Q for Lee O, desert running
Chapstick
pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative data tells you." --Lee, Sun,
Sep-11-05, 06:38 http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-263723.html
Hello Lee et. al.,
Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can either animal
(human or horse) run for any length on the desert?
TIA,
chap
Lee Olsen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1804830.stm
Even better I think...
mclark found this one
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
December 2006-January 2007
Click on 'samplings'
"And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a
herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
persistence hunting is so effective that it may have helped select for
the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
strides that we all possess."
>
> TIA,
> chap
Chapstick
"Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169099023.9...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
The entire piece from mclark's link follows... thank you... meanwhile, if it
(persistence hunting) is better than the bow and arrow, how come we invented
(evolved) the bow and arrow? <grin> Of course, we DID develop that tool,
and many others, so obviously something was to an advantage. Perhaps the
"terrain" wasn't perfect in very many places.
-chap
Running Man
Couch potatoes may disagree, but people are fairly well built to run in the
heat. We sweat more per unit of body surface area than any other animal, and
our upright posture exposes less body surface to the sun than would walking
on all fours, and more surface to the cooling wind. On the hunt, those
traits give people a distinct advantage over most quarry. In fact,
Australian Aborigines and various Native American and African groups have
traditionally practiced "persistence hunting," chasing antelopes or other
game in the midday heat, often for hours, until the animals overheat and
collapse.
During the past twenty years, Louis Liebenberg, an animal tracker and
the owner of CyberTracker Software in Cape Town, South Africa, has observed
the only persistence hunters still left, the !Xo and /Gwi bushmen of the
central Kalahari in Botswana. He reports a success rate as high as 80
percent-and a meat yield that beats hunting with bow and arrow, club, or
spear. Only hunting with dogs proved superior.
Conditions have to be just right: the days must be long and hot, and
the terrain must slow down the quarry. Furthermore, the hunters must be
terrifically fit-the runs Liebenberg observed lasted as long as
six-and-a-half hours and covered as many as twenty-two miles. And the
hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and following the quarry
every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a herd is no easy
task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is
so effective that it may have helped select for the excellent
thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides that we all
possess. Perhaps sadly, the practice is dying out, though the physical skill
endures in those who shun couches and run for fun. (Current Anthropology)
--Stéphan Reebs
Rich Travsky
>
> Chapstick wrote:
> > "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert. Proof is in the
> > pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative data tells you." --Lee, Sun,
> > Sep-11-05, 06:38 http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-263723.html
> >
> > Hello Lee et. al.,
> >
> > Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can either animal
> > (human or horse) run for any length on the desert?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1804830.stm
>
> Even better I think...
>
> mclark found this one
> http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
Direct link
Lee Olsen
Maybe it was a couch potato who needed to invent the bow and arrow in
the first place :-)
Getting back to this point made in the article: "But done right,
Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so effective that it may have
helped select for the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal
posture, and long strides that we all possess."
http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo
" In fact, he (Homo e) walked and ran with better mechanics than we
do today. The mechanics of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower
back are superior to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of
that efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children with
larger brains."
As more and more innovations came along, the less physical we needed
to be, a feedback loop. Even though we have teeth, we invented the
pressure cooker anyway. One anthropologist quipped that if the rate of
tooth reduction continues at the present rate, in another 50,000 years
humans probably won't have teeth at all.
> and many others, so obviously something was to an advantage. Perhaps the
> "terrain" wasn't perfect in very many places.
I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in some places,
but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice in the matter (perfect
terrain or not). They did not have the brain power to invent the bow
and arrow or pressure cooker, hence early Homo's better running
abilities were needed and selected for.
> -chap
Chapstick
I agree with the concept that various pressures "caused" our various
adaptions as time went along. (and, although it is off topic for this
thread, I continue to speculate about sexual selection... if it exists and
the rapidity with which it can bring about changes.... and how that alone
might explain some of the hss features.)
So, at one time, running down prey would have been selected for, and at
another, larger female pelvises, and eventually, a more-premature birth
(more helpless infant), etc.
I do wonder how much "we" (meaning the people that post here on sap, and
the rest of humanity that are concerned about questions of evolution) can
depend on odd ball results from something as spectacular as a man beating a
horse on a foot race thru the desert. (and, btw, i read carefully thru the
part about the human taking advantage of the horse's rule-imposed water
breaks) (it is also assumed that neither horse nor man could cross the
desert without sufficient water....implying that if this concept applies to
earliest homo, then he/she would have to have invented a water carrying
technique).
If we accept this result... outrunning a horse on the desert, then we
might have to allow Marc to use the pearl divers, with their ability to dive
to some 125 meters (?) as the norm for humans. Or, that mankind may have
evolved in outer space, since we have been to the moon. (and, perhaps in
our future, some man or woman will survive a period of time with a punctured
spacesuit in zero-g and zero-oxygen.) <grin> We're all aliens! bring on
the Nasca Lines... <grin>
To summarize what I am trying to think... I am interested in a sort of
coherent, complex & dynamic, timeline of human development. I think we all
want that. How did we become this thinking being? and not just another
chimp? Does the chimp "think?" and etc.
