Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 12:48:34 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> in
alt.atheism with message-id <77c8943c-8e0b-e301-0e6f-828d3d0a8bb2@shinku.aoyagi.konjou>
wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
If you go back far enough everything evolved from a beach or
beach equivalent.
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the interior; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the
coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
On 9/2/2026 3:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the
interior; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the
coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to
the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evidence says that we evolved on the sea shore:
- we have subcutaneous fat, which is characteristic for animals who live
in water
- we eat meat, animals which don't have carnasials cannot eat raw terrestrial meat, they can only eat raw shellfish, the only other
primate that eats meat is crab-eating macaque
- we eat salty food, all the other animals lick salt. Licking salt is
more economical and logical, salting the food destroys the taste of food
(we don't salt fruits, our primary food). We would salt food only in a
case if we are adapted to eat salty food
- our means of communication moved to our face, which is above waterline
if we are in water
- our body is reshaped as if a reaction to forces which push us from the back (muscles pulled our iliac blades backwards, hence compressing our pelvis, muscles pulled our shoulders backwards, hence creating s-curve
in backbone), the only situation where there is a force which pushes us
from back is when sea waves push us from back when we exit sea on beach, with shellfish in our hands
- our cooling mechanism, sweating, works only on a breeze. This means we evolved in environment which has constant breeze. These are shorelines
of large bodies of water, where difference between temperatures of land
and water creates constant breeze
- we kiss, the only situation where this is useful is when you give air, mouth to mouth. If male dives deeper than his breath is, in search for shellfish, his female meets him half way up, to give him additional air. This creates male-female emotional relationships that works even today,
man seek that he has a trust in his women, because he put his life in
her hands (a motif of so many poems), while woman expects from man to be provider, to bring food
- our babies cry, the youngs of other animals tend not to relieve their position, our babies cry as mush as they can, to relieve their position. This is beneficial in situation when young is left in environment
without landmarks. Forest canopy is such environment (it looks just like
sea from above), so chicks have to be loud, so that their parents hear
them when coming back with food. Sea is also environment without
landmarks, mother leaves baby on surface when it dives for shellfish, if
she doesn't find it after resurfacing, baby is gone. So baby relieves
its position (loud sound), and gets rid of excess salt (sheds tears from glands which extract salt, which are above eyes in humans, and in beaks
in plunge diving birds, so those birds also shed tears, only not from
their eyes, but from their beaks)
On 9/2/2026 4:39 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9/2/2026 3:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the
interior; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the
coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to
the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evidence says that we evolved on the sea shore:
- we have subcutaneous fat, which is characteristic for animals who
live in water
- we eat meat, animals which don't have carnasials cannot eat raw
terrestrial meat, they can only eat raw shellfish, the only other
primate that eats meat is crab-eating macaque
- we eat salty food, all the other animals lick salt. Licking salt is
more economical and logical, salting the food destroys the taste of
food (we don't salt fruits, our primary food). We would salt food only
in a case if we are adapted to eat salty food
- our means of communication moved to our face, which is above
waterline if we are in water
- our body is reshaped as if a reaction to forces which push us from
the back (muscles pulled our iliac blades backwards, hence compressing
our pelvis, muscles pulled our shoulders backwards, hence creating s-
curve in backbone), the only situation where there is a force which
pushes us from back is when sea waves push us from back when we exit
sea on beach, with shellfish in our hands
- our cooling mechanism, sweating, works only on a breeze. This means
we evolved in environment which has constant breeze. These are
shorelines of large bodies of water, where difference between
temperatures of land and water creates constant breeze
- we kiss, the only situation where this is useful is when you give
air, mouth to mouth. If male dives deeper than his breath is, in
search for shellfish, his female meets him half way up, to give him
additional air. This creates male-female emotional relationships that
works even today, man seek that he has a trust in his women, because
he put his life in her hands (a motif of so many poems), while woman
expects from man to be provider, to bring food
- our babies cry, the youngs of other animals tend not to relieve
their position, our babies cry as mush as they can, to relieve their
position. This is beneficial in situation when young is left in
environment without landmarks. Forest canopy is such environment (it
looks just like sea from above), so chicks have to be loud, so that
their parents hear them when coming back with food. Sea is also
environment without landmarks, mother leaves baby on surface when it
dives for shellfish, if she doesn't find it after resurfacing, baby is
gone. So baby relieves its position (loud sound), and gets rid of
excess salt (sheds tears from glands which extract salt, which are
above eyes in humans, and in beaks in plunge diving birds, so those
birds also shed tears, only not from their eyes, but from their beaks)
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And, BTW, fossil evidence is scarce, and in a lot of cases biased, because bone has to meet certain conditions to fossilize,
everybody who does this science should be aware of this. On the other
hand, body evidence is constant, it is present in billions of cases, and
it is easily attainable, and researchable. Those retarded nerds
(scientist) use only means that are implanted into their heads during education. They have knowledge, they just don't understand the things.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Another evidence:
- the first word, "mama", is made of two "ma" (ma-ma, or mah-mah). "m"
is the sound when you hold your air, "ah" is the sound when you relieve
air after holding it, so mother would hear "mah", when her child
resurfaces after a dive, and she will come to it. So, after awhile kid started to use this to call for mom. https://youtu.be/dGtUoJJfi5o?si=ii8CC6Lqy1whyoTS
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Another clue for you:
- the most annoying sound for humans (as researched by English
scientists) is scratching nails on a school blackboard (which even has sensation in body, you feel it in your teeth). In nature this is when predators try to climb cliffs, scratching nails on a cliff. For big
primates (like apes, or baboons), cliffs are safer places than trees. A small primate can escape predator towards the tip of a branch. To do
that it has to be lighter than predator. Big primates cannot escape that way, but they can climb vertical cliffs, which cats cannot. Apes emerged after cliffs (the triple system, East African, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Rifts) emerged, two of those rifts are submerged by sea.
- we hit stones overhead. It is very useful if you want to hit a
climbing predator from a tip of a cliff, you cannot hit it underhead (or whatever is the term)
- the most creepy sound? Nobody researched this, but it definitely is
the sound in movie "Psycho" by Alfred Hitchcock. It is very similar to
alarm call of rock hyraxes. The main problem with leaving babies on a surface are birds of prey. They always attack from the direction of sun,
so that you don't notice them. Therefor, rock hyraxes have adaptation in their eyes to look towards sun, and after they make alarm call, this
raises hair on our back.
https://youtu.be/mF3rPvzTPF4?si=4RXWmjPZPlG_qWnB
- the big toe in our babies is very functional. The situation where it
works is when baby lies on mother's stomach when floating on sea, this prevents baby to slide off
https://youtu.be/A-fsEBX7GD4?si=HiJ-j_T_aH71htB7
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why scientists force only the use of fossil evidence? Because
they are idiots.
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the interior
; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the
coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
On 9/2/2026 3:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out,
indicates the interior; although, early humans most certainly
did venture near the coastal waters, as evidenced by the
rafting of some early humans to the islands of Flores and
Sulawesi.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evidence says that we evolved on the sea shore:
- we have subcutaneous fat, which is characteristic for animals
who live in water
- we eat meat, animals which don't have carnasials cannot eat raw terrestrial meat, they can only eat raw shellfish, the only other
primate that eats meat is crab-eating macaque
- we eat salty food, all the other animals lick salt. Licking
salt is more economical and logical, salting the food destroys
the taste of food (we don't salt fruits, our primary food). We
would salt food only in a case if we are adapted to eat salty food
- our means of communication moved to our face, which is above
waterline if we are in water
- our body is reshaped as if a reaction to forces which push us
from the back (muscles pulled our iliac blades backwards, hence
compressing our pelvis, muscles pulled our shoulders backwards,
hence creating s-curve in backbone), the only situation where
there is a force which pushes us from back is when sea waves push
us from back when we exit sea on beach, with shellfish in our hands
- our cooling mechanism, sweating, works only on a breeze. This
means we evolved in environment which has constant breeze. These
are shorelines of large bodies of water, where difference between temperatures of land and water creates constant breeze
- we kiss, the only situation where this is useful is when you
give air, mouth to mouth. If male dives deeper than his breath
is, in search for shellfish, his female meets him half way up, to
give him additional air. This creates male-female emotional
relationships that works even today, man seek that he has a trust
in his women, because he put his life in her hands (a motif of so
many poems), while woman expects from man to be provider, to
bring food
- our babies cry, the youngs of other animals tend not to relieve
their position, our babies cry as mush as they can, to relieve
their position. This is beneficial in situation when young is
left in environment without landmarks. Forest canopy is such
environment (it looks just like sea from above), so chicks have
to be loud, so that their parents hear them when coming back with
food. Sea is also environment without landmarks, mother leaves
baby on surface when it dives for shellfish, if she doesn't find
it after resurfacing, baby is gone. So baby relieves its position
(loud sound), and gets rid of excess salt (sheds tears from
glands which extract salt, which are above eyes in humans, and in
beaks in plunge diving birds, so those birds also shed tears,
only not from their eyes, but from their beaks)
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates
the interior; although, early humans most certainly did venture
near the coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some
early humans to the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
On 9/2/26 8:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
No they don't. That's what they call a "Selection Bias."
They look where they want to look, where it's most
convenient to look, and then-a /Assume/-a that anything
they find is an ancestor to humans... more or less
declaring it so.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
Humans aren't one thing... "pushed inland where they
remained & adapted." I wasn't saying that ALL the
waterside population pushed inland in unison. It's
something that happened from the very beginning,
probably starting around 20 million years ago.
you know speaking of babies, i saw a video that if you throw a baby into
a pool, it will know how to orient and swim.
but... before the baby was born, it was essentially in a pool right, so...
that is aquatic.
JTEM wrote:
Humans aren't one thing... "pushed inland where they
remained & adapted." I wasn't saying that ALL the
waterside population pushed inland in unison. It's
something that happened from the very beginning,
probably starting around 20 million years ago.
20 million i dont know, we were ratty kinda mammals back then?
JTEM wrote:
On 9/2/26 8:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
No they don't. That's what they call a "Selection Bias."
They look where they want to look, where it's most
convenient to look, and then-a /Assume/-a that anything
they find is an ancestor to humans... more or less
declaring it so.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
Humans aren't one thing... "pushed inland where they
remained & adapted." I wasn't saying that ALL the
waterside population pushed inland in unison. It's
something that happened from the very beginning,
probably starting around 20 million years ago.
20 million i dont know, we were ratty kinda mammals back then?
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9/2/2026 3:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the
interior; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the
coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to
the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evidence says that we evolved on the sea shore:
- we have subcutaneous fat, which is characteristic for animals who
live in water
- we eat meat, animals which don't have carnasials cannot eat raw
terrestrial meat, they can only eat raw shellfish, the only other
primate that eats meat is crab-eating macaque
- we eat salty food, all the other animals lick salt. Licking salt is
more economical and logical, salting the food destroys the taste of
food (we don't salt fruits, our primary food). We would salt food only
in a case if we are adapted to eat salty food
- our means of communication moved to our face, which is above
waterline if we are in water
- our body is reshaped as if a reaction to forces which push us from
the back (muscles pulled our iliac blades backwards, hence compressing
our pelvis, muscles pulled our shoulders backwards, hence creating s-
curve in backbone), the only situation where there is a force which
pushes us from back is when sea waves push us from back when we exit
sea on beach, with shellfish in our hands
- our cooling mechanism, sweating, works only on a breeze. This means
we evolved in environment which has constant breeze. These are
shorelines of large bodies of water, where difference between
temperatures of land and water creates constant breeze
- we kiss, the only situation where this is useful is when you give
air, mouth to mouth. If male dives deeper than his breath is, in
search for shellfish, his female meets him half way up, to give him
additional air. This creates male-female emotional relationships that
works even today, man seek that he has a trust in his women, because
he put his life in her hands (a motif of so many poems), while woman
expects from man to be provider, to bring food
- our babies cry, the youngs of other animals tend not to relieve
their position, our babies cry as mush as they can, to relieve their
position. This is beneficial in situation when young is left in
environment without landmarks. Forest canopy is such environment (it
looks just like sea from above), so chicks have to be loud, so that
their parents hear them when coming back with food. Sea is also
environment without landmarks, mother leaves baby on surface when it
dives for shellfish, if she doesn't find it after resurfacing, baby is
gone. So baby relieves its position (loud sound), and gets rid of
excess salt (sheds tears from glands which extract salt, which are
above eyes in humans, and in beaks in plunge diving birds, so those
birds also shed tears, only not from their eyes, but from their beaks)
you know speaking of babies, i saw a video that if you throw a baby into
a pool, it will know how to orient and swim.
but... before the baby was born, it was essentially in a pool right, so...
that is aquatic.
On 9/2/26 9:55 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the
interior
No it doesn't.
"I found a fossil in the only place I looked. That means it has
to be an ancestor of modern humans and it had to evolve here,
the only place I looked."
It would help if you had any understand of HOW they find
fossils.
AND, if you understood that even under the most super-duper
best circumstances it's nothing less than a preservation
bias...
; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the coastal
waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to the
islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
THAT'S the "Evidence?"-a Not the fact that humans can be
found everywhere from Oceania to Africa and they didn't
have access to commercial air services?
Google:-a Coastal Dispersal
Honey, no non-Homo sapiens humans have been found in North America;
On 9/2/2026 12:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/2/26 9:55 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates the
interior
No it doesn't.
"I found a fossil in the only place I looked. That means it has
to be an ancestor of modern humans and it had to evolve here,
the only place I looked."
It would help if you had any understand of HOW they find
fossils.
AND, if you understood that even under the most super-duper
best circumstances it's nothing less than a preservation
bias...
; although, early humans most certainly did venture near the coastal
waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early humans to the
islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
THAT'S the "Evidence?"-a Not the fact that humans can be
found everywhere from Oceania to Africa and they didn't
have access to commercial air services?
Google:-a Coastal Dispersal
Honey, no non-Homo sapiens humans have been found in North America; look that one up!
Dawn
On 9/2/2026 8:57 PM, jojo wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9/2/2026 3:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out,
indicates the interior; although, early humans most certainly
did venture near the coastal waters, as evidenced by the
rafting of some early humans to the islands of Flores and
Sulawesi.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evidence says that we evolved on the sea shore:
- we have subcutaneous fat, which is characteristic for
animals who live in water
- we eat meat, animals which don't have carnasials cannot eat
raw terrestrial meat, they can only eat raw shellfish, the
only other primate that eats meat is crab-eating macaque
- we eat salty food, all the other animals lick salt. Licking
salt is more economical and logical, salting the food destroys
the taste of food (we don't salt fruits, our primary food). We
would salt food only in a case if we are adapted to eat salty
food
- our means of communication moved to our face, which is above
waterline if we are in water
- our body is reshaped as if a reaction to forces which push
us from the back (muscles pulled our iliac blades backwards,
hence compressing our pelvis, muscles pulled our shoulders
backwards, hence creating s- curve in backbone), the only
situation where there is a force which pushes us from back is
when sea waves push us from back when we exit sea on beach,
with shellfish in our hands
- our cooling mechanism, sweating, works only on a breeze.
This means we evolved in environment which has constant
breeze. These are shorelines of large bodies of water, where
difference between temperatures of land and water creates
constant breeze
- we kiss, the only situation where this is useful is when you
give air, mouth to mouth. If male dives deeper than his breath
is, in search for shellfish, his female meets him half way up,
to give him additional air. This creates male-female emotional
relationships that works even today, man seek that he has a
trust in his women, because he put his life in her hands (a
motif of so many poems), while woman expects from man to be
provider, to bring food
- our babies cry, the youngs of other animals tend not to
relieve their position, our babies cry as mush as they can, to
relieve their position. This is beneficial in situation when
young is left in environment without landmarks. Forest canopy
is such environment (it looks just like sea from above), so
chicks have to be loud, so that their parents hear them when
coming back with food. Sea is also environment without
landmarks, mother leaves baby on surface when it dives for
shellfish, if she doesn't find it after resurfacing, baby is
gone. So baby relieves its position (loud sound), and gets rid
of excess salt (sheds tears from glands which extract salt,
which are above eyes in humans, and in beaks in plunge diving
birds, so those birds also shed tears, only not from their
eyes, but from their beaks)
you know speaking of babies, i saw a video that if you throw a
baby into a pool, it will know how to orient and swim.
but... before the baby was born, it was essentially in a pool
right, so...
that is aquatic.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Delivering babies is much easier in water, search about this.
On 9/2/26 2:58 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Humans aren't one thing... "pushed inland where they
remained & adapted." I wasn't saying that ALL the
waterside population pushed inland in unison. It's
something that happened from the very beginning,
probably starting around 20 million years ago.
20 million i dont know, we were ratty kinda mammals back then?
No. The first primates are dated beyond 50 million
years and the oldest monkey fossils are in the
neighborhood of 35 millions years old.
-a-a-a-a ...some place the first ape around 25 million
years back.
JTEM wrote:
On 9/2/26 2:58 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Humans aren't one thing... "pushed inland where they
remained & adapted." I wasn't saying that ALL the
waterside population pushed inland in unison. It's
something that happened from the very beginning,
probably starting around 20 million years ago.
20 million i dont know, we were ratty kinda mammals back then?
No. The first primates are dated beyond 50 million
years and the oldest monkey fossils are in the
neighborhood of 35 millions years old.
-a-a-a-a-a ...some place the first ape around 25 million
years back.
my understanding is we were originally tree folk, and then there was a drought of sorts, so we started doing leg work.
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
On 9/3/26 10:30 AM, jojo wrote:
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
We split off from monkeys. So our earliest ancestor was
a monkey. Now you need a model to guide a small monkey
in a tree into something large, tail-less, big brained
and upright walking. Well, a model that doesn't insist
on magic anyway...
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9/2/2026 8:57 PM, jojo wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9/2/2026 3:55 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/2/2026 7:48 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Our ancestors lived waterside, exploiting the marine
environment for food. When resources grew slim --
or for any number of other reasons -- they moved on,
looking for better/more fertile stretches of beach.
At various intervals during this journey sans
destination, some of them pushed inland where they
remained and adapted. One prime location for this
was the Horn of Africa, the Rift Valley.
fossils indicate savannah not beachside.
if humans evolved on the beach, they would not be so uncool.
LOL!
So true, though, the fossil evidence, as you point out, indicates
the interior; although, early humans most certainly did venture
near the coastal waters, as evidenced by the rafting of some early
humans to the islands of Flores and Sulawesi.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evidence says that we evolved on the sea shore:
- we have subcutaneous fat, which is characteristic for animals who
live in water
- we eat meat, animals which don't have carnasials cannot eat raw
terrestrial meat, they can only eat raw shellfish, the only other
primate that eats meat is crab-eating macaque
- we eat salty food, all the other animals lick salt. Licking salt
is more economical and logical, salting the food destroys the taste
of food (we don't salt fruits, our primary food). We would salt food
only in a case if we are adapted to eat salty food
- our means of communication moved to our face, which is above
waterline if we are in water
- our body is reshaped as if a reaction to forces which push us from
the back (muscles pulled our iliac blades backwards, hence
compressing our pelvis, muscles pulled our shoulders backwards,
hence creating s- curve in backbone), the only situation where there
is a force which pushes us from back is when sea waves push us from
back when we exit sea on beach, with shellfish in our hands
- our cooling mechanism, sweating, works only on a breeze. This
means we evolved in environment which has constant breeze. These are
shorelines of large bodies of water, where difference between
temperatures of land and water creates constant breeze
- we kiss, the only situation where this is useful is when you give
air, mouth to mouth. If male dives deeper than his breath is, in
search for shellfish, his female meets him half way up, to give him
additional air. This creates male-female emotional relationships
that works even today, man seek that he has a trust in his women,
because he put his life in her hands (a motif of so many poems),
while woman expects from man to be provider, to bring food
- our babies cry, the youngs of other animals tend not to relieve
their position, our babies cry as mush as they can, to relieve their
position. This is beneficial in situation when young is left in
environment without landmarks. Forest canopy is such environment (it
looks just like sea from above), so chicks have to be loud, so that
their parents hear them when coming back with food. Sea is also
environment without landmarks, mother leaves baby on surface when it
dives for shellfish, if she doesn't find it after resurfacing, baby
is gone. So baby relieves its position (loud sound), and gets rid of
excess salt (sheds tears from glands which extract salt, which are
above eyes in humans, and in beaks in plunge diving birds, so those
birds also shed tears, only not from their eyes, but from their beaks)
you know speaking of babies, i saw a video that if you throw a baby
into a pool, it will know how to orient and swim.
but... before the baby was born, it was essentially in a pool right,
so...
that is aquatic.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Delivering babies is much easier in water, search about this.
well i dont want to see that, nope.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:54:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117cfog$3v8pk$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 9/3/26 10:30 AM, jojo wrote:
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
We split off from monkeys. So our earliest ancestor was
a monkey. Now you need a model to guide a small monkey
in a tree into something large, tail-less, big brained
and upright walking. Well, a model that doesn't insist
on magic anyway...
There is no "model" but there are a lot of small
evolutionary steps, some of which have been found.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:54:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117cfog$3v8pk$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 9/3/26 10:30 AM, jojo wrote:
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
We split off from monkeys. So our earliest ancestor was
a monkey. Now you need a model to guide a small monkey
in a tree into something large, tail-less, big brained
and upright walking. Well, a model that doesn't insist
on magic anyway...
There is no "model"
On 9/3/2026 9:47 PM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:54:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117cfog$3v8pk$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 9/3/26 10:30 AM, jojo wrote:
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
We split off from monkeys. So our earliest ancestor was
a monkey. Now you need a model to guide a small monkey
in a tree into something large, tail-less, big brained
and upright walking. Well, a model that doesn't insist
on magic anyway...
There is no "model" but there are a lot of small
evolutionary steps, some of which have been found.
My steps are:
- apes evolved on cliffs (after 35 mya)
- our are ancestors on sea cliffs (eating fruits and shellfish)
- our ancestors were forced to dip into sea (because fruits were burnt
in Afar region, hence only shellfish for them)
- we lost fur while still being quadruped, because salt crystals
destroyed our fur
- in this environment we became bipedal, and started to use vocal >communication
- after moving to Euroasia we came to Portugal where we met pyrophytic >Mediterranean ecology, and started to use fire to burn around, first for >safety reasons, then to feed on burnt meat
This would be the initial state. Later development:
- Homo erectus was doing agriculture, 1.8 mya
- By the time oh Homo sapiens we already had developed societies and
trading routes, hence everybody could get hematite (which we ground)
Later on it was only technological evolution:
- we started to use ground stone tools (70 kya), which allowed us to get
a lot of wood for fire and fortification, and also for making boats
which could go in blue waters
- because of that, fires became hotter, which first led to ceramics, and >then to smelting of metal
And finally, after adopting money (7th century BC) we established modern >societies, by financing standing army. As a reaction to greed for money >modern religions established at 6th century BC (Christianity, Buddhism, >Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism), which were mostly anti-materialistic (I >presume, I don't know some of those).
On 9/3/26 3:47 PM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:54:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117cfog$3v8pk$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 9/3/26 10:30 AM, jojo wrote:
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
We split off from monkeys. So our earliest ancestor was
a monkey. Now you need a model to guide a small monkey
in a tree into something large, tail-less, big brained
and upright walking. Well, a model that doesn't insist
on magic anyway...
There is no "model"
Of course there is. There's no model in Out of Africa/
savanna idiocy but there is in Aquatic Ape.
*This* is the gift of Dr. Marc Verhaegen.
His model is quite comprehensive. I don't agree with all
of it, of course, but the fact of a model is in itself a
major step beyond the fake science of paleo anthropology.
The good Doctor Verheagen starts with isolation on an
island. It's brilliant: Insular Gigantism! Not only is
it a thing but, according to some sources, it's more
common than Insular Dwarfism?
Why? How?
Isolate a population on an island without natural
predators and who or what are they in competition with?
THEMSELVES!
A bigger, stronger monkey is going to win against a
smaller, weaker monkey...
Now what usually happens, at least in the case of
Insular Dwarfism, is that they burn through their
resources. THEY CAN'T EAT! Suddenly the selective
pressures are on smaller members of the population,
the ones who don't need as much calories. But...
If instead of starving themselves, what if they learn
to exploit marine resources? NOW the insular
gigantism is being turbo charged by the high protein
seafood diet.
It also gets them out of the trees, onto the ground!
They don't need tails anymore, those are primarily for
balance and, in many cases, gripping... IN THE TREES!
There. ONE step and we already moved from a little
monkey in the trees to something a lot bigger, on the
ground and adapting to THAT environment...
On 9/3/2026 9:30 AM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 9/2/26 2:58 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Humans aren't one thing... "pushed inland where they
remained & adapted." I wasn't saying that ALL the
waterside population pushed inland in unison. It's
something that happened from the very beginning,
probably starting around 20 million years ago.
20 million i dont know, we were ratty kinda mammals back then?
No. The first primates are dated beyond 50 million
years and the oldest monkey fossils are in the
neighborhood of 35 millions years old.
-a-a-a-a-a ...some place the first ape around 25 million
years back.
my understanding is we were originally tree folk, and then
there was a drought of sorts, so we started doing leg work.
How old are you?-a (If under 18, you need to go!)
Dawn
P.S.-a I've asked you this question before but I never got a
straight number.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 22:47:22 +0200, Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> in alt.atheism with
message-id <117cmcr$2bn$1@sunce.iskon.hr> wrote:
On 9/3/2026 9:47 PM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:54:08 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<117cfog$3v8pk$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 9/3/26 10:30 AM, jojo wrote:
my understanding is we were originally tree folk
We split off from monkeys. So our earliest ancestor was
a monkey. Now you need a model to guide a small monkey
in a tree into something large, tail-less, big brained
and upright walking. Well, a model that doesn't insist
on magic anyway...
There is no "model" but there are a lot of small
evolutionary steps, some of which have been found.
My steps are:
- apes evolved on cliffs (after 35 mya)
- our are ancestors on sea cliffs (eating fruits and shellfish)
- our ancestors were forced to dip into sea (because fruits were burnt
in Afar region, hence only shellfish for them)
- we lost fur while still being quadruped, because salt crystals
destroyed our fur
- in this environment we became bipedal, and started to use vocal
communication
- after moving to Euroasia we came to Portugal where we met pyrophytic
Mediterranean ecology, and started to use fire to burn around, first for
safety reasons, then to feed on burnt meat
This would be the initial state. Later development:
- Homo erectus was doing agriculture, 1.8 mya
- By the time oh Homo sapiens we already had developed societies and
trading routes, hence everybody could get hematite (which we ground)
Later on it was only technological evolution:
- we started to use ground stone tools (70 kya), which allowed us to get
a lot of wood for fire and fortification, and also for making boats
which could go in blue waters
- because of that, fires became hotter, which first led to ceramics, and
then to smelting of metal
And finally, after adopting money (7th century BC) we established modern
societies, by financing standing army. As a reaction to greed for money
modern religions established at 6th century BC (Christianity, Buddhism,
Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism), which were mostly anti-materialistic (I
presume, I don't know some of those).
I disagree with a lot of that but I am not interested
enough to document the details so I will leave it at that.
Attila wrote:(...)
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 22:47:22 +0200, Mario Petrinovic
And finally, after adopting money (7th century BC) we established modern >> societies, by financing standing army. As a reaction to greed for money
modern religions established at 6th century BC (Christianity, Buddhism,
Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism), which were mostly anti-materialistic (I
presume, I don't know some of those).
I disagree with a lot of that but I am not interested
enough to document the details so I will leave it at that.
LOL! its too much all at once.
jojo wrote:
Attila wrote:(...)
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 22:47:22 +0200, Mario Petrinovic
And finally, after adopting money (7th century BC) we established modern >>>> societies, by financing standing army. As a reaction to greed for money >>>> modern religions established at 6th century BC (Christianity, Buddhism, >>>> Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism), which were mostly anti-materialistic (I >>>> presume, I don't know some of those).
I disagree with a lot of that but I am not interested
enough to document the details so I will leave it at that.
LOL! its too much all at once.
Because believers can make shit up faster than anyone can
debunk it.
OTOH, you don't need to debunk what's never been bunked.
I disagree
On 9/4/26 6:18 AM, Attila wrote:
I disagree
With what? That's there's islands? That's a stupid position! OF COURSE >there's islands!
You clipped the entire message being responded
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:25:53 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
17 files (19,632K bytes) |
| Messages: | 295,059 |