Notices
Results 1 to 93 of 93

Thread: Did pigs and hominids evolve (live) in the same locality (specifically in Africa) 2 - 7 million ya?

  1. #1 Did pigs and hominids evolve (live) in the same locality (specifically in Africa) 2 - 7 million ya? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    This issue has been a bone of contention between the forum members. [Pigs = any animal that looks like a pig. I'm talking hogs or pigs not any particular species or genus.]
    My original comments were that I thought the animal "pig" would associate with bands of hominids as soon as they started eating meat for pigs are scavenging type animals. If they were associated, pigs and hominids would share diseases, parasites, viruses and bacteria. This sharing somehow allows for the occasional transfer of genetic material via these organisms between the species.

    Now did that occur? Can it occur?

    Since then I have heard it said that on two documentaries hominid fossils have been found in the same strata as the pig fossil fragments. I have already detailed where these were, and I'm not saying it was proof but it definitely supports my idea.

    So don't get me wrong I'm not advocating pig-hominid hybridization as a mechanism of human evolution as did McCarthy. So don't even mention it.
    Human origins: Are we hybrids?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    At what temporal point do you want to start talking about this presumed association? Suids first emerged as a distinct family in Eastern Asia, while Homonids Emerged in south central Africa. At the end of the Miocene, around 3 million years there are associated fossils of side branches for the family.

    There is no evidence of genetic material transfer


    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    The Suidae appeared in the mid-Oligocene. It was also a period of drying as many oceans receded and the first grasslands started to appear.
    For humans I suppose Orrorin is about as good of an example as any and Orrorin is from the Messinian period which is upper Miocene.

    So humans are later than piggies are.

    geological scale;
    Geologic time scale
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    At what temporal point do you want to start talking about this presumed association? Suids first emerged as a distinct family in Eastern Asia, while Homonids Emerged in south central Africa. At the end of the Miocene, around 3 million years there are associated fossils of side branches for the family.

    There is no evidence of genetic material transfer
    That Orrorin tugenensis fossil was associated with animals dated at 6 million ya and they said something about pig fossils found in the same strata. Did you accept that?
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    The Suidae appeared in the mid-Oligocene. It was also a period of drying as many oceans receded and the first grasslands started to appear.
    For humans I suppose Orrorin is about as good of an example as any and Orrorin is from the Messinian period which is upper Miocene.

    So humans are later than piggies are.

    geological scale;
    Geologic time scale
    Humans and pigs are hand in hand today. But when did that association start, and I'm thinking that it is even before domestication, just a symbiotic association is possible. Would pigs keep other predators away? They certainly could act as a lookout, we'd soon have learned to recognize the sound of a distressed pig. The pigs virtually have a basic language which the hominin could have learned.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I don't know about that. Wild pigs are pretty scary beasts and domestication of them was likely recent, maybe as recent as 10,000ya.
    There is also the question of location. They might have been in the same time, but maybe not in the same part of the world.

    I don't know how long ago we got our tapeworms, but I suspect it might be a clue to knowing when we had extensive contact with pigs.
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I don't know about that. Wild pigs are pretty scary beasts and domestication of them was likely recent, maybe as recent as 10,000ya.
    There is also the question of location. They might have been in the same time, but maybe not in the same part of the world.

    I don't know how long ago we got our tapeworms, but I suspect it might be a clue to knowing when we had extensive contact with pigs.
    Are you saying we share a similar tapeworm with the pig? Once we started growing veges etc pigs would be a damn nuisance for they would be devouring our crops as fast as we'd be planting them. So no wonder they started herding them, keeping them away from the agricultural areas. The African type of pig seems friendly enough and relatively small. Bush pigs and Red River hogs seems to befriend tourist even today.

    Look how they capture pigs in the wild today in Africa. This method could be as old as the hills too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3ZUX71tQy4

    See how fast they are; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB5pVK911i8
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Certainly, as modern man moves into a future beyond the stratosphere, as we move into interplanetary, then interstellar space, our porcine companions will not be far behind. Pigs in Space.
     

  10. #9  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If you can't have bacon, you might as well just open the airlock doors and exhale.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Certainly, as modern man moves into a future beyond the stratosphere, as we move into interplanetary, then interstellar space, our porcine companions will not be far behind. Pigs in Space.
    I just love the Muppets. Cheers
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    If you can't have bacon, you might as well just open the airlock doors and exhale.
    "hi-yah!" Miss Piggy is not happy with you!
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    The Suidae appeared in the mid-Oligocene. It was also a period of drying as many oceans receded and the first grasslands started to appear.
    For humans I suppose Orrorin is about as good of an example as any and Orrorin is from the Messinian period which is upper Miocene.

    So humans are later than piggies are.

    geological scale;
    Geologic time scale
    Humans and pigs are hand in hand today. But when did that association start, and I'm thinking that it is even before domestication, just a symbiotic association is possible. Would pigs keep other predators away? They certainly could act as a lookout, we'd soon have learned to recognize the sound of a distressed pig. The pigs virtually have a basic language which the hominin could have learned.
    Here are some modern hominins talking "pig". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XSq0PvVxMs

    The pig language in the next clip is not matching the pictures unfortunately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmvheoF-cA

    Here are some sounds that the Orrorin knew like the back of their hands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5ab3u6T_k
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    At what temporal point do you want to start talking about this presumed association? Suids first emerged as a distinct family in Eastern Asia, while Homonids Emerged in south central Africa. At the end of the Miocene, around 3 million years there are associated fossils of side branches for the family.

    There is no evidence of genetic material transfer
    That Orrorin tugenensis fossil was associated with animals dated at 6 million ya and they said something about pig fossils found in the same strata. Did you accept that?
    Who is "they" and, for the umpteenth time, peer reviewed sources, not yt.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    At what temporal point do you want to start talking about this presumed association? Suids first emerged as a distinct family in Eastern Asia, while Homonids Emerged in south central Africa. At the end of the Miocene, around 3 million years there are associated fossils of side branches for the family.

    There is no evidence of genetic material transfer
    That Orrorin tugenensis fossil was associated with animals dated at 6 million ya and they said something about pig fossils found in the same strata. Did you accept that?
    Who is "they" and, for the umpteenth time, peer reviewed sources, not yt.
    Don't you feel like going to Africa and checking it out for yourself? I do. I'm going to go and do an exploration in that area myself! That is how I feel at the moment.
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something? Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?

    It is interesting that pigs have such similar DNA to humans. Clearly humans did not mate with pigs, so one has to wonder what may have caused such morphologically dissimilar species to have similar DNA.


    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something? Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?

    It is interesting that pigs have such similar DNA to humans. Clearly humans did not mate with pigs, so one has to wonder what may have caused such morphologically dissimilar species to have similar DNA.


    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    How did you conclude that our DNA was at all similar. Certainly a lot of anatomy is similar (we were taught that at school 40 years ago) and some parts of the pig were used for transplants because they were similar in size.

    When the original inhabitants used to eat the white explorers they called then "Long Pigs" for we tasted a lot like pork does. Long pig | Define Long pig at Dictionary.com
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something? Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?
    Utter poppycock, Kojax, im sorry to say. That is not how biology works at all. The body does not convert to match a food source at any point. there are enzymatic level changes that occur in the digestive tract when meat vers plat is consumed. by the time the material is absorbed by the blood and lymphatic system, the origin is not relevant at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It is interesting that pigs have such similar DNA to humans. Clearly humans did not mate with pigs, so one has to wonder what may have caused such morphologically dissimilar species to have similar DNA.
    Easy, evolution from a common mammalian ancestor, plus tons of mass media brouhaha over OHHH LOOK WERE SIMILAR, with no comparison to any other mammals.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    At what temporal point do you want to start talking about this presumed association? Suids first emerged as a distinct family in Eastern Asia, while Homonids Emerged in south central Africa. At the end of the Miocene, around 3 million years there are associated fossils of side branches for the family.

    There is no evidence of genetic material transfer
    That Orrorin tugenensis fossil was associated with animals dated at 6 million ya and they said something about pig fossils found in the same strata. Did you accept that?
    Who is "they" and, for the umpteenth time, peer reviewed sources, not yt.
    Don't you feel like going to Africa and checking it out for yourself? I do. I'm going to go and do an exploration in that area myself! That is how I feel at the moment.
    No, you make the assertion, you defend the assertion with actual sources and not yt. All it takes is looking at the prl with the hours you currently waste on yt
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something? Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?
    Utter poppycock, Kojax, im sorry to say. That is not how biology works at all. The body does not convert to match a food source at any point. there are enzymatic level changes that occur in the digestive tract when meat vers plat is consumed. by the time the material is absorbed by the blood and lymphatic system, the origin is not relevant at all.
    I used to think a bit like this too, but since the A2 milk issue and gluten sensitivity issue has been looked at I'm tending to the view we are broadly adapting to our diet as well. If our current food resources are laden with gluten, the individuals who can tolerate gluten are the evolutionary winners. Same with those sensitive to the A1 beta casein in milk, tough luck you're a misfit.

    .....

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    The type of tools kojax is referring to might just be the hand stone axe and the spear.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 14th, 2014 at 11:13 PM.
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    ...
    No, you make the assertion, you defend the assertion with actual sources and not yt. All it takes is looking at the prl with the hours you currently waste on yt
    It isn't that easy you know for you have to know what you are looking for to find it.

    I think you will continually bluff me off as you have done for the last year or so, hardly ever making a stand yourself. Either you know whether there were pigs in Africa 6 million years ago or not. I think you took sides against me way back and can't stand the idea that I'm about to show the forum that you were wrong.
    Do you know if there were pigs in Africa 2 - 7 million ya? You don't need peer reviewed literature to know that when you can see them pick up pieces of pig jaw bones in the YT videos; they are there in the same strata as they are looking for hominid fossils.
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    How did you conclude that our DNA was at all similar. Certainly a lot of anatomy is similar (we were taught that at school 40 years ago) and some parts of the pig were used for transplants because they were similar in size.

