Pig Habitat Mirrors Hominid Habitat
Jim McGinn
> Jim Moore wrote:
> > And since AAT/Hers continually point to a lack of
> > "savannah-dwellers" which share these traits, I'd like
> > you to list the seacoast-living mammals that share these
> > traits with humans.
>
> Pigs share nakedness, subcutaneous fat, and
> a remarkable number of other characteristics.
> In spite of the fact that they are phylogenetically
> quite distant from us, their organs are considered
> the most suitable for any possible cross-species
> transplantation, indicating a high degree of
> convergent evolution.
This is a good example. About as good an example as we
might expect to find. And this example does a good job
of disputing savanna origins (not that such isn't already
thoroughly refuted by an overwhelming abundance of
comparative evidence) since pigs are not found in
treeless savanna habitat. But does this make Paul's
point? Are pigs associated with "seacoast habitat?"
(Note: I put the phrase seacoast habitat in quotes so that
the reader is aware that that I am not so dumb [or naive]
to think there really is any such thing as a seacoast
habitat. There is a large amount of variation from one
seacoast to the next. And I don't want anyone to think
that I bought into this little piece of AAT inanity.)
Obviously pigs are not specific to "seacoast habitat."
Pigs are associated with deciduous forest habitat.
Deciduous forest habitat, unlike rainforest habitat, tends
to be associated with locations that experience seasonal
variation. Hmmm.
Jim
geezerguy
Where I live, in the southwest desert, we have peccarys. Peccarys are
a piglike animal that survives far far from the sea. Checkout
http://www.desertusa.com/magnov97/nov_pap/du_collpecc.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual
superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eupe-mbwa (Wh1t3d0g)
>"Paul Crowley" wrote:
>> Pigs share nakedness, subcutaneous fat, and
>> a remarkable number of other characteristics.
>> In spite of the fact that they are phylogenetically
>> quite distant from us, their organs are considered
>> the most suitable for any possible cross-species
>> transplantation, indicating a high degree of
>> convergent evolution.
>
>This is a good example. About as good an example as we
>might expect to find. And this example does a good job
>of disputing savanna origins (not that such isn't already
>thoroughly refuted by an overwhelming abundance of
>comparative evidence) since pigs are not found in
>treeless savanna habitat.
What "treeless savanna habitat"?????
If you're talking about savannah, then this would come as something of
a surprise to warthogs I'm sure.
--
.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U'
_,-' ,'`-__; '--.
(_/'~~ ''''(;
Paul Crowley
news:ac6a5059.04050...@posting.google.com...
I have outlined what I regard as the core
requirements for the hominid habitat many
times. Since adult humans males sweat
extensively, human ancestors must have
evolved in places where water was readily
available and where they could easily
replace the sodium, iodine and other salts
they lost so casually. Also, their infants
don't have a covering of fur, indicating
that they did not have much of a problem
about insulation against cold at night.
That would place the bulk of the hominid
population within ~10 miles from the sea,
and hardly more than 20 miles; (although
occasionally they'd stay near large lakes).
> And I don't want anyone to think
> that I bought into this little piece of AAT inanity.)
> Obviously pigs are not specific to "seacoast habitat."
> Pigs are associated with deciduous forest habitat.
There's not much deciduous forest in the
tropics, Jim. Unfortunately, to be a great
evolutionary theorist, you do have to
have some basic knowledge first.
That apart, I would agree that hominids
generally lived under trees -- that's where
the 'home camp' would always be . . .
where the women and children were to
be found.
> Deciduous forest habitat, unlike rainforest habitat, tends
> to be associated with locations that experience seasonal
> variation. Hmmm.
Hmmm, indeed. The McGinn theory:
'Humans evolved in a temperate climate'.
Paul.
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>"Paul Crowley" wrote:
>>
>> Pigs share nakedness, subcutaneous fat, and
>> a remarkable number of other characteristics.
>> In spite of the fact that they are phylogenetically
>> quite distant from us, their organs are considered
>> the most suitable for any possible cross-species
>> transplantation, indicating a high degree of
>> convergent evolution.
>This is a good example. About as good an example as we
>might expect to find. And this example does a good job
>of disputing savanna origins (not that such isn't already
>thoroughly refuted by an overwhelming abundance of
>comparative evidence) since pigs are not found in
>treeless savanna habitat.
Except for Warthog (e.g. see Estes "Behavior Guide to African
Mammals", University of California Press 1991).
>But does this make Paul's
>point? Are pigs associated with "seacoast habitat?"
>(Note: I put the phrase seacoast habitat in quotes so that
>the reader is aware that that I am not so dumb [or naive]
>to think there really is any such thing as a seacoast
>habitat. There is a large amount of variation from one
>seacoast to the next. And I don't want anyone to think
>that I bought into this little piece of AAT inanity.)
>Obviously pigs are not specific to "seacoast habitat."
>Pigs are associated with deciduous forest habitat.
>Deciduous forest habitat, unlike rainforest habitat, tends
>to be associated with locations that experience seasonal
>variation. Hmmm.
Laura Bishop (Liverpool John Moores University) did an excellent job
with her study of suid ecomorphology and paleoecology (Bishop 1994,
1999) in relation to hominids.
The conclusion is that the suids, which were sympatric and synchronous
with the hominids, occupied a variety of habitats, suggesting these
were also exploited by hominids.
That indicates a considerable degree of ecological generalism
(eurytopy) as also recently suggested by Wood and Collard (2004) on
the basis of a host of other criteria (e.g. dietary breadth, species
diversity, species duration, etc.).
Bishop, L.C. (1994). Pigs and the ancestors: Hominids, suids and
environments during the Plio-Pleistocene of East Africa. PhD
dissertation, Yale University.
Bishop, L.C. (1999). Suid Paleoecology and Habitat Preferences at
African Pliocene and Pleistocene Hominid Localities. In Bromage &
Schrenk (Eds.), "African Biogeography, Climate Change, & Human
Evolution", Oxford University Press, p. 216-225.
Wood, B.A. & Strait, D. (2004). Patterns of resource use in early Homo
and Paranthropus. Journal of Human Evolution 46: 119-162.
Gerrit
O O
Re: Pig Habitat Mirrors Hominid Habitat
Group: sci.anthropology.paleo Date: Wed, May 5, 2004, 9:13pm (EDT+5)
From: slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com (Paul Crowley)
----------------------------------------------------------
Humans have been in love with the pig skin since before I can
remember...lol ,OvwvO
Jim McGinn
> > (Note: I put the phrase seacoast habitat in quotes so that
> > the reader is aware that that I am not so dumb [or naive]
> > to think there really is any such thing as a seacoast
> > habitat. There is a large amount of variation from one
> > seacoast to the next.
>
> I have outlined what I regard as the core
> requirements for the hominid habitat many
> times. Since adult humans males sweat
> extensively, human ancestors must have
> evolved in places where water was readily
> available
Seawater is impotable to humans.
<snip>
> Also, their infants
> don't have a covering of fur, indicating
> that they did not have much of a problem
> about insulation against cold at night.
Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
deal with coldness.
<snip>
> There's not much deciduous forest in the
> tropics, Jim.
The tropics? No deciduous forest? What about East
Africa--where hominid fossils are now found--during
the late Miocene and Pliocene? Did you ever research
this? I have. My research indicates deciduous
forest did exist there (paleoanthropologists have
mislabeled this as "Mosaic" habitat).
> Unfortunately, to be a great
> evolutionary theorist, you do have to
> have some basic knowledge first.
Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
such thing as a seacoast habitat? Simple observation
should have told you that there's way too much
variation from one seacoast location to the next and
too much conditional similarity from seacoast
locations to non-seacoast locations to support this
premise. You don't have to be a great evolutionary
theorist like myself to make this observation.
> That apart, I would agree that hominids
> generally lived under trees -- that's where
> the 'home camp' would always be . . .
> where the women and children were to
> be found.
Okay, now provide a hypothesis. Why did human
adaptations emerge?
> > Deciduous forest habitat, unlike rainforest habitat, tends
> > to be associated with locations that experience seasonal
> > variation. Hmmm.
>
> Hmmm, indeed. The McGinn theory:
> 'Humans evolved in a temperate climate'.
No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
associated with Monsoon climate.) And early hominid
adaptations were primarily associated with behaviors
that allowed them to survive the dry season, as I've
explained.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> . . . suids, which were sympatric and synchronous
> with the hominids, occupied a variety of habitats, suggesting these
> were also exploited by hominids.
> That indicates a considerable degree of ecological generalism
> (eurytopy) as also recently suggested by Wood and Collard (2004) on
> the basis of a host of other criteria (e.g. dietary breadth, species
> diversity, species duration, etc.).
This information serves as the basis for an argument
that there is much more to human/hominid evolution
than can be explained by a shift to ecological
generalism, as is the basis of the vaguely defined
mosaic hypothesis. Pigs are, afterall, very
different than humans.
Jim
Paul Crowley
news:ac6a5059.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > Also, their infants
> > don't have a covering of fur, indicating
> > that they did not have much of a problem
> > about insulation against cold at night.
>
> Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
> come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
> Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
> deal with coldness.
The ones that went north had fire, the ability
to build good shelters and to develop clothing.
We are trying to discuss where the taxon
evolved in the first place.
> Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
> such thing as a seacoast habitat?
'Seacoast' is not a good description. Perhaps
a better one might be 'lowland', but we clearly
need a plentiful supply of salt, and our
ancestors needed sites from which predators
could be (virtually completely) excluded.
> Simple observation
> should have told you that there's way too much
> variation from one seacoast location to the next
Any variations are trivial by comparison
with those proposed under most scenarios.
> and
> too much conditional similarity from seacoast
> locations to non-seacoast locations to support this
> premise.
Non-seacoast locations have two major
handicaps (a) the lack of sodium, iodine,
and other salts, of which humans are
extremely 'wasteful'; (b) they are nearly
always hopelessly vulnerable to predators.
> You don't have to be a great evolutionary
> theorist like myself to make this observation.
But you do have to be stupid.
> > Hmmm, indeed. The McGinn theory:
> > 'Humans evolved in a temperate climate'.
>
> No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
> associated with Monsoon climate.)
Err . . . where in the modern world?
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> > Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
> > come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
> > Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
> > deal with coldness.
>
> The ones that went north had fire, the ability
> to build good shelters and to develop clothing.
> We are trying to discuss where the taxon
> evolved in the first place.
And you are creating problems that aren't evident when we
actually examine the paleoclimatic conditions, which were
wetter and warmer than they are now at the same locations.
The only thing that was distinctive about the climate back
then (late miocene, pliocene) in comparison to the climate
that preceded at that locations was seasonal dessication.
Coldness was not an issue. There's no need to create new
facts. Just work with the facts that are evident.
>
> > Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
> > such thing as a seacoast habitat?
>
> 'Seacoast' is not a good description. Perhaps
> a better one might be 'lowland',
Wow, it only took you, what is it, about 7 years to finally
accept this fact.
but we clearly
> need a plentiful supply of salt, and our
> ancestors needed sites from which predators
> could be (virtually completely) excluded.
So we should just ignore the abundance of evidence that
indicates that hominids lived in the vicinity of predators
and were regularly preyed upon by them.
>
> > Simple observation
> > should have told you that there's way too much
> > variation from one seacoast location to the next
>
> Any variations are trivial by comparison
> with those proposed under most scenarios.
?
>
> > and
> > too much conditional similarity from seacoast
> > locations to non-seacoast locations to support this
> > premise.
>
> Non-seacoast locations have two major
> handicaps (a) the lack of sodium, iodine,
> and other salts, of which humans are
> extremely 'wasteful';
Strawman.
(b) they are nearly
> always hopelessly vulnerable to predators.
Strawman.
>
> > You don't have to be a great evolutionary
> > theorist like myself to make this observation.
>
> But you do have to be stupid.
>
> > > Hmmm, indeed. The McGinn theory:
> > > 'Humans evolved in a temperate climate'.
> >
> > No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
> > associated with Monsoon climate.)
>
> Err . . . where in the modern world?
Try doing a seach on the term monsoon.
Jim
Marc Verhaegen
> Seawater is impotable to humans.
Sigh. I read 1 sentence of these people (I shouldn't have done this) & it's
already wrong.
Never heard of the Bombard experiments? French Navy IIRC. When one gradually
shifts to drinking small frequent bits of seawater + eating fish, it's
possible to survive for months.
Paul Crowley
news:ac6a5059.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
>
> > > Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
> > > come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
> > > Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
> > > deal with coldness.
> >
> > The ones that went north had fire, the ability
> > to build good shelters and to develop clothing.
> > We are trying to discuss where the taxon
> > evolved in the first place.
I should also have mentioned that when they did
go north, they remained in the warmest places
they could find . . . sites near coasts, especially
those warmed by southerly currents, such as
the Gulf Stream.
> And you are creating problems that aren't evident when we
> actually examine the paleoclimatic conditions, which were
> wetter and warmer than they are now at the same locations.
> The only thing that was distinctive about the climate back
> then (late miocene, pliocene) in comparison to the climate
> that preceded at that locations was seasonal dessication.
> Coldness was not an issue.
Coldness is an issue for nearly all terrestrial
mammals -- at times. That's why they nearly
all have nice warm coats of fur.
> There's no need to create new
> facts. Just work with the facts that are evident.
Mammals need to keep warm at night, especially
when they are small. Most are active at night
minimising the problem.
> > > Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
> > > such thing as a seacoast habitat?
> >
> > 'Seacoast' is not a good description. Perhaps
> > a better one might be 'lowland',
>
> Wow, it only took you, what is it, about 7 years to finally
> accept this fact.
I only want to distance myself from those like
Marc Verhagen, who would see a tiny population
living off shore-based resources. Early hominids
were (largely) restricted to areas within about ten
miles from coasts because they needed to find
sites free (or protectable) from large predators.
Off-shore islands (like modern Zanzibar) were,
by far, the best for this, and could sustain a high
density of hominid occupation. They would
constantly export off-shoot populations to the
mainland, which would seek to establish predator-
free refuges in which they could raise young, but
those enterprises would nearly always fail.
> > but we clearly
> > need a plentiful supply of salt, and our
> > ancestors needed sites from which predators
> > could be (virtually completely) excluded.
>
> So we should just ignore the abundance of evidence that
> indicates that hominids lived in the vicinity of predators
> and were regularly preyed upon by them.
That evidence does not conflict with my
scenario in any way at all. In fact, it
supports it:
(a) the fossils are predominantly male;
(b) the fossils are predominantly young adults;
(c) the fossils have scarcely any juveniles or
infants;
(d) the fossils show traits (such as Vitamin-A
poisoning) which would never be found
(and IS never found) among animals
native to the locality.
> > > Simple observation
> > > should have told you that there's way too much
> > > variation from one seacoast location to the next
> >
> > Any variations are trivial by comparison
> > with those proposed under most scenarios.
>
> ?
What variations were you talking about?
(Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
chance of an answer from you here. You go
monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you
lose arguments.)
> > Non-seacoast locations have two major
> > handicaps (a) the lack of sodium, iodine,
> > and other salts, of which humans are
> > extremely 'wasteful';
>
> Strawman.
Why? (Of course, I know that there is not
the slightest chance of an answer from you
here. You go monosyllabic -- and then silent
-- when you lose arguments.)
> (b) they are nearly
> > always hopelessly vulnerable to predators.
>
> Strawman.
Why? (Of course, I know that there is not
the slightest chance of an answer from you
here. You go monosyllabic -- and then silent
-- when you lose arguments.)
> > > No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
> > > associated with Monsoon climate.)
> >
> > Err . . . where in the modern world?
>
> Try doing a seach on the term monsoon.
Why can't you present the basic evidence for
your own theory?
(Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
chance of an answer from you here. You go
monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you lose
arguments.)
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> > > > Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
> > > > come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
> > > > Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
> > > > deal with coldness.
> > >
> > > The ones that went north had fire, the ability
> > > to build good shelters and to develop clothing.
> > > We are trying to discuss where the taxon
> > > evolved in the first place.
>
> I should also have mentioned that when they did
> go north, they remained in the warmest places
> they could find . . . sites near coasts, especially
> those warmed by southerly currents, such as
> the Gulf Stream.
So what?
>
> > And you are creating problems that aren't evident when we
> > actually examine the paleoclimatic conditions, which were
> > wetter and warmer than they are now at the same locations.
> > The only thing that was distinctive about the climate back
> > then (late miocene, pliocene) in comparison to the climate
> > that preceded at that locations was seasonal dessication.
> > Coldness was not an issue.
>
> Coldness is an issue for nearly all terrestrial
> mammals -- at times. That's why they nearly
> all have nice warm coats of fur.
Do you have a point?
>
> > There's no need to create new
> > facts. Just work with the facts that are evident.
>
> Mammals need to keep warm at night, especially
> when they are small. Most are active at night
> minimising the problem.
>
> > > > Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
> > > > such thing as a seacoast habitat?
> > >
> > > 'Seacoast' is not a good description. Perhaps
> > > a better one might be 'lowland',
> >
> > Wow, it only took you, what is it, about 7 years to finally
> > accept this fact.
>
> I only want to distance myself from those like
> Marc Verhagen, who would see a tiny population
> living off shore-based resources. Early hominids
> were (largely) restricted to areas within about ten
> miles from coasts because they needed to find
> sites free (or protectable) from large predators.
unsupported (and unsupportable) speculation.
You're living in a dream world. The evidence destroys
your theory.
>
> > > > Simple observation
> > > > should have told you that there's way too much
> > > > variation from one seacoast location to the next
> > >
> > > Any variations are trivial by comparison
> > > with those proposed under most scenarios.
> >
> > ?
>
> What variations were you talking about?
Some seacoast locations are even more of a desert than
is the driest savanna locations. These seacoast
speculations are just the latest batch of silliness from
a dimwitted notion that aquaticism has something to do
with human adaptations.
> (Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
> chance of an answer from you here. You go
> monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you
> lose arguments.)
To me it's surreal that you think you've presented
anything worth considering.
>
> > > Non-seacoast locations have two major
> > > handicaps (a) the lack of sodium, iodine,
> > > and other salts, of which humans are
> > > extremely 'wasteful';
> >
> > Strawman.
>
> Why? (Of course, I know that there is not
> the slightest chance of an answer from you
> here. You go monosyllabic -- and then silent
> -- when you lose arguments.)
This lack-of-sodium/iodine hypothesis is your little
fantasy. And if you want anybody to take it
seriously then you have to support it. You haven't
give me even the slightest reason to think that this
isn't something that you didn't just pull out of your
ass.
>
> > (b) they are nearly
> > > always hopelessly vulnerable to predators.
> >
> > Strawman.
>
> Why? (Of course, I know that there is not
> the slightest chance of an answer from you
> here. You go monosyllabic -- and then silent
> -- when you lose arguments.)
You need only address the many disputes that others
have presented to you on this issue. I remain
unconvinced that vulnerability to predators was the
issue that you seem to want to beieve it was.
>
> > > > No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
> > > > associated with Monsoon climate.)
> > >
> > > Err . . . where in the modern world?
> >
> > Try doing a seach on the term monsoon.
>
> Why can't you present the basic evidence for
> your own theory?
I have already. You had the opportunity to dispute it
and you failed to do so. If you wish to do so henceforth
I can only point you in the right direction (the rest is
up to you):
Go to www.google.com/groups and do and advanced search
in SAP using keywords such as mcginn monsoon seasonal
dessication paleoclimatology. Therein you will find
that the monsoonal aspects of my hypothesis are completely
supported by the latest and greatest that paleoclimatic
discipline has to offer.
> (Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
> chance of an answer from you here. You go
> monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you lose
> arguments.)
Give it up, jackass. I'm the only person here who
actually provides a detail oriented hypothesis. The rest
of you bozos don't even know how to properly conceptualize
the issues of hominid evolution.
Jim
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
>
> > > > > Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
> > > > > come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
> > > > > Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
> > > > > deal with coldness.
> > > >
> > > > The ones that went north had fire, the ability
> > > > to build good shelters and to develop clothing.
> > > > We are trying to discuss where the taxon
> > > > evolved in the first place.
> >
> > I should also have mentioned that when they did
> > go north, they remained in the warmest places
> > they could find . . . sites near coasts, especially
> > those warmed by southerly currents, such as
> > the Gulf Stream.
>
> So what?
Just that they continued occupying the
same kinds of locations and habitats
as those into which they had evolved.
A 'savanna ape' (if we can imagine any
such animal -- although, that's what you
seem to claim to do) -- a 'savanna ape'
would not have been able to adapt to a
strange habitat in a cold hostile continent.
> > > And you are creating problems that aren't evident when we
> > > actually examine the paleoclimatic conditions, which were
> > > wetter and warmer than they are now at the same locations.
> > > The only thing that was distinctive about the climate back
> > > then (late miocene, pliocene) in comparison to the climate
> > > that preceded at that locations was seasonal dessication.
> > > Coldness was not an issue.
> >
> > Coldness is an issue for nearly all terrestrial
> > mammals -- at times. That's why they nearly
> > all have nice warm coats of fur.
>
> Do you have a point?
Read your own words. You claimed
that 'coldness was not an issue'.
Are you now withdrawing that?
> > > There's no need to create new
> > > facts. Just work with the facts that are evident.
> >
> > Mammals need to keep warm at night, especially
> > when they are small. Most are active at night
> > minimising the problem.
> >
> > > > > Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
> > > > > such thing as a seacoast habitat?
> > > >
> > > > 'Seacoast' is not a good description. Perhaps
> > > > a better one might be 'lowland',
> > >
> > > Wow, it only took you, what is it, about 7 years to finally
> > > accept this fact.
> >
> > I only want to distance myself from those like
> > Marc Verhagen, who would see a tiny population
> > living off shore-based resources. Early hominids
> > were (largely) restricted to areas within about ten
> > miles from coasts because they needed to find
> > sites free (or protectable) from large predators.
>
> unsupported (and unsupportable) speculation.
Nonsense. It's plain common sense.
How could hominids successfully bring
up some very-slow-maturing-young when
they are exposed to constant (and usually
nocturnal) predation?
But , thank you for your thoughtful and
detailed refutation.
Thank you for your thoughtful and
detailed refutation.
> > > > > Simple observation
> > > > > should have told you that there's way too much
> > > > > variation from one seacoast location to the next
> > > >
> > > > Any variations are trivial by comparison
> > > > with those proposed under most scenarios.
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > What variations were you talking about?
>
> Some seacoast locations are even more of a desert than
> is the driest savanna locations.
Sure, and there would be no hominids in
such places . . . except when they found
a reliable watercourse running through it.
> These seacoast
> speculations are just the latest batch of silliness from
> a dimwitted notion that aquaticism has something to do
> with human adaptations.
It's nothing to do with 'aquaticism'.
It is everything to do with:
(a) where the species generally now lives;
(b) basic features of its anatomy, that
render it incapable of living anywhere
else -- without high technology;
(c) its manifest incapacity (without
high technology) to live in regions
dominated by large predators;
(d) its genetic inheritance (such as a
lack of resistance to tsetse-fly-borne
diseases) which clearly show that it
did not evolve into other habitats.
> > (Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
> > chance of an answer from you here. You go
> > monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you
> > lose arguments.)
>
> To me it's surreal that you think you've presented
> anything worth considering.
Thank you for your thoughtful and
detailed refutation.
> > > > Non-seacoast locations have two major
> > > > handicaps (a) the lack of sodium, iodine,
> > > > and other salts, of which humans are
> > > > extremely 'wasteful';
> > >
> > > Strawman.
> >
> > Why? (Of course, I know that there is not
> > the slightest chance of an answer from you
> > here. You go monosyllabic -- and then silent
> > -- when you lose arguments.)
>
> This lack-of-sodium/iodine hypothesis is your little
> fantasy. And if you want anybody to take it
> seriously then you have to support it. You haven't
> give me even the slightest reason to think that this
> isn't something that you didn't just pull out of your
> ass.
Thank you for your thoughtful and
detailed refutation.
> > > (b) they are nearly
> > > > always hopelessly vulnerable to predators.
> > >
> > > Strawman.
> >
> > Why? (Of course, I know that there is not
> > the slightest chance of an answer from you
> > here. You go monosyllabic -- and then silent
> > -- when you lose arguments.)
>
> You need only address the many disputes that others
> have presented to you on this issue. I remain
> unconvinced that vulnerability to predators was the
> issue that you seem to want to beieve it was.
Thank you for your thoughtful and
detailed refutation.
> > > > > No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
> > > > > associated with Monsoon climate.)
> > > >
> > > > Err . . . where in the modern world?
> > >
> > > Try doing a seach on the term monsoon.
> >
> > Why can't you present the basic evidence for
> > your own theory?
>
> I have already. You had the opportunity to dispute it
> and you failed to do so. If you wish to do so henceforth
> I can only point you in the right direction (the rest is
> up to you):
I don't think I've ever seen someone
who claims to propose a theory who is
so reluctant to provide even a sliver of
evidence to support it.
> > (Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
> > chance of an answer from you here. You go
> > monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you lose
> > arguments.)
>
> Give it up, jackass. I'm the only person here who
> actually provides a detail oriented hypothesis.
As so often before, I'm asking for detail.
All I get is evasion.
> The rest
> of you bozos don't even know how to properly conceptualize
> the issues of hominid evolution.
I think I get it. Your theory has no
factual support whatsoever.
It's entirely . . . 'conceptualisation'.
That's nice to know.
Paul.
Jim McGinn
> > > > > > Nonsense. We're talking about a species that would
> > > > > > come to begin to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere.
> > > > > > Obviously they must have had some other strategy to
> > > > > > deal with coldness.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ones that went north had fire, the ability
> > > > > to build good shelters and to develop clothing.
> > > > > We are trying to discuss where the taxon
> > > > > evolved in the first place.
> > >
> > > I should also have mentioned that when they did
> > > go north, they remained in the warmest places
> > > they could find . . . sites near coasts, especially
> > > those warmed by southerly currents, such as
> > > the Gulf Stream.
> >
> > So what?
>
> Just that they continued occupying the
> same kinds of locations and habitats
> as those into which they had evolved.
> A 'savanna ape' (if we can imagine any
> such animal -- although, that's what you
> seem to claim to do) -- a 'savanna ape'
> would not have been able to adapt to a
> strange habitat in a cold hostile continent.
You create phoney obstacles (strawmen) and then
pretend to knock them down.
>
> > > > And you are creating problems that aren't evident when we
> > > > actually examine the paleoclimatic conditions, which were
> > > > wetter and warmer than they are now at the same locations.
> > > > The only thing that was distinctive about the climate back
> > > > then (late miocene, pliocene) in comparison to the climate
> > > > that preceded at that locations was seasonal dessication.
> > > > Coldness was not an issue.
> > >
> > > Coldness is an issue for nearly all terrestrial
> > > mammals -- at times. That's why they nearly
> > > all have nice warm coats of fur.
> >
> > Do you have a point?
>
> Read your own words. You claimed
> that 'coldness was not an issue'.
> Are you now withdrawing that?
I'll repeat my own words: you are creating problems
that aren't evident when we actually examine the
paleoclimatic conditions, which were wetter and
warmer than they are now at the same locations.
The only thing that was distinctive about the
climate back then (late miocene, pliocene) in
comparison to the climate that preceded at that
locations was seasonal dessication. Coldness was
not an issue.
Tell us your theory of how they survived seasonal
dessication (and the implications of seasonal
dessication, including the competititve implications)
and then I'll have a sense that you're starting to
deal with reality.
>
> > > > There's no need to create new
> > > > facts. Just work with the facts that are evident.
> > >
> > > Mammals need to keep warm at night, especially
> > > when they are small. Most are active at night
> > > minimising the problem.
> > >
> > > > > > Where did you ever get this notion that there's any
> > > > > > such thing as a seacoast habitat?
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Seacoast' is not a good description. Perhaps
> > > > > a better one might be 'lowland',
> > > >
> > > > Wow, it only took you, what is it, about 7 years to finally
> > > > accept this fact.
> > >
> > > I only want to distance myself from those like
> > > Marc Verhagen, who would see a tiny population
> > > living off shore-based resources. Early hominids
> > > were (largely) restricted to areas within about ten
> > > miles from coasts because they needed to find
> > > sites free (or protectable) from large predators.
> >
> > unsupported (and unsupportable) speculation.
>
> Nonsense. It's plain common sense.
> How could hominids successfully bring
> up some very-slow-maturing-young when
> they are exposed to constant (and usually
> nocturnal) predation?
As I've told you before, my answer to this question is
communal territorialism, the details of which are in my
hypothesis. Beyond that I can only say that I don't
understand your fixation on predation. You've never
been able to explain why you think predation is so
important and I suspect you never will.
In my model predation is an important aspect of the
selective factors of the hypothesis. Without
predations in my model there's less of a need for
the rock-throwing, stick-wielding communal defensive
strategies that underly the selective origins of
bipedalism.
>
> But , thank you for your thoughtful and
> detailed refutation.
You've yet to present anything worth refuting.
I don't need to refute it. The abundance of evidence
that indicates hominid fossils indisputably in the
vicinity of predators completely destroys your
non-predation fantasy. (Science is easy. Just follow
the facts.)
>
> > > > > > Simple observation
> > > > > > should have told you that there's way too much
> > > > > > variation from one seacoast location to the next
> > > > >
> > > > > Any variations are trivial by comparison
> > > > > with those proposed under most scenarios.
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > What variations were you talking about?
> >
> > Some seacoast locations are even more of a desert than
> > is the driest savanna locations.
>
> Sure, and there would be no hominids in
> such places . . . except when they found
> a reliable watercourse running through it.
>
> > These seacoast
> > speculations are just the latest batch of silliness from
> > a dimwitted notion that aquaticism has something to do
> > with human adaptations.
>
> It's nothing to do with 'aquaticism'.
> It is everything to do with:
> (a) where the species generally now lives;
You're a victim of AAT propaganda. Very few people
live on the beach.
> (b) basic features of its anatomy, that
> render it incapable of living anywhere
> else -- without high technology;
I see no reason to assume that early hominids did
not persist in inland monsoonal forests, where their
fossils are now found.
> (c) its manifest incapacity (without
> high technology) to live in regions
> dominated by large predators;
Communal territorialism.
> (d) its genetic inheritance (such as a
> lack of resistance to tsetse-fly-borne
> diseases) which clearly show that it
> did not evolve into other habitats.
Speculative.
> > unconvinced that vulnerability to predators was not the
> > issue that you seem to want to beieve it was.
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and
> detailed refutation.
>
> > > > > > No. Monsoon climate. (Deciduous forests are also
> > > > > > associated with Monsoon climate.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Err . . . where in the modern world?
> > > >
> > > > Try doing a seach on the term monsoon.
> > >
> > > Why can't you present the basic evidence for
> > > your own theory?
> >
> > I have already. You had the opportunity to dispute it
> > and you failed to do so. If you wish to do so henceforth
> > I can only point you in the right direction (the rest is
> > up to you):
>
> I don't think I've ever seen someone
> who claims to propose a theory who is
> so reluctant to provide even a sliver of
> evidence to support it.
You snipped my directions, Jackass. You're hopeless.
>
> > > (Of course, I know that there is not the slightest
> > > chance of an answer from you here. You go
> > > monosyllabic -- and then silent -- when you lose
> > > arguments.)
> >
> > Give it up, jackass. I'm the only person here who
> > actually provides a detail oriented hypothesis.
>
> As so often before, I'm asking for detail.
> All I get is evasion.
I've already provided details, you idiot. But your
problems run much deeper, it has to do with education.
I think your ignorance of evolutionary biology has
conspired to give you the false confidence that you
actually understand how to conceptualize an evolutionary
problem/issue. You don't. You just stumble from one
dimwitted notion to the next.
Jim
Donald Black
>treeless savanna habitat. But does this make Paul's
>point? Are pigs associated with "seacoast habitat?"
Just a little nit to pick. Warthogs are pigs and live in savanna environs.
Obidon