>>5098908 we aren’t even sure of what exact species humans evolved from other than it being related to the one chimpanzees evolved from, or how, where, and why it became human over time. no sure bet human ancestor has ever been found, only potential offshoots and cousins that fit the stereotype of progressive evolution. none explain our distinct-among-monke adaptations that are only found in marine mammals and mammals with marine ancestors.
if man can not know himself there could be dozens if not hundreds of branches of life he is too ignorant and dumb to even guess at and paleontology as you know it is hilariously incomplete.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41564173/ >This finding casts doubt upon the fungal affinity of Prototaxites, instead suggesting that this enigmatic organism is best assigned to an entirely extinct eukaryotic lineage.
Groovy. But something mycologists would best understand. So I imagine Prototaxites are a sister lineage to animalia and fungi in the Opisthokonta? Perhaps some extant relatives still but undetected.
>>5098920 Yeah bro, I learned about le giant fungi from reddit a decade ago, can you believe these fucking newfags trying to butt into our prototaxites community just like that?
>>5100597 he's probably mostly talking about the blubber-form fat we build up, which I think evolved to protect the abdominal wall from being punctured with sharp sticks. Whoever our ancestors were, they stabbed other too. The lack of body hair is another thing, which I don't have an explanation for. One thing the aquatic ape theory has in its favor is the reproductive organs that work underwater, for intact males at least. I think we're more buoyant than any of the great apes too, we can escape bigger stronger monkeys by swimming.
>>5100639 >fat Most common in wh*tes and least developed in subsaharan africans because its an insulation and energy storage trait developed after we lost the hair thing to be pursuit hunters. Body hair also correlates with climate in most cases. Plus there are many aquatic and semiaquatic mammals that are very dense like hippos or those southeast asian islanders who dive for pearls all day. needing fat for bouyancy is only really a factor if you swim long distance which doesnt help you get food and most humans will never need to do. You cant even escape predators that way because almost all carnivorans willing to take a swing at a protohuman will happily swim after you. You arent outpacing a tiger or bear.
>>5100639 >The lack of body hair is another thing, which I don't have an explanation for. I thought it was so we could sweat more, for hunting across open plains.
>>5105639 >>5100639 Sweating as a direct function for better heat regulation has not been debunked, and neither has fat as a storage for going long periods without food. Apes spend much more of the day eating and grazing, do not travel anywhere as far and wide as hominids, and can digest more readily available foods like plants and such. Humans needed nutrient dense fats and organs, we got those from hunting and stalking, following herds and having a brain that required lots of energy that couldn't always be met. People in colder climates have more fat deposits, especially in areas exposed to the elements, such as Inuit having frost bite resistance due to their facial fat pockets. Also, our reproductive organs do not function as well underwater, as water is NOT a lubricant and actively impedes sex as it washes away vaginal moisture, as well as increasingly liklihood of infection by a significant amount. Aquatic ape 'theory' is retarded shit.
>>5098908 It isn't touted as much because they're mostly microscopic but we've discovered dozens of new phyla or higher clades in the past 2 decades.
Most people have never seen this. The clade the arrow is pointing to includes all animals and fungi and some related "protists", prototaxites probably still fell into that branch even if they were not fungi. Proper plants and green/red algae are in that "archaeplastida" clade. Everything else is shit that's technically not animal, fungi or plant (nor bacteria, archea or virus for that matter)
>>5107679 >Everything else is shit that's technically not animal, fungi or plant (nor bacteria, archea or virus for that matter) >>5107680 >SAR So what the hell are indians then? They look like humans but apparently we're more closely related to plants than them?
>>5100687 That doesn't make much sense though, since there was nothing up there for filter-feeders or any other predators. There weren't even flying insects back then I think, nor trees.
>>5107777 Yes, if mistakes like the renaissance, reformation, invention and spread of the printing press enlightenment and the industrial revolution never happened we'd live in a much less degenerate and unnatural world. 99% of "people" shouldn't be allowed to have any impact more lasting than the fields they plow.
>>5115608 No, but birds in general followed a very different evolutionary trajectory from mammals/synapsids and even their brains are wired differently.
>>5107573 >required lots of energy that couldn't always be met This has always been one of the most mind numbingly stupid midwit takes in existence. You stupid fat fucking retard, stop trying to justify your refusal to eat a balanced diet with these blindingly ignorant attempts at evolutionary biology.
Here's how stupid you are. This is a picture of some chimpanzees sitting in a tree, eating fruit. The specific fruit here is the cape fig, which has roughly 35 calories per fruit. This is the calorie content for a human; an ape with a better ability to digest fiber would get a bit more. Regardless, this picture of a tiny portion of a tree, literally just a few branches hanging down into the shot, contains around 90 fruits. At 35 calories each, we're looking at 3,150 calories.
The entire tree would contain hundreds of thousands of calories worth of fruit. That's just one tree; that's how easy it is to get calories in a tropical region where fruit is abundant and in season year round. Even if you needed 10k calories a day, you could meet it easily by literally just sitting in one of these trees and eating fruit for a few hours.
>>5120840 it was supposed to explain both and in both cases it's stupid. Baboons aren't bipedal and chimps that live on or near savannas don't become more bipedal.
Much of the controversy is over the extent to which brain structures have evolved independently of each other (mosaic evolution) or in a coordinated way (concerted evolution).
Here, we show that pallium areas associated with domain-general cognition represent a large fraction of the entire brain, are disproportionally larger in large-brained birds and accurately predict variation in the whole brain when allometric effects are appropriately accounted for. While this does not question the importance of mosaic evolution, it suggests that examining specialized, small areas of the brain is not very helpful for understanding why some birds have evolved such large brains. Instead, the size of the whole brain reflects consistent variation in associative pallium areas and hence is functionally meaningful for comparative analyses.
>he trusts “Science” They are just making shit up, dude. Most research is make-work bullshit to keep the grant money flowing and doctoral students busy. If you hypothesize the Earth is banana-shaped and spend millions to find out you are wrong, that is not increasing human knowledge, it’s a waste of money. That is the bulk of government funded academic science at this point in human history. It’s systemic fraud on a massive scale.