    When the original inhabitants used to eat the white explorers they called then "Long Pigs" for we tasted a lot like pork does. Long pig | Define Long pig at Dictionary.com

    Pigs are at the top of the list right now as candidates for animals to be used for organ transplants to humans.

    http://www.popsci.com/article/scienc...humans-are-way

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...n-success.html


    If pig DNA wasn't at least reasonably similar to human DNA then a human's immune system would quickly reject it. Attacking it as a foreign organism. They're not as close as other primates, but they're close enough to be seriously considered for heart transplant donors.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something? Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?
    Utter poppycock, Kojax, im sorry to say. That is not how biology works at all. The body does not convert to match a food source at any point. there are enzymatic level changes that occur in the digestive tract when meat vers plat is consumed. by the time the material is absorbed by the blood and lymphatic system, the origin is not relevant at all.
    Yeah. I'm kind of grasping at straws for an explanation for the similarities.

    But the reason our DNA might change to be similar to theirs is not because we're imprinting their dna on ourselves or anything. It would be because if they were our primary source of meat, then we're getting a substantial amount of our nutrition from their corpses. Our bodies would tend to adapt to use the same nutrients as the pigs, since those nutrients are what we are eating.

    Evolution toward using the nutrients available is a big part of natural selection. If two organisms are focusing on utilizing the same nutrients, they might just so happen to choose some of the same DNA structures to build from.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    Not many humans still live in the trees, but all evidence suggests living in the trees is what caused our hands to evolve. Now that we have them, they remain with us for other reasons.

    Same with the brain. The conditions that lead to us getting oversized brains may have been different from the reasons why we have kept those brains. Evolution can't see its own future. An oversized brain doesn't evolve because of a benefit that will be realized later on, after you have completed the size increase. It evolves for a reason that's immediately present, and which each incremental increase in size will benefit.

    The main reason most animals don't have big brains is because the nutritional costs are too high to be worth the marginal benefit of a small size increase. So either one of two things must be present for a species to grow its brain . Either it needs to be very beneficial (so much so that the cost is outweighed), or the cost needs to be a minor concern (because the species has ready access to an abundant supply of meat.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    The type of tools kojax is referring to might just be the hand stone axe and the spear.
    Yeah. I'm just thinking of those kinds of tools. They're pretty revolutionary by animal kingdom standards.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Chimps hunt meat, and show a high degree of organization as they do it. In other words they use their brains to catch their prey.

    The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees

    While scavenging is a frequently posited mode of getting meat for our ancestors, wild chimpanzees (particularly the males who do most of the hunting) show little interest in dead animals as a food source, so scavenging may have evolved as an important mode of getting food as hominids began to make and use tools for getting at meat. Before this time, it seems likely that earlier hominids were hunting mammals as chimpanzees do today, and the role that hunting played in the early hominids' social lives was probably as complex and politically charged as it is in chimpanzees. These early homininds may have been important predators in Pliocene forest ecosystems. When we ask the question "when did meat become an important part of the human diet ?," we must therefore look well before the evolutionary split between apes and humans in our own family tree.
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Chimps hunt meat, and show a high degree of organization as they do it. In other words they use their brains to catch their prey.

    The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees

    While scavenging is a frequently posited mode of getting meat for our ancestors, wild chimpanzees (particularly the males who do most of the hunting) show little interest in dead animals as a food source, so scavenging may have evolved as an important mode of getting food as hominids began to make and use tools for getting at meat. Before this time, it seems likely that earlier hominids were hunting mammals as chimpanzees do today, and the role that hunting played in the early hominids' social lives was probably as complex and politically charged as it is in chimpanzees. These early homininds may have been important predators in Pliocene forest ecosystems. When we ask the question "when did meat become an important part of the human diet ?," we must therefore look well before the evolutionary split between apes and humans in our own family tree.
    The more I look at it, at the fossils of the hominid heads if they have strong jaws and large jaw muscles they will still have relatively small sized brains. The genetic defect causing the weak jaws is the first and foremost change, they then learn to cope with that defect and survive. I propose that when the weather in Africa changed then Orrorin tugenensis evolves into Homo habilis after a long period of climatic stability (3 million years).
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you know if there were pigs in Africa 2 - 7 million ya? You don't need peer reviewed literature to know that when you can see them pick up pieces of pig jaw bones in the YT videos; they are there in the same strata as they are looking for hominid fossils.
    Your experience with vertebrate anatomy is sufficient for you to be able to distinguish a pig jawbone on a You-Tube video? You should hire yourself out as a stage act.
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you know if there were pigs in Africa 2 - 7 million ya? You don't need peer reviewed literature to know that when you can see them pick up pieces of pig jaw bones in the YT videos; they are there in the same strata as they are looking for hominid fossils.
    Your experience with vertebrate anatomy is sufficient for you to be able to distinguish a pig jawbone on a You-Tube video? You should hire yourself out as a stage act.
    I have a look and yes they were consistent, but I can't be sure. But honestly are Donald Johanson and others going to tell us lies on YT?
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But honestly are Donald Johanson and others going to tell us lies on YT?
    Simple answer: yes.

    More complex answer:
    1. They could lie.
    2. They could be mistaken.
    3. Their caveats could be excluded from the edited video.
    4. You could misunderstand/misinterpret what was said.

    These issues, 1 - 3, are dealt with in peer review. YT videos are not peer reviewed. Peer review is a cornerstone of how science is conducted today.
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But honestly are Donald Johanson and others going to tell us lies on YT?
    Simple answer: yes.

    More complex answer:
    1. They could lie.
    2. They could be mistaken.
    3. Their caveats could be excluded from the edited video.
    4. You could misunderstand/misinterpret what was said.

    These issues, 1 - 3, are dealt with in peer review. YT videos are not peer reviewed. Peer review is a cornerstone of how science is conducted today.
    I waded through that YT again today and got the names of the players so I will put their names in Google Scholar and see if any papers come up tomorrow or Wednesday Ok.
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But honestly are Donald Johanson and others going to tell us lies on YT?
    Simple answer: yes.

    More complex answer:
    1. They could lie.
    2. They could be mistaken.
    3. Their caveats could be excluded from the edited video.
    4. You could misunderstand/misinterpret what was said.

    These issues, 1 - 3, are dealt with in peer review. YT videos are not peer reviewed. Peer review is a cornerstone of how science is conducted today.
    I waded through that YT again today and got the names of the players so I will put their names in Google Scholar and see if any papers come up tomorrow or Wednesday Ok.
    In between now and then how much of your spare times will be spent on yt?

    Im not bluffing, I have looked at the peer reviewed literature, and have been asking you for over a year to do the same. Every time you claim to be busy and will get to it later. Later is now, and we are waiting.

    The reasons that youtube is NOT acceptable at all have been extensively detailed to you multiple times since you first joined the forum.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Robbitybob, if it will help you focus on proper research instead of info-tainment then keep this in mind. The next time you offer a YT video in support of any argument you will receive a one week ban. I trust this is acceptable to you. (Hint: the only acceptable answer is Yes.)
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post


    Pigs are at the top of the list right now as candidates for animals to be used for organ transplants to humans.

    Pig Heart Transplants For Humans Are On The Way | Popular Science

    Pig hearts could be transplanted into humans after baboon success - Telegraph


    If pig DNA wasn't at least reasonably similar to human DNA then a human's immune system would quickly reject it. Attacking it as a foreign organism. They're not as close as other primates, but they're close enough to be seriously considered for heart transplant donors.
    Cow organs are also used extensively for things like valve replacements. The major reason livestock are used is that any closer animal would elicit strong humane objections and backlash.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something? Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?
    Utter poppycock, Kojax, im sorry to say. That is not how biology works at all. The body does not convert to match a food source at any point. there are enzymatic level changes that occur in the digestive tract when meat vers plat is consumed. by the time the material is absorbed by the blood and lymphatic system, the origin is not relevant at all.
    Yeah. I'm kind of grasping at straws for an explanation for the similarities.

    But the reason our DNA might change to be similar to theirs is not because we're imprinting their dna on ourselves or anything. It would be because if they were our primary source of meat, then we're getting a substantial amount of our nutrition from their corpses. Our bodies would tend to adapt to use the same nutrients as the pigs, since those nutrients are what we are eating.

    Evolution toward using the nutrients available is a big part of natural selection. If two organisms are focusing on utilizing the same nutrients, they might just so happen to choose some of the same DNA structures to build from.
    Please stop grasping at straws them, As I already noted, the explanation is very basic, decent from a common mammalian ancestor, leading to very close DNAs. Nothing involving the food source should have been invoked at all.

    Pigs as food equals similar DNA is NOT the reason. Plain and simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    Not many humans still live in the trees, but all evidence suggests living in the trees is what caused our hands to evolve. Now that we have them, they remain with us for other reasons.

    Same with the brain. The conditions that lead to us getting oversized brains may have been different from the reasons why we have kept those brains. Evolution can't see its own future. An oversized brain doesn't evolve because of a benefit that will be realized later on, after you have completed the size increase. It evolves for a reason that's immediately present, and which each incremental increase in size will benefit.

