Human pretending to be a frog nearly drowns.....
Lee Olsen
"David Blaine was unconscious and having convulsions when he was
rescued from his 8-foot aquarium during a breath-holding stunt, his
trainer said Tuesday.
Blaine's liver and kidney functions had suffered while he was submerged
but are now improving. His skin, which was peeling Monday night, "looks
much better today," said Gunel."
nickname
Blaine's palms & soles looked pretty wrinkled up, from the photos I've
seen, the rest of him seemed ok. I'd think the liver and kidney
problems were more due to fasting and consuming nothing but gatorade
(sweat & glucose & flavoring) during the stunt. Skin peeling may have
been from being exposed to sun everyday, as much as saline effect
(saltwater, not freshwater). The convulsions occurred due to attempting
to get loose from locked chains while breatholding, he lasted 7+
minutes. I don't know if any frogs can hold their breath for that long
while submersed in saltwater, seems unlikely... DD
Lee Olsen
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=1942039
> >
> > "David Blaine was unconscious and having convulsions when he was
> > rescued from his 8-foot aquarium during a breath-holding stunt, his
> > trainer said Tuesday.
> > Blaine's liver and kidney functions had suffered while he was submerged
> > but are now improving. His skin, which was peeling Monday night, "looks
> > much better today," said Gunel."
>
> Blaine's palms & soles looked pretty wrinkled up, from the photos I've
> seen, the rest of him seemed ok. I'd think the liver and kidney
> problems were more due to fasting and consuming nothing but gatorade
> (sweat & glucose & flavoring) during the stunt. Skin peeling may have
> been from being exposed to sun everyday, as much as saline effect
> (saltwater, not freshwater).
Frankly, I expected a little more from a creature who's ancestors
evolved spending 12 hours a day in salt water (Hardy 1960).
The convulsions occurred due to attempting
> to get loose from locked chains while breatholding, he lasted 7+
> minutes. I don't know if any frogs can hold their breath for that long
> while submersed in saltwater, seems unlikely...
....nor do I know of any human that weighs 750 grams capable of such a
feat either. Tests need to be of equal value, a 160-pound frog trained
by Navy Seals would be a start in the right direction.
Your point about the liver and kidney problems is well taken. A
creature who's ancestors evolved on the savanna eating bone morrow
would certainly be expected to have kidney problems after spending
nearly a week in a tank of salt water eating nothing but Gatorade.
As far as exposure to the sun, the wrinkled soles would have been the
least exposed to the sun, yet was one area most affected. I'm
skeptical that sunlight filtered by acrylic and water would be
concentrated enough to have much effect.
Also, one photo shows him wearing shoes, so I think that exposure to
the sun can be safely eliminated as a reason for his condition.
DD
nickname
it was widespread upper trunk. His palms and soles were nearly always
covered (with neoprene?) I think.
Do you think Hardy meant every day 12 hours? I figure about 4 hours
midday everyday, sometimes much more.
A creature who's ancestors evolved on the savanna eating bone morrow
...that would be a hyena? I don't think frogs do that...
would certainly be expected to have kidney problems after spending
nearly a week in a tank of salt water eating nothing but Gatorade.
Yup. Tough stunt. And then breatholding for 7+ minutes. DD
Lee Olsen
nickname wrote:
> I don't know if the skin peeling was on the palms and soles, I thought
> it was widespread upper trunk.
DD: "Blaine's palms & soles looked pretty wrinkled up, from the photos
I've
seen..." ?? Do you have a URL for these photos?
pete
Blaine is what is commonly known as a "magician" or "illusionist".
I'm amazed that you're considering any data from him
as being on the level.
--
pete
Lee Olsen
Yeah, a friend suggested the whole thing was probably some sort of an
illusion. I would like to see the photos; the skin on my fingers
wrinkles just washing the dishes.
>
> --
> pete
nickname
which did a feature article series on Blaine's stunt, the palms were
referred to as "corpse-like", whiter-than-snow palms with the dorsal
surface of the hands being extremely wrinkled. Since he was using his
hands to manipulate a video camera inside the sphere, I don't think the
wrinkling was particularly painfull or disabling (this was after 48
hours submerged).
I'll post the pics in a bit here, (no doubt some folks will want to see
the disfiguring effects of continuous submersion). DD
nickname
periodically I think) for the whole time. The only trick involved
AFAICT is that the breathold may have been O2 assisted, that is, before
the 7 minute breathold stunt, the air may have been O2 enriched rather
than normal air, allowing a longer breathold (just conjecture, hard to
prove/disprove).
Tough stunt, tough guy, IMO. DD
nickname
submerged in saline water-sphere at 96 deg F (same temperature as
Persian Gulf surface) Hands wrinkly
http://www.deeperblue.net/article.php/726/%200/1
Another day fully submerged: palms, soles pure white
http://www.deeperblue.net/article.php/727
http://www.deeperblue.net/newsfull.php/1304
David Blaine: 1 week submersed in a water sphere, then breath hold 7
minutes trying to escape locked chains, but suffered shallow water
blackout, had to be revived by pro freediving team. DD
Lee Olsen
> I don't know if the skin peeling was on the palms and soles, I thought
> it was widespread upper trunk. His palms and soles were nearly always
> covered (with neoprene?) I think.
>
> Do you think Hardy meant every day 12 hours? I figure about 4 hours
> midday everyday, sometimes much more.
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/Hardy1960.pdf
I could be reading him wrong, but he did say a gradual build up of time
in the water. Then returned to the beach to sleep and drink water.
"Half his the time on the land" could mean half of a 24 hour day or
half daylight hours. As a biologist he knew a few hours a day in the
water certainly would not turn a creature semi-aquatic, there had to be
a substantial amount of time in the water. His comment about sleep
just seemed to me that he was talking about half a 24-hour day.
>
> A creature who's ancestors evolved on the savanna eating bone morrow
>
> ...that would be a hyena? I don't think frogs do that...
Equal to a hyena. A hammer stone and anvil is as good as or better than
a hyena's teeth for breaking bones. There is no shortage of
hominid-modified bone evidence on the savanna.
...nor do frogs hands and feet get all wrinkly from exposure to water.
Leads me to think the savanna is far more logical a place for our
ancient evolution than water.
Lee Olsen
nickname wrote:
> David Blaine stunt: attempting to live 7 days underwater, at 48 hours
> submerged in saline water-sphere at 96 deg F (same temperature as
> Persian Gulf surface) Hands wrinkly
> http://www.deeperblue.net/article.php/726/%200/1
>
> Another day fully submerged: palms, soles pure white
> http://www.deeperblue.net/article.php/727
Yep, that looks really bad. Wonder how he would do with just 12 hours
in the tank and 12 hours out per day?
nickname
water certainly would not turn a creature semi-aquatic, there had to be
a substantial amount of time in the water.
All fully and semi-aquatic mammal's ancestors were once terrestrial,
which re-entered the water gradually "a few hours a day", with their
surviving descendents at some point later on spending a more
"substantial amount of time in the water".
I don't know what Hardy's aquatic-time estimate was based on. I meant,
IMO Homo typically spent about 4+ hours a day fully in water
habitually, the rest of the time in a shoreside/coastal environment
except during mast-fruiting periods or animal migration periods. I
consider them to have been largely a coastal migrant, with savanna and
forest excursions while expanding to riparian and lacustrine
environments. IOW, I don't consider Homo of that early period to be
adapted to long term savanna dwelling.
I've read some Khoisan and Aust. aborigines sleep in sand pockets, I
think Homo slept in sand pockets on the dry beach covered with palm
leaves, being early sleepers and late risers. Just speculation of
course, can't prove either way. DD
nickname
know if they wear gloves (many divers around reefs aren't allowed to
wear gloves), I haven't heard of any damage, seems cosmetic mostly. DD
Lee Olsen
> As a biologist he knew a few hours a day in the
> water certainly would not turn a creature semi-aquatic, there had to be
> a substantial amount of time in the water.
>
> All fully and semi-aquatic mammal's ancestors were once terrestrial,
> which re-entered the water gradually "a few hours a day", with their
> surviving descendents at some point later on spending a more
> "substantial amount of time in the water".
Yep, that is exactly what he said:
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/Hardy1960.pdf
My my point was that after period of time Hardy said they worked up to
"half a day" or 12 hours as I read it. That's a lot of time in the
water, I can't imagine descendants prone to such wrinkly skin if that
were the case.
>
> I don't know what Hardy's aquatic-time estimate was based on. I meant,
> IMO Homo typically spent about 4+ hours a day fully in water
> habitually, the rest of the time in a shoreside/coastal environment
> except during mast-fruiting periods or animal migration periods.
Well, I don't know what DD's aquatic-time estimate is based on either,
or why 4+ hours a day should be typical?
I
> consider them to have been largely a coastal migrant, with savanna and
> forest excursions while expanding to riparian and lacustrine
> environments. IOW, I don't consider Homo of that early period to be
> adapted to long term savanna dwelling.
Like (roughly of course), in years, what early period?
> I've read some Khoisan and Aust. aborigines sleep in sand pockets, I
> think Homo slept in sand pockets on the dry beach covered with palm
> leaves, being early sleepers and late risers. Just speculation of
> course, can't prove either way. DD
Sand agreed, but modern Hadza set up base camp 1-2 km away from
nearest water hole (O'Connell et al. 2002:850). Binford (1981) said
near a water source would be the last place he would set up camp in
Africa. That's with fire, rifles and bug spray, without those items a
person is asking for almost certain trouble.
nickname
prone to such wrinkly skin if that were the case.
Yes 12 hrs is a lot of time in the water.
I see 4+ hours as likely, though perhaps much longer.
I don't know whether our wrinkled palms and soles are significant,
(their skin may have been quite different), does having wrinkly fingers
prevent you from washing dishes? What 's the negative effect of
wrinkled palms and soles?
4+ hrs. spent food foraging aquatically.
Early period, I meant pre-Hs (before salt trade), excluding the rift &
salt lakes.
Water hole = fresh water. During inland transits, perhaps slept in
tree-nests or rock shelters. Beach sleeping on marine beaches likely
IMO, possibly rock shelters along marine cliffs and in palm trees. DD
Lee Olsen
> That's (12 hrs) a lot of time in the water, I can't imagine descendants
> prone to such wrinkly skin if that were the case.
>
> Yes 12 hrs is a lot of time in the water.
> I see 4+ hours as likely, though perhaps much longer.
Well, I don't know what DD's aquatic-time estimate is based on, or why
4+ should be typical? Perhaps much longer, as you say, could just as
well be 12 hours.
If your water-time hours are too low, it seems you are still
predominately a land creature and what you do most of the time would
be selected for. What triggers the switch from terrestrial to
semi-aquatic? Four hours is only one third of day at the equator. If
4+ is good in the water, then 8+ should be twice as good, I see no
reason to stop and revert back in the opposite direction anymore than
seals did.
> I don't know whether our wrinkled palms and soles are significant,
> (their skin may have been quite different), does having wrinkly fingers
> prevent you from washing dishes? What 's the negative effect of
> wrinkled palms and soles?
It depends on what you are going to do after you get done washing the
dishes. There is no reason to believe that the selection for callouses
on our hands and feet haven't been with us for a long time. As you can
see by Blaine's hands he would not be in any condition to do what ever
task it was that selected for the callouses in the first place. I
realize that he is an extreme example, but just the same water softens
hands and feet. For instance, I think he would have trouble going ten
rounds of boxing with hands in that condition where ordinarily he
would not.
I grew up near the salt water. As kids we seldom ever worn shoes in the
summer time and it did not take long for our feet to get into shape.
Walking on a rocky beach covered with barnacles was no big deal until
you spent a while wading around in the water and then tried to walk
back to the parking lot.
Or if you are deep enough in the water, the barnacles aren't a problem
there either because you are nearly floating anyway.
If all hominids were doing is sitting around on a beach all day after
getting out of the water, fine, then who cares about the bottom of ones
feet. I'm skeptical that was happening, otherwise we would have lost
the ability to form callouses after a million years. I've seen several
people who could walk around an obsidian quarry in their bare feet and
not get cut. I would like to see a test where they soaked their feet in
salt water for 4+ hours or perhaps much longer (as you keep saying) and
then tried the same stunt. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would still like to
see it tested.
Two and a half million years ago hominids were out on the savanna. That
takes thick callouses..
>
> 4+ hrs. spent food foraging aquatically.
> Early period, I meant pre-Hs (before salt trade), excluding the rift &
> salt lakes.
> Water hole = fresh water.
Yes, fresh water, that's where the early hominid evidence is at, not
on the salt-water beaches.
During inland transits, perhaps slept in
> tree-nests or rock shelters. Beach sleeping on marine beaches likely
> IMO, possibly rock shelters along marine cliffs and in palm trees. DD
What inland transits? What is your evidence for those?
I like the rock-cliff idea, but those are found inland also, don't
need the sea for that. Kick a few baboons out of the way, and home
sweet home.
nickname
why
4+ should be typical?
DD: 4(+) hrs. spent food foraging aquatically. IOW about 4 hours
gathering foods per day in water, with additional water time likely. I
don't see any reason to think they couldn't have spent 8 - 12 hours per
day water side (in and around water), while nightly spending 8 hours
sleeping in dry sand pockets covered with palm fronds (orangs sleep in
tree nests with covers), sort of shallow (military) foxholes, not so
different (in concept form) from Mandan shelters or mammoth bone
shelters, partly dug into the ground and covered with hides.
Lee: What triggers the switch from terrestrial to semi-aquatic? Four
hours is only one third of day at the equator. If 4+ is good in the
water, then 8+ should be twice as good,
DD: From an arboreal-terrestrial-part aquatic (macaque-like) to a
semi-aquatic marine Homo, a gradual increase in water-time due to
increased aquatic foraging and less arboreal foraging. I don't think
they spent 8 hours a day forgaging, though possible I guess.
Lee: It depends on what you are going to do after you get done washing
the dishes.
DD: Right. I think after they got done in the water, they basked in the
sand pockets, to bring their body temperatures up a bit (like marine
iguanas). I don't think they would have immediately climbed a tree or
begun a trek, so the wrinkling wouldn't have been significant. Once
dried and warmed the wrinkling disappears. I think barnacles are
usually inter-tidal, above and below that zone no barnacles. Callouses
are handy for terrestrial use, not full-time aquatics. Sea lions
probably have callouses, manatees don't? I don't think they would have
entered obsidian quarries with wet feet, I don't think they had to
hurry.
Lee: Two and a half million years ago hominids were out on the savanna.
That
takes thick callouses..
DD: I don't think most of those hominids were our ancestors, they were
probably inland cousins of our ancestors, though due to migrations,
some of our ancestors probably died in savanna areas.
Lee: Yes, fresh water, that's where the early hominid evidence is at,
not
on the salt-water beaches.
DD: Evidence lasts longer in dry climates and caves, rarely lasts on
beaches. For example, there are probably many Antarctic seal skeletons
inland buried in snow and ice, but the vast majority of them live and
die near the shoreline, where the carcasses are quickly decomposed.
Fossil evidence would indicate that seals are inland species.
It isn't surprising that early hominid evidence would be found at fresh
water areas.
Lee: What inland transits? What is your evidence for those? I like the
rock-cliff idea, but those are found inland also, don't need the sea
for that. Kick a few baboons out of the way, and home sweet home.
DD: Since I consider them to be seasonal migrants, I expect them to
have visited rivers and lakes while travelling along coastal areas. The
seaside locale is not favored by most large land predators, they prefer
freshwater locales, and get salt from the blood of prey. Since most
non-predatorial mammals need salt, saltwater provides access to it
along a long shore, hard for predator to control access. Homo owned the
sand buffer between the forest-savanna and the sea. Nothing but sand
and pebbles, really, little grows there.
Lee Olsen
> Lee: Well, I don't know what DD's aquatic-time estimate is based on, or
> why
> 4+ should be typical?
>
> DD: 4(+) hrs. spent food foraging aquatically. IOW about 4 hours
> gathering foods per day in water, with additional water time likely. I
> don't see any reason to think they couldn't have spent 8 - 12 hours per
> day water side (in and around water), while nightly spending 8 hours
> sleeping in dry sand pockets covered with palm fronds (orangs sleep in
> tree nests with covers), sort of shallow (military) foxholes, not so
> different (in concept form) from Mandan shelters or mammoth bone
> shelters, partly dug into the ground and covered with hides.
4+ hours is a specific number. You haven't demonstrated any evidence
that they spent 1 minute or even 1 second in the water, let alone 4 to
12 hours.
Since you used orangutans for an example:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~humphrey/fact%20sheets/orangutan/orangutan.htm
"Time spent on daily activities: 43% feeding, 41.5% resting, 13.5%
traveling (often to find food) and 2% other (nest building, mating,
vocalizing, socializing)."
I forgot exactly how much time Jane Goodall claimed chimps spend in
nests, but it was longer than I would have guessed.
This is because twilight and dawn are rather abrupt events near the
equator.
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/lagos.html
This means 11 to 12 hours of total darkness depending on time of year.
Without fire and given rather poor night eyesight, the above timeline
seems reasonable for early hominids also. I don't think anyone
mentioned above was building nests or camps in the dark, it means some
part of the daylight was used for this activity (20 minutes??).
Hides would probably be a poor choice for roof material. Hyenas
scavenge on beaches also, a roof that smelled that good would be too
good a meal for them to pass up.
>
> Lee: What triggers the switch from terrestrial to semi-aquatic? Four
> hours is only one third of day at the equator. If 4+ is good in the
> water, then 8+ should be twice as good,
>
> DD: From an arboreal-terrestrial-part aquatic (macaque-like) to a
> semi-aquatic marine Homo, a gradual increase in water-time due to
> increased aquatic foraging and less arboreal foraging. I don't think
> they spent 8 hours a day forgaging, though possible I guess.
You are not answering the question, what triggers this increase toward
aquatic? I already know you and Hardy think they gradually increased
time in the water, 4+ hours worth-why??? The problem is that twice
you have used the word Homo above. Homo equals stone tools, and those
tools are found ubiquitous throughout Africa, no seaside pattern is
evident. Most of the evidence is in the form of utilized stone and is
found nowhere near water deep enough to swim or dive in. Given the
activity timeline above, which has to include bone and stone tool
utilization time, proves Homo was not tethered to any major water
source for any substantial amount of time. In fact, stone (traced to
source) was being moved through large areas that is hard to see where
they could even get enough water to drink, let alone swim in.
>
> Lee: It depends on what you are going to do after you get done washing
> the dishes.
>
> DD: Right. I think after they got done in the water, they basked in the
> sand pockets, to bring their body temperatures up a bit (like marine
> iguanas). I don't think they would have immediately climbed a tree or
> begun a trek, so the wrinkling wouldn't have been significant. Once
> dried and warmed the wrinkling disappears. I think barnacles are
> usually inter-tidal, above and below that zone no barnacles. Callouses
> are handy for terrestrial use, not full-time aquatics. Sea lions
> probably have callouses, manatees don't? I don't think they would have
> entered obsidian quarries with wet feet, I don't think they had to
> hurry.
They would if they were making tools and utilizing bone inland where
100% of the early evidence is at and 99% of the later evidence is
found. A day is only 12 hours long, that means they were running out
of postulated aquatic-selection time doing these other tasks. Hard to
be in two places at once.
There is a difference between on-the-ground evidence and negative
evidence. One is real and one is imaginary.
The preferential pattern of evidence is inland, there is zero evidence
for any in-water use of tools or tools used for the collection of any
offshore resources. Beaches are dry land. A beached whale, for
instance, is a dry-land resource not marine. Hyenas also scavenge on
ocean beaches, it doesn't make them semi-aquatic anymore than our
reason for being there (in rare cases) was semi-aquatic either.
>
> Lee: Two and a half million years ago hominids were out on the savanna.
> That
> takes thick callouses..
>
> DD: I don't think most of those hominids were our ancestors, they were
> probably inland cousins of our ancestors, though due to migrations,
> some of our ancestors probably died in savanna areas.
And some of the aqua-cousins probably drowned. Regardless of the
paucity missing links, stone tool evolution demonstrates inland
continuity. Little evidence for such seaside, and all of that a million
years after the fact. Not all ancient beaches are now underwater, many
are miles inland today. The few tools that are found on beaches, when
fossils are present, are associated with land animals, not marine
resources.
>
> Lee: Yes, fresh water, that's where the early hominid evidence is at,
> not
> on the salt-water beaches.
>
> DD: Evidence lasts longer in dry climates and caves, rarely lasts on
> beaches. For example, there are probably many Antarctic seal skeletons
> inland buried in snow and ice, but the vast majority of them live and
> die near the shoreline, where the carcasses are quickly decomposed.
> Fossil evidence would indicate that seals are inland species.
> It isn't surprising that early hominid evidence would be found at fresh
> water areas.
Nope, some part of or all (minus re-sharpening) of every stone tool
ever made is still out there somewhere. Stone-tool preservation is 100
percent (or at least the residue of it). The amount of fossil
preservation is irrelevant. There are enough Pleistocene beaches left
to easily demonstrate a preferential stone tool use pattern if one
existed. You just got through suggesting "hide" and "palm" shelters,
how do you think they were building those if not with stone tools?
>
> Lee: What inland transits? What is your evidence for those? I like the
> rock-cliff idea, but those are found inland also, don't need the sea
> for that. Kick a few baboons out of the way, and home sweet home.
>
> DD: Since I consider them to be seasonal migrants, I expect them to
> have visited rivers and lakes while travelling along coastal areas. The
> seaside locale is not favored by most large land predators, they prefer
> freshwater locales, and get salt from the blood of prey. Since most
> non-predatorial mammals need salt, saltwater provides access to it
> along a long shore, hard for predator to control access. Homo owned the
> sand buffer between the forest-savanna and the sea. Nothing but sand
> and pebbles, really, little grows there.
Yes, you said inland transits before, what is your evidence for this
seasonal migration? Your considering something does not make it
evidence. Stone tools, for instance, can be traced to origin by
chemicals in them as I said above. What evidence exists that suggests a
semi-aquatic Homo migrated anywhere? The stone tools inland perhaps?
They are made the same way as the ones inland, the same as the ones
that died in the savanna areas? They propagated on the beaches, leaving
little or no evidence, migrated inland, only to be killed by the
predators there? Somehow that doesn't sound very plausible to me.
If the situation were just the opposite, millions of tools found in the
coastal areas and few inland, I could understand the aquatic argument.
Hypotheses that are just the opposite of the real evidence have little
chance of being taken seriously.
Lions and hyenas were on the beaches also, along with sharks teeth. The
very fact that there is stone tool continuity for the last two and a
half million years on the savanna proves the big predators couldn't
eradicate our ancestors there, nor is a semi-aquatic phase necessary to
explain the evidence that has already been found.
Paul Crowley
news:1147615229.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> nickname wrote:
[..]
> If the situation were just the opposite, millions of tools found in the
> coastal areas and few inland, I could understand the aquatic argument.
I have no sympathy with the 'aquatic argument'
(of the Hardy kind) but a homo occupation of
coastal (and other lowland) areas makes sense.
It is what used to be observed among all
'primitive' peoples before the prime sites were
taken from them by the more technologically
developed. One major problem is keeping
warm at night, and lowland sites near water
(especially the sea) are always much warmer.
The reason that billions of tools (and other fossils)
don't exist on such sites is that they are subject
to constant erosion as sea-levels rise and fall.
Almost every cubic imetre of such ground will
turn into beach, usually numerous times, when
they will be ground to sand and dust.
> Hypotheses that are just the opposite of the real evidence have little
> chance of being taken seriously.
A good scientist sometimes looks beyond the
end of his nose. So no hope there -- or not
within PA at least.
Paul.
Lee Olsen
<snip>
> I have no sympathy with the 'aquatic argument'
> (of the Hardy kind) but a homo occupation of
> coastal (and other lowland) areas makes sense.
Sympathy for the time-honored UFO argument is sympathy for the aquatic
argument of the Hardy kind. If you can dream up evidence in your
brain, it must exist.
Why don't you take it over to Hangar 18 where someone might appreciate
what makes sense to you....
nickname
breath-holder, I figure he was in the sphere submersed for more than 48
hours, and his palms and soles got really wrinkly as a result. Maybe
not. Hope you liked the pics. DD
Day Brown
from the submerged coastline. If you wanna find out if people lived on
the coastline in prehistoric times, then you have to dive down to where
it now is.
Lee Olsen
Like Blaine, my fingers wrinkle badly when submerged in water. I think
it would be a lot easier (and cheaper) to screen raised beaches than
wasting time bobbing for artifacts underwater.
http://lense.net.uk/cce/profile115449.html
I know artifacts are found routinely by fishermen in the North Sea, but
I did not know Alaskan waters are producing artifacts routinely. Do you
have a citation for that? Flint in Alaska?
Day Brown
thereby get a dose of the kind of high quality protein needed for
maximal mental development in childhood. The tide pools would also have
had fish that were easy for women and kids to kill.
The polyunsaturated fats of sea life, the Omega 3, Omega 6, DHA, and the
minerals from Kelp would have dramatically improved the diet from the
standpoint of mental development.
Were the hominids the meat eaters that has been assumed, we'd have teeth
much more like Baboons, with really sharp canines. But as it is, we have
flatter teeth with thicker dentine that would be able to withstand the
grit from sand and bits of seashell.
Hominids walking on the beaches would have had their scent washed out by
the tide, making it harder on predators to track them. And jumping into
the water would have deterred lots of predators from going after even kids.
I dont pretend to know what portion of the hominids were aquatic, but a
few that developed superior intellects from that niche would have had an
advantage in other ecosystems.
Lee Olsen
catching fish in tide pools can all be easily accomplished without ever
getting ones feet wrinkled by the water.
nickname
Waste of time, oh yeah. Real waste of time.
Want more, or too much time wasted already? DD
Paul Crowley
> I've read that Alaskan crab fishermen routinely drag up flint points from the submerged
> coastline. If you wanna find out if people lived on the coastline in prehistoric times, then
> you have to dive down to where it now is.
The sea did not suddenly advance, leaving
the ancient coast looking pretty much as it
used to be. (Or let's just say that it's not likely
that it did.) It is much more likely that it took
hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
up the ground, converting it to beach, often
slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
advancing again; and usually doing this time
after time. This process will grind up all soft
fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
encountered. We finish up with layers of sand
and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
little point in looking, even if we can.
Then some 'scientists' like Olsen come along,
see fossils only on high ground that was
rarely, if ever, covered by the sea in the past
few Myr, and decide that the species was
always a 'high-ground-living' animal.
That makes sense.
It's what's known as classic PA.
Paul.
nickname
the Indian-Atlantic-Pacific-Southern Oceanic realm as part of the
Savanna? If so, I agree with everything you've stated thus far,
especially whales, and manatees as well, everybody knows manatees are
savanna animals, they're in Africa for petes sake.
Speaking of UFOs, why is Earth called the water planet, while Mars
isn't? Doesn't Mars derive from the same root word as
mire/moor/marine/maritime etc. I think even the Ituri pygmies refer to
water as mar or mai or so, and they're rather far from the world's
oceans. Anyway, if the description of savanna includes the worlds
beaches, then obviously savanna is the ticket. I have no problem with
that. Earth: the savanna planet. Oh yeah. DD
Lee Olsen
> Lee, I've never heard of a savanna with tide pools.
You are confused, Day Brown injected "tide pools" into this thread,
not me. The re concerned beaches, not savannas and had nothing to do
with anything you said.
Do you post from Web-TV ?
<snip>
Lee Olsen
<snip>
>
> Then some 'scientists' like Olsen come along,
> see fossils only on high ground that was
> rarely, if ever, covered by the sea in the past
> few Myr, and decide that the species was
> always a 'high-ground-living' animal.
>
http://www.aerofun.ch/image_gallery2/image9.jpg
That's odd, isn't Hoxne on dry land at the foot of one of those cliffs?
And what is the name of that controlled dig out in the middle of the
North Sea?
> That makes sense.
No, it doesn't make cents at all. Cents is what I said, not what you
think I said.
I clearly stated above it was "a lot easier (and cheaper) to screen
raised beaches than wasting time bobbing for artifacts underwater."
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm
Some fools would rather spend $100,000 an hour to find nothing, rather
than spend $100 dollars an hour screening those "rarely, if ever"
places where they actually find something.
Speaking of those "rarely, if ever" places, if one wants to know about
whale evolution, for instance, the best place to look is in the desert
(former savanna and handaxe heaven), not at the bottom of the ocean.
http://tinyurl.com/fjcow
Crowley, however, prefers to troll for sharks out at sea.
>
> It's what's known as classic PA.
The reason PAs make no sense to you is you are unable to understand
English or cents. But just for you and your UFO argument, even if a
billion handaxes could be found by the Glomar Explorer a mile out in
the ocean someday, it still would not prove the creature was standing
or swimming in the water when he lost them. So whether artifacts are
under water or not is a moot point when trying to prove hominids were
semi-aquatic.
pete
> The sea did not suddenly advance, leaving
> the ancient coast looking pretty much as it
> used to be. (Or let's just say that it's not likely
> that it did.) It is much more likely that it took
> hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
> up the ground, converting it to beach, often
> slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
> advancing again; and usually doing this time
> after time. This process will grind up all soft
> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
> encountered. We finish up with layers of sand
> and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
> little point in looking, even if we can.
Well,
I suppose you guessed as hard as you could,
before posting that crap.
"But it was at this particular outcrop,
nine miles off the north Florida coast in Apalachee Bay,
that a team led by Faught found what may be
a 12,000 year-old projectile point,
a spear point dating back to the Suwannee era.
By all accounts it could be the oldest artifact
ever recovered on the continental shelf
by professional archaeologists."
http://www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/winter2002/floridasfirstpeople.html
--
pete
pete
>
> I don't doubt Blaine was submersed (though he did get hand lotion
> periodically I think) for the whole time.
I doubt it completely.
I saw his ice cube trick on TV.
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,7456,00.html?newsrellink
There were polished parts of the cube,
so you could see inside like windows.
Periodically, a team of men with CO2 fire extinguishers
would come around a blast the ice cube to keep it from melting.
Coincidentally, they only blasted CO2 on the windowed
parts of the ice cube and only in unison so that
while they were doing it,
nobody could see what was inside the cube.
--
pete
pete
>
> Pete, the data was about him, not from him.
You've got to be kidding.
The article has a press release photo,
and statements from his trainer and doctor.
Are you or are you not aware,
that there are neither medical ethics nor crimianl laws
against a doctor particpating in a hoax like this?
--
pete
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>> The sea did not suddenly advance, leaving
>> the ancient coast looking pretty much as it
>> used to be. (Or let's just say that it's not likely
>> that it did.) It is much more likely that it took
>> hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
>> up the ground, converting it to beach, often
>> slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
>> advancing again; and usually doing this time
>> after time. This process will grind up all soft
>> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
>> encountered. We finish up with layers of sand
>> and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
>> little point in looking, even if we can.
>
> Well,
> I suppose you guessed as hard as you could,
> before posting that crap.
Why EXACTLY is it crap?
> "But it was at this particular outcrop,
> nine miles off the north Florida coast in Apalachee Bay,
> that a team led by Faught found what may be
> a 12,000 year-old projectile point,
> a spear point dating back to the Suwannee era.
> By all accounts it could be the oldest artifact
> ever recovered on the continental shelf
> by professional archaeologists."
The questions that needs to be faced (and
aren't) are
(a) the survival rate of spear-points in such
locations by comparison with those at modern
altitudes between (say) 10 -100 metres -- (which
were paleo-altitudes of ~110 - 210 metres);
(b) the recovery rate of spear-points deposited
at those locations.
(c) the same comparisons for much softer
fossils, in (say) bone or wood.
In other words (and I know I have to spell it
out): one spear-point in such a location would
be equivalent to about 100 billion located at
normal (i.e. above sea-level) altitudes.
My figure is merely a guess. But that still
puts it light-years ahead of standard PA
which has never considered the question
(see Lee Olsen). It (and he and you) have
not yet latched on to the fact that sea-levels
constantly rise and fall, and that fact has a
drastic effect on the fossil survival rate of
all species living in the most-favoured
habitat of a certain species with which you
should be familiar -- but about which you
know next to nothing.
Paul.
pete
>
> "pete" <pfi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:4468FC...@mindspring.com...
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >> It is much more likely that it took
> >> hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
> >> up the ground, converting it to beach, often
> >> slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
> >> advancing again; and usually doing this time
> >> after time.
> >> This process will grind up all soft
> >> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
> >> encountered.
> > Well,
> > I suppose you guessed as hard as you could,
> > before posting that crap.
>
> Why EXACTLY is it crap?
Because it's something that you just made up in your head
without any data behind it.
> The questions that needs to be faced (and aren't) are
> (a) the survival rate of spear-points in such
> locations by comparison with those at modern
> altitudes between (say) 10 -100 metres -- (which
> were paleo-altitudes of ~110 - 210 metres);
You did face the question,
and you have no idea of what you're talking about.
> My figure is merely a guess.
What figure is that?
You figure you know what you're talking about?
Your whole point,
was your speculation on whether underwater archeology would pay off,
as if it were a hypothetical issue,
which it isn't.
> >> We finish up with layers of sand
> >> and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
> >> little point in looking, even if we can.
--
pete
Lee Olsen
> "pete" <pfi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4468FC...@mindspring.com...
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> >> The sea did not suddenly advance, leaving
> >> the ancient coast looking pretty much as it
> >> used to be. (Or let's just say that it's not likely
> >> that it did.) It is much more likely that it took
> >> hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
> >> up the ground, converting it to beach, often
> >> slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
> >> advancing again; and usually doing this time
> >> after time. This process will grind up all soft
> >> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
> >> encountered. We finish up with layers of sand
> >> and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
> >> little point in looking, even if we can.
> >
> > Well,
> > I suppose you guessed as hard as you could,
> > before posting that crap.
>
> Why EXACTLY is it crap?
Crowley: "This process will grind up all soft fossils, and nearly all
flint points that are encountered."
I don't think even you are that ignorant, I think you are just trolling
to get a reaction.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
Neither the bones or the flake tools got ground up here.
http://tinyurl.com/fkljr
Nor here.
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/july00/paleoanthropology.html
Nope...
I've cited Clark (1992) here on sap numerous times on the Moroccan
data. There are hand axes and numerous fauna found with beach deposits
that did not get ground up there either.
You need to be sent to Singapore for caning.
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/000383.php
<snip>
nickname
pete
> This process will grind up all soft
> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
> encountered.
What do you think the difference is
between the material of a *hard* fossil,
and flint?
--
pete
bill....@taylorandfrancis.com
Lee Olsen wrote:
> nickname wrote:
> > it was widespread upper trunk. His palms and soles were nearly always
> > covered (with neoprene?) I think.
> >
> > Do you think Hardy meant every day 12 hours? I figure about 4 hours
> > midday everyday, sometimes much more.
>
> http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/Hardy1960.pdf
> I could be reading him wrong, but he did say a gradual build up of time
> in the water. Then returned to the beach to sleep and drink water.
> "Half his the time on the land" could mean half of a 24 hour day or
> half daylight hours. As a biologist he knew a few hours a day in the
> water certainly would not turn a creature semi-aquatic, there had to be
> just seemed to me that he was talking about half a 24-hour day.
>
>
> >
> > A creature who's ancestors evolved on the savanna eating bone morrow
> >
> > ...that would be a hyena? I don't think frogs do that...
>
> Equal to a hyena. A hammer stone and anvil is as good as or better than
> a hyena's teeth for breaking bones. There is no shortage of
> hominid-modified bone evidence on the savanna.
> ...nor do frogs hands and feet get all wrinkly from exposure to water.
> Leads me to think the savanna is far more logical a place for our
> ancient evolution than water.
Sure, but the idea that one could live on waiting for the predators to
leave and just getting the marrow is tough to take. Hyenas don't do
that. They take the kill, when they didn't kill it themselves, and get
plenty of meat, gristle, hide and whatever. Except for vultures and, in
a different way, jackals, the so-called scavenger vertabrates on the
veldt hunt for part of their living and get the rest by taking kills
from someone else.
When I first read the "scavanging instead of hunting" hypothesis, I was
astonished by how much of it depended on the _disabilities_ of the
early men. Kill-taking is a hard way to make an easy living.
Mental exercise: Imagine a small group of hominids killing an antelope.
Then imagine the same group taking the antelope carcass from several
hyenas, from a leopard, from a cheetah. All are possible but none are
much easier than killling the antelope in the first place. The hyenas
would be much the hardest to displace at a kill, lions even more so.
The leopard would be tough and he would have gotten his kill up a tree
if he could. Well, the cheetah would probably be easy. How many cheetah
kills you gonna find in a week?
Will in New Haven
--
"Win the easy pots; noisy, violent confrontations are for d*gs."
Feather in _Poker for Cats_
>
> >
> > would certainly be expected to have kidney problems after spending
> > nearly a week in a tank of salt water eating nothing but Gatorade.
> >
> > Yup. Tough stunt. And then breatholding for 7+ minutes. DD
Paul Crowley
>> >> It is much more likely that it took
>> >> hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
>> >> up the ground, converting it to beach, often
>> >> slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
>> >> advancing again; and usually doing this time
>> >> after time.
>> >> This process will grind up all soft
>> >> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
>> >> encountered.
>
>> > Well,
>> > I suppose you guessed as hard as you could,
>> > before posting that crap.
>>
>> Why EXACTLY is it crap?
>
> Because it's something that you just made up in your head
> without any data behind it.
What 'data' would you expect?
Is it wrong or right? If it's wrong you should
be able to say why and how.
Heck, what am I saying? You've obviously
been subjected to some form of PA 'training'
and so had all the brain cells in your pre-
frontal cortex destroyed -- removing any
capacity for independent thought.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> >> The sea did not suddenly advance, leaving
>> >> the ancient coast looking pretty much as it
>> >> used to be. (Or let's just say that it's not likely
>> >> that it did.) It is much more likely that it took
>> >> hundreds of years to advance slowly, eating
>> >> up the ground, converting it to beach, often
>> >> slowly retreating over a few decades, and then
>> >> advancing again; and usually doing this time
>> >> after time. This process will grind up all soft
>> >> fossils, and nearly all flint points that are
>> >> encountered. We finish up with layers of sand
>> >> and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
>> >> little point in looking, even if we can.
>> >
>> > Well,
>> > I suppose you guessed as hard as you could,
>> > before posting that crap.
>>
>> Why EXACTLY is it crap?
>
> Crowley: "This process will grind up all soft fossils, and nearly all
> flint points that are encountered."
> I don't think even you are that ignorant, I think you are just trolling
> to get a reaction.
That process will obviously grind up nearly
everything it encounters. But, occasionally,
some patches of ground will somehow escape
the grinding process. If nothing survived, then
under-sea archaeology would not exist.
(Of course, that's mainly on large and fairly
recent buildings. But the great bulk of buildings,
that we see falling into the sea, do not survive --
nor leave much of a trace.)
What exactly is your 'argument'?
a) That sea-levels have always been the same
as they are now?
b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
waves and storms cease during such times?
c) That the destructive effects that we can see
on every beach are illusory?
d) That since you have never thought of this
before, nor read about it in any textbook or
PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
be true?
> http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> Neither the bones or the flake tools got ground up here.
Err . . . yes, it is logically necessary that, within
any stated period, eustatic sea-levels will
achieve a maximum height -- and any fossils
deposited at that (maximal) point will not
(within that stated period) become submerged
again.
OK. ok. I appreciate that you will find this
difficult to understand. Perhaps next time
your mummy gives you a bath, you can
experiment with your plastic toys.
> http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/july00/paleoanthropology.html
> Nope...
You dope. It's an awful lot easier to go along an
ancient coast when it is ABOVE the water, rather
than below. Guess what these guys did? They
look for " . . artifacts found on the raised fossil reef
to the last interglacial: 125,000 . . . ". Note the word
'raised'.
The other major point of this part of the world
(of which you are obviously unaware) is that the
whole region has experienced uplift over the last
few million years -- as the result of geodynamic
forces -- making it ideal for the investigation of
hominid fossils.
But since you've not read that either in any
PA 'science' journal, it obviously can't be true.
Paul.
Lee Olsen
Paul Crowley wrote:
> >>
> >> Why EXACTLY is it crap?
> >
> > Crowley: "This process will grind up all soft fossils, and nearly all
> > flint points that are encountered."
> > I don't think even you are that ignorant, I think you are just trolling
> > to get a reaction.
>
> That process will obviously grind up nearly
> everything it encounters.
Wrong, or there wouldn't be fossils other than your ground up flint
points found on the ocean bottoms. To grind up a hand axe by such a
process would take a longer period of time than hominids have been on
this planet.
I was wrong, you weren't trolling, you really are that ignorant.
<snip rest of UFO argument>
Lee Olsen
bill....@taylorandfrancis.com wrote:
>
> Sure, but the idea that one could live on waiting for the predators to
> leave and just getting the marrow is tough to take.
Then they were using the stone and bone to pick their teeth?
Will in New Haven
I think that they probably valued the marrow. It has a great deal of
nutritional value and many critters, including some humans, find it
tasty.
I also think that they used stone and bone tools to hunt and to
threaten other predators and drive them off kills. The niche for a
marrow-eating specialist is too narrow to support anyone but some of
the vulteres. No mammal lives in it now and there is no reason to
believe one ever did.
Developing the tools or other capabilities to reach marrow does not
mean that they lived on marrow exclusively or even mostly. Modern
spotted hyenas like marrow and they are very good at getting it. They
also eat everything else on or in a carcass. And they create carcasses
and steal carcasses. They couldn't find enough unclaimed carcasses to
live on and neither could ancestral humans.
Will in New Haven
Lee Olsen
No mammal lives in it now and there is no reason to
> believe one ever did.
>
What were they doing with the tools and bone then, picking their teeth?
You are delusional. Cite who said hominids lived exclusivley on any
one particlar thing.
Do you know what a wooden-man argument is? You should, because you are
making a good one.
Will in New Haven
I would be if I had started out arguing with you about a specific. I
was wondering how anyone could postulate that ancestral hominids were
primarily scavangers on the veldt when that lifestyle is so difficult
and no mammal does it today.
I know it is off-topic for this thread but the thread has wandered over
a great deal of ground or water since it started. It is certainly not
off-topic for the newsgroup.
Straw man is the usual term but wooden man has a certain image. I like
it.
Will in New Haven
pete
> Heck, what am I saying?
You're saying that underwater archeology isn't feasible:
>>> We finish up with layers of sand
>>> and mud at the bottom of the sea, and there's
>>> little point in looking, even if we can.
... and the reason is, because you've never heard of it being done.
So, you speculate on whether or not it would pay off,
without knowing that it has paid off splendidly already,
and your armchair musings are crap.
--
pete
Lee Olsen
Will in New Haven wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > No mammal lives in it now and there is no reason to
> > > believe one ever did.
> > >
> >
> > What were they doing with the tools and bone then, picking their teeth?
> >
> > You are delusional. Cite who said hominids lived exclusivley on any
> > one particlar thing.
> > Do you know what a wooden-man argument is? You should, because you are
> > making a good one.
>
> I would be if I had started out arguing with you about a specific. I
> was wondering how anyone could postulate that ancestral hominids were
> primarily scavangers on the veldt when that lifestyle is so difficult
> and no mammal does it today.
They probably postulated it because there is no unequivocal evidence
for hunting until about 400 kya. I think the main issue, however, was
if big game hunting was being practiced. I don't think the possibility
was ever denied by anyone that hominids may have snatched a rabbit or a
turtle once in a while.
>
> I know it is off-topic for this thread but the thread has wandered over
> a great deal of ground or water since it started. It is certainly not
> off-topic for the newsgroup.
Well, start a new scavenging thread then. Blumenschine and Binford are
not that hard to find.
>
> Straw man is the usual term but wooden man has a certain image. I like
> it.
Yes, in this case wood working is something that should have been
preserved in the first million years of the archaeological record, but
wasn't. No cherry pits, no kelp either---nothing but bones broken for
morrow.
>
> Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Lee Olsen wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > Lee Olsen wrote:
> > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > No mammal lives in it now and there is no reason to
> > > > believe one ever did.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What were they doing with the tools and bone then, picking their teeth?
> > >
> > > You are delusional. Cite who said hominids lived exclusivley on any
> > > one particlar thing.
> > > Do you know what a wooden-man argument is? You should, because you are
> > > making a good one.
> >
> > I would be if I had started out arguing with you about a specific. I
> > was wondering how anyone could postulate that ancestral hominids were
> > primarily scavangers on the veldt when that lifestyle is so difficult
> > and no mammal does it today.
>
> They probably postulated it because there is no unequivocal evidence
> for hunting until about 400 kya. I think the main issue, however, was
> if big game hunting was being practiced. I don't think the possibility
> was ever denied by anyone that hominids may have snatched a rabbit or a
> turtle once in a while.
I think I may have found the idea odd because I had recently seen how
scavanging is usually done on the veldt. Snatching rabbits or even
duiker would be a lot safer. If you couldn't fly. I see aquatic and
aboreal theories about early hominids but not flying theories.
>
>
> >
> > I know it is off-topic for this thread but the thread has wandered over
> > a great deal of ground or water since it started. It is certainly not
> > off-topic for the newsgroup.
>
> Well, start a new scavenging thread then. Blumenschine and Binford are
> not that hard to find.
I will go looking. Just "got here." Thanks for the tip.
>
> >
> > Straw man is the usual term but wooden man has a certain image. I like
> > it.
>
> Yes, in this case wood working is something that should have been
> preserved in the first million years of the archaeological record, but
> wasn't. No cherry pits, no kelp either---nothing but bones broken for
> morrow.
Excellent. I didn't make that connection. No spear shafts, either.You'd
expect those for big game hunting OR driving even a leopard off a kill.
Wood doesn't preserve as well as stone or bone, does it? Still, would
have expected some.
Will in New Haven
--
>
>
> >
> > Will in New Haven
Lee Olsen
There are numerous sites where items as small as grass roots are
preserved, spears and digging sticks should be there if there were any.
Once Homo habilis arrives and later Acheulean, then woodworking
residues are found on some tools. Olduvai has some convincing examples
of pointed bones that were obviously sharpened; these could be argued
to be digging sticks. But this is all long after the first stone tools
show up.
rmacfarl
You often get the feeling everything he knows he learned from Discovery
Channel, don't you? But then, maybe he'd have seen the footage of that
archetypal semi-aquatic omnivore, the brown hyena, foraging on the
beaches of Namibia...
Ross Macfarlane
Lee Olsen
http://www.stockley.co.za/gallery/lion-005L.jpg
When the tide is in, it's a shark cage. When the tide is out, it's a
semi-aquatic lion cage:
http://www.stockley.co.za/gallery/lion-008L.jpg
> Ross Macfarlane
Paul Crowley
>> That process will obviously grind up nearly
>> everything it encounters.
>
> Wrong, or there wouldn't be fossils other than your ground up flint
> points found on the ocean bottoms. To grind up a hand axe by such a
> process would take a longer period of time than hominids have been on
> this planet.
Hand axes were produced by grinding,
and at an economical rate by hominids.
Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
be ground (and broken) to dust within a
few years (or even months).
> <snip rest of UFO argument>
Who do you think you are fooling?
Like all who pretend to PA expertise,
you are a total waste of space -- and
thoroughly dishonest. You cannot
deal with the simplest questions.
Here's another chance:
What exactly is your 'argument'?
a) That sea-levels have always been the same
as they are now?
b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
waves and storms cease during such times?
c) That the destructive effects that we can see
on every beach are illusory?
d) That since you have never thought of this
before, nor read about it in any textbook or
PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
be true?
Paul.
Lee Olsen
>
> Hand axes were produced by grinding,
> and at an economical rate by hominids.
How do you know that? Have you been sneaking a peek at the PA
literature again, or did you get that from the National Enquirer? Maybe
the last axe ever made was ground, but not the ones washed up on the
Pleistocene beaches.
> Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
> be ground (and broken) to dust within a
> few years (or even months).
>
Count the ground axes found in this URL (even you can count to zero)
http://tinyurl.com/g3ulx
Also carefully note the handaxe distribution map and lack of any
seashore pattern.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
"....together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and flakes. The whale
measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen, according to Claude
Guérin of Lyon's Université. The site is still littered with the
shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins of the ancient shore, now two
miles distant and 300 feet above the sea."
Dust in months, right?
Even the fragile sea urchins are still there, my, my.
<snip delusional lip-service ramblings>
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > Hand axes were produced by grinding,
> > and at an economical rate by hominids.
>
> How do you know that? Have you been sneaking a peek at the PA
> literature again, or did you get that from the National Enquirer? Maybe
> the last axe ever made was ground, but not the ones washed up on the
> Pleistocene beaches.
I was merely pointing out that hominids
have manually ground hand-axes. The
'grinding' that takes place naturally on
beaches would be far more severe.
> Also carefully note the handaxe distribution map and lack of any
> seashore pattern.
Note the distribution of whale fossils (or of
the fossils of any marine animal) and you
will see a lack of any "seashore pattern".
Seashores move rapidly (as it seems you don't
realise). I'm close to the sea at the moment
(as are a high proportion of modern humans).
15 kya it would have been about 300 miles
away from here. Human fossils from that era
are NOT located around here (one reason
being the half mile of ice covering the ground)
but close to those coasts. The 'sea-shore'
pattern of those fossils would -- if they still
existed -- be deep under the sea.
It is quite interesting how such basic facts
have been well 'known' for decades -- but have
not been absorbed IN ANY WAY by standard
PA. Your profound ignorance of all relevant
issues is characteristic of the entire "science".
> http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> "....together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and flakes. The whale
> measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen, according to Claude
> Guérin of Lyon's Université. The site is still littered with the
> shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins of the ancient shore, now two
> miles distant and 300 feet above the sea."
>
> Dust in months, right?
IF the bones of every whale that died on a
beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
coastlines marked by huge piles of them,
thousands of feet high, and kilometres wide.
It is astonishing that you regard the survival
of the bones of a single whale as remarkable.
> Even the fragile sea urchins are still there, my, my.
IF all sea-urchins that were deposited on a
beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
coastlines marked by huge piles of them, tens
of thousands of feet high, and hundreds of
kilometres wide.
It is astonishing that you regard the survival
of a tiny number -- washed up above the
level of last high tide at that location -- as
remarkable.
<snip delusional lip-service ramblings>
Simple questions that you can't answer do
not constitute "delusional lip-service ramblings".
Here they are again:
Day Brown
importance of warriors delivering red meat as the source of the protein
needed for maximal mental development.
There's a lotta this going on. LeBlanc, in 'Constant Battles' notes how
Chimps battle and hunt monkeys, with the inference that early hominids
did the same. And while he mentions the Bonobo, who dont kill monkeys,
he dismisses any relationship with the hominids. Even tho, the Bonobo
are smarter than chimps.
There are these other characteristics too: It is the Bonobo, not the
Chimp, that collect bone shards to use as digging tools which they carry
around. And like some hominids still today, they dig tubers. And because
of the grit, the Bonobo developed the thickest dentine of all primates
but for one. The hominids. If hominids ate meat as much as Chimps do,
they'd have sharper teeth like Chimps and Baboons.
The Gorilla, Orangutan, and Chimp all have violent struggles for Alpha
male status that often turn deadly. They do this so that they can
control access to the females, and they can see which females they need
to control because of an obvious estrus flush and odor.
The Bonobo females dont have an estrus flush or odor, so the males cant
tell which females are fertile, so they dont fight to control access to
them, and dont fight for alpha male status. The only other primate which
does not have an estrus flush and odor is... the hominids.
And because of the violence, bigger males are better, so the Orangutan,
Chimp, and Gorilla are 200-300% larger than the females. The Bonobo male
is only 20-30% larger than the females. The hominid male is only 20-30%
larger than the females. Since the Bonobo females, not males, are in
charge, they engage in female to female sex just for fun. The only other
primate to do that: hominids.
I spoze there may be a few places where uplift has kept the coast that
early hominids may have lived on available for digging; but I see scuba
is already producing better and more frequent results from sites that
have not been disturbed. I hope to see what they find, if anything.
Lee Olsen
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147824733.1...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > Hand axes were produced by grinding,
> > > and at an economical rate by hominids.
> >
> > How do you know that? Have you been sneaking a peek at the PA
> > literature again, or did you get that from the National Enquirer? Maybe
> > the last axe ever made was ground, but not the ones washed up on the
> > Pleistocene beaches.
>
> I was merely pointing out that hominids
> have manually ground hand-axes. The
> 'grinding' that takes place naturally on
> beaches would be far more severe.
Well, if there were a substantial number of these Atlantians making
handaxes by the billions now covered by the ocean, then the axes would
be washing up on the beaches in all stages of being ground up, some
half ground, some quarter ground and so on. Are you so ignorant that
you think all the worlds beaches exist in a single stage of
development, that every rock on them has been turned to dust quickly?
That no rocks exist on beaches that are of a softer material than
flint? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?
>
> > Also carefully note the handaxe distribution map and lack of any
> > seashore pattern.
>
> Note the distribution of whale fossils (or of
> the fossils of any marine animal) and you
> will see a lack of any "seashore pattern".
>
> Seashores move rapidly (as it seems you don't
> realise). I'm close to the sea at the moment
> (as are a high proportion of modern humans).
> 15 kya it would have been about 300 miles
> away from here. Human fossils from that era
> are NOT located around here (one reason
> being the half mile of ice covering the ground)
> but close to those coasts. The 'sea-shore'
> pattern of those fossils would -- if they still
> existed -- be deep under the sea.
>
> It is quite interesting how such basic facts
> have been well 'known' for decades -- but have
> not been absorbed IN ANY WAY by standard
> PA. Your profound ignorance of all relevant
> issues is characteristic of the entire "science".
http://www.proctormuseum.us/Texas/McFadden-Beach/TRIP-3April2004.htm
It is quite interesting how evidence has absolutely no impact on you,
but then again, evidence would require something more than your
brain-dead imagination to produce, so you are quite happy to live
without it in your imaginary world.
>
>
> > http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> > "....together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and flakes. The whale
> > measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen, according to Claude
> > Guérin of Lyon's Université. The site is still littered with the
> > shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins of the ancient shore, now two
> > miles distant and 300 feet above the sea."
> >
> > Dust in months, right?
>
> IF the bones of every whale that died on a
> beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
> coastlines marked by huge piles of them,
> thousands of feet high, and kilometres wide.
>
> It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> of the bones of a single whale as remarkable.
Because it is one single example more than you have provided. You
haven't progressed passed the number zero yet. Zero from you is not
astonishing at all, it is to be expected. Science is about evidence
and tests-----something you lost Atlantis people need not trouble
yourselves with. You seem totally oblivious to the fact that there is
nearly a million year gap between the first savanna tools and the tools
first found on a beach. I'm sure your lost Atlanis theory will cover
the gap nicely.
>
> > Even the fragile sea urchins are still there, my, my.
>
> IF all sea-urchins that were deposited on a
> beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
> coastlines marked by huge piles of them, tens
> of thousands of feet high, and hundreds of
> kilometres wide.
http://rae.falkor.gen.nz/oe/photos/big/whitecliffs.jpg
Don't like a little thing like evidence trouble you....
>
> It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> of a tiny number -- washed up above the
> level of last high tide at that location -- as
> remarkable.
It is not astonishing at all that you can't come up with one example of
a half-ground away axe on a beach somewhere around 2 1/2 mya.
>
> <snip delusional lip-service ramblings>
>
> Simple questions that you can't answer do
> not constitute "delusional lip-service ramblings".
> Here they are again:
>
> What exactly is your 'argument'?
The evidence is above in this thread, something that is beyond the
scope of your imagination, so don't trouble yourself looking for it,
you wouldn't recognize it if you saw it..
We know what your argument is, however: Atlantis is out there, prove me
wrong.
The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not the other way
around. So take your lost-Atlantis argument over to the UFO forum where
you will be at home.
<snip brain-dead rantings>
nickname
nickname
nickname
My point is that I think David Blaine was submerged for at least 48
hours straight, and likely the entire period mostly submerged. Wouldn't
bet on it though. DD
Lee Olsen
nickname wrote:
> Lee, I don't watch TV. TV is an illusion. DD
I was just wondering what was happening to the attribution marks,
that's all.
I don't have a TV here either.
nickname
WWII the Japanese were the gracious hosts. One of my old buddies is an
officer at a prison in Malaysia. DD
nickname
Mac, how ya doing?
I used to watch the magic box TV, watched a lion wandering along a
Namibian coastline once. Oh my.
Has anyone ever seen or heard of a bear, tiger, hyena, lion, wolf swim
in seawater to attack a healthy prey animal? DD
nickname
Lee Olsen
I've seen photos of a tiger swimming after a large deer in a lake and
killing it by pulling it under water--- apparently drowning it.
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-ViewPhoto.cfm?id=48351
Tigers and panthers love the water.
Seen a hyena chase after a flamingo in a lake, but the water was too
shallow to swim in.
Bears go diving for salmon, don't know if they would go after a human
in the water. I'm not going to volunteer for that test. Do polar bears
count?
How about the poor seal being grabbed high and dry off the beach by a
killer whale. Those critters aren't safe in the water or out.
nickname
different world.
Jaguars love freshwater too, of course. I don't think bears dive/swim
for salmon, more like wading, but maybe a bit. Polar bears don't eat
while swimming AFAIK, though they are so opportunistic I can't say for
sure.
Note that flamingoes, salmon and seals are all carnivores, while
ancient Homo was an omnivore. I'm curious that you don't mention
manatees and dugongs, does anything eat them? I've never heard of any
non-Homo attacking sirenia, wondering why. DD
nickname
Now Blaines gonna meet some animals. DD
Paul Crowley
> > I was merely pointing out that hominids
> > have manually ground hand-axes. The
> > 'grinding' that takes place naturally on
> > beaches would be far more severe.
>
> Well, if there were a substantial number of these Atlantians making
> handaxes by the billions now covered by the ocean, then the axes would
> be washing up on the beaches in all stages of being ground up, some
> half ground, some quarter ground and so on. Are you so ignorant that
> you think all the worlds beaches exist in a single stage of
> development, that every rock on them has been turned to dust quickly?
It seems that you have never seen a beach.
(PA people always give the impression of
coming from another planet.) If you ever do
visit one, you will notice that most stones of
any size are smooth and round. Any sharp
edges get rubbed off quickly. A hand-axe left
on a beach would not be recognisable after a
couple of days. If you ever do spend a couple
of days on this planet, find a beach and do the
experiment. (Btw, you'd have to make the
'hand-axe' radio-active, or something, to be
able to find it again -- waves can move stones
large distances and bury them deep.)
> That no rocks exist on beaches that are of a softer material than
> flint? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?
It's quite clear that the information you were
sent about this planet was hopelessly distorted.
Your problems come from applying theoretical
'rules' without ever seeing the practical results.
While flint is indeed hard, and other rocks are
softer, flint rocks lose their sharp edges very
quickly in the processes of massive abrasion.
That may seem to be contrary to "theory" (as
you have studied it from the tapes), but it is the
case, as all humans who have seen a beach will
be able to confirm.
> > Seashores move rapidly (as it seems you don't
> > realise). I'm close to the sea at the moment
> > (as are a high proportion of modern humans).
> > 15 kya it would have been about 300 miles
> > away from here. Human fossils from that era
> > are NOT located around here (one reason
> > being the half mile of ice covering the ground)
> > but close to those coasts. The 'sea-shore'
> > pattern of those fossils would -- if they still
> > existed -- be deep under the sea.
> >
> > It is quite interesting how such basic facts
> > have been well 'known' for decades -- but have
> > not been absorbed IN ANY WAY by standard
> > PA. Your profound ignorance of all relevant
> > issues is characteristic of the entire "science".
>
> http://www.proctormuseum.us/Texas/McFadden-Beach/TRIP-3April2004.htm
> It is quite interesting how evidence has absolutely no impact on you,
> but then again, evidence would require something more than your
> brain-dead imagination to produce, so you are quite happy to live
> without it in your imaginary world.
Isn't it curious that the websites you quote
always contradict the point that you are trying
to make? You have not yet mastered earth
languages nor earth logic. That site states:
" . . . This is an alluvial area from prehistoric times. That means that
rivers washed debris down from the more recent Pleistocene epoch
and on into the present, Holocene epoch. There are some Indian artifacts.
Texas Highways Magazine and other sources credit McFadden Beach
with having had more Clovis Points . . "
> > > http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> > > "....together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and flakes. The whale
> > > measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen, according to Claude
> > > Guérin of Lyon's Université. The site is still littered with the
> > > shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins of the ancient shore, now two
> > > miles distant and 300 feet above the sea."
> > >
> > > Dust in months, right?
> >
> > IF the bones of every whale that died on a
> > beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
> > coastlines marked by huge piles of them,
> > thousands of feet high, and kilometres wide.
> >
> > It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> > of the bones of a single whale as remarkable.
>
> Because it is one single example more than you have provided.
So, according to you, the survival of this one
whale (left at the maximum reach of the sea
since it was deposited) proves that whale
bones are never ground down to dust on
normal beaches?
> Because it is one single example more than you have provided.
> You haven't progressed passed the number zero yet. Zero from
> you is not astonishing at all, it is to be expected. Science is about
> evidence and tests-----something you lost Atlantis people need
> not trouble yourselves with.
Ah, I now see what you want -- which is to
find all the grains of sand that made up one
particular hand-axe of about a million years
ago, and re-assemble them, proving that they
were all part of that axe (and no other). Of
course, you'd want at least 100 hand-axes
re-assembled in this manner. OK, ok. I'll get
right to it. And while I'm at it I'll find all the
parts of the LCA of chimps and hominids and
re-assemble them as well.
Isn't it fun to do science with someone who
really understands both the theory and the
practice?
> You seem totally oblivious to the fact that there is
> nearly a million year gap between the first savanna tools and the tools
> first found on a beach. I'm sure your lost Atlanis theory will cover
> the gap nicely.
And, in your mind, this proves that no hominid
ever visited such a beach up to then? Whereas
they had been living on the savanna for millions
of years before that?
Where do stone tools on a beach come from?
As the website you quote tells you -- they are
washed down with alluvial soils. They are then
quickly destroyed by wave-action. You have
not got the faintest notion of the normal
processes of weathering.
There could have been a population of 100,000
living at sea-level (if not much on the beach).
They would have left no fossils, since all would
have been destroyed by wave-action, etc., as
sea-levels rose and fell. A tiny number of the
hominids made it up to the savanna -- on
forced treks as 'refugees' (perhaps once every
three generations). They would have left stone
tools there, to be found a few million years
later by PA dopes.
> > It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> > of a tiny number -- washed up above the
> > level of last high tide at that location -- as
> > remarkable.
>
> It is not astonishing at all that you can't come up with one example of
> a half-ground away axe on a beach somewhere around 2 1/2 mya.
Yep, you have clearly never seen a beach
(not on this planet, anyway). Or perhaps,
when you did, your human guides forgot to
tell you about tides and storms, and how
beaches are created.
On your next visit to this planet, find a coast-
line and take look at the enormous difference
between the land above the water and that
beneath it. Find a fossil site close the sea, and
imagine what would happen if eustatic sea-
levels were to rise to cover it to a depth of (say)
10 feet or 20 feet. You will be very surprised.
<snip brain-dead rantings>
Simple questions that you can't answer do
not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
they are again:
What exactly is your 'argument'?
deowll
"nickname" <alas_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147965166.3...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I did say seawater. Lakes, rivers, mudpuddles and bilabongs are a
> different world.
> Jaguars love freshwater too, of course. I don't think bears dive/swim
> for salmon, more like wading, but maybe a bit.
Seen film of one doing exactly that.
>Polar bears don't eat
> while swimming AFAIK, though they are so opportunistic I can't say for
> sure.
> Note that flamingoes, salmon and seals are all carnivores, while
> ancient Homo was an omnivore. I'm curious that you don't mention
> manatees and dugongs, does anything eat them? I've never heard of any
> non-Homo attacking sirenia, wondering why. DD
>
Sharks for sure. A big gater maybe. Their skin is kinda thick.
nickname
Pouncing from ground base into water.
Diving (in the context of aquatic food foraging) is from water surface
to depth, typical for sea otters. It is possible that polar bears do
this, but I haven't seen it or heard of it.
I've never heard of or seen evidence that sharks or gators/crocs or
cats or bears attack and eat sirenia, seems likely something would but
so far unknown to me. DD
Will in New Haven
I found this at:
http://www.buschgardens.org/infobooks/Manatee/deathman.html
C. Predators.
1. Although predation has not been documented, scientists believe
sharks, alligators, or crocodiles may occasionally attack West Indian
manatees.
2. Crocodiles and sharks sometimes prey on West African manatees.
3. Jaguars, caimans, and sharks prey on Amazonian manatees.
#3 is confirmed at
http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/jeffcorwin/carnival/waterbeast/oxmanatee.html
Will in New Haven
--
"I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world
to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but
unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and
thank Heaven He has put it in my power."
-Writings of Thomas Paine 56 (M. Conway ed. 1894)
nickname
sirenia, especially weak/very young/very old sirenia, my guess is that
healthy sub-adult & adult sirenia are largely left alone in general
(during normal weather conditions) by predators excluding Humans, in a
manner similar to hippos, elephants and rhinos. Simply too big a bite
for most predators that live in similar habitats. I consider this a
parallel with ancient Homo spp. along the shoreline, occasional
predation by large predators. DD
Lee Olsen
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147799535.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> That process will obviously grind up nearly
> >> everything it encounters.
> >
> > Wrong, or there wouldn't be fossils other than your ground up flint
> > points found on the ocean bottoms. To grind up a hand axe by such a
> > process would take a longer period of time than hominids have been on
> > this planet.
>
> Hand axes were produced by grinding,
> and at an economical rate by hominids.
> Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
> be ground (and broken) to dust within a
> few years (or even months).
Where is your evidence that the whale and the other five examples I
gave (as opposed to your zero examples) were deposited on a pebble
beach? All beaches now have pebbles on them according to you? Are you
really that ignorant?
>
> > <snip rest of UFO argument>
>
> Who do you think you are fooling?
> Like all who pretend to PA expertise,
> you are a total waste of space -- and
> thoroughly dishonest. You cannot
> deal with the simplest questions.
This is a science forum, it clearly states that in the title. If
science is so stressful for you to deal with, why aren't you over at
the UFO forum? There, all you have to do is think something exists and
poof, it magically becomes real and proven evidence for an argument.
Unlike your circular arguments here, where you keep repeating yourself,
I have presented data that at least some axes older than
100 k years occur on raised beaches and certainly didn't get turned to
dust in that amount of time, let alone in a few months. If however,
they existed in the billions in these once sea-level areas, then a
seaside pattern should exist. In your upsidedown world, if there is no
such pattern, then that becomes evidence that such a pattern exists.
Why don't you go rent the Glomar Explorer and prove me wrong? Pretty
simple thing for you to do, even with your UFO thinking.
>
> Here's another chance:
The reason you are forced to ask nonsensical questions is because you
do not have any evidence of your own, it all exists in your
imagination. I can't refute your negative evidence because that is not
how science works. The burden is on you to produce the counter evidence
and you have not produced anything so far but wild imagination,
lip-service, and circular arguments.
<snip>
Lee Olsen
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147888781.7...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I was merely pointing out that hominids
> > > have manually ground hand-axes. The
> > > 'grinding' that takes place naturally on
> > > beaches would be far more severe.
> >
> > Well, if there were a substantial number of these Atlantians making
> > handaxes by the billions now covered by the ocean, then the axes would
> > be washing up on the beaches in all stages of being ground up, some
> > half ground, some quarter ground and so on. Are you so ignorant that
> > you think all the worlds beaches exist in a single stage of
> > development, that every rock on them has been turned to dust quickly?
>
> It seems that you have never seen a beach.
> (PA people always give the impression of
> coming from another planet.) If you ever do
> visit one, you will notice that most stones of
> any size are smooth and round.
You have presented zero evidence on how long this process takes, so you
have no argument (except a circular one) until you do.
Any sharp
> edges get rubbed off quickly. A hand-axe left
> on a beach would not be recognisable after a
> couple of days. If you ever do spend a couple
> of days on this planet, find a beach and do the
> experiment.
Why are you lying and changing the argument?
Crowley: "Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
be ground (and broken) to dust within a
few years (or even months)."
Nobody said sharp edges can't get dulled on a beach, that wasn't the
argument, either by me or you. Other than losing the argument, why are
you lying?
(Btw, you'd have to make the
> 'hand-axe' radio-active, or something, to be
> able to find it again -- waves can move stones
> large distances and bury them deep.)
Yep, when they get buried deep, waves can no longer roll them and the
process of grinding them to dust stops----end of story.
>
> > That no rocks exist on beaches that are of a softer material than
> > flint? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?
>
> It's quite clear that the information you were
> sent about this planet was hopelessly distorted.
What is there to distort? You said ground to dusts in a few months,
which is absolute stupidity. Where is your evidence? I know, Crowley
said so......
> Your problems come from applying theoretical
> 'rules' without ever seeing the practical results.
> While flint is indeed hard, and other rocks are
> softer, flint rocks lose their sharp edges very
> quickly in the processes of massive abrasion.
Losing a sharp edge is not the same thing as massive abrasion. Only a
total fool would confuse the two, otherwise there would never be rocks
older than a few months on any beach, they all would be dust.
> That may seem to be contrary to "theory" (as
> you have studied it from the tapes), but it is the
> case, as all humans who have seen a beach will
> be able to confirm.
I have given six examples where 100,000 year-old-plus artifacts have
not been destroyed by the sea. You still remain locked on Zero. Where
is your data to prove an ax will turn to dust in a few months? You
don't need to give an overwhelming 6 cases, just one will do. Please
do not reply with: "because I said so" and make yourself look even more
foolish than you already have.
What part of Clovis points (older than 10,000 years) washing around on
an ocean beach are you to stupid to understand? They did not turn to
dust in a few months.
>
> > > > http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> > > > "....together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and flakes. The whale
> > > > measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen, according to Claude
> > > > Guérin of Lyon's Université. The site is still littered with the
> > > > shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins of the ancient shore, now two
> > > > miles distant and 300 feet above the sea."
> > > >
> > > > Dust in months, right?
> > >
> > > IF the bones of every whale that died on a
> > > beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
> > > coastlines marked by huge piles of them,
> > > thousands of feet high, and kilometres wide.
> > >
> > > It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> > > of the bones of a single whale as remarkable.
> >
> > Because it is one single example more than you have provided.
>
> So, according to you, the survival of this one
> whale (left at the maximum reach of the sea
> since it was deposited) proves that whale
> bones are never ground down to dust on
> normal beaches?
...asks the mind of a 4-year-old.
Please educate yourself, this is a science forum.
http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
>
> > Because it is one single example more than you have provided.
> > You haven't progressed passed the number zero yet. Zero from
> > you is not astonishing at all, it is to be expected. Science is about
> > evidence and tests-----something you lost Atlantis people need
> > not trouble yourselves with.
>
> Ah, I now see what you want -- which is to
> find all the grains of sand that made up one
> particular hand-axe of about a million years
> ago, and re-assemble them, proving that they
> were all part of that axe (and no other). Of
> course, you'd want at least 100 hand-axes
> re-assembled in this manner. OK, ok. I'll get
> right to it. And while I'm at it I'll find all the
> parts of the LCA of chimps and hominids and
> re-assemble them as well.
>
> Isn't it fun to do science with someone who
> really understands both the theory and the
> practice?
It would be more fun if you were to present something besides
lip-service and circular arguments to demonstrate your claims are worth
a hypothesis.
>
> > You seem totally oblivious to the fact that there is
> > nearly a million year gap between the first savanna tools and the tools
> > first found on a beach. I'm sure your lost Atlanis theory will cover
> > the gap nicely.
>
> And, in your mind, this proves that no hominid
> ever visited such a beach up to then? Whereas
> they had been living on the savanna for millions
> of years before that?
Science is about data, you are confusing evidence with imagination.
>
> Where do stone tools on a beach come from?
And a million and a half years after that human debris ended up on the
moon doesn't mean hominds were always on the moon. By your way of
thinking, because we find debris there after 1960 it must have been
there a million and a half years ago.
> As the website you quote tells you -- they are
> washed down with alluvial soils. They are then
> quickly destroyed by wave-action. You have
> not got the faintest notion of the normal
> processes of weathering.
If they were quickley destroyed, they wouldn't be finding them on the
beaches.
I gave 6 examples of raised beaches. The Clovis points are still Clovis
points. The Olduwan flakes are still easly recognizeable as Olduwan.
Hoxne handaxes are still easily recognizable. Yet if you imagine
something, that then becomes fact that trumps on-the-ground evidence.
>
> There could have been a population of 100,000
> living at sea-level (if not much on the beach).
> They would have left no fossils, since all would
> have been destroyed by wave-action, etc., as
> sea-levels rose and fell. A tiny number of the
> hominids made it up to the savanna -- on
> forced treks as 'refugees' (perhaps once every
> three generations). They would have left stone
> tools there, to be found a few million years
> later by PA dopes.
There could have been????? There could have been beings from Andromeda
there also, we just haven't found the flying saucer yet.....
Wrong, away from the beach zone bones would be just as likely to
fossilize (and did) as in the highland sites. You still have about a 1
million year gap that isn't going to go away without hard evidence.
http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
Of course you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
drink....
>
> > > It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> > > of a tiny number -- washed up above the
> > > level of last high tide at that location -- as
> > > remarkable.
> >
> > It is not astonishing at all that you can't come up with one example of
> > a half-ground away axe on a beach somewhere around 2 1/2 mya.
>
> Yep, you have clearly never seen a beach
> (not on this planet, anyway). Or perhaps,
> when you did, your human guides forgot to
> tell you about tides and storms, and how
> beaches are created.
You must mean the beach with the billion ground up axes on it. Well no,
I guess I haven't seen to that one yet, where did you say it was?
>
> On your next visit to this planet, find a coast-
> line and take look at the enormous difference
> between the land above the water and that
> beneath it. Find a fossil site close the sea, and
> imagine what would happen if eustatic sea-
> levels were to rise to cover it to a depth of (say)
> 10 feet or 20 feet. You will be very surprised.
On your next visit to the moon, imagine that flag being there a million
and a half years ago.
>
> <snip brain-dead rantings>
>
> Simple questions that you can't answer do
> not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
> they are again:
Your irrelevant questions do not constitute evidence to support your
case, only with contrary evidence of your own can you falsify the
established savanna evidence. Negative arguments, from brain-dead
clowns, belong on UFO forums.
>
> What exactly is your 'argument'?
Evidence....try it sometime.
a), b), c), d), will not be evidence of 100,000 people living at
sea-level no matter how they are answered, got it?
<snip>
nickname
the uplifted reef in Eritrea. The handaxe was a surprise due to the
late date 125ka.
Shells have been used as blades, especially when obsidian isn't
available. Good flint and obsidian was sought after, even by beach
folks IMO.
If handaxes are simply cores, then I wouldn't expect them to be at the
beaches in much quantity, more likely they'd be somewhere near the
source quarry. Do you thing the handaxes were used as tools? For what
purpose?
There certainly is a hell of a lot more constant erosive action at the
intertidal beach zone and swift-running rivers than elsewhere, though
blowing sands (beach and desert) can do a good job as well.
I'd guess the beached whales were deposited after stranding or tsunamis
dumped them ashore. Luck.
gottago. DD
deowll
Maybe you don't watch enough tv or the wrong tv. It was one bear and every
bear seems to learn to fish in its own way. It isn't instinct.
As for sharks, if its meat and they can get to it, they'll eat it though I
don't know anything suggesting that attacks are common. I don't know if
gators do but a big one might well do so. The main killer of sirenia in
Florida are boats.
Jois
"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:t_5cg.41293$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
counting style for what qualifies as a "dive"?
Jois
nickname
Probosis monkeys are said to do belly flop dives into water from
branches.
Diving boards diving and pouncing onto a salmon swimming upstream are
completely different from what I meant.
I meant diving in this sense: from a surface floating position, then
arc-diving down to get food, and resurfacing. At no point is the animal
in contact with the ground (as support). Marine animals do this,
terrestrial animals don't. Possibly polar bears do this, but I haven't
seen or heard of it. DD
Will in New Haven
It doesn't seem likely for polar bears. On the other paw, it seems a
definition question. Seals and walruses do it, so they are marine
mammals. However, they spend a great deal of time on land for a marine
mammal. Polar bears don't, so they are terrestrial mammals, although
they spend a great deal of time on and in the water for terrestrial
mammals. Land-based otters dive for food, but that makes them marine
animals? Lakeside mink probably don't, so they are land animals?
Muskrat and beaver and nutria apparently come ashore for food, as do
hippopotami.
The dividing line seems, dare I say it, fluid.
Will in New Haven
Jois
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:1148308097.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Good examples!
Jois
Paul Crowley
> > (Btw, you'd have to make the
> > 'hand-axe' radio-active, or something, to be
> > able to find it again -- waves can move stones
> > large distances and bury them deep.)
>
> Yep, when they get buried deep, waves can no longer roll them and the
> process of grinding them to dust stops----end of story.
God help us. You really have no idea at all.
The next large storm will rake them up again.
> > > That no rocks exist on beaches that are of a softer material than
> > > flint? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?
> >
> > It's quite clear that the information you were
> > sent about this planet was hopelessly distorted.
>
> What is there to distort? You said ground to dusts in a few months,
> which is absolute stupidity. Where is your evidence?
Go to any beach. Do you also want evidence
that rain is wet?
> > Your problems come from applying theoretical
> > 'rules' without ever seeing the practical results.
> > While flint is indeed hard, and other rocks are
> > softer, flint rocks lose their sharp edges very
> > quickly in the processes of massive abrasion.
>
> Losing a sharp edge is not the same thing as massive abrasion. Only a
> total fool would confuse the two, otherwise there would never be rocks
> older than a few months on any beach, they all would be dust.
Now you are beginning to get somewhere.
Perhaps you've studied some film material
coming from planet earth. Us earthlings are
commonly astonished when we re-visit a
beach after (say) 10 years to see the extent
of the erosion. Often we see the loss of
thousands of cubic metres. The 'rate of
turnover' of the rocks on the beach could
easily be calculated. Maybe it's 10 times a
year. In any case, over geological time, it's
absurdly fast . . . which is the point that
I'm trying to convey to you.
I could show you plenty of coastal erosion
around here: remains of old roads and railway
tracks (around 100 years old) that have long
been falling into the sea. On many beaches
the rocks ARE never older than a few months.
On nearly all beaches they are never older
than a few years.
> > That may seem to be contrary to "theory" (as
> > you have studied it from the tapes), but it is the
> > case, as all humans who have seen a beach will
> > be able to confirm.
>
> I have given six examples where 100,000 year-old-plus artifacts have
> not been destroyed by the sea.
That is because they have been raised well
above sea-level. How come you think that
this is evidence for anything?
> > " . . . This is an alluvial area from prehistoric times. That means that
> > rivers washed debris down from the more recent Pleistocene epoch
> > and on into the present, Holocene epoch. There are some Indian artifacts.
> > Texas Highways Magazine and other sources credit McFadden Beach
> > with having had more Clovis Points . . "
>
> What part of Clovis points (older than 10,000 years) washing around on
> an ocean beach are you to stupid to understand? They did not turn to
> dust in a few months.
There are numerous beach fossil sites in these
islands, where the fossils DO (or will) turn to dust
within a few months, if they are not removed from
the beach. They fall out of the cliff and are
destroyed if not quickly found and removed.
> Please educate yourself, this is a science forum.
> http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
What is your point? When there is uplift,
(as is generally the case on the eastern edge
of the Pacific, old beaches are often preserved.
> > > You seem totally oblivious to the fact that there is
> > > nearly a million year gap between the first savanna tools and the tools
> > > first found on a beach. I'm sure your lost Atlanis theory will cover
> > > the gap nicely.
> >
> > And, in your mind, this proves that no hominid
> > ever visited such a beach up to then? Whereas
> > they had been living on the savanna for millions
> > of years before that?
>
> Science is about data, you are confusing evidence with imagination.
Science is about the INTERPRETATION of
data. You don't have to see something to
know it exists. Most astronomers believe in
'dark matter' while admitting to not having a
clue as to what it is. Science is also about
imagination -- how did Einstein come to his
concept of General Relativity? How did
Newton begin to think about gravity?
Of course, imagination is ruled out for all
PA types. They have gone through some
kind of "brain-cleansing" operation.
> > As the website you quote tells you -- they are
> > washed down with alluvial soils. They are then
> > quickly destroyed by wave-action. You have
> > not got the faintest notion of the normal
> > processes of weathering.
>
> If they were quickley destroyed, they wouldn't be finding them on the
> beaches.
They ARE quickly destroyed (check with
anyone who regularly prospects for any kinds
of fossils on beaches). They can be found
because they exist in HUGE numbers in
alluvial soils (where those soils have remained
above sea-level since the items were deposited).
They are washed down regularly in rivers or
fall from sea-eroded cliffs.
> I gave 6 examples of raised beaches.
Apparently you intended them as proof that
beaches never get eroded -- since it is clear
that you have never seen a beach on this
planet.
> The Clovis points are still Clovis points. The Olduwan flakes are
> still easly recognizeable as Olduwan. Hoxne handaxes are still
> easily recognizable.
Of course -- if they were not on a beach for more
than a few days nor ground up by the waves.
But you are missing the fact that numerous flakes
of stone and grains of sand were once such things
and are no longer recognisable.
> > There could have been a population of 100,000
> > living at sea-level (if not much on the beach).
> > They would have left no fossils, since all would
> > have been destroyed by wave-action, etc., as
> > sea-levels rose and fell. A tiny number of the
> > hominids made it up to the savanna -- on
> > forced treks as 'refugees' (perhaps once every
> > three generations). They would have left stone
> > tools there, to be found a few million years
> > later by PA dopes.
>
> There could have been????? There could have been beings from Andromeda
> there also, we just haven't found the flying saucer yet.....
It will, someday, be a crucial task of PA teams
(in some long distant generation) to estimate
FROM THE DATA how many such items
existed in the ground in a variety of hominid
habitats before they were destroyed by wave
erosion. It is not an impossible task, even if
the estimates may have a large margins of
error.
> > On your next visit to this planet, find a coast-
> > line and take look at the enormous difference
> > between the land above the water and that
> > beneath it. Find a fossil site close the sea, and
> > imagine what would happen if eustatic sea-
> > levels were to rise to cover it to a depth of (say)
> > 10 feet or 20 feet. You will be very surprised.
>
> On your next visit to the moon, imagine that flag being there a million
> and a half years ago.
It seems that your home planet is like our
moon -- geologically inactive. Your
assumption that our planet is similar to
yours is quite false. There is constant
movement here -- and away from volcanoes
and mid-ocean ridges, that activity is most
noticeable on beaches.
> > Simple questions that you can't answer do
> > not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
> > they are again:
>
> Your irrelevant questions do not constitute evidence to support your
> case, only with contrary evidence of your own can you falsify the
> established savanna evidence.
If the only places you can find (say) lost
coins is under street lamps, do you
conclude that they can only exist under
street lamps? Evidence has to be
interpreted. But that requires intelligence.
In your case, forget it.
> > What exactly is your 'argument'?
> > a) That sea-levels have always been the same
> > as they are now?
> > b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
> > so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
> > waves and storms cease during such times?
> > c) That the destructive effects that we can see
> > on every beach are illusory?
> > d) That since you have never thought of this
> > before, nor read about it in any textbook or
> > PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
> > be true?
> a), b), c), d), will not be evidence of 100,000 people living at
> sea-level no matter how they are answered, got it?
Attempts at honest answers will be a start.
Given the extreme and frequent destruction
of the ground in almost all paleo-hominid
habitats, evidence in the form PA people
have come to expect it will be hard to find.
But there is some. A few sites escaped
that destruction -- usually as the result of
geological uplift. An evaluation of those
sites (as a whole) should be useful --
provided they are seen as representative
of tens of thousands of others wiped out
during the past 5 Myr.
Of course, a 'savanna existence' is a complete
nonsense for hominids. It's feasible only for
species that eat grass, and those that eat
them in turn. Hominids are in neither
category.
It is no surprise that PA has made zero
progress since Darwin, given that 'the
savanna' has been the prevailing paradigm.
And, of course, a discipline cannot stand still.
If it cannot go forward, it will go backward.
The savanna dead-end, in which it drove
itself, made the rapid decline since Darwin
inevitable.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> > Wrong, or there wouldn't be fossils other than your ground up flint
>> > points found on the ocean bottoms. To grind up a hand axe by such a
>> > process would take a longer period of time than hominids have been on
>> > this planet.
>>
>> Hand axes were produced by grinding,
>> and at an economical rate by hominids.
>> Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
>> be ground (and broken) to dust within a
>> few years (or even months).
>
> Where is your evidence that the whale and the other five examples I
> gave (as opposed to your zero examples) were deposited on a pebble
> beach?
The examples you gave (such as the whale)
were of exceptions so rare that they illustrate
the rule. 99.9999% of beached whale carcases
are destroyed -- something everyone knows,
but you are too dishonest to admit. Almost the
only ones that can survive are those landed
under 'geologically freakish' conditions -- at the
peak of a long-term rise in eustatic sea-levels,
just before they fall.
> All beaches now have pebbles on them according to you? Are you
> really that ignorant?
Again, it is your ignorance that is demonstrated.
The sea is a giant sifting mechanism, and it is no
accident that sand finishes up on sand beaches
and pebbles on pebble beaches. (In fact, on
long pebble beaches -- like that of Chesil Bank in
Dorset, England -- you get the large stones at one
end, and the small ones at the other..) The notion
that a hand-axe left on ANY kind of beach would
remain in the same location or condition for more
than a few months -- or remain recognisable as a
hand-axe for more than a few weeks -- could only
be held by a someone as ignorant as a PA
academic; in other words, someone who is,
almost by definition, profoundly ignorant of
every aspect of every science.
>> > <snip rest of UFO argument>
>>
>> Who do you think you are fooling?
>> Like all who pretend to PA expertise,
>> you are a total waste of space -- and
>> thoroughly dishonest. You cannot
>> deal with the simplest questions.
>
> This is a science forum, it clearly states that in the title. If
> science is so stressful for you to deal with, why aren't you over at
> the UFO forum? There, all you have to do is think something exists and
> poof, it magically becomes real and proven evidence for an argument.
> Unlike your circular arguments here, where you keep repeating yourself,
> I have presented data that at least some axes older than
> 100 k years occur on raised beaches and certainly didn't get turned to
> dust in that amount of time, let alone in a few months.
When a beach gets 'raised', it is no longer a
beach. There are numerous 'raised beaches'
in mountains (such as the Andes, or the
Himalayas) at heights of 10,000 feet or more.
The presence on some of the more recent
(such as that in Nambibia with the whale, and
that in Eritrea) of hand-axes is solid evidence
that beaches were a hominid habitat of major
significance.
> If however,
> they existed in the billions in these once sea-level areas, then a
> seaside pattern should exist.
This is a statement that reveals a profound
ignorance of elementary geography and
geological history. While you are not to be
personally blamed for this -- in that this level
of ignorance is standard throughout all of PA.
It is present in all PA textbooks and journal
articles. Nevertheless, it is still shameful and
scandalous.
>> Here's another chance:
>
> The reason you are forced to ask nonsensical questions is because you
> do not have any evidence of your own,
There is nothing nonsensical about these
questions. What is remarkable is your
inability to answer them.
What exactly is your 'argument'?
a) That sea-levels have always been the same
as they are now?
b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
waves and storms cease during such times?
c) That the destructive effects that we can see
on every beach are illusory?
d) That since you have never thought of this
before, nor read about it in any textbook or
PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
be true?
> it all exists in your
> imagination. I can't refute your negative evidence because that is not
> how science works. The burden is on you to produce the counter evidence
> and you have not produced anything so far but wild imagination,
> lip-service, and circular arguments.
I am doing no more than pointing out
obvious undeniable facts -- that have been
ignored by PA 'science' for the simple
reason that no PA 'scientist' has thought
about them. It is accepted that sea-levels
rise and fall. But PA people do not begin
to comprehend the drastic implications of
those fluctuations on the fossil record of
species and populations that live at (or
close to) sea-level
Paul.
deowll
"Jois" <firs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:COadnVtex52...@comcast.com...
Actually nothing. I used "dive' as in the bear went into fairly deep water
and (dived) swam around under water a little in order to catch a fish.While
less effective than some other methods the bear was catching fish and it
wasn't competing much if at all for fishing space. While a decent sized
brown bear it was kind of lanky and if I recall correctly a fairly young
adult.
Will in New Haven
This sounds like an excellent strategy to avoid having to fight for a
fishing spot. Of course, we know that the Brown Bear is a good swimmer
as it is directly ancestral to the Polar Bear and somewhere along the
line a population of Brown Bears must have become much more aquatic.
Will in New Haven
Lee Olsen
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148170577.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > (Btw, you'd have to make the
> > > 'hand-axe' radio-active, or something, to be
> > > able to find it again -- waves can move stones
> > > large distances and bury them deep.)
> >
> > Yep, when they get buried deep, waves can no longer roll them and the
> > process of grinding them to dust stops----end of story.
>
> God help us.
God needs to help you because science and evidence will not.
You really have no idea at all.
> The next large storm will rake them up again.
BS, you idiot, you just told us "buried deep". You did not understand
the URL I gave. The stratified layers of ancient beaches would not
exists if everything were constantly churned up to bed rock with each
large storm.
>
> > > > That no rocks exist on beaches that are of a softer material than
> > > > flint? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?
> > >
> > > It's quite clear that the information you were
> > > sent about this planet was hopelessly distorted.
> >
> > What is there to distort? You said ground to dusts in a few months,
> > which is absolute stupidity. Where is your evidence?
>
> Go to any beach.
Go to the beaches where all the handaxes were found.
Do you also want evidence
> that rain is wet?
Evidence has no impact on your brain-dead brain does it?
>
> > > Your problems come from applying theoretical
> > > 'rules' without ever seeing the practical results.
> > > While flint is indeed hard, and other rocks are
> > > softer, flint rocks lose their sharp edges very
> > > quickly in the processes of massive abrasion.
> >
> > Losing a sharp edge is not the same thing as massive abrasion. Only a
> > total fool would confuse the two, otherwise there would never be rocks
> > older than a few months on any beach, they all would be dust.
>
> Now you are beginning to get somewhere.
> Perhaps you've studied some film material
> coming from planet earth. Us earthlings are
> commonly astonished when we re-visit a
> beach after (say) 10 years to see the extent
> of the erosion.
What you are saying is not evidence, it it just Crowley saying it and
that is not science.
Often we see the loss of
> thousands of cubic metres. The 'rate of
> turnover' of the rocks on the beach could
> easily be calculated. Maybe it's 10 times a
> year. In any case, over geological time, it's
> absurdly fast . . . which is the point that
> I'm trying to convey to you.
You have made no point. Imagination is not evidence. The 10,000+
year-old Clovis points prove it takes something longer than that to
erode one beyond recognition. 10,000 years is longer than two months,
is it not?
>
> I could show you plenty of coastal erosion
> around here: remains of old roads and railway
> tracks (around 100 years old) that have long
> been falling into the sea. On many beaches
> the rocks ARE never older than a few months.
> On nearly all beaches they are never older
> than a few years.
Prove it. You are nothing more than a liar. If you had the evidence to
support your claims you would cite it.
Another question you are trying to lie your way out of. Why are you
ASSuming the examples I gave were on a rocky beach? What was the rate
of errosion on the African beaches where the axes were found? And if
they were on rocky beaches, it would prove the axes were there intact
long enough for the beach to rise out of harms way, something longer
than 10,000 years.
>
> > > That may seem to be contrary to "theory" (as
> > > you have studied it from the tapes), but it is the
> > > case, as all humans who have seen a beach will
> > > be able to confirm.
> >
> > I have given six examples where 100,000 year-old-plus artifacts have
> > not been destroyed by the sea.
>
> That is because they have been raised well
> above sea-level. How come you think that
> this is evidence for anything?
Because the time it took to raise the beach was obviousy longer than a
few months, proving you are wrong, or else the axes wouldn't be there.
>
> > > " . . . This is an alluvial area from prehistoric times. That means that
> > > rivers washed debris down from the more recent Pleistocene epoch
> > > and on into the present, Holocene epoch. There are some Indian artifacts.
> > > Texas Highways Magazine and other sources credit McFadden Beach
> > > with having had more Clovis Points . . "
> >
> > What part of Clovis points (older than 10,000 years) washing around on
> > an ocean beach are you to stupid to understand? They did not turn to
> > dust in a few months.
>
> There are numerous beach fossil sites in these
> islands, where the fossils DO (or will) turn to dust
> within a few months, if they are not removed from
> the beach. They fall out of the cliff and are
> destroyed if not quickly found and removed.
Can't you read? I said Clovis, not fossils, not cliffs. Clovis/sand
beach. Answer the question.
>
> > Please educate yourself, this is a science forum.
> > http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
>
> What is your point?
There is no point, there is evidence. Evidence is something you don't
have. You seem to have no shortage of lip service and imagination
however.
When there is uplift,
> (as is generally the case on the eastern edge
> of the Pacific, old beaches are often preserved.
Yes, I cited two examples of such, did you forget? The axes are still
there, you can't make them go away. Two months indeed.....
>
> > > > You seem totally oblivious to the fact that there is
> > > > nearly a million year gap between the first savanna tools and the tools
> > > > first found on a beach. I'm sure your lost Atlanis theory will cover
> > > > the gap nicely.
> > >
> > > And, in your mind, this proves that no hominid
> > > ever visited such a beach up to then? Whereas
> > > they had been living on the savanna for millions
> > > of years before that?
> >
> > Science is about data, you are confusing evidence with imagination.
>
> Science is about the INTERPRETATION of
> data.
Yes, and you don't have any data, you have a million year lack of data.
You don't have to see something to
> know it exists. Most astronomers believe in
> 'dark matter' while admitting to not having a
> clue as to what it is. Science is also about
> imagination -- how did Einstein come to his
> concept of General Relativity? How did
> Newton begin to think about gravity?
There is a big difference, they imagined it and went out and gathered
the data to prove it, you have not.
>
> Of course, imagination is ruled out for all
> PA types. They have gone through some
> kind of "brain-cleansing" operation.
You are confusing imagining something, with the proof of something. Had
Einstien imagined a 100,000 lowland population and never found evidence
of one, he would have remained just as big a clown as you are today
with your imagination/no evidence hypothesis. They imagined, but they
also did the tests. To compare their data with your imagination is an
insult to science.
So sorry, the handaxes remain evidence, they should have been gone in
two months according to your imagination hypothesis. Of course if you
could prove the beach raised in less than two months, you would have an
argument. Well??????????
>
> > > As the website you quote tells you -- they are
> > > washed down with alluvial soils. They are then
> > > quickly destroyed by wave-action. You have
> > > not got the faintest notion of the normal
> > > processes of weathering.
> >
> > If they were quickley destroyed, they wouldn't be finding them on the
> > beaches.
>
> They ARE quickly destroyed (check with
> anyone who regularly prospects for any kinds
> of fossils on beaches). They can be found
> because they exist in HUGE numbers in
> alluvial soils (where those soils have remained
> above sea-level since the items were deposited).
> They are washed down regularly in rivers or
> fall from sea-eroded cliffs.
The Clovis points on McFadden Beach say you are a clown. By the way,
they have tried scuba diving for the source of these points with no
luck. Prove they have been on the beach less than two months.....
>
> > I gave 6 examples of raised beaches.
>
> Apparently you intended them as proof that
> beaches never get eroded -- since it is clear
> that you have never seen a beach on this
> planet.
Cite were I said beaches never get eroded. When you get so desperate
that you have to put words into my mouth, you have proven your
arguement is lost (along with being dishonest).
>
> > The Clovis points are still Clovis points. The Olduwan flakes are
> > still easly recognizeable as Olduwan. Hoxne handaxes are still
> > easily recognizable.
>
> Of course -- if they were not on a beach for more
> than a few days nor ground up by the waves.
> But you are missing the fact that numerous flakes
> of stone and grains of sand were once such things
> and are no longer recognisable.
Here is the end of your lying, lunatic argument...
Question for you, how long does it take to form a concretion?
Now, are you honest enough to admit you were wrong? The sad thing is,
I'll bet you don't even know what I'm talking about.
>
> > > There could have been a population of 100,000
> > > living at sea-level (if not much on the beach).
> > > They would have left no fossils, since all would
> > > have been destroyed by wave-action, etc., as
> > > sea-levels rose and fell. A tiny number of the
> > > hominids made it up to the savanna -- on
> > > forced treks as 'refugees' (perhaps once every
> > > three generations). They would have left stone
> > > tools there, to be found a few million years
> > > later by PA dopes.
> >
> > There could have been????? There could have been beings from Andromeda
> > there also, we just haven't found the flying saucer yet.....
>
> It will, someday, be a crucial task of PA teams
> (in some long distant generation) to estimate
> FROM THE DATA how many such items
> existed in the ground in a variety of hominid
> habitats before they were destroyed by wave
> erosion. It is not an impossible task, even if
> the estimates may have a large margins of
> error.
You are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate, ahhh, I think they
call that circular reasoning on your part.
>
>
> > > On your next visit to this planet, find a coast-
> > > line and take look at the enormous difference
> > > between the land above the water and that
> > > beneath it. Find a fossil site close the sea, and
> > > imagine what would happen if eustatic sea-
> > > levels were to rise to cover it to a depth of (say)
> > > 10 feet or 20 feet. You will be very surprised.
> >
> > On your next visit to the moon, imagine that flag being there a million
> > and a half years ago.
>
> It seems that your home planet is like our
> moon -- geologically inactive. Your
> assumption that our planet is similar to
> yours is quite false. There is constant
> movement here -- and away from volcanoes
> and mid-ocean ridges, that activity is most
> noticeable on beaches.
Lip service is not evidence.
Concretions do not form in two months, think about it before you
embarrass yourself further.
>
> > > Simple questions that you can't answer do
> > > not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
> > > they are again:
> >
> > Your irrelevant questions do not constitute evidence to support your
> > case, only with contrary evidence of your own can you falsify the
> > established savanna evidence.
>
> If the only places you can find (say) lost
> coins is under street lamps, do you
> conclude that they can only exist under
> street lamps? Evidence has to be
> interpreted. But that requires intelligence.
> In your case, forget it.
The hand axes have already been found, and street lights were not
needed. Maybe if the Glomar Explorer had street lights onboard you
could find evidence of your 100,000 strong Atlantis population.
If that is the case, clown, the same argument applies equally to the
savanna. Homo sapiens were on the savanna for the last 5.5 myr, we just
haven't found the evidence for them there yet. The evidence is buried
deeper than the exposed upland-savanna errosional areas. Prove me
wrong.......
>
> Of course, a 'savanna existence' is a complete
> nonsense for hominids. It's feasible only for
> species that eat grass, and those that eat
> them in turn. Hominids are in neither
> category.
Trying to change the subject? No evidnce on the beach, so now you drift
off into even more of your stupidity?
>
> It is no surprise that PA has made zero
> progress since Darwin, given that 'the
> savanna' has been the prevailing paradigm.
> And, of course, a discipline cannot stand still.
> If it cannot go forward, it will go backward.
> The savanna dead-end, in which it drove
> itself, made the rapid decline since Darwin
> inevitable.
Tools are found on the savanna from 2.6 mya until handaxes were
invented. It is estimated that 10% of the Mio/Pleistocene beaches
still remain. Then 10% of the number of tools found on the savanna
should be found on beaches during that period (or even less would prove
at least they were there). If you argue they haven't found them yet
(negative argument), then you have to answer why they are found after
handaxes show up. IOW, if they are found on beaches after 1.5 my, there
is no reason they should not have found at least a few tools before
that. You shot down your own argument when you said sea level. Not all
lowland, sea level sites were beaches. This means that even more than
the estimated 90% land now covered by the sea was exposed for hominid
use and tool deposits.
You have a million-year gap for no explainable reason.
What part of ZERO are you too stupid to understand?
Lee Olsen
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148168483.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Wrong, or there wouldn't be fossils other than your ground up flint
> >> > points found on the ocean bottoms. To grind up a hand axe by such a
> >> > process would take a longer period of time than hominids have been on
> >> > this planet.
> >>
> >> Hand axes were produced by grinding,
> >> and at an economical rate by hominids.
> >> Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
> >> be ground (and broken) to dust within a
> >> few years (or even months).
> >
> > Where is your evidence that the whale and the other five examples I
> > gave (as opposed to your zero examples) were deposited on a pebble
> > beach?
>
> The examples you gave (such as the whale)
> were of exceptions so rare that they illustrate
> the rule. 99.9999% of beached whale carcases
> are destroyed -- something everyone knows,
> but you are too dishonest to admit.
You did not answer the question, can't you read or are you just
dishonest?
Where is your evidence that the whale and the other five examples I
gave (as opposed to your zero examples) were deposited on a pebble
beach?
Almost the
> only ones that can survive are those landed
> under 'geologically freakish' conditions -- at the
> peak of a long-term rise in eustatic sea-levels,
> just before they fall.
Because you say so? How long does it take concretions to form?
>
> > All beaches now have pebbles on them according to you? Are you
> > really that ignorant?
>
> Again, it is your ignorance that is demonstrated.
All beaches now have pebbles on them according to you? Are you really
that ignorant?
> The sea is a giant sifting mechanism, and it is no
> accident that sand finishes up on sand beaches
> and pebbles on pebble beaches.
(In fact, on
> long pebble beaches -- like that of Chesil Bank in
> Dorset, England -- you get the large stones at one
> end, and the small ones at the other..) The notion
> that a hand-axe left on ANY kind of beach would
> remain in the same location or condition for more
> than a few months -- or remain recognisable as a
> hand-axe for more than a few weeks -- could only
> be held by a someone as ignorant as a PA
> academic; in other words, someone who is,
> almost by definition, profoundly ignorant of
> every aspect of every science.
Answer the question, what makes you think the bones and axes were found
on a beach with round rocks? Why do you keep babbling about rocks?
Prove flint tools would get ground up on a sand beach in less then two
months and don't change the subject.
>
> >> > <snip rest of UFO argument>
> >>
> >> Who do you think you are fooling?
> >> Like all who pretend to PA expertise,
> >> you are a total waste of space -- and
> >> thoroughly dishonest. You cannot
> >> deal with the simplest questions.
> >
> > This is a science forum, it clearly states that in the title. If
> > science is so stressful for you to deal with, why aren't you over at
> > the UFO forum? There, all you have to do is think something exists and
> > poof, it magically becomes real and proven evidence for an argument.
> > Unlike your circular arguments here, where you keep repeating yourself,
> > I have presented data that at least some axes older than
> > 100 k years occur on raised beaches and certainly didn't get turned to
> > dust in that amount of time, let alone in a few months.
>
> When a beach gets 'raised', it is no longer a
> beach. There are numerous 'raised beaches'
> in mountains (such as the Andes, or the
> Himalayas) at heights of 10,000 feet or more.
> The presence on some of the more recent
> (such as that in Nambibia with the whale, and
> that in Eritrea) of hand-axes is solid evidence
> that beaches were a hominid habitat of major
> significance.
Yes, a million years after they were discovered on the savanna. How
many times do you have to be told that? I'll guess it will take at
least 50 more times for someone as dense as you. Don't bother repeating
your circular argument about they haven't been found yet, because you
will just hear in return that they also haven't been found earlier on
the savanna because they haven't been found yet. How do you like
dealing with negative arguments?
>
> > If however,
> > they existed in the billions in these once sea-level areas, then a
> > seaside pattern should exist.
>
> This is a statement that reveals a profound
> ignorance of elementary geography and
> geological history. While you are not to be
> personally blamed for this -- in that this level
> of ignorance is standard throughout all of PA.
> It is present in all PA textbooks and journal
> articles. Nevertheless, it is still shameful and
> scandalous.
Your saying so does not make it so. In all these posts you have
presented nothing more than lip service, imagination, and negative
arguments. Evidence means nothing to a UFO-argument freak. You have a
one million year gap. Then suddenly you don't on the same beaches.
Also, you completely forgot about the fact that not all sea level or
near sea level ground was under water. You have given no reason
what-so-ever why sites should not exist in these areas just as well as
on the savannas.
>
> >> Here's another chance:
> >
> > The reason you are forced to ask nonsensical questions is because you
> > do not have any evidence of your own,
>
> There is nothing nonsensical about these
> questions. What is remarkable is your
> inability to answer them.
How long does it take to form a concretion?
>
> What exactly is your 'argument'?
> a) That sea-levels have always been the same
> as they are now?
> b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
> so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
> waves and storms cease during such times?
> c) That the destructive effects that we can see
> on every beach are illusory?
> d) That since you have never thought of this
> before, nor read about it in any textbook or
> PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
> be true?
>
> > it all exists in your
> > imagination. I can't refute your negative evidence because that is not
> > how science works. The burden is on you to produce the counter evidence
> > and you have not produced anything so far but wild imagination,
> > lip-service, and circular arguments.
>
> I am doing no more than pointing out
> obvious undeniable facts -- that have been
> ignored by PA 'science' for the simple
> reason that no PA 'scientist' has thought
> about them.
Your ignorance of the literature is not my problem, numerous papers
have been written
about the possibility of offshore sites. The evidence remains zero,
like your education.
It is accepted that sea-levels
> rise and fall.
Who said they didn't?
But PA people do not begin
> to comprehend the drastic implications of
> those fluctuations on the fossil record of
> species and populations that live at (or
> close to) sea-level
None of this proves how long it takes to grind an axe into dust. The
only dust is in your head. For a million years after savanna tools are
found, nothing is found on the beaches, then it is. So the argument
that they haven't found it yet is lunacy. You have to explain this
discrepancy. Any argument that says they haven't found it yet applies
to early savanna arguments also.
"Could it be?" arguments are for science-fiction forums, not here.
richard...@yahoo.com
Day Brown wrote:
> The tidal bands provide shellfish that even children can harvest, and
> thereby get a dose of the kind of high quality protein needed for
> maximal mental development in childhood. The tide pools would also have
> had fish that were easy for women and kids to kill.
>
> The polyunsaturated fats of sea life, the Omega 3, Omega 6, DHA, and the
> minerals from Kelp would have dramatically improved the diet from the
> standpoint of mental development.
>
> Were the hominids the meat eaters that has been assumed, we'd have teeth
> much more like Baboons, with really sharp canines. But as it is, we have
> flatter teeth with thicker dentine that would be able to withstand the
> grit from sand and bits of seashell.
>
> Hominids walking on the beaches would have had their scent washed out by
> the tide, making it harder on predators to track them. And jumping into
> the water would have deterred lots of predators from going after even kids.
>
> I dont pretend to know what portion of the hominids were aquatic, but a
> few that developed superior intellects from that niche would have had an
> advantage in other ecosystems.
Absolutely - you might take a look at my website
www.coconutstudio.com
which reports some hard evidence for your gut feelings.
Lee Olsen might well look at
http://www.coconutstudio.com/skull&bonesx.htm, where I think I´ve
given him a credit (if not there, then somewhere else) - although he´s
a Skull & Bones Man to the hilt. Even the most conservative believers
in the myth that humans grew up in something like the Serengeti
National Park might be converted if we hammer them hard enough.
regards
Richard
richard...@yahoo.com
I live about 50 miles from the site of the biggest naval battle ever -
Leyte Gulf - supposed to have been in ´shark-infested´ seas. But so
far, I´ve never seen one. Nor have the umpteen surfers who came to my
island, hung their legs off their surfboards for hours on end, and
never even been nibbled.
Sharks are bright animals - they´ll go for blood or ´chum´, but they
have enough sense not to go for something dark, heavy and at the sea
surface, silhouetted against the light. See:
http://www.coconutstudio.com/Shoreline%20Ecotone.htm
Lots of animals dive, or plunge, or just drop into the water to catch
something to eat. There is absolutely no reason to think that humans
couldn´t have done much the same, or even gone a bit further, and
dived a bit deeper.
Sirenians usually forage in very shallow water, because their main
food, seagrass, virtually the only marine flowering plant, can only
grow in those circumstances. They survived through a great deal, until
humans came along. Then, Steller´s Sea Cow lasted just 27 years. See:
http://www.coconutstudio.com/Shoreline%20Mammals.htm
I don´t have much TV either, but I remember that Charlie Darwin
thought that bears who float on the surface of the water, with their
mouths open to catch flies, might have become whales. He´s been
ridiculed for that, but he wasn´t so far wrong.
regards
Richard
Will in New Haven
richard...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Shark attacks are as much a WW II myth as ´Kilroy Was Here´
>
> I live about 50 miles from the site of the biggest naval battle ever -
> Leyte Gulf - supposed to have been in ´shark-infested´ seas. But so
> far, I´ve never seen one. Nor have the umpteen surfers who came to my
> island, hung their legs off their surfboards for hours on end, and
> never even been nibbled.
> Sharks are bright animals - they´ll go for blood or ´chum´, but they
> have enough sense not to go for something dark, heavy and at the sea
> surface, silhouetted against the light. See:
> http://www.coconutstudio.com/Shoreline%20Ecotone.htm
Sharks that commonly eat seals and sea liions would be very dangerous
to swimming humans. However, the waters you are talking about don't
generally have that going on. There are also plenty of attacks on
humans by Bull Sharks, often in fresh water. There are, however, many
areas of the world where shark attacks are rare. Even where they are
supposed to be common, they would not be common enough to deter seaside
and in-water activity by hominids. Nowhere would be completely safe and
the sea would be safer than most places where hominids could make a
lliving, MUCH safer than the savannah.
I have often wondered at the hunting hypothesis and even moreso at the
scavenging hypothesis. Neither of these lifestyles look sustainable in
the usually-envisaged savannah environment.
Early hominids flourishing at the seashore seems an interesting theory
that surmounts these problems. It also explains my fondness for West
Haven Beach.
>
> Lots of animals dive, or plunge, or just drop into the water to catch
> something to eat. There is absolutely no reason to think that humans
> couldn´t have done much the same, or even gone a bit further, and
> dived a bit deeper.
Except that they wouldn't have had to. Seaside life could be very
rewarding, while becoming really aquatic wouldn't have much in the way
of gain compared to the effort. .
Will in New Haven
nickname
few others. I've noticed on warm sunny days, lots of people go to the
beaches, but on cold and/or rainy days very few people go there. The
food is still there, whether the weather is dry and sunny or wet and
cloudy. I think that ancient people about a million years ago typically
lived in and near the coasts and followed a seasonal migration pattern,
avoiding cold and rainy weather, generally living where the water
surface was warm and the sky wasn't heavily clouded, moving along the
sun's path from equator toward the poles and then back again.
Simple dry beach sand pockets covered with palm fronds or rock
shelters-caves provided shelter. And... I think they dove in habitually
to harvest foods from the sea. DD
nickname
you can find several pictures of bears who seem to dive quite deep.
For example:
http://assets.panda.org/photogallery/800x600/762.jpg
http://www.mikerex.co.uk/2animalpic0l.jpg
This isn't arc diving AFAICT, it's pounce diving from a solid surface.
Plunge diving is done by seabirds from an aireborne position (mimicked
by diving board divers).
Sea otters, seals, dolphins arc dive. Penguins both pounce dive and arc
dive, as so humans.
I haven't seen a polar bear do an arc dive to forage, but it's seems
likely per the photos.
Semi-aquatic minks etc. tend to combine pouncing and diving. DD
Jois
<richard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148391028.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Day Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
> Were the hominids the meat eaters that has been assumed, we'd have teeth
> much more like Baboons, with really sharp canines. But as it is, we have
> flatter teeth with thicker dentine that would be able to withstand the
> grit from sand and bits of seashell.
>
[snip]
Of course, the Egyptians might not have thought our molar surfaces were
quite so protective. The sand they added to the grain they ground wore
their teeth to the nubs while they were kind of young.
Of all our near cousins who has the thickest molar surfaces?
Jois
Jois
back into the water if he missed his seal the first time. Either he's
adapted to his surroundings or he isn't, right? Who'd waste all that energy
and be a survivor?
Jois
Paul Crowley
>> > > (Btw, you'd have to make the
>> > > 'hand-axe' radio-active, or something, to be
>> > > able to find it again -- waves can move stones
>> > > large distances and bury them deep.)
>> >
>> > Yep, when they get buried deep, waves can no longer roll them and the
>> > process of grinding them to dust stops----end of story.
>
>> You really have no idea at all.
>> The next large storm will rake them up again.
>
> BS, you idiot, you just told us "buried deep". You did not understand
> the URL I gave. The stratified layers of ancient beaches would not
> exists if everything were constantly churned up to bed rock with each
> large storm.
There are, broadly, two types of beaches:
ones where erosion is currently taking place,
and ones deposition is currently happening
(although one can switch to the other at
almost any time). In the former, everything is
commonly churned up to bed rock by large
storms; in the latter only surface layers are
disturbed.
IF the land then starts to rise -- or, more likely,
eustatic sea-levels start to fall -- the layers of
deposition will usually be preserved (on the
deposition beaches). And IF the sea never
returns (which happens maybe once every
10,000 times there is a fall in sea-level at any
particular location) the old beaches will, at
that location, then be high and dry.
> > Often we see the loss of
>> thousands of cubic metres. The 'rate of
>> turnover' of the rocks on the beach could
>> easily be calculated. Maybe it's 10 times a
>> year. In any case, over geological time, it's
>> absurdly fast . . . which is the point that
>> I'm trying to convey to you.
>
> You have made no point. Imagination is not evidence.
Are you denying coastal erosion?
> The 10,000+ year-old Clovis points prove it takes something
> longer than that to erode one beyond recognition. 10,000 years
> is longer than two months, is it not?
Such Clovis points must be found quickly
-- in the very short space of time between
their emergence from their deposition site
and their destination in the sea as dust or
sand.
>> I could show you plenty of coastal erosion
>> around here: remains of old roads and railway
>> tracks (around 100 years old) that have long
>> been falling into the sea. On many beaches
>> the rocks ARE never older than a few months.
>> On nearly all beaches they are never older
>> than a few years.
>
> Prove it.
Eh? It seems you really are denying coastal
erosion. Where do you think all those rocks
and all that earth goes to?
> You are nothing more than a liar. If you had the evidence to
> support your claims you would cite it.
For you, 'proof' cannot consist of going down
to your local beach and taking a look. There
has to be a paper in a 'scientific' journal first.
I suppose that's one of the major problems of
being on another planet.
> Another question you are trying to lie your way out of. Why are you
> ASSuming the examples I gave were on a rocky beach?
Beaches change their nature almost as fast
as clouds in the sky (from the point of view
of geological time). Take a look a Chesil
Bank. Behind it is a sandy beach.
> What was the rate
> of errosion on the African beaches where the axes were found?
Sandy beaches come from deposition.
But they are often created within a few
years (or decades) and then eroded almost
overnight, and then re-created, etc., etc.
Think of them as being something like
clouds in the sky.
> And if
> they were on rocky beaches, it would prove the axes were there intact
> long enough for the beach to rise out of harms way, something longer
> than 10,000 years.
Sure. And what could be wrong with the
theory that a whale carcass would survive
on an exposed beach for 10,000 years?
>> > I have given six examples where 100,000 year-old-plus artifacts have
>> > not been destroyed by the sea.
>>
>> That is because they have been raised well
>> above sea-level. How come you think that
>> this is evidence for anything?
>
> Because the time it took to raise the beach was obviousy longer than a
> few months, proving you are wrong, or else the axes wouldn't be there.
What we have on any surviving beach is
something more akin to a flash photograph
of what was there on the last day it was
covered by water. The presence of whale
carcasses and stone axes tells us that such
strandings and butchering were common
events. (But, of course, we knew that
anyway -- if we were not brain-dead PA
types.)
>> > > " . . . This is an alluvial area from prehistoric times. That means that
>> > > rivers washed debris down from the more recent Pleistocene epoch
>> > > and on into the present, Holocene epoch. There are some Indian artifacts.
>> > > Texas Highways Magazine and other sources credit McFadden Beach
>> > > with having had more Clovis Points . . "
>> >
>> > What part of Clovis points (older than 10,000 years) washing around on
>> > an ocean beach are you to stupid to understand? They did not turn to
>> > dust in a few months.
>>
>> There are numerous beach fossil sites in these
>> islands, where the fossils DO (or will) turn to dust
>> within a few months, if they are not removed from
>> the beach. They fall out of the cliff and are
>> destroyed if not quickly found and removed.
>
> Can't you read? I said Clovis, not fossils, not cliffs. Clovis/sand
> beach.
A Clovis point is a fossil. If left on (or
washed on to) a beach, it will be rapidly
washed out to sea, and/or eroded.
> Answer the question.
Your questions are pointless and merely
rhetorical. You still have not answered
mine (which are not):
What exactly is your 'argument'?
a) That sea-levels have always been the same
as they are now?
b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
waves and storms cease during such times?
c) That the destructive effects that we can see
on every beach are illusory?
d) That since you have never thought of this
before, nor read about it in any textbook or
PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
be true?
> So sorry, the handaxes remain evidence, they should have been gone in
> two months according to your imagination hypothesis.
Two months is roughly correct, depending
on local conditions. Perhaps most of a whale
carcass could survive that long. For anything
longer though, the beach (as a whole) needs
to become "fossilised" -- i.e. removed from
the sea, and covered in some way, most likely
by wind-blown sand.
>> > I gave 6 examples of raised beaches.
>>
>> Apparently you intended them as proof that
>> beaches never get eroded -- since it is clear
>> that you have never seen a beach on this
>> planet.
>
> Cite were I said beaches never get eroded.
I doubt if I could cite ANY clear statement
you have ever made -- positive or negative.
I note your care not to make one now. (You
probably do this automatically -- without thinking
-- PA training is "useful" for something.) But
let's suppose (purely theoretically, of course)
that you DID concede that beaches get eroded.
(What a big step that would be!) Maybe, after
that, in about 200 years time, you (or your
successors) might also concede that sea-levels
rise and fall. (OK, I accept that I'm being rather
optimistic here.) Then, maybe about 5,000
years further on, you (or your successors)
might be capable of joining up those two
propositions.
Nah. Forget it. It's far too idealistic.There's
no point in considering such far-fetched
theoretical possibilities.
>> It will, someday, be a crucial task of PA teams
>> (in some long distant generation) to estimate
>> FROM THE DATA how many such items
>> existed in the ground in a variety of hominid
>> habitats before they were destroyed by wave
>> erosion. It is not an impossible task, even if
>> the estimates may have a large margins of
>> error.
>
> You are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate, ahhh, I think they
> call that circular reasoning on your part.
Nope, I am telling you how evidence could
be found to demonstrate the habitat of a
low-land species.
>> > > Simple questions that you can't answer do
>> > > not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
>> > > they are again:
>> >
>> > Your irrelevant questions do not constitute evidence to support your
>> > case, only with contrary evidence of your own can you falsify the
>> > established savanna evidence.
>>
>> If the only places you can find (say) lost
>> coins is under street lamps, do you
>> conclude that they can only exist under
>> street lamps? Evidence has to be
>> interpreted. But that requires intelligence.
>> In your case, forget it.
>
> The hand axes have already been found, and street lights were not
> needed.
I should have realised that you would not
understand an analogy -- no matter how
hackneyed. Let me put it like this: when
you find the bones of huge numbers of
carnivores in tar pits, it does not mean
that carnivores lived in tar pits -- no matter
how much 'evidence' you think you have.
Likewise evidence of the presence of
hominids on the savanna does not mean
that you have found the hominid habitat.
>> Attempts at honest answers will be a start.
>> Given the extreme and frequent destruction
>> of the ground in almost all paleo-hominid
>> habitats, evidence in the form PA people
>> have come to expect it will be hard to find.
>> But there is some. A few sites escaped
>> that destruction -- usually as the result of
>> geological uplift. An evaluation of those
>> sites (as a whole) should be useful --
>> provided they are seen as representative
>> of tens of thousands of others wiped out
>> during the past 5 Myr.
>
> If that is the case, clown, the same argument applies equally to the
> savanna. Homo sapiens were on the savanna for the last 5.5 myr, we just
> haven't found the evidence for them there yet. The evidence is buried
> deeper than the exposed upland-savanna errosional areas. Prove me
> wrong.......
Maybe you are beginning to get the idea.
In terms of erosion, the savanna is almost
like the moon, in comparison with lowlands
subject to thousands of marine inundation
(every hundred thousand years or so). If
there were two identical populations, one
living on the savanna, and another living
close to the coast, the first can expect to
leave roughly 100,000 to 1,000,000 times the
number of fossils behind -- other things
being equal.
>> Of course, a 'savanna existence' is a complete
>> nonsense for hominids. It's feasible only for
>> species that eat grass, and those that eat
>> them in turn. Hominids are in neither
>> category.
>
> Trying to change the subject? No evidnce on the beach, so now you drift
> off into even more of your stupidity?
I'm stating elemental facts of life about
mammals, including hominids. But you
ought to know that the 'savanna theory'
is no longer in fashion.
>> It is no surprise that PA has made zero
>> progress since Darwin, given that 'the
>> savanna' has been the prevailing paradigm.
>> And, of course, a discipline cannot stand still.
>> If it cannot go forward, it will go backward.
>> The savanna dead-end, in which it drove
>> itself, made the rapid decline since Darwin
>> inevitable.
>
> Tools are found on the savanna from 2.6 mya until handaxes were
> invented. It is estimated that 10% of the Mio/Pleistocene beaches
> still remain.
Who made that estimate? And on what
basis? It is absurd beyond measure.
Presumably the person making it did not
know that sea-levels change. You might
as well say that 10% of the Mio/Pleistocene
clouds still remain in the sky.
Every time the sea advances it will destroy
almost all those it left behind on its retreat.
Even if sea-levels were now at an all-time low
(which is very far from the case) nearly all
the beaches created over the last 5 Myr
would have been wiped out by the continual
movement of the sea backwards and forwards,
as sea-levels change. Expecting to find hominid
fossils on a beach is a bit like expecting to find
your footprints in inter-tidal beach sand from
your walk on it last week.
> Then 10% of the number of tools found on the savanna
> should be found on beaches during that period (or even less would prove
> at least they were there).
You're trying to apply logic --congratulations.
It's hopelessly wrong, and your premise is
ridiculous but, hey, it's a start.
IF the savanna was the same in size as the
total of all these (unspecified) beaches, and
IF hominid density on them was similar, and
IF erosion on such beaches (during the said
hominid occupation -- and since) was the same
as that on the savanna, and IF this 10% figure
had some validity, THEN maybe the survival
rate of hominid fossils on these (unspecified)
beaches should be about 10% of those found
on the savanna.
> If you argue they haven't found them yet
> (negative argument), then you have to answer why they are found after
> handaxes show up. IOW, if they are found on beaches after 1.5 my, there
> is no reason they should not have found at least a few tools before
> that. You shot down your own argument when you said sea level. Not all
> lowland, sea level sites were beaches. This means that even more than
> the estimated 90% land now covered by the sea was exposed for hominid
> use and tool deposits.
> You have a million-year gap for no explainable reason.
There is a simple and obvious explanation.
The sudden change in climate at ~2.4 mya
brought about a drastic fall in sea-level.
Nearly all hominid habitats from ~2.4 mya
are now deep under the sea. This 'million
year gap' is, at most, a 'gap' of about 100 Kyr,
i.e. from ~2.5 mya to ~2.4 mya -- but given the
crudity of the initial stone tools, the difficulty
of distinguishing any stone tools from other
rocks on the beach, the uncertainty of those
datings, and the huge amount of erosion on
beaches, there is no 'gap' whatsoever.
The only beaches now available to us for
investigation are those created when the
sea-levels rose above that of the (very high)
present level of the today's inter-glacial -- OR
where there has been substantial uplift since
their creation -- AND which were not
eliminated by later inundations from the sea
AND which were not destroyed by the other
routine (non-marine) forces of erosion.
As I have been endlessly pointing out to
you (and you have been endlessly failing
to grasp) such beaches are extremely rare.
The finding on them of ANY stone tools
(or other fossils) is highly significant.
Paul.
nickname
Plunge diving: air-borne: sea birds, diving board human
Pounce diving: ground-borne: river otter, bears, tigers, human from
rock
Humans can do all 3.
I've never seen a polar bear chase anything in water (too slow), likely
it would if the prey was wounded slow etc. Polar bears do chase on land
or ice, but usually seek holes in ice and wait for seals. I think they
swat the seals 1st, probably do this in water opportunistically also.
DD
Lee Olsen
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148360194.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip rubbish>
And IF the sea never
> returns (which happens maybe once every
> 10,000 times there is a fall in sea-level at any
> particular location) the old beaches will, at
> that location, then be high and dry.
Cite your source for "once every 10,000 times"
>
> > > Often we see the loss of
> >> thousands of cubic metres. The 'rate of
> >> turnover' of the rocks on the beach could
> >> easily be calculated. Maybe it's 10 times a
> >> year. In any case, over geological time, it's
> >> absurdly fast . . . which is the point that
> >> I'm trying to convey to you.
> >
> > You have made no point. Imagination is not evidence.
>
> Are you denying coastal erosion?
http://tinyurl.com/zeum2
This is the overlook where microblades were made 8,400 years ago as
they sat and watched for seals and such. The microblades are still
there.
Crowley: "Often we see the loss of thousands of cubic metres. The
'rate of turnover' of the rocks on the beach could easily be
calculated."
If the site were being eroded rapidly into the sea, some microblades
would be falling down the bank, and some would be found on the beach.
I'm not going to dig out the site report, but I remember no such
thing being mentioned. No matter, according to you the site should have
been gone in a few months or at least in a "100 years."
So once again you are full of it. You take one anomalous example and
then try to fib your idea onto every beach in the world.
>
> > The 10,000+ year-old Clovis points prove it takes something
> > longer than that to erode one beyond recognition. 10,000 years
> > is longer than two months, is it not?
>
> Such Clovis points must be found quickly
> -- in the very short space of time between
> their emergence from their deposition site
> and their destination in the sea as dust or
> sand.
They have no idea where the points are coming from, except somewhere
out in the gulf has to be a Pleistocene-age bench. If you do not know
where, you can't argue how long it would take to erode these points
into dust. I've got pictures of the beach, and it is mostly sand.
Unlike you, I have some concept about how long the process should take.
To polish (already smooth) beach rocks in a tumbler with special
grinding grit takes:
http://rocktumblingsupplies.com/faq.phtml
"It may take 4 to 6 weeks to finish a batch."
To grind a flint axe to dust in such a tumbler using beach sand would
take how long, Crowley? I can test this, would you like to make a wager
here?
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5491
Logged in the mid 1800s. It does not take many years to log an island
that small. When I was a kid, we used to find bricks on the rocky beach
left over from the logging operation. Some were worn down so they
looked like potatoes, others still had the name of the company that
made them still visible on the side. Bricks vary a lot in hardness, but
just the same, they did not get destroyed in the hundred years after
the loggers left.
>
> >> I could show you plenty of coastal erosion
> >> around here: remains of old roads and railway
> >> tracks (around 100 years old) that have long
> >> been falling into the sea. On many beaches
> >> the rocks ARE never older than a few months.
> >> On nearly all beaches they are never older
> >> than a few years.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Eh? It seems you really are denying coastal
> erosion. Where do you think all those rocks
> and all that earth goes to?
I'm denying you have no data for your claims about how long the
process takes for sand on a beach to turn a flint point (7 on Mohs
scale) to dust. Remember Table Bay?
Probably not, but the bay where these axes were found was not exposed
to the elements as would be a shale-rock cliff on the ocean coast
somewhere.
>
> > You are nothing more than a liar. If you had the evidence to
> > support your claims you would cite it.
>
> For you, 'proof' cannot consist of going down
> to your local beach and taking a look. There
> has to be a paper in a 'scientific' journal first.
> I suppose that's one of the major problems of
> being on another planet.
http://tinyurl.com/ozl4j
This is an anomaly.
http://discoveryheights.com/Boughtphoto.jpg
The Cape Disappointment lighthouse is 150 years old. They did not build
here (a few miles south of Shoalwater) because the engineers thought
the lighthouse would fall into the ocean in a hundred years. This is
not an anomaly, but typical of the Pacific Coast.
>
> > Another question you are trying to lie your way out of. Why are you
> > ASSuming the examples I gave were on a rocky beach?
>
> Beaches change their nature almost as fast
> as clouds in the sky (from the point of view
> of geological time). Take a look a Chesil
> Bank. Behind it is a sandy beach.
The Cape Disappointment lighthouse is proof that you are full of it. In
case your thinking that the waves and storms are not severe here, think
again. They don't call this beach the 'Graveyard of the Pacific'
for nothing.
>
> > What was the rate
> > of errosion on the African beaches where the axes were found?
>
> Sandy beaches come from deposition.
> But they are often created within a few
> years (or decades) and then eroded almost
> overnight, and then re-created, etc., etc.
> Think of them as being something like
> clouds in the sky.
I think Leadbetter Point and the lighthouse will erode into beach sand
about the same time the Rock of Gibraltar erodes into the Atlantic.
Cape Shoalwater erosion will stop almost dead in its tracks when the
waves hit bedrock. Then the process of erosion will take hundreds of
thousands of years, or maybe the Pacific plate will raise the beach,
the clam shells, and flint points will be raised high and dry.
>
> > And if
> > they were on rocky beaches, it would prove the axes were there intact
> > long enough for the beach to rise out of harms way, something longer
> > than 10,000 years.
>
> Sure. And what could be wrong with the
> theory that a whale carcass would survive
> on an exposed beach for 10,000 years?
Why would that require any less time than elephant bones on the
savanna?
http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs/g04001.html
There is nothing "rare" or unusual about finding perfect fossils on
the Pacific Coast. I still have some of the concretions I found when I
was a kid. I haven't broken these open yet. If I'm lucky there will
be a perfect 20,000,000 year-old crab or seashell inside, if not, there
will be nothing.
>
> >> > I have given six examples where 100,000 year-old-plus artifacts have
> >> > not been destroyed by the sea.
> >>
> >> That is because they have been raised well
> >> above sea-level. How come you think that
> >> this is evidence for anything?
> >
> > Because the time it took to raise the beach was obviousy longer than a
> > few months, proving you are wrong, or else the axes wouldn't be there.
>
> What we have on any surviving beach is
> something more akin to a flash photograph
> of what was there on the last day it was
> covered by water. The presence of whale
> carcasses and stone axes tells us that such
> strandings and butchering were common
> events. (But, of course, we knew that
> anyway -- if we were not brain-dead PA
> types.)
Clown, there are artifacts on the moon also, doesn't mean they were
always there. You are one million years too late and your explanation
below is a sick joke
http://www.narg-online.com/trip_rpt_005.htm
>
>
> >> > > " . . . This is an alluvial area from prehistoric times. That means that
> >> > > rivers washed debris down from the more recent Pleistocene epoch
> >> > > and on into the present, Holocene epoch. There are some Indian artifacts.
> >> > > Texas Highways Magazine and other sources credit McFadden Beach
> >> > > with having had more Clovis Points . . "
> >> >
> >> > What part of Clovis points (older than 10,000 years) washing around on
> >> > an ocean beach are you to stupid to understand? They did not turn to
> >> > dust in a few months.
> >>
> >> There are numerous beach fossil sites in these
> >> islands, where the fossils DO (or will) turn to dust
> >> within a few months, if they are not removed from
> >> the beach. They fall out of the cliff and are
> >> destroyed if not quickly found and removed.
> >
> > Can't you read? I said Clovis, not fossils, not cliffs. Clovis/sand
> > beach.
>
> A Clovis point is a fossil.
It's an artifact, made from fossilized material.
If left on (or
> washed on to) a beach, it will be rapidly
> washed out to sea, and/or eroded.
Liar.
I know this will take about 49 more times to get this through your
head. This is a science forum. Cite your source for your claims as I
have done.
>
> > Answer the question.
>
> Your questions are pointless and merely
> rhetorical. You still have not answered
> mine (which are not):
Other than your one example of fast a eroding beach where handaxes are
not found in the first place. You have not given any data that this
was the case in Africa, or Hoxne, so there is no need to answer your
foolish questions. You made up all your data in your head. There is no
basis in reality for your claims.
>
> What exactly is your 'argument'?
> a) That sea-levels have always been the same
> as they are now?
> b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
> so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
> waves and storms cease during such times?
> c) That the destructive effects that we can see
> on every beach are illusory?
> d) That since you have never thought of this
> before, nor read about it in any textbook or
> PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
> be true?
>
>
> > So sorry, the handaxes remain evidence, they should have been gone in
> > two months according to your imagination hypothesis.
>
> Two months is roughly correct, depending
> on local conditions.
Liar. If not, cite something besides your delusional imagination.
Perhaps most of a whale
> carcass could survive that long. For anything
> longer though, the beach (as a whole) needs
> to become "fossilised" -- i.e. removed from
> the sea, and covered in some way, most likely
> by wind-blown sand.
Clown, YOU said sea level. All lowland and near sea level sites are not
beach. Do you know what a tide line is? At some point there is no
further wave action working inland or else all the land on earth would
be underwater by now. There is nothing rare about my examples or there
wouldn't be any examples. Read the URL again. You have a one million
year gap between the first savanna stone tools and the first beach
tools.
>
> >> > I gave 6 examples of raised beaches.
> >>
> >> Apparently you intended them as proof that
> >> beaches never get eroded -- since it is clear
> >> that you have never seen a beach on this
> >> planet.
> >
> > Cite were I said beaches never get eroded.
>
> I doubt if I could cite ANY clear statement
> you have ever made -- positive or negative.
I know, making things up as you go along seems to be the only argument
you are capable of. Why clutter your feeble mind with something like
evidence?
> I note your care not to make one now. (You
> probably do this automatically -- without thinking
> -- PA training is "useful" for something.) But
> let's suppose (purely theoretically, of course)
> that you DID concede that beaches get eroded.
> (What a big step that would be!) Maybe, after
> that, in about 200 years time, you (or your
> successors) might also concede that sea-levels
> rise and fall. (OK, I accept that I'm being rather
> optimistic here.) Then, maybe about 5,000
> years further on, you (or your successors)
> might be capable of joining up those two
> propositions.
>
> Nah. Forget it. It's far too idealistic.There's
> no point in considering such far-fetched
> theoretical possibilities.
You have been told this before. Sea-level or near sea-level areas are
not always a beach. Even for a clown like you, that shouldn't be too
hard to grasp.
Your beach jumps from nothing to continuity. A five-thousand year gap,
50,000, or a 100,000, is acceptable in my mind, but a million? What was
your excuse again???
Theoretical is fine if no evidence is available. Theoretical
possibilities do not trump evidence.
>
> >> It will, someday, be a crucial task of PA teams
> >> (in some long distant generation) to estimate
> >> FROM THE DATA how many such items
> >> existed in the ground in a variety of hominid
> >> habitats before they were destroyed by wave
> >> erosion. It is not an impossible task, even if
> >> the estimates may have a large margins of
> >> error.
> >
> > You are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate, ahhh, I think they
> > call that circular reasoning on your part.
>
> Nope, I am telling you how evidence could
> be found to demonstrate the habitat of a
> low-land species.
"Could be" is not acceptable. Or else you have to grant me the
same argument you claim for yourself. Handaxe makers were on the
savanna 8 million years ago, they were just invisible. PAs just
haven't dug deep enough to find them yet. Why can't you see that
once imagination without evidence is allowed, then there is no end to
the speculation? Erich von Daniken got rich selling imagination, but
that wasn't science.
>
> >> > > Simple questions that you can't answer do
> >> > > not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
> >> > > they are again:
> >> >
> >> > Your irrelevant questions do not constitute evidence to support your
> >> > case, only with contrary evidence of your own can you falsify the
> >> > established savanna evidence.
> >>
> >> If the only places you can find (say) lost
> >> coins is under street lamps, do you
> >> conclude that they can only exist under
> >> street lamps? Evidence has to be
> >> interpreted. But that requires intelligence.
> >> In your case, forget it.
> >
> > The hand axes have already been found, and street lights were not
> > needed.
>
> I should have realised that you would not
> understand an analogy -- no matter how
> hackneyed. Let me put it like this: when
> you find the bones of huge numbers of
> carnivores in tar pits, it does not mean
> that carnivores lived in tar pits -- no matter
> how much 'evidence' you think you have.
> Likewise evidence of the presence of
> hominids on the savanna does not mean
> that you have found the hominid habitat.
Evidence trumps imagination.
But I also have given analogies, just as valid as yours. At least I
have some evidence, you are selling zeros. The burden is on the
speculators to produce evidence for their claims.
>
> >> Attempts at honest answers will be a start.
> >> Given the extreme and frequent destruction
> >> of the ground in almost all paleo-hominid
> >> habitats, evidence in the form PA people
> >> have come to expect it will be hard to find.
> >> But there is some. A few sites escaped
> >> that destruction -- usually as the result of
> >> geological uplift. An evaluation of those
> >> sites (as a whole) should be useful --
> >> provided they are seen as representative
> >> of tens of thousands of others wiped out
> >> during the past 5 Myr.
> >
> > If that is the case, clown, the same argument applies equally to the
> > savanna. Homo sapiens were on the savanna for the last 5.5 myr, we just
> > haven't found the evidence for them there yet. The evidence is buried
> > deeper than the exposed upland-savanna errosional areas. Prove me
> > wrong.......
>
> Maybe you are beginning to get the idea.
No, imagination doesn't trump evidence.
> In terms of erosion, the savanna is almost
> like the moon, in comparison with lowlands
> subject to thousands of marine inundation
> (every hundred thousand years or so). If
> there were two identical populations, one
> living on the savanna, and another living
> close to the coast, the first can expect to
> leave roughly 100,000 to 1,000,000 times the
> number of fossils behind -- other things
> being equal.
Some % less area than the savanna can be expected. Zero is nothing
more than speculation. If 90% is missing, you should have 10% of the
items found inland. This is not the case. All inland sites must have
erosional areas in order to find fossils or tools. Otherwise they are
just as likely to be buried as an underwater site.
>
> >> Of course, a 'savanna existence' is a complete
> >> nonsense for hominids. It's feasible only for
> >> species that eat grass, and those that eat
> >> them in turn. Hominids are in neither
> >> category.
> >
> > Trying to change the subject? No evidnce on the beach, so now you drift
> > off into even more of your stupidity?
>
> I'm stating elemental facts of life about
> mammals, including hominids. But you
> ought to know that the 'savanna theory'
> is no longer in fashion.
And if you kept up with what has been going on in the world since the
time of Darwin, you would know that the savanna hypothesis is back. Try
reading Richard Potts for example.
>
> >> It is no surprise that PA has made zero
> >> progress since Darwin, given that 'the
> >> savanna' has been the prevailing paradigm.
> >> And, of course, a discipline cannot stand still.
> >> If it cannot go forward, it will go backward.
> >> The savanna dead-end, in which it drove
> >> itself, made the rapid decline since Darwin
> >> inevitable.
> >
> > Tools are found on the savanna from 2.6 mya until handaxes were
> > invented. It is estimated that 10% of the Mio/Pleistocene beaches
> > still remain.
>
> Who made that estimate? And on what
> basis? It is absurd beyond measure.
Who? You have a lot of nerve Crowley. You, who never cite anything but
your peabrain are asking me for a citation????? Tell you what, if you
think I'm bluffing, want to up the above wager substantially?
Calling scientists absurd by Crowley the Clown is now an argument?
You have been repeatedly challenged for evidence for your claims.
While you are looking up citations for all your fantasies, I'll will
look up the 10% claim.
> Presumably the person making it did not
> know that sea-levels change. You might
> as well say that 10% of the Mio/Pleistocene
> clouds still remain in the sky.
>
> Every time the sea advances it will destroy
> almost all those it left behind on its retreat.
Liar.
> Even if sea-levels were now at an all-time low
> (which is very far from the case) nearly all
> the beaches created over the last 5 Myr
> would have been wiped out by the continual
> movement of the sea backwards and forwards,
> as sea-levels change. Expecting to find hominid
> fossils on a beach is a bit like expecting to find
> your footprints in inter-tidal beach sand from
> your walk on it last week.
You have been told this before. Sea-level or near sea-level areas are
not always a beach. Even for a clown like you, that shouldn't be too
hard to grasp.
http://www.narg-online.com/trip_rpt_005.htm
>
> > Then 10% of the number of tools found on the savanna
> > should be found on beaches during that period (or even less would prove
> > at least they were there).
>
> You're trying to apply logic --congratulations.
You are blind also. I cite my sources, you make up evidence in your
head that doesn't exist in the real world.
> It's hopelessly wrong, and your premise is
> ridiculous but, hey, it's a start.
Evidence now becomes ridiculous in your fantasy world.
http://www.narg-online.com/trip_rpt_005.htm
>
> IF the savanna was the same in size as the
> total of all these (unspecified) beaches, and
> IF hominid density on them was similar, and
> IF erosion on such beaches (during the said
> hominid occupation -- and since) was the same
> as that on the savanna, and IF this 10% figure
> had some validity, THEN maybe the survival
> rate of hominid fossils on these (unspecified)
> beaches should be about 10% of those found
> on the savanna.
Sorry. For example, only 1 % of the Pleistocene Olorgesailie Basin ( in
spite of being in the Great Rift), has been exposed by erosion, the
rest is too far down for archaeological surveys. That's pretty
typical. I also know that Olduvai Gorge only exposes a minuscule area
of the entire Serengeti, the rest of the Pleistocene is 100-300 feet
underground.
I would be surprised if the entire rift amounted to substantially more
land suitable for finding artifacts than the raised beaches. 10% left
of the Pleistocene beaches sounds generous. Not to mention rain forests
that do not preserve fossils very well.
No matter, you still keep avoiding your own sea-level definition. Not
all lowland was covered by the sea. Beaches older than one and a half
million years exist and are located miles inland.. You have no argument
for the lack of tools, or hominid fossils older than 1.5 mya in such
areas.
>
> > If you argue they haven't found them yet
> > (negative argument), then you have to answer why they are found after
> > handaxes show up. IOW, if they are found on beaches after 1.5 my, there
> > is no reason they should not have found at least a few tools before
> > that. You shot down your own argument when you said sea level. Not all
> > lowland, sea level sites were beaches. This means that even more than
> > the estimated 90% land now covered by the sea was exposed for hominid
> > use and tool deposits.
> > You have a million-year gap for no explainable reason.
>
> There is a simple and obvious explanation.
> The sudden change in climate at ~2.4 mya
> brought about a drastic fall in sea-level.
Cite your source.
Also, what happened to the hominids the were at sea-level before the
big tide went out?
> Nearly all hominid habitats from ~2.4 mya
> are now deep under the sea.
Negative argument.
This 'million
> year gap' is, at most, a 'gap' of about 100 Kyr,
> i.e. from ~2.5 mya to ~2.4 mya -- but given the
> crudity of the initial stone tools, the difficulty
> of distinguishing any stone tools from other
> rocks on the beach, the uncertainty of those
> datings, and the huge amount of erosion on
> beaches, there is no 'gap' whatsoever.
Wrong again. Isn't it amazing how your imagination always fails you?
Where are you getting the numbers " ~2.5 mya and ~2.4 mya"???
Tools are simply where Homo or something Homo-like turns up. The
continuity in Ethiopian hominid skeletal remains goes back what, 6
million or so?
>
> The only beaches now available to us for
> investigation are those created when the
> sea-levels rose above that of the (very high)
> present level of the today's inter-glacial -- OR
> where there has been substantial uplift since
> their creation -- AND which were not
> eliminated by later inundations from the sea
> AND which were not destroyed by the other
> routine (non-marine) forces of erosion.
You are making all that up. Cite a source for everything you said.
I'm tired of your science fiction.
>
> As I have been endlessly pointing out to
> you (and you have been endlessly failing
> to grasp) such beaches are extremely rare.
> The finding on them of ANY stone tools
> (or other fossils) is highly significant.
You saying they are rare does not make it so.
After a certain point they are not 'comparatively' rare. Before 1.5
(assuming the whale site actually dates to that), they are
non-existent. Can you spell zero?
>
>
> Paul.
pete
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > As I have been endlessly pointing out to
> > you (and you have been endlessly failing
> > to grasp) such beaches are extremely rare.
> > The finding on them of ANY stone tools
> > (or other fossils) is highly significant.
>
> You saying they are rare does not make it so.
> After a certain point they are not 'comparatively' rare. Before 1.5
> (assuming the whale site actually dates to that), they are
> non-existent. Can you spell zero?
Now that I think of it:
Last Summer, my mother found a quartzite scraper
on the beach at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge.
It's as sharp as any scraper I've seen, or to put it simply,
it's sharp.
It's in her beach pebble dish right now.
We were looking at some large horeshoe crab shells at the time.
I also have a Savannah River type point,
that a friend of mine found in the Owego Creek, in Tioga County NY.
It's not sharp,
but that's the worst thing that I can say about it's condition.
--
pete
rmacfarl
...
Lee Olsen might well look at
http://www.coconutstudio.com/skull&bonesx.htm, where I think I扉e
given him a credit (if not there, then somewhere else) - although he愀
a Skull & Bones Man to the hilt. Even the most conservative believers
in the myth that humans grew up in something like the Serengeti
National Park might be converted if we hammer them hard enough.
Yet another of your deliberate trolls in hope of igniting a SAP flame war,
Dickie-boy? Oh well, we know how to deal with this kind of behaviour:
<plonk>
(Swim in that... :-)
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:ciU9g.50$VS.1...@news.sisna.com...
> The tidal bands provide shellfish that even children can harvest, and
> thereby get a dose of the kind of high quality protein needed for
> maximal mental development in childhood. The tide pools would also have
> had fish that were easy for women and kids to kill.
> The polyunsaturated fats of sea life, the Omega 3, Omega 6, DHA, and the
> minerals from Kelp would have dramatically improved the diet from the
> standpoint of mental development.
> much more like Baboons, with really sharp canines. But as it is, we have
> flatter teeth with thicker dentine that would be able to withstand the
> grit from sand and bits of seashell.
> the tide, making it harder on predators to track them. And jumping into
> the water would have deterred lots of predators from going after even
kids.
> I dont pretend to know what portion of the hominids were aquatic, but a
> advantage in other ecosystems.
You're completely right of course.
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT