestors.   4) Chimpanzee ancestors. Likely ALL from Asia, not Africa. This is
why Homo is a much better match morphologically with the oranguatans than
chimpanzee (Schwartz & Grehan 2010).  5) an aquatically adapted homo invading
Asia ~2.4 Ma +- then Africa ~1.6 +- Ma.

IMO you place the splitting times much too early: HPG & pongids probably
split c 15 Ma (first great apes in Eurasia), and H & P are 3 times more
related to each other than they are to pongids.
Morotopith c 20 Ma had a vertical lumbar spine (for hanging? wading?
floating?), it predates the lesser/gr.ape split c 18 Ma.

--marc

_______

>When homo arrived in Africa it was an unbelievable swimmer, in Africa it
learned tribal culture rather than survival as an individual, (which is our
ancestors' natural state).  Hairlessness and distance running became key as well
as aggressive breeding.  African diversity is simply a factor of an immense
population for the last 1,000,000 years and nothing more.   The "group" was
needed to survive in Africa and intense breeding and social skills were selected
for.
So to answer the question.  When did homo emerge from Africa??
Answer:
  170 kya  as females only from NE africa AND 70,000 kya ago from subsaharan
africa males only.   The genes spread because they had powerful social and
reproductive advantages.
-Jack D. Barnes, theoretical evolutionary biologist
Ps. There are two types of biologists.  Those who still believe homo was
invented in africa and those who have actually think for themselves.
Early Dispersal and admixture (rather than darwinian replacement) are now
widely accepted.  The next step is for academia to realize that homo
dispersal did not come from Africa but was simply transformed by Africa into
the group/tribal state.





>>>  >>According to the Talk Origin page "the Dmanisi hominids might have
>>> evolved
>  from habilis-like ancestors that had already left Africa. That in turn would
>  cause re-evaluation of theories about why hominids first left Africa."
>
>  Retroviral data suggest that our ancestors were not in Africa between (at
>  least) 4 & 3 Ma (google Yohn 2005 PLoS).
>  Comparative anatomy (eg, kidneys) suggests Homo initially might (still?)
>  have followed the coastal forests (eg, google aquarboreal) when they left
>  Africa via the Gulf of Aden or the Red or Med.Sea?
>  Indeed, some of the earliest undoubted Homo fossils are found in Java
>  (Mojokerto) & Georgia (Dmanisi) 1.8 Ma (both next to shellfish BTW): IOW,
>  Homo after the Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma might mostly have lived all along the
>  old Tethys coasts?
>  Some of them (H.erectus-like, but not necessarily our direct ancestors) seem
>  to have re-invaded the Rift (together with stingrays!) c 1.8 Ma when sea
>  levels were very high, and Turkana had marine connections (with the Indian
>  Ocean?).
>
>  But Pliocene sea levels were higher than today: if our direct ancestors
>  lived in S.Asia 4-3 Ma, why don't we have Pliocene Homo fossils there (apart
>  from 1 single claim AFAIK, see Singh 2003 below)?
>  Difficult fossilisation at coasts? pH, tides, waves, sea level changesÅ ?
>
>  First record of a middle pliocene hominid from the Siwalik Hills of South
>  Asia
>  MP Singh 2003 Hum.Evol.18:213-227 doi 10.1007/BF02436288
>
>  The Siwalik Hills have yielded what is perhaps the world¹s most ancient
>  early hominid.
>  In Dec.1992, I discovered a hominid mandibular ramus & a hominid femur in
>  ass.x stone tools in the Tatrot Fm, Upper Siwalik.
>  The discovery was made from the Tatrot Fm exposed at Khetpurali Village in
>  Haryana, N.India.
>  The teeth are bunodont, having a lingually inclined wear plane.
>  The P3 is molariform & single-rooted.
>  The femur is platymeric, and has medullary stenosis.
>  The stone tools are chopper types.
>  Magneto-stratigraphic dating of the Tatrot Fm ranges from 2.47 Ma (top) to
>  5.44 Ma (base).
>  The hominid-yielding bed is dated at 3.40 Ma (Mid-Pliocene).
>  The paleo-ecology of the Tatrot Fm suggests open savannah.
>  The discovery will cast new light on the origin & migration of the early
>  hominids,
>  it hopefully will contribute to a solution of the 100-year-old dispute about
>  the African or Asian origin of humans.
>
>  If MP Singh is right (??),
>  - platymeria (also seen in seals etc.) suggests frequent swimming
>  (undulating? as in human competition swimmers underwater?),
>  - medullary stenosis strongly suggests diving for shellfish & perhaps
>  seaweeds,
>  - both platymeria & med.stenosis would strongly contradict frequent running,
>  - bunodonty & stone tool use suggest omnivory & durophagy (eg, shellfish //
>  sea otter?).
>
>  --marc
>
>  ______
>
>>>  >> If this is the case why would they migrate out of Africa and is this an
>  example a Multi-Regionalism or are they truly a separate species as some have
>  said or should they be Homo erectus in Eurasia 1.8 million years ago?
>
>>  >I think its becoming clearer and clearer every day that Homo first left
>> Africa
>  in the form of Homo habilis and evolved through the Homo erectus and,
>  eventually, the Homo sapiens stages in all regions that were inhabited by
> Homo.
>  So, yes, I would agree that the Dmanisi evidence strongly supports
>  Multi-regionalism. Marcel F. Williams
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marc,
Why do you avoid the genetic record (hammer et al. 2005) indicating homo was in
china 2.4 and 1.8 mya??  You avoid it because it destroys your theory.  Think
about it Marc,  the major leaps and radiations could only happen from china 2.4
and 1.8 mya.  The sting ray argument is specious to say the least.

The ancestors of gorilla may have left Africa, then created the forefather that
created homo and chimpanzee.  It can be inferred from the skull caps of
pekinensis that the creature was 6 feet tall, they are massive when compared to
a three foot tall siamang.

Don't you find it odd that tools make a dramatic and profound advancement in a
blink of an eye in Africa??  800,000 years after the first and more primitive
flake tools were found in china?

Heidelbergensis was most certainly well over 6 feet tall.   The subsequent post
on AAT ponders why homo did not make it to Madagascar from Africa.  It was
likely settled by Indonesians first then africans.  Africa was a destination for
ergaster and selected for running not swimming and navigation.   How could homo
be so well adapted to cross ever river and stream and even get to the isle of
Flores yet not reach Madagascar??

What you fail to grasp is how most men and women live our lives, as individual
family groups.  We must come from an ape that existed as an individual and by
logic was strategically superior to us.

Your point that chimps have a more human like foot is a new one to me, allow me
to research.   Are you saying that our common ancestor had a human foot 6
million years ago and devolved to back to an original state split todd state? 
Infant orangs as well as chimps look very human indeed with a high forehead and
human shape does that mean we came directly from them as well?

Btw, you are a theoretical evolutionary biologist, so I am not sure if that is a
attack of some kind.

-Jack

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:

> >Ahhh, But It is a trick question. Answer: Homo never was in Africa until it
> arrived as homo ergaster (Turkana boy).
>
> Homo is everything more closely related to H than to P.
> Very likely H & P split in Africa, so H originated in Africa.
> After the split (c 5 Ma), there is evidence that our ancestors (who belonged
> to Homo) were not in Africa between 4 & 3 Ma (Yohn PLoS).
>
> >Here are 3 insurmountable reasons: 1) every human has genes that have a point
> of origin in China 2.4 and then 1.8 Ma. 2) there is no evidence other than a
few
> oddly shaped stones that Homo was in Africa before it invaded as H.ergaster
~1.6
> Ma. So our tiny ancestors left Africa (without swimming adaptations) travels
to
> china and then reinvades 6 feet tall with 100+ adaptations? (Laughable)
>
> China? 6 ft tall??
> Stones are irrelevant IMO: chimps crack nuts with stones, and all great apes
> use tools.
>
> 3) the PTERV (only one of three retro viruses identified) record excludes
> any Homo development in Africa between 3 to 6 Ma.
>
> 3-6 Ma? Yohn cs 2005 say between (at least) 4 & 3 Ma. But I'm no
> theor.evol.biologist...
>
> >Ernst Mayr was right correct, -allopatric speciation.
>
> Mayr was wrong in a few instances.
> - Isopatric speciation is is very well possible: adaptive radiation (eg,
> different feeding optima).
> - Allopatric speciation (more frequent than isopatric speciaiton?) more
> often gives parallel evolution //.
> My impression: the central forest was isolated from the littoral forest by
> an "arid corridor" (Jon.Kingdon):
> - central forest swamps (Kongo-Nile-Rift) = Gorilla spp,
> - coastal forest along Ind.Ocean = Homo-Pan spp: Pan evolved +-in // to
> Gorilla, but Homo "soon" left to S.Asian coastal forests, and later (with
> Ice Ages??) adapted to frequent diving, some Homo branches returned to
> African inland with high sea levels: c 2.5, 1.8 & 1.1 Ma? Lake Turkana had
> marine connections (at least) c 1.8 Ma (stingrays appeared in Turkana,
> together with erectus c 1.8 Ma).
>
> >Homo needed incredible amounts of distance and time to speciate to 46
> chromosomes. We are a highly mobile creature. Our foot and brain needed a very
> long time to adapt.
>
> Possible the human foot is more primitive than the Afr.ape feet (which
> reverted to a more monkey-like foot): newborn chimps have more humanlike
> feet (Bolk, Coon).
>
> >The main point is that the chimpanzee radiation did not occur from Africa but
> rather ENDED in Africa. A more human like creature went to Africa and then
> became quadrupedal. That is why from the chimp species looks more human like
> from west to east, it's origin was a human like body plan from Asia. (West)
> Common chimp, Bonobo, Ardi, Australopithecus (east).
>
> Morphology suggests (see my Hum.Evol.papers + later evidence):
> - africanus & robustus in S.Africa belonged to Pan,
> - afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei (& others? anamensis etc.) to Gorilla.
>
> >There have been 5 great radiations of the great ape (hominid) body plan: 1)
21
> Ma orang/moroto (Filler 2004). 2) Gorilla ancestors 10-17 Ma. 3) Our human
> ancestors. 4) Chimpanzee ancestors. Likely ALL from Asia, not Africa. This is
> why Homo is a much better match morphologically with the oranguatans than
> chimpanzee (Schwartz & Grehan 2010). 5) an aquatically adapted homo invading
> Asia ~2.4 Ma +- then Africa ~1.6 +- Ma.
>
> IMO you place the splitting times much too early: HPG & pongids probably
> split c 15 Ma (first great apes in Eurasia), and H & P are 3 times more
> related to each other than they are to pongids.
> Morotopith c 20 Ma had a vertical lumbar spine (for hanging? wading?
> floating?), it predates the lesser/gr.ape split c 18 Ma.
>
> --marc
>
> _______
>
> >When homo arrived in Africa it was an unbelievable swimmer, in Africa it
> learned tribal culture rather than survival as an individual, (which is our
> ancestors' natural state). Hairlessness and distance running became key as
well
> as aggressive breeding. African diversity is simply a factor of an immense
> population for the last 1,000,000 years and nothing more. The "group" was
> needed to survive in Africa and intense breeding and social skills were
selected
> for.
> So to answer the question. When did homo emerge from Africa??
> Answer:
> 170 kya as females only from NE africa AND 70,000 kya ago from subsaharan
> africa males only. The genes spread because they had powerful social and
> reproductive advantages.
> -Jack D. Barnes, theoretical evolutionary biologist
> Ps. There are two types of biologists. Those who still believe homo was
> invented in africa and those who have actually think for themselves.
> Early Dispersal and admixture (rather than darwinian replacement) are now
> widely accepted. The next step is for academia to realize that homo
> dispersal did not come from Africa but was simply transformed by Africa into
> the group/tribal state.
>
> >>> >>According to the Talk Origin page "the Dmanisi hominids might have
> >>> evolved
> > from habilis-like ancestors that had already left Africa. That in turn would
> > cause re-evaluation of theories about why hominids first left Africa."
> >
> > Retroviral data suggest that our ancestors were not in Africa between (at
> > least) 4 & 3 Ma (google Yohn 2005 PLoS).
> > Comparative anatomy (eg, kidneys) suggests Homo initially might (still?)
> > have followed the coastal forests (eg, google aquarboreal) when they left
> > Africa via the Gulf of Aden or the Red or Med.Sea?
> > Indeed, some of the earliest undoubted Homo fossils are found in Java
> > (Mojokerto) & Georgia (Dmanisi) 1.8 Ma (both next to shellfish BTW): IOW,
> > Homo after the Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma might mostly have lived all along the
> > old Tethys coasts?
> > Some of them (H.erectus-like, but not necessarily our direct ancestors) seem
> > to have re-invaded the Rift (together with stingrays!) c 1.8 Ma when sea
> > levels were very high, and Turkana had marine connections (with the Indian
> > Ocean?).
> >
> > But Pliocene sea levels were higher than today: if our direct ancestors
> > lived in S.Asia 4-3 Ma, why don't we have Pliocene Homo fossils there (apart
> > from 1 single claim AFAIK, see Singh 2003 below)?
> > Difficult fossilisation at coasts? pH, tides, waves, sea level changesÅ ?
> >
> > First record of a middle pliocene hominid from the Siwalik Hills of South
> > Asia
> > MP Singh 2003 Hum.Evol.18:213-227 doi 10.1007/BF02436288
> >
> > The Siwalik Hills have yielded what is perhaps the world¹s most ancient
> > early hominid.
> > In Dec.1992, I discovered a hominid mandibular ramus & a hominid femur in
> > ass.x stone tools in the Tatrot Fm, Upper Siwalik.
> > The discovery was made from the Tatrot Fm exposed at Khetpurali Village in
> > Haryana, N.India.
> > The teeth are bunodont, having a lingually inclined wear plane.
> > The P3 is molariform & single-rooted.
> > The femur is platymeric, and has medullary stenosis.
> > The stone tools are chopper types.
> > Magneto-stratigraphic dating of the Tatrot Fm ranges from 2.47 Ma (top) to
> > 5.44 Ma (base).
> > The hominid-yielding bed is dated at 3.40 Ma (Mid-Pliocene).
> > The paleo-ecology of the Tatrot Fm suggests open savannah.
> > The discovery will cast new light on the origin & migration of the early
> > hominids,
> > it hopefully will contribute to a solution of the 100-year-old dispute about
> > the African or Asian origin of humans.
> >
> > If MP Singh is right (??),
> > - platymeria (also seen in seals etc.) suggests frequent swimming
> > (undulating? as in human competition swimmers underwater?),
> > - medullary stenosis strongly suggests diving for shellfish & perhaps
> > seaweeds,
> > - both platymeria & med.stenosis would strongly contradict frequent running,
> > - bunodonty & stone tool use suggest omnivory & durophagy (eg, shellfish //
> > sea otter?).
> >
> > --marc
> >
> > ______
> >
> >>> >> If this is the case why would they migrate out of Africa and is this an
> > example a Multi-Regionalism or are they truly a separate species as some
have
> > said or should they be Homo erectus in Eurasia 1.8 million years ago?
> >
> >> >I think its becoming clearer and clearer every day that Homo first left
> >> Africa
> > in the form of Homo habilis and evolved through the Homo erectus and,
> > eventually, the Homo sapiens stages in all regions that were inhabited by
> > Homo.
> > So, yes, I would agree that the Dmanisi evidence strongly supports
> > Multi-regionalism. Marcel F. Williams
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Marc,
Why do you avoid the genetic record (hammer et al. 2005) indicating homo was
in china 2.4 and 1.8 mya??

Please send us the title, ref & abstract, Jack.

>You avoid it because it destroys your theory.

??
Not at all, it's indifferent. Please inform. What do you think is my theory?

>Think about it Marc,  the major leaps and radiations could only happen from
china 2.4 and 1.8 mya.

??

>The sting ray argument is specious to say the least.

H.erectus & stingrays both appeared in Turkana c 1.8 Ma. What exactly in
this is specious IYO?

>The ancestors of gorilla may have left Africa, then created the forefather that
created homo and chimpanzee.

There's 0 evidence gorilla ancestors left Africa after say 8 Ma.

>It can be inferred from the skull caps of pekinensis that the creature was 6
feet tall,

No.

>they are massive when compared to a three foot tall siamang.

Gorillas have skullcaps 3 times thinner than erectus.

>Don't you find it odd that tools make a dramatic and profound advancement in a
blink of an eye in Africa??  800,000 years after the first and more primitive
flake tools were found in china?

Please explain.

>Heidelbergensis was most certainly well over 6 feet tall.

IYO.

>The subsequent post on AAT ponders why homo did not make it to Madagascar from
Africa.  It was likely settled by Indonesians first, then Africans.  Africa was
a destination for ergaster and selected for running

?? "selected for running"?

>not swimming and navigation.   How could homo be so well adapted to cross ever
river and stream and even get to the isle of Flores yet not reach Madagascar??

??  250 miles, Jack!

>What you fail to grasp is how most men and women live our lives, as individual
family groups.  We must come from an ape that existed as an individual and by
logic was strategically superior to us.

Yes, I completely fail to grasp it, Jack.

>Your point that chimps have a more human like foot is a new one to me, allow me
to research.   Are you saying that our common ancestor had a human foot 6
million years ago and devolved to back to an original state split todd state?
Infant orangs as well as chimps look very human indeed with a high forehead and
human shape does that mean we came directly from them as well?

No, no: in some instances humans are more primitive, in others chimps, in
still others both are derived, in parallel, or else in different directions.
We have to compare every feature apart.

>Btw, you are a theoretical evolutionary biologist, so I am not sure if that is
a attack of some kind. -Jack

Yes, of course, Jack, sorry, I was thinking of genetic data, of which I
don't know anything.

--marc

_____

On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>> wrote:

>>  >Ahhh, But It is a trick question. Answer: Homo never was in Africa until it
>  arrived as homo ergaster (Turkana boy).

>
>  Homo is everything more closely related to H than to P.
>  Very likely H & P split in Africa, so H originated in Africa.
>  After the split (c 5 Ma), there is evidence that our ancestors (who belonged
>  to Homo) were not in Africa between 4 & 3 Ma (Yohn PLoS).

>
>>  >Here are 3 insurmountable reasons: 1) every human has genes that have a
>> point
>  of origin in China 2.4 and then 1.8 Ma. 2) there is no evidence other than a
> few
>  oddly shaped stones that Homo was in Africa before it invaded as H.ergaster
> ~1.6
>  Ma. So our tiny ancestors left Africa (without swimming adaptations) travels
> to
>  china and then reinvades 6 feet tall with 100+ adaptations? (Laughable)
>
>  China? 6 ft tall??

>
>  Stones are irrelevant IMO: chimps crack nuts with stones, and all great apes
>  use tools.

>
>  3) the PTERV (only one of three retro viruses identified) record excludes
>  any Homo development in Africa between 3 to 6 Ma.

>
>  3-6 Ma? Yohn cs 2005 say between (at least) 4 & 3 Ma. But I'm no
>  theor.evol.biologist...

>
>>  >Ernst Mayr was right correct, -allopatric speciation.

>
>  Mayr was wrong in a few instances.
>  - Isopatric speciation is is very well possible: adaptive radiation (eg,
>  different feeding optima).
>  - Allopatric speciation (more frequent than isopatric speciaiton?) more
>  often gives parallel evolution //.
>  My impression: the central forest was isolated from the littoral forest by
>  an "arid corridor" (Jon.Kingdon):
>  - central forest swamps (Kongo-Nile-Rift) = Gorilla spp,
>  - coastal forest along Ind.Ocean = Homo-Pan spp: Pan evolved +-in // to
>  Gorilla, but Homo "soon" left to S.Asian coastal forests, and later (with
>  Ice Ages??) adapted to frequent diving, some Homo branches returned to
>  African inland with high sea levels: c 2.5, 1.8 & 1.1 Ma? Lake Turkana had
>  marine connections (at least) c 1.8 Ma (stingrays appeared in Turkana,
>  together with erectus c 1.8 Ma).

>
>>  >Homo needed incredible amounts of distance and time to speciate to 46
>  chromosomes. We are a highly mobile creature. Our foot and brain needed a
> very
>  long time to adapt.

>
>  Possible the human foot is more primitive than the Afr.ape feet (which
>  reverted to a more monkey-like foot): newborn chimps have more humanlike
>  feet (Bolk, Coon).

>
>>  >The main point is that the chimpanzee radiation did not occur from Africa
>> but
>  rather ENDED in Africa. A more human like creature went to Africa and then
>  became quadrupedal. That is why from the chimp species looks more human like
>  from west to east, it's origin was a human like body plan from Asia. (West)
>  Common chimp, Bonobo, Ardi, Australopithecus (east).

>
>  Morphology suggests (see my Hum.Evol.papers + later evidence):
>  - africanus & robustus in S.Africa belonged to Pan,
>  - afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei (& others? anamensis etc.) to Gorilla.

>
>>  >There have been 5 great radiations of the great ape (hominid) body plan: 1)
>> 21
>  Ma orang/moroto (Filler 2004). 2) Gorilla ancestors 10-17 Ma. 3) Our human
>  ancestors. 4) Chimpanzee ancestors. Likely ALL from Asia, not Africa. This is
>  why Homo is a much better match morphologically with the oranguatans than
>  chimpanzee (Schwartz & Grehan 2010). 5) an aquatically adapted homo invading
>  Asia ~2.4 Ma +- then Africa ~1.6 +- Ma.

>
>  IMO you place the splitting times much too early: HPG & pongids probably
>  split c 15 Ma (first great apes in Eurasia), and H & P are 3 times more
>  related to each other than they are to pongids.
>  Morotopith c 20 Ma had a vertical lumbar spine (for hanging? wading?
>  floating?), it predates the lesser/gr.ape split c 18 Ma. --marc




>
>  _______
>
>>  >When homo arrived in Africa it was an unbelievable swimmer, in Africa it
>  learned tribal culture rather than survival as an individual, (which is our
>  ancestors' natural state). Hairlessness and distance running became key as
> well
>  as aggressive breeding. African diversity is simply a factor of an immense
>  population for the last 1,000,000 years and nothing more. The "group" was
>  needed to survive in Africa and intense breeding and social skills were
> selected
>  for.
>  So to answer the question. When did homo emerge from Africa??
>  Answer:
>  170 kya as females only from NE africa AND 70,000 kya ago from subsaharan
>  africa males only. The genes spread because they had powerful social and
>  reproductive advantages.
>  -Jack D. Barnes, theoretical evolutionary biologist
>  Ps. There are two types of biologists. Those who still believe homo was
>  invented in africa and those who have actually think for themselves.
>  Early Dispersal and admixture (rather than darwinian replacement) are now
>  widely accepted. The next step is for academia to realize that homo
>  dispersal did not come from Africa but was simply transformed by Africa into
>  the group/tribal state.
>
>>>>>>  >>> >>According to the Talk Origin page "the Dmanisi hominids might have
>>>>  >>> evolved
>>  > from habilis-like ancestors that had already left Africa. That in turn
>> would
>>  > cause re-evaluation of theories about why hominids first left Africa."
>>  >
>>  > Retroviral data suggest that our ancestors were not in Africa between (at
>>  > least) 4 & 3 Ma (google Yohn 2005 PLoS).
>>  > Comparative anatomy (eg, kidneys) suggests Homo initially might (still?)
>>  > have followed the coastal forests (eg, google aquarboreal) when they left
>>  > Africa via the Gulf of Aden or the Red or Med.Sea?
>>  > Indeed, some of the earliest undoubted Homo fossils are found in Java
>>  > (Mojokerto) & Georgia (Dmanisi) 1.8 Ma (both next to shellfish BTW): IOW,
>>  > Homo after the Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma might mostly have lived all along the
>>  > old Tethys coasts?
>>  > Some of them (H.erectus-like, but not necessarily our direct ancestors) >>
seem
>>  > to have re-invaded the Rift (together with stingrays!) c 1.8 Ma when sea
>>  > levels were very high, and Turkana had marine connections (with the Indian
>>  > Ocean?).
>>  >
>>  > But Pliocene sea levels were higher than today: if our direct ancestors
>>  > lived in S.Asia 4-3 Ma, why don't we have Pliocene Homo fossils there
>> (apart
>>  > from 1 single claim AFAIK, see Singh 2003 below)?
>>  > Difficult fossilisation at coasts? pH, tides, waves, sea level changesÅ ?
>>  >
>>  > First record of a middle pliocene hominid from the Siwalik Hills of South
>>  > Asia
>>  > MP Singh 2003 Hum.Evol.18:213-227 doi 10.1007/BF02436288
>>  >
>>  > The Siwalik Hills have yielded what is perhaps the world¹s most ancient
>>  > early hominid.
>>  > In Dec.1992, I discovered a hominid mandibular ramus & a hominid femur in
>>  > ass.x stone tools in the Tatrot Fm, Upper Siwalik.
>>  > The discovery was made from the Tatrot Fm exposed at Khetpurali Village in
>>  > Haryana, N.India.
>>  > The teeth are bunodont, having a lingually inclined wear plane.
>>  > The P3 is molariform & single-rooted.
>>  > The femur is platymeric, and has medullary stenosis.
>>  > The stone tools are chopper types.
>>  > Magneto-stratigraphic dating of the Tatrot Fm ranges from 2.47 Ma (top) to
>>  > 5.44 Ma (base).
>>  > The hominid-yielding bed is dated at 3.40 Ma (Mid-Pliocene).
>>  > The paleo-ecology of the Tatrot Fm suggests open savannah.
>>  > The discovery will cast new light on the origin & migration of the early
>>  > hominids,
>>  > it hopefully will contribute to a solution of the 100-year-old dispute
>> about
>>  > the African or Asian origin of humans.
>>  >
>>  > If MP Singh is right (??),
>>  > - platymeria (also seen in seals etc.) suggests frequent swimming
>>  > (undulating? as in human competition swimmers underwater?),
>>  > - medullary stenosis strongly suggests diving for shellfish & perhaps
>>  > seaweeds,
>>  > - both platymeria & med.stenosis would strongly contradict frequent
>> running,
>>  > - bunodonty & stone tool use suggest omnivory & durophagy (eg, shellfish
//
>>  > sea otter?).
>>  >
>>  > --marc
>>  >
>>  > ______
>>  >
>>>>>>  >>> >> If this is the case why would they migrate out of Africa and is
this an
>>  > example a Multi-Regionalism or are they truly a separate species as some
>> have
>>  > said or should they be Homo erectus in Eurasia 1.8 million years ago?
>>  >
>>>>  >> >I think its becoming clearer and clearer every day that Homo first
left
>>>  >> Africa
>>  > in the form of Homo habilis and evolved through the Homo erectus and,
>>  > eventually, the Homo sapiens stages in all regions that were inhabited by
>>  > Homo.
>>  > So, yes, I would agree that the Dmanisi evidence strongly supports
>>  > Multi-regionalism. Marcel F. Williams
>>  >
>>  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>  >
>>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well one thing is for sure as to the origins and travels of
the creatures here on earth, since the dawn of time were that ever, there are
many "conjectures".. And some facts that are disputed. You need go no further
than this list to ascertain that.
I say gather up as much information as you can from as many sources as you can
then make your own asscessment. marc here seems to be laboring under the
delusion that we are all gullible..
If you disagree it's because you" don't understand or haven't read the home
page"..more cojecture. BTW who here claimed to be a "theoretical evolutionary
biologist"..? That's one great plus about the internet people can claim all
sorts of things.. That we know!
                                       
chao/Silk... representing "Ungullible Inc."

--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Jack Barnes <teamyin@...> wrote:

From: Jack Barnes <teamyin@...>
Subject: Re: [AAT] when did Homo leave Africa?
To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>,
"paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com" <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 8:25 AM








 









       Marc,

Why do you avoid the genetic record (hammer et al. 2005) indicating homo was in
china 2.4 and 1.8 mya??  You avoid it because it destroys your theory.  Think
about it Marc,  the major leaps and radiations could only happen from china 2.4
and 1.8 mya.  The sting ray argument is specious to say the least.



The ancestors of gorilla may have left Africa, then created the forefather that
created homo and chimpanzee.  It can be inferred from the skull caps of
pekinensis that the creature was 6 feet tall, they are massive when compared to
a three foot tall siamang.



Don't you find it odd that tools make a dramatic and profound advancement in a
blink of an eye in Africa??  800,000 years after the first and more primitive
flake tools were found in china?



Heidelbergensis was most certainly well over 6 feet tall.   The subsequent post
on AAT ponders why homo did not make it to Madagascar from Africa.  It was
likely settled by Indonesians first then africans.  Africa was a destination for
ergaster and selected for running not swimming and navigation.   How could homo
be so well adapted to cross ever river and stream and even get to the isle of
Flores yet not reach Madagascar??



What you fail to grasp is how most men and women live our lives, as individual
family groups.  We must come from an ape that existed as an individual and by
logic was strategically superior to us.



Your point that chimps have a more human like foot is a new one to me, allow me
to research.   Are you saying that our common ancestor had a human foot 6
million years ago and devolved to back to an original state split todd state? 
Infant orangs as well as chimps look very human indeed with a high forehead and
human shape does that mean we came directly from them as well?



Btw, you are a theoretical evolutionary biologist, so I am not sure if that is a
attack of some kind.



-Jack



Sent from my iPhone



On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:



> >Ahhh, But It is a trick question. Answer: Homo never was in Africa until it

> arrived as homo ergaster (Turkana boy).

>

> Homo is everything more closely related to H than to P.

> Very likely H & P split in Africa, so H originated in Africa.

> After the split (c 5 Ma), there is evidence that our ancestors (who belonged

> to Homo) were not in Africa between 4 & 3 Ma (Yohn PLoS).

>

> >Here are 3 insurmountable reasons: 1) every human has genes that have a point

> of origin in China 2.4 and then 1.8 Ma. 2) there is no evidence other than a
few

> oddly shaped stones that Homo was in Africa before it invaded as H.ergaster
~1.6

> Ma. So our tiny ancestors left Africa (without swimming adaptations) travels
to

> china and then reinvades 6 feet tall with 100+ adaptations? (Laughable)

>

> China? 6 ft tall??

> Stones are irrelevant IMO: chimps crack nuts with stones, and all great apes

> use tools.

>

> 3) the PTERV (only one of three retro viruses identified) record excludes

> any Homo development in Africa between 3 to 6 Ma.

>

> 3-6 Ma? Yohn cs 2005 say between (at least) 4 & 3 Ma. But I'm no

> theor.evol.biologist...

>

> >Ernst Mayr was right correct, -allopatric speciation.

>

> Mayr was wrong in a few instances.

> - Isopatric speciation is is very well possible: adaptive radiation (eg,

> different feeding optima).

> - Allopatric speciation (more frequent than isopatric speciaiton?) more

> often gives parallel evolution //.

> My impression: the central forest was isolated from the littoral forest by

> an "arid corridor" (Jon.Kingdon):

> - central forest swamps (Kongo-Nile-Rift) = Gorilla spp,

> - coastal forest along Ind.Ocean = Homo-Pan spp: Pan evolved +-in // to

> Gorilla, but Homo "soon" left to S.Asian coastal forests, and later (with

> Ice Ages??) adapted to frequent diving, some Homo branches returned to

> African inland with high sea levels: c 2.5, 1.8 & 1.1 Ma? Lake Turkana had

> marine connections (at least) c 1.8 Ma (stingrays appeared in Turkana,

> together with erectus c 1.8 Ma).

>

> >Homo needed incredible amounts of distance and time to speciate to 46

> chromosomes. We are a highly mobile creature. Our foot and brain needed a very

> long time to adapt.

>

> Possible the human foot is more primitive than the Afr.ape feet (which

> reverted to a more monkey-like foot): newborn chimps have more humanlike

> feet (Bolk, Coon).

>

> >The main point is that the chimpanzee radiation did not occur from Africa but

> rather ENDED in Africa. A more human like creature went to Africa and then

> became quadrupedal. That is why from the chimp species looks more human like

> from west to east, it's origin was a human like body plan from Asia. (West)

> Common chimp, Bonobo, Ardi, Australopithecus (east).

>

> Morphology suggests (see my Hum.Evol.papers + later evidence):

> - africanus & robustus in S.Africa belonged to Pan,

> - afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei (& others? anamensis etc.) to Gorilla.

>

> >There have been 5 great radiations of the great ape (hominid) body plan: 1)
21

> Ma orang/moroto (Filler 2004). 2) Gorilla ancestors 10-17 Ma. 3) Our human

> ancestors. 4) Chimpanzee ancestors. Likely ALL from Asia, not Africa. This is

> why Homo is a much better match morphologically with the oranguatans than

> chimpanzee (Schwartz & Grehan 2010). 5) an aquatically adapted homo invading

> Asia ~2.4 Ma +- then Africa ~1.6 +- Ma.

>

> IMO you place the splitting times much too early: HPG & pongids probably

> split c 15 Ma (first great apes in Eurasia), and H & P are 3 times more

> related to each other than they are to pongids.

> Morotopith c 20 Ma had a vertical lumbar spine (for hanging? wading?

> floating?), it predates the lesser/gr.ape split c 18 Ma.

>

> --marc

>

> _______

>

> >When homo arrived in Africa it was an unbelievable swimmer, in Africa it

> learned tribal culture rather than survival as an individual, (which is our

> ancestors' natural state). Hairlessness and distance running became key as
well

> as aggressive breeding. African diversity is simply a factor of an immense

> population for the last 1,000,000 years and nothing more. The "group" was

> needed to survive in Africa and intense breeding and social skills were
selected

> for.

> So to answer the question. When did homo emerge from Africa??

> Answer:

> 170 kya as females only from NE africa AND 70,000 kya ago from subsaharan

> africa males only. The genes spread because they had powerful social and

> reproductive advantages.

> -Jack D. Barnes, theoretical evolutionary biologist

> Ps. There are two types of biologists. Those who still believe homo was

> invented in africa and those who have actually think for themselves.

> Early Dispersal and admixture (rather than darwinian replacement) are now

> widely accepted. The next step is for academia to realize that homo

> dispersal did not come from Africa but was simply transformed by Africa into

> the group/tribal state.

>

> >>> >>According to the Talk Origin page "the Dmanisi hominids might have

> >>> evolved

> > from habilis-like ancestors that had already left Africa. That in turn would

> > cause re-evaluation of theories about why hominids first left Africa."

> >

> > Retroviral data suggest that our ancestors were not in Africa between (at

> > least) 4 & 3 Ma (google Yohn 2005 PLoS).

> > Comparative anatomy (eg, kidneys) suggests Homo initially might (still?)

> > have followed the coastal forests (eg, google aquarboreal) when they left

> > Africa via the Gulf of Aden or the Red or Med.Sea?

> > Indeed, some of the earliest undoubted Homo fossils are found in Java

> > (Mojokerto) & Georgia (Dmanisi) 1.8 Ma (both next to shellfish BTW): IOW,

> > Homo after the Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma might mostly have lived all along the

> > old Tethys coasts?

> > Some of them (H.erectus-like, but not necessarily our direct ancestors) seem

> > to have re-invaded the Rift (together with stingrays!) c 1.8 Ma when sea

> > levels were very high, and Turkana had marine connections (with the Indian

> > Ocean?).

> >

> > But Pliocene sea levels were higher than today: if our direct ancestors

> > lived in S.Asia 4-3 Ma, why don't we have Pliocene Homo fossils there (apart

> > from 1 single claim AFAIK, see Singh 2003 below)?

> > Difficult fossilisation at coasts? pH, tides, waves, sea level changesÅ ?

> >

> > First record of a middle pliocene hominid from the Siwalik Hills of South

> > Asia

> > MP Singh 2003 Hum.Evol.18:213-227 doi 10.1007/BF02436288

> >

> > The Siwalik Hills have yielded what is perhaps the world¹s most ancient

> > early hominid.

> > In Dec.1992, I discovered a hominid mandibular ramus & a hominid femur in

> > ass.x stone tools in the Tatrot Fm, Upper Siwalik.

> > The discovery was made from the Tatrot Fm exposed at Khetpurali Village in

> > Haryana, N.India.

> > The teeth are bunodont, having a lingually inclined wear plane.

> > The P3 is molariform & single-rooted.

> > The femur is platymeric, and has medullary stenosis.

> > The stone tools are chopper types.

> > Magneto-stratigraphic dating of the Tatrot Fm ranges from 2.47 Ma (top) to

> > 5.44 Ma (base).

> > The hominid-yielding bed is dated at 3.40 Ma (Mid-Pliocene).

> > The paleo-ecology of the Tatrot Fm suggests open savannah.

> > The discovery will cast new light on the origin & migration of the early

> > hominids,

> > it hopefully will contribute to a solution of the 100-year-old dispute about

> > the African or Asian origin of humans.

> >

> > If MP Singh is right (??),

> > - platymeria (also seen in seals etc.) suggests frequent swimming

> > (undulating? as in human competition swimmers underwater?),

> > - medullary stenosis strongly suggests diving for shellfish & perhaps

> > seaweeds,

> > - both platymeria & med.stenosis would strongly contradict frequent running,

> > - bunodonty & stone tool use suggest omnivory & durophagy (eg, shellfish //

> > sea otter?).

> >

> > --marc

> >

> > ______

> >

> >>> >> If this is the case why would they migrate out of Africa and is this an

> > example a Multi-Regionalism or are they truly a separate species as some
have

> > said or should they be Homo erectus in Eurasia 1.8 million years ago?

> >

> >> >I think its becoming clearer and clearer every day that Homo first left

> >> Africa

> > in the form of Homo habilis and evolved through the Homo erectus and,

> > eventually, the Homo sapiens stages in all regions that were inhabited by

> > Homo.

> > So, yes, I would agree that the Dmanisi evidence strongly supports

> > Multi-regionalism. Marcel F. Williams

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

> >

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A new hominin foot from Ethiopia shows multiple Pliocene bipedal adaptations
Yohannes Haile-Selassie ... Bruce M Latimer 2012
Nature 483:565-9 doi 10.1038/nature10922

A newly discovered partial hominin foot skeleton from E- Africa indicates
the presence of >1 hominin locomotor adaptation begin-Late-Pliocene.
Here we show that new pedal elements c 3.4 Ma belong to a species that does
not match the contemporaneous Au.afarensis in its morphology & inferred
locomotor adaptations, but instead are more similar to the earlier
Ar.ramidus in possessing an opposable great toe.
This not only indicates the presence of >1 hominin species at the beginning
of the Late Pliocene of E-Africa, but also indicates the persistence of a
species with Ar.ramidus-like locomotor adaptation into the Late Pliocene.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17533826
Fossils foot bones hint at mystery walker
Jonathan Amos
Scientists have obtained a fascinating new insight into the evolution of
humans and our ability to walk.
It comes from the fossilised bones of a foot that were discovered in
Ethiopia and dated to be 3.4 Ma.
The researchers say they do not have enough remains to identify the species
of hominin, or human ancestor, from which the right foot came.
But they tell Nature that just the shape of the bones shows the creature
could walk upright at times.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/nature10922.html
The fossil haul consists of 8 elements from the forefoot (metatarsals &
phalanges).
The specimens were pulled from clay sediments at Burtele (C-Afar, c 520 km
NE of Addis Ababa).
It demonstrates there was >1 pre-human species living in E.Africa between 3
& 4 Ma, each with its own method of moving around.
The other creature was the famous "Lucy" Au.afarensis, whose remains were
first identified in the Afar in the 1970s.
Lucy's body was built for walking. Her big toe was aligned with the other 4
digits of the foot, and she had a human-like arch that allowed for very
efficient locomotion.
The owner of the partial foot from Burtele was not afarensis; that can be
said definitively.
The fossils indicate it had no arch, and the big toe was opposed to the
other digits, enabling the animal to grasp branches in a tree.
But the fact this creature could & would walk on the ground is evidenced by
the nature of the bone joints.
These were arranged such that the foot could push off, or toe-off -
something only humans do as they walk, and something flat-footed apes cannot
achieve.
Bruce Latimer: "If you look at the lateral metatarsal head along with the
proximal toe bone, the phalanx - that particular joint is really unique in
hominids.
You can see it's a very different kind of a joint, because when you toe-off
and push forward in that last phase of walking, your toes are highly flexed.
In order to achieve that, you have to change the base of the phalanx & the
MT head - you have to change both sides of the joint.
And it's a highly characteristic type of change that we can pick out
immediately."
The scientists can only speculate as to identity of the Burtele species.
Without skull and teeth elements, a formal classification is impossible.
The team says the animal's morphology is reminiscent in some respects to a
4.4-Ma creature known as Ar.ramidus.  Although, again, it is not ramidus.
Yohannes Haile-Selassie: "It may be a relic species that was lingering
around until 3.4 or 3.3 Ma, and which had its origins way back in Ar.ramidus
times."
The initial find was made in 2009. The analysis has continued since then.
"But obviously we cannot put it into the Ardipithecus genus or call it a
ramidus species because we do not have any cranio-dental elements associated
with this foot.
We've kept digging at the Burtele site; we have a few isolated teeth, but
that's all."
It is, though, a remarkable thought that there were these 2 very distinct
spp effectively rubbing shoulders with each other 3.4 Ma in what is now
Ethiopia.
The landmark Lucy specimen unearthed in 1974 was found at Hadar, c 50 km
from Burtele. Other remains of afarensis have been discovered closer still.
Isabelle De Groote (PA Nat.Hist.Mus.London): "I think this is really
exciting.
We have so few foot remains, they so rarely preserve, that we tend to take
great leaps through evolution where there are no specimens at all
representing long periods of time.
This new foot helps elucidate the process of how the bi-pedal foot evolved.
We can see something of the sequence in how changes to bones occurred."




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ice-sheet collapse and sea-level rise at the Bølling warming 14,600 years
ago
Pierre Deschamps cs 2012
Nature 483:559–564 doi 10.1038/nature10902

Past sea-level records provide invaluable information about the response
of ice sheets to climate forcing.
Some such records suggest that the last deglaciation was punctuated by a
dramatic period of sea-level rise (c 20 m) in <500 years.
  Controversy about the amplitude & timing of this meltwater pulse (MWP-1A)
has led to uncertainty about the source of the melt water & its temporal &
causal relationships with the abrupt climate changes of the deglaciation.

Here we show that MWP-1A started no earlier than 14.650 ka & ended before
14.31 ka, coeval with the Bølling warming.
Our results (based on corals drilled offshore from Tahiti, Integrated
Ocean Drilling Project Expedition 310):
- the increase in sea-level at Tahiti was 12-22 m (probably 14-18 m),
establishing a significant meltwater contribution from the Southern
Hemisphere,
- the rate of eustatic sea-level rise exceeded 40 mm/yr during MWP-1A.

The geometric structure of the brain fiber pathways
VJ Wedeen cs 2012 Science 335:1628-1634

The structure of the brain as a product of morphogenesis is difficult to
reconcile with the observed complexity of cerebral connectivity.
We therefore analyzed relationships of adjacency & crossing between cerebral
fiber pathways in 4 non-human primates & in Hs by using diffusion MRI.
The cerebral fiber pathways formed a rectilinear 3D grid continuous with the
3 principal axes of development.
Cortico-cortical pathways formed parallel sheets of interwoven paths in the
longitudinal & medio-lateral axes, in which major pathways were local
condensations.
Cross-species homology was strong, and showed emergence of complex gyral
connectivity by continuous elaboration of this grid structure.
This architecture naturally supports functional spatio-temporal coherence,
developmental path-finding & incremental re-wiring with correlated
adaptation of structure & function in cerebral plasticity & evolution.