    The main reason most animals don't have big brains is because the nutritional costs are too high to be worth the marginal benefit of a small size increase. So either one of two things must be present for a species to grow its brain . Either it needs to be very beneficial (so much so that the cost is outweighed), or the cost needs to be a minor concern (because the species has ready access to an abundant supply of meat.)
    I am still waiting for the supporting papers.
    As already noted, a number of other primates, including Chimps and Bonobos, are active hunters, with tool use. Conversely you need to show that homonids were facing a shortage of prey animals during the early Miocene.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    The type of tools kojax is referring to might just be the hand stone axe and the spear.
    Yeah. I'm just thinking of those kinds of tools. They're pretty revolutionary by animal kingdom standards.[/QUOTE]

    Not really, as has already been explained.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But honestly are Donald Johanson and others going to tell us lies on YT?
    Simple answer: yes.

    More complex answer:
    1. They could lie.
    2. They could be mistaken.
    3. Their caveats could be excluded from the edited video.
    4. You could misunderstand/misinterpret what was said.

    These issues, 1 - 3, are dealt with in peer review. YT videos are not peer reviewed. Peer review is a cornerstone of how science is conducted today.
    I waded through that YT again today and got the names of the players so I will put their names in Google Scholar and see if any papers come up tomorrow or Wednesday Ok.
    In between now and then how much of your spare times will be spent on yt?

    Im not bluffing, I have looked at the peer reviewed literature, and have been asking you for over a year to do the same. Every time you claim to be busy and will get to it later. Later is now, and we are waiting.

    The reasons that youtube is NOT acceptable at all have been extensively detailed to you multiple times since you first joined the forum.
    So what is your conclusion after your research through the peer reviewed literature? Were there pigs in Africa during this time period or not? I have been asking you time and time again and you bluff me away. This time it is you at fault.
    You have no authority to say what is acceptable to this forum. Even John himself links to YT videos, so what is good for the Galt is good for the gander, as they say.

    I want to know your stance: were there pigs in Africa during this time period or not?
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But honestly are Donald Johanson and others going to tell us lies on YT?
    Simple answer: yes.

    More complex answer:
    1. They could lie.
    2. They could be mistaken.
    3. Their caveats could be excluded from the edited video.
    4. You could misunderstand/misinterpret what was said.

    These issues, 1 - 3, are dealt with in peer review. YT videos are not peer reviewed. Peer review is a cornerstone of how science is conducted today.
    I'm surprised that you could suggest that an international hero like Don Johanson (the finder of "Lucy") would lie. I'm shocked by the remark. OK they are reenacting how it all happened at the time of the discovery so it is acting but I'm sure what they say is truly factual.
    OK a documentary like that isn't cutting edge science but it surely is a good starting point, a great basic level of understanding. Were there parts you felt were wrong and unscientific?
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I have very rarely linked to YT videos. Indeed I don't recall any occasions, but accept your word that I have done so. I think you will find that any I offered were offered as an educational resource, not a prime source of peer reviewed data. Look through my posts Robbitybob and you will find many, many instances where I provide citations and often abstracts of relevant research. The full details are provided: authors, title, journal, date. If I reference a book I give authors, title, year of publication, publisher and ISBN number.

    Now read my last post, or your goose is cooked.
    Moderator Comment:The onus is on you to produce the citations for sound research that supports or relates to your argument. Do so now, or the thread is locked.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Not really, as has already been explained.
    What have you really explained it to Kojax? I can't see it.
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have very rarely linked to YT videos. Indeed I don't recall any occasions, but accept your word that I have done so. I think you will find that any I offered were offered as an educational resource, not a prime source of peer reviewed data. Look through my posts Robbitybob and you will find many, many instances where I provide citations and often abstracts of relevant research. The full details are provided: authors, title, journal, date. If I reference a book I give authors, title, year of publication, publisher and ISBN number.

    Now read my last post, or your goose is cooked.
    Moderator Comment:The onus is on you to produce the citations for sound research that supports or relates to your argument. Do so now, or the thread is locked.
    Don't worry I'm going to, for I can't see any reason why there isn't some reference to pig fossils in Africa during this time period. But are you guys going to refuse to believe it if someone has forgotten to mention it?
    It was your "Pigs in Space" clip I had in mind. How scientific was that?
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have very rarely linked to YT videos. Indeed I don't recall any occasions, but accept your word that I have done so. I think you will find that any I offered were offered as an educational resource, not a prime source of peer reviewed data. Look through my posts Robbitybob and you will find many, many instances where I provide citations and often abstracts of relevant research. The full details are provided: authors, title, journal, date. If I reference a book I give authors, title, year of publication, publisher and ISBN number.

    Now read my last post, or your goose is cooked.
    Moderator Comment:The onus is on you to produce the citations for sound research that supports or relates to your argument. Do so now, or the thread is locked.
    Don't worry I'm going to, for I can't see any reason why there isn't some reference to pig fossils in Africa during this time period. But are you guys going to refuse to believe it if someone has forgotten to mention it?
    It was your "Pigs in Space" clip I had in mind. How scientific was that?
    How about this abstract for a starter: It seems to mirror exactly what I have been saying.
    Science 7 October 1977: Vol. 198 no. 4312 pp. 13-21
    DOI: 10.1126/science.331477


    • ARTICLES

    Suid evolution and correlation of African hominid localities






    Recently discovered Plio-Pleistocene vertebrate assemblages have allowed complete systematic revision of the sub-Saharan African Suidae. New phylogenies are proposed for the 7 genera and 16 species of fossil and extant representatives. Suids are common elements of African Plio-Pleistocene faunas, and their evolutionary trends, particularly in the species Mesochoerus limnetes and Metridiochoerus andrewsi, are of great correlative value. Suid data are employed in a refinement of stratigraphic correlations at Omo Shungura, Olduvai, and east of Lake Turkana (formerly East Rudolf) and in a correlation of East African and South African sites, with important implications for interpretation of hominid evolution. The suid record also bears significantly on questions of theoretical evolutionary biology.


    THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:

    • Evolutionary Origins, Diversification, and Biogeography of Liver Flukes (Digenea, Fasciolidae)Am J Trop Med Hyg 1 August 2008: 248-255.



    • A Brief History of Research at Koobi Fora, Northern KenyaEthnohistory 1 January 2006: 35-69.



    • A systematic assessment of early African hominidsScience 26 January 1979: 321-330.



    • Suid evolution and correlation of African hominid localities: an alternative taxonomyScience 4 August 1978: 460-463.



     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    You have now established that Suidae members have been found in Ice-age deposits of Africa, well done. However that is not the time frame of your assertion.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    You might have better luck with something like this Robbity.
    https://community.dur.ac.uk/greger.l...id%20Phylo.pdf

    But I really don't understand why you are hung up on a possible relationship between humans and hogs.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Here is another one saying pigs were in Africa somewhere between 7 and 8 million years ago.
    PLOS ONE: A New Species of Nyanzachoerus (Cetartiodactyla: Suidae) from the Late Miocene Toros-Ménalla, Chad, Central Africa
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    You might have better luck with something like this Robbity.
    https://community.dur.ac.uk/greger.l...id%20Phylo.pdf

    But I really don't understand why you are hung up on a possible relationship between humans and hogs.
    The terminology and language of scientific papers takes a bit of getting used to. This extract from the "Discussion" section gives some dates to work from.
    Interestingly, our estimates of the divergence time between modern sub-Saharan African genera (7.36–14.45 Ma) is earlier than the first occurrence of any Suinae fossil in Africa (Brunet & White 2001). This suggests that sub-Saharan suids might have diverged from their common ancestor outside Africa. This is a provocative proposition because the earliest occurrence of Suinae in Africa is not until the Early Pliocene (approximately 5.5 Ma) (Pickford 1993; Brunet & White 2001) and because it has been proposed that Ph. africanus and Ph. aethiopicus may have appeared approximately 1.2 Ma and P. porcus approximately 0.5 Ma (Cooke 1978), which is much later than the divergence date estimates in this study. However, the lower limit of our estimates (Fig. S2; Table 2) do not exclude the possibility that the divergence within Potamochoerus and possibly Phacochoerus occurred in Africa even
    earlier than the current fossil record suggests.
    Well if that has any value, I particularly like this sentence, "because the earliest occurrence of Suinae in Africa is not until the Early Pliocene (approximately 5.5 Ma) (Pickford 1993; Brunet & White 2001)", because that "5.5 Ma" is right in middle of the period of early hominid evolution.

    Thanks Dan. I'm mainly interested in the pig hominid relationship from the zoonotic disease aspect. I am heading toward looking at the evolution of the zoonotic diseases as a way of determining how much contact occurred between the two types of animals.
    http://www.absa.org/pdf/ZoonoticFactSheet.pdf shows quite a high occurrence of pig or swine as the host species. Is there a reason for this?
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Here is another one saying pigs were in Africa somewhere between 7 and 8 million years ago.
    PLOS ONE: A New Species of Nyanzachoerus (Cetartiodactyla: Suidae) from the Late Miocene Toros-Ménalla, Chad, Central Africa
    I think it is becoming clear the early hominids had to contend with pigs hanging around their camps. Why wouldn't they! As soon as a large kill was made could the tribe defend the carcass from scavengers (pigs) over night?
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Here is another one saying pigs were in Africa somewhere between 7 and 8 million years ago.
    PLOS ONE: A New Species of Nyanzachoerus (Cetartiodactyla: Suidae) from the Late Miocene Toros-Ménalla, Chad, Central Africa
    I think it is becoming clear the early hominids had to contend with pigs hanging around their camps. Why wouldn't they! As soon as a large kill was made could the tribe defend the carcass from scavengers (pigs) over night?
    Not really becoming clear, as there is indication in the paper of what the solitary suid would be foraging for, its from an entirely extinct suid subfamily, and was eating grasses and low plants, not meat. The fossils described are from the Latest Miocene, thus very close to the Pliocene Ice age start. Not similar in age at all to your opening assertion, though it would have been associated with Sahelanthropus sp. as noted in the paper.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Here is another one saying pigs were in Africa somewhere between 7 and 8 million years ago.
    PLOS ONE: A New Species of Nyanzachoerus (Cetartiodactyla: Suidae) from the Late Miocene Toros-Ménalla, Chad, Central Africa
    I think it is becoming clear the early hominids had to contend with pigs hanging around their camps. Why wouldn't they! As soon as a large kill was made could the tribe defend the carcass from scavengers (pigs) over night?
    Not really becoming clear, as there is indication in the paper of what the solitary suid would be foraging for, its from an entirely extinct suid subfamily, and was eating grasses and low plants, not meat. The fossils described are from the Latest Miocene, thus very close to the Pliocene Ice age start. Not similar in age at all to your opening assertion, though it would have been associated with Sahelanthropus sp. as noted in the paper.
    Yes my comment above was more my own opinion rather than someone else's opinion.

    I find the science research papers are describing things I'm not particularly interested in. It takes a bit of work to get much sense out of them. Is this your field of research? Do you know much about the zoonotic diseases between pigs and humans?
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Tell that to the many very low tech tribes that have no problem getting food without advanced tools. Per whos assertion is meat the requirement for brain enlargement in homonids
    Not many humans still live in the trees, but all evidence suggests living in the trees is what caused our hands to evolve. Now that we have them, they remain with us for other reasons.

    Same with the brain. The conditions that lead to us getting oversized brains may have been different from the reasons why we have kept those brains. Evolution can't see its own future. An oversized brain doesn't evolve because of a benefit that will be realized later on, after you have completed the size increase. It evolves for a reason that's immediately present, and which each incremental increase in size will benefit.

    The main reason most animals don't have big brains is because the nutritional costs are too high to be worth the marginal benefit of a small size increase. So either one of two things must be present for a species to grow its brain . Either it needs to be very beneficial (so much so that the cost is outweighed), or the cost needs to be a minor concern (because the species has ready access to an abundant supply of meat.)
    I am still waiting for the supporting papers.
    As already noted, a number of other primates, including Chimps and Bonobos, are active hunters, with tool use. Conversely you need to show that homonids were facing a shortage of prey animals during the early Miocene.
    During the savannah stage, there would have been a shortage of everything. Foraging is all about minimum use of energy, because it is a minimum food option. Hunting is a high energy occupation, unless you can build traps or something, or bring down very large prey.

    As far as Chimps and Bonobos, the only tool use I know of them to use in hunting is things like using sticks to dig small animals out of their nests. Or improvising clubs to fight off a predator. Nothing in the same ballpark as what humans do.

    Also we should add fire to the list of "advanced tools" that humans use. And sharp rocks, too. The use of basic sharpened stone hand axes appears to go all the way back to homo-habilis.

    Stone Age Hand-axes

    Acheulean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Probably fire was discovered when some tribe inadvertently chose to make its axes out of flint.
    Last edited by kojax; September 16th, 2014 at 08:58 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Here is another one saying pigs were in Africa somewhere between 7 and 8 million years ago.
    PLOS ONE: A New Species of Nyanzachoerus (Cetartiodactyla: Suidae) from the Late Miocene Toros-Ménalla, Chad, Central Africa
    I think it is becoming clear the early hominids had to contend with pigs hanging around their camps. Why wouldn't they! As soon as a large kill was made could the tribe defend the carcass from scavengers (pigs) over night?
    Not really becoming clear, as there is indication in the paper of what the solitary suid would be foraging for, its from an entirely extinct suid subfamily, and was eating grasses and low plants, not meat. The fossils described are from the Latest Miocene, thus very close to the Pliocene Ice age start. Not similar in age at all to your opening assertion, though it would have been associated with Sahelanthropus sp. as noted in the paper.
    @Paleoiocheum - please how did you work out it wasn't eating meat?
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    During the savannah stage, there would have been a shortage of everything. Foraging is all about minimum use of energy, because it is a minimum food option. Hunting is a high energy occupation, unless you can build traps or something, or bring down very large prey.
    What data do you base your assertion "shortage of everything" on? This is not the condition that is found in current savannah environments, why would it be that way then?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As far as Chimps and Bonobos, the only tool use I know of them to use in hunting is things like using sticks to dig small animals out of their nests. Or improvising clubs to fight off a predator. Nothing in the same ballpark as what humans do.
    Chimps are known to use both sticks and stones, very similar to what early homonids would have been using.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Also we should add fire to the list of "advanced tools" that humans use. And sharp rocks, too. The use of basic sharpened stone hand axes appears to go all the way back to homo-habilis.

    Stone Age Hand-axes

    Acheulean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Probably fire was discovered when some tribe inadvertently chose to make its axes out of flint.
    The stone age and paleolithic are far more recent then the discussion at hand.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Here is another one saying pigs were in Africa somewhere between 7 and 8 million years ago.
    PLOS ONE: A New Species of Nyanzachoerus (Cetartiodactyla: Suidae) from the Late Miocene Toros-Ménalla, Chad, Central Africa
    I think it is becoming clear the early hominids had to contend with pigs hanging around their camps. Why wouldn't they! As soon as a large kill was made could the tribe defend the carcass from scavengers (pigs) over night?
    Not really becoming clear, as there is indication in the paper of what the solitary suid would be foraging for, its from an entirely extinct suid subfamily, and was eating grasses and low plants, not meat. The fossils described are from the Latest Miocene, thus very close to the Pliocene Ice age start. Not similar in age at all to your opening assertion, though it would have been associated with Sahelanthropus sp. as noted in the paper.
    @Paleoiocheum - please how did you work out it wasn't eating meat?
    Easy, I read the section in the paper on diet.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    ...Easy, I read the section in the paper on diet.
    You mean this bit?
    Nyanzachoerus khinzir is morphologically close to Ny. tulotos of eastern Africa [10], [14], [17],[42]. Their dental morphological proximity implies that these species may have been ecologically similar. Carbon stable isotope results from TM 266-TM 267 support this view, indicating a diversified diet including a mixture of C3 and C4 plants (Fig. 8, Table S6) as for Ny. tulotos from the Turkana Basin [51], [59], [60]. Although TM Nyanzachoerus displays an average diet slightly more C3-enriched than Ny. devauxi and Ny. tulotos and much more C3-enriched than other specimens of Nyanzachoerus from the Turkana Basin, some TM individuals had a diet quite rich in C4 plants (being most generally grasses). It can be noted that no sample of Nyanzachoerus displays a range of variation similar to what is observed for extantPotamochoerus (Fig. 8). This could be interpreted as an indication of more constant food preferences than in Potamochoerus, but it may also reflect a poor representation of populations that lived in closed habitats in late Miocene–early Pliocene sites.
    I can't see any bit about it not eating meat. I see it saying things like "Although TM Nyanzachoerus displays an average diet slightly more C3-enriched than Ny. devauxi and Ny. tulotos and much more C3-enriched than other specimens of Nyanzachoerus from the Turkana Basin, some TM individuals had a diet quite rich in C4 plants (being most generally grasses)." "Most generally grasses" still gives room for a proportion of the balance of the diet to be meat.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 16th, 2014 at 06:40 PM.
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    The giant forest hog surely seems a candidate for being a descendant of the pigs living around where the early hominins lived.
    Note their habits of being mostly herbivores but they will scavenge too.
    Giant forest hog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The giant forest hog is mainly a herbivore, but also scavenges.[7] It is usually considered nocturnal, but in cold periods, it is more commonly seen during daylight hours, and it may be diurnal in regions where protected from humans.[4] They live in herds (sounders) of up to 20 animals consisting of females and their offspring, but usually also including a single old male.[4] Females leave the sounder before giving birth and return with the piglets about a week after parturition. All members of the sounder protect the piglets and they can nurse from all females.[6]
    As all suids of Sub-Saharan Africa, the giant forest hog has not been domesticated, but it is easily tamed and has been considered to have potential for domestication.[4] In the wild, though, the giant forest hog is more feared than the red river hogand the bush pig (the two members of the genus Potamochoerus), as males sometimes attack without warning, possibly to protect their sounder.[4] It has also been known to drive spotted hyenas away from carcasses and fights among males resulting in the death of one of the participants are not uncommon.[6]
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Really? The phrase "quite rich in C4 plants (being most generally grasses)" clearly indicates what is most generally grasses is not the diet, but the C4 plants. Bob, you seriously do seem to have difficulty in reading comprehension. This is not the first time it has been evident. I mention this since I believe it could explain what is to many observers of your behaviour a general absence of logic in your posts. Will you not seek to address that issue in future?
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Really? The phrase "quite rich in C4 plants (being most generally grasses)" clearly indicates what is most generally grasses is not the diet, but the C4 plants. Bob, you seriously do seem to have difficulty in reading comprehension. This is not the first time it has been evident. I mention this since I believe it could explain what is to many observers of your behaviour a general absence of logic in your posts. Will you not seek to address that issue in future?
    Can you please explain to me how your logic works, for at the moment I totally disagree with your explanation.
    C4 plants what are they? Aren't we being told they are "most generally grasses"?
    So even if the diet is "rich in C4 plants" there is still room for meat. Scavenging for meat has NOT been excluded yet. That is my logic and I'm sure it is right.

    Plant Types: II. C4 Plants, Examples, and C4 Families


    C4 plants are those which photosynthesize following the mechanism called C4 Photosynthesis. They are found only in the angiosperms with about 8,000 members in 17 families (see list below), equivalent to about 3% of all land plants. Combined, the grasses (family Poaceae or Gramineae) and sedges (family Cyperaceae) comprise roughly 79% of the total number of C4 species (Simpson 2010).