--chap
pete
Someone said "all progress depends on the lazy man". You look at the
animal and you first think OK, a day's running and I'll have'im. The
next immediate thought for Hs should typically be boy, I wish there
was an easier way to do this... Also, consider that effective running
down of a herd animal requires distinguishing it from others. It is
interesting that many such animals are nearly identical - this may
be a selective response to such hunting techniques by our ancestors
or other predators. At any rate, it is reasonable to suppose that
fairly early on in the game it would occur to the runners that marking
the prey animal would be a useful thing to do; perhaps using distinctive
coloured material, like a tossed clod of red ochre or some such.
It is possible that the first wooden projectiles were not intended
to kill, but to serve as marking darts.
Now, consider that what I've described does require a fairly
sophisticated mental process, while simply running after an
animal could be accomplished by a much simpler brain. There is
thus the latitude for cursorial chase hunting to be part of the
survival arsenal of a long stretch of our ancestral species,
likely back to the first He.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
pete wrote:
> Someone said "all progress depends on the lazy man". You look at the
> animal and you first think OK, a day's running and I'll have'im. The
> next immediate thought for Hs should typically be boy, I wish there
> was an easier way to do this... Also, consider that effective running
> down of a herd animal requires distinguishing it from others. It is
> interesting that many such animals are nearly identical - this may
> be a selective response to such hunting techniques by our ancestors
> or other predators. At any rate, it is reasonable to suppose that
> fairly early on in the game it would occur to the runners that marking
> the prey animal would be a useful thing to do; perhaps using distinctive
> coloured material, like a tossed clod of red ochre or some such.
> It is possible that the first wooden projectiles were not intended
> to kill, but to serve as marking darts.
>
> Now, consider that what I've described does require a fairly
> sophisticated mental process, while simply running after an
> animal could be accomplished by a much simpler brain. There is
> thus the latitude for cursorial chase hunting to be part of the
> survival arsenal of a long stretch of our ancestral species,
> likely back to the first He.
If this behavior, as you state, "does require a fairly sophisticated
mental process," then it can't be used to describe the selective
origins of hominid intelligence. You do realize this, don't you?
Were they able to outrun lion also? Or did they practice some form of
stealth running as they were chasing down their prey over long
distances that essentially allowed them to run through the fields and
the bush invisible to lion?
Do you envision A'pith as typically, or even occasionally,
participating in this behavior?
Can you explain to us the selective origins of this behavior? More
specifically what, IYO, are the selective origins of the intelligence
that, supposedly, enabled them to have made the realization that,
"marking the prey animal would be a useful thing to do?" Did they just
suddenly get smart? Poof: humans got smart. No explanation required.
Is that it?
Paul Crowley
>> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
>> > Click on 'samplings'
>> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
>> > following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a
>> > herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
>> > persistence hunting is so effective that it may have helped select for
>> > the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
>> > strides that we all possess."
This is unbelievably ignorant. So it is no
surprise at all that Olsen agrees with it.
The number of logical mistakes both in
this one short paragraph (and in the rest
of the article) must each come close to
the record for PA -- and that's a standard
hard to achieve.
>> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
To succeed at all, the hunters must have
exquisite skills. So how are they ever going
to get started along this track? Yet we have
Liebenberg implying that it was done by
(proto-?) hominids with one or more of
(a) poor thermoregulatory systems,
(b) no bipedalism,
(c) short strides.
(Of course, Liebenberg is so stupid he has
not worked this out -- just like Olsen.)
> http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo
> " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and ran with better mechanics than we
> do today. The mechanics of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower
> back are superior to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of
> that efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children with
> larger brains."
Yep, you can just see how this happened.
Imagine two siblings: Ig and Og. Ig can
run a tiny bit faster and longer, so he gets
more to eat for his family, BUT Og is a tiny
bit more brainier; he would be able to
attend college and get a PA degree if there
were any to be had. So naturally, even
though he and his kids eat less, they do
better in other, unspecifiable ways --
(perhaps a bit like getting degrees in PA
and demonstrating all the intelligence we
see on this newsgroup).
That's how selection works. Isn't it
obvious?
Of course the fact that neither Ig nor Og
get pregnant, nor the fact that females take
no part in this running activity, have any
relevance. We are required to believe that,
in those times, males and females shared
everything, and since this is PA, it is
permissible to ignore all known biology --
indeed, we are obliged to do that.
> As more and more innovations came along, the less physical we needed
> to be, a feedback loop.
A 'feedback loop', indeed. The guy has
not the faintest clue.
>> and many others, so obviously something was to an advantage. Perhaps the
>> "terrain" wasn't perfect in very many places.
>
> I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in some places
The only places where 'persistence tracking' is
possible are where there was almost no cover,
a minimal number of conspecifics (of the prey
animal) and where tracking was possible almost
everywhere -- i.e. near-desert. Bow and arrows
are better everywhere else. But this idiot thinks
that humans evolved in near-desert!
> but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice in the matter (perfect
> terrain or not).
Sure. Lucy -- or her male counterpart --
was clearly designed for distance running.
(What a total dope Olsen is -- and so
typical of standard PA.)
> They did not have the brain power to invent the bow
> and arrow or pressure cooker, hence early Homo's better running
> abilities were needed and selected for.
When this kind of shit is the 'standard', how
can anyone complain about Wet Apes -- or
even about Creationists, Alien Abductions,
and theories about Atlantis?
Paul.
Lee Olsen
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169137014.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
> >> > Click on 'samplings'
> >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
> >> > following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a
> >> > herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
> >> > persistence hunting is so effective that it may have helped select for
> >> > the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
> >> > strides that we all possess."
>
> This is unbelievably ignorant. So it is no
> surprise at all that Olsen agrees with it.
> The number of logical mistakes both in
> this one short paragraph (and in the rest
> of the article) must each come close to
> the record for PA -- and that's a standard
> hard to achieve.
>
<snip rantings that modern humans can't run down animals>
ROTFL. Crowley is going to lecture the group today on ingnorance and
logic??? Here is a short list of his logic in action, which amount to
nothing more than a jihad against science.
1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that animals weren't the norm on cave walls in Pleistocene Europe,
8) that Neandertals lived only near the temperate coasts.
9) that Neandertals hibernate (http://tinyurl.com/3cphxn)
(one wonders why Neandertals would need to hibernate when they only
lived in the temperate areas of the coast according to Crowley, but
that's the kind of ignorance and logic you can expect from the pub)
Lee Olsen
I don't really think the horse in the desert example was all that
great either, but that IS the one you asked specifically about. I gave
the other example because it said 80% successful. The article said
something else that I think very important --teamwork helps. Hyenas,
lions, chimps, baboons, and others all will hunt cooperatively at
times, it pays or they wouldn't do it. It would pay even more for early
Homo because it would eliminate the need for any one individual to run
the full 6 1/2 hours in the heat without water. It has been my
experience that in dry country animals hanging around a particular
water hole will simply run in the general direction of the next
waterhole anyway, when spooked, so no need for a human to invent a
water carrying technique for a short chase (when hunting in teams).
The books by the Leakeys and John Pfeiffer give numerous accounts of
the many ways humans can catch animals much faster than ourselves that
can be learned by just careful observation (even running down some
species of birds). How much of this Homo e might have figured out is
speculation, but the cut marks on the bones prove they were getting to
them somehow.
> If we accept this result... outrunning a horse on the desert, then we
> might have to allow Marc to use the pearl divers, with their ability to dive
> to some 125 meters (?) as the norm for humans. Or, that mankind may have
> evolved in outer space, since we have been to the moon. (and, perhaps in
> our future, some man or woman will survive a period of time with a punctured
> spacesuit in zero-g and zero-oxygen.) <grin> We're all aliens! bring on
> the Nasca Lines... <grin>
The horse was only one of many examples that could be given. The
difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,
yet there is not one hominid processed "pearl" to be found anywhere.
The first tools to show up are associated with antelope bones, tortoise
shells, and ostrich shells (all suggest areas of C4 plant growth, which
is exactly what is found in the isotope composition of early Homo
teeth). That is the null hypothesis (for all that transpired before)
until proven otherwise. No aliens need apply :-)
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169137014.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
> >> > Click on 'samplings'
> >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
> >> > following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a
> >> > herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
> >> > persistence hunting is so effective that it may have helped select for
> >> > the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
> >> > strides that we all possess."
>
> This is unbelievably ignorant.
I couldn't agree more.
> So it is no
> surprise at all that Olsen agrees with it.
> The number of logical mistakes both in
> this one short paragraph (and in the rest
> of the article) must each come close to
> the record for PA -- and that's a standard
> hard to achieve.
Strangely, despite it's rather obvious dimwittedness I think this
perfectly represents the prevailing paradigm.
> >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
>
> To succeed at all, the hunters must have
> exquisite skills.
Yep.
> So how are they ever going
> to get started along this track?
I will never understand (and surely they will never explain) why these
rather obvious questions seem to never occur to these dimwits.
> Yet we have
> Liebenberg implying that it was done by
> (proto-?) hominids with one or more of
> (a) poor thermoregulatory systems,
> (b) no bipedalism,
> (c) short strides.
>
> (Of course, Liebenberg is so stupid he has
> not worked this out -- just like Olsen.)
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo
> > " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and ran with better mechanics
Speculative nonsense. Bipedalism could only have emerged in the
context of a reduction in mobility, as is consistent with a shift to
communalism.
Feedback loop nonsense.
>
> >> and many others, so obviously something was to an advantage. Perhaps the
> >> "terrain" wasn't perfect in very many places.
> >
> > I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in some places
>
> The only places where 'persistence tracking' is
> possible are where there was almost no cover,
> a minimal number of conspecifics (of the prey
> animal) and where tracking was possible almost
> everywhere -- i.e. near-desert. Bow and arrows
> are better everywhere else. But this idiot thinks
> that humans evolved in near-desert!
>
> > but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice in the matter (perfect
> > terrain or not).
>
> Sure. Lucy -- or her male counterpart --
> was clearly designed for distance running.
> (What a total dope Olsen is -- and so
> typical of standard PA.)
>
> > They did not have the brain power to invent the bow
> > and arrow or pressure cooker, hence early Homo's better running
> > abilities were needed and selected for.
>
> When this kind of shit is the 'standard', how
> can anyone complain about Wet Apes -- or
> even about Creationists, Alien Abductions,
> and theories about Atlantis?
I couldn't agree more.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > "Lee Olsen" <pale...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1169137014.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
> > >> > Click on 'samplings'
> > >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
> > >> > following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a
> > >> > herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
> > >> > persistence hunting is so effective that it may have helped select for
> > >> > the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
> > >> > strides that we all possess."
> >
> > This is unbelievably ignorant.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
<snip lip-service rant>
With McClaudius, ignorance is bliss....
Message-ID: <376ED09C...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). You
should read, and I mean read not just skim which seems to be the thread
of
your work here, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones
Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to continually
make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."
Dan Barnes:
"Unfortunately your theory is not in the position where it
can be directly addressed which is why a number of people
have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a
first year university student and I don't see why there
should be an exemption in your case."
Greg Laden:
"Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions; Imagine yourself in a
graduate student seminar asking your professor these questions? Well,
I'm
not your professor, and you're not my student, but it is an interesting
thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students,
and helpful to them, but if a student came back at my questions or
comments
with this sort of response, I would be very unhappy, and there is no
telling what would happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things like "No,
you
are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...." etc.! I've given you the
names of a half dozen scholars who have done important work related to
what
you are interested in. Hit the books, kid!"
Su Solomon:
"Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in any ways much
different
to that which was posted almost a year ago on the old PalAnth List.
Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of
the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature.
I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four hundred words of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
Chapstick
yes, true, and I am grateful for your response and the ensuing discussion.
thanks.
i also agree that the current fossil evidence, per your response, gives
the null hypothesis.
laters... off for a wild weekend!....
chap
MClark
>
[excess]
One of my favorites:
1fz4k2d.1wi9nd3vbvbu4N%john.w...@bigpond.com
--
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
It's the evidence that matters.
Lee Olsen
claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> It's the evidence that matters.
Then post some evidence already....
Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured more
than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees."
Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."
Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5 mya?"
Rich Travsky
>
Hey Lee:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/4441000a.html
Nature
Published online: 21 December 2006; | doi:10.1038/4441000a
Physiology: Freaks of nature?
Ultraendurance racers torture their bodies and minds to achieve near-impossible
physical feats. Is it an exceptional genetic make-up or the vestiges of human
evolution? Helen Pearson reports.
[...]
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/box/4441000a_BX1.html
The toughest races on Earth
Robyn Benincasa, a San Diego firefighter and successful ultraendurance athlete,
remembers her most gruelling moment. In the Ecuadorian Andes in 1998, she had
been racing for two days and nights without sleep, and faced climbing a volcano
more than 6,000 metres in altitude. "My nail beds were blue, my lips were blue,
my whole body was blue," she recalls. "I was on my hands and knees in the snow,
crying." Somehow — she does not remember how — she made it to the summit, and
her team eventually won.
Sound like a good time? People voluntarily participate in such races, looking to
push their bodies to the limit. Here's a look at some of the most challenging:
[...]
Lee Olsen
Rich Travsky wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
>
> Hey Lee:
Thanks, I will add them to my list.
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/4441000a.html
> Nature
> Published online: 21 December 2006; | doi:10.1038/4441000a
> Physiology: Freaks of nature?
> Ultraendurance racers torture their bodies and minds to achieve near-impossible
> physical feats. Is it an exceptional genetic make-up or the vestiges of human
> evolution? Helen Pearson reports.
> [...]
