Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mario Petrinovic Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo Subject: Re: When we became bipedal Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:39:03 +0200 Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 78-0-168-16.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 1720049943 16488 78.0.168.16 (3 Jul 2024 23:39:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:39:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3908 On 4.7.2024. 0:37, JTEM wrote: > On 7/3/24 5:11 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>          Animals are different on islands because on islands you lack >> predators. Do you know of any animal that evolved on islands that >> survived on mainland? Of course, not. Good Dr. Moreau's island. > > We don't know where ANY animals evolved. At best we assume that it > evolved where we found the fossil... at best. > > If we consider Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium, it's entirely plausible > that all the animal species evolved in this manner -- isolation at > least, regardless of whether or not the isolation stems from an > island habitat or some other reason... > > To quote the good Doctor: > > "Isolation is the engine of evolution." > > If there's a population in the forest and one on the plains, and > they're interbreeding like bunnies on Viagra, then the forest > population is under exactly as much pressure to evolve in adaption > to the plains as it is the forest... likewise for the population > living on the plains. But isolate these groups and 100% of the > selective pressure is on adapting to their unique environment. > > This is how humans invented Chimps, btw. > > Chimps are descended from Aquatic Ape ancestors who wandered inland > at the horn of Africa -- following freshwater sources emptying at > the coast. > > They were only partially isolated though, at best, with periodic > new arrivals from the waterside group constantly re-introducing > DNA from the parent population. > > However, as these Chimp ancestors spread west (and south) they > were reducing the influx of fresh DNA, allowed to adapt with > relative purity... becoming less and less like their parent AA > population. > > This concept is known as a "Ring Species." It doesn't require a > ring, though a ring does perfectly illustrate the situation... > > Around 4 million years ago (3.7 million years) there was a retrovirus > that devastated Africa, the further east the worse it got. > > Either the Eurasians had no immunity at all and any that reached > Africa were killed off, or this was a period when the crossing from > Yemen was particularly difficult... > > It was at this point where the Chimp ancestors went from a > distinct population to a separate species. > > Maybe "Sub Species" is more accurate, I dunno. When I say "Species" > I mean "They banged." When I say "Sub Species" I mean "They could > bang if they wanted to, but instead one of them ate the other." The main argument pro AAT is SC fat. So, you are telling me that chimps had SC fat? Their babies were fat, and they cried? They were eating shellfish? Did they have wings, and lost it?