    Examples of C4 species are the economically important crops corn or maize (Zea mays), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and millets, as well as the switchgrass (Panicum virganum) which has been utilized as a source of biofuel.

    Other examples consist of serious weeds such as the nutgrass or purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus), couch or bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), barnyard grass (Echinocloa spp.), goosegrass (Eleusine indica), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), cogon (Imperata cylindrica), common purslane or alusiman (Portulaca oleracea), crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), several species of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), carabao grass (Paspalum conjugatum), itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata), and Russian thistle or tumbleweed (Salsola kali)
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 16th, 2014 at 08:17 PM.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I guess you guys never spent much time dealing with pigs. Pigs will eat whatever they can, including each other alive if they get the chance.

    Pigs are omnivores just like we are.
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I guess you guys never spent much time dealing with pigs. Pigs will eat whatever they can, including each other alive if they get the chance.

    Pigs are omnivores just like we are.
    I have had dealings with pigs both on a farm (as kids) and in a slaughter house situation (as adult). But when it comes to proving whether Orrorin tugenensis or Sahelanthropus tchadensis had any association with pigs, who knows, but at least we know they were living in the same area at the same time, so that is a start.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    I cannot believe that this is being discussed once again.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If pigs were a primary source of meat, then it would make sense for human DNA to start mirroring Pig DNA a little bit, just to make it easier to digest..... or.... something?
    You eat cow. Let me know when the udders and hooves start growing in.

    What absolute rubbish!

    Easier to use pig proteins as building blocks for the human body?
    No.

    It is interesting that pigs have such similar DNA to humans.
    Not really, no.

    Clearly humans did not mate with pigs, so one has to wonder what may have caused such morphologically dissimilar species to have similar DNA.
    We are both mammals. But the belief that we are so similar to pigs is silly. As mammals, we share a lot of DNA, that is inevitable. That is not because of close association. We also share DNA with plants, insects, worms, and everything else that exists on this planet.

    Figuring out where pre-humans got access to meat is quite an issue for human evolution. Without advanced tools, pre-humans would not have been very good at hunting. But without finding a source of meat, humans would not have gotten smart enough to make advanced tools. And I don't mean the occasional morsel. To evolve a big brain, I think we'd need quite an abundance of meat available.
    Where we got access to meat? It was all around. Chimpanzees are amazingly skilled hunters, without the use of hunting tools. Why do you think eating meat was the reason we made more advanced tools? What an absolutely bizarre comment.

    During the savannah stage, there would have been a shortage of everything. Foraging is all about minimum use of energy, because it is a minimum food option. Hunting is a high energy occupation, unless you can build traps or something, or bring down very large prey.
    Bollocks!

    You are applying what you see in a savannah today to what you assume it would have been like back then. The savannah, even today, is teeming with animal life, of all shapes and sizes. I'd suggest you stop watching documentaries of today and applying it to 6+ million years ago. The animals that you see today, as they are today did not really exist back then in their current and present form. So you assertion is ridiculous.

    As far as Chimps and Bonobos, the only tool use I know of them to use in hunting is things like using sticks to dig small animals out of their nests. Or improvising clubs to fight off a predator. Nothing in the same ballpark as what humans do.
    Chimpanzees are damned good hunters, even without the tools you seem to associate with human behaviour. Chimpanzees can decimate local monkey populations.

    Also we should add fire to the list of "advanced tools" that humans use. And sharp rocks, too. The use of basic sharpened stone hand axes appears to go all the way back to homo-habilis.

    Stone Age Hand-axes

    Acheulean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Probably fire was discovered when some tribe inadvertently chose to make its axes out of flint.
    What?

    Homo habilis were not from the stone age. And no, they did not make stone hand axes. Examples of some of the tools found with their remains:



    Not an axe. They were basic instruments, mostly sharp rocks for cutting. Much like chimpanzees use rocks and stones to break open nuts in the wild.



    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    How did you conclude that our DNA was at all similar. Certainly a lot of anatomy is similar (we were taught that at school 40 years ago) and some parts of the pig were used for transplants because they were similar in size.
    Actually no. There is the mistaken belief that you can just transplant organs from a pig into a human and all will be well. That is not actually the case. Scientists have been able to combat and bypass a particular gene (Core 1 Gal-transferase (C1GalT)) that homo sapiens and higher apes do not have a working version for. Pigs and other mammals do. As a result, if you take a lung or heart or whatever organ from a pig and place it into a human, the Core 1 Gal-transferase (C1GalT) will mean that our immune system will reject it and attack it. Scientists have been able to suppress C1GalT, which allows pig organs to be transplanted. In short, the reason pigs are now used is because they breed large litters and are fairly prolific breeders and some of their organs, if harvested at a particular age, can be used for human transplants. Pigs that are used in this way are more often than not, genetically modified for this purpose.

    You are supposed to be a vet. How can you not know this?

    The more I look at it, at the fossils of the hominid heads if they have strong jaws and large jaw muscles they will still have relatively small sized brains. The genetic defect causing the weak jaws is the first and foremost change, they then learn to cope with that defect and survive. I propose that when the weather in Africa changed then Orrorin tugenensis evolves into Homo habilis after a long period of climatic stability (3 million years).
    What genetic defect?

    And Orrorin tugenensis did not directly evolve into homo habilis.

    How in the world did you manage to come to that conclusion?

    Have you read nothing about human evolution?

    Frankly, I find it ridiculous that I take a break from this place, because frankly, the stupidity you often (always) displayed made this place a turn off. And I return to your going on about the exact same type of crap that made me want to leave in the first place. It is appalling that you can be allowed to continue to post this yet again, without any proof aside from your youtube videos. You claim to be a vet and a "scientists". I have to wonder if you learned your craft from youtube as well. Because you don't even know or understand basic high school biology.
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Unfortunately the Like button is not working. Please assume, Tranquille, that I pressed it eighteen times.

    I also take very much to heart that one of our valued contributors left because our moderation efforts of Robbitybob were sub-par. I hope you will stick around. It is going to get better.
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    ....You are supposed to be a vet. How can you not know this?

    The more I look at it, at the fossils of the hominid heads if they have strong jaws and large jaw muscles they will still have relatively small sized brains. The genetic defect causing the weak jaws is the first and foremost change, they then learn to cope with that defect and survive. I propose that when the weather in Africa changed then Orrorin tugenensis evolves into Homo habilis after a long period of climatic stability (3 million years).
    What genetic defect?

    And Orrorin tugenensis did not directly evolve into homo habilis.

    How in the world did you manage to come to that conclusion?

    Have you read nothing about human evolution?

    Frankly, I find it ridiculous that I take a break from this place, because frankly, the stupidity you often (always) displayed made this place a turn off. And I return to your going on about the exact same type of crap that made me want to leave in the first place. It is appalling that you can be allowed to continue to post this yet again, without any proof aside from your youtube videos. You claim to be a vet and a "scientists". I have to wonder if you learned your craft from youtube as well. Because you don't even know or understand basic high school biology.
    Your break must have been too long. This thread was a shoot from The Aquatic Apes one. In there I propose the theory about the defect that occurred early in hominid development (in the line leading to humans at least).
    You were very wrong about there being no "pigs" in Africa during the time the hominids were evolving.
    Your style is outdated today. There seems to be a new culture on the forum and I believe it will now go from strength to strength.
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Unfortunately the Like button is not working. Please assume, Tranquille, that I pressed it eighteen times.

    I also take very much to heart that one of our valued contributors left because our moderation efforts of Robbitybob were sub-par. I hope you will stick around. It is going to get better.
    Who was that John? Tell me please to see if there really was any truth to that terrible claim.
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    @Tranquille - Your reprimand made look into my belief that pig heart valves have been harvested for use in humans.
    So this article looking at the alternatives was reasonably interesting and confirmed my view.

    Tissue or Mechanical Heart Valve? - On-X Life Technologies, Inc.
    Tissue Heart Valves:Tissue valves are harvested from pig heart valves (porcine) or cow heart sac (bovine). These tissues are treated and neutralized so that the body will not reject them. Some are mounted on a frame or stent; others are used directly (stentless).
    The lifetime of a tissue valve is typically 10 to 15 years, often less in younger patients. Over this time the valve will likely be degenerating to the point of requiring replacement. Because valve replacement surgery carries a significant risk of death, patient life expectancy is a major criterion in considering a tissue valve.
    With relatively high pressure gradients, stented tissue valves do not perform as well as the native valve in terms of blood flow. Tissue valves without frames (stentless) improve blood flow, although they are more difficult to put in place and are not usable in all cases.
    The primary advantage of tissue valves is their lower requirement for anticoagulation therapy, which reduces the incidence of bleeding. For the majority of tissue valve patients, taking an aspirin a day is sufficient anticoagulation therapy. Many patients with tissue valves, however, do not enjoy this benefit due to anticoagulation requirements for other heart or vascular conditions.
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Your break must have been too long. This thread was a shoot from The Aquatic Apes one. In there I propose the theory about the defect that occurred early in hominid development (in the line leading to humans at least).
    You were very wrong about there being no "pigs" in Africa during the time the hominids were evolving.
    Your style is outdated today. There seems to be a new culture on the forum and I believe it will now go from strength to strength.
    What defect?

    This subject was discussed the last time I was here. And it was as ridiculous then as it is now. You are still barking up the 'we evolved from each other' tree, that is what your posts allude to as they did back then. And frankly, your repeated use of youtube as your evidence wears thin.

    No, there were no "pigs" back then. Because the animals you see as "pigs" today did not exist back then. Which is what you can't seem to understand. No, they were not domesticated like you seem to be arguing. There is no sign of domestication of animals during that period. At all.