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/box/4441000a_BX1.html
> The toughest races on Earth
> Robyn Benincasa, a San Diego firefighter and successful ultraendurance athlete,
> remembers her most gruelling moment. In the Ecuadorian Andes in 1998, she had
> been racing for two days and nights without sleep, and faced climbing a volcano
> more than 6,000 metres in altitude. "My nail beds were blue, my lips were blue,
> my whole body was blue," she recalls. "I was on my hands and knees in the snow,
> crying." Somehow - she does not remember how - she made it to the summit, and
Paul Crowley
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
>> Lee Olsen wrote:
>> >
>> Hey Lee:
>
> Thanks, I will add them to my list.
Your list of WHAT?
I guess you guys have no concept
whatever of 'the struggle to survive'.
Heck, why would you? The whole
point of life as a middle-class PA
with academic ambitions, is to avoid
anything like that.
You have clearly never observed any
kind of wildlife, nor noticed the
extremities which individuals in nearly
all species choose (or are obliged) to
endure, nor the correspondingly low
survival rates suffered by juveniles in
nearly all species.
That is also, of course, not to mention
your near total ignorance of human life,
both in the modern world and throughout
history. We just take that for granted.
Lee Olsen
Paul Crowley wrote:
<snip>
> You have clearly never observed any
> kind of wildlife,.....
http://tinyurl.com/3cnmum
Paul Crowley: ""Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig."
http://tinyurl.com/2wldcx
Paul Crowley: "You will get better thinking about human evolution on
any day in any pub than you will get in 10 years of any PA 'scientific'
journal."
http://tinyurl.com/yc5rns
Scientific journal: "We have found evidence that wild chimpanzees used
stout sticks to dig into one end of a decayed fallen trunk from the
side.." Primates 2003 Apr;44(2):199
nickname
> difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
> tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,
Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
snap some bones.
But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
pebbles, breaking nuts, right?
How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after the rainy
season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft dug-outs from
downed river trees, similar to current primitive tribal methods using
steel/iron tools? C4 plants grow best in wetlands.
African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal regions
AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
colonialization by multiple migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats
could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
and crocs etc. AFAICT.
DD
Lee Olsen
On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lee: The
>
> > difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
> > tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> snap some bones.
Some? Define some?
> But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
> pebbles, breaking nuts, right?
Right, but what would that observation have to do with the distribution
of the tools?
There is nothing in this distribution that would back up any of Marc's
claims.
>
> How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
> transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after the rainy
> season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft dug-outs from
> downed river trees, similar to current primitive tribal methods using
Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
weren't used in making dugouts.
> C4 plants grow best in wetlands.
Citation?
>
> African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal regions
> AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
> colonialization by multiple migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats
> could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
> and crocs etc. AFAICT.
Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
ago?
>
> DD
>
>
>
> > yet there is not one hominid processed "pearl" to be found anywhere.
> > The first tools to show up are associated with antelope bones, tortoise
> > shells, and ostrich shells (all suggest areas of C4 plant growth, which
> > is exactly what is found in the isotope composition of early Homo
> > teeth). That is the null hypothesis (for all that transpired before)
> > until proven otherwise. No aliens need apply :-)
>
> > > To summarize what I am trying to think... I am interested in a sort of
> > > coherent, complex & dynamic, timeline of human development. I think we all
> > > want that. How did we become this thinking being? and not just another
> > > chimp? Does the chimp "think?" and etc.
> > > --chap- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
Yes, therefore it's useless as a model that will describe the
transition of chimps to hominids. Chimps aren't capable of exquisite
tracking skills.
finding and
> following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a
> herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg
Who is this retard Liebenberg. He obviously is clueless about
evolution.
> says,
> persistence hunting is so effective that it may have helped select for
> the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
> strides that we all possess."
This is an AAT type argument. You have to about be retarded to think
it represents anything about hominid adaptations. Humans are social
animals you dipwad.
Paul Crowley
> Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
> weren't used in making dugouts.
One technique is to employ fire.
Carbonised wood is not hard to remove.
>> African savannas were conquered
They were 'conquered' (insofar as they
ever were) by white guys in pith helmets
and with guns.
>> via river boats from coastal regions
>> AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
>> colonialization by multiple migrations of humans.
Sheer fantasy.
>> Only in dug-out boats
>> could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
>> and crocs etc. AFAICT.
The predators did not prey on the rare
hominids they encountered for the same
reason that sharks rarely attack swimmers.
They can make no sense of the bipeds
and don't see them as prey.
> Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
> ago?
Refugees and near-juvenile adventurers
would have emerged from most generations
from the populations of the hominids on the
coast. They might have survived for a short
time in the alien environment of uplands.
But they would rarely, if ever, have managed
to raise families to maturity.
Paul.
nickname
On Jan 26, 8:09 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169785620.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
> > weren't used in making dugouts.
I'm not familiar with the waterside trees in Africa or Eurasia, but
American balsa and basswood is very soft very buoyant timber which I'd
think would be easy to cut, especially since they tend to hollow as
they age, fire would be unnecessary.
Harder or splintery wood would be easier to burn than cut, so a
hand-axe as a chisel pounded by a short branch (whacker mallet), to
knock out charcoaled wood, and water added to stop the burning through
the hull, makes for a few days work at waterside.
Since skin boats (kayaks) are made at waterside (sealskins), and
birchbark canoes are made at waterside (birch grows best near water),
and C4 reed rafts are made at waterside, it is hardly a stretch to
think that waterside trees were used to make dug-outs, and have been
made that way for an incredibly long time (majority of ancient hand
axes found at waterside excluding ones found at quarry sites). I employ
the word hand-axe rather than stone tool, because any rock is
potentially a stone tool.
One technique is to employ fire.
> Carbonised wood is not hard to remove.
Right!
> >> African savannas were conquered
OK Paul, they were visited. The significance is that from the coast,
rivers were the routes inland, villages were eventually established a
bit inland and survival was dependent on trade with coastal peoples as
it remains today.
They were 'conquered' (insofar as they
> ever were) by white guys in pith helmets
> and with guns.
>
> >> via river boats from coastal regions
> >> AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
> >> colonialization by multiple migrations of humans.
Sheer fantasy.
Hardly. It has happened countless times. Start at the delta, move
inland on river.
> >> Only in dug-out boats
> >> could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
> >> and crocs etc. AFAICT.
The predators did not prey on the rare
> hominids they encountered for the same
> reason that sharks rarely attack swimmers.
> They can make no sense of the bipeds
> and don't see them as prey.
Sheer fantasy?
Dug-outs provided access into regions where bipeds (ostrich, ducks,
kangaroos) were regular menu items for quadrupeds.
No predators attack floating logs.
> > Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
> > ago?
Refugees and near-juvenile adventurers
> would have emerged from most generations
> from the populations of the hominids on the
> coast. They might have survived for a short
> time in the alien environment of uplands.
> But they would rarely, if ever, have managed
> to raise families to maturity.
>
> Paul.
The riverine (boat) arterial trade networks enabled Homo to permanently
reside far from the coasts. Previous to that, Hominids which moved
inland would have adapted to a more arboreal life as seen in the Great
Apes or a woods and wetland life as seen in the Apiths. Brain size
would have decreased. No doubt they could use stone as tools, like some
chimps today.
Bifacial butted Hand-axes were Homo chisel tools, while blades/flakes
were slitting tools.
More in AAT.
DD
nickname
On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Lee: The
>
> > > difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
> > > tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > snap some bones.
Some? Define some?
Define stone tool? a rock?
>
> > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
> > pebbles, breaking nuts, right?
Right, but what would that observation have to do with the distribution
> of the tools?
> There is nothing in this distribution that would back up any of Marc's
> claims.
Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
thread that I can see.
>
>
>
> > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
> > transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after the rainy
> > season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft dug-outs from
> > downed river trees, similar to current primitive tribal methods using
Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
> weren't used in making dugouts.
See my response to Paul.
> > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?
C4 plants grow best when well watered and in sunlight, eg. cattails,
rice.
C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in open wetlands and open
savanna (fire/seasonal complex)
> > African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal regions
> > AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
> > colonialization by multiple migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats
> > could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
> > and crocs etc. AFAICT.
Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
ago?
Again, "stone tools" is a bit vague, no? What stone is not a tool in
the hands of a man or chimp?
I'm speaking of obviously crafted bifacial hand-axes and blade/flakes,
I don't know what you are referring to.
I consider three types of bifacial hand-axes:
1) Butted: Found water-side, used for dug-out construction primarily
2) Butted: Found elsewhere, used for bone splitting for marrow and bone
tool making
3) Non-Butted: Cores found at and near quarries, for flaking and
recycling
nickname
Lee: "tool use: Too bad it has been conclusively proven that some ...
DD: Define "some?"
Lee: ..of those tools are a function of butchering savanna animals and
none have ever been proven to be a function of shell or Trapa
processing, and if you say you don't need tools to process
shells/Trapa, then you contradict your own argument about
aquatics governing tool development. You are letting your prejudices
get in the way of the hard facts etc etc."
DD: You mentioned the Hadza don't live where they hunt. If H erectus
lived on the savanna, then following that logic, they didn't hunt on
the savanna, but rather somewhere else. Where? Rivers & lakes? in
dug-outs?
DD
On Jan 26, 11:00 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lee: The
>
> > > > difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
> > > > tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > > snap some bones.Some? Define some?
>
> Define stone tool? a rock?
>
>
>
> > > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
> > > pebbles, breaking nuts, right?Right, but what would that observation have to do with the distribution
>
> > of the tools?
> > There is nothing in this distribution that would back up any of Marc's
> > claims.Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
> thread that I can see.
>
>
>
> > > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
> > > transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after the rainy
> > > season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft dug-outs from
> > > downed river trees, similar to current primitive tribal methods usingTry making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
>
> > weren't used in making dugouts.See my response to Paul.
>
> > > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?C4 plants grow best when well watered and in sunlight, eg. cattails,
> rice.
> C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in open wetlands and open
> savanna (fire/seasonal complex)
>
> > > African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal regions
> > > AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
> > > colonialization by multiple migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats
> > > could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
> > > and crocs etc. AFAICT.Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
Marc Verhaegen
news:1169838022.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > Lee: The
>> > > difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
>> > > tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in
>> > > Africa,Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones
>> > > were used to
>> > snap some bones.
> Some? Define some?
> Define stone tool? a rock?
>> > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
>> > pebbles, breaking nuts, right?
> Right, but what would that observation have to do with the distribution
>> of the tools?
>> There is nothing in this distribution that would back up any of Marc's
>> claims.
> Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
> thread that I can see.
Yes, Nickname, I've not been following this discussion, but if by "Marc"
that man means me, I don't see how any of these tools distributions
contradict any of my claims.
To the contrary:
IMO:
The Amphibious Ancestors Theory is not about apes, nor about having been
aquatic.
AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
AAT states that our ancestors sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied
partly on aquatic resources:
- Homo: AAT, contrary to what many old-fashioned PAs still believe, has
nothing to do with australopiths,
- littoral: AAT is about our ancestors having been shoreline dwellers
(coast/lake/river-side),
- diaspora: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as Ain Hanech
(Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java) etc.
AAT simply says that these people got there along shorelines, and that only
fools believe that our ancestors ever ran over hot dry plains. Of course,
we all know some adult men (not the children, not the women...) of some
remote populations do that sometimes, but it's ridiculous to conclude from
this that humans descend from plain-dwellers!
All sensible PAs now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline dispersals, eg,
Ph.Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
Chr.Stringer
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
AAT (shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo) is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps & other animals.
Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae etc. explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes
or australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling : brain size,
diving skills, breath control, vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles,
tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell,
handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing,
fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated
fatty acids etc.
Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along
coasts & rivers, in savannas or elsewhere: in spite of sea level
fluctuations (difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are
found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts : Mojokerto,
Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea etc.
Savanna-runners crossing 18 km of sea to reach Flores?!
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/
Lee Olsen
On Jan 26, 11:00 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lee: The
>
> > > > difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
> > > > tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > > snap some bones.Some? Define some?
>
> Define stone tool? a rock?
Why, will that make all the tools "found nearly everywhere in Africa"
go away? What is your point? So in your mind you define "some" as a
"rock"?
>
>
>
> > > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
> > > pebbles, breaking nuts, right?Right, but what would that observation have to do with the distribution
>
> > of the tools?
> > There is nothing in this distribution that would back up any of Marc's
> > claims.Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
> thread that I can see.
You might want to go back to the very first post in this thread (which
set the topic of it) and look at the cited URL, which did give Marc's
views. But to make it short, I'm referring to Marc's incessant canned
"littoral" spiel about human evolution specifically, the one we have
all seen here countless times.
>
>
>
> > > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
> > > transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after the rainy
> > > season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft dug-outs from
> > > downed river trees, similar to current primitive tribal methods usingTry making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
>
> > weren't used in making dugouts.See my response to Paul.
That is circular. Cite in the peer-reviewed literature where anyone has
claimed handaxes were used to make dugouts.
>
> > > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?C4 plants grow best when well watered and in sunlight, eg. cattails,
> rice.
> C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in open wetlands and open
> savanna (fire/seasonal complex)
Where are you getting this? I've cited a source several times recently
(in other threads) that says just the opposite. If you cite where you
got your info, I will look up my source and post it again.
>
> > > African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal regions
> > > AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
> > > colonialization by multiple migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats
> > > could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
> > > and crocs etc. AFAICT.Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
> ago?
>
> Again, "stone tools" is a bit vague, no? What stone is not a tool in
> the hands of a man or chimp?
> I'm speaking of obviously crafted bifacial hand-axes and blade/flakes,
> I don't know what you are referring to.
Again, I'm referring to the distribution of all the tools, not a
certain type, or I would have said so. You are the one talking about
handaxes, but I don't see how they would falsify what I claimed anyway,
since they are found in the same places the rest of the tools are found
(but somewhat later in time). The distribution of them in no way
patterns itself to a "littorial" lifestyle per Marc.
>
> I consider three types of bifacial hand-axes:
> 1) Butted: Found water-side, used for dug-out construction primarily
> 2) Butted: Found elsewhere, used for bone splitting for marrow and bone
> tool making
> 3) Non-Butted: Cores found at and near quarries, for flaking and
> recycling
Your description of handaxes, no matter how erroneous, is not an
explaination of how tools of all kinds got on the savanna a million
years+ ago.
> DD
nickname
> On Jan 26, 11:00 am, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Lee: The
>
> > > > > difference between Marc's example and the running example is that the
> > > > > tools that processed the bones are found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > > > snap some bones.Some? Define some?
>
> > Define stone tool? a rock?
Why, will that make all the tools "found nearly everywhere in Africa"
> go away?
What is your point? So in your mind you define "some" as a
> "rock"?
>
>
>
> > > > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff with
> > > > pebbles, breaking nuts, right?Right, but what would that observation have to do with the distribution
>
> > > of the tools?
> > > There is nothing in this distribution that would back up any of Marc's
> > > claims.Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
> > thread that I can see.You might want to go back to the very first post in this thread (which
> set the topic of it) and look at the cited URL, which did give Marc's
> views. But to make it short, I'm referring to Marc's incessant canned
> "littoral" spiel about human evolution specifically, the one we have
> all seen here countless times.
>
>
>
> > > > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
> > > > transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after the rainy
> > > > season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft dug-outs from
> > > > downed river trees, similar to current primitive tribal methods usingTry making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out why they
>
> > > weren't used in making dugouts.See my response to Paul.That is circular. Cite in the peer-reviewed literature where anyone has
> claimed handaxes were used to make dugouts.
>
>
>
> > > > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?C4 plants grow best when well watered and in sunlight, eg. cattails,
> > rice.
> > C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in open wetlands and open
> > savanna (fire/seasonal complex)Where are you getting this? I've cited a source several times recently
> (in other threads) that says just the opposite. If you cite where you
> got your info, I will look up my source and post it again.
>
>
>
> > > > African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal regions
> > > > AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and Australian
> > > > colonialization by multiple migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats
> > > > could humans enter without fear into the domain of the inland predators
> > > > and crocs etc. AFAICT.Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
> > ago?
>
> > Again, "stone tools" is a bit vague, no? What stone is not a tool in
> > the hands of a man or chimp?
> > I'm speaking of obviously crafted bifacial hand-axes and blade/flakes,
> > I don't know what you are referring to. Again, I'm referring to the distribution of all the tools, not a
> certain type, or I would have said so. You are the one talking about
> handaxes, but I don't see how they would falsify what I claimed anyway,
> since they are found in the same places the rest of the tools are found
> (but somewhat later in time). The distribution of them in no way
> patterns itself to a "littorial" lifestyle per Marc.
>
>
>
> > I consider three types of bifacial hand-axes:
> > 1) Butted: Found water-side, used for dug-out construction primarily
> > 2) Butted: Found elsewhere, used for bone splitting for marrow and bone
> > tool making
> > 3) Non-Butted: Cores found at and near quarries, for flaking and
> > recyclingYour description of handaxes, no matter how erroneous, is not an
> explaination of how tools of all kinds got on the savanna a million
> years+ ago.
>
> > DD
Thanks for the confirmation Lee. My doubts are alleviated now. ;)
DD
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
On Jan 22, 6:54 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, I will add them to my list.
> Your list of WHAT?
Reminds me of Algis and Marc making a list of humans swimming/wading
and thinking that it represents evidence. In terms of their
respective intellectual methodology there is hardly any difference
between AAT and conventional theory. People that don't understand
evolution--including yourself, Paul--should avoid human evolution.
All we see from all of you idiots is simpleminded adaptationism. You
have to about be retarded for it to not be obvious that the most
significant adatpations for humans are social/communal. You dimwits
are incapable of realizing that humans are the only species that
regularly carries on conversations with conspecifics.
>
> I guess you guys have no concept
> whatever of 'the struggle to survive'.
>
> Heck, why would you? The whole
> point of life as a middle-class PA
> with academic ambitions, is to avoid
> anything like that.
Paul, you don't understand evolution well enough to give advice. You
think the phrase, "struggle to survive," changes anything? You're a
simpleton.
To understand human evolution you have to cast your theory in the
context of the situational factors (environment, ecology) that existed
at the time hominids first emerged. Your stupid speculations are
worthless. You can't abstract your thinking from ecological realities
and expect to come up with anything worth considering.
> >> [...]- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Rich Travsky
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You have clearly never observed any
> > kind of wildlife,.....
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cnmum
> Paul Crowley: ""Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig."
Oh that's a good one, esp when it's directly contradicted by the bottom one!
nickname
> "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert. Proof is in the
> pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative data tells you." --Lee, Sun,
>
> Hello Lee et. al.,
>
> Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can either animal
> (human or horse) run for any length on the desert?
>
> chap
Well, one thing that connects ancient people to deserts, is that
deserts are great places to dry oily fish, caught in nets offshore
using reed watercraft or dug-outs, especially if water-dogs are
trained to herd swarms of fish into the nets, as I assume occurred in
coastal Chile and Peru 10ka. Here's one anthropological hypothesis
relating Hs to desert coasts:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=85
DD