Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mario Petrinovic Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo Subject: Re: Evolution, Bipedalism, and Precision Throwing in Hominids Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 03:24:42 +0200 Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 78-0-168-72.adsl.net.t-com.hr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1722821081 10492 78.0.168.72 (5 Aug 2024 01:24:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 01:24:41 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3157 On 4.8.2024. 21:30, JTEM wrote: >  Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>          I was thinking about African savanna lately. As I am seeing >> it, African Savanna (as compared to Euro-Asian steppe, which, of >> course formed only after the last glacial period, I presume) could >> form only because of being depleted of people. Savanna, simply, is too >> far inland from the sources of salt. But, savanna, originally, emerged >> in Europe, north Mediterranean, Vallesian crisis (officially 9.75 mya, >> I just glanced through Agusti at al. 2013 paper about the subject, but >> I see that they found such environment, with Hipparion horses, 11.5 >> mya, in Vienna basin). Bipedal apes emerged in the very same environment. > > Ridiculous! > > The savanna is the least capable of supporting biodiversity. > > The population is at it's smallest on the savanna. There's much higher > biodiversity in the forest. Any population that learned to exploit the > sea, and I don't even mean they had to build fishing polls here, could > support an even higher population density/biodiversity than could the > forest. > > You can argue something of a reverse selection, where a shift to the > savanna put enormous pressures on a population, because it couldn't > support as many mouths to feed, so any little advantage could > persevere. But if that's half the answer than it's the smaller half, > as it doesn't move our ancestors across the globe or grow them larger > brains... I don't know what you are talking about, of course jungle has higher diversity, it isn't the problem in diversity. It is the problem that I have hard time to find in Euroasia wild animals that we have in savanna. They are all domesticated. Compare zebras to horses. In Asia even elephants are domesticated. See this: India (subcontinent) - 1,710,000 sq miles, 1.9 million people, GDP per capita roughly the same as in Africa Africa (continent) - 11,730,000 sq miles, 1.4 million people, GDP per capita $ 2,180 Europe (continent) - 3,930,000 sq miles, 0.75 million people, GDP per capita $ 34,230 I would think about this.