    If the new culture is like you, then I am genuinely sorry. It is to this site's detriment.
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I guess you guys never spent much time dealing with pigs. Pigs will eat whatever they can, including each other alive if they get the chance.

    Pigs are omnivores just like we are.
    Dan, the paper about the extinct genus we are discussing clearly shows that it was an herbivore, not an omnivore.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  62. #61  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Really? The phrase "quite rich in C4 plants (being most generally grasses)" clearly indicates what is most generally grasses is not the diet, but the C4 plants. Bob, you seriously do seem to have difficulty in reading comprehension. This is not the first time it has been evident. I mention this since I believe it could explain what is to many observers of your behaviour a general absence of logic in your posts. Will you not seek to address that issue in future?
    Can you please explain to me how your logic works, for at the moment I totally disagree with your explanation.
    C4 plants what are they? Aren't we being told they are "most generally grasses"?
    So even if the diet is "rich in C4 plants" there is still room for meat. Scavenging for meat has NOT been excluded yet. That is my logic and I'm sure it is right.

    Plant Types: II. C4 Plants, Examples, and C4 Families


    C4 plants are those which photosynthesize following the mechanism called C4 Photosynthesis. They are found only in the angiosperms with about 8,000 members in 17 families (see list below), equivalent to about 3% of all land plants. Combined, the grasses (family Poaceae or Gramineae) and sedges (family Cyperaceae) comprise roughly 79% of the total number of C4 species (Simpson 2010).


    Examples of C4 species are the economically important crops corn or maize (Zea mays), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and millets, as well as the switchgrass (Panicum virganum) which has been utilized as a source of biofuel.

    Other examples consist of serious weeds such as the nutgrass or purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus), couch or bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), barnyard grass (Echinocloa spp.), goosegrass (Eleusine indica), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), cogon (Imperata cylindrica), common purslane or alusiman (Portulaca oleracea), crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), several species of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), carabao grass (Paspalum conjugatum), itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata), and Russian thistle or tumbleweed (Salsola kali)
    your logic is NOT what the paper is clearly saying though, It clearly indicates that the diet is of plants only, there is no carbon signature from meat sources.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Your break must have been too long. This thread was a shoot from The Aquatic Apes one. In there I propose the theory about the defect that occurred early in hominid development (in the line leading to humans at least).
    You were very wrong about there being no "pigs" in Africa during the time the hominids were evolving.
    Your style is outdated today. There seems to be a new culture on the forum and I believe it will now go from strength to strength.
    What defect?

    This subject was discussed the last time I was here. And it was as ridiculous then as it is now. You are still barking up the 'we evolved from each other' tree, that is what your posts allude to as they did back then. And frankly, your repeated use of youtube as your evidence wears thin.

    No, there were no "pigs" back then. Because the animals you see as "pigs" today did not exist back then. Which is what you can't seem to understand. No, they were not domesticated like you seem to be arguing. There is no sign of domestication of animals during that period. At all.

    If the new culture is like you, then I am genuinely sorry. It is to this site's detriment.
    *LIKE*

    Robbity is not correct in his assertions about the forum, and your posts are very welcome Tranquille.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Your break must have been too long. This thread was a shoot from The Aquatic Apes one. In there I propose the theory about the defect that occurred early in hominid development (in the line leading to humans at least).
    You were very wrong about there being no "pigs" in Africa during the time the hominids were evolving.
    Your style is outdated today. There seems to be a new culture on the forum and I believe it will now go from strength to strength.
    What defect?

    This subject was discussed the last time I was here. And it was as ridiculous then as it is now. You are still barking up the 'we evolved from each other' tree, that is what your posts allude to as they did back then. And frankly, your repeated use of youtube as your evidence wears thin.

    No, there were no "pigs" back then. Because the animals you see as "pigs" today did not exist back then. Which is what you can't seem to understand. No, they were not domesticated like you seem to be arguing. There is no sign of domestication of animals during that period. At all.

    If the new culture is like you, then I am genuinely sorry. It is to this site's detriment.
    The culture was instituted by the moderators, where they stop ad hominem arguments, and stomp on abuse.
    It wasn't for me or changed by me.

    Your claims are wrong, for I haven't made claims like the ones you mention.
    YouTube is a foreign word to me from now on. So don't mention it please.
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Your break must have been too long. This thread was a shoot from The Aquatic Apes one. In there I propose the theory about the defect that occurred early in hominid development (in the line leading to humans at least).
    You were very wrong about there being no "pigs" in Africa during the time the hominids were evolving.
    Your style is outdated today. There seems to be a new culture on the forum and I believe it will now go from strength to strength.
    What defect?

    This subject was discussed the last time I was here. And it was as ridiculous then as it is now. You are still barking up the 'we evolved from each other' tree, that is what your posts allude to as they did back then. And frankly, your repeated use of youtube as your evidence wears thin.

    No, there were no "pigs" back then. Because the animals you see as "pigs" today did not exist back then. Which is what you can't seem to understand. No, they were not domesticated like you seem to be arguing. There is no sign of domestication of animals during that period. At all.

    If the new culture is like you, then I am genuinely sorry. It is to this site's detriment.
    *LIKE*

    Robbity is not correct in his assertions about the forum, and your posts are very welcome Tranquille.
    Don't get me wrong I welcome Tranquille back too, I've been missing her. But without a doubt the forum has changed, especially since John Galt resurfaced.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    @Tranquille - Your reprimand made look into my belief that pig heart valves have been harvested for use in humans.
    So this article looking at the alternatives was reasonably interesting and confirmed my view.

    Tissue or Mechanical Heart Valve? - On-X Life Technologies, Inc.
    Tissue Heart Valves:Tissue valves are harvested from pig heart valves (porcine) or cow heart sac (bovine). These tissues are treated and neutralized so that the body will not reject them. Some are mounted on a frame or stent; others are used directly (stentless).
    The lifetime of a tissue valve is typically 10 to 15 years, often less in younger patients. Over this time the valve will likely be degenerating to the point of requiring replacement. Because valve replacement surgery carries a significant risk of death, patient life expectancy is a major criterion in considering a tissue valve.
    With relatively high pressure gradients, stented tissue valves do not perform as well as the native valve in terms of blood flow. Tissue valves without frames (stentless) improve blood flow, although they are more difficult to put in place and are not usable in all cases.
    The primary advantage of tissue valves is their lower requirement for anticoagulation therapy, which reduces the incidence of bleeding. For the majority of tissue valve patients, taking an aspirin a day is sufficient anticoagulation therapy. Many patients with tissue valves, however, do not enjoy this benefit due to anticoagulation requirements for other heart or vascular conditions.
    Your view of what?

    This is nothing new and what you have been told repeatedly in the past. We are not genetically compatible with pigs and cows, and if they insert those parts or organs into human bodies (or even the bodies of the greater apes) without treating them or if they are from non-genetically modified animals, then we would reject it within a few minutes to hours. This is fact. The parts are not just removed and plonked into human bodies. We are genetically incompatible in that regard. This is not new. As a veterinarian, you should not need to look this up. This is basic high school anatomy and animal and human biology. I find it astounding that you claim to be a veterinarian and that you actually had to look this up.

    If your view is that there was genetic transference between pigs, cows and humans, then you are looking at it as a 5 year old would look at it. It's not because we were in close contact. We weren't really. Pigs didn't wander around the camps of hominids scrounging for food. There were no "pigs" back then. Wild boars were and are deadly and dangerous, I don't see our early ancestors allowing them to hang around, especially not to scrounge for resources our ancestors were fighting to access. There we no huts, no established camps.
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    .. your logic is NOT what the paper is clearly saying though, It clearly indicates that the diet is of plants only, there is no carbon signature from meat sources.
    Show me the words then. For even if I read that section again I don't get the same meaning as you. So what are the words that convinces you it had no carbon from meat please?
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    ....
    This is nothing new and what you have been told repeatedly in the past. We are not genetically compatible with pigs and cows, and if they insert those parts or organs into human bodies (or even the bodies of the greater apes) without treating them or if they are from non-genetically modified animals, then we would reject it within a few minutes to hours. This is fact. The parts are not just removed and plonked into human bodies. We are genetically incompatible in that regard. This is not new. As a veterinarian, you should not need to look this up. This is basic high school anatomy and animal and human biology. I find it astounding that you claim to be a veterinarian and that you actually had to look this up.

    If your view is that there was genetic transference between pigs, cows and humans, then you are looking at it as a 5 year old would look at it. It's not because we were in close contact. We weren't really. Pigs didn't wander around the camps of hominids scrounging for food. There were no "pigs" back then. Wild boars were and are deadly and dangerous, I don't see our early ancestors allowing them to hang around, especially not to scrounge for resources our ancestors were fighting to access. There we no huts, no established camps.
    Pig heart valves are treated before use. They are the right size and shape. Size and shape are also genetically controlled. So if our lecturers said they marveled at how similar shaped a pig skeleton is compared to human skeleton - well I heard what they said, I'm not saying it is right.

    There came a time the pre-human hominids stopped climbing trees to roost so at that time they would have set up camps in caves or where ever. I'll need to look into it.
    OK there wasn't Sus scofa back then, I know that, but there were the species that were the prototypes of the extant pigs in Africa (Bush pigs and wild boars and the warthogs etc.
     

  69. #68  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    In half a dozen sentences summarise your thesis, Bob.
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In half a dozen sentences summarise your thesis, Bob.
    I have no thesis. This thread was just to establish whether pigs were in Africa 2 - 7 million years ago. I believed they were.
    I feel the peer reviewed papers support this view.
    Tranquille seems to still believe there were NO pig type species in Africa during that time.
    What do you reckon?
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I guess you guys never spent much time dealing with pigs. Pigs will eat whatever they can, including each other alive if they get the chance.

    Pigs are omnivores just like we are.
    Dan, the paper about the extinct genus we are discussing clearly shows that it was an herbivore, not an omnivore.
    Even modern feral pigs would survive (live) generally on vegetation and get the occasional flesh.
    How do you define "generally"? How much meat does a herbivore have to eat before you would call it an omnivore?
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 17th, 2014 at 06:05 AM.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Really? The phrase "quite rich in C4 plants (being most generally grasses)" clearly indicates what is most generally grasses is not the diet, but the C4 plants. Bob, you seriously do seem to have difficulty in reading comprehension. This is not the first time it has been evident. I mention this since I believe it could explain what is to many observers of your behaviour a general absence of logic in your posts. Will you not seek to address that issue in future?
    Odd, I read that as saying the diet included C4 type plants as well as other foods instead of the diet consisted solely of plants.
    The term enrichment does not indicate exclusion of other dietary items, in fact it indicates quite the contrary. It indicates a mixed diet.
    Pretty much what pigs still eat today.
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I guess you guys never spent much time dealing with pigs. Pigs will eat whatever they can, including each other alive if they get the chance.

    Pigs are omnivores just like we are.
    Dan, the paper about the extinct genus we are discussing clearly shows that it was an herbivore, not an omnivore.
    Even modern feral pigs would survive (live) generally on vegetation and get the occasional flesh.
    How do you define "generally"? How much meat does a herbivore have to eat before you would call it an omnivore?
    That is NOT what the paper says. What do you not understand about that. Nyanzachoerusis not a modern Sus species, its an entirely distinct subfamily, and the paper is clear on what the diet was, primarily C4 plants, with a subset of C3 plants.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  74. #73  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In half a dozen sentences summarise your thesis, Bob.
    I have no thesis. This thread was just to establish whether pigs were in Africa 2 - 7 million years ago. I believed they were.
    I feel the peer reviewed papers support this view.
    Tranquille seems to still believe there were NO pig type species in Africa during that time.
    What do you reckon?
    This is a science forum. I am not familiar with the word "pig" in a scientific context. It has a feel to it not unlike the creationists' kinds. Please define what you mean by "pig".
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I guess you guys never spent much time dealing with pigs. Pigs will eat whatever they can, including each other alive if they get the chance.

    Pigs are omnivores just like we are.
    Dan, the paper about the extinct genus we are discussing clearly shows that it was an herbivore, not an omnivore.
    Even modern feral pigs would survive (live) generally on vegetation and get the occasional flesh.
    How do you define "generally"? How much meat does a herbivore have to eat before you would call it an omnivore?
    That is NOT what the paper says. What do you not understand about that. Nyanzachoerusis not a modern Sus species, its an entirely distinct subfamily, and the paper is clear on what the diet was, primarily C4 plants, with a subset of C3 plants.
    Were the words "Carbon stable isotope results from TM 266-TM 267 support this view, indicating a diversified diet including a mixture of C3 and C4 plants " ? Was there any others? It says "a diversified diet" define that? I think you are looking at it far too narrow.
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In half a dozen sentences summarise your thesis, Bob.
    I have no thesis. This thread was just to establish whether pigs were in Africa 2 - 7 million years ago. I believed they were.
    I feel the peer reviewed papers support this view.
    Tranquille seems to still believe there were NO pig type species in Africa during that time.
    What do you reckon?
    This is a science forum. I am not familiar with the word "pig" in a scientific context. It has a feel to it not unlike the creationists' kinds. Please define what you mean by "pig".
    Pigs, swine, suilli, hogs, etc.
    Family Suidae - Pigs

    and to clarify further:
    suillus (Latin)

    Adjective


    1. swine (attributive)
    2. pork (attributive)
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In half a dozen sentences summarise your thesis, Bob.
    I have no thesis. This thread was just to establish whether pigs were in Africa 2 - 7 million years ago. I believed they were.
    I feel the peer reviewed papers support this view.
    Tranquille seems to still believe there were NO pig type species in Africa during that time.
    What do you reckon?
    This is a science forum. I am not familiar with the word "pig" in a scientific context. It has a feel to it not unlike the creationists' kinds. Please define what you mean by "pig".
    Suidae
    as defined in Wikipedia and other places
    [QUOTE]Suidae

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Suidae is the biological family to which pigs belong. In addition to numerous fossil species, up to sixteen extant species are currently recognized, classified into between four and eight genera. The family includes the domestic pig, Sus scrofa domesticus or Sus domesticus, in addition to numerous species of wild pig, such as the babirusa Babyrousa babyrussa and the warthog Phacochoerus aethiopicus. All suids are native to the Old World, ranging from Asia and its islands, to Europe, and Africa.


    The earliest fossil suids date from the Oligocene epoch of Asia, and their descendants reached Europe during the Miocene.[1]
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    This is a science forum, and we should strive to use the most concise wording and terminology possible. Especially when dealing with extinct taxa that are not similar to the modern ones. Thus "pig" is not useful in this discussion.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Pigs root in the dirt.
    They have a few features that help them be good at it.
    They have an extremely good sense of smell, likely better than the sense of smell most dogs have. This lets them find food even if it is buried. Their sense of smell is good enough pigs are trained for hunting truffles in Europe.
    They have that cartilaginous snout that lets them move the dirt out of the way. It is surprising when you see just how much dirt a pig can move with its nose.
    Pigs also have the muscular arrangement in their necks and shoulders to facilitate their digging. This shows up in the fossil skeletons when you look at the sizes of the bones and the size of the attachement points for the muscles.
    A modern boar can lift about a ton on his nose.
    If you put some pigs into a fenced area it will not take them long to have the dirt turned and churned to about 30cm depth and everything edible will have gone through their digestive tract. That means all plant materials including roots as well as any insect or animal material they can find too. No grub, not mice, nothing edible inside the fenced area will be uneaten.
    If any small animals get into the pen they will be caught and eaten by the pigs too.

    I might be wrong but judging from the morphology of the ancient pig examples I would assume they also had the disc shaped cartilage snout and were rooting animals too.
    Otherwise the shape of their neck and skull bones would make little sense.
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This is a science forum, and we should strive to use the most concise wording and terminology possible. Especially when dealing with extinct taxa that are not similar to the modern ones. Thus "pig" is not useful in this discussion.
    If they are not similar to modern pigs then tell me what they are similar to?
    Chickens perhaps?
    Ah well, no matter.

    Even the paper you have been referencing says this about their diet in the second paragraph of the introduction.
    It is thus not surprising that relatively recent contributions propose significantly different appraisals of the diversity and relationships within Nyanzachoerus[1], [10], [16][18], and that, to date, no formal, cladistic phylogenetic analysis of African tetraconodonts has been published. Although these large and abundant omnivores possibly occupied a significant niche in African Mio-Pliocene ecosystems, this current lack of systematic and phylogenetic consensus impedes their use in paleoenvironmental reconstructions, as well as casts doubts on their merits for building biochronological and paleobiogeographical hypotheses.
    So do you still want to claim they were strict herbivores?
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post

    If they are not similar to modern pigs then tell me what they are similar to?
    Chickens perhaps?
    Ah well, no matter.
    You should have clicked on the link you provided earlier as it answers your question very well if you follow the links there.

    Modern pigs are a fairly recent addition.



    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    Pig heart valves are treated before use. They are the right size and shape. Size and shape are also genetically controlled. So if our lecturers said they marveled at how similar shaped a pig skeleton is compared to human skeleton - well I heard what they said, I'm not saying it is right.

    There came a time the pre-human hominids stopped climbing trees to roost so at that time they would have set up camps in caves or where ever. I'll need to look into it.
    OK there wasn't Sus scofa back then, I know that, but there were the species that were the prototypes of the extant pigs in Africa (Bush pigs and wild boars and the warthogs etc.
    No, they were the ancestors of wild boars, warthogs, and other species from the same family.

    And frankly, those animals are deadly today. They weren't friendly or what you would want to hang around.

    You are looking at the genetic transfers in the worst way possible. We also share similarities and DNA with banana trees, for example. It isn't because of close association. But simply because the building bricks that allowed us to evolve were shared.

    Yes, the pig has many body parts that we can use. So do cows, which is not really that surprising. However not all and it is very hard as scientists have to work to make sure we do not reject it. Which we would because of one gene. That one gene should tell you that just being similar genetically is not enough or the be all and end all.
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post

    If they are not similar to modern pigs then tell me what they are similar to?
    Chickens perhaps?
    Ah well, no matter.
    You should have clicked on the link you provided earlier as it answers your question very well if you follow the links there.

    Modern pigs are a fairly recent addition.
    I am familiar enough with Suina to see the similarities between them, thank you.
    Maybe you should have actually read the link I provided for you.

    Also modern pigs are not an addition to the genus, they are just another specific variation within it.

    So far Robbitybob has succeeded in making all of the points he set out to make in this thread while the rest of you have ended up resorting to thinly covered adhoms and have tried to employ the etymological fallacy as an argument.
    Why not just concede the point that hogs existed in Africa concurrently with early hominids and that they were omnivores?
    Is it because your egos will not let you accept that Robbitybob might be right once in a while?
     

  83. #82  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I hope none of that was directed at me. Two points:
    1. If my ad homs were thinly covered, I apologise. They were meant to be blatant.
    2. I was the one who most recently asked Bob what his thesis was so we could get some clarification.

    OK, three points. There seems little doubt, and I have not been questioning it, that the suid family has been around in Africa since the late Miocene. That more or less matches Bob's claim. I find less convincing data to support the contention that some of them were omnivores. I'll go take a look at your links, but the sources I've consulted don't support that claim.

    Edit: OK, I can't find your links. Can you redirect me?
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This is a science forum, and we should strive to use the most concise wording and terminology possible. Especially when dealing with extinct taxa that are not similar to the modern ones. Thus "pig" is not useful in this discussion.
    Well you suggest the right word then, you being the expert in this field? I thought suidae would be the best.
    Suidae is the biological family to which pigs belong.
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I hope none of that was directed at me. Two points:
    1. If my ad homs were thinly covered, I apologise. They were meant to be blatant.
    2. I was the one who most recently asked Bob what his thesis was so we could get some clarification.

    OK, three points. There seems little doubt, and I have not been questioning it, that the suid family has been around in Africa since the late Miocene. That more or less matches Bob's claim. I find less convincing data to support the contention that some of them were omnivores. I'll go take a look at your links, but the sources I've consulted don't support that claim.

    Edit: OK, I can't find your links. Can you redirect me?
    Did you mean to write "I find less convincing data to support the contention that some of them were omnivores"?
    You should have had the word NOT in there, John.
    Suidae are/were generally omnivores and herbivores are/were the exception.
    Suidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Several fossil species are known, and show adaptations to a wide range of different diets, from strict herbivory to possible carrion-eating (inTetraconodon).
    Their digestive system is not particularly suited to eating less digestible vegetation, so in many ways the early prehuman hominids would have been able to learn what to eat in new habitats by observing what suidae were eating, e.g sweet potatoes yams and tuber types of starch laden vegetation.
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post

    If they are not similar to modern pigs then tell me what they are similar to?
    Chickens perhaps?
    Ah well, no matter.
    You should have clicked on the link you provided earlier as it answers your question very well if you follow the links there.

    Modern pigs are a fairly recent addition.
    I am familiar enough with Suina to see the similarities between them, thank you.
    Maybe you should have actually read the link I provided for you.

    Also modern pigs are not an addition to the genus, they are just another specific variation within it.

    So far Robbitybob has succeeded in making all of the points he set out to make in this thread while the rest of you have ended up resorting to thinly covered adhoms and have tried to employ the etymological fallacy as an argument.
    Why not just concede the point that hogs existed in Africa concurrently with early hominids and that they were omnivores?
    Is it because your egos will not let you accept that Robbitybob might be right once in a while?
    Thanks Dan. Just one point I had trouble with .... I'm right more often than just once in a while!
     

  87. #86  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This is a science forum, and we should strive to use the most concise wording and terminology possible. Especially when dealing with extinct taxa that are not similar to the modern ones. Thus "pig" is not useful in this discussion.
    If they are not similar to modern pigs then tell me what they are similar to?
    Chickens perhaps?
    Ah well, no matter.

    Even the paper you have been referencing says this about their diet in the second paragraph of the introduction.
    It is thus not surprising that relatively recent contributions propose significantly different appraisals of the diversity and relationships within Nyanzachoerus[1], [10], [16][18], and that, to date, no formal, cladistic phylogenetic analysis of African tetraconodonts has been published. Although these large and abundant omnivores possibly occupied a significant niche in African Mio-Pliocene ecosystems, this current lack of systematic and phylogenetic consensus impedes their use in paleoenvironmental reconstructions, as well as casts doubts on their merits for building biochronological and paleobiogeographical hypotheses.
    So do you still want to claim they were strict herbivores?
    Yes I will concede on the diet, as I did miss that line when i was reading.

    However the snark is not welcome at all, related to modern is is different from being in the same subfamily. just take a look at Elephas, Loxodon, and Platybelodon
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    As long as Tranquille has accepted the verdict that members of the Suidae family were existent in Africa in the same locality as the early hominins 2 - 7 million years ago, I think we should call it case closed and proceed with the next step that I want to discover in human evolution and that is once pre-human hominids left the trees what sort of shelter did they have particularly for overnight resting.
    I'll start another thread on the new topic but have we finished discussing this one?
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Edit:

    I am fine with that.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    As long as Tranquille has accepted the verdict that members of the Suidae family were existent in Africa in the same locality as the early hominins 2 - 7 million years ago, I think we should call it case closed and proceed with the next step that I want to discover in human evolution and that is once pre-human hominids left the trees what sort of shelter did they have particularly for overnight resting.
    I'll start another thread on the new topic but have we finished discussing this one?
    You finally start considering that it was the ancestor of the 'pig'. Moving that goal post much?

    I never said they didn't. I said that pigs did not, which they did not, when you tried to repeatedly claim that they did. I also said that they did not live alongside and around hominids as you kept trying to claim they did, as though they were kept for pets and fed scraps. I also said that homo sapiens are not the by-product of pigs and apes having mated as you had also tried to claim.

    As for shelter.. Caves, etc to protect them from the elements and the roaming animals. They weren't constructing structures for shelter. Tree branches, caves, open air near what they needed to survive (water, food sources).
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post

    I am familiar enough with Suina to see the similarities between them, thank you.
    Maybe you should have actually read the link I provided for you.

    Also modern pigs are not an addition to the genus, they are just another specific variation within it.
    Modern pigs or anything even resembling 'pigs' did not exist millions of years ago. Far from it.

    So far Robbitybob has succeeded in making all of the points he set out to make in this thread while the rest of you have ended up resorting to thinly covered adhoms and have tried to employ the etymological fallacy as an argument.
    I am offended. My insults were hardly veiled. If they were, then I apologise. I meant them to be as in your face as I could without losing my shit altogether at his inane stupidity. I'll be sure to be more open with said hostility in the future. Thank you for correcting my error.

    Robittybob1 had previously tried to argue that chimpanzees mated with pigs (the pink hairless pigs we know today), giving birth to the ancestor of modern man. This thread and his argument in the OP is a continuation of the argument he posited in back then, that pigs lived with early hominids and were fed scraps and lived around them. If you think he made his points, then more power to you. He has provided nothing but youtube videos and has only just now started to understand that "pigs" did not exist back then, despite being told this months ago.

    Why not just concede the point that hogs existed in Africa concurrently with early hominids and that they were omnivores?
    No one said they did not. Far from it. We argued that they did and that "pigs" did not, which he refused to concede or consider.
    Is it because your egos will not let you accept that Robbitybob might be right once in a while?
    No, it's because he is a dishonest troll who despite his claims that he is a scientist because he is a vet, clearly has never even opened a grade 7 biology book.
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    ....Robittybob1 had previously tried to argue that chimpanzees mated with pigs (the pink hairless pigs we know today), giving birth to the ancestor of modern man. This thread and his argument in the OP is a continuation of the argument he posited in back then, that pigs lived with early hominids and were fed scraps and lived around them. If you think he made his points, then more power to you. He has provided nothing but youtube videos and has only just now started to understand that "pigs" did not exist back then, despite being told this months ago.

    No, it's because he is a dishonest troll who despite his claims that he is a scientist because he is a vet, clearly has never even opened a grade 7 biology book.
    I think all of that is a huge lie. If you really do believe you are telling the truth I feel you must be severely mistaken then. Otherwise I have no idea why you are so hell bent on making me look stupid.
    "That pigs lived with early hominids and were fed [scavenged] scraps and lived around them" There is a potential for that bit to be correct.
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    As long as Tranquille has accepted the verdict that members of the Suidae family were existent in Africa in the same locality as the early hominins 2 - 7 million years ago, I think we should call it case closed and proceed with the next step that I want to discover in human evolution and that is once pre-human hominids left the trees what sort of shelter did they have particularly for overnight resting.
    I'll start another thread on the new topic but have we finished discussing this one?
    You finally start considering that it was the ancestor of the 'pig'. Moving that goal post much?

    I never said they didn't. I said that pigs did not, which they did not, when you tried to repeatedly claim that they did. I also said that they did not live alongside and around hominids as you kept trying to claim they did, as though they were kept for pets and fed scraps. I also said that homo sapiens are not the by-product of pigs and apes having mated as you had also tried to claim.

    As for shelter.. Caves, etc to protect them from the elements and the roaming animals. They weren't constructing structures for shelter. Tree branches, caves, open air near what they needed to survive (water, food sources).
    Those ancestors of pigs (Suidae) were still called pigs for they themselves have not changed much, so when the paleontologists find pig bones 7 million years old they call them "pig" everyone being fully aware they are not talking about domestic pigs.

    I can not recall ever saying we were descendants of hybrids. Comments about shelter to the correct thread please.
     

  94. #93  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    As long as Tranquille has accepted the verdict that members of the Suidae family were existent in Africa in the same locality as the early hominins 2 - 7 million years ago, I think we should call it case closed and proceed with the next step that I want to discover in human evolution and that is once pre-human hominids left the trees what sort of shelter did they have particularly for overnight resting.
    I'll start another thread on the new topic but have we finished discussing this one?
    Moderator Comment: this thread serves as a good example of some of the negative aspects of the forum. Almost all participants in it are guilty of negative behaviour. I am locking the thread, prompted by Rob's suggestion, temporarily. I shall then post a summary of what I think has been discussed here and re-open for comments. This is an experiment.
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is there an "-ine" word for hominids?
    By Daecon in forum Anthropology, Archaeology and Palaeontology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 25th, 2013, 08:15 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 8th, 2013, 03:20 PM
  3. Do proteins evolve?
    By SHF in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 14th, 2012, 07:27 AM
  4. Reducing Municipal Solid Waste [Specifically in Schools]
    By Pomegranate Luke in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 02:16 PM
  5. Hominids Re-evolving
    By Mattylaws in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 21st, 2010, 04:40 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •