Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus

Abstract

The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place—after
the Homo–Pan split. This Review examines data from diverse sources and
offers a revised depiction of the genus and characterizes its role in
human evolution. For a long time, our knowledge of Australopithecus
came from both A. africanus and Australopithecus afarensis, and the
members of this genus were portrayed as bipedal creatures that did not
use stone tools, with a largely chimpanzee-like cranium, a prognathic
face and a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees. Subsequent
field and laboratory discoveries, however, have altered this
portrayal, showing that Australopithecus species were habitual bipeds
but also practised arboreality; that they occasionally used stone
tools to supplement their diet with animal resources; and that their
infants probably depended on adults to a greater extent than what is
seen in apes. The genus gave rise to several taxa, including Homo, but
its direct ancestor remains elusive. In sum, Australopithecus had a
pivotal bridging role in our evolutionary history owing to its
morphological, behavioural and temporal placement between the earliest
archaic putative hominins and later hominins—including the genus Homo.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05957-1

Pandora wrote:

> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
>
> Abstract
>
> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place預fter
> the Homo鳳an split.

What you just did here is pinned all your hopes on Australopithecus
being a human ancestor. If it's not, nothing you are claiming here is
even close to accurate.

What's interesting is that for the longest time Australopithecus was
NOT considered an ancestor. And it in all but complete certainty it was
not. It appears AFTER the split and it appears to reside on the Pan
side of the divide, not the human side.

The human hand, for example, is the least derived! The LCA had a
hand that looked like Homo. And the LCA was bipedal. And the LCA
arose from -- descended from -- a group that split from the mother
waterside population, pushed inland and adapted.

The good Doctor's model where they became Chimps is actually
quite logical. If it weren't them precisely, it was something that
looked very much like them...

Personally I see them having radiated out, taken to diverse
environments, including the forests. But the evolution of the
forest group was moderated by interbreeding with other
populations. Eventually though, their siblings on the savanna
and other environments were wiped out, and the forest
adaptations took over.

I think the good Doctor places all this around 5 million years ago
while I say 3.7 million years...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

netloon:
> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place

:-DDD

Ridiculous anthropocentric prejudices:
traditional PAs believe they have 100s of fossil "human ancestors" = 1 species,
but no fossils of 4 other extant African hominids: P.trogl., P.paniscus, G.gorilla, G.beringei??
Yet there are numerous fossil pongids (sivapiths etc.).
How ridiculous is that?? Pure anthropocentrism.

Early-Miocene hominoids were already BP (google "aquarboreal").
Comparative anatomy leaves no doubt IMO (Hum.Evol.1990, 1994, 1996, 2000):
- E.Afr.apiths afarensis->boisei were fossil relatives of Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths africenus->robustus, of Pan:
they evolved in // from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust".
Pliocene human ancestors were in Asia (retroviral data), along the Ind.Ocean coasts:
H.erectus brain++ (DHA), pachyosteosclerosis (=shallow-diving), shell engravings (google "Joordens Munro" etc.

Concl.: australopiths were fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla.

Op donderdag 4 mei 2023 om 23:52:22 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> Pandora wrote:

> > Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
> > The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> > Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> > attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> > Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> > is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> > history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place預fter
> > the Homo鳳an split.

> What you just did here is pinned all your hopes on Australopithecus
> being a human ancestor. If it's not, nothing you are claiming here is
> even close to accurate.
> What's interesting is that for the longest time Australopithecus was
> NOT considered an ancestor. And it in all but complete certainty it was
> not. It appears AFTER the split and it appears to reside on the Pan
> side of the divide, not the human side.

Comparative anatomy is clear IMO (our Hum.Evol.papers):
- E.Afr.apiths = fossil Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths = fossil Pan,
Pliocene human ancestors = Asia (retroviral data).

(Note: this also implies that Au.africanus was a closer relative of us than of gorillas!)

> The human hand, for example, is the least derived! The LCA had a
> hand that looked like Homo. And the LCA was bipedal. And the LCA
> arose from -- descended from -- a group that split from the mother
> waterside population, pushed inland and adapted.

The hominoid LCA (early-Miocene or even late-Oligocene) was already BP:
broad body+thorax+pelvis, no tail, centrally-placed & shortened lumbar spine:
they waded upright + clmibed arms overhed in swamp forests,
-humans, gibbons & simangs are still BP,
-orangs evolved BP->fist-walking,
-chimps-bonobos // gorillas BP->knuckle-walking in parallel.

> The good Doctor's model where they became Chimps is actually
> quite logical. If it weren't them precisely, it was something that
> looked very much like them...

My view, google "WHATtalk" next Sunday:
- Gorilla followed the northern Rift swamp forests: afarensis->boisei,
Red Sea opened into Gulf (5.33 Ma? Zanclean mega-flood):
- Homo went left -> S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.H.erectus (DHA, POS etc.) shallow-diving,
- Pan went right -> E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift swamp forests: africanus->robustus (// Gorilla).

> Personally I see them having radiated out, taken to diverse
> environments, including the forests. But the evolution of the
> forest group was moderated by interbreeding with other
> populations. Eventually though, their siblings on the savanna
> and other environments were wiped out, and the forest
> adaptations took over.
> I think the good Doctor places all this around 5 million years ago
> while I say 3.7 million years...

HP/Gorilla c 7 Ma,
Homo/Pan c 5 Ma.

On Thu, 4 May 2023 15:21:27 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
>> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
>> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
>> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
>> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
>> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
>> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place
>
>:-DDD
>
>Ridiculous anthropocentric prejudices:

And yet it appears in one of the oldest and most prestigious
scientific periodicals, Nature. Wow!
You must have lost all faith in the scientific community.

> >> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
> >> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> >> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> >> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> >> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> >> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> >> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place

> >:-DDD Ridiculous anthropocentric prejudices:

netloon:
> And yet it appears in one of the oldest and most prestigious
> scientific periodicals, Nature. Wow!
> You must have lost all faith in the scientific community.

Not at all, my boy, not at all, e.g.
M.Verhaegen 1987 Nature 325:305-6
"Origin of hominid bipedalism"
:-)
But yes, *sometimes* Nature publishes ridiculous nonsense,
e.g. about your Pliocene ancestors running after antelopes over savannas...
:-DDD

Comparative anatomy is clear IMO (our Hum.Evol.papers):
- E.Afr.apiths = fossil Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths = fossil Pan
(this also implies that Au.africanus was a closer relative of us than of gorillas):
our Pliocene human ancestors were not even in Africa: retroviral data,
they followed the S-Asian coasts -> Java etc. early-Pleistocene

The hominoid LCA (early-Miocene or even late-Oligocene) was already BP:
broad body+thorax+pelvis, no tail, centrally-placed & shortened lumbar spine:
they waded upright + clmibed arms overhed in swamp forests,
-humans, gibbons & simangs are still BP,
-orangs evolved BP->fist-walking,
-chimps-bonobos // gorillas BP->knuckle-walking in parallel.

My view, google "WHATtalk" tomorrow:
- Gorilla followed the northern Rift swamp forests: afarensis->boisei,
Red Sea opened into Gulf (5.33 Ma? Zanclean mega-flood):
- Homo went left -> S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.H.erectus (DHA, POS etc.) shallow-diving,
- Pan went right -> E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift swamp forests: africanus->robustus (// Gorilla).

HP/Gorilla c 7 Ma,
Homo/Pan c 5 Ma.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
>>>> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
>>>> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
>>>> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
>>>> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
>>>> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
>>>> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place
>
>>> :-DDD Ridiculous anthropocentric prejudices:
>
> netloon:
>> And yet it appears in one of the oldest and most prestigious
>> scientific periodicals, Nature. Wow!
>> You must have lost all faith in the scientific community.
>
> Not at all, my boy, not at all, e.g.
> M.Verhaegen 1987 Nature 325:305-6

1987... :=}}}

> "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
> :-)
> But yes, *sometimes* Nature publishes ridiculous nonsense,

Not since 1987.

> e.g. about your Pliocene ancestors running after antelopes over savannas...
> :-DDD
>
>
> Comparative anatomy is clear IMO (our Hum.Evol.papers):

Like snorkel noses?

> - E.Afr.apiths = fossil Gorilla,
> - S.Afr.apiths = fossil Pan
> (this also implies that Au.africanus was a closer relative of us than of gorillas):
> our Pliocene human ancestors were not even in Africa: retroviral data,
> they followed the S-Asian coasts -> Java etc. early-Pleistocene
>
> The hominoid LCA (early-Miocene or even late-Oligocene) was already BP:
> broad body+thorax+pelvis, no tail, centrally-placed & shortened lumbar spine:
> they waded upright + clmibed arms overhed in swamp forests,
> -humans, gibbons & simangs are still BP,
> -orangs evolved BP->fist-walking,
> -chimps-bonobos // gorillas BP->knuckle-walking in parallel.
>
> My view, google "WHATtalk" tomorrow:
> - Gorilla followed the northern Rift swamp forests: afarensis->boisei,
> Red Sea opened into Gulf (5.33 Ma? Zanclean mega-flood):

The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood

> - Homo went left -> S.Asian coast -> early-Pleist.H.erectus (DHA, POS etc.) shallow-diving,
> - Pan went right -> E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift swamp forests: africanus->robustus (// Gorilla).
>
> HP/Gorilla c 7 Ma,
> Homo/Pan c 5 Ma.
>

Pandora wrote:
> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
>
> Abstract
>
> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place—after
> the Homo–Pan split. This Review examines data from diverse sources and
> offers a revised depiction of the genus and characterizes its role in
> human evolution. For a long time, our knowledge of Australopithecus
> came from both A. africanus and Australopithecus afarensis, and the
> members of this genus were portrayed as bipedal creatures that did not
> use stone tools, with a largely chimpanzee-like cranium, a prognathic
> face and a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees. Subsequent
> field and laboratory discoveries, however, have altered this
> portrayal, showing that Australopithecus species were habitual bipeds
> but also practised arboreality; that they occasionally used stone
> tools to supplement their diet with animal resources; and that their
> infants probably depended on adults to a greater extent than what is
> seen in apes. The genus gave rise to several taxa, including Homo, but
> its direct ancestor remains elusive. In sum, Australopithecus had a
> pivotal bridging role in our evolutionary history owing to its
> morphological, behavioural and temporal placement between the earliest
> archaic putative hominins and later hominins—including the genus Homo.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05957-1
>

Nice review.

"Historically, the study of early hominins has depended on
fossil discoveries and the exploration of external bony and
dental morphology. The past two decades have, however,
witnessed the introduction of cutting-edge imaging
techniques as well as novel experimental and analytical
methods. Computed-tomography-based analyses of
trabecular and cortical bone allow the biomechanics of the
locomotor and chewing apparatuses to be examined in
living and extinct species. Such approaches are then tied to
studies using finite element modelling that facilitate the
testing of functional predictions. Moreover, synchrotron
imaging enables dental histology to be investigated at
unprecedented resolutions, leading to the characterization
of very-fine-grained features that can be used to determine
age at death, weaning and stress patterns in extinct species.
Combined, these approaches have had a central role in our
ability to reconnoitre patterns in early hominin ontogeny,
with implications for our understanding of early hominin
behaviour. Furthermore, experimental biomechanics and
field observational studies of living primate behaviour are
making our interpretation of functional adaptation in fossil
hominins more testable. These approaches, coupled with
the expansion in fossil samples, have moved
palaeoanthropology into an exciting new phase. This Review
incorporates both lines of evidence and attempts to offer an
assessment of the palaeobiology of Australopithecus and its
role in human evolution by exploring issues pertaining to its
morphology, diversity, phylogeny, biogeography,
palaeoenvironment, palaeoecology, diet, stone-tool use,
locomotion and behaviour."

> > Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus 2023
> > The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> > Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> > attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> > Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> > is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> > history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place—after
> > the Homo–Pan split. This Review examines data from diverse sources and
> > offers a revised depiction of the genus and characterizes its role in
> > human evolution. For a long time, our knowledge of Australopithecus
> > came from both A. africanus and Australopithecus afarensis, and the
> > members of this genus were portrayed as bipedal creatures that did not
> > use stone tools, with a largely chimpanzee-like cranium, a prognathic
> > face and a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees. Subsequent
> > field and laboratory discoveries, however, have altered this
> > portrayal, showing that Australopithecus species were habitual bipeds
> > but also practised arboreality; that they occasionally used stone
> > tools to supplement their diet with animal resources; and that their
> > infants probably depended on adults to a greater extent than what is
> > seen in apes. The genus gave rise to several taxa, including Homo, but
> > its direct ancestor remains elusive. In sum, Australopithecus had a
> > pivotal bridging role in our evolutionary history owing to its
> > morphological, behavioural and temporal placement between the earliest
> > archaic putative hominins and later hominins—including the genus Homo.
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05957-1

netloon:
> Nice review.

:-DDD
Late-20th cent.view, totally outdated, as we all know:
our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:
"Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man"
RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
"Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes, but Not Humans and Orangutans"
CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

Objective comparisons confirm:
- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei evolved in E.Africa (N-Rift)
in parallel // with
- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus->robustus in S.Africa (S-Rift),
from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleist."robust" australopiths:
they were bipedally wading-climbing aquarboreals in swamp forests.

Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were already BP waders in swamp forests, climbing vertically, arms overhead, in the branches above the water,
- all great apes still do in swamp forests (google e.g. "gorilla wading"),
- only humans, siamangs & gibbons are still bipedal outside the water, we on the grouind, they in the branches.

Google "aquarboreal".

M.Verhaegen "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL,
in English:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar

It involved the entire globe.

Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"

STOP acting like a fraud,

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Nice review.

Why?

I'm interested in human origins. This doesn't seem relevant.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408

> >>>> Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus
> >>>> The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung
> >>>> Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the
> >>>> attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to
> >>>> Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa
> >>>> is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary
> >>>> history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place

me:
> >>> :-DDD Ridiculous anthropocentric prejudices:

netloon:
> >> And yet it appears in one of the oldest and most prestigious
> >> scientific periodicals, Nature. Wow!
> >> You must have lost all faith in the scientific community.

> > Not at all, my boy, not at all, e.g.
> > M.Verhaegen 1987 Nature 325:305-6

> 1987... :=}}}

:-)

Nature 325:305-306, 1987
"Origin of hominid bipedalism"
Sinclair et al.(1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating savanna ungulates, but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth, and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses. Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is inefficient and costly (2,3).
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8). The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for bipedalism, while they should know there are much better explanations (9-11).
1. Sinclair, A.R.E., Leakey, M.D. & Norton, M. Nature 324, 307 (1986).
2. Washburn, S.L. & Moore, R. Ape Into Human, 77-78 (Little, Brow and Company, Boston, 1980).
3. Wheeler, P.E.J. Hum.Evol. 13, 91 (1984).
4. Macfarlane, W.V. in Adaptations of Domestic Animals (ed. Hafez, E.) 164-182 (Lea and Febifer, Philadelphia, 1968).
5. Montagna, W. in Biological Anthropology (ed. Katz, S. H.) 341-351 (Freeman, San Francisco, 1975).
6. McFarland, W.N., Pough, F.H., Cade, T.J. & Heiser, J.B. Vertebrate Life, 674 (Collier Macmillan, London,1979).
7. McFarland, D. Animal Behaviour, 267 (Pitman, London, 1985).
8. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Desert Animals, 67 (Dover Publications, New York, 1979).
9. Hardy, A.C. New Scient. 7, 642 (1960).
10. Morgan, E. The Aquatic Ape (Souvenir, London, 1982).
11. Verhaegen, M.J.B. Med.Hypotheses 16,17 (1985).

Op maandag 8 mei 2023 om 12:46:16 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

netloon:
> > The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar

> It involved the entire globe.
> Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408

Yes, I don't know whether the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma (mill.yrs ago) also opened the Red Sea into the Gulf (Francesca Mansfield), but if so, it could perfectly explain why Homo & Pan split c 5 Ma, see my 2022 book p.299-300:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar
>
> It involved the entire globe.
>
> Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
>
> STOP acting like a fraud,

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar
>
> It involved the entire globe.
>
> Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
>
> STOP acting like a fraud,

Stop being an idiot.

The Zanclean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood

"The Zanclean flood or Zanclean deluge is a flood
theorized to have refilled the Mediterranean Sea
5.33 million years ago."

The Red Sea has its beginnings in the Eocene

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea

"The Red Sea was formed by the Arabian peninsula
being split from the Horn of Africa by movement
of the Red Sea Rift. This split started in the
Eocene and accelerated during the Oligocene."

Tell us when the Eocene was, film boy

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 8 mei 2023 om 12:46:16 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
>
> netloon:
>>> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar
>
>> It involved the entire globe.
>> Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
>> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408
>
> Yes, I don't know whether the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma (mill.yrs ago) also opened the Red Sea into the Gulf (Francesca Mansfield), but if so, it could perfectly explain why Homo & Pan split c 5 Ma, see my 2022 book p.299-300:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>

The Red Sea has its beginnings in the Eocene. No
wonder AA is kook science.

> >> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar

JTEM:
> > It involved the entire globe.
> > Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
> > STOP acting like a fraud,

idiotic kudu runner:
> Stop being an idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
"The Zanclean flood or Zanclean deluge is a flood theorized to have refilled the Med.Sea 5.33 Ma."
The Red Sea has its beginnings in the Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea
"The Red Sea was formed by the Arabian peninsula being split from the Horn of Africa by movement of the Red Sea Rift.
This split started in the Eocene, and accelerated during the Oligocene."
Late-Miocene hominids s.s.(HPG) lived in Red Sea forests. Gorilla followed the incipient N-Rift->Afar->Lucy etc.
Homo-Pan remained in the Red Sea until the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf/Aden 5.33 Ma (Francesca Mansfield): the rest is simple:
-Pliocene Pan went right->E.Afr.coast->S-Rift->Transvaal->Taung etc. //Gorilla.
-Pliocene Homo went left->S.Asian coast->Java early-Pleist.H.erectus->coastal dispersal->Med.Sea etc.
Google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen" & "WHATtalk verhaegen". :-)

idiotic kudu runner:
> The Red Sea has its beginnings in the Eocene.

Of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
"The Zanclean flood or Zanclean deluge is a flood theorized to have refilled the Med.Sea 5.33 Ma."
The Red Sea has its beginnings in the Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea
"The Red Sea was formed by the Arabian peninsula being split from the Horn of Africa by movement of the Red Sea Rift.
This split started in the Eocene, and accelerated during the Oligocene."
Late-Miocene hominids s.s.(HPG) lived in Red Sea forests. Gorilla followed the incipient N-Rift->Afar->Lucy etc.
Homo-Pan remained in the Red Sea until the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf/Aden 5.33 Ma (Francesca Mansfield): the rest is simple, explaining why H & P split:
-Pliocene Pan went right->E.Afr.coast->S-Rift->Transvaal->Taung etc. //Gorilla.
-Pliocene Homo went left->S.Asian coast->Java early-Pleist.H.erectus->coastal dispersal incl.Med.Sea etc.
Google e.g. "gondwanatalks verhaegen" & "WHATtalk verhaegen". :-)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

> > Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
> >
> > STOP acting like a fraud,

> Stop being

You didn't Google it. Things don't happen in isolation. Our ice age
itself is nothing more than a product of changing how the earth
circulates warmth from the sun. Water is a battery, literally a battery.
It stories energy from the sun. It's only even liquid BECAUSE it has
absorbed so much energy. It's why deserts get so hot in the day: They
are dry. There's no moisture to absorb the energy. And it's also why
they get so freakishly cold at night. They're dry. There's no moisture
to give off energy.

Things don't happen in isolation. Your brain is limited. You have been
programmed to grip stupid scenarios, penned in by artificial
parameters. Where you should automatically be trying to slip
everything you hear into a larger, complete picture, you focus like a
laser beam on the tiniest details, pretending that they matter when
they can't. The only thing that matters is if they can be slipped into
the mosaic of history or not.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719194335256674305

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The Red Sea has its beginnings

So either you're arguing that the history of the Mediterranean goes
back no further than the Zanclean flood, or you identified another
flaw in your thinking.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719194335256674305

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Nice review.
>
> Why?
>
> I'm interested in human origins. This doesn't seem relevant.

"the palaeobiology of Australopithecus"

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar
>
> It involved the entire globe.
>
> Do the Google on: Zanclean flood +"red sea"
>
> STOP acting like a fraud,

The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood

"The Zanclean flood occurred when the Strait of Gibraltar opened."

"Red Sea" not mentioned.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> "the palaeobiology of Australopithecus"

Again, and I'll remind you a few more times because you have
no reading comprehension & retention, your "Cite" assumes
that Australopithecus is a human ancestor. It's not.

It also states a falsehood seeing how the retrovirus data shows
that our ancestors were not in Africa from 3 to four million years
ago.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719746977745797120

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar

Me: These events are global. The implications can't be
limited to the local area. They're too huge.

You: "See, it happened & stuff so yuz wrong."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719746977745797120

kudu runner:
> The Zanclean flood involved the Straits of Gibraltar
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
> "The Zanclean flood occurred when the Strait of Gibraltar opened."
> "Red Sea" not mentioned.

Sigh: again:
1) again: Francesca Mansfield argued the Zanclean mega-flood (5.33 Ma) also opened the Red Sea into the Gulf/Aden.
2) Whether this is so (exactly 5.33 Ma), or the Red Sea opened 7 or 4 Ma, all it does NOT change the scenario, only the possible date:
- Pan went right = E.Afr.coast -> southern Rift -> Au.africanus->robustus (// Pr.afarensis->boisei in northern Rift)
- Homo went left = S.Asian coast -> e.g. early-Pleist.H.erectus Java google "pachyosteosclerosis"=regularly shallow-diving.
IOW, only incredible imbeciles still believe their Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antilopes on Afr.savannas. :-DDD

My 2022 book p.299-300:

Bijlage 16. Hypothese: Platentektoniek en Hominoïde Opdelingen

Diersoorten splitsen in 2 aparte soorten vaak door geografische soortvorming (allopatrische speciatie), in ons geval o.a. door botsende of scheurende continenten?
Een ‘gewone’ continentsnelheid is ~5 cm/jaar, maar Indië dook, en duikt nog, van zuid naar noord onder/tegen Azië met wel ~20 cm/jaar, de Himalaya opstuwend. Toen Indië Azië naderde (~30–25 Ma?), ontstonden daar eerst eiland-bogen (plooien of ‘rimpels’ in de aardkorst) vol lage, hete, natte kustbossen (vgl. bv. Indonesië?). Geleken de Catarrhini die die eilanden bereikten, wat op de huidige Nasalis-Rhinopith. in de mangroves? Eilandbewoners evolueren soms wat speciaal. De oermensapen (Hominoidea) gingen in die waterbossen tweebenig waden, (google "aquarboreal") soms zwemmen, en klommen, armen omhoog, in de takken boven het water, ze werden groter, kregen een erg breed borstbeen,(sternum) borstkas en bekken, lange armen en benen die makkelijk op- en zijwaarts bewogen, en een korte, verticale, centraal gelegen lendenwervelzuil, en verloren in het water hun staart (google aquarboreal).
Toen Indië onder Azië drong, verdeelde dat hen in kleine- en grote-mensapen (~20 Ma?), die de Oost-, resp. West-Euraziatische Tethys-oceaankusten volgden. (Splitste de beginnende Himalaya ook de hondapen: slankapen Oost, meerkatten West?)
En verdeelde Mesopotamische Zeewegsluiting later (~15 Ma? Bialik 2019) de grote-mensapen: sivapitheken–pongiden Oost, dryopitheken–hominiden West?
• De pongiden volgden in Zuid-Azië oostwaarts de kustbossen: drongen die ‘oer-orangs’ later de kleine-mensapen (de ‘oergibbons’) hoger de bomen in?
• De hominiden volgden de Tethys-zee, thans de Middellandse Zee: o.a. de tweebenige voetafdrukken op Trachilos (Kreta ~6 Ma? Gierliński 2017, Kirscher 2021), Graeco- en Oreopithecus, en veel andere die via waterwegen Europa binnentrokken (Hdst 3). De Mediterrane hominiden stierven uit (mega-vloed? droogte? hitte? afkoeling?), alleen die in de Rode Zee overleefden:
De beginnende Grote Slenk (East-African Rift System EARS, ~8 Ma?) werd o.a.. bevolkt door Praeanthropus–Gorilla-australopitheken via waterbossen aan de noordkant (Afar, Turkana-meer enz.), bv. laat-Pliocene graciele afarensis (Lucy)  vroeg-Pleistocene robuuste boisei.
Toen de Rode Zee zich opende in de Golf (exact 5,33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield’s Zanclean Flood–Red Sea-hypothese), volgde Pan rechts de Oost-Afrikaanse kusten, ze trokken dan als Australopithecus aan de zuidkant van de Slenk (EARS Malawi-meer enz.) Zuid-Afrika binnen, in parallel met Praeanthropus aan de noordkant: laat-Pliocene graciele africanus (Taung)  vroeg-Pleistocene robuuste robustus.
Pliocene Homo volgde links de Zuid-Aziatische kusten, en drong de pongiden dieper het bos in, en Pongo drong (pas in de ijstijden, na ~2,5 Ma?) erectus dieper het water in, om naar schelpdieren te duiken?

BEWEGENDE CONTINENTEN EN ZICH OPSPLITSENDE MENSAPEN – HYPOTHETISCH EN SCHEMATISCH
VÒOR SPLITSING GEOLOGIE SPLITSING IN WAAR?
Catarrhini ~25 Ma Indië->Z.Azië:archipels Cercopith./Hominoidea Noord-Indië
Hominoidea ~20 Ma Indië onder Azië->Himalaya less/great apes Tethys-oceaan-kusten
great apes ~15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway closure pongid/hominid Tethys-zee-kusten
hominids ~10 Ma E.Afr. rift ~8 Ma Gorilla/ Homo–Pan Rode Zee
Homo–Pan ~5 Ma Zancle-mega-vloed 5.33 Ma? Homo/Pan Golf van Aden