News & Opinion
http://the-scientist.com/category/news-opinion/
A Beautiful Mind
The human brain is an organized, 3D grid composed of elegant ribbon-like
fibers.
http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/29/a-beautiful-mind/#disqus_thread
... the brain is no dis-organized tangle of neurons: it is structured into a
3D grid of ribbon-like brain fibers that cross each other in an orderly
fashion.
Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston visualized the
simple geometric structure of the human brain, using a specialized MRI
scanner.
Their results (Science 29.3.12) provide a coordinate system for mapping
neuronal pathways ‹ like longitude & latitude for the brain.
Karl Friston called the work "substantial" & "convincing":
"Everywhere they looked, they found a geometric architectural principle that
transcends any particular part of the brain. It's such a fundamentally
simple organization."

The organization of the primate brain has not been an easy nut to crack.
Since Santiago Ramón y Cajal began dissecting animal brains & drawing their
fine structure in the 1800s, scientists have sought ways to visualize the
architecture of the brain.
Beginning in the early 1990s, scientists used tracer dye methods to
investigate individual neuronal pathways: injecting dye into live brains and
watching it disperse along individual axons, leaving a colorful trail.
But these investigations mapped only small bits of brains in non-human
animals.
And there was no good technique to map connections in the live human brain ‹
until recently.

In the late 1990s, Van Wedeen developed diffusion MRI, a method that allowed
him to map 3D fibers (eg, bundles of axons) across an entire living brain.
With each brain that he scanned (cat, rat, monkey, HsŠ) Wedeen immediately
noted organization, something very different from the "spaghetti paradigm"
of how the brain had previously been described:
"There was an unmistakable sense of geometric order."
He saw an architecture that was too beautiful & too well conserved among the
spp to be accidental:
"I spent 10 years knocking myself out, thinking, 'It's organized, but how?'"
http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/29/a-beautiful-mind/wedeen2hr/
<http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/29/a-beautiful-mind/wedeen2hr/>Parallel>
In 2010, Wedeen analyzed patterns of brain fibers crossing & touching each
other: "That's where things broke open."
A mathematical pattern emerged: the brain was built in a pervasive geometric
way:
parallel & perpendicular fibers cross each other in an orderly fashion,
forming a 2D weave pattern, like a fabric, that winds in 3D space like a
ribbon.
This 3D grid covered the entire cerebrum: individual pathways were mapped in
3 Ds: front to back, top to bottom, left to right.
The grid was highly similar across primate spp, from the complex brains of
Hs & rhesus to simpler owl monkey & marmoset brains.
"The brain has a dead simple plan, a natural coordinate system," which has
implications in many areas of neuroscience.
For one thing, the simple structure helps explain how the complex brain
evolved.
  The old perception of the brain as a tangled mass of neurons didn't make
sense in terms of natural selection:
how can thousands of brain fibers connect & disconnect at random to form a
more complex structure?
A simple geometric structure, however, accommodates gradual changes guided
by natural selection.
The new understanding also informs our thinking about brain development,
said Friston.
The grid-like arrangement implies that chemical gradients, arising during
embryogenesis, help shape the brain in 3 Ds over time:
"We're not just starting from some simple arrangement and losing that to
randomness.
You actually preserve the elemental structure [of the brain] from birth."
Wedeen hopes to work with others to validate the findings using other
investigative techniques:
"MRI is still a macroscopic inference of a microscopic phenomenon.
What might we be able to learn when we bring together MRI, electron
microscopy, numerical modeling & more?"




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re-examining the origins of agriculture
TANNAncient
<http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Ancient>,
ArchaeoHeritage
<http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/ArchaeoHeritage>
,
Archaeology
<http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Archaeology>,
Breakingnews
<http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Breakingnews>,
Greater Middle East
<http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Greater%20Middle
%20East>,
Jordan <http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jordan>,
Near East
<http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Near%20East>5:30
  PM
Excavation
  of 19-ka hunter-gatherer remains, including a vast camp site,
  is fuelling a re-interpretation of the greatest fundamental shift in
human civilisation – the origins of agriculture.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lWEhaBU05RY/T3QwdKquh9I/AAAAAAAAWd4/oHXQh-rp0UE/s
1600/From-foraging-to-farming.jpg
<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lWEhaBU05RY/T3QwdKquh9I/AAAAAAAAWd4/oHXQh-rp0UE/
s1600/From-foraging-to-farming.jpg>Kharaneh>
  <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lWEhaBU05RY/T3QwdKquh9I/AAAAAAAAWd4/oHXQh-rp0UE
/s1600/From-foraging-to-farming.jpg>Kharaneh>The moment when the H-Gs laid
down their spears and began farming c 11 ka is often interpreted as one of
the most rapid & significant transitions in human history: the "Neolithic
Revolution".

By producing & storing food, Hs mastered the natural world and took the
first significant steps towards thousands of years of runaway
technological development.
The advent of specialist craftsmen, an increase in fertility & the
construction of permanent architecture are just some of the profound
changes that followed.

Of course, the transition to agriculture was far from rapid.
The period around 14.5 ka has been regarded as the point at which the
first indications appear of cultural change associated with agriculture:
the exploitation of wild grains & the construction of stone buildings.
Farming is believed to have begun in what is known as the Fertile Crescent
in the Levant region, which stretches from N-Egypt through Israel & Jordan
to the shores of the Persian Gulf, and then occurred independently in
other regions of the world at different times from 11 ka.

Recent evidence has suggested that the first stirrings of the revolution
began even earlier, perhaps 19 ka.
Stimulating this re-interpretation of human prehistory are discoveries by
the Epi-palaeolithic Foragers in Azraq Project (EFAP, archaeologists &
bio-archaeologists working in the Jordanian desert: Jay
StockUniv.Cambridge, Lisa Maher Univ.Calif.Berkeley, Tobias Richter
Univ.Copenhagen).

Over the past 4 years, their research has uncovered dramatic evidence of
changes in the behaviour of H-Gs that casts new light on agriculture's
origins.
Stock: "Our work suggests that these H-G communities were starting to
congregate in large numbers in specific places, build architecture, and
show more-complex ritual & symbolic burial practices – signs of a greater
attachment to a location & a changing pattern of social complexity that
imply they were on the trajectory toward agriculture."

Working at the fringes of the Fertile Crescent, at sites in the Azraq
Basin & the marshlands of Jordan, EFAP is excavating the archaeological
remains of the H-Gs who occupied the region.  Such sites have been
under-studied:
"Because these early H-Gs have been perceived as building only transient
camp sites, they have been largely disregarded in explanations of the
development of agriculture.
Instead, excavations have focused on the later "Natufian" period,
beginning c 14.5 ka, since this period more clearly shows cultural
precursors of the transition to
agriculture."

Today, the Azraq Basin is a 12,000-km2 area of dusty wind-blown desert, a
very challenging place to work.
Tps can soar to 45°C, requiring the researchers to start field work at 5
am and finish by midday, when the heat & winds become too strong to allow
work to continue.

But when the first humans were leaving Africa, the open grasslands & lush
marshlands of the Fertile Crescent teemed with gazelle, antelope & plant
life.
Given this region is situated at the cross-roads between Africa & the rest
of the world, it is perhaps unsurprising that it should be the site of
regional agricultural innovation.

Few previous archaeological excavations have been carried out in this
inhospitable terrain, most instead focusing on regions closer to the
Mediterranean. …

Stock's expertise lies in the analysis of H-G bones. Over the past 15
years, he has analysed >1400 skeletons from around the world, to
understand what it is about early humans that made them such successful
colonisers of the natural environment.

One
of the most startling  findings in Jordan has been
the H-G graves. Evidence suggests that, far from simple
burials, the H-G had elaborate mortuary & sociocultural
practices.
In one grave in ʻAyn Qasiyya, an adult male was placed in
marshland in a sitting position, and was likely to have been tightly
wrapped in cloth.
A previous finding by another archaeologist at
Kharaneh IV was a burial of an older man underneath a hut floor, his age
  suggesting that he would have required the care of others in life.

At
another site, ‘Uyun-al-Hammam, Maher (Univ.Toronto) has excavated 11
burials, some of which show
elaborate mortuary treatments:
one grave that includes a human
buried together with a fox "suggests a close emotional
or symbolic tie between humans & foxes prior to the first domesticated
  animal – the dog – and shows continuity in burial & social practices
with the later Neolithic."
Stock's study of the human remains
demonstrates that these people were ancestral to the later farmers.

The
researchers argue that these examples may represent an increasing
cultural sophistication & a greater complexity in the relationship
between humans & animals – trends that had only previously been
identified in later time periods.

Mega camp site

A
major EFAP focus  over the past 4 years has
been the excavation of the site of Kharaneh IV (Azraq Desert E-Jordan).
The site is much more than the sort of temporary camp
site normally ascribed to H-G groups.
Covering almost 2
hectares, the 19-ka site was occupied for 1200 years, it is, "so huge,
it's the earliest sign of human
activity that is large enough to be visible on Google Earth.
To
produce the debris of stone tools & bones, in some places almost 3 m
deep, we believe that many groups of H-Gs would meet &
live together for several months of the year before splitting into
mobile groups at other times."

The
team is researching the area in astonishing detail – in a technique
known as 100 % flotation, every cm2 excavated is floated to
  check for plant remains & charcoal:
"even
  very small remains are providing very important clues towards our
understanding of the relationship between prehistoric humans & their
habitat."

To
date, they have found plant remains, animal bones carved with repeated
incised motifs, stones carved with geometric patterns, stone tools in
their thousands, hearths, pierced shells & oval hut
structures.
As the work continues, all indications point towards an
advanced cultural & technological complexity in the exploitation of
bone, shell, plants & architecture:
"The
  size of the site, combined with evidence for huts & other symbolic
goods, imply that Kharaneh IV was long-term & repeatedly occupied. It
could be regarded as a precursor to later farming
villages."

The revolution that wasn’t

The discoveries extend many aspects of the behavioural complexity
associated with the Neolithic to c 10 ky earlier, pushing
back the true roots of the transition to agriculture:
"On
evolutionary time-scales, the transition to agriculture can undoubtedly
be regarded in revolutionary terms, but, we can now see
  this as a culturally dynamic process that began much earlier than
previously thought.
This
  picture would not have come together through the excavation of one site
  alone. The burial complexity of ʻUyun-al-Hammam & ʻAyn
Qasiyya, together with the architecture & size of the settlement at
Kharaneh IV, collectively offer glimpses of a protracted period in which
  humans worked through the cultural & biological changes that needed
to happen before village life & the systematic exploitation of grain
could emerge."

marc. "Ahhh, But It is a trick question. Answer: Homo never was in Africa until
it arrived as homo ergaster (Turkana boy).

Hi me Silk.. well I don't know mabout 'H & P " or the todd split but this seems
to be the latest paradigm of the science community.. Makes sense to the simple
mind such as grad students as myself.. to so called higher intellects playing
"I'm smarter than you" it may be absurd..common sense usually is to such types
who prefer their own esoteric lingo.
"Species to which all modern human beings belong. The oldest known fossil
  remains date to  120,000 years agoor much earlier ( 400,000 years ago)
if evidence of certain archaic varieties is included. Homo sapiens is
distinguished from earlier hominin  species by characteristics and habits such
as bipedal stance and gait,
brain capacity averaging about 1,350 cc, high forehead, small teeth and
jaw, defined chin, construction and use of tools, and ability to use symbols.
  Most scholars believe that modern humans developed in Africa  150,000
years ago and spread to the Middle East  100,000 years ago and to other
parts of Eurasia  40,000 -50,000 years ago (this is known as the
single-origin model). Others contend that modern humans developed from
various regional populations of archaic H. sapiens or even other species of Homo
  in Eurasia beginning  250,000 years ago (the multiregional model). In
the first model the genetic differences that exist between the peoples
of the world would not be very old; in the second model they would be
significantly older." I mean this is what's being taught in Universities world
wide..I would say "I don't understand why some people prefer to complicate
matters" but I'm well aware of "why"..

marc..Homo is everything more closely related to H than to P.

Very likely H & P split in Africa, so H originated in Africa.

After the split (c 5 Ma), there is evidence that our ancestors (who belonged

to Homo) were not in Africa between 4 & 3 Ma (Yohn PLoS).



>Here are 3 insurmountable reasons: 1) every human has genes that have a point

of origin in China 2.4 and then 1.8 Ma. 2) there is no evidence other than a few

oddly shaped stones that Homo was in Africa before it invaded as H.ergaster ~1.6

Ma. So our tiny ancestors left Africa (without swimming adaptations) travels to

china and then reinvades 6 feet tall with 100+ adaptations?  (Laughable)



China? 6 ft tall??

Stones are irrelevant IMO: chimps crack nuts with stones, and all great apes

use tools.



3) the PTERV (only one of three retro viruses identified) record excludes

any Homo development in Africa between 3 to 6 Ma.



3-6 Ma? Yohn cs 2005 say between (at least) 4 & 3 Ma. But I'm no

theor.evol.biologist...



>Ernst Mayr was right correct,  -allopatric speciation.



Mayr was wrong in a few instances.

- Isopatric speciation is is very well possible: adaptive radiation (eg,

different feeding optima).

- Allopatric speciation (more frequent than isopatric speciaiton?) more

often gives parallel evolution //.

My impression:  the central forest was isolated from the littoral forest by

an "arid corridor" (Jon.Kingdon):

- central forest swamps (Kongo-Nile-Rift) = Gorilla spp,

- coastal forest along Ind.Ocean = Homo-Pan spp: Pan evolved +-in // to

Gorilla, but Homo "soon" left to S.Asian coastal forests, and later (with

Ice Ages??) adapted to frequent diving, some Homo branches returned to

African inland with high sea levels: c 2.5, 1.8 & 1.1 Ma? Lake Turkana had

marine connections (at least) c 1.8 Ma (stingrays appeared in Turkana,

together with erectus c 1.8 Ma).



>Homo needed incredible amounts of distance and time to speciate to 46

chromosomes.  We are a highly mobile creature.  Our foot and brain needed a very

long time to adapt.



Possible the human foot is more primitive than the Afr.ape feet (which

reverted to a more monkey-like foot): newborn chimps have more humanlike

feet (Bolk, Coon).



>The main point is that the chimpanzee radiation did not occur from Africa but

rather ENDED in Africa. A more human like creature went to Africa and then

became quadrupedal. That is why from the chimp species looks more human like

from west to east, it's origin was a human like body plan from Asia. (West)

Common chimp, Bonobo, Ardi, Australopithecus (east).



Morphology suggests (see my Hum.Evol.papers + later evidence):

- africanus & robustus in S.Africa belonged to Pan,

- afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei (& others? anamensis etc.) to Gorilla.



>There have been 5 great radiations of the great ape (hominid) body plan: 1) 21

Ma orang/moroto (Filler 2004).  2) Gorilla ancestors 10-17 Ma.   3) Our human

ancestors.   4) Chimpanzee ancestors. Likely ALL from Asia, not Africa. This is

why Homo is a much better match morphologically with the oranguatans than

chimpanzee (Schwartz & Grehan 2010).  5) an aquatically adapted homo invading

Asia ~2.4 Ma +- then Africa ~1.6 +- Ma.



IMO you place the splitting times much too early: HPG & pongids probably

split c 15 Ma (first great apes in Eurasia), and H & P are 3 times more

related to each other than they are to pongids.

Morotopith c 20 Ma had a vertical lumbar spine (for hanging? wading?

floating?), it predates the lesser/gr.ape split c 18 Ma.



--marc



_______



>When homo arrived in Africa it was an unbelievable swimmer, in Africa it

learned tribal culture rather than survival as an individual, (which is our

ancestors' natural state).  Hairlessness and distance running became key as well

as aggressive breeding.  African diversity is simply a factor of an immense

population for the last 1,000,000 years and nothing more.   The "group" was

needed to survive in Africa and intense breeding and social skills were selected

for.

So to answer the question.  When did homo emerge from Africa??

Answer:

  170 kya  as females only from NE africa AND 70,000 kya ago from subsaharan

africa males only.   The genes spread because they had powerful social and

reproductive advantages.

-Jack D. Barnes, theoretical evolutionary biologist

Ps. There are two types of biologists.  Those who still believe homo was

invented in africa and those who have actually think for themselves.

Early Dispersal and admixture (rather than darwinian replacement) are now

widely accepted.  The next step is for academia to realize that homo

dispersal did not come from Africa but was simply transformed by Africa into

the group/tribal state.



>>>  >>According to the Talk Origin page "the Dmanisi hominids might have

>>> evolved

>  from habilis-like ancestors that had already left Africa. That in turn would

>  cause re-evaluation of theories about why hominids first left Africa."

>

>  Retroviral data suggest that our ancestors were not in Africa between (at

>  least) 4 & 3 Ma (google Yohn 2005 PLoS).

>  Comparative anatomy (eg, kidneys) suggests Homo initially might (still?)

>  have followed the coastal forests (eg, google aquarboreal) when they left

>  Africa via the Gulf of Aden or the Red or Med.Sea?

>  Indeed, some of the earliest undoubted Homo fossils are found in Java

>  (Mojokerto) & Georgia (Dmanisi) 1.8 Ma (both next to shellfish BTW): IOW,

>  Homo after the Homo-Pan split c 5 Ma might mostly have lived all along the

>  old Tethys coasts?

>  Some of them (H.erectus-like, but not necessarily our direct ancestors) seem

>  to have re-invaded the Rift (together with stingrays!) c 1.8 Ma when sea

>  levels were very high, and Turkana had marine connections (with the Indian

>  Ocean?).

>

>  But Pliocene sea levels were higher than today: if our direct ancestors

>  lived in S.Asia 4-3 Ma, why don't we have Pliocene Homo fossils there (apart

>  from 1 single claim AFAIK, see Singh 2003 below)?

>  Difficult fossilisation at coasts? pH, tides, waves, sea level changesÅ ?

>

>  First record of a middle pliocene hominid from the Siwalik Hills of South

>  Asia

>  MP Singh 2003 Hum.Evol.18:213-227 doi 10.1007/BF02436288

>

>  The Siwalik Hills have yielded what is perhaps the world¹s most ancient

>  early hominid.

>  In Dec.1992, I discovered a hominid mandibular ramus & a hominid femur in

>  ass.x stone tools in the Tatrot Fm, Upper Siwalik.

>  The discovery was made from the Tatrot Fm exposed at Khetpurali Village in

>  Haryana, N.India.

>  The teeth are bunodont, having a lingually inclined wear plane.

>  The P3 is molariform & single-rooted.

>  The femur is platymeric, and has medullary stenosis.

>  The stone tools are chopper types.

>  Magneto-stratigraphic dating of the Tatrot Fm ranges from 2.47 Ma (top) to

>  5.44 Ma (base).

>  The hominid-yielding bed is dated at 3.40 Ma (Mid-Pliocene).

>  The paleo-ecology of the Tatrot Fm suggests open savannah.

>  The discovery will cast new light on the origin & migration of the early

>  hominids,

>  it hopefully will contribute to a solution of the 100-year-old dispute about

>  the African or Asian origin of humans.

>

>  If MP Singh is right (??),

>  - platymeria (also seen in seals etc.) suggests frequent swimming

>  (undulating? as in human competition swimmers underwater?),

>  - medullary stenosis strongly suggests diving for shellfish & perhaps

>  seaweeds,

>  - both platymeria & med.stenosis would strongly contradict frequent running,

>  - bunodonty & stone tool use suggest omnivory & durophagy (eg, shellfish //

>  sea otter?).

>

>  --marc

>

>  ______

>

>>>  >> If this is the case why would they migrate out of Africa and is this an

>  example a Multi-Regionalism or are they truly a separate species as some have

>  said or should they be Homo erectus in Eurasia 1.8 million years ago?

>

>>  >I think its becoming clearer and clearer every day that Homo first left

>> Africa

>  in the form of Homo habilis and evolved through the Homo erectus and,

>  eventually, the Homo sapiens stages in all regions that were inhabited by

> Homo.

>  So, yes, I would agree that the Dmanisi evidence strongly supports

>  Multi-regionalism. Marcel F. Williams

>

>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/eocene-diet.html

The Eocene Diet
65 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula,
creating a giant dust cloud that contributed to the extinction of terrestrial
dinosaurs.  In the resulting re-adjustment of global ecosystems, a new plant
tissue evolved, which paved the way for the eventual appearance of humans:
fruit.  Fruit represents a finely crafted symbiosis between plants and animals,
in which the plant provides a nourishing morsel, and the animal disperses the
plant's seeds inside a packet of rich fertilizer.

Fruit was such a powerful selective pressure that mammals quickly evolved to
exploit it more effectively, developing adaptations for life in the forest
canopy.  One result of this was the rapid emergence of primates, carrying
physical, digestive and metabolic adaptations for the acquisition and
consumption of fruit and leaves.  Primates also continued eating insects, a
vestige of our early mammalian heritage.

The Eocene epoch began 55.8 million years ago, just after the emergence of
primates.  For most of the time between the beginning of the Eocene and today,
our ancestors ate the archetypal primate diet of fruit, leaves and insects, just
as most primates do today.

In contrast, the Paleolithic era, marked by the development of stone tools and a
dietary shift toward meat and cooked starches, began only 2.6 million years ago.
The Paleolithic era represents only 5 percent of the time that shaped our
primate genome-- 95 percent of primate evolutionary history occurred prior to
the Paleolithic.  The Neolithic period, since humans domesticated plants roughly
10,000 years ago, accounts for only 0.02 percent.

Therefore, we are not well adapted to eating grains, legumes and dairy, and we
aren't well adapted to eating meat and starch either.  Our true, deepest
evolutionary adaptations are to the foods that sustained our primate ancestors
for the tens of millions of years prior to the Paleolithic.  That's why I
designed the Eocene Diet (TM).

The Eocene Diet is easy.  You simply eat these three foods:

     Raw fruit
     Raw leaves (no dressing!)
     Live insects

Once a week, you also get to eat a two ounce portion of raw meat or liver, to
mimic the occasional meat consumption of chimpanzees and other primates.
Here's a photo of a sample meal:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/eocene-diet.html

The Eocene Diet
65 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula,
creating a giant dust cloud that contributed to the extinction of terrestrial
dinosaurs.  In the resulting re-adjustment of global ecosystems, a new plant
tissue evolved, which paved the way for the eventual appearance of humans:
fruit.  Fruit represents a finely crafted symbiosis between plants and animals,
in which the plant provides a nourishing morsel, and the animal disperses the
plant's seeds inside a packet of rich fertilizer.

Fruit was such a powerful selective pressure that mammals quickly evolved to
exploit it more effectively, developing adaptations for life in the forest
canopy.  One result of this was the rapid emergence of primates, carrying
physical, digestive and metabolic adaptations for the acquisition and
consumption of fruit and leaves.  Primates also continued eating insects, a
vestige of our early mammalian heritage.

The Eocene epoch began 55.8 million years ago, just after the emergence of
primates.  For most of the time between the beginning of the Eocene and today,
our ancestors ate the archetypal primate diet of fruit, leaves and insects, just
as most primates do today.

In contrast, the Paleolithic era, marked by the development of stone tools and a
dietary shift toward meat and cooked starches, began only 2.6 million years ago.
The Paleolithic era represents only 5 percent of the time that shaped our
primate genome-- 95 percent of primate evolutionary history occurred prior to
the Paleolithic.  The Neolithic period, since humans domesticated plants roughly
10,000 years ago, accounts for only 0.02 percent.

Therefore, we are not well adapted to eating grains, legumes and dairy, and we
aren't well adapted to eating meat and starch either.  Our true, deepest
evolutionary adaptations are to the foods that sustained our primate ancestors
for the tens of millions of years prior to the Paleolithic.  That's why I
designed the Eocene Diet (TM).

The Eocene Diet is easy.  You simply eat these three foods:

     Raw fruit
     Raw leaves (no dressing!)
     Live insects

Once a week, you also get to eat a two ounce portion of raw meat or liver, to
mimic the occasional meat consumption of chimpanzees and other primates.
Here's a photo of a sample meal:

  (unable to post picture, follow the link)


Fruit and leaves are easy to find, but what about insects?  With a little
practice, you'll see that they're easy to find too, often for free.  Here are
some tips:

     Pet stores.  They usually sell crickets and mealworms.
     Look under rotting logs.
     Find a long, flexible stem and stick it into a termite mound.  Termites will
grab onto it and you can eat them off the stem.

How well does the Eocene Diet work?  Here's a photo of WHS reader Cristina B.
after only three weeks on the diet:

(Unable to post picture, follow the link)


She looks pleased.

The Eocene Diet is so effective for weight loss and general health that I've
come up with this slogan for it:

     "You WILL lose weight on the Eocene Diet (TM).  **Even if you don't want
to.**  I guarantee it!"

April Fools

:-D

Van:  "dennis.vanwagner" <dennis.vanwagner@...>
Beantwoorden - Aan:  "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Datum:  Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:55:42 -0000
Aan:  "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Onderwerp:  [AAT] The Eocene Diet






http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/eocene-diet.html

The Eocene Diet
65 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula,
creating a giant dust cloud that contributed to the extinction of
terrestrial dinosaurs.  In the resulting re-adjustment of global ecosystems,
a new plant tissue evolved, which paved the way for the eventual appearance
of humans: fruit.  Fruit represents a finely crafted symbiosis between
plants and animals, in which the plant provides a nourishing morsel, and the
animal disperses the plant's seeds inside a packet of rich fertilizer.

Fruit was such a powerful selective pressure that mammals quickly evolved to
exploit it more effectively, developing adaptations for life in the forest
canopy.  One result of this was the rapid emergence of primates, carrying
physical, digestive and metabolic adaptations for the acquisition and
consumption of fruit and leaves.  Primates also continued eating insects, a
vestige of our early mammalian heritage.

The Eocene epoch began 55.8 million years ago, just after the emergence of
primates.  For most of the time between the beginning of the Eocene and
today, our ancestors ate the archetypal primate diet of fruit, leaves and
insects, just as most primates do today.

In contrast, the Paleolithic era, marked by the development of stone tools
and a dietary shift toward meat and cooked starches, began only 2.6 million
years ago.  The Paleolithic era represents only 5 percent of the time that
shaped our primate genome-- 95 percent of primate evolutionary history
occurred prior to the Paleolithic.  The Neolithic period, since humans
domesticated plants roughly 10,000 years ago, accounts for only 0.02
percent.

Therefore, we are not well adapted to eating grains, legumes and dairy, and
we aren't well adapted to eating meat and starch either.  Our true, deepest
evolutionary adaptations are to the foods that sustained our primate
ancestors for the tens of millions of years prior to the Paleolithic.
That's why I designed the Eocene Diet (TM).

The Eocene Diet is easy.  You simply eat these three foods:

Raw fruit
  Raw leaves (no dressing!)
  Live insects

Once a week, you also get to eat a two ounce portion of raw meat or liver,
to mimic the occasional meat consumption of chimpanzees and other primates.
Here's a photo of a sample meal:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/eocene-diet.html

The Eocene Diet
65 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula,
creating a giant dust cloud that contributed to the extinction of
terrestrial dinosaurs.  In the resulting re-adjustment of global ecosystems,
a new plant tissue evolved, which paved the way for the eventual appearance
of humans: fruit.  Fruit represents a finely crafted symbiosis between
plants and animals, in which the plant provides a nourishing morsel, and the
animal disperses the plant's seeds inside a packet of rich fertilizer.

Fruit was such a powerful selective pressure that mammals quickly evolved to
exploit it more effectively, developing adaptations for life in the forest
canopy.  One result of this was the rapid emergence of primates, carrying
physical, digestive and metabolic adaptations for the acquisition and
consumption of fruit and leaves.  Primates also continued eating insects, a
vestige of our early mammalian heritage.

The Eocene epoch began 55.8 million years ago, just after the emergence of
primates.  For most of the time between the beginning of the Eocene and
today, our ancestors ate the archetypal primate diet of fruit, leaves and
insects, just as most primates do today.

In contrast, the Paleolithic era, marked by the development of stone tools
and a dietary shift toward meat and cooked starches, began only 2.6 million
years ago.  The Paleolithic era represents only 5 percent of the time that
shaped our primate genome-- 95 percent of primate evolutionary history
occurred prior to the Paleolithic.  The Neolithic period, since humans
domesticated plants roughly 10,000 years ago, accounts for only 0.02
percent.

Therefore, we are not well adapted to eating grains, legumes and dairy, and
we aren't well adapted to eating meat and starch either.  Our true, deepest
evolutionary adaptations are to the foods that sustained our primate
ancestors for the tens of millions of years prior to the Paleolithic.
That's why I designed the Eocene Diet (TM).

The Eocene Diet is easy.  You simply eat these three foods:

Raw fruit
  Raw leaves (no dressing!)
  Live insects

Once a week, you also get to eat a two ounce portion of raw meat or liver,
to mimic the occasional meat consumption of chimpanzees and other primates.
Here's a photo of a sample meal:

(unable to post picture, follow the link)

Fruit and leaves are easy to find, but what about insects?  With a little
practice, you'll see that they're easy to find too, often for free.  Here
are some tips:

Pet stores.  They usually sell crickets and mealworms.
  Look under rotting logs.
  Find a long, flexible stem and stick it into a termite mound.  Termites
will grab onto it and you can eat them off the stem.

How well does the Eocene Diet work?  Here's a photo of WHS reader Cristina
B. after only three weeks on the diet:

(Unable to post picture, follow the link)

She looks pleased.

The Eocene Diet is so effective for weight loss and general health that I've
come up with this slogan for it:

"You WILL lose weight on the Eocene Diet (TM).  **Even if you don't want
to.**  I guarantee it!"

April Fools









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/ice-age-ankle-biters.html

Van:  "dennis.vanwagner" <dennis.vanwagner@...>
Beantwoorden - Aan:  "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Datum:  Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:55:42 -0000
Aan:  "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Onderwerp:  [AAT] The Eocene Diet






http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/eocene-diet.html

The Eocene Diet
65 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula,
creating a giant dust cloud that contributed to the extinction of
terrestrial dinosaurs.  In the resulting re-adjustment of global ecosystems,
a new plant tissue evolved, which paved the way for the eventual appearance
of humans: fruit.  Fruit represents a finely crafted symbiosis between
plants and animals, in which the plant provides a nourishing morsel, and the
animal disperses the plant's seeds inside a packet of rich fertilizer.

Fruit was such a powerful selective pressure that mammals quickly evolved to
exploit it more effectively, developing adaptations for life in the forest
canopy.  One result of this was the rapid emergence of primates, carrying
physical, digestive and metabolic adaptations for the acquisition and
consumption of fruit and leaves.  Primates also continued eating insects, a
vestige of our early mammalian heritage.

The Eocene epoch began 55.8 million years ago, just after the emergence of
primates.  For most of the time between the beginning of the Eocene and
today, our ancestors ate the archetypal primate diet of fruit, leaves and
insects, just as most primates do today.

In contrast, the Paleolithic era, marked by the development of stone tools
and a dietary shift toward meat and cooked starches, began only 2.6 million
years ago.  The Paleolithic era represents only 5 percent of the time that
shaped our primate genome-- 95 percent of primate evolutionary history
occurred prior to the Paleolithic.  The Neolithic period, since humans
domesticated plants roughly 10,000 years ago, accounts for only 0.02
percent.

Therefore, we are not well adapted to eating grains, legumes and dairy, and
we aren't well adapted to eating meat and starch either.  Our true, deepest
evolutionary adaptations are to the foods that sustained our primate
ancestors for the tens of millions of years prior to the Paleolithic.
That's why I designed the Eocene Diet (TM).

The Eocene Diet is easy.  You simply eat these three foods:

Raw fruit
  Raw leaves (no dressing!)
  Live insects

Once a week, you also get to eat a two ounce portion of raw meat or liver,
to mimic the occasional meat consumption of chimpanzees and other primates.
Here's a photo of a sample meal:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/eocene-diet.html

The Eocene Diet
65 million years ago, a massive asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula,
creating a giant dust cloud that contributed to the extinction of
terrestrial dinosaurs.  In the resulting re-adjustment of global ecosystems,
a new plant tissue evolved, which paved the way for the eventual appearance
of humans: fruit.  Fruit represents a finely crafted symbiosis between
plants and animals, in which the plant provides a nourishing morsel, and the
animal disperses the plant's seeds inside a packet of rich fertilizer.

Fruit was such a powerful selective pressure that mammals quickly evolved to
exploit it more effectively, developing adaptations for life in the forest
canopy.  One result of this was the rapid emergence of primates, carrying
physical, digestive and metabolic adaptations for the acquisition and
consumption of fruit and leaves.  Primates also continued eating insects, a
vestige of our early mammalian heritage.

The Eocene epoch began 55.8 million years ago, just after the emergence of
primates.  For most of the time between the beginning of the Eocene and
today, our ancestors ate the archetypal primate diet of fruit, leaves and
insects, just as most primates do today.

In contrast, the Paleolithic era, marked by the development of stone tools
and a dietary shift toward meat and cooked starches, began only 2.6 million
years ago.  The Paleolithic era represents only 5 percent of the time that
shaped our primate genome-- 95 percent of primate evolutionary history
occurred prior to the Paleolithic.  The Neolithic period, since humans
domesticated plants roughly 10,000 years ago, accounts for only 0.02
percent.

Therefore, we are not well adapted to eating grains, legumes and dairy, and
we aren't well adapted to eating meat and starch either.  Our true, deepest
evolutionary adaptations are to the foods that sustained our primate
ancestors for the tens of millions of years prior to the Paleolithic.
That's why I designed the Eocene Diet (TM).

The Eocene Diet is easy.  You simply eat these three foods:

Raw fruit
  Raw leaves (no dressing!)
  Live insects

Once a week, you also get to eat a two ounce portion of raw meat or liver,
to mimic the occasional meat consumption of chimpanzees and other primates.
Here's a photo of a sample meal:

(unable to post picture, follow the link)

Fruit and leaves are easy to find, but what about insects?  With a little
practice, you'll see that they're easy to find too, often for free.  Here
are some tips:

Pet stores.  They usually sell crickets and mealworms.
  Look under rotting logs.
  Find a long, flexible stem and stick it into a termite mound.  Termites
will grab onto it and you can eat them off the stem.

How well does the Eocene Diet work?  Here's a photo of WHS reader Cristina
B. after only three weeks on the diet:

(Unable to post picture, follow the link)

She looks pleased.

The Eocene Diet is so effective for weight loss and general health that I've
come up with this slogan for it:

"You WILL lose weight on the Eocene Diet (TM).  **Even if you don't want
to.**  I guarantee it!"

April Fools









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-03/video-swirling-visualizatio
n-oceans-currents

Thanks, DD! --marc




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well mar said he couldn't resist what he posted about why we lost our fur et
al..

So.. Have any of you ever considered that all is unfolding according to a master
plan.. the physical constants..speed of light..gravity.. relativity.. quantum
mechanics et al.. seem to be more so on the side of a plan tha something of
chance
N'est-ce pas..? No religious connotations inferred.. why even mr einstein said
'god doesn't play dice with the universe' & I don't think he was referring to
the biblical god but to the creative force we can call "Nature".. why about
Pythagoras' aligrothim.. he didn't invent it it was there as is some much is
just waiting to be discovered.. or do you believe  “the square of the
diagonal of a rectangular box is equal to the sum of
the squares of three adjacent edges that meet at a vertex: r2 = x2 + y2 + z2.�
  just evolved? Or is there some other reason for this and so much being "just
right".. coincidence?  If you don't believe so much that is just right..like
the conditions of this particular planet to harbor life simply evolved then it
would seem, at least to me, some type of guiding hand was (is) at work.. Now
some skirt this by saying well whatr is the guiding hand? We don't need to know
that to deduce there appears to be one. And what of "cognition" and
consciousness itself that intangible "thing" we can't quite put out finger on?
is it simply the product of evolution.. Was the miracle of "Life" itself simply
a thing of evolution from primitive prokaroytes?
but where did they come from? Evolution is of course but a process..where did
the process come from and further where did the origninal material it required
to "evolve" come from?

And last but not least what of the fine (precise) tuning of the physical laws &
constantsthat make possible a life supporting universe? To view all these
extrememly complex, elegant and intelligible laws as simply "chance" and in no
need of further explanation is an abdication of human intelligence if ever there
was one in my humble opinion...But what do I know? I'm not a pseudo
intellectual! I'm just a 22 year old post graduate girl in Amsterdam.      
                chao/Silk

--- On Mon, 3/26/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:

From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>
Subject: [AAT] FW: Riddles of our past
To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2012, 1:41 PM








 









       Some people will never get it...



Riddles of our past

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

We are the ape that stood on two feet, lost its fur and crossed the globe

­ but why?

New Scientist explores the 10 biggest puzzles of human evolution.

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html





Why aren't we more like chimps?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Nobody would mistake a human for a chimpanzee, yet we share more DNA than

mice and rats.

Advances in genomics are starting to unravel the mystery.





WALKING TALL

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.300-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-become-bipedal.html

Why did we become bipedal?

Darwin thought we stood up to handle tools, but new theories suggest it

had more to do with staying cool and running far.





TOOLS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.400-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-was-technological-development-so-slow.html

Why was technological development so slow?

Early humans used stone flakes as tools, but it took them at least a

million years to improve the design.

Blame their poor social skills.



COMMUNICATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.500-puzzles-of-evolution-whe

n-did-language-evolve.html

When did language evolve?

Some say the first words were sung around a camp fire, others believe they

were shouted by hunters ­ they may even have been in sign language.



INTELLIGENCE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.600-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-are-our-brains-so-big.html

Why are our brains so big?

A change in our skulls 2 million years ago created the right conditions

for bigger brains ­ cooked meat and social pressure may have done the rest.



NAKED APE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.700-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-lose-our-fur.html

Why did we lose our fur?

You might think that only smart apes could go naked, but pubic lice tell a

different story.



OUT OF AFRICA

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.800-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-go-global.html

Why did we go global?

An overcrowded Africa, a blossoming of innovation and a gene for adventure

may all have played a part in the epic migration that began 65,000 years

ago.



SPECIATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.900-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-some-of-us-hybrids.html

Are some of us hybrids?

DNA evidence suggests Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthals and Denisovans

­ but not everyone is convinced we were bedfellows.



LOST RELATIVES

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-other-hominins-alive-today.html

  <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-a

re-other-hominins-alive-today.html>Are other hominins alive today?

Legends of human-like creatures, such as Bigfoot and the Yeti, have

entranced us for centuries.

Perhaps small groups of our cousins survive in remote regions.





KILLING COUSINS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-did

-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html

  <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-d

id-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html>Did we kill off Neanderthals?

Humans are in the frame for wiping out the Neanderthals, but it's not an

open-and-shut case.






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of
Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa
Francesco Berna cs 2012 PNAS 109

... Here we show that micro-morphological & Fourier transform infra-red
micro-spectroscopy (mFTIR) analyses of intact sediments at Wonderwerk
provide unambiguous evidence (burned bone & ashed plant remains) that
burning took place in the cave during the early Acheulean occupation c 1.0
Ma.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the earliest secure evidence for
burning in an archaeological context.

Vertebrate time-tree elucidates the biogeographic pattern of a major
biotic change around the K­T boundary in Madagascar
Angelica Crottini cs 2012 PNAS 109:5358-63

The geographic & temporal origins of Madagascar's biota have long been in
the center of debate.
We reconstructed a time-tree, including nearly all native non-flying &
non-marine vertebrate clades present on the island, from DNA sequences of
2 single-copy protein-coding nuclear genes (BDNF & RAG1) & a set of
congruent time constraints.
Reconstructions calculated with auto-correlated or independent
substitution rates over clades agreed in placing the origins of the 31
included clades in Cretaceous to Cenozoic times.
The 2 clades with sister groups in S.America were the oldest, followed by
those of a putative Asian ancestry that were significantly older than the
prevalent clades of African ancestry.
No colonizations from Asia occurred after the Eocene, suggesting that
dispersal & vicariance of Asian/Indian groups were favored over a
compar.short period during & shortly after the separation of India &
Madagascar.
Spp richness of clades correlates with their age, but those clades that
have a large proportion of spp diversity in rain-forests are significantly
more spp-rich.
This finding suggests an underlying pattern of continuous speciation
through time in Madagascar's vertebrates, with accelerated episodes of
adaptive diversification in those clades that succeeded radiating into the
rain-forests.

Spatial and temporal arrival patterns of Madagascar's vertebrate fauna
explained by distance, ocean currents, and ancestor type
Karen E Samonds cs 2012 PNAS 109:5352-7

How, when & from where did Madagascar's vertebrates arrive?
We analyze vertebrate arrival patterns implied by currently existing taxa.
For each of 81 clades, we compiled arrival date, source & ancestor type
(obligate freshwater, terrestrial, facultative swimmer, or volant).
We analyzed changes in arrival rates, with & without adjusting for clade
extinction.
Probability of successful trans-oceanic dispersal is negatively correlated
with distance traveled, and influenced by ocean currents & ancestor type.
Obligate rafters show a decrease in probability of successful
trans-oceanic dispersal from the Paleocene onward, reaching the lowest
levels after the mid-Miocene.
This finding is consistent with a pale-oceanographic model (Ali JR & Huber
M 2010 Nature 463:653-6) that predicts Early Cenozoic surface currents
periodically conducive to rafting or swimming from Africa, followed by a
reconfiguration to present-day flow 15­20 Ma that significantly diminished
the ability for trans-oceanic dispersal to Madagascar from the adjacent
mainland.

________



Vertebrate time-tree elucidates the biogeographic pattern of a major
biotic change around the K­T boundary in Madagascar
Angelica Crottini cs 2012 PNAS 109:5358-63

The geographic & temporal origins of Madagascar's biota have long been in
the center of debate.
We reconstructed a time-tree, including nearly all native non-flying &
non-marine vertebrate clades present on the island, from DNA sequences of
2 single-copy protein-coding nuclear genes (BDNF & RAG1) & a set of
congruent time constraints.
Reconstructions calculated with auto-correlated or independent
substitution rates over clades agreed in placing the origins of the 31
included clades in Cretaceous to Cenozoic times.
The 2 clades with sister groups in S.America were the oldest, followed by
those of a putative Asian ancestry that were significantly older than the
prevalent clades of African ancestry.
No colonizations from Asia occurred after the Eocene, suggesting that
dispersal & vicariance of Asian/Indian groups were favored over a
compar.short period during & shortly after the separation of India
&Madagascar.
Spp richness of clades correlates with their age, but those clades that
have a large proportion of spp diversity in rain-forests are significantly
more spp-rich.
This finding suggests an underlying pattern of continuous
speciationthrough time in Madagascar's vertebrates, with accelerated
episodes ofadaptive diversification in those clades that succeeded
radiating into therain-forests.

Well marc said he couldn't resist what he posted about why we lost our fur
et al..
So.. Have any of you ever considered that all is unfolding according to a
master plan.. the physical constants..speed of light..gravity..
relativity.. quantum mechanics et al.. seem to be more so on the side of a
plan tha something of chance
N'est-ce pas..? No religious connotations inferred.. why even mr einstein
said 'god doesn't play dice with the universe' & I don't think he was
referring to the biblical god but to the creative force we can call
"Nature".. why about Pythagoras' aligrothim.. he didn't invent it it was
there as is some much is just waiting to be discovered.. or do you believe
  ¡°the square of the diagonal of a rectangular box is equal to the sum of
the squares of three adjacent edges that meet at a vertex: r2 = x2 + y2 +
z2.¡±
   just evolved? Or is there some other reason for this and so much being
"just right".. coincidence?  If you don't believe so much that is just
right..like the conditions of this particular planet to harbor life simply
evolved then it would seem, at least to me, some type of guiding hand was
(is) at work.. Now some skirt this by saying well what is the guiding
hand? We don't need to know that to deduce there appears to be one. And
what of "cognition" and consciousness itself that intangible "thing" we
can't quite put out finger on? is it simply the product of evolution.. Was
the miracle of "Life" itself simply a thing of evolution from primitive
prokaroytes?
but where did they come from? Evolution is of course but a process..where
did the process come from and further where did the origninal material it
required to "evolve" come from?

No need for "creative forces", Silk.
Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book ¡© I'm reading
the Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.

--marc


And last but not least what of the fine (precise) tuning of the physical
laws & constantsthat make possible a life supporting universe? To view all
these extrememly complex, elegant and intelligible laws as simply "chance"
and in no need of further explanation is an abdication of human
intelligence if ever there was one in my humble opinion...But what do I
know? I'm not a pseudo intellectual! I'm just a 22 year old post graduate
girl in Amsterdam.  chao/Silk




--- On Mon, 3/26/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>> wrote:

From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>>
Subject: [AAT] FW: Riddles of our past
To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>"
<AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2012, 1:41 PM



Some people will never get it...

Riddles of our past

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

We are the ape that stood on two feet, lost its fur and crossed the globe

¡© but why?

New Scientist explores the 10 biggest puzzles of human evolution.

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Why aren't we more like chimps?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Nobody would mistake a human for a chimpanzee, yet we share more DNA than

mice and rats.

Advances in genomics are starting to unravel the mystery.

WALKING TALL

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.300-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-become-bipedal.html

Why did we become bipedal?

Darwin thought we stood up to handle tools, but new theories suggest it

had more to do with staying cool and running far.

TOOLS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.400-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-was-technological-development-so-slow.html

Why was technological development so slow?

Early humans used stone flakes as tools, but it took them at least a

million years to improve the design.

Blame their poor social skills.

COMMUNICATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.500-puzzles-of-evolution-whe

n-did-language-evolve.html

When did language evolve?

Some say the first words were sung around a camp fire, others believe they

were shouted by hunters ¡© they may even have been in sign language.

INTELLIGENCE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.600-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-are-our-brains-so-big.html

Why are our brains so big?

A change in our skulls 2 million years ago created the right conditions

for bigger brains ¡© cooked meat and social pressure may have done the rest.

NAKED APE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.700-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-lose-our-fur.html

Why did we lose our fur?

You might think that only smart apes could go naked, but pubic lice tell a

different story.

OUT OF AFRICA

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.800-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-go-global.html

Why did we go global?

An overcrowded Africa, a blossoming of innovation and a gene for adventure

may all have played a part in the epic migration that began 65,000 years

ago.

SPECIATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.900-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-some-of-us-hybrids.html

Are some of us hybrids?

DNA evidence suggests Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthals and Denisovans

¡© but not everyone is convinced we were bedfellows.

LOST RELATIVES

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-other-hominins-alive-today.html

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-a

re-other-hominins-alive-today.html>Are other hominins alive today?

Legends of human-like creatures, such as Bigfoot and the Yeti, have

entranced us for centuries.

Perhaps small groups of our cousins survive in remote regions.

KILLING COUSINS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-did

-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-d

id-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html>Did we kill off Neanderthals?

Humans are in the frame for wiping out the Neanderthals, but it's not an

open-and-shut case.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I recently needed to give a neutral description of AAT to someone and found no
help online. All was pro or con. I had hoped to find something suitable to an
introductory course suggesting a lot of possibilities without expressing my own
bias too strongly without success.
I also wanted to sketch in a hint of the culture of the time. Strange to think,
many people alive today hadn't been born yet. Some background, I thought, might
help clarify the early response to the theory. This is as much a theory about
history as it is about science.
The best introductory courses can inspire students to link ideas in unexpected
ways. Enriching us all. Some members of this group know the challenges and
rewards of teaching. Each of us has a teacher/mentor to thank for some decision
that has guided our choices.
This is what I sent:
There is a lot of information to be found on the internet. Both pro and con.
Over the years both sides of the debate have had to change their positions as
new discoveries in many sciences add to our understanding. So the aquatic theory
is a work in progress.
The aquatic theory can be said to have gotten its start in the 60s with the
publication of "The Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan. In it she proposed an
aquatic origin for many of our physical differences from apes. She also
suggested that our behavior might be influenced by this.
It is in this sense a part of the cultural revolution that rocked that decade.
Being part political statement and part scientific investigation; the book
caused quite a buzz at the time. Its influence continues.
Coincidentally, 2012 marks the fortieth anniversary of the books' publication.
Today, the supporters of aquatic theory are beginning to divide into two groups.
One believes that a freshwater, bank-side wading lifestyle can account for all
our physical changes. The other (smaller) group supports a seawater, shore-side
and off shore swimming lifestyle was required and better accounts for behavior
changes.
Well, thats a short history without a lot of verbal acrobatics.
I am obviously a supporter of the theory but I also believe that the seawater
etc. lifestyle was necessary.
One example is the breath control required for swimming and diving. An ability
that has also been highly developed by some Eastern yogis. Not a likely ability
to have become so well developed in wadding beings.
end
I thought this might be of interest to others in the group.
Terry

Marc.."No need for "creative forces", Silk.

Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book ­ I'm reading the
Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.

Hi ya Marc.. so many books.. hard to get to them all..
and of course just because it is the printed word does not
authenticate it as you may know. Fact.. you show me one author
with an opinion and i'll show you 5 with contrary opinions just as persuasive
but i do enjoy the over all scenario of conjectures for from it an opbjective
person can glean sum truth.. thanx for the info.. Actually an american
acquaintance of mine here at school just loaned me... "the Naked Ape..

The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal (Hardback: ISBN
0070431744; Reprint: ISBN 0-385-33430-3) is a 1967 book by zoologist and
anthropologist Desmond Morris which looks at humans as a species and compares
them to other animals.


tot ziens... Silk


--- On Wed, 4/4/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:

From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Riddles of our past
To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com" <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 4:29 PM








 









       Well marc said he couldn't resist what he posted about why we lost our fur

et al..

So.. Have any of you ever considered that all is unfolding according to a

master plan.. the physical constants..speed of light..gravity..

relativity.. quantum mechanics et al.. seem to be more so on the side of a

plan tha something of chance

N'est-ce pas..? No religious connotations inferred.. why even mr einstein

said 'god doesn't play dice with the universe' & I don't think he was

referring to the biblical god but to the creative force we can call

"Nature".. why about Pythagoras' aligrothim.. he didn't invent it it was

there as is some much is just waiting to be discovered.. or do you believe

  “the square of the diagonal of a rectangular box is equal to the sum of

the squares of three adjacent edges that meet at a vertex: r2 = x2 + y2 +

z2.�

   just evolved? Or is there some other reason for this and so much being

"just right".. coincidence?  If you don't believe so much that is just

right..like the conditions of this particular planet to harbor life simply

evolved then it would seem, at least to me, some type of guiding hand was

(is) at work.. Now some skirt this by saying well what is the guiding

hand? We don't need to know that to deduce there appears to be one. And

what of "cognition" and consciousness itself that intangible "thing" we

can't quite put out finger on? is it simply the product of evolution.. Was

the miracle of "Life" itself simply a thing of evolution from primitive

prokaroytes?

but where did they come from? Evolution is of course but a process..where

did the process come from and further where did the origninal material it

required to "evolve" come from?



No need for "creative forces", Silk.

Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book ­ I'm reading

the Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.



--marc



And last but not least what of the fine (precise) tuning of the physical

laws & constantsthat make possible a life supporting universe? To view all

these extrememly complex, elegant and intelligible laws as simply "chance"

and in no need of further explanation is an abdication of human

intelligence if ever there was one in my humble opinion...But what do I

know? I'm not a pseudo intellectual! I'm just a 22 year old post graduate

girl in Amsterdam.  chao/Silk



--- On Mon, 3/26/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...

<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>> wrote:



From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...

<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>>

Subject: [AAT] FW: Riddles of our past

To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>"

<AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>>

Date: Monday, March 26, 2012, 1:41 PM



Some people will never get it...



Riddles of our past



http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4



We are the ape that stood on two feet, lost its fur and crossed the globe



­ but why?



New Scientist explores the 10 biggest puzzles of human evolution.



http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html



Why aren't we more like chimps?



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html



Nobody would mistake a human for a chimpanzee, yet we share more DNA than



mice and rats.



Advances in genomics are starting to unravel the mystery.



WALKING TALL



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.300-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-did-we-become-bipedal.html



Why did we become bipedal?



Darwin thought we stood up to handle tools, but new theories suggest it



had more to do with staying cool and running far.



TOOLS



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.400-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-was-technological-development-so-slow.html



Why was technological development so slow?



Early humans used stone flakes as tools, but it took them at least a



million years to improve the design.



Blame their poor social skills.



COMMUNICATION



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.500-puzzles-of-evolution-whe



n-did-language-evolve.html



When did language evolve?



Some say the first words were sung around a camp fire, others believe they



were shouted by hunters ­ they may even have been in sign language.



INTELLIGENCE



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.600-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-are-our-brains-so-big.html



Why are our brains so big?



A change in our skulls 2 million years ago created the right conditions



for bigger brains ­ cooked meat and social pressure may have done the rest.



NAKED APE



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.700-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-did-we-lose-our-fur.html



Why did we lose our fur?



You might think that only smart apes could go naked, but pubic lice tell a



different story.



OUT OF AFRICA



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.800-puzzles-of-evolution-why



-did-we-go-global.html



Why did we go global?



An overcrowded Africa, a blossoming of innovation and a gene for adventure



may all have played a part in the epic migration that began 65,000 years



ago.



SPECIATION



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.900-puzzles-of-evolution-are



-some-of-us-hybrids.html



Are some of us hybrids?



DNA evidence suggests Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthals and Denisovans



­ but not everyone is convinced we were bedfellows.



LOST RELATIVES



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-are



-other-hominins-alive-today.html



<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-a



re-other-hominins-alive-today.html>Are other hominins alive today?



Legends of human-like creatures, such as Bigfoot and the Yeti, have



entranced us for centuries.



Perhaps small groups of our cousins survive in remote regions.



KILLING COUSINS



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-did



-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html



<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-d



id-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html>Did we kill off Neanderthals?



Humans are in the frame for wiping out the Neanderthals, but it's not an



open-and-shut case.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, thanks, Terry, of course, the seaside was necessary (although that
doesn't exclude a freshwater phase earlier or later).
AFAIK all anti-AATers (& many AATers!) still have outdated & wrong ideas
of AAT.
Our littoral phase was when Pleistocene Homo fossils or tools are found
amid shellfish in Mojokerto (1.8 Ma, adult estimated brain already c 850
cc = DHA?) & Flores (>19 km oversea, >1/2 My before boats are known),
England (Boxgrove, Pakefield) & the Cape (Tafelberg), etc., ie, at coasts
all over the Old World (triangle England-Cape-Flores).
Of course these people dived a lot: all pachyostotic mammals with heavy
skulls (erectus = 3 x gorilla) are slow & shallow divers for bottom foods
­ Homo erectus & thick-boned relatives were no exceptions.
Freshwater wading came later IMO, when our ancestors went inland along
rivers, at first seasonally, later also more permanently.
That we recently evolved from littoral to freshwater-side is perhaps also
seen in our ontogeny:
- Human newborns have renculated kidneys (seals, sea otter, Cetacea...),
but later in life our kidneys become smooth but multipyramidal (beaver,
pig...).
- Human sweat is very salt (as in children with mucoviscidosis? sometimes
mothers "taste" the diagnosis!), but most of the salt gets afterwards
re-absorbed in the duct.

The only problem with "Pleistocene littoral Homo" is that many PAs today
are in the ridiculous belief erectus cs were "endurance runners".
There's 0 evidence for this nonsense: pakicetids (earliest "whales") had
pachyosteosclerosis as in erectus skeletons:
SI Madar 2007 "The postcranial skeleton of early Eocene pakicetid
cetaceans" J.Paleont.81:176: replace X by pakicetids or erectus:
"The increased density of the X skeleton would have left them wholly
unsuited to running, or even prolonged terrestriality, as heavy skeletons
are energetically expensive to move ... the hyper-mineralization of X
load-bearing elements put them at increased risk for fracture during
terrestrial loading, a risk that rises with velocity ... although they
look superficially similar to their cursorial relatives, X likely made few
sustained terrestrial forays.  The summed evidence of bone gross
morphology and micro-structure indicates that X were fully committed to an
aquatic lifestyle, and bore marked adaptations for bottom-walking,
paddling and undulatory swimming modes."

It's not because some people in a few inland populations in E.Africa or
Australia sometimes - with water bags & weapons - run after kudus, that
our ancestors 2 Ma must have done that.
Of course, some Pleistocene relatives or ancestors had herbivores in their
diet, but this was always in or near the water, possibly they ambushed
ungulates in mud or shallow water, or simply butchered drowned carcasses
(up to 1/10 of ungulates die when crossing rivers during the trek), just
like erectus (Dungo V Angola c 1 Ma) & neandertals (Gibraltar) butchered
whales & seals at the beach.

BTW, the femoral dorso-ventral flattening (platymeria) we see in erectus &
neandertals is typical of seals etc.
IMO it suggests erectus indeed swam underwater in an undulatory way (as
seen in the legs of olympic swimmers when they turn underwater, but
erectus with the arms next to the body, not extended above the head?).



--marc


I recently needed to give a neutral description of AAT to someone and
found no help online. All was pro or con. I had hoped to find something
suitable to an introductory course suggesting a lot of possibilities
without expressing my own bias too strongly without success.
I also wanted to sketch in a hint of the culture of the time. Strange to
think, many people alive today hadn't been born yet. Some background, I
thought, might help clarify the early response to the theory. This is as
much a theory about history as it is about science.
The best introductory courses can inspire students to link ideas in
unexpected ways. Enriching us all. Some members of this group know the
challenges and rewards of teaching. Each of us has a teacher/mentor to
thank for some decision that has guided our choices.
This is what I sent:
There is a lot of information to be found on the internet. Both pro and
con. Over the years both sides of the debate have had to change their
positions as new discoveries in many sciences add to our understanding. So
the aquatic theory is a work in progress.
The aquatic theory can be said to have gotten its start in the 60s with
the publication of "The Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan. In it she
proposed an aquatic origin for many of our physical differences from apes.
She also suggested that our behavior might be influenced by this.
It is in this sense a part of the cultural revolution that rocked that
decade. Being part political statement and part scientific investigation;
the book caused quite a buzz at the time. Its influence continues.
Coincidentally, 2012 marks the fortieth anniversary of the books'
publication.
Today, the supporters of aquatic theory are beginning to divide into two
groups. One believes that a freshwater, bank-side wading lifestyle can
account for all our physical changes. The other (smaller) group supports a
seawater, shore-side and off shore swimming lifestyle was required and
better accounts for behavior changes.
Well, thats a short history without a lot of verbal acrobatics.
I am obviously a supporter of the theory but I also believe that the
seawater etc. lifestyle was necessary.
One example is the breath control required for swimming and diving. An
ability that has also been highly developed by some Eastern yogis. Not a
likely ability to have become so well developed in wadding beings.
end
I thought this might be of interest to others in the group.
Terry

Marc.."No need for "creative forces", Silk.
Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book ¡© I'm reading
the Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.

Hi ya Marc.. so many books.. hard to get to them all..





and of course just because it is the printed word does not
authenticate it as you may know. Fact.. you show me one author
with an opinion and i'll show you 5 with contrary opinions just as
persuasive but i do enjoy the over all scenario of conjectures for from it
an opbjective person can glean sum truth.. thanx for the info.. Actually an
american acquaintance of mine here at school just loaned me... "the Naked
Ape..

The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal (Hardback: ISBN
0070431744; Reprint: ISBN 0-385-33430-3) is a 1967 book by zoologist and
anthropologist Desmond Morris which looks at humans as a species and
compares them to other animals.

tot ziens... Silk

--- On Wed, 4/4/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be> > wrote:

From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@... <mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>
>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Riddles of our past
To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com> "
<AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 4:29 PM



Well marc said he couldn't resist what he posted about why we lost our fur

et al..

So.. Have any of you ever considered that all is unfolding according to a

master plan.. the physical constants..speed of light..gravity..

relativity.. quantum mechanics et al.. seem to be more so on the side of a

plan tha something of chance

N'est-ce pas..? No religious connotations inferred.. why even mr einstein

said 'god doesn't play dice with the universe' & I don't think he was

referring to the biblical god but to the creative force we can call

"Nature".. why about Pythagoras' aligrothim.. he didn't invent it it was

there as is some much is just waiting to be discovered.. or do you believe

¡°the square of the diagonal of a rectangular box is equal to the sum of

the squares of three adjacent edges that meet at a vertex: r2 = x2 + y2 +

z2.¡±

just evolved? Or is there some other reason for this and so much being

"just right".. coincidence?  If you don't believe so much that is just

right..like the conditions of this particular planet to harbor life simply

evolved then it would seem, at least to me, some type of guiding hand was

(is) at work.. Now some skirt this by saying well what is the guiding

hand? We don't need to know that to deduce there appears to be one. And

what of "cognition" and consciousness itself that intangible "thing" we

can't quite put out finger on? is it simply the product of evolution.. Was

the miracle of "Life" itself simply a thing of evolution from primitive

prokaroytes?

but where did they come from? Evolution is of course but a process..where

did the process come from and further where did the origninal material it

required to "evolve" come from?

No need for "creative forces", Silk.

Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book ¡© I'm reading

the Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.

--marc

And last but not least what of the fine (precise) tuning of the physical

laws & constantsthat make possible a life supporting universe? To view all

these extrememly complex, elegant and intelligible laws as simply "chance"

and in no need of further explanation is an abdication of human

intelligence if ever there was one in my humble opinion...But what do I

know? I'm not a pseudo intellectual! I'm just a 22 year old post graduate

girl in Amsterdam.  chao/Silk

--- On Mon, 3/26/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>

<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>> wrote:

From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@... <mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>

<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>>

Subject: [AAT] FW: Riddles of our past

To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>"

<AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>>

Date: Monday, March 26, 2012, 1:41 PM

Some people will never get it...

Riddles of our past

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

We are the ape that stood on two feet, lost its fur and crossed the globe

¡© but why?

New Scientist explores the 10 biggest puzzles of human evolution.

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Why aren't we more like chimps?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Nobody would mistake a human for a chimpanzee, yet we share more DNA than

mice and rats.

Advances in genomics are starting to unravel the mystery.

WALKING TALL

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.300-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-become-bipedal.html

Why did we become bipedal?

Darwin thought we stood up to handle tools, but new theories suggest it

had more to do with staying cool and running far.

TOOLS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.400-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-was-technological-development-so-slow.html

Why was technological development so slow?

Early humans used stone flakes as tools, but it took them at least a

million years to improve the design.

Blame their poor social skills.

COMMUNICATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.500-puzzles-of-evolution-whe

n-did-language-evolve.html

When did language evolve?

Some say the first words were sung around a camp fire, others believe they

were shouted by hunters ¡© they may even have been in sign language.

INTELLIGENCE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.600-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-are-our-brains-so-big.html

Why are our brains so big?

A change in our skulls 2 million years ago created the right conditions

for bigger brains ¡© cooked meat and social pressure may have done the rest.

NAKED APE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.700-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-lose-our-fur.html

Why did we lose our fur?

You might think that only smart apes could go naked, but pubic lice tell a

different story.

OUT OF AFRICA

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.800-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-go-global.html

Why did we go global?

An overcrowded Africa, a blossoming of innovation and a gene for adventure

may all have played a part in the epic migration that began 65,000 years

ago.

SPECIATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.900-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-some-of-us-hybrids.html

Are some of us hybrids?

DNA evidence suggests Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthals and Denisovans

¡© but not everyone is convinced we were bedfellows.

LOST RELATIVES

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-other-hominins-alive-today.html

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-a

re-other-hominins-alive-today.html>Are other hominins alive today?

Legends of human-like creatures, such as Bigfoot and the Yeti, have

entranced us for centuries.

Perhaps small groups of our cousins survive in remote regions.

KILLING COUSINS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-did

-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-d

id-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html>Did we kill off Neanderthals?

Humans are in the frame for wiping out the Neanderthals, but it's not an

open-and-shut case.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"No need for "creative forces", Silk.
Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book - I'm reading
the Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.

Hi ya Marc.. so many books.. hard to get to them all..

It was an answer to your question:
"Was the miracle of "Life" itself simply a thing of evolution from
primitive prokaryotes? but where did they come from? Evolution is of
course but a process..where did the process come from and further where
did the origninal material it required to "evolve" come from?"
Marvellous book! It answered several questions that had intrigued me (not
about AAT).

and of course just because it is the printed word does not authenticate it
as you may know. Fact.. you show me one author with an opinion and i'll
show you 5 with contrary opinions just as persuasive but i do enjoy the
over all scenario of conjectures for from it an opbjective person can
glean sum truth.. thanx for the info.. Actually an american acquaintance
of mine here at school just loaned me... "the Naked Ape.. The Naked Ape: A
Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal (Hardback: ISBN 0070431744; Reprint:
ISBN 0-385-33430-3) is a 1967 book by zoologist and anthropologist Desmond
Morris which looks at humans as a species and compares them to other
animals.  tot ziens... Silk

2 pages in Morris's "The Naked Ape" was where Elaine heard of AAT, no?
Morris had studied at Oxford with Hardy. Morris thought (as some AATers
still do?) that there was an early waterside phase before the hypothetical
savanna phase (there was never a savanna phase, of course, apart from a
few finds next to rivers there).  "The Naked Ape" was an incredible
bestseller in IIRC 1967 (ethology books, esp.Konrad Lorenz, were very
fashionable then). Still very readable.
What are you graduated in, Silk?

--marc

______




Well marc said he couldn't resist what he posted about why we lost our fur

et al..

So.. Have any of you ever considered that all is unfolding according to a

master plan.. the physical constants..speed of light..gravity..

relativity.. quantum mechanics et al.. seem to be more so on the side of a

plan tha something of chance

N'est-ce pas..? No religious connotations inferred.. why even mr einstein

said 'god doesn't play dice with the universe' & I don't think he was

referring to the biblical god but to the creative force we can call

"Nature".. why about Pythagoras' aligrothim.. he didn't invent it it was

there as is some much is just waiting to be discovered.. or do you believe

¡°the square of the diagonal of a rectangular box is equal to the sum of

the squares of three adjacent edges that meet at a vertex: r2 = x2 + y2 +

z2.¡±

just evolved? Or is there some other reason for this and so much being

"just right".. coincidence?  If you don't believe so much that is just

right..like the conditions of this particular planet to harbor life simply

evolved then it would seem, at least to me, some type of guiding hand was

(is) at work.. Now some skirt this by saying well what is the guiding

hand? We don't need to know that to deduce there appears to be one. And

what of "cognition" and consciousness itself that intangible "thing" we

can't quite put out finger on? is it simply the product of evolution.. Was

the miracle of "Life" itself simply a thing of evolution from primitive

prokaroytes?

but where did they come from? Evolution is of course but a process..where

did the process come from and further where did the origninal material it

required to "evolve" come from?

No need for "creative forces", Silk.

Please read Nick Lane 2009 "Life ascending" - splendid book ¡© I'm reading

the Dutch translation 2011 "Levenswerk" Veen.

--marc

And last but not least what of the fine (precise) tuning of the physical

laws & constantsthat make possible a life supporting universe? To view all

these extrememly complex, elegant and intelligible laws as simply "chance"

and in no need of further explanation is an abdication of human

intelligence if ever there was one in my humble opinion...But what do I

know? I'm not a pseudo intellectual! I'm just a 22 year old post graduate

girl in Amsterdam.  chao/Silk

--- On Mon, 3/26/12, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>

<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>> wrote:

From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...
<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>

<mailto:m_verhaegen%40skynet.be>>

Subject: [AAT] FW: Riddles of our past

To: "AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>"

<AAT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:AAT%40yahoogroups.com>>

Date: Monday, March 26, 2012, 1:41 PM

Some people will never get it...

Riddles of our past

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

We are the ape that stood on two feet, lost its fur and crossed the globe

¡© but why?

New Scientist explores the 10 biggest puzzles of human evolution.

http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/nCjlx0dkQEu0BYvD0fbpB0E4

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Why aren't we more like chimps?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.200-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-arent-we-more-like-chimps.html

Nobody would mistake a human for a chimpanzee, yet we share more DNA than

mice and rats.

Advances in genomics are starting to unravel the mystery.

WALKING TALL

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.300-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-become-bipedal.html

Why did we become bipedal?

Darwin thought we stood up to handle tools, but new theories suggest it

had more to do with staying cool and running far.

TOOLS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.400-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-was-technological-development-so-slow.html

Why was technological development so slow?

Early humans used stone flakes as tools, but it took them at least a

million years to improve the design.

Blame their poor social skills.

COMMUNICATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.500-puzzles-of-evolution-whe

n-did-language-evolve.html

When did language evolve?

Some say the first words were sung around a camp fire, others believe they

were shouted by hunters ¡© they may even have been in sign language.

INTELLIGENCE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.600-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-are-our-brains-so-big.html

Why are our brains so big?

A change in our skulls 2 million years ago created the right conditions

for bigger brains ¡© cooked meat and social pressure may have done the rest.

NAKED APE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.700-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-lose-our-fur.html

Why did we lose our fur?

You might think that only smart apes could go naked, but pubic lice tell a

different story.

OUT OF AFRICA

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.800-puzzles-of-evolution-why

-did-we-go-global.html

Why did we go global?

An overcrowded Africa, a blossoming of innovation and a gene for adventure

may all have played a part in the epic migration that began 65,000 years

ago.

SPECIATION

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328571.900-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-some-of-us-hybrids.html

Are some of us hybrids?

DNA evidence suggests Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthals and Denisovans

¡© but not everyone is convinced we were bedfellows.

LOST RELATIVES

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-are

-other-hominins-alive-today.html

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.100-puzzles-of-evolution-a

re-other-hominins-alive-today.html>Are other hominins alive today?

Legends of human-like creatures, such as Bigfoot and the Yeti, have

entranced us for centuries.

Perhaps small groups of our cousins survive in remote regions.

KILLING COUSINS

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-did

-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328572.000-puzzles-of-evolution-d

id-we-kill-off-neanderthals.html>Did we kill off Neanderthals?

Humans are in the frame for wiping out the Neanderthals, but it's not an

open-and-shut case.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Endocranial volume of Australopithecus africanus:
New CT-based estimates and the effects of missing data and small sample
size
Simon Neubauer, Philipp Gunz, Gerhard W. Weber & Jean-Jacques Hublin 2012
JHE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.01.005

Estimation of endocranial volume in Au.africanus is important in
interpreting early hominin brain evolution.
However, the number of individuals available for investigation is limited,
and most of these fossils are, to some degree, incomplete &/or distorted.
Missing data uncertainty & small sample uncertainty potentially bias
estimates of the average & within-group variation of endocranial volume in
Au.africanus.
We used CT-scans, electronic preparation (segmentation), mirror-imaging &
semi-landmark-based geometric morphometrics to generate & reconstruct
complete endocasts for Sts-5, -60, -71, StW-505, MLD-37/38 & Taung, and
measured their endocranial volumes (EV).
We then used simulations based on samples of chimpanzees & humans to
(a) test the accuracy of our approach,
(b) assess missing data uncertainty,
(c) appraise small sample uncertainty.
Incorporating missing data uncertainty of the 5 adult individuals,
A.africanus was found to have an average adult EV of 454­461 ml (SD 66­75
ml).
EV estimates for the juvenile Taung individual range from 402 to 407 ml.
Our simulations show that missing data uncertainty is small given the
missing portions of the
investigated fossils, but that small sample sizes are problematic for
estimating species average EV.
It is important to take these uncertainties into account when different
fossil groups are being compared.

JHE 62:315­327
Taphonomic analysis of the early Pleistocene (2.4 Ma) faunal assemblage
from A.L. 894 (Hadar, Ethiopia)
Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo & Bienvenido Martínez-Navarro 2012

The AL-894 site is, together with OGS 7 (Gona, Ethiopia), one of the
oldest archaeological sites documenting a spatial association of stone
tools & bones retrieved from an in situ excavation.
In contrast with OGS 7, the better preservation of the bone assemblage at
AL-894 allows the identification of taphonomic processes of bone breakage,
thanks to abundant green bone fractures.
The presence of tooth-marks & the lack of hominin-produced bone
modifications together argue against hominins as the responsible agents
for bone accumulation & modification.

This taphonomic study of AL-894 shows lack of evidence for functional
associations between stone tools & bones, a pattern documented in several
other early Pleistocene sites.
Such a pattern underscores the complex phenomena involved in site
formation processes, especially in the earliest archaeological assemblages.